Bible and Canon: A Modern Historical Inquiry (Studia Semitica Neerlandica)

Bible and Canon

SSN_50-zaman_CS2.indd i

25-2-2008 9:56:53

Studia Semitica Neerlandica Editor-in-Chief

Prof. dr. K.A.D. Smelik Editorial Board

prof. dr. p.c. beentjes – prof. dr. w.j. van bekkum dr. m.p.l.m. bernards – dr. w.c. delsman – dr. m.l. folmer prof. dr. j. hoftijzer – prof. dr. j. van steenbergen prof. dr. h.j. stroomer – prof. dr. e. talstra prof. dr. m. tanret – prof. dr. k. van der toorn prof. dr. k.r. veenhof

VOLUME 50

SSN_50-zaman_CS2.indd ii

25-2-2008 9:56:53

Bible and Canon A Modern Historical Inquiry

By

Luc Zaman

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

SSN_50-zaman_CS2.indd iii

25-2-2008 9:56:53

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data Zaman, Luc. Bible and canon : a modern historical inquiry / by Luc Zaman. p. cm. — (Studia Semitica Neerlandica ; 50) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-16743-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible—Canon. I. Title. BS465.Z36 2008 220.1’2—dc22 2008007071

ISSN 0081-6914 ISBN 978 90 04 16743 8 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

SSN_50-zaman_CS2.indd iv

25-2-2008 9:56:53

CONTENTS

Contents .......................................................................................................v Abbreviations ...............................................................................................x Foreword....................................................................................................xiv Prologue........................................................................................................1 Part I. The Historical Investigation into the Biblical Canon: Present State and Task Chapter 1. History of the Study of the Canon ............................................13 1.1. 1.2.

The Canon from the Biblical Period to its Closure ..........................13 The Canon Issue in the Post-biblical Period ....................................16

Chapter 2. Terminology..............................................................................24 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3.

The Issue ..........................................................................................24 Definition .........................................................................................28 Use of the Term 'Canon' in Practice.................................................42 The Pre-canonical Period .................................................................42 Scripture, Bible, Tanach, Literary Genesis ......................................43 Deuterocanonical, Apocryphal and Pseuepigraphical Literature and Decanonisation.................................................................................44 2.3.4. The Centre of the Canon, the Canon in the Canon, the Open Canon, Generally and Specially Canonical, Canon Study and Canonical Criticism...........................................................................................46 Chapter 3. An Evaluation of Modern Canon Study....................................50 3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4.

From the Reformation to 1970 ......................................................50 Modern Biblical Criticism versus Tradition and Dogmatics .........50 The Emergence of Biblical Theology............................................54 Development of a Separate Theology for OT and NT...................57 Devaluation of the Tradition Notion of Canon..............................59

vi

3.1.5. 3.1.6. 3.1.7. 3.1.8. 3.1.9. 3.1.10.

The Role of the Faith Community .................................................62 The Influence of Humanism and the Enlightenment .....................66 Religionsgeschichte and Subjectivism...........................................70 The Theological Revival................................................................73 E. Käsemann and the Canon Crisis of the 1970s...........................80 Evolution of the Theological Concept of Canon in the Netherlands. The Amsterdam School..................................................................87 3.1.11. Renewed Interest in a Single Canon with OT and NT ..................93 3.2. From 1970 to the Present...............................................................98 3.2.1. Postmodernism ..............................................................................98 3.2.2. Theology in the Postmodern Era .................................................102 3.3. Biblical Research after 1970........................................................108 3.3.1. Textual Criticism .........................................................................109 3.3.2. Classical Biblical Criticism .........................................................117 3.3.2.1. The Old Testament ......................................................................118 3.3.2.2. The Historical Study of the OT Canon .......................................120 3.3.2.3. The New Testament.....................................................................125 3.3.2.4. The Historical Study of the NT Canon ........................................127 3.3.3. Post-Classical Biblical Criticism .................................................130 3.3.3.1. The Formal Critique of Classical Biblical Criticism ...................131 3.3.3.2. Theological Critique of Classical Biblical Exegesis....................135 3.3.3.3. Toward a Canonical Explanation of the Bible ............................138 3.3.3.4. Recent Theology of the bible.......................................................145 3.3.3.5. Post-Critical Exegesis..................................................................153 Chapter 4. The Present State of Historical Study of the Canon................166 4.1.

Present-day Historical Study of the Canon: Possibilities and Restrictions.....................................................................................166 4.2. The Dependence on Theology........................................................169 4.2.1. The General Dependence on Theology ..........................................169 4.2.2. The Dependence on the Confessional Canon Concept...................172 4.2.3. Pressure on the Inter-confessional Canon Concept ........................175 4.3. Historical Research and Dogmatics: Unavoidable Interaction.......178 4.4. Present-day Canonical Criticism in Biblical Theology versus Present-Day Historical Study of the Canon ..................................186 Chapter 5. A New Historical Study of the Canon: The Task ...................190 5.1.

Hermeneutical Principles ...............................................................190

vii

5.1.1. 5.1.2. 5.1.3. 5.2. 5.3.1. 5.3.2.

The Impact of the Subject: In General ...........................................191 The Impact of the Subject: In Practice ...........................................193 Option for Objectivity ....................................................................195 Method ...........................................................................................200 A Global Approach ........................................................................203 First Steps.......................................................................................207

Part II. The History of the Formation of the Biblical Canon Chapter 6. The Canon Process around 560-521 BCE...............................212 6.1. Starting point..................................................................................212 6.2. Unifying Ties and Themes in Genesis-2 Kings..............................217 6.3. General Tendency of the Deuteronomistic contribution to the Single Narrative .........................................................................................218 6.4.1. The Three Functions of the ‫ספרהתורה‬............................................220 6.4.2. The Normative Function of the ‫ ספרהתורה‬.....................................220 6.4.3. The Prophetic Function of the ‫ ספרהתורה‬.......................................225 6.4.4. The Wisdom Function of the ‫ ספרהתורה‬.........................................232 6.5. The Integration of the Priestly Tendency .......................................235 6.6.1. Treatment of Traditional Material: Concentration and Selection...239 6.6.2. Treatment of Traditional Material: Priority of Dtr’s Contribution to Creating the Unity...........................................................................240 6.6.3. Secondary Heterogeneity ...............................................................244 6.6.4. Dynamic Loyalty to Tradition........................................................246 6.6.5. Historical Contingency...................................................................248 6.7. Authority ........................................................................................255 6.8. Conclusion. State of the Canon Process around 560-521 BCE......264 Chapter 7. The Period before 560 BCE....................................................267 7.1. 7.1.1. 7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.1.4. 7.2. 7.2.1.

Issue..........................................................................................267 The Sources of the Dtr Single Narrative: Hermeneutics of its Pre-history................................................................................267 The Complex Progression of Tradition ...................................271 The Informative Value of the Old Tradition: Its Historical Reliability.................................................................................274 Methodological Adjustments ...................................................279 The Legal Traditions as Source of the Dtr Single Narrative....283 The Book of the Covenant .......................................................284

viii

7.2.1.1. 7.2.1.2. 7.2.2. 7.3. 7.3.1. 7.3.2. 7.3.3. 7.3.3.1. 7.3.3.2. 7.3.3.3. 7.3.4. 7.3.4.1. 7.3.4.2. 7.3.4.3. 7.3.5. 7.3.5.1. 7.3.5.2. 7.3.5.3. 7.3.5.3.1. 7.3.5.3.2. 7.3.5.3.3. 7.3.5.3.4. 7.3.5.3.5. 7.3.5.3.6. 7.3.5.3.7. 7.3.5.4. 7.3.5.4.1. 7.3.5.4.2. 7.3.5.4.3. 7.3.5.4.4. 7.3.5.4.5.

The Individual Prescriptions and Larger Components in the Book of the Covenant...............................................................289 The Redaction of the Book of the Covenant ...........................317 The Book of the Covenant in Deuteronomy ............................325 The Prophetic Input in the Deuteronomistic Opus...................329 The Issue ..................................................................................329 Pre-classical Prophecy..............................................................331 Classical Pre-exilic Written Prophecy versus the Prevailing Prophetic Tradition...................................................................336 Amos and Hosea ......................................................................336 Isaiah, Micah en Jeremiah........................................................341 Conclusions ..............................................................................351 The Pre-Exilic Prophets versus General Traditions .................361 The Spokesmen of the General Traditions: The Priests ...........362 The Treatment of the General Tradition in Actual Form .........369 Conclusions ..............................................................................381 The Prophetic Traditions versus the Deuteronomistic Opus....387 The Issue ..................................................................................387 Proto-Deuteronomy versus the Deuteronomists’ Deuteronomy390 Prophecy versus the Deuteronomistic History .........................416 The Issue ..................................................................................416 Prophet-like Sources in the Deuteronomistic History..............418 Prophetic Sources in the Deuteronomistic History: Positive Balance in the Literature ..........................................................420 Prophetic Sources in the Deuteronomistic History: Critical Comments ................................................................................421 The Concept of History as Medium in when Confronting Prophecy with the Deuteronomistic History ............................425 The Prophetic Influence on the Deuteronomistic History via Autonomous Sources ...............................................................427 The Prophetic Influence on the Deuteronomistic History via Texts with a Deuteronomistic Hallmark ..................................432 The Deuteronomistic Current vs. the Prophetic Writings ........436 The Issue ..................................................................................436 The Relationship between Written Prophecy and Deuteronomistic Redaction in Current Literature ....................437 The Prophets and the Deuteronomistic Redactors Called in Question ..................................................................................438 Dimensions of Redactional Work on the Prophetic Books ......445 Interaction between Redactional and Prophetic Input .............452

ix

7.3.5.4.6. 7.3.5.4.7. 7.4. 7.4.1. 7.4.2. 7.4.3. 7.4.4. 7.4.5. 7.4.6. 7.5. 7.5.1. 7.5.2. 7.5.3.

Canonical Evaluation ...............................................................463 Summary and Conclusion .......................................................492 Historical Sources of the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative ...496 Starting Point............................................................................496 The Narrative Character of the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative ..................................................................................................497 The Identification of the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative’s Sources ....................................................................................499 The Historical Sources’ Function in the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative ..................................................................................502 The Interactive Function of the Redactional Composition of the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative............................................505 Canonical Evaluation ...............................................................515 Wisdom Sources of the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative......524 Identification of the Wisdom Sources in the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative .......................................................................524 Wisdom in the Literature on the OT .......................................525 A Canonical Evaluation of Wisdom in the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative. ......................................................................532

Conclusions ..............................................................................................538 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

No Community, No Canon..................................................................538 No Dogma, No Biblical Canon ..........................................................541 No Formal Demarcation, No Dogmatic Canon ..................................545 Reorientation of Canon Study: A New Diagnosis...............................550 No Literature on OT, No Canon Study ..............................................555 Deuteronomistic Current: an Arguable Hypothesis.............................560 Deuteronomistic Single Narrative, Pioneer in the Canon Process .....561 The Exile: a Time of Canonical Upsurge ............................................563 Before the Exile: the Oldest Stages of the Canon Process ..................576

Epilogue....................................................................................................597 Bibliography.............................................................................................599 Index of Biblical References....................................................................689 Index of Key Terms..................................................................................699

x

ABBREVIATIONS AThANT ABD ABR ACEBT ATR BBB BETL Bibl Bibl Int. Bijd BiKi BiLi BJRL BJS BN BoC BR BT BTB Bto BWANT BZ CBET CBQ CBR CC Collat Conc CR:BS D DBAT DBS Dt. Dtr

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Zürich Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York Australian Biblical Review, Melbourne Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie, Kampen Anglican Theological Review, Evanston Bonner Biblische Beiträge, Bonn Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, Leuven Biblica, Roma Biblical Interpretation, Leiden-Boston Bijdragen Filosofie en Theologie, Nijmegen Bibel und Kirche, Stuttgart Bibel und Liturgie, Düsseldorf Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester Brown Judaic Studies, Atlanta Biblische Notizen, München Book of the Covenant Bible Review, Washington The Bible Translator, Aberdeen Biblical Theology Bulletin, New York The Bible today, Minnesota Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, Stuttgart Biblische Zeitschrift, Paderborn Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology (Baarda Tj., Van der Kooij A, Van der Woude A.S., De Troyer K., eds.), Kampen-Leuven The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington Currents in Research – Biblical Studies, Sheffield Civiltà Cattolica, Roma Collationes, Gent Concilium. Internationaal theologisch tijdschrift Currents in Research - Biblical Studies, Sheffield Literary style and thinking of the deuteronomistic 4-source or documentary hypothesis (according to Wellhausen’s classic four-source theory) Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament, Heidelberg Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris Deuteronomy - deuteronomistic: style unique to the book Deuteronomy Deuteronomist(s): editors working in Dt. and DtrH and other writings that can be recognised from their deuteronomistic style and intellectual heritage

xi DtrH EJ EKK

Deuteronomistic history Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1971-2 Evangelisch katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Neunkirchen-Zürich EKL Evangelisches Kirchenlexicon, Göttingen Es Esprit, Paris Et Études, Paris ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Leuven EvTh Evangelische Theologie, München EvThB Beihefte zur Evangelische Theologie, München EvQu The Evangelical Quarterly, London ExpTim The Expository Times, Edinburgh FAT Forschungen zum Alt Testament, Tübingen FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament, Göttingen FrZ Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, Freiburg FzB Forschung zur Bibel, Würzburg GREG Gregorianum, Roma GTT Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift, Kampen HBT Horizons for Biblical Theology, Pittsburgh HTR Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge-Massachusetts HTS Hervormde Theologische Studies, Pretoria IBS Irish Biblical Studies, Belfast ICB The Interpreter’s one volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Nashville IDBs The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, Nashville 1976. Int Interpretation, Richmond JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Boston JBL Journal of Biblical Literature, Missoula JbBTh Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, Neunkirchen JJS Journal of Jewish Studies, Oxford JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Sheffield JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods, Leiden JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield JSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplements Series, Sheffield JSS Journal of Semitic Studies, Manchester JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Sheffield JTS Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford Jud Judaica, Zürich KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Gütersloh KD Kerkelijke Documentatie, Utrecht

xii Kl LTK LXX ModT MüTZ NRT NT NThT OBO OTE OT OTS PRS PT RB RHPR RiBi RSR RStR RThom RTL S SJOT SJT SP Str SSN STh SVT SZ TBT Tertio TGegw Tgl ThQ ThTo ThPh TL Tl TR TRE TRu TTZ TvT

Kultuurleven, Leuven Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg Septuagint Modern Theology, Oxford Münchener Theologischer Zeitschrift, München Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Namur New Testament Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Wageningen-Den Haag Orbis Biblicus Orientalis, Freiburg Schweiz-Göttingen Old Testament Essays, Pretoria Old Testament Oudtestamentische Studiën, Leiden Perspectives in Religious Studies, Richmond Praktische Theologie, Zwolle Revue Biblique, Paris Revue d’Histoire et Philosophie religieuses, Strasbourg Rivista Biblica, Bologna Recherches de Science Religieuse, Paris Religious Studies Review, Valparaiso Revue Thomiste, Toulouse Revue Théologique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve Semeia, Chicago Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Oslo Scottish Journal of Theology, Edinburgh, Cambridge Studia Patristica Streven, Brugge Studia Semitica Neerlandica, Assen Studia Theologica, Oslo Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden Stimmen der Zeit, Freiburg The Bible Today, Collegeville (Minnesota) Christian weekly newspaper, Antwerp Theologie der Gegenwart, Kevelaer Theologie und Glaube, Paderborn Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen Theology Today Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg-Basel-Wien Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig Theology, London Theologische Revue, Münster Theologische Realencyclopädie, Berlin Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift, Trier Tijdschrift voor Theologie, Nijmegen

xiii TWAT TWNT TZ USQR VBS VF VT WMANT ZAR ZAW ZAWB ZKTh ZNW ZNWB ZThK

Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Kittel G., Stuttgart Theologische Zeitschrift, Basel Union Seminary Quarterly Review, New York Vlaamse Bijbel Stichting - Informatie, Leuven Verkündigung und Forschung, München Vetus Testamentum, Leiden Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Neunkirchen Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und biblische Religionsgeschichte, Wiesbaden Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin/New York Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, Wien Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen, Berlin Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen, Berlin Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen

xiv

Foreword

This book is a revised and augmented version of the dissertation that I was allowed to submit to the University Faculty for Protestant Theology in Brussels on 6 October 2004 to obtain the degree of Doctor in Theology. That work was the result of a study that occupied my attention for many years. It was started in 1984 shortly after I obtained my licentiate degree with a dissertation on R. Rendtorff's Das Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, published in 1977. Dr H. Jagersma, my supervisor, advised me to continue along the same path. He drew my attention to the growing interest in the canonical current in Rendtorff's work and throughout the Old Testament exegetical world, especially in North America. When Dr H. Jagersma retired a few years later and did not consider it practicable to continue as my supervisor, Dr K.A.D. Smelik was prepared to take over this task from him. He made the auspicious suggestion of including Dr P.J. Tomson as joint supervisor. As esteemed New Testament exegete, he was well placed to integrate the New Testament dimension of the canonical current in the study. Thanks to this reliable guidance, I was finally able to complete the study in 2004. Rather quickly the idea arose from several quarters to present the study to a broader public, given its rich content and the current worldwide interest in the canon. An English version proved to be the best way to achieve this. The first step was to revise and expand various parts of the original Dutch text. This also provided an occasion to rearrange the copious footnotes and to work on the argumentation's style. First I would like to thank Mr T. Joppe of Van Gorcum in Assen who provided place and time to carry out this work so that the text would qualify to be included in the well-known series Studia Semitica Neerlandica. In addition, I wish to thank Ms. L. Kanis of Brill Publishers, who, as the new acquisitions editor of this series, is pleased to present the work before you to a larger audience. I would also like to thank Mrs G. Pattyn. After having taken charge of the technical production of the original text, she was also willing to spend a great deal of her time incorporating the revisions. I owe the English version to Mrs C. Vanhove-Romanik, STL, Lic. Bib. Filol. The reader will discover how successful her English translation has been in making the original version more accessible to a broad public; her own interpretation has also enriched it. I am exceedingly grateful to her for this.

xv

Finally, but not in the least, I wish to thank Dr K.A.D. Smelik for his advice and mediation in the achievement of this publication. It has proven as true of this publication as it was of the dissertation: without his guidance, nothing would have come of it all. Dr. L. Zaman Rembrandtstraat 2B B-2018 Antwerp Belgium

1

Prologue

The canon is in. The canon of the Bible has been the focus of interest ever since the American exegetes J.A. Sanders and B.S. Childs launched biblical criticism at the end of the 1970s. It was the subject of publications nearly too numerous to survey. The attention for the canon has become so widespread that it was recently chosen as one of the theme of important congresses such as LISOR in Leiden in 1997. When celebrating its fiftieth anniversary, the distinguished Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense devoted its congress fully to ‘The Biblical Canons’. In North America, the canon debate1 is the subject of the day. The sudden rush to the canon is striking in more than one sense. The brief overview of the history of the biblical canon (1.1) shows how exceptional this intense interest for the canon is. After an obscure period in which interest in the canon underwent a centuries-long decline, canonical criticism has given it meteoric proportions in biblical studies. Its rapid rise is all the more striking when it is taken into account that canonical criticism, with the biblical canon movement in its wake, starts from the canon as dogmatic fact. This underscores the canon’s link to the faith and its unicity, exactly those aspects that were in dire straits as a consequence of modern historical criticism. Bit by bit this criticism had bitingly brought to light the heterogeneous composition and human character of the biblical writings. This led to a protracted crisis of the canon as theological fact. As consequence, the dogmatic canon in the classic introduction was replaced by detailed literary-critical study. It was hardly mentioned, and when it was it was gradually and increasingly as an appendix. In fact, it was scrupulously side-stepped and, where possible, surrounded in silence. When someone like E. Käsemann2 did raise the question, it proved to be a veritable stumbling-block. When his work was published in 1970, it elicited massive contradictory responses. It is therefore strange that just a few years later so many flirt with the same dogmatic canon, which has now become the life and soul of an impressive current in biblical studies with worldwide branches. 1 2

McDonald-Sanders, 2002. Käsemann, 1970.

2

This revival of canon studies has now been going on for several decades. Having been put in the vanguard of biblical research, it follows its way with assurance in the awareness that it answers an existing need. Nothing seems able to stem its rise. Yet there are elements in this success story that give pause for thought. Giving central place to the canon as dogmatic starting point can be quite justified and very meaningful from the point of view of faith, but if it is done at the expense of reflection on the historical content and differentiated composition of the biblical writings, this would not merely be a flaw in the undertaking of canonical criticism or only an unfortunate lacuna that can be corrected and made good sometime later on. If this deficit in the perception of the historical canon and its growth perseveres, the consequence will be a right mess. It can derail the entire study of the canon. The historical shape and growth of the canon are not merely secondary characteristics; rather, they condition its existence. When the historical appearance of the canon is not taken seriously, the dogmatic canon hovers in a void, with the risk that present canonical criticism will be nothing more than chasing after shadows3. This fear is not unfounded, as will become apparent from a thorough evaluation of the current biblical canon movement as it is now developing in the literature on the Bible (3.1.-3.3.3.5.) in response to the canon crisis that arose in earlier days (1.2). Thus the first intention of the present study is to demonstrate how the biblical canon movement shows a tendency to lose sight of the historical shape of the canon, under the impulse of certain representatives of canonical criticism. This study will thus, in the first place, increase awareness of the serious harm that this does to the canon. At the same time as these scholars are constructing a monument to the canon, they undermining their project. Because the foundation of this work takes too little consideration of the historical shape and genesis of the canon, the abovementioned construction, the dogmatic canon, which they seek to put on a pedestal, comes to resemble the tower of Pisa. A construction of this type can seem striking and spark a sensation among observers, its inhabitants or those who wish to use it, its faulty construction causes considerable inconvenience and is a source of ridicule for its designers. Such an unbalanced canon set up in the academic field can only be an object of enormous criticism.

3

“… it would be of the deus ex machina type” (Schnabel, 1995, 21 n. 10).

3

The representatives of canonical criticism pave the way for this when they minimise the human and historical character of the biblical literature as a result of an exaggerated focus on the theological canon. In this way they do no service to the canon, its image and its functioning amid the faith community. Their enthusiastic praise of the dogmatic canon because of its absolute and superlative meaning leaves them with a canon that no longer stands firmly on its historical foundation. They loosen the ties that bind it to its origin and place it in a world foreign to it. Although from a theological perspective the biblical canon may then be unique in its essence, the canon as phenomenon is just one of many similar specimens of its type. Denying its obvious connection with its surrounding world would mean imprisoning the canon in a splendid isolation. Under these conditions, the dialogue with the Umwelt becomes difficult if not impossible, and this while, paraphrasing, it could be said that the task of the dogmatic canon is to be “the salt of the earth, the leaven in today’s world”. This it can only do via contact with the outside world. Only from this relationship with the surrounding world can it offer its pearl, its inherent specific value. It is impossible to gauge the value of the canon without continuing to developing the historical path along which it came. The present study seeks to tread this path in the opinion that doing so will contribute not only to the historical investigation of the canon but also to the biblical canon movement, to which this study belongs, despite its criticism. With this, the present study seeks to serve the biblical canon movement by covering what it considers to be the canon’s weakest flank: its material shape and historical guise.

The Historical Study in the Process of the Canon’s Genesis The second part of this study (chapters 6-7) seeks to elaborate the abovementioned criticism of canonical criticism and its adepts by offering a new historical study of the canon’s formation. In this way, Part II builds further upon Part I. More specifically, the new historical study wishes to serve as a model for the way in which a historical investigation into the formation of the canon can now function in harmony with and in service of the dogmatic canon. Its natural role is to give the clearest possible picture of the external resources that the theological canon uses to move into and maintain itself in the world through the faith community. Taken together these external resources comprise the formal side of the canon, its material style, which makes it possible for the theological canon to evolve over space and time and to make history. A historical study of the canon

4

focuses on this history, not to seek the spotlight for itself but with the intention of bringing to the surface the canonical scope of the event where it takes place. Today, a historical study of the canon tends to take as its starting point a late stage in the process of the canon’s development, usually the final phase where the canon reaches its completion. The investigation then usually concentrates on the circumstances under which the biblical literature is closed and started to function as an authoritative whole within the faith community. One cynosure in this is often the list of books to which the canonical literature was limited in its final phase of canonisation. A logical consequence of this trend is that proportionally less attention was given to the development of the canon prior to its closure and that the focus is almost exclusively on the final phase. Mistakenly so. After all, if in the end the canon successfully contained, in a structured form, a large number of biblical traditions that the faith community considered authoritative, no small thanks are due to the preceding process of the canon’s growth. It was during this extended growth process that the matter of tradition was shaped, handed on, committed to writing and given the structures that ultimately made the canon into the coherent whole of biblical writings that have reached us. This confers on the prior process of the canon’s development the same canonical calibre as the ultimate canon. B.S. Childs expresses this as follows, “...the earlier decisions were not qualitatively different from the later”4. The conclusion is thus obvious: a historical study of the canon and its genesis may not neglect the stages that preceded the closure of the canon. It should study them with no less interest than the final phase. Should it do so consistent with the familiar trend that continues even today, then it would give the impression that it equates the canon with its closure. The same result occurs when it narrows the genesis of the canon to its final phase. This would similarly narrow the view of the theological canon. This immediately demonstrates the extent to which the historical study of the canon goes hand in hand with the theological concept used in relation to the canon. Childs is the best illustration. Despite his explanation, which was quoted and which gives the impression that the genesis of the canon had been evaluated equally over the whole line, he limits his historical overview of the formation of the Hebrew canon in the

4

Childs, 1983, 59.

5

same publication to hardly five pages5 after which he turns exclusively to the analysis of what he calls the canonical shape of each of the OT writings. In doing so he actively demonstrates what in his view mainly and solely constitutes the canon, i.e. the canonical shape or the final phase. The cause of this is that like many of his colleagues6 in the biblical cannon movement he puts the emphasis in his evaluation on the final text in which the biblical writings have been handed down to us. In contrast to all traditional information that has reached us from prior phases along other paths than the final text, this text takes precedence in study with as result that it alone is given theological value. It is incorrect to undervalue the other stages merely because they offer less certainty of verification (3.3.3.3.3.3.5.).

The Current Interest in the Historical Study of the Canon The Canon as Momentous Story When the new historical study of the canon to be found in Part II reserves much room for the examination of the stages that precedes the closure, this is done not merely to antagonise canonical criticism once again and to rectify a warped historical study of the canon. An emphasis on the contribution of the phases that prepare the closure of the canon intends to anticipate several questions that currently arouse the interest of the rank and file in the communities. A first problem is the decline in the use of the Bible. To the extent that average believers still seek support in the Bible, they tend to fall back on passages that they find appealing. Other passages are seldom consulted. The entire Bible, in the sense of an organic whole, disappears from view. They use the Bible as they would use internet: it is consulted selectively and sporadically. The Bible is thus manipulated in that it is adjusted to the 5

Childs, 1983, 62-67. In Deurloo-Zuurmond, 1984, 8, it is asserted that noting can be said about the early days of the Bible before the exile. Such an assertion is anachronistic. It projects a later bible backward. Moreover, this undervalues the period before the exile historically simply because fewer or no writings and sources from that period are extant. Yet there was a beginning of the traditions that were later recorded in the Bible. A similar view to that of Deurloo-Zuurmond is the following, “Yet although it is this history of effects which makes a text canonical for biblical communities, the effects are of secondary significance compared to the text itself ... it is the text which archives eminence, not the agents of its production and reception” (Brett, 1991, 66). 6

6

reader’s needs at the time. The schedule of readings, as used in the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II was designed to remedy this situation. However, the result remains disappointing. The OT receives much less attention than the New. Moreover, this in itself imbalanced presentation reaches only those members of the People of God who attend Sunday services. It is well-known that church attendance is steadily declining in the west. It is feared that the same trend is found in other Christian churches, although, it is hoped, to a lesser degree. The weakening of the impact of the Bible as a theological whole that confronts the western believer is reinforced by the extreme discredit that total narratives have recently encountered. The postmodern intellectual current has lost confidence in the total meaning of life and the world as offered by traditional religions and the customary intellectual currents. Sections 3.2.1-3.2.2 will treat in greater depth the connection of this phenomenon to the on-going secularisation process. In sum, it could be argued that this process invariably abandons the central fact of the Bible and Christian life to focus on the periphery. Restricted to the issue of the canon, this centrifugal process also puts the theological canon as biblical whole under pressure. Given these circumstances, bringing the canon to the fore as theological given as the biblical canon movement brings it, while well-intentioned, is no more than preaching in the desert. This edifying message about the canon, like every dogma, comes straight down from the heights and tingles in people’s ears instead of penetrating their hearts and minds. Meanwhile, believers continue to sink in omnipresent and impoverishing pluralism. Lyrical praise for the theological canon is patently insufficient to stem the tide of flagging Bible reading. It would seem tactically more effective to convince believers that the values they choose selectively from the Bible and the themes they now grasp can only offer full support when seen as part of the whole canon in which they were included with great care during the formation of the canon. This could have an impact on believers when they see with what discernment each part of the Bible was selected and given its own place in the dynamic whole called the Bible. It is the canon’s structure that holds this differentiated complex together and thus allows it to function as a whole. One consequence is that when elements are removed from the biblical framework for isolated use, much of their meaning is lost. They can only operate optimally when they are returned to the body of the present canon. An historical study of the canon can contribute to this if it can demonstrate how each element that was first separate gradually was integrated in the dynamic whole of which it is now

7

a part. This will help believers to realise that the Bible and the canon are more than a sum of their parts. It will move them to modify their use of the Bible in accordance with this holistic or gesamtbiblisch use and the total vision suited to it.

Ecumenical versus Particular Canons The historical study of the canon in Part II, with its renewed design, approaches current issues from a different perspective, namely that of the present impasse in the ecumenical movement. While in Christian circles there is a growing conviction that an opening should be sought toward fellow-Christians from other confessions and also with those of nonChristian faiths, this seems to encounter insurmountable obstacles. These mutual differences have deeper roots than had been expected. These roots are grounded in the particular canons held by each faith community. When the faith communities were established, these canons were designed to profile the communities’ own identity and to justify their presence as new community. In designing separate canons, the communities focussed primarily on internal questions of faith. They had not yet realised the effect their internal decisions would have on the outside world. Now that the media and internet are unifying the world and the world economy is becoming globalised, the faith communities are constantly confronted with their differences. None of them score highly when it comes to worldwide political events such as the Irish, Palestinian and other conflicts where religions are among the hotbeds. Now the spotlight is again on their differences, this time those caused by their separate, canonically demarcated religious doctrine. In this situation one may wonder whether the canonical walls separating the faith communities are responsible. Is it not time to try to remove the obstacles that hinder rapprochement? Is there no means to reach over all the particular traditions without losing the values deposited in the separate canons? Put in strictly canonical terms: are separate canons for each faith community still meaningful, especially given that the essence of a canon consists in structuring a total narrative? How can a series of dogmatic canons be consistent with the idea of canon, which, of course, is intended to be totally uniting? Does not the abundance of particular canons contradict the intention of the original unique canon, namely preserving for

8

the future in one organic whole all that was of biblical value so it could continue to work? The rise of the theological view of the canon held by canonical criticism and the canonical globalists is strikingly surrealist as response to this dilemma between the idea of one canon and the Babylonian confusion that divides the confessions. There is indeed a chasm between theological dream and sobering reality. Ecumenical facts seem to bear out Käsemann’s assertion7, made years ago, that the theological canon offers no guarantee for unity as traditionally understood, but rather seems to encourage dissension. Historical study of the canon is similarly unable to undo the interconfessional division conditioned by particular canons. It is not the task of historical study to enter purely dogmatic terrain or to work out a theological solution for the situation that has grown. It must keep strictly to of historical facts. These show that when starting from the one biblical canon process that unfolded within Israel, a plenitude of divergent canonical branches have developed since the rise of Christianity and Islam. This fact of history can explain the need for a historical study of the canon. It can shed light on the growth of the canon. Placing all the intricacies of this complex event in their original historical context can put in correct perspective the relationship between the one canon process in which all faith communities have an equal share and the particular bifurcations of the canon; this will demonstrate how phenomena that initially appear contradictory can refer to one another and merge into one another. Here, too, the new historical investigation seeks to contribute by pursuing untrodden paths. Instead of starting the historical investigation, as too often occurred in the past, with the origin of a particular canon in the hope of finding as many indications as possible to justify this canonical tradition and by becoming entrenched in this particular position, historical research can avoid this by reversing the procedure. If it starts from the origin of the one canon, ancient Israel, it can show how this common starting point launched a long process of growth in which the currents increased to such a degree that the canon process was compelled to subdivide repeatedly. The canon’s dynamic was so strong that under its pressure new canons arose time and again.

7

Käsemann, 1951-52.

9

Following this natural flow of the fact of the canon, as the present study intends to do, has the advantage of being able to situate anew all facts relating to the canon process in a proper overall picture. It thus hopes to demonstrate the importance of the common line that lies at the basis of the canon and how relative the role of the particular canons is when compared with the original whole. By shifting the emphasis from the periphery to the heart of the canonical dynamic, it expects to reduce the pressure from the centrifugal forces and to provide a structural foundation for the tendency toward fellowship postulated by ecumenism. Without renouncing particular canons, they can be harmonised in this way with the one central canon that not only makes room for them but also enables them to operate actively; it even anticipates further modifications and at the same time does not consider its role finished. It is evident how the last redactors attempted to maintain the best balance between unity and diversity within the canonical boundaries. By uncovering the dynamic that proceeds from the central canonical process, a historical study can contribute to the rediscovery of the meaning of the aporetic character of the Judeo-Christian tradition: it draws its strength from desiring truth rather than from possessing it8. The canon is not a goal but a means that serves the biblical traditions and the faith communities that they inspire.

The Task The present study thus has a two-fold purpose. While Part I investigates canonical criticism and the present biblical canon movement, Part II develops a new historical study of the canon that attempts to incorporate the equally current issues of postmodernity and ecumenism, for which canonical criticism offers insufficient answer. Both parts assume and are grounded in a thorough evaluation of the past study of the canon, in particular its development in modern times (Chapter 3). It is difficult to overemphasise the importance of this chapter. It provides the foundation upon which the rest of the study is a superstructure. To avoid any misunderstanding it was necessary to place the review of the long and complex history of the canon study before a clarification of the term canon and the specification of which canon reality it covers. Creating order in current canon terminology and demarcating a clear 8

See A. Houtepen, in: Van den Berghe E., 1995, 310 .

10

definition of canon (Chapter 2) at the start of a study of the canon such as the present one is not a superfluous luxury. In entering into the subject of the canon it quickly becomes apparent how casually scholars in the current literature have used the term canon. This unavoidably leads to an improper treatment of reality of the canon. To put an end to current Babylonian confusion regarding the term canon and to place the necessary discussion of the canon reality on one and the same level, it was decided from the very start of the abovementioned evaluation of the canon history to understand the canon and the term canon as they were and had been customarily used in the post biblical period up to the Reformation: as a body of authoritative religious writings to which the church links its existence and identity. It must thus be left to further research to determine the extent to which this tentative definition, serving now only as a point of departure for the present discussion, will have to be emended. The convention to use precise terminology from the very start of the discussion of the canon and to treat the canon on one level can, obviously, not prevent opinions from diverging in the literature during the evaluation of the history of the canon. It is striking how researchers looking at the same facts can reach such divergent theories. This can only be due to the hermeneutics the scholars use to explore and assess the historical material. Because hermeneutics appears to have such a decisive impact, sections 5.1 through 5.1.3 are devoted to this subject. Logically, the adopted hermeneutic perspective on the historical material also partially determines the method deemed suitable for the investigation. Since our analysis of the canon’s past differs considerably from that of most proponents of the biblical canon movement, the methods and their application will differ to a similar degree. Because the biblical canon movement, out of a distrust of the results presented by literaryhistorical criticism, rejects diachronic research to grasp the certainty of the biblical final shape, it prefers to use redaction criticism and perform synchronic research. Without rejecting these methodologies, I have chosen to work diachronically given the important place of the older stages in the history of the canon. Whenever the course of the canon process so requires, the best corresponding method will be used, without this necessarily excluding any other method. It is the object to be studied – in this case the text of the Bible, but returned to its historical canonical context – that must be determinative not the investigating subject. In short, not one but several methods will be applied, sometimes in combination with one another. This also seems to be the purpose of the emergence of various exegetical methods during the course of the literary-

11

historical criticism in the past: they did not seek to replace but to supplement one another. They offered their particular services as the research encountered new obstacles and other solutions had to be sought. Sociological methods seem to offer comfort for the ad hoc investigation into the genesis of the canon, which is still poorly developed. On the condition that they are applied wisely, they can shed additional light on the historical context of the canon process, especially from the primary role that the relevant faith community played in this. This sociological instrument will be particularly useful in studying the legal traditions. By making use of not one but a combination of several methods, the total view to which this study aspires can also be implemented with technical consistency. In this way it seeks to realise its holistic and globalising option and thus, in this sense, to act canonically. Hence that the structure of the material treated and the numerous footnotes, not only through their arrangement according to a seldom extensive numerical code but also by their frequent cross-references, are in a permanent thematic dialogue with one another and thus do all possible to keep the entirely of the subject within sight at any given time. “Nur die Exegese kann … fragen wie in der Bibel selbst die jenige Begriffe geprägt werden die ihre Kanonizität klären sollen: Einheit, Normativität, Inspiration, Wahrheit” (Söding, 2005, 14). Given their exceptional importance for following-up the process of the canon’s genesis, references to certain themes have been gathered together in an index at the back of the book. This consistent canonical-holistic approach does not contradict the fact that the historical section in Part II will treat only the oldest stages of the canon’s genesis, running from the start to the period around the exile. Several practical reasons, such as the restrictions on time and space did not permit the long and complex process of the canon’s genesis to be treated within the confines of the present study. This does not imply an abandonment of the choice for totality that is specific to the canon phenomenon and that a canon study such as the present one seeks to valorise. These intentions are amply articulated in Part I with the motives that inspired them. Despite the cited restrictions of the historical study to the oldest period of the canon’s genesis, Part II also does not relinquish the choice for totality. To the extent that attention is temporarily concentrated on the indicated period, it offers an opportunity to stress the totality of the object under study. The necessity for restriction to one period is used to elucidate the process of the canon’s genesis at that time in all its diversity, dynamic and complexity. Furthermore, the tentative canon definition is used when

12

tracing the symptoms displayed by the canon’s process of growth. All the expressions and facets of the three main elements – the intentional canonising tendency, the gradual formalisation and structuring of authoritative traditions and this within and due to the involvement of the faith community – are followed and registered, at least insofar as the bible text and its historical context have left traces of them. In this way the horizontal tendency of the study will not take precedence to the detriment of the verticality of its content. This immediately corrects the dominant conviction according to which the valorisation of the canon’s tenor of totality would by necessity be to the detriment of the diversity of the integrated traditions. On the contrary, this study maintains that the aim of the canon’s unity function is to do full justice to the richness of the authoritative traditions. This study has not taken the easy path in choosing for broad options as well as deep-going examination of the complex process of the canon’s genesis in its earliest phase. It frequently had to explore new territory. It had only a selection of monographs available that offered data derived mainly from scholars not specialised in the study of the canon. That explains the long and laborious genesis of this study, which is evinced in the notes that are not always harmoniously attuned to one another, and n the occasional shortcoming in the logical division of the material. All this is the result of the searching and groping that lasted over the many years that it took to complete the study. Signs of the path covered and the many peregrinations made by necessity can be found in the final text and the present sequence of the notes. At any given time the study followed many strange twists and turns and fickle crooked paths that trace the canon process during its course. Yet amid all this it continues to believe in the finality of the canon’s flow in the hope that this will lead to a broad estuary from which it could offer to the faith community all the richness that it had collected along its way. This will be sorely needed in their traverse of the high seas that await them. This study is thus gladly offered to all faith communities that have their roots in the biblical traditions.

13

PART I The Historical Investigation into the Biblical Canon: Present State and Task

Chapter 1

History of the Study of the Canon

The first task of a new study of the canon is to situate itself in the history of this study. It is so long that an overview must necessarily be limited to the most important stages. In what follows a distinction will be made between the rise of the canon issue in the biblical period to the closure of the canon (1.1) and the development in the post-canonical period (1.2).

1.1 The Canon from the Biblical Period to its Closure The issue of the canon was addressed as early as the biblical period. As ancient Israel gradually sought to safeguard the traditions from which it drew inspiration and vitality so that they could be used in the future, it chose suitable means that were ultimately recorded and passed on with great care. That these traditions were derived from various milieus and circumstances raised at an early stage the problem of the selection9 and ordering. The compilers faced the task of comparing very different traditions and where necessary attuning them and supplementing them with new insights. To do all this and to allow the collected traditions to function as intended, the founders of the later canon needed not only technical skills but sufficient authority. This issue is already visible in the story of Moses, of whom it is said that when he was in the desert he “told the people all the words of the YHWH and all the ordinances”10 at great 9

Selecting the material from tradition is an important indication of the canon process. ‫( ויספר לעם את כלדברי יהוה‬Ex. 24:3).

10

14

cost and effort. According to a later tradition, these were carved on stone tablets11. Their destruction was later made good12. The issue of the canon became more clearly visible in the rediscovery of the book of Moses that triggered King Josiah’s reforms13. On this occasion it was ordered that it be read out. A new covenant was entered into on the basis of what was found in the textual material14. The king, a scribe, the high priest and a prophetess were involved in all this. Appearances indicate that the content of the secured tradition weighed heavily throughout the community. Remarkably great care was given to its shape with a view to allowing it to function efficiently amid the people. More extensive and impressive are the entrance and reading of the law book that Ezra gave from a specially constructed podium15 many years after the exile and the restoration of the temple and city walls. It was a festive occasion that lasted no less than eight days. The authority and skill that had to be marshalled to realise from a destitute population the described style of the reading are easy to imagine. Jesus Sirach witnesses that this public interest for Scriptures extended far beyond the Torah. The prophetic writings, including the Minor Prophets, were mentioned by name16. Even the works of the sages were the object of “devoted reading and ... considerable proficiency”17, even though they were only referred to last in the series and the other books18. All this gave rise to a remarkable library that had authority amid an Israel that was unpretentious in this aspect of culture. This library seems to have been so indispensable that it was repeatedly restored at great cost after destruction or theft19. Given these circumstances it is understandable that now the textual history of these biblical writings can easily be traced as far back as the 3rd century BCE20. Even the Masoretic text, which led in time to stringent uniformity, had a wealth of variants up to the 1st century CE21. Around this time, 11

Ex. 31:18. Ex. 34:1-2. 13 2 Kgs 22; 2 Chr 34:14-33. 14 2 Chr. 34:29-33. 15 Neh. 8. 16 Sir. 48:17-49:10; Childs, 19832, 64. 17 Sir. Prologue. 18 Sir. Prologue. 19 2 Macc. 2:13-14. 20 Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 365-399; idem, 1992, 204-213; Childs, 1983², 64. 21 Vervenne, 1992c, 25-39, esp. 34, stresses that these are texts that really differ from one another. 12

15

marked by the further material shaping and the rise of Christianity, there was a major split in the heritage of the biblical tradition. Some time previously, as a result of the Samaritan event22 and the rise of autonomous centres like Qumran, it became apparent that the biblical heritage could not only be interpreted in accordance with the insights and needs of certain sections of the population or an important intellectual current, but could also be subdivided and extended differently. As appeared later, this was much more sweeping with Christianity. Christianity did not limit itself, as the Samaritans in the past, to taking over a large part of the traditional heritage available at the time and later, to the extent necessary, inserting its own insights into the text. Christianity adopted this heritage almost literally investing it with authority, but gave it a new interpretation that focussed on Jesus Christ23. This latter took place for the first time in the oral regula fidei24. When this was later recorded in writing it referred to the adopted biblical heritage as if it were a single whole consisting of mutually attuned OT and NT25. Meanwhile, under the influence of the Pharisees, Judaism no less consciously added to its written tradition supplementing it with the Mishna and other rabbinical writings. After their split and 22

This refers to the process in which the Samaritans became separated from Judaism without this being attributed exclusively to the former, as is usually done in terms such as ‘Samaritan schism’. 23 The homologoumena-antilegomena distinction is based on this adoption: while Christianity the homologoumena was accepted smoothly and without criticism (hence the term ‘proto-canonical’) the antilegomena could maintain their place in the canon only after prolonged discussion (hence the term ‘deuterocanonical’) (Childs, 1984, 18; Kümmel, 197016, 349-375, esp. 365; Turro-Brown, 1968, esp. 518). Saint Jerome was an exception to this (Leiman, 1981, 56-63, esp. 58; Childs, 1984, 31). Regarding interpretation in Christianity see Lindbeck, 1989, 45-80, esp. 48-50; Lindemann, 1997, 39-54, esp. 54. “In the early church the question was not whether the Jewish scriptures were still canonical, but whether the claims of Jesus Christ could be sustained on the basis of Scripture” (Childs, 1984,41-42). In the new Christian community, there was a fierce polarity regarding continuity-discontinuity with the OT based on the christological approach. “...a sharply different christological judgment regarding the significance of the normative canon ...” (Childs, 1984, 19). The continuity was achieved in a customary interpretation that was essentially specific to Christianity. Jesus set the tone for the Christian hinterland (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 21-25). “Kriterium für die Bedeutung und Kanonizität Alttestamentlicher Schriften ist das Christuszeugnis” (Grässer, 1980, 200-221, esp. 215). The interpretation never ignored the letter, but took it as the starting point in the interpretation. “Gewalttätige Schriftauslegung” (Dohmen-Mussner, 1993, 102 n. 40). Sheppard, 2000, esp. 385-390, emphasises the different ways in which Jews and Christians interpreted the same Scripture. 24 Theunis, 1980, 64-87. 25 Sand, 1974, 1-90, esp. 14-16.

16

differing development of the biblical heritage, Judaism and Christianity used, as of the 4th century, the common term ‘canon’ for the entirety of their respective authoritative written traditions, although these encompassed very different content. All this was not purely by chance26. The respective scholars and leaders played a role in this. Obviously, primary attention went to the exact delimitation of the written heritage and the corresponding form of the text. The time that this process took shows how difficult it was, particularly in Christian circles. This discussion would continue for many centuries27, although it did not always perturb the faith communities. The same protracted care was devoted to the texts that from time to time throughout the centuries would draw more intense28 attention from scholars. In a nearly similar way, Jews and later Christians, after a few serious incidents, came to give absolute authority in the religious field29 to this canon, which each had delimited more or less according to their own norms. What they had in mind did not become apparent in systematic enunciations as much as it did in the practice within the faith communities, specifically in their liturgy and teaching tradition30.

1.2 The Canon Question in the Post-biblical Period During the post-biblical period, the canon issue is characterised by a lengthy stability within the faith community and its tradition, accompanied by a primitive view on the origin of the canon: it was to have coincided with the time the Scriptures were penned, and was to have become 26

It is assumed that the adoption of the term ‘canon’ occurred under impulse of Christianity (Barr, 1980c, 120). I.L. Seeligmann was the first to describe this expression of Kanonbewusstsein (Childs, 1983², 60). 27 Veltri, 1990, 210-222, esp. 215; Kümmel, 197016, 363-372. 28 The Masoretic schools are known for this (Childs, 1983², 31). A highpoint was reached during the Middle Ages with the Jewish scholar Rashi (Vervenne, 1988, 4). 29 “The first mayor challenge was raised when Marcion opposed the traditional view of the canon and sought to introduce a critical principle by which the church could determine its authentic scripture” (Childs, 1983², 42). Somewhat similar Montanism was a far from negligible incidental factor in the sense of canon, albeit differently interpreted (Höpfl, 1928, col. 1040-1042). “The early Christian church inherited the Jewish scriptures along with its understanding of canon. It was simply assumed that these writings functioned authoritatively in the life of the church, even though the extent of the canon and the nature of its authority continued to be debated” (Childs., 1983², 41). 30 “...a dynamic relationship, testified to in church’s liturgy, was established between scripture, its author (God, L.Z.) and its addressee (the church, L.Z.)” (Childs, 1983², 31, 42). Childs, 1983², 43.

17

authoritative in a single act without interim phases or intermediaries31. Only details of the biblical text or its content were criticised. These comments were first timidly placed in the margin32, and then later in the text. Questions relating to the authenticity and canonicity of certain writings hardly penetrated to the broader faith community and perturbed but few. The essence of the canon, while closely related to the idea of inspiration, was no longer at issue33. All this was changed tangibly at the onset of the Reformation, that caused tumult in the evaluation of the Bible in general and the canon in particular. The reformers, with Luther and Calvin at their head, launched the idea of sola Scriptura. In contrast to the way things were before, the idea here was to make the Bible the exclusive basis for faith and theology and to remove it from the hegemony of systematic theology where scholasticism and church tradition had placed it. In the Christian world, the reform movement resulted in a diversity of church communities and similarly disparate Bible canons based on the deep-going theological insight of each. Partly under influence of the call of humanism to return ad fontes, the reformers went back to what they called Jerome’s Hebraica veritas, only a minority of which was followed in 31

“...an unbroken continuity ... between the writing and collecting of authoritative body of scripture. The canon was fused and enlarged as each new book was added. When the last book appeared, the canon was closed” (Childs, 1983², 51). One consequence of this was the belief, held up until the seventeenth century, that the major synagogue under Ezra compiled the canon of the whole OT (Steuernagel, 1912, 86-87; Childs, 1983², 51; Dunbar, 1986, 299-360, 424-446, esp. 301). 32 Glosses were the best method for this. They underwent considerable development (Lobrichon, 1984, 95-114). 33 This theological position on the inspiration of the canonical writings was at odds with the question of the historical development of the biblical text and the canon, which would gradually be raised. A view of the final product of this development was sufficient (Koole, 1983, 192-246, esp. 193). As materially perceptible it offered more assurance than the vague and difficult to confirm criterion of inspiration (McDonald, 2002, 435-439). “The fundamental criticism of the so-called exegesis of Luther and Calvin ... is the failure to execute with sufficient precision the descriptive task of exegesis” (Childs, 1964, 432-449, esp. 440). The reform standpoint on the historical approach to Scripture and canon was still primarily dogmatic-theological (Klijn, 1987, 157-193, esp. 191). It had to take into account the pressure put on by the rise of historical biblical criticism (Dunbar, 1986, 344-345). This was difficult and not free of conflict with church authority. But modern historically-oriented bible criticism was still possible as Protestant act aimed primarily at convincing the individual at the expense of church authority (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 37-38; Barr, 1995a, 105-120, esp. 110). Its influence is felt in the political liberalism that is at odds with the radical orthodox movement (Insole, 2004). Seeking to attribute the development of modern biblical criticism solely to the Enlightenment at the expense of the Reformation (see: Childs, 1982, 1-12, esp. 5) is incorrect.

18

church tradition34. This forged a link with Judaism’s Masoretic text tradition and with the Hebrew canon. The reform movement soon adopted the orthodox teaching that the literal Bible text was divinely inspired. This system quickly came under pressure, especially when Capellus could show the extent to which the Masoretic text, until then considered unassailable, had been changed over time. The same proved to be true for the text of the NT35. The result was that the theological boom that led to the reform movement was increasingly put to the test by the findings of up-coming literary and historical research. Its zeal was curbed and diverted from its original path. In addition, under the impulse of the Reformation and the strongly increased use of the Bible36, more inconsistencies were found in

34

Lönning, 1972, 32 n. 120. In a contra-reformation spirit the Roman Catholic Church fixated its canon during the Council of Trent in 1546. The reform side gradually adopted an equally controversial counter-position (Lönning, 1972, 11 n. 3, 178) which was confessionalised diversely (Janse, 1998, 231-245). Ultimately the differences in the extent of the NT canon in Christianity are limited when compared to the OT (Lönning, 1972, 32 n. 12), with the exception of the Syriac and Ethiopian churches (Kümmel, 197016, 369-370; Kealy, 1979; Budde, 1997, 39-55, esp. 52). We can even speak here of an ecumenical understanding. This primarily concerns different attitudes toward the Hebrew canon. The material differences, however, do not indicate how much the two result from an evolved attitude (it was indeed a grundsätzliches Neu-Verständnis on Luther’s side: Lönning, 1972, 115). “Die neuzeitliche Debatte über den Kanon brachte die unterschiedlichsten Positionen hervor ... Allen Theorien ist dabei gemeinsam, daß sie von einem klaren literarischen Ergebnis des Kanonisierungsprozesses ausgehen. Nur von dieser Prämisse her werden die frühen Quellen und Zeugnisse seiner Entstehung wahrgenommen und beurteilt” (Budde, 1997, 53). — On the ad fontes idea see Sundberg, 1968,143-155, esp. 154; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 34. That is why literary criticism is the most original type of modern biblical criticism. Bible and Scriptures are closely interwoven in the concept canon (Velter, 1998, 507-510). But the historical issue relating to biblical criticism would soon follow, given the historical character of the Bible and biblical faith (Barr, 1983, 105-106). Its search for the truth of the original meaning or plain sense of the Bible text would lead modern biblical criticism very far and would regularly require it to improve its method (Nations, 1983, 59-71, esp. 63). — On the influence of Jerome, see Markiesch, 1994. The difference with the reform period was that before that time it was an internal church question, while during the reform period it quickly evolved to an inter-church issue (contra Lönning, 1972, 50-51). For a detailed historical overview on the Hebraica veritas, more specifically the apocryphal or deuterocanonical writings in the OT see Turro-Brown, 1968, 524-525; Sundberg, 1966, 194-203. 35 Houtman, 1980, 34-35 (hereinafter 1 is presupposed unless 2 is mentioned explicitly). Dupré, 2004, 235-237. Kraus H.J., 19823, 46-50. Ziegenaus, 1990, 1-252, esp. 238. 36 The invention of printing, the publication of new manuscripts (Appel, 1964, 19 n. 18), the principal of returning ad fontes in vogue since humanism (Vervenne, 1988, 4), and the grammatical labours of Jewish scholars (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 12-13), of which scholars such

19

the content of the Bible as well as in its text. This made it difficult to insist that Moses was the author of the whole so heterogeneous Pentateuch. Only later would the diverse and even contradictory content of the NT start causing turmoil. For the time being it was primarily the OT, especially the Pentateuch, which moved scholars such as R. Simon and later J. Astruc, whose ideas were developed by J. Le Clerc37, to try to use literary and historical research to dispel the unrest that arose regarding the biblical writings. Rationalists and deists like B. Spinoza38 and others, who already had difficulties with the content of the Bible, use the literary and historical issues that arose to bring the Bible’s authority into discredit. The noted publication by J.S. Semler Abhandlung vom freier Untersuchung des Canons (1771-1775) was an attempt to cope with this situation. Like many later scholars, Semler wanted to use reason to safeguard biblical truth for all times by including the positive results of literary-historical research, among whose revelations was that the compilation of the canon was of late date and time-bound. At the same time he wanted to disassociate himself from the prevailing church dogmatics and supernaturalism in general39. In contrast to this open and progressive attitude toward the traditional concept of canon, which persevered after Semler, there soon arose a conservative current that defended the older body of ideas. It sought to preserve the canon as traditionally seen and used. This conservative current was greatest in England and among Orthodox Jews. Remarkably this progressive-conservative skirmish, which was essentially ideological, was not fought in this area but in the forefront of literaryhistorical research. Both sides used the same historical material, even when a consensus on it could be reached, yet they did so with the intention of substantiating their own diverging theological convictions. Hence the very great progress in the literary-philological area, which started with A. Karlstadt, is conspicuous when compared with the earlier limited Critica Sacra in the now expanded introductions by the conservative J.D. Michaelis (1750) and the progressive J.G. Eichhorn (1780). The canon was as H. De Groot (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 51) made grateful use are all factors that promoted direct contact with the authentic biblical text and its underlying issues. 37 R. Simon’s Histoire critique du Vieux Testament published in Paris in 1678, followed by the standard edition in 1685. J. Astruc’s work Conjectures published in Paris in 1753 (Houtman, 1980, 51-52). Houtman, 1980, 43-46. 38 His work Tractatus theologico-politicus appeared in 1670 (Houtman, 1980, 37-39). Dupré, 2004, 231-233. 39 Sanders, 1979, 5-29, esp. 19. Hasel, 19873, 20-21; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 38. J.S. Semler takes primary place among the neologists (Ziegenaus, 1990, 239).

20

still treated there, but would not be for long. It was already being overshadowed by the extensive examination of the biblical text and its historical development40. All this was again repeated for each separate biblical book. The balance in the ideological theological struggle still being played out in the background clearly tipped toward the progressives. After J. Herder, followed by J. Hupfeld and others, placed emphasis on the aesthetic beauty and value of the OT literature instead of on its authoritative religious content, F. Schleiermacher (1845) sought his solution in the content of the individual NT books and their intended audience instead of in their later joint development into a church-related canon. This recourse to the most original data of the biblical writings as a means of rejecting the church canon proved vain. While earlier B.F. Westcott had defended with some success the position that canonicity as theological fact was already taking shape from the very origin of the biblical writings and, consequently, was not simply a later invention, F.C. Bauer (1850-1851) now declared that the canon had a theological diversity and that it even displayed contradictions, not only in its final stages, but in the earlier as well. Then at the end of the 19th century, the history of religion school with A. Eichhorn and W. Wrede also starting working in this direction, but was insufficiently involved in the canon debate. At least temporarily it was preferred to work within the historical field41. OT study, mainly under the influence of J. Wellhausen and his literary-historical studies based of the superseded historical views on Ezra and the great 40

N. Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History contained a theologically motivated defence of the historical reliability of the gospels (Childs, 1984, 6). A. Karlstadt’s De canonicis scripturis libellus (1520) can already be called a true introduction to the OT. However, dogmatic considerations hindered his important onset to the introduction from growing into a mature scientific approach (Vervenne, 1988, 4). J.G. Carpzov took the lead here (Sheppard, 1992, 861-866, esp. 862). Ultimately this is an apparent “Enttheologisierung” (Lönning, 1972, 14). People tacitly persevered in their theological positions. In this way, the canon issue, which had been a main theological problem in the Reformation (Lönning, 1972, 11) was devalued in literary-historical research to become what initially seemed to be a secondary technical-historical question. In reality this research continued to be built upon theological positions (Mühlenberg, 2000, 183-209). 41 Childs, 1983², 45; idem, 1985, 7. He did not have a good word to say about the canon, esp. the OT. “Sie (die Religion, L.Z.) starb, als ihre heiligen Bücher geschlossen wurden”, said Schleiermacher, as cited in Sæbø, 2001, 36. Childs, 1985, 7-9. Ziegenaus, 1990, 243244; Kraus H.J., 19701, 160-169. The extensive historical studies devoted at the time to the development of the canon fill their own chapter in the unwritten history of canon study (Ziegenaus, 1990, 240-242).

21

synagogue as founders of the canon, evolved toward a tentative consensus on the Pentateuch-Prophets-Writings triptych, based on the documentary hypothesis and the view of the time on the religious history of Israel42. Under the influence of J. Holtzmann, a more concordant stand was taken toward the history of the NT. The date 200 CE was accepted as the transition point when the main writings, such as Paul’s letters and the gospels, obtained canonical status. This meant that A. Von Harnack’s progressive view prevailed over the strong resistance of T. Zahn43. The OT remained the object of persistent conservative resistance led by E.W. Hengstenberg and others. Archaeology, then undergoing expansion, was called to help. A turning point in this relationship was reached in the 20th century, at first in favour of biblical theology in general and later of the canon. Yet the liberal or modernist theology was at its apex from the start of the century until the end of the First World War. The criticism of the biblical literature could continue to develop thanks to new methods such as, successively, Formgeschichte, Traditionsgeschichte and Redaktionsgeschichte. Even Jewish circles and the Roman Catholic Church44 were under pressure from this modernist-scientific trend. After the First World War, there was general scepticism regarding science and human ability; this gave a more spiritually-oriented theology a chance to regain territory from a pure historical literary approach. It was primarily K. Barth with his dialectic theology who worked on this probingly and with consequences that would last for many years. Indeed the biblical theology movement that developed at the time did not succeed in integrating biblical criticism stably. But it did lead to a fruitful period in a more theologically-oriented study of the Bible. One can speak correctly of a golden age of biblical theology45. The turning point for the study of the canon came only later, because biblical criticism has shown that the 42

Childs, 1983², 52. This model according to which the OT canon was developed in three stages was held by the majority until far into the twentieth century and can still count on considerable support today (Chapman, 2000, 3-70). 43 Schneemelcher, 1980, 22-23; Herms, 1998, 99-152, esp. 109 n. 18. The extent to which the two scholars made a worthy contribution to the historical study of the canon – Zahn from the approach of internal (i.e. the role of the liturgy in the canon process) and Harnack from the external evolution – is described in Tomson, 1998, 107-131, esp. 106-118. 44 Jagersma-Vervenne, 1992, 65-113; Childs, 1983², 37-38; Schoof, 1968. The Catholic A. Loisy did pioneering work in the area of canon research (Ziegenaus, 1990, 242-243). Prior to this time, since Trent, the animosity around the canon had been laid to rest in the Roman Catholic Church. 45 Childs, 1970; Hasel, 19873, 32.

22

canon is undeniably a product of a very human process of growth that, moreover, was heavily influenced by its contemporary faith community and its Umwelt. The practical consequence of this was that the canon had been moved to the back of the now classic introduction to a more humble place where it aroused less interest. Historical-literary data per bible book were now given pride of place. Those like M. Dibelius who wanted to map out ideas on the canon and provide logistical support found it difficult to harmonise this with modern scientific data. The extent to which the canon entered into a deep crisis, not only as historical fact but primarily as theological concept, became apparent around the time of the Second World War. E. Käsemann was the main articulator of this sense of crisis46. Under these circumstances it is surprising that the canon has been the focus of interest for the past two decades. A canonical movement has even arisen, with a remarkable boom in the Netherlands, and in AngloSaxon countries, under the impulse of a broad group of scholars such as K.H. Miskotte, B.S. Childs and J.A. Sanders. The latter believes that recent research on the canon represents a separate discipline, with its own method, to which he gave the name canonical criticism47 This exegeticaltheological discipline gives central place to the canon and believes that in this way it can offer biblical theology a solution in its search for a suitable answer to the shift that arose in the study of the Bible as a result of modern scientific criticism. This assertion elicits the question whether the study of the canon, itself still in a state of crisis due to the same scientific criticism, has suddenly gone so far in putting its own house in order that it can now help with the problem of biblical theology. A thorough evaluation of this issue is thus indispensable here48. Before turning to this evaluation it is 46

“Befaßte man sich mit ihm (Kanon, L.Z.), dann vor allem aus historischem Interesse, wenn es auch immer unstrittig war, daß mit den historischen Entscheidungen und Streitfragen theologische Implikationen verbunden sind” (P.D. Miller, JR., 1988, 217-239, esp. 217). Käsemann’s work was published in 1970. This comprehensive compilation contains only articles from by German authors and treats only the canon of the NT. For a broad view of the crisis of the time see Kümmel, 197016, 370-375; Childs, 1970; Paulsen, 1991, 61-78. 47 Reventlow, 1983b, 128-137. “A call to canonical criticism” (Sanders, 1972, IX-X). Childs, 1983², 82 is critical of this and prefers the term ‘canonical approach’ (Daniëls, 1991, 299-309, esp. 303 n 27). To make matters perfectly clear, the term ‘canonical criticism’ will be adopted unchanged to refer to the broad canonical movement as inspired by the concept of the theological canon. On Sanders’ specific method see Stenstrup, 2003. 48 Childs raises this question himself. He hopes only for “some fresh light in the debate” (Childs, 1984, 21). The answer to this question depends on whether the remedy applied responds to the causes of the crisis in the study of the Bible and the canon in the period

23

first necessary to define the terminology that will be used in discussing the canon issue.

since the Reformation. “Une nouvelle problématique s’élabore souvent à partir d’un travail patient sur les apories de l’étape précédente de la recherche, et c’est en allant jusqu’au bout de l’analyse des facteurs qui la constituent, qu’on peut approcher le moment de leur réarticulation dans une perspective nouvelle” (Theobald, 1990, 13-73, esp. 14).

24

Chapter 2

Terminology

2.1 The Issue It is generally felt that the terminology customarily used in the study of the canon leaves something to be desired. The ambiguity and vagueness that arises certainly do not contribute to a clear picture of the cannon issue, which itself is sufficient source of confusion49 and discussion. That is why it is necessary to fine tune the terminology before turning to the question of the canon. Apart from that, the two have much in common. The twisting history of canon terminology appears to some degree to be a reflection of the continuous probing for the canon’s essence and meaning as depicted in the previous chapter. This brief glance into the past also showed how the word canon had been used very differently up to the 4th century CE when it was first used to refer to the biblical writings. The reality of the canon, insofar as it was recognised at the time, had been given other names, all of which stressed only one or other aspect of it without approaching its totality50. This was gradually reached with the term canon. Long after the canon as reality served in Jewish circles, Christian circles – unhesitatingly followed in more recent times by Judaism51 – adopted the more 49

Kruger, 1994, 181-197, esp. 193-194; Childs, 1983², 49-50; Leiman, 1976, 14; Barton J., 2000, 210; Ulrich, 2002; Childs, 1983², 49; Barr, 1983, 75; Childs, 1983², 51; Gowan, 1976, 315; Pedersen, 1977, 83-136, esp. 83; Sand, 1974, 2. Varying use of the term canon was one of the causes of the discrepancy between Zahn and Von Harnack; Barton, 1997, 18. 50 If it should seem surprising that the term canon came into use so late, while the reality had long been developed, this can be compared to the term theology that only came into vogue in the 12th century (Ebeling, 1962, 69-89, esp. 71). On the differing uses of the canon see: Gowan, 1976, 316; Beyer, 1938, 600-606, esp. 600-602; Van Leeuwen C., 1963, 10; Metzger, 1989³, 289-293; Paul A., 1995, 373-402. 51 Flavius Josephus saw a well-defined series of sacred writings operating as a symphony (Jacob, 1975, 101-122, esp. 102, 104-105). This is the distinction between the intendierte Sache and the Begriff (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 570). In addition, there is the terminology to articulate the two. On the evolution of the use of the term canon see: Blau, 1902, 140-150; Childs, 1983², 50; Paul A., 1984, 48-51; Theunis, 1980, 65. The smooth adoption of the

25

comfortable term canon in a two-fold way to refer to their respective scriptures. It is not possible to determine whether its application in the two communities as authoritative norm for faith or regula fidei, as a whole or canonical reality, can be dated any earlier or was more important than its function as list or summary of approved texts used mainly in the liturgy52. That both uses were frequently interchangeably shows that the difference in their meaning is merely dependent on the context of the use and thus lies in the line of earlier sub-uses. It may be assumed that in time the term canon unavoidably came to be used for both meanings. This was reinforced by the fact that the two are inseparably bound: the delimitation of a series of sacred texts discernable from other literature only makes sense when based on a canonical or standardising notion. Conversely it is not possible to allow sacred or religious literature to operate on a canonical level when there is no minimal indication of which writings are given this canonical status and in which form53. Thus a canonical list and the canon term canon in modern Judaism shows that what is intended, the thing itself (according to Margolis: Talmon, 1987, 70) was described correctly. It should be taken into account that Christianity’s correct description of the canon reality within Judaism does not mean that the two realities, the Jewish and Christian canons, arose in the same way. This has led to incorrect impressions, as at the Council of Jabne (Talmon, 1987, 70-71). 52 Koole, 1985, 14; Negenman, 1986, 19 n. 1; Sheppard, 1987, 67. The term soiling the hands (‫)ספרים המטמאין את הידים‬, customary in the Judaism of the time, does not coincide completely with the concept canon. For that matter, its exact meaning is still uncertain (Carr, 1996, 37 n. 43; Leiman, 1976, 102-120; Barton, 1997, 106-121; Steins, 1999, 39). Childs, 1983², 44, 50, stresses the role of Scripture as norm of faith or regula fidei (Theunis, 1980, 65-71). We can also speak here of the norma normans in contradistinction to the norma normata (Metzger, 1989³, 283; Oeming, 1986, 48-70, esp. 49). Childs, 1984, 24-25; Koole, 1983, 199, prefers the meaning norm, while in his other work Woord, 14, the meaning list has precedence in time. These lists obviously enumerate specific and thus canonical texts (Koole, 1985, 6-7) that were usually fixed later. On the relationship between canon and text and tradition see: Stipp, 1990, 16-37; Childs, 1983², 84-106. On the relationship between canon list and liturgical use see: Childs, 1983², 42; Von Campenhausen, 1968, 121; Ratschow, 1970, 247-251; Aland, 1970, 134-158, esp. 140. 53 For another view see Lönning, 1972, 17, who believes that it is possible to retain the two meanings juxtaposed. However he must admit that Zahn did not develop this Zweideutigkeit faithfully to history and that the expression canon in the canon arose late due to the new theological issue of the canon during the Reformation (Lönning, 1972, 27-28; TurroBrown, 1968, 531-533). “Es geht hier nicht in erster Linie um eine größere der kleinere Zahl von Büchern (um ein quantitatives Anderssein also) sondern vor allem um ein qualitatives Anderssein” (Appel, 1964, 324). An intense debate on the canon was held in literary circles analogous to, but outside of, the religious-church context (Smith J.Z., 1998, 295-296; Hallo, 1991). “Die Autorität der Bibel ist nur geltend zu machen unter der Voraussetzung einer darstellbaren Einheit der Bibel” (Haacker, 1977, 9-23, esp. 16).

26

function, Scripture and canon, belong together in canonicity, call one another to mind and supplement one another dialectically in spirit and letter54. Marcion and other demonstrated this in the past. Because of his particular understanding of the authenticity of tradition, he was driven to cut drastically the more extensive sacred literature then in use. A broader understanding of regula fidei as used by the church as a whole was the basis for maintaining a more comprehensive series of sacred scriptures55. The same can be observed of the Reformation. The return to the Hebrew canon and the near rejection of several NT writings is the result of different views of the faith, mainly relating to the value of the Scriptures and their relation to tradition56. The lower opinion of the canon’s limits in modern times and even the idea of a permanently open canon can also be 54

“Dialectical interplay between these polarities” (Sheppard, 1987, 64). Barton, 1997, 30, speaks of interaction, so one can no longer speak of duality as the same author does elsewhere (idem, p. 133). — On how spirit and letter explain one another in the Scriptures see: Kraus H.J., 19701, 341-343; Jacob, 1975, 121; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 24, 27; Sæbø, 2001, 31; Gamble, 2002, 273. The theological concept incarnation is often referred to here (Metzger, 1989³, 288). For a different view see: “Wo die äußere Grenze absolut gesetzt wird, wird die theologische Grenzfunktion des Kanons zugleich relativiert, und wo die Grenz- Funktion als das unabdingbare theologische Anliegen verstanden wird, wird zugleich die aüssere Fixierung der Grenzen in ihrer Bedeutung relativiert” (Lönning, 1972, 268). No one seems to dispute the idea of canon as basic principle of unity for the collection of canonical scriptures as a whole. However, very important elements of the canon study that lead again to very divergent views are the essence of the canon’s unity principle, its origin and how it relates in practice to individual Scriptures within the whole canon. The canon in the canon is one of these. Another is the question of the extent to which the concept canon already operates without the compilation of an exhaustive canon list. This was the case in Sirach e.a. (Leonard, 1972, 39-40). This is the well-known issue of the relationship between increasing canonical authority and the canonisation of the biblical writings (Chapman, 2000, 6). 55 Kümmel, 197016, 357-359; Sand, 1974, 57-60; Childs, 1983², 42. F. Diest relates this regula fidei concept to his moderation of the tendency within canonical criticism to associate the concept canon too stringently to one particular text such as the Masoretic text (Venter, 1998a, 583-586). 56 Kamin, 1992, 243-253; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 29; Childs, 1983², 43-44; Wenz, 1992, 232288, esp. 249-254. Since the start of the Reformation scripture and tradition have been the subject of a deep-going discussion with the Catholic Church. While the reformers, in reaction to the Roman Catholic tradition, rejected the canon as it interpreted and proclaimed it in favour of the canonical Scriptures (“the force of distinction between scripture and tradition”: Webster, 2003, 113) to which alone they felt bound, the Roman Catholic Church had the tendency to use the canon to stress its authority as faith community. In the past, this largely led to a confrontation of exegesis and church dogmatics (Söding, 2003, XLVIIIXLIX).

27

ascribed to an altered understanding of the concept canon. This shows that the concept canon can differ considerably depending on how it is explained and can even regress to an earlier stage, even to that before which the term canon came in vogue. It is this variable usage – between the fragmentation of the term canon into sub-meanings, widespread since the 4th century CE and the use of concepts still being shaped – that elicits the familiar complaints on its improper use. To avoid this, it is necessary to distinguish the concept canon57 as changing over time from the long 57

Georgi, 1993, 48, believes that only two Christian churches have thus far closed the canon. Budde, 1997, 53-54, takes as his point of departure the many smaller differences, mainly within the Christian canons, and believes he can conclude from this that it is of negligible intrinsic meaning. He also ignores the many changes in the order of the biblical books in the respective canons (e.g. the grouping of the historical books in the later Christian tradition, see Mosis, 1997, 49-54) and that these minor differences can have a deep theological meaning. In this way he looses sight of delimitation as an indispensable aspect of canon study (2.2.B.). The delimitation aspect is inseparably bound to the religious doctrine aspect. — Theobald, 1990, 73, speaks of a normativité ouverte. For Laurin, 1982, 271-284, esp. 271, the closure of the canon is unlawful. For Nineham, 1976, 230, and Aichele, 2001, 20, the canon is a curse, since it ossified the truth while it should be inspirational in the present. There is usually different content for the concept canon in the form of appreciation of the writings that are related to the canonical scriptures such as the intertestamental literature (as by: Ackroyd, 1987, 209-224) or even because of overvaluation of the canon’s limits. So: Seebass, 1986, 114-134; Stuhlmacher, 1986, 91-114; Kümmel, 1970, 85-97. This is a predominantly Protestant and Jewish mindset (Wenz, 1992, 249; Lönning, 1972, 263) that, without being able to invoke an official declaration, is still binding for the faith community (Herms, 1998; Neusner, 1990, 148-151). — Canon thus appears to be a polyvalent concept: Crüsemann, 1987, 63-79, esp. 64, 77 n. 3. This author thus believes that when subjecting the genesis of the canon to historical research under the title Das portative Vaterland he must give precedence to a particular aspect of it. However, the following comment applies: “Der Kanonbegriff und seine Stellung innerhalb der Theologie, gewissermaßen als ihr Bindeglied, ist nach wie vor klärungsbedürftig auch und gerade wenn alle davon reden” (Schröder-Field, 2003, 196). Ulrich, 2002, 31, refers to this fragmentary use of the term canon. During his historical study on the compilation of the NT canon, H. Von Campenhausen distinguishes many sub-meanings (Groh, 1974, 331-343, esp. 335). Margolis spoke of the Vielfarbigkeit dieses Begriffes (Talmon, 1987, 70). It is the reduction of the concept canon to a part of it that leads to fragmentation. This has burdened recent canon research. “Il reste aujourd’hui à envisager le processus de canonisation dans sa totalité” (Lemaire, 1981, 72). That is why the subdivision in canon1 (based on its internal criteria) and canon 2 (based on its external form) as delineated by Sheppard, 1987, is unfortunate. Barr, 1983, 75; Childs, 1984, 25-26, condemn the deficient use of the term canon. This is one result of the improper use of the many meanings of canon. “Die Geschichte von Wort und Begriff (Torah, here applied to canon, for which Greenberg M., Conceptions, see no fewer than three meanings, L.Z.) ist in nuce die Geschichte des Kanons” (Crüsemann, 1987, 65). This differentiated use of the term canon did not stop but

28

standard understanding of canon. Yet it cannot be the intention to hinder the broadening and deepening of the concept58. Nor is it opportune to use terminology to colour the canon question or to give it a rigid shape from the start. However, the continuity of a study demands that where possible the term canon be used with one meaning59 while not loosing sight of the meanings that others could have in mind.

2.2. Definition It should be stressed first that the following definition of what for the rest of this study will be meant by the term canon implies no final conclusion for the present canon study. It in no way anticipates the findings or results of the following investigation. It is only intended as a means to avoid misunderstanding at the start of the study and where possible60 to cope only increased with the canonical movement (Schröder-Field, 2003, 199-201). This is the result of the shifting concept of canon (Venter, 1998b, 1998, 507). 58 Jenner-Wiegers, 1998b, 9-22. Kraus H.J., 19701, 346 recognises that there has been a “Prozeß der genaueren Bestimmung des Kanons” since the Reformation started “… there is no concept which is not arbitrary, which is not open to the constant exchange of signifiers” (Parker, 1996, 94). Childs, 1984, 24; idem, 1988, 13-28, esp. 13, warned against curbing the concept canon. He seeks to secure the operation of the canon as norm of faith, as he and his kindred spirits in the canonical movement stress and deepen it. However, the detrimental consequence is that in doing this the notions canon list and post-biblical canon evolution are placed in the shadow. 59 Childs, 1983², 57-58, sees his definition as a clear-cut starting point. It is only necessary to expect of a definition what can be expected: a tentative instrument for research which can be modified as the research progresses (Brettler, 1995, 9). “It is essential that a definition of canon be established as the basis of discussion; otherwise, discussion cannot proceed” (Ulrich, 2003, 95). 60 Leiman, 1976, 14, succumbs to this. His definition anticipates his study’s findings. Experience teaches that historical study of the canon may not be subjected to overly strict presuppositions. “...observations of the behavioural uses of scripture suggest that an ethnographic rather than a doctrinal approach to the issue of canon may prove fruitful and cause some revision of our commonly held presuppositions” (Smith J.Z., 1998, 303). “Umso wichtiger ist es, den Sinn des Kanonbegriffs nicht als gegeben vorauszusetzen (und dann etwa exegetisch bestätigen oder widerlegen zu wollen), sondern allererst aus den biblischen Quellen zu erarbeiten” (Söding, 2001, 14). The following also anticipated the notion of canon: Paul A., 1984, 48-51, with his idea of canon as terre portative; Vermeylen, 2000b, with his enquiries into un premier canon; Tomson, 1998, 127, with his reference to a Pauline proto-canon. Despite his own reservations, even Childs 1983², esp. 72, in using his idea of canon as context, already adopts a stance before his ideas have been substantiated. “...he has not yet provided a sufficiently clear and explicit discussion of the interpretative interests and concepts that shape the canonical approach” (Brett, 1991, 27).

29

with and correct the confusing situation described under 2.1. Starting from the general understanding of the term canon in Christian and Jewish circles since it was first used around the 4th century CE up to the time of the Reformation, the following distinctions can be observed in the totality of the presumed concept61. A) Formally (as shape), the term canon refers to a clearly defined number of writings in a nearly fixed text form that, henceforth strictly separated from all other literature, is presented as one codex and used as a cohesive, structured whole. Minor emendations and changes to the text remain possible62. The attitude of the community involved can also diverge from the officially set demarcation of the canon63. That Christian and Jewish This anticipation of what still has to be shown is also found in J.H. Van Leeuwen, 1992, 5364, esp. 55, where he starts by assigning the canon the notion pure doctrine. “...to sort out all these issues ... would require book-length treatment” (Ulrich, 1992, 267-291, esp. 270 n. 11). 61 The totality of the concept as presupposed at the time should not be confused with the final concept as it may have to be defined at the end of the study. Nor is it the intention to reflect all the elements of the concept canon borrowed from a specific time and its circumstances. Only the principles ones indispensable for the discussion and clarification of what occurred before the 4th century CE or have been discussed since the RenaissanceReformation will be treated here. 62 “Wer Kanon sagt, sagt numerus fixus et clausus” (Koole, 1977, 224-238, esp. 227). “A canon is an objectified standard rule ... a canon exists independent from the individual consciousness of those who adhere it. It is contained in texts, monuments, paintings and the like” (ter Borg, 1998a, 411-412). The specification of the canon as totality in a fixed number of writings presupposes the use of a selection criterion to distinguish it from other literature. Conversely, the fixed text form does not mean that in the strict sense only one text was eligible for the canon so that this in contrast to all others variants would be the canonical text. Canonicity refers only to the written document, not the text form (Venter, 1998b, 507-510), because this shows a great diversity in its origin and tradition. One does not speak of the canonical text, but of the text of canonical writings (Ulrich, 1992, 273-274). This text must take into account all available text variants (Tov, 2002, 25). In principle, they come under consideration for the composition of the biblical text. This is the task of textual criticism. — Skarsaune, 1994, 261-262, believes that the formation of the codex played a role in the difference that grew between the Christian OT and the Hebrew canon. On the importance of the formation of the codex see also Dunbar, 1986, 310; Bruce, 1988, 30; Kraft, 2002. — On the Canon as coherent structure see: Blenkinsopp, 1992, 47. The structure is apparent from the intertextuality (Barton J., 2000, 219). — On the possible text references see: GoshenGottstein, 1992, 204-213, esp. 209; Barthélemy, 1978c, 365-381, esp. 369; Van Der Woude, 1992, 27-28 n. 23; Gese, 1982, 313-339, esp. 330. 63 According to Christian authors, the Mishna and other rabbinic writings serve as Scripture within Judaism (Koole, 1985, 12; Laurin, 1982, 283; Barr, 1983, 61; Congar, 1960, 16-17; Sanders, 1992a, 838), although they are not canonical in the strict sense (Sweeney, 1997, 353-

30

circles had fixed, but different, writings in their respective canons64 does not diminish the proposed definition of canon according to which the whole canon is described as a fixed, but not numerically established, body of writings in a nearly unchangeable shape. Of course, this understanding of canon bears the traces of a long literary genesis and multi-stage selection process65 that found its new but definitive end phase in the formal 372, esp. 365). On Jewish side, it is specified that while the Mishna and other rabbinical writings are not considered Scripture, they are canonical since, according to rabbinical views, they were already included in the oral Torah of Moses (Neusner, 1990, 97-151; Lightstone, 2002, 172-178; Sheppard, 1987, 63). The rabbi takes on the guise of the incarnated Torah (Neusner, 1987, 53). In Christian circles, however, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, the common tradition can approach this valuation (even the Mishna and the other rabbinical writings can, like the NT be re-evaluated within Christianity as Fortschreibungen of the OT without necessarily raising them to the same, canonical, level. This is the impression Zenger, 1998a², 140-144 gives). This is distinct from the phenomenon of temporary higher or lower valuation of certain elements within the Scriptures (Sand, 1974, 12; idem, 1973, 147-160, esp. 154; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 14). The traditional neglect of the OT when compared to the NT can be attributed to this. The overvaluation of certain elements in the canon is usually treated under the theme canon in the canon. All this does not infringe the notion of the demarcation of the canon (by, e.g. rejecting elements Fries, 1992, 289-314, esp. 299-300), and can be reconciled with what (under B) is called the holistic vision, i.e. the valuation and operation of the Scriptures as a whole. For the faith community this seems a task that can be performed at any time (Sand, 1973, 160). 64 “Certainly different groups have different criteria for determining why a text or tradition is implicitly or formally received as scripture, but common to all is that each respective group determines and recognizes the criterion to be used… Recognizing and respecting these distinctions need not imply, however, that there are fundamental differences in what is said within these collections” (Stenstrup, 2003, 158). Sundberg, 1964, 129; Aland, 1970, 136-137, provide many indications of canon differences in Christian circles. Naturally, one cannot remain fixated on the establishment of the more-or-less unchanged content and structure with which the Hebrew canon was included in the Christian canon (Dohmen-Mussner, 1993, 26). It is also necessary to take into account the changed orientation in Christianity and normative Judaism at this takeover, which may possibly be expressed in a different structure such as a different order. “Common holdings and distinctive epistemological frameworks” (Carroll, 1980-81, 73-78, esp. 77). We can note here that the Hebrew and Septuagint canons differ not only in content but also in ordering, which is a clearly theological option, as is expressed in their ends (Carroll, 1980-81, 76; Kealy, 2002; contra: Brandt, 2001, who minimises the theological value of these differences). The ordering with the three categories of the OT canon no longer has the same meaning (Barton J., 2000, 218-219). Tempering the formal shape is needed in the context of the broader canon issue. It cannot be reduced to the composition of the Tanach in three parts Torah-Nebiim-Chetubim and their mutual relationship. “It should thus be reemphasized that the date and the priority of the tripartite arrangement of the canon remain open questions” (Chapman, 2003, 134). 65 There can be no doubt that Jesus Sirach and especially Flavius Josephus had a closed whole in mind, even though they did not list all the writings by name. This was also the case in the

31

canon. Few if any designers of these writings could foresee that and how their writings would serve in the new whole in which they have been included. Put differently: the canon as whole is more than the sum of a series of arbitrarily assembled writings66. It is a new, structured whole which assigns each of the writings that comprise it a previously inexistent dimension and role, regardless of the authoritative, inspired recognition it may have had previously. When and how this process – which in the past had usually been identified with the final phase and as the moment of the canonisation – arose remains a point of contention. It is certain that this is not a single point in time but rather a transition period in which the development of the canon, which had been going on for some time, was first post-biblical period (Barton, 2000, 215-217). — On the literary genesis see: Leonard, 1972, 52-72. There is a dynamic relationship between the process of the canon’s genesis and its final form, in which the first gradually passes on to the second. “The recognition of canon 1 materials, defined as traditions offering a normative vehicle or an ideal standard ... usually contributes momentum to an impulse within the history of a religion to totalize, to circumscribe, and to standardize these same traditions into fixes, literary forms typical of canon 2” (Smith J.Z., 1998, 300). Contra: K. W. Folkert (Smith J.Z., 1998, 301) and Lönning. This leads to the strange notion that the canons in the Christian churches only entered their final phase around the time of the Reformation and the Council of Trent. 66 Sundberg, 1971, 1217-1224, esp. 1217; Barr, 1983, 1-22. “But it was soon found that very few, if any, of the books themselves put fort that claim. Such a claim was generally advanced and formulated by a later generation” (Smith J.Z., 1998, 297). In this sense, the canon – more so than the late use of the term canon (Ulrich, 2002, 23) – is a post-biblical matter (Ulrich, 1992, 267; Talmon, 1987, 50; Aichele, 2001, 21, 25-26) that unavoidably has to do with the intervention of religious authorities at the head of the faith communities that invoke the canon. Numerous scholars oppose this. “Keine Schrift des Neuen Testaments ist mit dem Prädikat ‘kanonisch’ geboren. Der Satz: ‘eine Schrift ist kanonisch’ bedeutet zunächst nur: Sie ist nachträglich von den maßgebenden Faktoren der Kirche des 2. bis 4. Jahrhunderts – vielleicht erst nach Schwankungen im Urteil – für kanonisch erklärt worden. Wer also den Begriff des Kanons als feststehend betrachtet, unterwirft sich damit der Autorität von Bischöfen und Theologen jener Jahrhunderte. Wer diese Autorität in anderen Dingen nicht anerkennt – und kein evangelischer Theologe erkennt sie an – handelt folgerichtig wenn er sie auch hier in Frage stellt” (Wrede, 1975, 85). Thus the author cited insisted unnecessarily on a choice between exegesis and dogmatics. The canon would be merely a post-biblical product and in this way would be totally independent of the biblical scriptures. Meanwhile the insight grew that the duality should be superseded. The theological-dogmatic canon cannot be separated from the tradition and literary genesis that led to canonisation. Studying the dogmatic canon presupposes the question of the historical-literary genesis which thus makes exegesis as indispensable to dogmatics and dogmatics is to exegesis. “...schließlich das ganze mehr geworden ist als nur die Summe seiner Teile” (Noth, 1948, 270). “Also, the ensemble of holy scriptures is fundamentally more than the sum of its component books, not because of their presumed holiness but for their inter-relatedness” (Tomson, 1998, 111).

32

gradually and not abruptly closed67. Witness to this is the late time in which the shifting text traditions and canon lists were fixed. The similarly 67

Sundberg, 1975. In idem, 1966, he underlines the distinction between inspiration and canonicity. Contra: Leonard, 1972, 90-108. Certain is that the idea of inspiration is only one criterion, very difficult to apply, for determining canonicity. It has become clear that not all inspired writings are canonical. Inspiration does contribute greatly to the canonisation of a text. However, a text’s inspiration does not result from its canonisation (contra McDonald, 2002, 438). — Ritschl, 1998, correctly notes that the stable and even permanent recognition of the religious authority (authority is now a problematic term: Smith J.Z., 1998, 298-299; that is why a new hermeneutic of the canon must be sought: Hettema, 1998) of individual or categories of biblical writings within the later OT-NT canons (Barton, 1997, 14-31, who relies on F. Stuhlhofer’s statistical data on the use of the scriptures) was often based on thematic cores or keystones that continued to be authoritative within the relevant faith community. They are very important in investigating the genesis of the final canon. After all, this growing core of belief was later often invoked (even after the canonisation of the bible as a whole) in defence of individual assertions. But this does not detract from the canon’s own role as longterm whole. — The acquisition of new canonical dimensions by the relevant writings can only be realised after a historical study of their origin (Bruce, 1988, 295-296). “If one chooses for a canonical approach to theology, the concept of canon has to be defined along historical lines”, notes: F. Deist, as cited in Venter, 1998a, 596. This role is dependent on the unity principle used in gathering the collection of scriptures into a whole. It is valuated varyingly in canon study. Yet, it is the canon as unity principle that determines the essence of the bible. That is why Sundberg, 107-108, distinguished between the canon as a body of writings and the possible previous particular canonisations. In this sense, the Samaritan canon was the first known full canon of OT writings. “Hence can be seen that clarity and historicity in the canon is of great importance for a responsible reading of the Bible. It creates the dynamic cohesion within which the various books are read, because it creates the unity, which determines the actual essence of the Bible” (Van Leeuwen J.H., 1992, 64). Moreover, each canon seems to have taken shape only gradually. — On the time of canonisation, see: Barton J., 1984, 9; Leonard, 1972, 90-102. The main role here is usually given to the religious authorities under greater or lesser impulse from the broader faith community on one side and the writings’ own authority, which comes down to credibility on internal evidence (Koole, 1985, 17-26). To do justice to the canon as historically developed reality as well as the contribution of the community in concluding the canon process, the following definition of canonisation seems the most appropriate: The inclusion of things into a canon that already exists” (Ter Borg, 1998, 412). However, once it is a matter of allowing an existing canon to function, the presence of an external authority seems indispensable. “Human beings need social control because the limits of appropriate behaviour are not built in genetically” (Ter Borg, 1998, 415). — The theological background of this discussion on the time of canonisation is the heart of the dispute on the role of tradition, first with regard to the NT (this is determinative for Roman Catholic-Protestant relations) and then regarding the OT (this involves Christian-Jewish relations). On the OT: closure of the Torah and Nebiim an approximate terminus a quo and ante quem can be set (Steck, 1992, 11-33, esp.16-21; Koole, 1985, 5-6; Sanders, 1984a, 1215; Reventlow, 1983b, 125-127). Disagreement on the Chetubim is greater than ever (Childs, 1992, 15-16; idem, 1983², 65-67; Steck, 1992, 21-25; Van der Kooij, 1995, 42-65, esp. 4650), even on the question of which type of text this implies (Childs, 1983², 97-99; Smelik,

33

relatively late adoption of the term canon to describe the event as a whole confirms that the posited presupposition according to which the canonisation, which definitively started in the different Jewish and Christian circles, was a protracted process. This is closely related to the separation of Christianity from Judaism. Yet the unreserved use by both of the same term canon with identical meaning points to a continuing similarity. It thus seems necessary to study the canon as a phenomenon

1992c, 78-83; Venter, 1988a, 590-597). There may be fewer disputes on the NT, but these should not be underestimated (Childs, 1984, 18-19; Reventlow, 1983b, 127), especially when they concern the relationship with the OT (Childs, 1970, 15-21; Dunbar, 1986, 299). — An ad hoc decision by the community on the canonisation could be avoided (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 1314). “She (the church, L.Z.) had a canon before she had a full idea of canonicity or decrees about a canon” (Turro-Brown, 1968, 518). The Protestant’s theological aversion to a theological overvaluation of the church’s role in the canon process via canonisation is felt here (Webster, 2003, 101-123). In that regard Sæbø, 1988, 116-132, wants to distinguish an Übergang in which the authoritative tradition would shift to canonicity, which means that as of that time the tradition is fixed and only underwent Auslegung (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 242 thinks the same: the canonicity is measured by its ability to serve for commentary). However, he must admit that the time of this Übergang cannot be determined precisely. “…keinen Übergabe-Punkt sondern einen Übergabe-Bereich” (Fabry, 2006, 52). Hence the justifiable warning: “...we must be careful in too sharply defining the point where text ends and canon begins” (Carr, 1996, 22-64, esp. 23). Yet this does not mean that it is not important and that no attempt need be made. If this were so, then it could be asserted that, for instance, the Pentateuch was never canonised because even today the time at which it occurred cannot be situated precisely (Barr, 1983, 51-52). Actually, the concept canon is at issue in the transition to canonicity. To situate the time of the transition to canonicity the aspects choice and composition (list of canonical writings) can be distinguished from the aspect acceptance by the faith community with which the canonisation is closed (Steins, 1999, 39-43). This phenomenon is part of the community’s Gedächtnisgeschichte (Söding, 2003, LVIII-LXI; Blenkinsopp, 1997). Because this Gedächtnisgeschichte was followed during the process of forming the canon the Rezeptionsgeschichte – not the same as the exegesis or history of interpretation – can be integrated in the canon event. “The insights of reception theory can usefully be applied to canon. For in an important sense, the canon as a meaningful text cannot be divorced from its history and from the communities that subscribe to it” (Davies P.R., 1998, 42). “The history of canon is not primarily one of transmission, but of reception. Authority and power inhere less in the book than in the capacity to manipulate the book as to create parole, inviting both a sense of plausibility and conviction ... From this point of view, canon is largely a professional’s category” (Smith J.Z., 1998, 299). — Gese, 1982, 330 sees no noticeable transition from authoritative tradition to canon. F. Deist, by contrast, stands at the other extreme. He sees canonisation as the consequence of crisis moments in the faith community that required a legislative intervention (Venter, 1998a, 586-588).

34

that is inseparably bound to the two as affiliates and this despite their separation68. B) The fixing of the formal final structure of the canon was conscious, not random69. This is expressed in the formation of a functional canon concept 68 Barr, 1983, 50 n. 2, stresses the lingering character of the canon process. C. Colpe launched the idea of affiliation (Jenner-Wiegers, 1998b, 19) with regard to the Jews’ and Christians’ respective canon processes (Theobald, 1990, 71). With regard to the religious history of Judaism and Christianity in general and the history of their canons in particular, Albertz, 1995, 21, speaks of an open process that results in both early Judaism and early Christianity. “...die wachsende Einsicht, daß das Neue Testament nicht dem Alten gegenübergestellt werden kann, sondern zunächst und vor allem Teil der jüdischen Überlieferungsgeschichte ist” (Georgi, 1993, 47). The discoveries in Qumran have once again brought to light the farreaching nature of OT and NT writings (Sanders, 1992b, 323-336, esp. 328-329). Contra: Leiman, 1976, who restricts his study of the canon to Judaism and considers it unnecessary to discuss its development outside Judaism. In doing so he ignores that the priority in time (after Childs’ Introduction OT, 655, by Zenger, 1996a, 5-7, and Dohmen-Stemberger, 1996, 154, also recently stressed the importance of this priority in time) does not automatically favour the Hebrew canon in all respects nor does it allow for reciprocal dependence in its development. The OT and NT writings have a konstante Schicksalsgemeinschaft (Lönning, 1972, 31), as Qumran has again shown (Goshen-Gottstein, 1992, 207; Sanders, 1992b, 326-329). “Wenn es aber eine im NT weitergehende kanonische Zeit gibt, dann rücken AT und NT auch in einem Kanon zusammen” (Koole, 1977). For that matter, the fact that Christians, despite their intention to remain faithful to the then existing Scriptures, not only reinterpreted them thoroughly in the light of the Christ event (there were also new shifts in accent to prophecy Sundberg, 1975, 352-371; Farkasfalvy, 1983), but also added a written corpus to them necessarily raises the question of the extent to which Judaism saw the canon at that time as a definitively closed entity (Childs, 1970, 59; Dunbar, 1986, 319). 69 Sæbø, 1988, explains the mindset with which the canon was completed. This is not a merely technical or random event – even though a degree of randomness cannot be excluded, however much one may prefer otherwise (Wesselius, 1995, 53): Principe der Prinzipienlosigkeit (Aland, 1970, 144); Koole, 1983; Kümmel, 1970, 97; Jacob, 1975, 103; Childs, 1983², 79; Sand, 1973; “...ein echter historischer Prozeß, der an vielen Stellen anders hätte verlaufen können” (Söding, 2003, LVIII); for a different view see Metzger, 1989³, 285287. This ‘randomness’ in the formation of the canon is used against the orthodox theological view of the canon (Kraus H.J., 19701, 345) – but for a conscious act or canonical principal (“le motif, qui en vertu d’une dynamique pousse à la constitution”: Jacob, 1975, 102; canonical intentionality: Childs, 1983², 79; canonical principle: see P.R. Ackroyd, first cited in Chapman, 2000, 26. Chapman transforms this idea into that of theological grammar, thus indicating that the theological interest takes precedence over the formal historical development of the canon. In this way he closely follows his teacher Childs), that cannot be limited to a single moment, namely, when the canon was closed, but that was also active earlier as reflection (Ulrich, 1992, 272) and that finds its sequel in post-biblical tradition (Fishbane, 1985, 418; Knight, 1982a, 153-191, esp. 180; Koole, 1965, 374-396, esp. 375 n. 1). Elsewhere the author emphasises the importance of the formal shape for identifying and

35

along with the insight of the need to fix the form of tradition or scriptures. By the time the term canon came into use, this concept, apart from its full achievement, had reached a level that it would retain up to the Renaissance and Reformation. As for the meaning of this concept, we can tentatively describe it as the body of writings that the relevant community considered divinely inspired70 and, as such, binding upon it now and in the future. The exact meaning of this is inherent in the later teaching de scriptura sacra. In practice this is found in the treatment of Scripture in the liturgy and other community activities in which the faith community expresses the extent of its faith and respect for its Scriptures. When the term canon was interpreting the canon intention (Chapman 2003). — The protracted canon process that extended into the post-biblical period impaired forging a link between the conscious canon intention at the start and during the process of canon formation and the post-biblical phase in which the canon lists were drawn up (which thus leads canonical criticism to limit its interest in the canon to the post-biblical stage). “Die Spannung zwischen den historisch gewordenen Kanones und dem damit nicht einfach identischen Kanonbewusstsein, das aus dem Wissen um die Notwendigkeit der Kanonisierung aufgrund der Verbindlichkeit des tradierten Inhalts resultiert, droht verlorenzugehen” (Spieckermann, 1997, 25-51, esp. 42). This conscious reflection on the canon process as historical event continues today in the post-biblical time (Talmon, 1987, esp. 54-56, 65, 67-68, 72) and prevents the formulation of an invariable and definitive definition of the canon reality (2.2). Conversely, the following reject the conscious formation of the canon: Veltri, 1990, 214-215, Gowan, 1976, 315, en Steck, 1992, 14. Trublet, 1990, 77-187, esp. 183, and Thompson, 1991, 69 n. 1, only reject a conscious canon intention when this is situated at the start of or early in the canon process. 70 The canon list would continue to be doctored without this leading to a definitive fixation in some Christian communities. The threefold canon concept as met in Sirach showed that the theological notion precedes the formal shape that it took on. The building of the canon as a structured ensemble corresponds to a holistic vision according to which all elements are evaluated and related to one another on the basis of one single perspective, here divinely inspired. The notion of inspiration (Sand, 1974, 28-29; Gabel, 1996, 533-541; Leiman, 1981; Reventlow, 1983b, 42; Gnuse, 1983, 59-66, esp. 59-61; Paul A., 1984; Lust, 1989, 27-33; 51-57), developed analogously to the inspiration of the prophets (Leonard, 1972, 135-158), is frequently met in rabbinic and later Judaism (as early as Flavius Josephus: Lust, 2003, 46) and was adopted by Christianity (Höpfl, 1928, col. 1031-1034; Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 48-50). Today it is under discussion (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 66; Oeming, 1986, 52 n. 11; Hoffmann, 1982, 447-469) even in the Roman Catholic Church (Reventlow, 1983b, 130-131; recently: Nodet, 1997, 237-274). The teaching on inspiration, which is closely interwoven – but does not coincide – with the reality of the canon (Leiman, 1976, 14-16, idem, 1981; Sundberg, 1976, 136-140; Dulles, 1983, 239-261, esp. 252; Sesboüé, 2004), can take on different modalities without being called in question as fact (Pannenberg, 1996, 156-159). It is best to avoid the term revelation (according to Dunbar, 1986, 301) because of its disputed content and especially its non-biblical origin (Knight, 1982 a, 157-159 n. 7, 175).

36

introduced, it seems that two notions were conjoined i.e. canon list, being the exact formal body, and norm of faith71 for the entire community. But how they were related remained vague. It is certain, however, that neither covers fully the concept canon. This becomes evident as of the start of the Reformation period. These new circumstances ensured that the current concept canon was subjected to new questions, which led to a further differentiation of its content. An evolution of this nature was to be expected. After all, even during the biblical phase, the concept canon had developed on the basis of authoritative tradition and its permanent 71 “Canon means the continuous validity of an institution and permanent value of a given declaration or event”: Koole, 1985, 10; Barr, 1980c, 7; “...the decisive force at work in the formation of the canon emerged in the transmission of a divine word in such a form as to lay authoritative claim upon the successive generations”: Childs, 1983², 60, 224. This elicits the question how this continuing norms of the scriptures as a whole relates to the particular character of the separate books that comprise the whole (Lönning, 1972, 220-222) and especially its acting as absolute norm with respect to the various demarcations depending on the faith community. The differentiation in the delimitation of the canon puts its operation as absolute norm at risk (Kuitert, 1995², 54-60). — The teaching on inspiration goes back to the ideas of the rabbis. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428 CE) adopted these ideas and saw prophecy as the most special form of inspiration and understood it as direct dictation from God. He articulated what was rather generally understood by inspiration in the first centuries. Much later, Thomas Aquinas would speak the same idea in extenso in his De Prophetia, while he had little to say about the hagiographa with which he referred to the non-prophetic literature. — It is uncertain how much influence liturgical practice (the primary usage of biblical writings, which caused them to grow into stable and even permanent categories within the OT and NT canons) had on the concept canon among rabbis. This of the forceful impact of temple, priesthood and related notions of sacredness reflected in the terminology of the time (Paul A., 1995, 398-400) up to the destruction of the second temple. With the unfolding teaching on inspiration the foundation was also laid for the concept of sacredness with which the scriptures were associated (Leonard, 1972, 46). Certainly within the Christian community the emphasis was on liturgy. Zahn stressed the importance of this in the canonisation of the NT (Höpfl, 1928, 1038-1039). On ancient Israel and the OT canon see Reventlow, 1983b, 134-135). — Leiman, 1976, 14 n. 21, correctly points to the aspect of studying the Scriptures. However, this cannot provide an exact criterion for canonicity, at most only one aspect of it. It hints at the value of the Scriptures’ content, especially the doctrine (“pure and reliable doctrine”: Van Leeuwen J.H., 1992, 55) and the designation of rules of behaviour. Luther and Calvin will no longer respect this aspect of the concept canon, i.e. as absolute norm for doctrine (Rahner, 1970, 1277-1284, esp. 1282). — The normative character or Verbindlichkeit of the canon reaches further than faith in the strict sense. It also has historical and ethical implications. “Die vorgetragenen Überlegungen unterstreichen noch einmal die Bedeutung des Kanons für die Frage nach der Verbindlichkeit. Kanonisierung gibt es nur dort, wo durch Ursprungsnähe das in den kanonisierten Schriften enthaltene Wahrheitszeugnis gesichert werden soll” (Spieckermann, 1997, 28).

37

reception. In this way the traditional concept canon was itself originally shaped via the evolution of successive sub-formulations. The temporary stability that followed is, apparently, mainly due to the equally stable mindset72 in the faith communities in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is logical that when this stability was breached during the Reformation, the concept canon again underwent an evolution despite the traditional view according to which the shape of the canon had become definitively fixed. If our definition still opts for the now older and for many obsolete canon concept that prevailed from the 4th century CE up to the Reformation, this is for practical reasons relating to the present study. The old concept seems to be a necessary starting point for a study comparing this period with the evolution in the following period. Because it is rooted in and springs from biblical times and serves as the onset for further evolution in modern times, the chosen concept is best able to serve as bridge and point of comparison in discussions between distant periods. C) Finally, the term canon is used to indicate a phenomenon that is situated specifically on the level of the faith community. This refers in the first place to the Jewish and Christian faith communities that felt a parallel need to use the term canon to describe and reflect on an important part of this existence as community. The notion canon clearly had to do with the general phenomenon that occurs in nearly every community that provides itself with a structure73. This means providing a foundation as community 72

The development of the concept canon is a process in which all persons and communities that invoke the biblical traditions have participated jointly. This one process as Einheitsfaktor. (Dohmen, 2004, 176) should be distinguished from the diversity of types of explanation and reception. In the early post-biblical period this development was rather slow. Hence what is called the classical hermeneutics of this period (Lindbeck, 1989, 4855). 73 Leonard, 1972, 80-89; Nissen, 2003; Carr, 1996, 22-64. “But positively, collecting sacred scriptures means creating a reading community” (Tomson, 1998, 110). “The process of canonization is a community process” (Sundberg, 1966, 201); “The biblical canon was shaped by a community” (Leiman, 1981, 63). “Canon is an ecclesiastical concept in which the church issues a statement of faith that for it these books have a unique meaning. They are its Holy Scripture” (Koole, 1983, 194); “the community’s book” (Koole, 1985, 9); “Canon is not a neutral descriptive term; it is a sociological concept by means of which the community invests these texts with a particular kind of function and authority” (Riches, 1993, 215). “This semi-universality asks for an explanation ... the social success of canons may also (partly) be explained on ... the level of social control” (ter Borg, 1998, 411). “...a sociological phenomenon of nearly every group identity” (Schillebeeckx, 1977, 64); Herms, 1998, 101 n. 3; Bruce, 1988, 18 n. 6; Küng, 1989, 268-270; Sanchez Caro, 1982, 309-339,

38

based on a structure or constitution74 to which it attaches its existence and survival. This event is a product of its age that can be studied in the history of every community that has left reliable traces. For the biblical canon these are religious communities that present their constitution as superior to secular existence, as evolved from divine inspiration. Nevertheless, the term canon, when referring to the reality of the biblical canon, remains bound to the historical event of the 4th century CE in which the Jewish and Christian faith communities of the time established their respective formal canons (A) and hence consciously developed the concept canon from the content described above (B). When discussing the formal canon (A) it was already noted that it was necessary for this definition to leave temporarily vague the way the faith communities set about designing the canon. The same must be said for the attendant content of the concept canon (B). But it is already clear that all parts of the respective communities were involved in launching and naming their canons. A given community’s introduction of meticulous lists and texts is its explicit self-affirmation as religious community that confirms its establishment. The so different shapes of the canon expresses the singularity75 of each community, even esp. 311-315; Grant, 1982, 24-44; Carr, 1996, 22-23; Jenner-Wiegers, 1998 b; idem, 1998; Platvoet, 1998, 93-125. An interesting reference is that to the parallelism of canonisation in terms of mode, styles and legal prescriptions (Ritschl, 1998, 381-384). Thus, the study of the concept canon is not purely theological matter; it is also philosophical (Theobald, 1990, 71-72) and even cultural (Georgi, 1993). There was even a notion of canon in classical antiquity. “Diese Feststellung Lemaires fußt auf der in den letzten Jahrzehnten von Orientalisten entwickelten These, daß die Kristallisierung eines Schriftkanons sich schon im alten Babylonien beobachten läßt” (Talmon, 1987, 68). In recent decades it has come vigorously to the fore (Smith J.Z., 1998, 295-296) especially spurred on by J. and A. Assmann. They have described the canon syndrome (Adriaanse, 1998, 313-314). Also interesting is the comparison between certain literary canons and the canons of biblical literature such as the Chetubim (Lang, 1998). Situating the biblical canon in a sociological context or in the history of culture helps in discerning its specificity. This includes its normative character, based on divine authority (Söding, 2003, LIX-LX), which is primarily articulated in the idea of inspiration or revelation as norm of faith. 74 “It is even a basic or constitutive rule. It defines the core of a system of meaning or a culture or subculture or a religion. Whoever violates the rule, rules himself out of this meaning-system, culture or religion” (ter Borg, 1998, 412). 75 Barr, 1983, 27; Sundberg, 1966, 201; Koole, 1965, 375, 390; Jacob, 1975, 108. A separate canon also implies a community that acts independently by linking its existence to a body of writings and not only particular elements of them that are stressed temporarily or for a longer period. The strength of the link between community and individual that is grounded in a jointly accepted body of canonical writings was visible when the Qumran scrolls were discovered. The discovery of the scrolls left many Jews and Christians with a

39 feeling that their identity was threatened (Sanders, 2001, 10-12). The limited differences among Christian churches in the first centuries did not define these as truly separate communities with separate canons. That is why in this period we cannot speak of canons, in the strict sense, by region (Carr, 1996) in which they functioned temporarily (Sundberg, 1966, 130; Groh, 1974, 331-343, esp. 333 n. 7). This phenomenon can rather be classified as a de facto diversity within a single faith community’s own canon. It is a different situation when after separation these communities confirm their definitive disassociation by confirming their own canon. In that case, the community acts as a separate body and in its capacity as developed social group. Obviously, during its evolution this social group has taken on dimensions that play an inevitably role in the canonisation. “Die klare Abgrenzung eines Korpus von Heiligen Schriften und später die minutiöse Festlegung der Textform, in der diese Schriften überliefert wurden, gehörten den Worten Boussets, zu folge zu dem ‘notwendigen Zubehör’ einer jeder dieser religiösen Gemeinschaften” (Talmon, 1987, 73). “In every canonisation the church’s self-interpretation is present to a certain degree” (Koole, 1968, 92). “In other words, each decision as to the canon of scripture stands in relation to the community who hears it being read out” (Tomson, 1998, 109). “Throughout Jewish history, normative self-definition was very much bound up with scripture ... and how it was perceived” (Leiman, 1981, 63). “In einer Frage, die doch ihr theologisches und liturgisches Leben und damit ihr Selbstverständnis so entscheidend prägt” (Budde, 1997, 53). Not only the content can differ; the structure and sequence (Reihenfolge: Lebram, 1968, 173-189; Steck, 1992, 12-13; Childs, 1988, 13-28, esp. 21) in which the common material is included (Dohmen-Mussner, 1993, 30 n 18). “...eine Kanontheologie ‘von unten’, die in historischer Differenziertheit von den Funktionen handelt, die bestimmte Textcorpora zu bestimmten Zeiten und an bestimmten Orten für bestimmte Gruppen ausgeübt haben” (Söding, 2003, LXXXII). These permanent differences that, however substantial in size, exert only a minor influence on the concept canon (Sweeney, 1997), should be distinguished from the difference in appreciation that are only temporary and not formally defined. “Indeed, one of the fascinating aspects of Bauer’s study is that the demarcation of these movements (Marcionites, Gnostics, Judeo-Christians, L.Z.) runs parallel to the identification of their particular collections of scriptures” (Tomson, 1998, 117-118). “...sind es gerade die von den im kanonischen Prozeß verfindlichen Schriften angesprochenen Kommunitäten, denen sich die implizite und explizite Kanonisierung verdankt” (Söding, 2003, LXXXI-LXXXII). “The immanent logic of a group identity stabilised by canonical writings has far-reaching sociological consequences. For in their canonisation, these texts, albeit on the basis of their inspirational content, receive a new institutional meaning within the community that goes beyond their content. These texts institutionally define the Christian group identity” (Schillebeeckx, 1977, 58). These are communities that select their traditions and make them legally normative (Höpfl, 1928, 1031) in accordance with their Gedächtnisgeschichte (Söding, 2003, LVIII-LXI) as it takes practical shape in Rezeptionsgeschichte and Wirkungsgeschichte. Hence the different canons, compiled usually from the same texts, first among the Samaritans, later in Judaism and Christianity (Van Leeuwen J.H., 1992, 56, 60-62). It is preferred to speak of a Hebrew canon or Tanach consisting of the Torah, Nebiim and Chetubim and a Christian canon consisting of OT and NT. The final completion of the canon form may be interpreted as a highpoint of Gemeindebildung (Fishbane, 1985, 18). This can give rise to selection, censure, concentration, dehistorising (Childs, 1983², 62), and generalising. “Canonization aims at immediate expressiveness at meaningfulness in all contexts without historical mediation” (Adriaanse, 1998, 313). Of course, the canon as unity principle for the collected body of writings gives

40

though the various canons contain much material in common and share in the broader common interpretation and reception process to which the biblical tradition is permanently subject. On the other side, the mainly communitarian character of the canon is expressed in its operation as regula fidei and the attendant notion of canon. That a common canon norm was and is operative is felt most forcefully in the community’s cult in which only those texts previously accepted by the community are used. The prevailing rules of behaviour that govern the individual within the faith community, especially in the use and interpretation of the bible, are contained, supported and justified on the basis of this commonly developed tradition. The normative or binding effect of Scripture as canon on the individual stems from its community character76. Doubtless rise in canon studies to an over-appreciation of this body at the expense of its elements (Bruce, 1988, 290). 76 “Belonging comes first and subsequently implies obedience, observance and submission, at least to rules” (ter Borg, 1998, 415). Leiman, 1976, 14-16, correctly includes the community’s non-liturgical religious practice in the concept canon. “Yet we must qualify this understanding of church usage as a normative factor” (Turro-Brown, 1968, 533). That the canon’s normative character within the entire faith community can operate juristically on all members of the faith community is an obvious evolution and the logical consequence of this normative character. But this operation as norm cannot rightfully be imposed on external persons or communities (Söding, 2001, 14). Only around the time of the exile could individuals within Israel gradually withdraw from the corporate personality. Although in theory individual dignity was quickly recognised within Christianity (Manenschijn, 1996, 53-73), in practice this was a slow evolution. Semler pioneered in this by focusing on how frequently in history individuals diverged in their ideas from the common view on the canon and thus more frequently shifted (Paulsen, 1991, 61) to changing appreciations. These discussions in Jabne, while not assuming the form and scope of a council (Schäfer, 1975, 45-64; Stemberger, 1983, 164-174) assigned to established the canon (contra: Hübner, 1988, 147-162, esp. 149-151) were still at least focused on liturgical practice of the faith community of the day and in this sense set the trend for the individual. Christian circles followed in this direction later. Origen and even Jerome felt the need to act contrary to their personal preference for the Hebrew canon and submit to the differing practice that had grown in Christian circles (Sundberg, 1966, 134-138, 148-153; Kamin, 1992). Augustine also spoke frankly on the determinative influence of the church on faith in the gospel. “Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas” (Contra epistolam Manichaei 5.6.; P.L. 42.176, Sancti Augustini opera omnia I 8, Parisiis 1841). It is generally so that the individual accepts the biblical writings as divinely inspired because they are canonical i.e. offered by the faith community as authoritative. In this sense, the idea of inspiration is a result of canonicity (Leonard, 1972, 158), which it its turn is subject to the interpretation that co-determines the Rezeptionsgeschichte. Interpretation deserves to receive attention in a history of the canon (Tomson, 1998, 110-111; Sæbø, 2005). The means and extent to which the faith community used the canon to exert its power over the individual should be investigated (Insole, 2004, 224-227). The sustainability of canonical regulations within the faith community has its basis

41

individuals, like Marcion, Luther and Calvin, can play a pre-eminent and even leading role in the fixation of the formal canon. Their influence was much slighter on an already operational canon, as Semler discovered77. The effect of the intervention of these great figures is always ultimately determined by the way in which it is permanently received and appraised by the faith community. Once the canon has found its place and become operational within the faith community, it becomes a factor that the individual cannot easily ignore. This makes it sufficiently evident that the canon is not only a church, i.e. shared, concept but is also a product of the faith community and is used there by preference stably but nevertheless as a living tradition78.

in more than the sacred nature of the canon’s content as the result of its inspiration; this is also derived from its general applicability for successive generations (Childs, 1983², 60), i.e. in the sustainability of the community and its continuing needs. “But people need stable and certain standards for their behaviour and belief. This they will find in a canon” (ter Borg, 1998, 416). Hence the permanent need to update valid canon contents (Koole, 1985, 11). “Die Normativität und Autorität biblischer Texte kann man nur vom Kanon her definieren. Die Kanon ist aber ohne eine Glaubensgemeinschaft nicht denkbar und nicht faßbar, da der zentrale Gedanke der Schriftinspiration auch nur aus die Beziehung zur Glaubensgemeinschaft zu verstehen is.” (Dohmen, 2004, 185). 77 While A. Von Harnack was long supported in his opinion that Marcion designed the NT canon, which the church only adopted and corrected, today opinions leans toward the insight that the church was moved at Marcion’s initiative but had already put into use its own canon based on the existing regula fidei (Metzger, 1989³, 75-112; Childs, 1984, 19; Höpfl, 1928, 1039-1042; Kümmel, 197016, 358-359; Barton, 2002). Among the reformers, these are always leaders who were appreciated for their contribution to the community only because they were followed by a movement that grew into a separate community. However, at the start it was an individual initiative based on personal views that conflicted with those of the Roman Catholic Church and its tradition. Despite his far-reaching influence on the subsequently evolving canon debate, Semler’s plea for a canon operating according to personal insight has had no effect on the faith community’s stance on its canon. 78 Within the faith community the canon has been rather stable especially in the areas of the form and size of the text. But there is a more lively tradition when it comes to the view on and use of the canon (Venter, 1998a, 510-512). Hence the stable canons within the faith communities between the 4th and 16th centuries, which were completed definitively only after fundamental changes to the identity of the faith communities, such as during the separation around the end of the 1st century CE (Carr, 1996) and later during the Reformation. “No faith community can remain vigorous if it worries unduly about its canon” (Keck, 1996, 130-141, esp. 136).

42

2.3 The Term Canon in Practice 2.3.1 The Pre-canonical Period A consistent use of the term canon as defined above only allows this once the canon has been completed, more specifically as of the period when it is certain that the three abovementioned criteria have been as good as79 fulfilled. Of course, the time of this process can only be approximated. Nevertheless, a careful use of the term canon obliges the researcher to make clear as of when and why he considers the canon complete and the period separate from the preceding phase that with some reservation can be called pre-canonical80. It is clear that the proposed definition of the term canon cannot be applied prior to 100 BCE, given the lack of consensus on the completion of the Hebrew canon at that time. That is why the term canon can only be used as of the 2nd century CE for the Christian canon, and then with caution. This implies no statement about the time when the Hebrew and Christian canons were completed. On the contrary, this event will only be settled by further research. This explains why in our study, in contrast to many others, no premature stage, i.e. during the entire process of the evolution of the canon prior to its completion, can be considered as fully canonical. Neither Torah nor prophets nor any of their collections or parts however long they may have been thought authoritative can be given the label canon without fostering ambiguity and anachronism81. 79

The still lingering disputes on the canon lists after the 4th century CE do not impede the canon from being a fact in both Jewish and Christian circles at that time (contra: Georgi, 1993; Budde, 1997). 80 Barr, 1983, 83, 170; Gese, 1982, 317. 81 Among those who prematurely consider one or other stage of the canon process as canonical are: Leiman, 1976, 20; Childs, 1983², 62-63; Kline, 1972; Van Leeuwen J.H., 1992, 55. For Rendtorff, R., (1983, 3-11, esp. 6-8) earlier stages, even before the final text, i.e. the so-called major collections, have nearly canonical Dignität. Sheppard (1992, 862) extends this canonical qualification to all the traditions or writings that were included only later in the canon list as soon as they obtained canonical status, even prior to their inclusion in the canon. Koole, 1985, 12-13, correctly hesitates to use the term canon for all stages and phenomena that precede the canon. This could give the impression that the completed canon can be equated with its partial realisation in an earlier stage. (There are many other types of canon formation than the literary [Platvoet, 1998, 109-115] and many other canonising factors that will be influential later.) This should be avoided to maintain a clear distinction between the two stages (Zenger, 1998a², 162-177, and Davies P.R., 1998, 89-106 allow Torah to operate as canonised body separate from the Nebiim and Chetubim. This cannot [yet] be justified

43

2.3.2 Scripture, Bible, Tanach and Literary Genesis In the pre-canonical period the advent of the term canon was preceded by other descriptions such as Scripture and Bible82 and Tanach. Although they do not rival the fullness of the term canon and thus appear, in principle, superseded and no longer competitive on the canon level, they are still part of popular and scientific usage. They are even more popular than the more detached term canon. Presumably because of the simpler approach to the reality, the terms Scripture and Bible are able to keep alive an important aspect of the biblical tradition and so have greater connection with the public, and thus demonstrate indisputably their lasting value. Yet given the terminological confusion that impedes the study of canon, it is also necessary to clarify the scope of the terms Scripture and Bible and their relationship to the term canon. The Greek terms that underlie them show that their origin is related to the emergence of written culture in antiquity. Graphè/text preserves the thought in the act of writing, while biblionbyblos contains the idea of the material result, i.e. the scroll/book. Each received its plural as the number of written biblical traditions increased and it became impossible to ignore the many elements or writings that now made up the library known as the Bible. The distinction or contrast between elements and whole that the original difference between graphè and biblion-byblos is more forcefully felt: while graphè-scripture83 came to stress the authority that proceeded from the act of writing, later found, via the Latin term prescribere, in the juridical term prescribe – hence the Scriptures, first as separate authoritative writings and later Scripture as authoritative whole – while the emphasis in biblion-bible is more on the volume-whole that is taken in hand when the bible is read. The two aspects – authority and written entity – to which graphè and byblos allude, are both found in the term canon, while they lack its extra dimension of a historically). The term pre-canonical is preferable for stressing the link with the canon. The titles in Zenger, 1996b, and Gowan, 1976, 315 are ambiguous. 82 See: Paul A., 1995, 374-383; Sand, 1974, 13-23; Koole, 1983, 201-202; Duchet-SuchauxLefèvre, 1984, 13-23. 83 In the Christian period graphè-writing is distinguished in the new Christian hermeneutics from gramma that, since the time of Paul, was used for the letter contrasted to the spirit of the Scripture (Sand, 1974, 14-16). Later this contrast grew into the typical Christian distinction between OT and NT within the material-spiritual whole of the Christian Bible (Paul A., 1995, 389-396). This already demonstrates far-reaching development in the specific theological view of the Bible as a whole in the Christian community.

44

precise fixation in a structured and definitively completed whole whose sacred function is guaranteed for all time in a tangible faith community84. Moreover, because of their continued association with the act of writing and literary genesis, graphè and byblos clearly show that this is a distinguished but chiefly formal aspect85 of the development toward the final canon. The genesis of the biblical literature, its growth to authoritative religious writings and the formation of the canon, while bound up together, are still distinct86 and can still be situated in the precanonical period.

2.3.3 Deuterocanonical, Apocryphal87 Literature and Decanonisation

and

Pseudepigraphical

The Christian communities could only use the term deuterocanonical after the term canon came into use. As its etymology indicates, these writings were considered a full part of the body and status of canon. Nevertheless, they are distinct because of their exclusion from the Jewish Hebrew canon. Although they were used in Christianity in the same way as the other writings that it accepted as canonical, they long elicited doubts, at least among a minority of Christians, especially those, like Jerome, who felt attracted to Judaism. The normal consequence of this was that the latter also looked down somewhat on these writings. This can be compared with other similar changes in assessment within the body of canonical writings by the faith communities. This type of practical attitude does not change the canonical status, either of the deuterocanonical writings or of others whose nature and importance were later called in question. This was the case for the apocryphal writings. However differently the designation may 84

Contra Leonard, 1972, 35; Childs, 1983; Sanders, 1995 and Stenstrup, 2003, who consider the terms Scripture and canon as equivalents. This is rather widespread in the reform tradition on the understanding that in the customary Scripture principle used there the canon is completely subordinate to the Scriptures, of which it is presumed to be fully the product (Schröder-Field, 2003, esp. 205-211). 85 Even in NT times, this formal aspect included in graphè became a designation for its content, specifically its authority as Scripture (Barton, 1997, 5-8). This is chiefly borne out by the reformers in their linking of sola Scriptura with ad fontes as of the Renaissance (Venter, 1998a; idem, 1998b, 508). Hence the growing interest in textual criticism in that period. 86 Van Leeuwen J.H., 1992, 56; Childs, 1983², 60-62. 87 See: Koole, 1983, 203-205; Van Leeuwen J.H., 1992, 60-61; Charlesworth, 1992; Paulsen, 1992; Pokorny, 1997; Verhoef, 2001.

45

be used by the various faith communities, this term always refers to writings that this community believes should be situated outside the canon. Originally, these were writings that, for some reason, had to be kept hidden in Judaism. Initially it seemed that they were unsuitable for use in liturgy or synagogue, mainly because of their divergence from current teaching or because of their pseudepigraphical character88, later because of their puzzling tendencies, as with apocalyptic texts. The extent to which this led to their not being considered canonical cannot be determined, because at that time the state of the canon evolution was not clear. In the Christian period and certainly after the introduction of the term canon, it became clear that the apocryphal texts were definitely non-canonical writings, and negative appreciation of them grew. However, the hazy view of the concept apocryphal persisted and grew when the reformers started calling the deuterocanonical books apocryphal, while the Roman Catholic Church maintained the different usage. A few Protestant scholars have recently revised their view of this89. Finally, decanonisation has recently been discussed90, especially with regard to phenomena such as the Reformation’s removing certain apocryphal or deuterocanonical books from an existing canon. Strictly speaking, this cannot be called decanonisation because the essence of the phenomenon canon would have to be discussed first. This was not explicitly the case during the Reformation. That is why subjects such as the loss of the biblical canon in western culture under influence of modern biblical criticism and the

88

The term pseudepigraphical is the equivalent of apocryphal. The first is limited chiefly to characterising the now special content of writings. The term apocryphal, by contrast, refers to the classification as non-canonical (Adler, 2002, 212). 89 Dunbar, 1986, 300 n. 5; Hübner, 1988; Barton J., 1984, 92. Sundberg, 1968, highlights the way the Christian churches are drawing closer on this issue. Childs, 1988, 27, keeps to the Hebrew canon, but aims for reconciliation with the Septuagint’s broader canon. 90 The international conference held in Leiden in January 1997 devoted much attention to this theme (Van der Kooij-Van der Toorn, 1998). But it may be asserted that decanonisation, however important, should be reduced to the history of the interpretation of the canon and, as such, not operate on the same level as canonisation and the canon, but on that of its history post factum. “Canonization and decanonization ... are not on the same logical level ... Canonization without subsequent decanonization is at least conceivable ... whereas the reverse is impossible” (Adriaanse, 1998, 313). Decanonisation does not affect the canon. “Denn Änderungen und Ergänzungen ... entsprechen Paradigmen Verschiebungen in der Theologie; der Kanon selbst hingegen bleibt davon wenig berührt; er wird nur in seiner Grundlagenfunktion jeweils anders interpretiert” (Ritschl, 1998, 384).

46

Enlightenment91 or a shift of accent due to the addition of the NT to the OT are not taken into consideration92.

2.3.4 The Centre of the Canon, the Canon in the Canon, the Open Canon, Generally and Specially Canonical, Canon Study and Canonical Criticism Since the term canon came into use around the 4th century CE, no faith community has taken away anything essential to the meaning of the term. This merging of the term canon with the abovementioned meaning has been tacitly confirmed in the faith community’s persistent practice, and on occasion officially. However, since the Reformation, and especially since the emergence of modern biblical criticism, many other personal insights on the concept canon have grown and these translate into a series of unknown designations. Under impulse of Luther, in particular, the overexposure of certain elements or tendencies within the canon via one or other theological principle was pursued to such as extent that this penetrated to the centre of the canon, sometimes to the point of speaking of a canon within the canon. Without wanting to criticise the possible meaning of these views or to judge the issue on its merits – the principle of a possible growth in the meaning of canon has already been accepted – it should be noted, if only from a desire to use clearly defined terminology, that the latter expression, i.e. canon within the canon uses the term canon93 91

Childs, 1983, 79; Jenner-Wiegers, 1998b, 15. See: Dunn (McDonald-Sanders, 2002, 17). 93 “Whenever the unity of the canon is challenged, or whenever the authority of the canon, for whatever reason is undermined, decanonization points at the horizon ... the authority of the canon is already at stake whenever one begins ... to attach a greater value and significance to certain sections of the canon over against other sections” (Vos, 1998b, 362). The familiar criterion ob sie Christum treiben (Lohse, 1992, 169-194, esp. 184) for distinguishing the value of the Scriptures not only resulted in the familiar Protestant Scripture principle, but also the henceforth permanent tendency within Protestantism to undervalue the fixed limits of the canon (Wenz, 1992, 249; Fiddes, 2003), although this never resulted in a definitive infringement on the books included in the canon (Wenz, 1992, 252; Lohse, 1992, 191, 194). It maintained the practical Canon (Maier G., 1991², 130). Yet it cannot be denied that fundamental changes were made to the customary understanding of canon since the Reformation. The path to the idea of an open canon was cleared (Wenz, 1992, 249). This position was taken as soon as the idea arose that the fixed canon limits could no longer be justified theologically (according to: Diem, 1970, 159-174, esp. 166170), although in practice the old canon restrictions were maintained. Smend, 1986, 40-84, esp. 27-46; Zimmerli, 1995, 97-118; idem, 1980, 445, 24-455, 46; Reventlow, 1982, 13892

47

incorrectly: because it no longer gives the concept canon its customary meaning, but changes it radically and even contradicts it, the term canon is no longer applicable, to the reality that should be given another designation that articulates the distinction. Like the two preceding expressions, the term open canon, which has also found acceptance, puts the idea of canon as fixed demarcation at risk. After all, an open canon established on the basis of a principle is a 147; Hasel, 19873, 117-143; idem, 1985², 140-170; Schrage, 1976, 415-442; Holman, 1987, 35-44, esp. 39-42, and Talmon, 1987, esp. 48, 61, also see the theme of the centre of the canon as the chief, almost sole theme within OT theology during the last twenty years. For a more extensive bibliography on this these see: Müller P.G., 1977, 178-186. Recent examples are Preuss, 1991/1992, Rendtorff, R., 1977a, 13-26, esp. 15 n. 10 and Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 2001. Recently it has come to the fore in biblical theology as a struggle for power (Schroeder, 1996, 183-196, esp. 185). Another recent variant to the centre of the canon is the idea of the keystones or cores of faith that have persevered in biblical writings. Whatever shape the idea canon in the canon takes (it is a stark oszillierende Begriff: Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 2001, 69), it always presupposes that not all the canon’s content is on the same canonical level, possibly does not even have the required canonical calibre, while, on the other hand, there are materials outside the canon that may be considered canonical (Adriaanse, 1998, 320). Around 1863, A. Schweizer, a student of Schleiermacher, was the first to use the expression canon within the canon (Lönning, 1972, 45 esp. 16-30). Today Lönning, 1972, remains the most important representative of this view. That acceptance of the idea makes it impossible to maintain the canon’s limits is provisionally the chief argument raised against it. The limits would continually have to be reset on the basis of the subjectively chosen centre. This would also remove the biblical canonical tradition from its historical context (Schnabel, 1995, 21 n. 115-118). — For a thorough treatment of these themes see: Metzger, 1989³, 275-282. The difference between the concepts centre of the canon and canon within the canon is minor. In the latter, the writing or theme is used as canonical principle with regard to other writings or theologies. In the former, the whole of Scripture as centre is taken as starting point for evaluating and measuring other material (Söding, 1998, 54-60). A few authors deny the improper use of the term canon in this context. Koole, 1986, 199-200; Childs, 1984, 30; Jacob, 1975, 120-121. “Ein Begriff der dem Wesen des Kanons völlig widerspricht” (Gese, 1977, 9-30, esp. 29). The consequences of the improper use of the terminology canon within the canon becomes clear when it is even applied to the OT as opposed to the NT (Lönning, 1972, 33), while both inarguably comprise one canon in the Christian view. The issue becomes totally obfuscated when it is said “daß man den Kanon im Kanon nicht zum Kanon machen dar. (Lönning, 1972, 271 n. 16). The description heart of the canon does not encounter the same recrimination, but it does elicit the rejoinder that it is unable to do justice to the canon as a whole (Hasel, 19873, 93) or its differentiated content (Barr, 1966, 19). “Eine auf die Mitte ausgedünnte Schrift bildet eine Entsprechung zur ‘Magerkeit’ der christlichen Kirche”, according to J.Chr. Blumhardt (Bohren, 1986, 163-181, esp. 173). Moreover, the term is, of course, ambiguous. “...das leicht zu Mißverständnissen Anlaß gebende Wort ‘Mitte’ ...” (Zimmerli, 1979b, 184-202, esp. 188; Terrien, 1985, 127-135, esp. 128).

48

contradiction in terms and cannot be reconciled with any discussion of an authentic canon94. Lesser damage to the original notion of canon is found in what some call the distinction between being generally or specially canonical95. This is a consequence of the emerging historical research into the history of the development of the canon. Since J.G. Eichhorn and especially F.D.E. Schleiermacher, people began to see a benefit in a distinction between the canon as whole in its final form and the prehistory of the individual writings and collections of writings that comprise the canon. In some cases, despite their distinction, the two can be seen as complementing one another. Nevertheless, it will be clear that no single biblical book, at whatever stage of its growth or even upon its completion, can be considered canonical unless it is seen as included in the whole of the canon. All in all, there is no special or general canonicity, only canonicity. In this regard it is useful to warn against using of the term canon to refer to only one aspect or part of the whole. In that case, the reality of the canon is kept in sight, but at the same time one of its parts can be overshadowed or even fade away from sight to such an extent that the view of the entire reality that the term canon seeks to express disappears. Here we cannot speak of an improper use of the term canon as such, but rather of an incomplete articulation of the concept canon. Claiming that this is broadened by focussing attention on one of its aspects does not prevent harm to the customary concept of canon, possibly more through narrowing it than by broadening it96. After having established the use of the term canon, as described above, in a more accurate terminology, we will now turn to a more exact discussion of current canon study. It comprises an historical investigation 94

On the open canon see: Metzger, 1989³, 271-275; Stuhlmacher, 1972, 11-55, esp. 13-14. Ulrich, 1992, 270. Childs, 1983², 58, and Barton, 1997, 1, even defend the open canon, but only with the intention of rejecting the emphasis usually given to one moment of the canon closure. They seek, rather, to draw attention to the genesis of the canon. But they continue to remain in default as will become clear later. At most the concept closed canon can only be reconciled with its internal diversification (Jenner-Wiegers, 1998b, 18), but only subject to the possible intention to act outwardly in a diversifying manner. But there is the possibility of interpreting closed canon and thus updating it. Of course, the room for interpretation is limited (ter Borg, 1998, 413). 95 Thus Aalders G.L., 1952, 7. 96 Childs does expand the concept canon to cover its historical and dynamic genesis (he speaks in a peculiar way here of open canon: Childs, 1983², 58), but also narrows it by focussing on the canon shape that he supports for each individual biblical book, which no longer includes the broader context containing the canon as a whole in the canonicity.

49

into the canon in all of its aspects cited in Chapter 2.B. It can be distinguished from a canon study that is a product of its times, such as the recent canonical movement, which undertakes a similar study from its own perspective and definition of canon, and thereby, justifiably or not, makes use of the particular designation canonical criticism. The distinction between canon studies of that type and our study will gradually be made clear at the appropriate times.

50

Chapter 3

An Evaluation of Modern Canon Study

Now that the canon terminology has been reviewed and established, it is possible, without danger of confusion, to evaluate the changes that have arisen as a consequence of the evolution of canon studies in the modern period since the Reformation. The following will investigate the deeper cohesion of the bare facts, as cited in section 1.297. The intention is to reach a justifiable insight in the task of drafting a new historical study on the canon as well in as the method for carrying out this historical study with the desired effect. Two phases can be demarcated in modern canon study. The first starts with the Reformation and ends at the acute canon crisis in 1970 with as exponent the publications in E. Käsemann’s Neue Testament and as highpoint the Amsterdam School in the Netherlands. Around the same time the second period, spurred by J.A. Sanders and B.S. Childs, started with the canonical criticism movement. This movement, now in full development, attributes to the canon a new and special role in biblical theology. It should be mentioned first that canonical and biblical criticism are practically indistinguishable in this study, so the attempt has not been made. This is the consequence of the close link between the biblical writings and their operation as authoritative ensemble, more specifically as canon, as was discussed in the chapter on terminology.

3.1 From the Reformation to 1970 3.1.1 Modern Biblical Criticism versus Tradition and Dogmatics A first observation is that almost throughout the period extending from the Reformation to 1970 the newly emergent biblical criticism98 gave the 97

Ziegenaus, 1990, 234. The biblical criticism that rose in the modern period can be distinguished from the precritical biblical criticism of the previous period. It is characterised by its new approach to the biblical text consonant with the humanist principle of the return ad fontes. It helped the

98

51

impression that it increasingly and excessively dominated the study of the Bible without people being sufficiently aware how far dogmatictheological motives went in playing a, if not the, leading role, often hidden in the background, because it was inspired by the motives of the scholars’ own faith community and its tradition. At first sight, the question of bible study appears to be a technical question: the text of the canon, its letter, requires so much attention that it overshadows its spirit. This is all the more the case in this period because of the great accomplishments of the time in the literary-historical field. The progress in insight in the genesis and composition of the biblical writings thanks to grammar, new manuscripts, archaeological discoveries and the use of thus far unknown technical instruments, such as printing, is spectacular99 and without precedent. The many new methods that made these new technical instruments possible also caused a veritable breach with the customary research methods and interpretation that had held long and constant sway. The practitioners of modern biblical criticism were so aware of the pioneering nature of their own accomplishment that they had little appreciation for what their predecessors achieved, if they could even remember it. Only today is the call not to neglect the contribution of the pre-modern bible study audible100. This total rejection during the period now under discussion of the pre-modern biblical study in favour of the new techniques elicits the question of the substance of this reversal. It would in no way be complete to ascribe it to the nevertheless spectacular progress in the area of biblical reformers to return to the plain sense or literal meaning of the biblical text. New historical research would soon join predominantly literary biblical criticism. Hence the oft used term literary-historical criticism. Because it gradually grew into a concept that comprised several methods that would cover an area extending farther than strictly literary-historical criticism, we prefer to use the designation modern biblical criticism. This usually remains faithful to the old critical method, even when new criticisms or other accents are placed (Barr, 2000, 16-31). 99 Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 367-369; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 44-50; 295-309, 397-400. One example of the progress can be seen in the new polyglot bibles (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 369-370; Childs, 1983², 89) and the evolution of the old Critica Sacra into the modern Introduction (Childs, 1983², 35-36). 100 Childs, 1983², 82; Ratzinger, 1989, 34; Sanders, 1979, 27-29; Nations, 1983, 59-71, esp. 65 n. 29; Claassens, 2003, 138-139, esp. n. 63; Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 2001, 64, 70, 81-82; Abraham, 1998, 20; Insole, 2004. “...we share with the pre-modern history of interpretation the same search for religious reality” (Sheppard, 1982, 21-33, esp. 31. This predilection for the pre-modern period is often, as in Childs’ case, inspired by a negative view of the Enlightenment (Barr, 2000, 55).

52

criticism, which was inarguably achieved in the modern period. Although this progress marks a Copernican revolution in biblical studies101, it is still situated in a purely technical area and is, in this sense, not essentially different from the previous period and the techniques applied then. One fact is certain: the expansion, the refinement and the complexity of the technique were marked by rapid acceleration. As such, we might have expected that this renewed technique would be used, as in the past102, in service of the biblical culture and for the faith communities and their use of the Bible. This was not unreservedly the case. The achievements of modern bible study have had very different effects on hermeneutics and theology. Whereas previously one saw only researchers that according to their talents all approached the biblical writings with a certain respect for their religious authority, this solid front has been ruptured in the modern period, not only by the different views on one or more specific texts but also on the essence of the biblical literature, in other words the canon as such. From now on insights can vary from positive to total rejection, which reaches further than the thus far customary interpretation103 of the text. Because of this the new findings of modern biblical criticism have been a source of conflict with existing tradition and accepted dogmatics. They have triggered a deep reflection on this question and have led to a modification and revision of many older views. Henceforth, bible study is not only divided between the broader Jewish and Christian currents, but 101

This is the view found in Wildiers, 1973, esp. 57-66, 83. According to this author, theology in antiquity was completely determined by the world view of the period. The changes to this that occurred as a consequence of Copernicus’ discoveries would also automatically explain all the subsequent changes in theology. The influence of the new biblical criticism on the biblical canon was comparable (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 73-76). Dupré, 2004, 18-44, notes that nothing less than the scientific discoveries that shifted attention from the subject during the Enlightenment drastically influenced the prevalent world view. 102 Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 24. This constant is encountered anew, not only in the ancient postbiblical period but also during the pre-canonical period, as the discussion in Jabne evinces. If, on these occasions, one became so technically involved with minor elements of the Scripture, it was to demarcate their use in the liturgy of the day, i.e. their practical religious function. This explains the refined considerations that are noted by way of report: this highly technical discussion resulted in the formulation of a code of behaviour through which the pious people acknowledged the absolute authority of YHWH and experienced it in practice. 103 “The motivation behind biblical scholarship derived overwhelmingly from theology and from the conviction of the authority of Scripture ... their whole procedure demonstrated the presupposition that there was something uniquely important about this particular book” (Barr, 1983, 112). The Scripture-tradition antithesis was still present at the start of the Reformation. It defined the history of the canon’s interpretation.

53

also shows a range of intermediary positions104 within and beyond these firmer frameworks – and this is apparently especially new – a growing number of scholars that neglect, undervalue, ignore or even consciously reject105 the traditional values of the biblical writings as a whole, in short the canon. The findings of modern biblical criticism have certainly provoked this diversification and encouraged the divergence of minds. Furthermore, it is clear that scholars have seized upon modern techniques to bolster their own views106. This was not totally negative. Many new scientific findings have grown from personal convictions. However, personal involvement in this research has not always proven beneficial to its objectivity. This raises the question of the entwining of objective and subjective factors in canonical research107 as part of the general 104

“Wie sich dann im Einzelnen historische Arbeit und theologischer Standort zueinander verhalten, dafür bleibt in dem skizzierten Gesamtrahmen ein weiter Spielraum der Variationsmöglichkeiten” (Ebeling, 1962, 82). The religious scholars gradually became clearly defensive and felt required either to reject forcefully (Strathmann, 1970, 41-61, esp. 56-57; Höpfl, 1928, col. 1038-1042; Childs, 1984, 8, 36; idem, 1983², 45; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 38) the public relinquishment of the original notion of canon or to integrate the newer insights, at least partially, into the earlier notion of canon, which still went at the expense of the content of the original notion of canon. 105 The rationalists soon followed by deists swiftly followed humanism. The latter evolved in time in a more pronounced anti-religious direction. 106 “Historians still do, of course, describe any period or dimension of history for its own sake” (Brett, 1991, 94). “Der Kritiker ist immer schon im Prozeß seines Forschens in eine Krisis hineingestellt, in der die Wahrheitsfrage ihm eine Entscheidung abverlangt” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 313). The author reaches this conclusion mainly as the result of the treatment of major archaeological discoveries and the ideological ideas they elicited. More generally it can be said of late nineteenth-century historical canon research that “Zugleich zeigt sich, daß die Unterschiede bzw. unterschiedlichen Gewichtungen einzelner, die Kanongeschichte betreffender historischer Sachverhalte nicht selten durch die jeweilige dogmatische bzw. konfessionelle Perspektive des Kanonforschers mitbedingt und somit ihrerseits bereits Folge einer normativen Entscheidung sind” (Wenz, 1992, 268). 107 This historical research was often burdened by personal prejudices and dogmatic notions (Strathmann, 1970, 58). “...doch selbst von einem starken dogmatischen Interesse geleitet ist, auch und gerade da, wo dies nicht zugegeben wird” (Ebeling, 1962, 80-81; Strathmann, 1970, 56-58; Kümmel, 197016, 372). “The decisions made by the historian, according to this line of reasoning, are so decisive in giving shape to any given process of historical inquiry that one may question whether the result of a historian’s research is more a picture painted by the historian than a reproduction of the past as it really was” (Melugin, 1996, 64). One example of this is the reformers’ use of historical arguments for appealing to the Hebraica veritas. Another example is the way in which G.L. Bauer organises his findings in a dogmatic system (Kraus H.J., 19701, 89) and especially Zahn’s historical work, which is dominated by his own hermeneutics (Kraus H.J., 19701, 181-182). “In keiner der theologischen Disziplinen hat diese (unbewußte) Verpflichtung (dogmatisch-konfessionelle

54

hermeneutical problem. The insufficient awareness of this, which continues today, has often led to improper identification of the canon problem with its historical-technical aspects. An explanation of how this entwining occurs is thus more than desirable and can only benefit the various faith communities.

3.1.2 The Emergence of Biblical Theology In this regard it is instructive to glance at the origin and evolution of biblical theology, which of course addresses the question of the meaning of the body of biblical writings, specifically the canon: the study of the canon and biblical theology go hand in hand. Thus the issue of biblical theology can do much to illuminate the specific problem of the canon in the period after the Reformation. It should be recalled that long before the Reformation, theology, as dogmatic enunciation of the faith, was on good terms with exegesis, so that all theology was usually based on the Bible108. There was such harmony between these two in the heart of the broader church community that they were considered one discipline, although leanings toward one side or the other can be observed depending on the circumstances and persons. Yet the two tendencies kept one another in balance for a sufficiently long time to allow us to speak of an essentially authentic biblical theology. As of the high scholastic period, however, the tip toward systematic theology dominated by ecclesiastical tradition became more explicit and definitive109: the florescence of speculative Beweislast des Historikers) so bedauerliche Folgen gehabt wie gerade in den EinleitungsWissenschaften” (Lönning, 1972, 34 n. 126). “Historische Kritik und Totalanschauung sollen miteinander verbunden werden. Die zufälligen Geschichtswahrheiten, deren Vielgestaltigkeit die kritische Forschung erarbeitet, sollen mit der ewigen Vernunftwahrheit verknüpft werden” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 194). 108 For the history of the development of theology into a science during the third and fourth centuries CE, see: Saffrey, 1996, 201-220; Ebeling, 1962, 71. Today people too often tend to let biblical theology begin with Gabler or the Reformation (Hayes-Prussner, 1985; Hasel, 1982, 61-93, esp. 61; idem, 1985², 14; Wittenberg, 1995, 103-128, esp. 104). In fact, biblical theology had long been exercised (Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 353-368, esp. 356; Herms, 1995, 109-210, esp.159) under the guise of lectio divina and sacra pagina or doctrina (Lafont G., 1994, 133-135; Duchet-Suchaux-Lefèvre, 1984, 16-23), so that a specific term such as biblical theology was superfluous. 109 For instance Origen (Barthélemy, 1978b, 203-268) – think of his hexapla Biblica – and especially Jerome are strong in exegesis, while Irenaeus and especially Augustine stress systematics. The school of Hugh of Saint-Victor, also called Victorines, which sometimes leads towards rabbinic exegesis, is another that leans decisively toward pure exegesis

55

theology was at the expense of pure scriptural exegesis, which, at that time, did not offer the same opportunities for expansion and hence became subservient to speculative theology. These opportunities for expansion did come after the Renaissance with its renewed interest in the ancient sources and authentic text forms. Starting from its aversion to church tradition and its scholasticism and motivated by sola Scriptura or the Scripture principle110, the Reformation made grateful use of this to turn fully toward the Scriptures and the original bible text; For Luther this included the task of reconciling the historical and theological interpretation of the biblical text. The withdrawal from the dominance of traditional dogmatics was not accomplished without a struggle. It became a protracted wresting that underwent many intermediary stages including that of the familiar Protestant orthodoxy, in which a new, but bible-oriented, system of dogmas replaced scholasticism111. (Châtillon, 1984, 163-197, esp.178-186). This is also the period in which new instruments such as the concordance (Mary-Richard Rouse, 1984, 115-122) and the glosses (Lobrichon, 1984) were produced. Irenaeus can be cited as an example of biblical and even canonical theology (Dohmen, 1995a, 452-460, esp. 457). A study based on individual biblical texts was often built up into a systematic construction. Childs, 1970, 30-51, 92, devotes much attention to the classical older biblical theologians among whom he includes Luther. Peter Abelard and Peter Lombard, above all, shifted the balance toward speculative theology, particularly at the universities (Verger, 1984, 199-230), as opposed to the world outside them. 110 Among reformers, this Scripture principle, which Luther launched as integration of Scripture and canon under the motto sola Scriptura, was primarily intended to express that faith and theology must above all be schriftgemäß instead of attuning itself to church doctrine. As semper reformanda, the church must continually seek out its sources in Scripture (Haacker, 1977, 13). The substance of this Scripture principle is often reduced to the teaching on righteousness (Lönning, 1972, 156). This shows the extent to which the reformers originally – as opposed to later orthodoxy – allowed a rather free relationship between the text of the canon and its interpretation. “Das Verhältnis dessen, was man später als Formal- und Materialprinzip der Reformation unterschied, verstand Luther demnach dialektisch. Darin offenbart sich die lebendige Ursprünglichkeit seines Glaubens und ist seine kühne Freiheit gegenüber allem Buchstabenwesen begründet” (Strathmann, 1970, 42). 111 Stuhlmacher, 1975, 14 n. 26, 166; Ebeling, 1962, 73-82; Hägglund, 1983, 230-250; Herms, 1995, 165-166; Kraus H.J., 19701, 41-42; idem, 1982³, 17-38, 97-103. In later history, biblical theology will remain closely related to the way in which the Scripture principle will be applied in Protestantism (Haacker, 1977, 14). Ebeling, 1962, 79-82. “...gleichwohl war die sich distanzierende und selbständige Lehrdisziplin von starken dogmatischen Interessen geleitet ... freilich selber auch nichts anderes als Dogmatik, aber eben biblische Dogmatik, und nicht scholastische Dogmatik” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 7). The degree to which the reform movement subjected scriptural exegesis to its specific

56

It was therefore only under pressure from the irresistible advance of modern biblical criticism that, from the time of Gabler at the end of the 18th century in particular, a theological discipline arose that believed it could operate in complete independence of all dogmatics. The objective was an academic discipline that would consider the study of the literary genesis of the biblical text as its chief task and thus intentionally was given the name biblical theology112. The important benefit of this was that thenceforth the biblical text and the essence of the Scriptures were given an opportunity to be studied and appreciated in their own right apart from any systematic theology. Yet this was just the first step in the reflection on what authentic biblical theology should now comprise. In particular, it was not yet realised that an authentic biblical theology was impossible without authentic dogmatics. Nevertheless, this concerns its own foundation, namely the authority of the Scripture as canon, which only dogmatic teaching can give it. This realisation had to grow gradually to allow opportunities to arise to clarify this issue. Conversely, it appears that it will never be possible for biblical theology, as Gabler saw it, to correspond fully to what the reformers originally intended with the Scripture principle113. They were interested in nothing less than a renewed vision on dogmatics becomes sufficiently evident in the system of dicta probantia (Beentjens, 1995, 99-102). It contains a new vision on the whole of the Scriptures in which it sees God’s action, insofar as they Christum treiben as Luther put it. The scholars who worked later in the spirit of the Enlightenment also put the emerging biblical criticism under the tutelage as it were of their own dogmatic ideas; see, for example, De Wette (Kraus H.J., 19701, 70-78). 112 His accomplishments in this new course should not be exaggerated. Long before him there were precursors who thought along the same lines. He did not succeed in putting his theories on biblical theology into practice consistently (Kraus H.J., 19701, 52-59; Ebeling, 1962, 78-79). They still give rise to many interpretations (Knierim, 1995, 495). A more Bible-oriented dogmatics in many forms and various intermediary stages replaced scholasticism. Even within an emancipated biblical theology an often unconscious philosophical-dogmatic view will continue to steer research. In Gabler this dogmatic view was felt in the purification of the historical facticity that reduced the genesis of the Bible to the emergence of a series of rational universal values. Gabler believed that dogmatics must henceforth be oriented toward this (Brett, 2000, 68; Söding, 2005, 60-63). This clearly shows the influence of the Enlightenment on his thinking. The designation biblical theology was gradually adopted during the first half of the 17th century (Ebeling, 1962, 74). 113 Ebeling, 1962, 83. How laborious this was, and that mainly in reform circles, can be seen in studies by Schröder-Field 2003, esp. 212-236, Webster, 2003 and Söding, 2005, 5860, 64-68. This insight is especially necessary when it is a matter of the relationship between either the particularity in contrast to the universality – according to Holman, 1987, who regards his entire overview of OT theology from this perspective – or reconstruction and interpretation or reine und wahre biblische Theologie (Merk, 1980, 455-477, esp. 458-

57

the experience of the revelation event, whose place no single theology, not even a biblical, can take. They can only try to offer scientific-speculative support to the valorisation of the revelation event. However, the revealing reality always surpasses each attempt to conceptualise and describe it114.

3.1.3 Development of a Separate Theology for Old and New Testaments Keeping in mind the extraordinary circumstances at the time that modern biblical theology was launched, especially its turn towards the biblical text conjoined with its aversion to the scholasticism of the time, it is now possible to register from greater proximity the consequences of this for the present-day study of the canon. A first, particularly salient consequence is that soon after Gabler, biblical theology switched mainly if not totally to concentrating on the content of either the Old Testament or the New Testament115. At first sight, this seemed only to involve a practical need for specialisation as the result of the descriptive orientation of the new biblical theology. This automatically required a deeper approach to the problems of the biblical text so that it became impossible to use this approach on the level of the entire biblical text. Just keeping abreast of the material, in quantity and character required people to specialise in one of the two classic testaments as elements of the whole Christian Bible. The information that the emergent modern biblical criticism produced was simultaneously so massive and diverse that it was even difficult to draft a theology for the Old and New Testaments separately. It became impossible to treat the whole Christian Bible, New and Old Testaments together, 469; Zimmerli, 1980, 426-455, esp. 427). Various aspects can be distinguished between these two extremes – descriptive and interpretive-normative – of biblical theology. Among them should be mentioned the distinction between biblical theology and Religionsgeschichte, as well as biblical theology’s pursuit of a gesamtbiblische vision (Barr, 1986, 488-494, esp. 488). It is only much later, in 1962, that Ebeling, 1962, 84-89, reached the conclusion that biblical theology would never be able to satisfy the Protestant Scripture principle. It made the revelation event dependent on the person of Christ in accordance with Luther’s Christum treiben, instead of on the biblical text. This amounts to a pure faith event that can rely on no human or material buttress. 114 Herms, 1995, 162-167. “Daß Texte zum Wort werden, ist nicht methodisierbar, sondern bleibt das freie Werk der heiligen Geistes” (Grässer, 1980, 203). 115 This had as consequence that from now on research could be distinguished according to its primary interest, the OT (Kraus H.J., 19701, 85-139) or the NT (Kraus H.J., 19701, 140192). G.L. Bauer is usually cited as initiator (Hasel, 19873, 22-23). For a brief account of this evolution see Pedersen, 1994, 1-2.

58

while doing justice to each individually116. Yet more was involved than a practical division of the material. The tentative preservation of the term biblical theology, whether or not with a differentiated treatment of Old and New Testaments according to their historical growth117, could not disguise that this was a division into religious stages with different values so that, disregarding exceptions, a true biblical theology in the canonical-dogmatic sense, more specifically with a unified theological vision, was no longer achieved118. This means that the replacement of scholasticism by a more biblically oriented dogmatics gave Enlightenment philosophy an opportunity to penetrate and to detach itself more or less from the important point of the canon as theological dogmatic unity. Parallel to this, the perspective on the theological relationship between the Old and New Testaments, regarding their common ground and their differences, was 116

“Denn welcher Theologe wäre heute imstande, in gleichem Masse Fachmann der alttestamentlichen und der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft zu sein?” (Ebeling, 1962, 8283). The OT in particular gave rise to religious-rational reservations and led to a desire to break the link between them to the advantage of the more highly esteemed NT. The two were driven apart (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 132-133). 117 Christian researchers in particular saw in an historical, progressive evolution from Old to New Testament an opportunity to give greater form to the added value that they customarily attributed to the NT (by contrast added value attributed to the OT by such as A. Van Ruler [Baker, 19912, 117-136] on the position taken by the Amsterdam School: see below under 3.1.10, was rather rare: Hasel, 19873, 161 n. 80; idem, 1985², 178-184; Reventlow, 1983b, 56-66) at the expense of the unity concept as single canon for the whole Christian Bible. The OT thus became only a preparatory phase that was sometimes no longer indispensable as scripture. Early adherents to his view include F. Socianus and H. De Groot (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 41, 51), later G.L. Bauer, G.E. Lessing, B. Stade (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 283-288) and especially F.D.E. Schleiermacher (Kraus H.J., 19701, 144-150, 199201; 210-220). Von Harnack writes outspokenly “Das Neue Testament hat das Alte Testament als Buch der Kirche definitiv geschützt, aber es hat es sich untergeordnet” (Lönning, 1972, 33 n. 125; Tomson, 1998, 117). Von Harnack could not accept this subordinate role for the OT and thought it simply wrong that Christians had not already dropped the OT (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 386). 118 Kraus H.J., 1977a, 79-124, esp. 103-104. Thus the designation biblical theology only serves as cloak for a lost unity (Ebeling, 1962, 83). Among those whose historical approach did remain faithful to a theological vision of unity are G.F. Oehler, B. Weiss, A. Schlatter, J. Kaftan, J.G. Hamman, R. Rotke, the proponents of salvation history, esp. J.C.K. Hoffmann, A. Ritschl and M. Kähler (Kraus H.J., 19701, 99-106, 151-156, 175-181, 201203, 231-236, 240-253, 255-262) and many others (Smend, 1995, 1-12). “Alt- oder neutestamentliche Theologie wurde faktisch zu einer alt- oder neutestamentlichen Theologiegeschichte” (Ebeling, 1962, 83-84). However, they all show a tendency to short change the finding of modern biblical criticism. Ebeling, 1962, 82-84. “Man hatte eine Unzahl historischer Erkenntnisse und Differenzierungen gewonnen, aber darob faktisch die Theologie verloren” (Schmid, 1983, 35-50, esp. 37).

59

lost. This latter had long had especially detrimental consequences for biblical theology and for the relationship between the Jewish and Christian faith communities119.

3.1.4 Devaluation of the Traditional Notion of Canon As a result of its turn toward the biblical text, modern biblical theology had problems with more than just the massive and diverse data within the biblical writings when trying to maintain the canon as theological notion of unity. This was also hampered by the growing insight into how deeply the canonical writings proved to be rooted in their contemporary Umwelt and its broader cultural-religious context. The often far-reaching familiarity, not only with the non-canonical texts but also with the bible-related writings within one’s own Judeo-Christian environment, also put the canon 119

“Denn diese Trennung hat die irrigen Anschauungen von der völligen Gleichartigkeit der beiden Testamente erweckt und dazu beigetragen, die wesentlichen Unterschiede zu verdecken” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 6 n. 26). “The essential inner coherence of the Old and New Testaments was reduced, so to speak, to a thin thread of historical connection and causal sequence between the two, with the result that an external causality – not even susceptible in every case of secure demonstration – was substituted for a homogeneity that was real because it rested on similar content of their experience of life” (Hasel, 19873, 30-31). — The position of the OT as Scripture was constantly threatened in the Christian world, as was already evident in Marcion’s time. This also had to do with the rise of the NT, later articulated with the absolute of Christianity and the NT (Kraus H.J., 19701, 317, 320 n. 37) and its christology. Luther also involuntarily expressed his undervaluation for the OT with his sharp contrast between law and gospel (Hasel, 1985², 15). Because of the split of the OT and NT into theological disciplines, this undervaluation, which had smouldered as unconscious Marcionism within Christianity, entered a formal stage. Semler, Schleiermacher and Von Harnack each in their turn continued this process of disassociation from the OT and Judaism (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 38-39). — Since the time of Schleiermacher and the Babel-Bibel Streit (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 309-314) in the context of Religionsgeschichte (Kraus H.J., 19701, 268), the Christian world has been unable to defend the OT as element of the one Scripture in harmony with the NT, as was evident in the Nazi period (Kraus H.J., 19701, 210-220; Reventlow, 1982, 31-47). Then it appeared that people were no longer prepared to defend the OT as Scripture, but at most as historical document (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 81-82). How disastrous this de facto severance of the OT from the NT actually is becomes clear when their inescapable connection is examined, “Man kann ... sagen daß von einem alttestamentlichen Kanon ohne einen neutestamentlichen auch nicht gesprochen werden kann. Das ist nicht nur eine sprachliche Unmöglichkeit, sondern auch eine sachliche insofern als es die ganze Problematik des Verhältnisses zwischen Synagoge und Kirche angesichts der Schrift berührt” (Lönning, 1972, 30-31 n. 113). In this way the spotlight again comes to focus on the bond between the faith communities and their respective canons.

60

idea at risk, this time as an ensemble of holy Scripture, which of course had to be distinguished from all that fell outside this sacred corpus120. Just think that as modern biblical criticism discovered how much the form and content of the biblical writings owed to those of their surrounding world, the question of its special character became increasingly acute. The question thrust itself forward from various corners where the canonical writings, as devised and designed by people within a historical context, could at least be partially compared with non-canonical writings. Moreover, the right was soon demanded to subject the biblical writings to the same research criteria as all other writings121. In this way, there was a gradual transition toward tracing the development of the canonical writings from the first sources along the complex tradition history122 to descend then to the last literary phase, such as that of the redaction which was then 120

Ebeling, 1962, 84. This refers primarily to the intertestamental and Jewish non-canonical or apocryphal writings. At the time the canon was closed, some of them were an object of dispute on whether they belonged to the canon or the deuterocanonical or apocryphal writings (2.3.3). This was decided depending on the case, in the faith communities involved. In an exceptional case, a text like Jesus Sirach, which had enjoyed canonical status temporarily, was removed. These decisions were determined primarily by contentrelated matters. The authors were most concerned with the valuable tradition. Conscious changes or fiction in the modern sense was not easily tolerated here (Paulsen, 1992, 13811382; Charlesworth, 1992, 579). In the modern period, by contrast, the historical issues around the canon’s closure played a larger role. H.J. Holtzmann (1832-1910) had already posited the importance of the intertestamental writings as part of his historical investigation into the religious experience during early Judaism and primitive Christianity (Kraus H.J., 19701, 156-159). Meanwhile, the scope and importance of these intertestamental writings has grown considerably, especially since the discovery of the Qumran scrolls (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 438-440). They moved many scholars to rethink thoroughly the issue of the canon’s genesis and closure (Childs, 1983², 66-67: Maier G., 1991², 135). A. Paul has addressed this subject in several of his writings (Theobald, 1990, 66). Some scholars went further than the intertestamental writings in equating the canonical and non-canonical writings. They also included the broader Christian literature and even patrology (Appel, 1964, 20). 121 For H. Gressmann-H. Gunkel, et al. studied Das Eigentümliche (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 332335). Even in 1670 in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Spinoza declared himself openly in favour of applying research criteria equally (Herms, 1995, 171, 15). Schleiermacher popularised this (Grant-Tracy, 1984², 111). Wrede (Religionsgeschichte) and Bultmann (Formgeschichte) saw no theological reason to treat biblical and Hellenistic writings differently (Childs, 1984, 11). 122 J. Astruc, in particular, is known as pioneer of research into the written sources (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 96-97), although his ideas were utilised only much later (idem, 1982³, 152). His intentions were more conservative than those of Spinoza. He relied only on the intention of the oldest texts and hence tried to recover them (Sanders, 2001, 13). — R. Simon was the founder of tradition history, while Eichhorn first focussed on the oral tradition in this tradition history (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 65-70, 139).

61

equated with the formation of the canon. In short, the whole investigation was consistently aimed at the independence of the observable aspects of the object in the Scripture. This object was not limited to one or a series of canonical writings but expanded to that of biblical religion123 that, like the history contained in the canonical writings, is deeply rooted in the broader context of ancient Israel and primitive Christianity, each of which is part of a broader cultural world. It gave much reason to compare biblical religion with that of its Umwelt and to temper it on many points. This new material information put the canon as holy Scripture at serious risk on a double level. In the first place, after investigation, the canon, which had long been considered inviolable because it had satisfactorily closed the formation of the Bible, appeared less authentic and hence less valuable when compared with the biblical traditions and writings as they evolved in a freer state prior to their inclusion in the canon, which took place selectively under apparent circumstantial pressure124. The direct consequence of this was a turning away from the dogmatic canon, as it was cherished in tradition, to replace it with the more original biblical traditions that were free of hinder from the canon tradition and to study the corresponding history of religion. This called up a second threat to the canon: the unconscious reduction of the biblical writings as sacred and respected corpus to normal secular literature, since they were now subjected to the same literary and historical research methods that were applied to all literature. Equal treatment on all 123

Wrede was the first to articulate the theoretical position that the historical object was the dogmatic master of the investigation. Long before him, C.P. Gramberg had already put this into practice (Kraus H.J., 19701, 163-166). W. Vatke was the first to treat the OT as independent and evolving religion. This marked the start of the upsurge in history of religion (Hasel, 19873, 25, 29-31; Kraus H.J., 19701, 93-96; idem, 1982³, 327-340), which inevitably resulted in a corresponding label: history of religion. It replaced the title biblical theology (Childs, 1986, 3) and furthered the split between OT and NT within biblical theology. Eichhorn played an important role in this. 124 “Die ursprüngliche Lebendigkeit einer religiösen Lebensäusserung ist der eigentliche Gegenstand der teilnehmenden, kongenialen Auslegung Gunkels. Alles was darin zur Erstarrung und zum Kanon hinneigt wird ‘unter den Strich’ gesetzt” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 358). The original purity of the literature is obviously no longer the only value that counts. There is also the historical authenticity and the theological inspiration. After Spinoza (Sanders, 2001, 12-14), F.C. Bauer, more than others, stressed this (Childs, 1984, 8). The precedence given to the oldest and original data in the canon study runs parallel with the major importance that was given at the time to the ippsissima verba of the prophets or the historical Jesus (Hasel, 1985², 31, 57, 106). In essence, this preference can disguise a distrust of tradition and the involvement of the faith community as this was expressed among the reformers and certainly by Spinoza.

62

levels was the next step. All this had the striking consequence that the old simplistic image of the canon’s formation collapsed completely and the treatment of the canon, because of its devaluation, was now shifted to the very back of the expanding introduction125.

3.1.5 The Role of the Faith Community Before pursuing the described evolution of modern canon study – consequent to the new findings on the unity (3.1.3) and the sacrosanct character (3.1.4) of the canon, understood as part of biblical theology – to its end in the acute canon crisis of 1970, it is necessary to examine one additional aspect that received too little attention in the past. We refer here to a factor that should not be underestimated, namely faith community’s role in shaping and preserving the traditional concept of canon as described in the chapter on terminology (2.2 C) It is not accidental that the major shift in the modern study of the canon, in its turn, was introduced by a mental revolution that did not stop at the borders of Christianity, because those who were not involved in the Reformation were at least moved by the spirit of humanism126. Contrary to this humanising intellectual current that influenced more or less everyone – we will return to this later (3.1.6) – we will treat here only the role of the faith community since the Reformation. It would be easy to limit this role in the canon issue to the creation of a particular canon per faith community. But a levelling pluralism of this nature does not do justice to the complexity of the full range of this diversification. The minor material differences between the canons of the Christian churches correspond to theological options that 125

The reduction to profane literature set a further step outside the bible canon to reach beyond the intertestamental writings. The decline of the simplistic image that the canon arose all at once, more specifically at the time it was committed to writing, implied the discovery of not only the text’s long and complicated history but also of the corresponding theological issue of the continuity and discontinuity, as well as the resulting canonical stages (Childs, 1984, 9-10, 20, n. 2). — Eichhorn even said of the canon, “It would have been desirable if one had never used the term canon” (Childs, 1983², 36). He meant that the canon had no value as theological concept, but was only a historical reality. 126 This involved more than a new theological insight. It implied a total intellectual revolution. “...a radically different understanding of God, man, and the world” (Childs, 1983², 34). The difference between the two is clear. Where the Reformation only caused a division into Christian communities marked by individual canons, all (including nonChristian communities such as Judaism) underwent similarly (Childs, 1984, 6) susceptible to humanism with rationalism, naturalism and deism in its wake (Herms, 1995, 169-172).

63

may not be ignored because of the faith communities concerned. This is evident in the case of their attitude to tradition, which, at least for the time being, does not refer to the tradition that lay at the root of the biblical writings, but to the tradition that arose in the post-biblical period and played a role exclusively within the western Christian world, where a choice was made for or against this post-biblical tradition, after which the Roman Catholic community, on one side, simply consolidated existing tradition127 while the new Protestant communities, on the other, began to

127

The material differences in the respective canons have little or no influence on the relevant churches. “Dies zeigt sich schon daran, daß es sowohl Fälle voller kirchlicher Gemeinschaft trotz unterschiedlicher Kanones gibt, als auch von Trennung trotz gemeinsamen Kanones” (Budde, 1997, 55). The influence is usually felt in the other direction. The churches, through their tradition, see to it that some canonical writings maintain their authority among members and remain in use (Barr, 1983, 41-45). Scholastic dogmatics belonged to this tradition, as did the canon as church usage. Hence the Protestants’ reservations regarding the canon as the end product of tradition and their exclusive recourse to the Scriptures as well as their sources, when this later appeared necessary (Barr, 1983, 26-27). Only they could boast pure divine inspiration. — Roman Catholics and Protestants appreciated the distinction between the two types of traditions differently. For the first it was a review of the original revelation events (Herms, 1995, 155, 25) within the church in which the church played a dynamic role. The Protestants rejected this and wished to focus on the church-building facts of revelation contained in the canon (Barr, 1983, 28-29). They invoked historical arguments to buttress this theological position. In time both sides had to go beyond this still imperfect view of tradition (Kraus H.J., 1956, 371-387) to attain a more accurate one (Barr, 1983, 30-31). Pending these events, the Protestants embraced modern biblical criticism to raise the issue of church tradition, in the first place with regard to the oldest Christian period and the church fathers, and in the second with regard to Scripture. Hence the rising line in the historical unravelling of the past, even within the biblical event, and the search for the most original and thus most reliable information. But once at that stage, historical research threatened the purchase that the Protestants had counted on, namely the biblical tradition, and thus the very core of Protestantism (Ebeling, 1970, 286). “When essentially the same approach (the criticising of the post-biblical tradition, L.Z.) came to be applied to the Bible, it was Protestantism rather than Roman Catholicism that was at first affected” (Barr, 1983, 36). “Man ist deutlicher zur Einsicht gekommen ... daß diese ‘nicht-evangelischen’ Tendenzen bereits in den Kanon selber hineingedrungen sind ... Die Reformation scheint bis in ihre Fundamente erschüttert. Im Namen des sola Scriptura sagte sie ihr Nein zu bestimmten kirchlichen Traditionen, aber muß sie heute dieses Nein nicht gegenüber der gleichen Häresie innerhalb der Schrift wiederholen?” (Appel, 1964, 18). — The Roman Catholic Church’s consolidation of its tradition involved more than clinging to scholastic theology; it also included a rejection of modern biblical criticism. Yet just because they were less bound to Scripture, some Roman Catholics could adopt innovative perspective in the study of the Bible (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 38-41, 46-50, 92).

64

develop their own, mutually differing traditions128. This was not simply the work of a few individuals, however important figures like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli may have been. They each needed a minimal support base where they could find willing acceptance of a collective theological conviction that inevitably became structured in ecclesiastical confessions129 and where the adopted biblical canon served as an indispensable element. All this was possible thanks to the changed political circumstances in the west. After the Christian world had suffered one split due at least in part to the rivalry between Constantinople and the west ruled from Rome, Rome’s hold on the independent-minded political powers seemed to weaken to such an extent that political leaders dared to defy Rome even in purely religious matters and sought the protection of the reformers when this was politically expedient130. Initially, the 128

Barr, 1983, 32-33. Together, the Protestant communities had a strong tradition in biblical criticism, certainly in the oldest period, so much so that this is often associated with the Reformation. “...one cannot avoid the conclusion: it was the dynamics of reformation theology that created the needs which biblical criticism was developed to answer” (Barr, 1983, 37). Biblical criticism would thus belong to the essence and heritage of the Reformation on the basis of its teaching on justification (Stühlmacher, 1979b, 10). This needs correction. “Though the origins of modern biblical research lay for the most part in the Protestant side, it could not be identified as a merely Protestant phenomenon” (Barr, 1983, 30-37; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 63-66). It is certain that there was a different accent in the Protestant churches: the reform communities went deeper into the humanist issue; the Lutherans, by contrast, went more deeply into to the historical question (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 92). As separate community Protestants now have their own traditions, which play a role similar to that which the scholastic tradition that it opposed once played (Barr, 1983, 31; Appel, 1964, 186-188). The current of Protestant orthodoxy was one such. 129 The personal dogmatic conviction also receives an ecclesiastical-confessional character in historical research. This is an unavoidable general trend relating to the historian’s historical contingency (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 92; Ebeling, 1962, 80-82). The same trend is found in the relationship to natural theology (Barr, 1993, 7-10). 130 The Donation of Constantine (Grant Tracy, 1984², 100), although later shown to be false, is still evidence of how intent the Church of Rome was on relying on external power, on taking over the role of civil authority, and thus on keeping step with Byzantium. The Reformation will also seek a symbiosis with the same socio-political foundation (WarichezBrounts, 1938, 66-67). — After an indisputable apex with Innocent III, who won the investiture dispute, the western church began its visible decline with Boniface VIII, who was no match for Philip the Fair. After that came the schism and the Avignon papacy. The rest is well-known: the rise of autonomous states and the Roman church’s futile rear-guard action to keep pace via the Vatican state (Thils, 1994, 289-309, esp. 304-307). — While Philip Augustus of France took back his wife at the pope’s request, Henry VIII openly defied the pope in the question of his marriage and withdrew an important region from the latter’s authority. The Scandinavian countries tore themselves away at nearly the same time. — The German electors, who took Luther and others under their protection, reached

65

amalgamation of a more multiform organisation of Christianity with the regionalisation of its socio-political foundation did little to change the grasp of the faith community on the individual, at least not when it came to the more specific area of this church community131. But since then, the community gradually faced a threat in the area of the faith-based attitude, a phenomenon with broad and long-lasting carry-over far surpassing that of the particular faith community, and this, as we promised earlier, will be explained here separately.

the Treaty of Augsburg (1555) the well-known compromise with Emperor Charles V cuius regio illius et religio. It was an excellent means for the respective religious leaders to use political power to force their ideas on the entire local population. In accepting assistance from political power, the Reformation appeared in many hues depending on the situation (Warichez-Brounts, 1938, 64). 131 Erasmus, for instance, cautiously abandoned his personal conviction and, at least in public, gave every appearance of submitting to that of the church (Walter, 1992 156-168, esp. 160-161, n. 24-25; Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 88-89). When this deviating personal opinion is insisted on as in the reformers, it leads again to an authoritarianism that strictly controls the members of the church in question. The religious wars and Luther’s and Calvin’s individual actions can thus have brutal consequences (Warichez-Brounts, 1938, 69, 75-76). Judaism did not escape this as Spinoza’s experiences show (Houtman, 1980, 37-39). Perhaps the most impressive deed in this area is that of Rome when it succeeded is maintaining a general embargo, baring a few exceptions, on modern biblical criticism and this until 1943 (Beentjens, 1994, 401-409, esp. 403; Grant-Tracy, 1984², 119-125; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 290-294; Barr, 1983, 29-30; “...stets unter dem Damoklesschwert einer Verurteilung ...”: Seidel H.W., 1993, 339). All this is richly illustrated for the 19th and 20th centuries in Schoof, 1968, and Grelot, 1994. The embargo against modern biblical criticism just mentioned was only possible thanks to the broad support from and comparatively strong establishment in Rome. More than in other Christian faith communities, theology in the Roman Catholic Church is traditionally church-related and subservient to the church leadership and its teaching (Schoof, 1968, 19, 29, 158-159). This was still the dominant trend in the 20th century, although some signs of change were observable (Seidel H.W., 1993, 323-330). “...gleichermaßen schmerzliche und befreiende Metamorphose.” (Vögtle, 1984, 52-74, esp. 53). Examples of this are the reassessment of the OT apocryphal or deuterocanonical books (2.3.3) by some Protestant scholars (Dunbar, 1986, 300 n. 5; Maier J., 1990b, 11; Hübner, 1988), the Roman Catholic reassessment of biblical research and the upsurge of ecumenism since Vatican II. As conclusion it can still be asserted that “Die historisch-kritische Erforschung eigener konfessioneller Tradition(en) ist bisher ein merkwürdig unbestelltes Feld” (Lönning, 1972, 35 n. 133).

66

3.1.6 The Influence of Humanism and the Enlightenment Humanism, with its aftermath of Enlightenment rationalism and the more pronounced a-religious orientation within deism132, is a phenomenon whose effects were not limited to Christian communities. It was also felt in Jewish circles133 and even throughout the culture of its contemporary society. Described broadly, this humanising intellectual current tended to bring to the fore the natural values that, despite their being overshadowed since the start of the Christian period by the supernatural reality, had never completely disappeared from philosophy’s ken134. Conditions for this had 132

“Im Laufe der Zeit zeigte sich jedoch zunehmend, daß die Antike (with the slogan “zu den Quellen!”) keine Einheit gewesen war. Wieder entdeckte philosophische Positionen der Antike erweisen sich als unvereinbar mit der biblischen Weise, von Gott, Mensch und Welt zu reden. So kam es, daß die Aufklärung als Weiterentwicklung des Humanismus schließlich nicht nur gegen die kirchliche Lehre (church tradition and dogma, L.Z.), sondern auch gegen die Bibel Front machte” (Haacker, 1977, 13). It is not simple to characterise the Enlightenment. Because of Childs and Bruggemann it is still often incorrectly assessed in biblical criticism and is thus incorrectly held responsible for the defects in modern biblical criticism: in post-modern thinking, even the Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism are viewed as the common enemy to be resisted (Barr, 2000, 55, 138, 143). “Kant wrote that Enlightenment is the human being’s emancipation from a minority which is one’s own fault” (Kuitert, 1995², 104). That is why its proponents had the feeling of working for the emancipation of humanity and were not, of course, acting from anti-religious motives, at least not initially. “Even the most radical scholars of the Enlightenment retained theological interest in the Bible ...” (Childs, 1990b, 3-9, esp. 5). In all respects they diplomatically maintained the Friedenschluß between reason and faith to avoid falling afoul the ruling powers (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 76-79; Herms, 1995, 169-172). But the emphasis lay on reason and its universal value. “...a world view which emphasised the unchanging nature of ultimate reality”, according to Heyner, cited in Brett, 1991, 85 n. 24. Dupré, 2004, presents a different image of the Enlightenment. It was a dialectical phenomenon. It appeared in the various European countries in different phases and manners. — Deism redirected the diplomatic attitude of Friedenschluß toward a more pronouncedly a-religious direction, although the deists often continued to consider themselves religious (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 56-57). In general, deism blurs the distinction between God and world at the expense of the transcendence of the view of God. This made the idea of revelation unacceptable (Dupré, 2004, 243-256). Deism thus became the antipode of theism (Stolz, 1994, 35). There are various tendencies within deism (Ziegenaus, 1990, 234-237). But the one that is usually cited is Reimarus’ militantly anti-religious deism (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 40-41) 133 Childs, 1983², 38; idem, 1984, 6. 134 Gnosis and Neo-Platonism, following the line of ancient Greek philosophy, tried to preserve humanity and its capacities so that it would be able to reach its happiness and destination on its own power, without special intervention from outside. In principle, Christian doctrine did not deny many opportunities to natural humanity, but it considered

67

been favourable since the Renaissance, at least temporarily, because of the successes attained in material and scientific fields. The discoveries opened a new world for everyone, and not only on a purely material level. They broadened the horizon of the human spirit. They stimulated human knowledge in all areas so that humanity, brimmingly aware of its talents, tended to have a grandiose view of its own role in the world ignoring the invisible and intangible supernatural. One consequence of this was that the problem of the relationship between nature and the supernatural, the material and the spiritual, the philosophical and the theological, which previously had never reached a perfect balance, not even in the work of Thomas Aquinas, again became the subject of heightened discussion. This was even the case in reform circles where, more so than in Catholicism, the failure of humanity and its need for justification was a central issue135. Pietism and Socinianism136, each in their way, played the hand of rationalism. One result of this was that after its rejection of classic scholastic theology, modern biblical theology, with the study of the canon under its wing, faced the unavoidable task of providing a dogmatic foundation for the proclaimed sola Scriptura137. During this search for a its unity with its Creator as only achievable via an external restoration and offer of salvation that lifted it above itself (Herms, 1995, 148-155). The preponderance in this relation lies clearly with the supernatural. But there is a potential for change and specification in this relation. Tertullian had already noted that nature and the supernatural are juxtaposed in an ambiguous relationship (Herms, 1995, 154, 45). 135 Spinoza was the first to defend philosophy’s independence from theology (Grant-Tracy, 1984², 105-109). Herms, 1995, 160-162; idem, 1995, 166, 47-59. 136 The pietists tended to return directly and, at least in part, instinctively to the biblical text in reaction to both non-biblical scholasticism and the orthodox doctrine of inspiration. This found considerable response in popular devotion. This did not hinder them from basing the developing of their rational-critical ideas on the bible including early history. According to C.F. Bahrstadt, the ideal for humanity intended at creation was achieved by Christ (Kraus H.J., 19701, 26-30). In this way the pietism the rationalists (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 132) in nature and general history (Kraus H.J., 19701, 196-198; Herms, 1995, 166, 60-167, 19). — A less numerous but influential group scholars around F. Socinus (1539-1604), who admitted humanism and rationalism into biblical theology, laid the ideological, if not methodological, basis for modern biblical criticism. Hugh Grotius was closely related to the Socinian movement (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 41-43, 50-53). 137 “Begriff und Vorstellung einer ‘Biblischen Theologie’ konnten nur unter dem reformatorischen Prinzip sola Scriptura entstehen. Doch zugleich bricht das angezeigte methodologische Problem auf: Wie verhalten sich Bibel-Theologie und Lehrsystem zu einander? Wie und wo kann der Primat der Exegese zur Geltung kommen, ohne daß die Schriftaussagen den Gestaltungskategorien der Doctrina verfallen?” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 1718).

68

doctrinal foundation for its reform principle, biblical theology became particularly exposed to the humanising atmosphere that descended upon the western world. In accordance with the exacting concern for the meticulous analysis of the human-material aspect of the biblical text as part of the new bible-oriented theology, the entwining of technical bible study with the subjective attitude already referred to set about its work138 inconspicuously but all the more drastically. It was through personal conviction that the general humanising atmosphere, for which everyone stood open to one degree or another, provided a new philosophicaldogmatic foundation for the abovementioned shifts in the notion of the canon and its evaluation as part of modern biblical theology. In this way it can be observed in a first period that extends from G.T. Zacharia to K. Schlottmann139, how the new biblical theology in its search to substantiate the Scripture principle launched during the Reformation falls victim via rationalism and moralism to the ideas propagated at that time. Readers sought doctrinal support in carefully selected dicta probantia taken from the biblical text. This is sufficient evidence of the extent to which the Bible remained subservient, but this time to more laicised personal opinions with doctrinal scope. Exegetes who were susceptible to this generally worked in good faith believing that they not only preserved the intrinsic values of the biblical text and canon but also adapted it to make it serve the needs of the time. This last clearly tended to temper the Bible via interpretation in the spirit of the times to the detriment of the general and absolute value of its content as God’s word. As is known, Semler took the lead here140. Within the body of the biblical text and canon, the OT was the chief victim of this tempering. The emergence of historical criticism led to the religious ideas contained in the Bible being classified according to a system of periods141. This marked the first step toward the theological notions of salvation 138

“An die Stelle der bisher Z.T. fraglosen Gültigkeit der Tradition rückt das diese Tradition sichtende und ordnende subjektive Wissenschaftsurteil des einzelnen Forschers” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 23). 139 This covers a period running from 1729 to 1889 (Kraus H.J., 19701, 17-84). 140 Kraus H.J., 19701, 196-198. 141 Kraus H.J., 19701, 46-49, 51. This classification in periods does not correspond adequately to real historical criticism. It was the first sign of Semler’s influence. He proclaimed that all religious notions were time-bound and thus relative (Kaiser, 1984, 7994, esp. 86-87). Historical criticism only broke through in the 19th century. Despite Gabler’s important contribution to this area of historical methodology, even he did not apply it consistently. (Kraus H.J., 19701, 56-59). He continued to give theology priority in his historical method (Knierim, 1995, 530-546).

69

history142. This system of periods allowed emphasis on the incomplete shape of the OT to serve as a bridge toward a general natural religiosity outside the Bible, which was also perceived within the Bible143. It also made it possible to highlight the NT because of its more perfect bearing in comparison with the OT and thus to preserve the Bible as a unity. The drawback to this was that contrary to all appearances the content of the Bible as a whole as holy Scripture was still threatened, and its distinction from non-biblical writings was blurred. The classification in periods within the history of ideas also subordinated the Bible to a dogmatic notion superimposed from outside: thematisation and the formation of a compendium gained144 ingress automatically. This did not do justice to the Bible’s real, complex content. Perhaps the gravest consequence was the scholarly study’s focus on details. In it an overall and balanced view of all elements, including the connection between OT and NT, was gradually lost145. All things considered, the rationalist ideas developed by R. Descartes, C. Wolff and G.W. Leibnitz placed their stamp on the notion of the canon during the early development of modern biblical theology, and this via the studies by W.H.L. De Wette146 and others. To this was added the influence of G.F. Lessing and G.W.F. Hegel’s idealistic historiography. But not all of this was negative. A positive factor in this evolution was the opportunity to stand up to modern biblical criticism and to apply human intelligence to bible study so that some resistance could be offered when confronting the Enlightenment of the time. The shortcomings discovered in the shape and content of the Bible, and even the discord that had arisen within Christianity, could be cushioned somewhat by placing single bible passages under the protection of the general norm of reason and universal nature147. The downside was that this objectivism with regard to doctrinal 142

At that point it was not yet a matter of thinking in the spirit of salvation history; it was more a rational-historical outlook (Kraus H.J., 19701, 20-24, 37-39, 60-69). 143 Barr, 1993. This givenness of nature can also be attributed to non-canonical writings related to the Bible. 144 Kraus H.J., 19701, 61-62, 81-82. 145 Kraus H.J., 19701, 60; Kaiser, 1984, 88-89. This blurring of the unity of the OT and NT (as outlined in 3.1.3) is directly related to the devaluation of the notion of canon as such as explained in 3.1.4). This is the consequence of the close link within the notion of canon between the canon as religious authority and its formal demarcation. 146 Herms, 1995, 169-170, 24, 36; Kraus H.J., 19701, 24, 70-78. 147 Herms, 1995, 174, 43-175, 3. Semler gave an important impetus to this in good faith. In the belief that he remained faithful to Luther and with the intention of preserving the lasting values in Scripture, he replaced the traditional concept of canon by a rational-moral norm dictated by personal insight (Kraus H.J., 19701, 196-198). Gabler, in his turn, sought to

70

revelation dominated by reason and natural knowledge, as expressed chiefly in militant antireligious deism, had almost inevitably to lead to a situation in which the role and the necessity of the supernatural character of revelation would be undercut148.

3.1.7 Religionsgeschichte and Subjectivism The degree to which biblical theology remained dependent on its contemporary philosophy can be seen in the following period, during which reason’s limits came to be appreciated149. It was felt that an a posteriori component consisting of experience, perception and feeling had to be added to a priori knowledge. The first approaches to this were D. Hume’s and I. Kant’s philosophical views on perception and A. Comte’s

salvage the Bible’s authority by separating its specific notions from the universal (Knierim, 1995, 531-533, 548-550). Pietism had evolved in this direction even earlier. Under the impulse of philosophical idea put forward mainly by Lessing and Hegel, this natural, secularised tendency was expanded and deepened: local religion was situated under more general religion, the older historical stages such as the OT were presented as temporary and superseded by the later stages, and the biblical letter was presented as something imperfect to be surpassed by the spirit (Kraus H.J., 19701, 199-201, 207-209, 312-314). W. Vatke and F.C. Bauer introduced these ideas into biblical science (Kraus H.J., 19701, 207; Bonte, 1996, 344 n. 9). Herder’s secularising tendency that emphasised the positive human approach was even more subtle (Kraus H.J., 19701, 203-207). For those involved, these personal, philosophically inspired ideas had a nearly dogmatic scope. We note that the secularising tendency in the area of the canon cannot be attributed to the Enlightenment as is often supposed because in practice it did not automatically follow an antireligious line. Most thinkers of the Enlightenment period remained proponents of a notion of God. They were often active in the philosophy of religion (Dupré, 2004, 269-311). The Enlightenment was aimed primarily toward its own patterns of knowledge. Only in the second place did it seek to bring enlightenment to the absolutism of faith. 148 Herms, 1995, 171, 26-172, 56. Hugh Grotius is again a clear example of a biblical scholar who followed the Enlightenment in good faith. He bypassed the dogmatictheological meaning of Scripture in favour of the human-natural meaning (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 52). His friend, Herbert of Cherbury, the driving force behind English deism, also with the best of intentions, replaced revelation with reason and nature (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 56). 149 Herms, 1995, 176, 9-21. As is always the case, periods and intellectual currents cannot be delimited with precision. Here it is a matter of currents that had already begun in the rationalist period in 1800 and ran on until the second half of the 20th century. Brett, 1991, 82-100 aptly describes the transition from Enlightenment rationalism in the 18th century to the subjectivism of historicism in the 19th century. Dupré, 2004, 13 stresses the link with romanticism.

71

notion of positivism, which J.G. Fichte, F.W.J. Schelling and J. Locke150 extended into their notion of revelation. This brought about a transition in biblical theology from doctrinal objectivist revelation to revelation151 as experienced and perceived by the individual. In canon studies, this meant a shift from the biblical text and canon to religion and religious experience. In this period the focus was on Religionsgeschichte, modern pragmatic biblical criticism and archaeology. All this led to successful historical research by K.H. Graf, A. Kuenen and J. Wellhausen in the OT152 and by F.Ch. Baur en A. Von Harnack in the NT. Again it became apparent how these detailed studies on the religion of ancient Israel and early Christianity were not only inspired but also determined by the philosophical views that were occasionally articulated, but which were given too little attention and certainly received too little critical examination. This is notably the danger in matters concerning the inner impulse153 to combine the many new historical findings into a single whole. The attempt encountered the problematic relationship of history as reflected in biblical writings to general historical data154. These circumstances favoured both the acceptance of the prevailing Hegelian philosophy155 as guideline and the placement of historical facts in a progressive perspective. This trend was also palpable within the Roman Catholic Church in its confrontation with modernism156. Much of the credit 150

Herms, 1995, 170, 37-171, 25; idem, 175, 30-43; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 372-373. Herms, 1995, 176, 22-178, 48. With the assertion that “the Scripture witnesses to itself”, or autopisty, Luther and Protestantism adopted a subjective position from the start (Sundberg, 1966, 200). Calvin responded to this in his own characteristic style (Dunbar, 1986, 343-345). Semler’s work on the canon can also be called subjective. 152 Kraus H.J., 1982³, 152-170; Reventlow, 1982, 6. Religionsgeschichte also supplanted the term biblical theology (Zimmerli, 1980, 438, 5-21). 153 Berger, 1986, 27-176, shows that this is the case for many exegetes among them F.Ch. Baur, D.F. Strauss, F. Overbeck, W. Bousset and Bultmann. Wrede is usually cited for the philosophical formulation. Barton, 1997, 1-34, illustrates the various presuppositions that Zahn and Von Harnack have used in their debates. “Hier begegnet man dem innersten Impuls des wissenschaftlichen Suchens und Fragens” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 254). 154 Kraus H.J., 1982³, 250-252. 155 Kraus H.J., 19701, 94-96, 189-194, 207-209. Archaeology is particularly clear in demonstrating the failure of the prevailing philosophy (Kraus H.J., 19701, 313). 156 See: RSR 70 (1982) 237-268; 74 (1986) 399-440; Reardon, 1994, 129-138. The openness to modern biblical criticism within the Roman Catholic Church started among the Tübingers. This was a group of theologians at the Roman Catholic university in Tübingen who felt the need to update the faith and to form a greater bond with the Protestant theologians in the same city. They were clearly susceptible to Schleiermacher’s subjectivism. Later this renewal movement shifted to France and its nouvelle théologie 151

72

for this development is due to F.D.E. Schleiermacher157. He was also the one responsible for the unabated continuation of the already present undervaluation of the OT. H.J. Holtzmann158 and others, by contrast, gave a positive, if not always balanced exposure to the religious experience in the NT. This emphasis on personal religious experience is an offshoot of the individualist tendency present in Europe since the humanist period. While it may have been true that at the start of the Reformation the faith community exerted no less control over the individual, in general all bibleoriented faith communities had to look on as the treatment of the biblical material gradually shifted to an area over which they no longer had control thanks to the scientific approach to biblical theology. Henceforth the scholarly individual, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, increasingly appropriated the scientific treatment of the Bible and used this to impose his personal insight on the meaning of the Bible159. This personal view (Winling, 1994, 668-675) It had continuously to deal with Rome’s curbing supervision that, despite the wish of Pope Leo XIII to promote the study of the Bible (Beentjens, 1994, 401402), tended to lean toward neo-scholasticism, i.e. the normative power of what had arisen within the church and automatically (the reason for this remains puzzling and thus a subject of study Arnold, 2003) considered all who did not share this opinion as modernists or heretics. Stringent measures, including excommunication, were frequently taken against them. This left the renewers with little alternative than to try to bring about change by a moderate revision of neo-scholasticism from within (Schoof, 1968, 158-236). 157 Kraus H.J., 19701, 210-220. 158 Kraus H.J., 19701, 156-159. This involves more than just a comparison with other religions: attention went to the development of materials. Most attention went to what is specific to one own experience of religion. Hence the shift in accent from literary criticism to literary history in such authors as H. Gunkel (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 341-347). Revealing is his rejection of the later literary stages, particularly that of the closure of the canon. According to H. Gunkel the genesis of the scriptures is to have contributed to “...die noch vorhandenen Reste mündlicher Überlieferung zu töten; sowie das schriftliche Gesetz die Institution der Priestertora, und wie der neutestamentliche Kanon die urchristlichen Geistesträger getötet hat” (Houtman, 1980, 36). 159 “Interpretation could no longer rest on the authority of the church but had become a scientific enterprise” (Childs, 1984, 7). Science and its laws, such as Semler’s axiom, came in the place of this church authority. This axiom states that biblical literature is subject to the same pattern as all other literature (Zumstein, 1994, 51-67, esp. 54). In time, this academic world would expand to cover even more scientific disciplines (Barr, 1983, 109). It also not only moved away from the church leadership and its dogmas (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 40-41), but also from the broad faith community that traditionally tended to follow church leadership. “And, though the churches were clear that the Bible was the authority, in their practice what they imparted was not the Bible in itself but the particular church’s, the particular theology’s, the particular tradition’s understanding of its meaning. On the other hand, in turning to the Bible in itself, critical scholarship was still following what the

73

often differed little from that of the faith community. This brought to full blossom the subjectivist line that had already been deployed in the via moderna during the high scholastic period and that Luther and the reformers stimulated further160. Pietism already contained a demonstration of personal involvement in treating the Bible. Modern bible criticism, designed in this spirit, is thus often accused of having subjectivist tendencies. Semler was the first to apply the subjective approach in a striking manner to the strictly canonical field. In his view, the community’s canon should give way to the individual’s conviction. Ch.E. Von Ammon followed him closely when he argued for the subjective orthodoxy of the Scriptures. This subjectivism made headway in liberal modernist theology of the 19th and early 20th centuries reaching its highpoint in Schleiermacher’s self-awareness of the individual161, S. Kierkegaard’s existential involvement of the individual, E. Troeltsch’s idea on the personal decision in history and R. Bultmann’s demythologising based on personal existence162. It advanced further with existentialism. Among the consequences of all this for the field of biblical exegesis were a stress on the personality of the biblical author, as in the writings of H. Gunkel and L.G. Hölscher,163 and the growing attention for the hermeneutical question in general164.

3.1.8 The Theological Revival It could not remain unnoted that biblical theology increasingly and usually unconsciously165 came under the tutelage of time-bound philosophical churches had professed, namely that the interpretation was subject to the biblical text” (Barr, 2000, 49). 160 Herms, 1995, 160, 3-20; 162, 1-59; 163, 1-22; Grant-Tracy, 1984², 92-99. 161 Kraus H.J., 19701, 254-255; idem, 1982³, 40 n. 5, 42-44; 108, 112; Grant-Tracy, 1984², 110-125; Herms, 1995, 178, 51-180, 51. 162 Kraus H.J., 19701, 236-239; 262-267; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 51-55. 163 Kraus H.J., 1982³, 361-364, 472; Reventlow, 1982, 7-11. This for Gunkel, Houtman 1980, 85 thinks differently. 164 Zuurmond, 1984, 15-29. The rise of hermeneutics is expressed in an Entstehung des historischen Bewußtseins that entailed a fundamental reversal in the appreciation of history (Lönning, 1972, 14 n. 15). Later under what came to be called the new hermeneutics this discussion became extensive and very complicated (Childs, 1970, 79-82; Hasel, 1985², 58; Ladd, 1971, 41-62, esp. 46; Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 192). 165 This unawareness of the secularisation process was reinforced by the diplomatic behaviour of the proponents of the Enlightenment and emerging deism. The pietists were totally unaware of how far they had gone along the rationalist path. It was typically too

74

ideas with a clearly secularising tendency in the area ofwhen it came to biblical and canonical research. A conservative movement, with Hengstenberg as primary champion, countered this very early and tried to stem the tide. Although scholars started from the same historical and literary finding based on the study of the biblical texts and their context, they came to represent a broad range of contrary responses. Initially these responses were circumspect, individual and, in the first place, intended to contain the excesses in empirical research, more specifically the approach to the Bible and its genesis from the perspective of natural science to the disadvantage of its traditional and unique religious character166. For these

little known that bible study could not be separated from personal conviction. Contrary to pronounced atheists that only used exegesis to step away from the faith (like Reimarus and E. Renan, see: Schoof, 1968, 65, 68, 108), they, as bible scholars, worked on the principle that they were to preserve the positive value of the canon but then by integrating the newest scientific findings. They were thus not completely wrong in considering themselves positive-progressive (Beentjens, 1994, 402). However it never occurred to them that in adopting the positive attitude to the Bible they would also fail to do justice to the authentic religious content of the biblical writings. Semler, and later Gunkel with his work on the history of religion, felt that they were full and true sons of the church and the practical theologians inspired by Schleiermacher thought that they were faithful to Luther (Reventlow, 1982, 10; for painstaking investigation of Luther’s ideas esp. on the canon, see: Lönning, 1972, 72). Luther’s ideas were drawn on frequently in a variety of ways (Lönning, 1972, 14-15 n. 16). That all this was done in good faith can be seen from their often painful surprise when it appeared that their faith community did not accept their insights. This was the fate of such as Spinoza, J. Simon (Houtman, 1980, 39), A. Loisy (Grant-Tracy, 1984², 121-122), W. Bousset (Kraus H.J., 19701, 162-163) and modernists generally. It was from this, in his view positive, attitude toward the canon that A. Eichhorn, acting in good faith, actually totally undermined the ancient concept of canon (Childs, 1983², 36; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 38). 166 Zimmerli, 1980, 432, 44-433, 3; Childs, 1983², 37. J.G. Hamann had already shown that it was possible to act counter to secularising tendencies (Kraus H.J., 19701, 201-203). Contrary to the generally progressively oriented biblical scholars who unconsciously failed to do justice to the content and significance of the biblical writings, these exegetes were usually more aware of their tendency to give precedence to these religious values, and then usually at the expense of historical-critical findings. “Seit dem Jahr 1918 drängt alles hin zu einer Klärung der für die christliche Theologie entscheidenden Klärung. Das Stichwort ‘Theologische Exegese’ kam auf” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 496). In Roman Catholic circles, nouvelle théologie became the vogue word (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 496-497). L.F.O. Baumgarten-Crusius had already emphatically rejected the excesses of the natural historical approach (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 58-59). Moreover, it was not Religionsgeschichte that was envisaged, but rather 19th-century history of philosophy, in particular the theory of evolution. The influence of idealism on the endeavours of R. Kittel and W. Staerk (Reventlow, 1982) was more subtle. Kremer, Kähler, Schlätter (Haacker, 1977, 14) and C.

75

scholars such work was pure positive science. While, contrary to the current trend, they appreciated anew the spiritual values and the special character of the biblical writings and raised them for discussion in a new manner167, they also attempted to do all they could, as convinced proponents of biblical theology, to respect historicity as explained by emerging exegesis of the biblical text. Often still unaware of the intimate link between their subjective conviction and their work on the biblical text, they were almost automatically influenced by the dogmatic principles from which they started. Where necessary, they chose to give priority to the supernatural content of faith that they believed they discovered here. This was undeniably done at the expense of modern biblical criticism168. This Steuernagel, by contrast, more openly resume the thread of biblical theology as presented before Gabler. 167 Early on S. Lutz argued for the need for a pneumatic approach (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 7980), which found its echoes (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 209) in J.T. Beck and others and esp. in later dialectical theology (Reventlow, 1982, 14). For Hamann, only faith sees the essential event in the Scriptures, namely the incarnation by the power of the H. Spirit (Kraus H.J., 19701, 201-203). J.Ch.K. Von Hoffmann argued that what the Christian outwardly finds confirmed in the Bible is the personal experience of Christ. This makes it possible to understand and experience profane history as salvation history (Kraus H.J., 19701, 247-253) and not simply as a linear sequence of ideas and facts. Later many scholars very successfully developed this theme in a variety of ways (Hasel, 19873, 27-28, 97-115; Reventlow, 1983b, 12; Moltmann, 1984, 213-227), but not without difficulties (hence “das Problem der Heilsgeschichte”: Reventlow, 1982, 96). After the initially mainly historicaldescriptive orientation of modern biblical theology, the need to keep up to date led to a new entry into the reformer’s long-held concern to focus on the experience of biblical revelation in daily life (Barr, 1983, 37; Reventlow, 1979, 110-122, esp. 110 n. 1-2). Nearly all dialectical theology arose from the preaching of divine revelation (Zahrnt, 1967, 10-11, 5051; Childs, 1984, 14-15). This did full justice to the kerygmatic and proclamatory character of the biblical writings (whence again the strictly biblical approach to biblical theology: Haacker, 1977, 14 n. 14). Later, Vriezen and Von Rad also contributed to this (Kraus H.J., 19701, 131-139). At the same time, they provided an opportunity to integrate the existentialist tendency in positive theology. The renewed insights in the experience of mystery, esp. in the cult (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 400-421) and its rediscovered eschatology, provided an opportunity to bring the biblical writings’ theological-transcendental calibre to light with a renewed foundation (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 421-434). 168 This can be observed in the specific Calvinistic and Lutheran accents that mark this Reformation-inspired theological revival and that became particularly visible in the area of the canon as theological concept. In this regard, G.F. Oehler’s view, subtle as it may be, ultimately allowed itself to be guided by dogma. He saw revelation controlling world history from within but could not provide a sound phenomenological basis for this (Kraus H.J., 19701, 99-106). This priority option is more pronounced in A. Ritschl and M. Kähler. They once again strongly emphasised the essential difference between biblical and nonbiblical writings (Kraus H.J., 19701, 255-262), while P. Feine again applied the original

76

detachment from secularising tendencies and the choice for the theological character became much more intense and more pronounced at the end of the First World War with the rise of dialectical theology under the impulse of K. Barth.169. Circumstances of the time favoured this: cultural optimism unabridged notion of canon (Kraus H.J., 19701, 182-184). It is found in its most pronounced form Bultmann’s existential application of Barth’s dialectical theology (Kraus H.J., 19701, 188-192, 269-272, 282-296; Ladd, 1971, 44-46). Bultmann’s relation to Barth’s dialectical theology is ambivalent (Fischer H., 1983, 209-288, esp. 300-301). The two cannot be placed on the same line. Each returned in its own way to the Reformation’s original position. They subordinated their historical research to this. They again reduce the canon to an exclusively theological idea: that of the Scripture principle. For instance, the total absence of the historical dimension in the definition of the theological notion of canon is striking (Scalise, 1994, 61-88, esp. 66-68). — W. Eichrodt is one example of how these scholars could unwillingly fail to do justice to the historicity of the biblical text in their zeal for theological revaluation. In his attempt to construct a bible-fast theological system, he could not remain faithful to the basic historical information (Childs, 1992, 66; Kraus H.J., 19701, 127-128; Reventlow, 1982, 50-58). This is particularly clear when it comes to the historicity of Judaism (Levenson, 1991, 402-430, esp. 410-411). The same happened with O. Cullmann and the view of salvation history and its exaggerated continuity (Kraus H.J., 19701, 185-188). Even Von Rad did not escape the shortcoming of losing his historical objectivity in developing his still praiseworthy biblical theology (Reventlow, 1979, 65, 110-111, 119, 122); he, too, failed in his historical treatment of Judaism (Levenson, 1991, 411), in whose evolution he acknowledged discontinuity. His statement that “historical criticism aspires to a critically examined minimum, the kerygmatic interest, a theological maximum” (Hasel, 19873, 97) shows the priority that he gave theology over modern biblical criticism. It is tantamount to a dichotomy, since Von Rad is decidedly convinced that modern biblical criticism obviously operates abstracted from any principle of faith (Hasel, 19873, 8). This dichotomy (Kraus H.J., 19701, 126) with respect to modern biblical criticism clearly makes it difficult to safeguard this criticism during a theological revaluation of the biblical writings (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 230-248). After all, in taking a stance on the irreconcilable natural-supernatural alternative, there is a great temptation to give priority to the theological-transcendent value at the expense of modern biblical criticism, which is seen as a necessary but limited tool. In this regard, Schultz writes, “Aus geschichtlichen Bedingungen nicht erklärbar, ist sie doch ohne geschichtliche Voraussetzungen nicht zu verstehen” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 117). For J. Kaftan, also, a historical study of the history of religion is only a medium to hold the motivations that gave rise to the scriptures (Kraus H.J., 19701, 178-179). Bible theology, by contrast, exhibits an aspect that distinguishes it from Religionsgeschichte (3.1.7). Attempts by Girgensohn, O. Eissfeldt and O. Procksch to resolve the history-theology duality by treating the two in succession, each according to its nature, do not bridge the gap and were pursued at the expense of historical research (Reventlow, 1982, 17-20; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 128-130). There was no escaping the dualistic choice, already made by J. Köberle en Eissfeldt, between salvation history and the history of religion (Kraus H.J., 19701, 311). 169 On dialectical theology see Fischer H., 1983, 291-301. Put briefly, dialectical theology “Position und Negation auf einander, verdeutlicht das Ja am Nein, das Nein am Ja” (Fischer H., 1983, 298). As for historical research, proponents of the dialectic approach wished this

77

and confidence in human thinking emerged weakened from the catastrophic First World War. This was the right time to respond to the liberal biblical science that wished to use human thought as the basic criterion170. As is known, a major need arose for proclamation171 that was both theocentric and situation-oriented and that could address the existential question. Moreover in the view of the proponents of dialectical theology, Religionsgeschichte had reinforced the theological derailment that became apparent as a result of the ideological struggle against the OT that started around the end of the First World War and that was based on to continue unabated (Barth is known for writing in his commentary on Romans, “Kritischer müßten mir die Historisch-Kritischen sein!”: Reventlow, 1982, 16; “no practical consequences of this statement can be found anywhere in Barth” : Childs, 1992, 51-52; Zahrnt, 1967, 17; for a contrary view see Zwanger, 1983, 370-379), but they did not allow its effect to penetrate theologically to the level of revelation, whose transcendental aspect they strongly affirm, so much so that it moved unassailably outside and above historical reality. “God’s special reality and efficacy cannot be subsumed in an existing, and thus already known, model of thought accessible to historical exploration” (Bakker N.T., 1984, 95, 99). Thus, reason was important for Bultmann, but did not enter into faith, which alone gives access to the revelation event (Zahrnt, 1967, 226-233). “Intelligere kommt zustande durch Nachdenken des vorgesagten und vorbejahten Credo” (Fischer H., 1983, 339, 360361). “The entire theological method now becomes ... as reflecting self-thought of what was originally given with the Name of God” (Bakker N.T., 1984, 96). For him, the quest of the history of religion and the historical Jesus was theologically irrelevant (Kraus H.J., 19701, 312). Even stronger, he was only interested in them to oppose them (Zahrnt, 1967, 259). This amounts to the natural-supernatural dichotomy (Zahrnt, 1967, 270). Because of this striking lack of balance, Barth can be faulted because his approach was not truly dialectical (Zahrnt, 1967, 26), but rather dualistic. Stepping away from natural values (hence Barth’s radical dissociation from natural theology [Barr, 1993]; even religion gets a death sentence: Zahrnt, 1967, 30) can also extend to modern biblical criticism because this can be seen as the cause of the lapse into the values of natural science at the expense of the faith and theology that is to be defended (according to Hengstenberg and F. Steudel: Hasel, 19873, 25-26). For Protestant orthodoxy, modern biblical criticism and scientific research was even totally superfluous, since for it Scripture alone was sufficient and needed no explanation. It is even a sign of lack of trust in the H. Spirit (Appel, 1964, 19). Today, fundamentalism is again adopting these views (Barr, 1984). 170 Hasel, 1985², 53; idem, 1987³, 31. Barth’s is a crisis theology (Zahrnt, 1967, 20). The First World War “...hat den Charakter einer geschichtlichen Zäsur” (Fischer H., 1983, 291). At that time, Troeltsch, who choose for a purely historical approach based on an anthropocentric foundation at the expense of a dogmatic approach, was at the apex of liberal theology (Reventlow, 1982, 16-17). Like Barth’s, his was a pronouncedly dualistic choice, but in the reverse direction. “Die dialektische Theologie ist die Antwort auf die Dialektik der Aufklärung innerhalb der Theologie” (Fischer H., 1983, 354). 171 Bultmann sought to address this with his existential application of Barth’s dialectical theology.

78

an all too human approach to the Scriptures172. Dialectical theology’s further enhancement of the pneumatic approach came too late to prevent this thoroughgoing outgrowth of Religionsgeschichte. But it did succeed, first in Germany and then in the Dutch language areas and later, with accents, in England and America, in starting a broad movement that tacitly accepted similar orientations173 that supported the Bible as theological and religiously binding fact. Besides upvaluing the specific theological dimension of the Bible as a whole, with binding effect on the faith community, the main shared options the Bible’s place in the course of history and profane reality and the uncurtailed contribution of modern biblical criticism. This movement was indisputably successful and lead to the golden age of biblical theology, embodied in numerous edifying studies174. While Barth’s dialectic theology dominated OT theology and caused it to flourish with Bultmann’s focussed on the NT, the movement imposed its dualistic tendencies rather generally thanks to the iron grasp175 172

“Religion ist Unglaube, der eigenmächtige Versuch des Menschen, den unendlichen Qualitätsunterschied zu überspringen.” (Fischer H., 1983, 297). On the ideological struggle against the OT, see Reventlow, 1982, 16-21, 31-40. Here again it was a matter of a previous existential approach that became grafted onto a popular movement in Germany, mainly with an Arian-German slant, and that thought it could use Religionsgeschichte to misappropriate biblical literature. 173 Ladd, 1971, 41-43; Brett, 1991, 1-4. Childs, 1970, accurately and extensively described this theological movement in connection with its decline. Reventlow, 1983b, 1-10, 56-63, 133, Smart, 1979 and Terrien, 1985, 127, added to this picture by uncovering the AngloSaxon roots of the biblical theology movement and its link with this movement in German and the Dutch linguistic areas as well as its international scope. 174 Childs, 1970, 32-50; Hasel, 1985², 70. But the contribution of modern biblical criticism was consistently limited to an understanding of the faith without any influence from the exercise of this faith. — The term golden age fits perfectly for the theology of the OT (Childs, 1986, 4), less so for that of the NT where Bultmann was by far the dominant figure. Hasel, 1987³, 32-34; idem, 1985², 53-71. 175 Although Barth is known for his christocentric doctrine of Christomonismus (Reventlow, 1982, 23; Hasel, 1987³, 151 n. 43), his appreciation for Judaism in Christian theology and in the teaching on the canon as God’s word found expression primarily in his relatively positive treatment of the OT (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 41-55; Baker, 1991², 105). In this respect he had considerable influence on Miskotte (Reventlow, 1982, 22-23; idem, 1983b, 59-66) and Childs (Scalise, 1994). — Bultmann, somewhat like Luther, was influenced by the historical evolution from the OT to the NT and the contrast in value between the two, which led him to consider the OT as a Scheitern that must be corrected in the NT (Hasel, 1985², 174-175; Oeming, 1986, 58 n. 31). Even today, his influence on NT theology is so great that that the distinction before and after Bultmann is still applicable (Riches, 1993). “...the enslavement of biblical theology to the Barth-Bultmann axis of the dialectical theology ...” (Barr, 1993, 202).

79

with which it held everything and everyone spellbound, as it still does today. It thus it did more than increased the gap between the camp of liberal-descriptive biblical theology and that of the more theologicalsystematic theology. Even within the latter, which had given the movement its zeal and had helped it to grow into a broad biblical theological movement, it sharpened many internal divisions in nearly all areas176, but especially in that of methodology and the assessment of biblical issues such as history, the created world and all natural givenness. The problem of the major differences and the related unbridgeable antitheses177 causes an upheaval in the rich harvest of Old and NT biblical 176

Eichrodt’s and Von Rad’s systematising theologies could provisionally keep together the two diverging wings within the theology of the OT. Yet the final breach was unavoidable (Albertz, 1995, 3-44, esp. 3-6). The gap sprang from Gabler’s option for a historical biblical theology autonomous from dogma and is now visible in Roman Catholic theology, which was late in making consistent use of modern biblical criticism (Seidel H.W., 1993, 303309). The wealth of biblical theologies also brought about contrasts. “Verwirrende Vielfalt ... kein Konsens” (Albertz, 1995, 6). “There is no consensus in any of the major problems of OT (and biblical) theology. Fundamental issues are widely debated among scholars of various backgrounds and schools of thought” (Hasel, 1987³, 34). This still continuing crisis situation (the periodical Horizons in Biblical Theology, which devoted its first double issue of 1984 to the future of OT biblical theology, could hardly conceal this: “Vigorous discussion ... There is still no clear emerging consensus”: Birch, 1984, 3-8), was already rampant in the early 1970s. Early on there was a profound disunity among the proponents of dialectical theology (Zahrnt, 1967, 54-69), which was revealed in the contrast between the Barmen and Ansbach explanations (Fischer H., 1983, 328-338). There were even several diverging tendencies within the Bultmann school (Hasel, 1987³, 54-61). 177 The discussion on the method mainly concerns the relationship between the descriptivehistorical and the normative approaches to the biblical matter or between what it meant and what it means, which, if it cannot be bridged, acts as a divisive element in the midst of the biblical theology movement (Hasel, 1987³, 36 n. 8). The diversity in the biblical theology movement when it comes to methodology and its inability to bridge the gap between the descriptive and systematic tendencies becomes evident after reviewing the whole series of methodologies that have been applied (Hasel, 1987³, 41-92; idem, 1985², 72-132; Reventlow, 1982, 48-64). — The discussion on biblical history focused first of all on the facts that the biblical writings present as redemptive and that are felt to be so today. The issue of how these fit into general history inevitably arose, especially after modern biblical criticism had reconstructed the actual facts and compared them to those recounted in the Bible (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 484-485). Once again, this question was developed only much later in Roman Catholic circles (Seidel H.W., 1993, 315-323). — Having started with Barth from a creation theology fully in service of and subservient to salvation history (with his notion of revelation as theocracy, Van Ruler placed God’s actions in creation at the apex of his theology: Reventlow, 1983b, 56-59) and adopted by Von Rad (Zahrnt, 1967, 97-101; Rendtorff, R., 1991, 94-103), biblical theology, now based on objective research, was obliged to evolve toward a theological explanation of creation and world as a value in itself,

80

theologies that dialectical theology stimulated in recent decades. The biblical theology movement entered a deep crisis and the fragile and only apparent consensus178 that it had produced was shattered into various tendencies so that after its decline as unified movement a completely ‘new biblical theology movement’ has to be started.

3.1.9 E. Käsemann and the Canon Crisis of the 1970s The crisis in biblical theology was played out in a particular fashion in the strictly defined field of canon study. The occasion was an attempt to readdress the problem of the theological canon, which smouldered mainly in Reform churches. In time, this problem had receded into the background as a result of the hegemony of historicism, which had led to a degree of

and above all toward one that was more closely related to (or even founded on) its Umwelt. — The absolute separation from the Umwelt had to be relinquished, especially in connection with the findings on the connection between biblical material and the myths of its contemporary Umwelt (Reventlow, 1983b, 148-183) The problem of natural theology came immediately to the fore once the impact of the extra-biblical notion of creation was recognised, esp. as the result of growing insights in the wisdom material in the Bible (Reventlow, 1983b, 183-202). The overall connection between the Bible and natural reflection or natural theology could no longer be avoided. It has become a special task within biblical theology, despite its having been totally rejected primarily by Barthian dialectical theology (Barr, 1993). — The excessively subjective character of these biblical theologies deprived them of their authority and made them unsuitable for dialogue, within and outside their own discipline (Albertz, 1995, 6-10). “Cloud of witnesses ... nebulous” (Terrien, 1985, 127). Also significant is the first issue of the recently launched Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, which was devoted to the theme “Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie”. It made a laborious attempt to unify the differentiation in biblical material that confronts biblical (Oeming, 1986). A more recent treatment primarily from a NT perspective can be found in Barton-Wolter, 2003. “Der Plural der Offenbarungen verweist auf ein Singular der Offenbarung” (Söding, 2005, 13). 178 There was a considerable disorganisation at the time: Hasel, 1985², 10. “...a stalemate” (Childs, 1986, 5). “Ebenso deutlich ist aber, daß die derzeitige Pluralität der neutestamentlichen Theologie in allen wesentlichen Sachaussagen die theologische Stosskraft der neutestamentlichen Disziplin im gesamttheologischen Gespräch stark behindert und teilweise sogar schon in Frage stellt” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 131; idem, 1978, 59-65, 13). “Especially impressive in the post-war era was that the two theologies of Von Rad and Bultmann seemed to be able to combine a rigorous historical-critical approach together with a deep existential concern for Christian theology. It is now clear in hindsight that both theologies began to experience serious erosion by the late 1960s, and the widening cracks signalled the breaking apart of the biblical consensus.” (Childs, 1995, 1-17, esp. 3).

81

consensus on the canon179. The historically demonstrated late formation of the canon, affected as it was by so many chance factors, did little to help its theological esteem as formal ensemble. Focusing attention on the evolution that the individual writings had undergone by the time they were included in the canon automatically gave the original version of the writings a higher value at the expense of the canon which was viewed as a later, and thus inferior given180. Moreover, the overexposure of the Scriptures’ form as bound up in human history tarnished their image as divinely inspired. While not completely ignored in the introductions, the canon was literally and figuratively pushed into the background.181 In this way, liberal, history-oriented biblical theology maintained the illusion that it had remained faithful to the theological concept of canon as in days of old, while it tacitly abandoned it for a philosophical concept – developed under the influence of historical study – which in its view was closer to natural historical facticity. It is this that biblical theology now addressed, spurred on by the Barthian dialectical tendency. Where had the theological-transcendental appreciation of the canon gone? The pendulum now shifted from the more natural history approach to the theological179

Lönning, 1972, 34 n. 127. After the theological positions had been adopted in the Reform churches, there remained a dormant theological problem with the canon (Lönning, 1972, 39-49). In the Roman Catholic Church, the canon had not yet become a problem thanks to the Council of Trent and the rejection of modern biblical criticism in an attempt to protect its dogmatic tradition from modernism. In spite of this, questions on the canon arose in Roman Catholic circles, but open attempts were made to avoid them. “Discussions of the canon are more often marked by the deftness with which a solution is proposed” (TurroBrown, 1968, 515). 180 Luttikhuizen, 1996, 331-47, esp. 344; Sanders, 1979, 19-20. Appel, 1964, 18, points out the non-evangelical tendencies that can be discovered within the canon, esp. earlyCatholicism to which the Protestant side strongly objected (Theobald, 1990, 24 n. 38-40). The alienation from the original was situated as late as possible in time (Theobald, 1990, 24) and thus Von Harnack kept it outside the actual canon (Turro-Brown, 1968, 583). This approach is in keeping with the open canon. By contrast, others, like J. Jeremias, sought diligently for the ipsissima verba (Hasel, 1985², 31, 57, 106). Invoking ecclesiastical tradition, Roman Catholics, on the other hand, stressed the continuity in the evolution (Reventlow, 1982, 154-157). This facilitated their acceptance of continuity between salvation history and general history (Rahner, 1964). 181 Childs, 1983², 36-37. “Für die Richtung dieser ganzen Entwicklung gibt es jedoch kaum ein charakteristischeres Zeichen als ihr Endergebnis: Die restlose Einordnung des theologischen Kanonproblems in die ‘Kanongeschichte’ und die Eingliederung der ‘Kanongeschichte’ in eine biblische Einleitungs-Wissenschaft, die innerhalb des theologischen Studiums ihren Platz bestenfalls am Rande der alt- und neutestamentlichen Disziplinen fand” (Lönning, 1972, 12 n. 6).

82

transcendental elucidation. Once again there was public discussion, especially in the dialectical camp, on the need to give dogma the final and determinative word on the canon. Meanwhile, these scholars felt that it had become sufficiently evident that modern biblical criticism inevitably reduced the canon to a natural historically-determined fact. According to dialectical theology, this status can never support the required religious authority of the canon182. This theological warning bell resonated clearly in the German language area183, especially with regard to the NT canon. Nearly everyone was awakened to the fact and all Christian confessions began vigorously working to raise the NT canon once again onto the theological pedestal from which it had peacefully dominated the 182

Kümmel, 197016, 370. “La rupture de la Réforme par rapport à l’ordre sacré du Moyenâge, ayant livré le texte comme l’histoire à la profanité, oblige à redéfinir le statut transcendantal du sujet” (Theobald, 1990, 22). Yet the Enttheologisierung was not total and was usually unconscious. It is a matter of a radicalisation of a problem that had existed since the time of the Reformation but had lain dormant since then (Lönning, 1972, 15). “Gelingt es, die Herkunft dieser oder jener Schrift von Aposteln oder Männern der apostolischen Zeit zu dem optimalen Grad von Wahrscheinlichkeit zu erheben, der bei geschichtlichen Fragen der Art überhaupt erreichbar ist, so ist das zwar historisch gewiß von hohem Interesse. Es ist aber schlechterdings nicht einzusehen, inwiefern damit eine maßgebende religiöse Autorität, wie sie der Begriff des Kanons in sich schließt, begründet wäre...” (Strathmann, 1970, 58). The reason given for why these historical findings could not provide the required foundation for religious authority was that “Hier müßte schon der Umstand zur Vorsicht mahnen, daß dann das Ansehen dieser Schriften immer von den schwankenden Urteilen der ‘der zeitigen sicheren Resultate der historischen Kritik’ abhängig bliebe” (Strathmann, 1970, 58). “A la question cependant: qu’est ce que l’Évangile? L’historien ne peut plus répondre par un simple constat; seul le croyant convaincu par l’Esprit quand il écoute l’Écriture, peut le faire” (Theobald, 1990, 19). This evinces a consistent application of dialectic theology to the canon: it is a historical fact, but this may not affect its intrinsic dogmatic authority. They remain totally separate realities. The specialisation into disciplines, where dialogue among disciplines is hampered, played an important role here. Exegetes, historians and dogmaticians have difficulty finding common ground in the canon debate. Hence the conflit des facultés (Theobald, 1990, 13) that runs through all faith communities and in that sense can be called ecumenical. 183 Strathmann, 1970, raised this alarm in 1941 (Appel, 1964, 22). His warning bell produced many echoes, as is evident from the numerous detailed studies that appeared and were collected by Käsemann (1970) shortly thereafter. The titles of the articles exude an atmosphere of crisis (Aland, 1970, 134). — Käsemann’s 1970 compilation was a strikingly exclusive German NT event (Theobald, 1990, 14 n. 5). At nearly the same time, a similar theological interest in the canon arose in the Netherlands. This will be treated under 3.1.10. The other language areas, such as the Anglo-Saxon and French would follow only later with the final world-wide expansion as a result (‘Mondialisation’: Theobald, 1990, 59). In this way, the canon issue brought the Christian world face-to-face with society (Theobald, 1990, 14).

83

theological landscape before the Reformation and humanism184. Polishing a profile that had been exposed to philosophical and scientific influences proved to be a far from simple undertaking. Again, the highly differentiated approach in biblical theology caused much confusion185. What at first sight seemed to be a rich offering concealed a deep fear that the objective, i.e. the theological revaluation of the canon, could not be achieved, or at least not in the manner hoped. Since every Christian faith community continued to interpret the genesis of the canon, especially the NT, in its own way, its theological reassessment brought to light a harrowing division within German Christianity and this despite the

184

Various Roman Catholics entered what was an originally exclusive Protestant debate on the canon (Merk, 1980, 467, 29-31, still believed that nearly all of NT biblical theology is exclusively Protestant. This view needs to be refined. There has been a link between biblical theology and the Reformation since the rise of the latter [Kraus H.J., 1977a, 98], which has not had the formal publicity in history that might be expected. “...der Begriff fehlt in der gesamten Reformation” [Schmid, 1983, 36]). Among them were P. Lengsfeld, H. Küng (Käsemann, 1970, 175-218), N. Appel (Theobald, 1990, 22) and especially K. Rahner (Dulles, 1983, 243-245). Their reason for this can be sought in the tradition so dear to Roman Catholics that was to be defended as already present in the Bible (Barr, 1983, 29; Ebeling, 1970, 288). The ecumenical movement, which had expanded rapidly after the establishment of the World Council of Churches in 1948 and which reached an apex at the time of the Second Vatican Council (convened from an ecumenical perspective) with documents such as Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate, was the most direct cause (Lönning, 1972, 12-16) and was one of the aspects of the theological radicalisation of the what since the Reformation had been the old canon issue. After the first, more superficial approach, the ecumenical movements now needed a deeper theological foundation (Lönning, 1972, 214-217). It is this theological deepening that brought to light the differences in thinking on the canon. The outward extremes in this area are represented by Appel, 1964, for the Roman Catholic Church, and Lönning, 1972, for the Reform movement. This led to the question of the retention of the broadest possible theological diversity within ecumenism (Dunbar, 1986, 300). Yet there seems to be a growing rapprochement in the understanding of the concept ‘tradition’ (Lönning, 1972, 250; Kraus H.J., 1982³). For an overview of Christian ecumenism see Neuner, 1997. 185 E. Käsemann in particular raised a storm with his lecture entitled “Begründet der neutestamentliche Kanon die Einheit der Kirche?”, which he delivered before an ecumenical meeting in Göttingen in June 1951 (Theobald, 1990, 13). He saw the canon as the cause and foundation of interconfessional dissension. During the subsequent debate, which lasted for years and was played out against the background of the Council (Theobald, 1990, 58-59) and as part of the ecumenical rapprochement (Lönning, 1972, 214 n. 4) it soon appeared that the theological evaluation of the canon was conditioned not only by deep differences of an inner-church (the Lutherans appeared to disagree: Hasel, 1985², 165-166) and intra-confessional nature but also by personal philosophical-theological views (Theobald, 1990, 35) and thus was hermeneutically determined.

84

favourable ecumenical climate of the time186. The canon, as possible cause of interconfessional discord, became the theme of a crisis debate that lasted many years. The onset for this can be found in the heterogeneous collection of studies that E. Käsemann published in 1970187. Inarguably, each of the articles contained once again a theological profile that gave the NT canon, albeit in various gradations, its former guarantee of authority while taking into account the achievements of modern biblical criticism. It should be recognised that in doing this these canon theologians made remarkable efforts to develop an exegetically and historically responsible188 theology of the NT canon. However, it is not surprising that they were only partially successful in this difficult, if not impossible, task. First of all, under pressure from modern biblical criticism, many concessions had to be made regarding the theological concept of canon189. This becomes evident when the new design is compared with the concept that was current before the Reformation. When scholars wished to retain the formal canon in full, despite its being historically determined, they often came no further along the path trod by Luther than a canon that is difficult to accept even from its centre. Basically, this meant that the NT canon as ensemble was no longer honoured as before. Even worse, the choice for an open canon190 left no fixed demarcation for the future. 186

Lönning, 1972, 13 n. 8, 243-245. Käsemann caused a commotion with his lecture in Göttingen. This appears to have been intentional. Many years later he noted in the introduction to his 1970 compilation with satisfaction that “Ich wäre zufrieden, wenn selbst der nicht unmittelbar beteiligte Leser das Gefühl hätte, Zeuge eines noch anhaltenden Erdbebens zu sein ...” (Käsemann, 1970, 12). And he added that “Die Diskussion darüber wird heute nicht nur in der gelehrten Zunft, sondern auch in der Gemeinde leidenschaftlich, und zwar in allen Konfessionen und Denominationen und ingefolge dessen auch ökumenisch, geführt” (Käsemann, 1970, 9). Käsemann was not successful in uniting the dispersed opinions in his Zusammenfassung. For other literature on the NT canon in this period, similarly restricted to the German language area, see Lönning, 1972, 34 n. 128. 188 Käsemann, W.G. Kümmel, H.F. Von Campenhausen and W. Marxsen are all competent exegete-historians that give ample space to modern biblical criticism (Theobald, 1990, 3342). Barth, too, chose the same option when deploying his dialectical theology. 189 The relative consensus in the area of history would have been reached at the expense of the theological canon idea (Lönning, 1972, 218, 253-256). Roman Catholic theologians were no exception to this (Lönning, 1972, 218). They, too, have applied modern biblical criticism since Divino Aflante Spiritu and especially Dei Verbum (Reventlow, 1983b, 3536, 47-48) and have included it in their view on tradition and the ecclesiology related to it (Theobald, 1990, 22-28). 190 Childs, 1983², 44; Klijn, 1987, 191. The difference between a canon with a centre and an open canon is that in the first case there is a de facto selection and in the second a selection 187

85

Indeed, it would have to be accepted that there had actually been no demarcation even in the past. This would certainly have been a serious and frustrating concession. This theological dissatisfaction surfaced even more clearly when it came to the equally desired integration of modern biblical criticism. For, despite the undeniable competence and diligence displayed by these scholars in their effort to allow natural and historical givenness to play its full role in the development of the theological concept, there was no overall and satisfactory outcome. Where needed, the theologians involved in the abovementioned German colloquium, loyal to their dialectical inspiration, felt obliged to give precedence to their confessional theological conviction. This went at the expense of historical objectivity, even at the risk of being docetistic191. The cause of this can be found in the on principle. This makes clear that those who viewed the canon issue from the original Protestant Scripture principle (P. Tillich applies the Protestant Scripture principle in current practice: Sperna Weiland, 19664, 62-65) could inevitably no longer see it as coinciding with the historically determined form and only could consider it the locus for God’s word because of their primary option for die Sache (i.e. the fact of revelation as they see this, i.e. as the continuation of God’s word with the consequent sufficient or self-explanatory Scripture as result: Theobald, 1990, 21). This genauere Bestimmung of the canon clearly deviates from what even Herder considered inviolable as canon (Kraus H.J., 19701, 346). “Si on veut sauver la position luthérienne et réformée de la foi, on est obligé de dissoudre le canon des Écritures” (Theobald, 1990, 23). This also shows that any biblical theology that wants to respect the historical facticity of the canon will be unable to do sufficient justice to the Protestant Scripture principle (followed by the recently launched Catholic Scripture principle: Theobald, 1990, 28; Lönning, 1972, 249 n.28; Lehmann, 1996, 177). 191 Reventlow, 1982, 48, esp. 49, 53, 54, 64. In W.G. Kümmel’s work, for instance, there is the tension between the actual closed state and the principle that the canon is open (Theobald, 1990, 35). The dialectical inspiration continued to have an effect esp. in Käsemann’s work. Hence the complexio oppositorum (Theobald, 1990, 27). “Gott und Teufel verstecken sich im konkreten (historischen) Detail ... Die Macht des Aberglaubens” (Käsemann, 1970, 343, 362). His student Lönning, 1972, 250, 254, 257, placed geschichtliche Priorität over against theologische Priorität and thus remained caught in the irreconcilable duality “Kirche als ihre eigene Norm / die Schrift als einzige Norm der Kirche” (Lönning, 1972, 249 n. 28) and hence in irresolvable dilemmas. “Apparemment aucun chemin direct ne mène du constat d’un éclatement historique du canon vers l’intérêt spécifique du croyant qui est à la recherche du ‘centre de l’Écriture’“ (Theobald, 1990, 21). — Theobald (1990, 27, 35) bore witness to his theological vision. Lönning, 1972, 34, also openly pursues “Eine Wiederherstellung des Gleichgerichtes zwischen historischer und systematischer Theologie” The scholars thus repeatedly caught one another in historical abstractions. In this regard H. Diem’s interpretation of the canon as mere preaching had to be rejected (Theobald, 1990, 30). W.G. Kümmel had to be told that the canon certainly did not arise only from the need of the church at that time and that it was not völlig unreflektiert (Käsemann, 1970, 344). Even an excellent historian like H. Von Campenhausen could not get away with his representation of Marcion’s role (Käsemann, 1970, 353). On the

86

reform circles that chose to remain faithful to the original Scripture principle. The urge to keep up to date also strongly influenced these theologians. The need felt by supporters, by which is meant not only members of one’s own church but of all faith communities whose members felt threatened as believers in the modern world, also played a role here. Under this influence, theologians starting from their confessional past with its a personal existential approach tended to reach for a revaluation of the canon that would address192 this current issue directly at the expense of historical objectivity. Under these circumstances, it could not be expected that an end would come to the canon crisis, with its background of permanent failure to combine historical fact and theological explanation harmoniously. It even expanded to a general crisis in the Christian world. In the field of canon studies, it led to a long-term and passionate debate in which progress would be made only with difficulty193. docetistic tendency see Theobald, 1990, 20, 23; Appel, 1964, 18; Reventlow, 1983b, 142. Visscher had already been accused of Docetism (Reventlow, 1979, 118). 192 Theobald, 1990, 30, 52. In this spirit, Diem (1970, 165-168) had linked the obligatory nature of the canon with preaching. Roman Catholic circles were also open to these Vergegenwärtigungen (Seidel H.W., 1993, 317, 329). “...von den Notwendigkeiten einer ‘kerygmatisch’ anzuredenden Gegenwart her bestimmt” (Höffken, 1987, 13-29). The trigger for this is preaching in the faith community (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 503), as well as various phenomena that further eroded unity within the Christian world (Wainwright, 1975, 551571, esp. 561-565). The urge to keep up to date is not without danger for the objective approach to biblical data. It encourages the overexposure and underexposure of parts of the Bible. It is sufficient to refer here to the use of dicta probantia in times past. 193 “...eruption of a fierce debate” (Childs, 1984, 19). Sand, 1973, 150. The compilation of articles in Käsemann, 1970, dates from a period running from 1941 to 1970. The upheaval that Käsemann’s 1951 Göttingen lecture had still not settled by the time this book was published. Theobald, 1990, surveyed the evolving debate using the most salient publications and wrote, “Depuis 1970 l’intérêt pour l’œuvre de Käsemann n’a pas cessé de croître” (p. 57). This was confirmed most recently in Söding, 2001, 13 n. 52. — The limited communication among the authors in Käsemann’s 1970 compilation shows with what difficulty dialogue proceeded. There seemed to be little evolution in Käsemann’s own writings: his 1951 article was reprinted unchanged in 1970 while his critical analysis (1970, 336) responded to nearly everyone and showed little sign of his having learned anything from the debate (Theobald, 1990, 42-57). There were thus few déplacements (Theobald, 1990, 33) in insight regarding criteria for interpretation. Groping blindly, hermeneutics risked running in circles (Theobald, 1990, 21). The cause of this is the precedence given on an historical level to either the period in which the biblical texts originated (as in the case with the Protestants) or to the later period in church history in which the closure of the canon marked its completion (as in the case of the Catholics), as well as what Protestants consider their unprovable continuity (Theobald, 1990, 47). In this way, the various sides fail to do justice to a consistent historicity. The motivation underlying this can be sought in

87

3.1.10 Evolution of the Theological Concept of Canon in the Netherlands: The Amsterdam School Barth’s theological revival found worldwide acceptance. Its influence was already observable in the German linguistic area. Barth’s dialectical view fuelled the debate that ensued on the NT canon and that flared up again after the publication of Käsemann’s compilation in 1970194. In H.K. Miskotte he found the ideal herald to convey to the Netherlands his dogmatic view on the Scriptures and, this time, its OT canon. The Netherlands’ centuries-long Calvinist tradition had prepared the ground for this. This meant that Miskotte found many like-minded people in his homeland that allowed Barthian fervour to take root rapidly in many places195. However, it was F.H. Breukelman196, and through him what later came to be called the Amsterdam School, that lit the beacon that spread his the updated dogmatic theological view that had traditionally been determined per confession (Lönning, 1972, 249 n. 28-29, 252 n. 47; Vögtle, 1984, 53-54) and that was relinquished only grudgingly (Theobald, 1990, 22). And then there are the technical aspects: the comprehensive design (Lönning, 1972, 15 n. 21) and the confusion in the terminology used (2.1.; Theobald, 1990, 39 n. 102). 194 Barth, after Calvin, is correctly given credit for the development of canon theology in the Netherlands after the First World War (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 41-45). A central place is given to his dogmatic teaching on Scripture as God’s Word, the unifying principle of the canonical writings (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 41-43). Yet this doctrine of unity led to a separation of minds because of Barth’s dialectical position, on one side, and the separation, continued since Gabler’s day, into separate NT and OT theologies, on the other. 195 Breukelman, 1975, 34-50, esp. 39. “Allerdings war die reformatorische Atmosphäre Hollands derartigen Entwicklungen besonders günstig” (Reventlow, 1983b, 59). — It will later be seen how the Dutch landscape, however permeated it may have been by a single reform spirit, still disintegrated into various tendencies. In addition to the Amsterdam School, which had many gradations (“...a circle of theologians who had their origin at the University of Amsterdam, but who, for the rest, did not make up a uniform group” [Houtman, 1980, 159]; “...however strong the cohesive hermeneutical inspiration may have been, diversity characterised the movement” [Oost, 1986, 12]), other phenomena developed, such as Prof. Dr. G. Van Der Leeuwstichting’s liturgical tendency and the current of politicalmaterialist exegesis (Oost, 1986, 13). At the basis of this lay again very diverse figures such as the prophetic figure Breukelman (he never completed his doctorate), the academic exegete Beek, who gathered a following in Amsterdam, and D. Boer with his radical materialistic interpretation of Miskotte (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 83-99, 111-125, 159-169). Rather separate from these are many special figures such as Van Ruler who had his own typical profile. 196 “...he was and is the great inspirer of the Amsterdam School. He was neither its founder nor its father, but the quiet strength behind it ... The Amsterdam School worked hard to develop what Miskotte saw and noted in flashes” (Ter Schegget, 1984, 83-91, esp. 90).

88

Barthian inspiration throughout the Netherlands197. As he says himself, Miskotte saw to a reception of Barth’s ideas von unten rather than the reception von oben that they had received in Germany. This refers to the far-reaching intertwining, even inseparability of the dogma on God’s word – in this case the all-encompassing and all-sustaining NAME experience – with its biblical shape as this was studied phenomenologically198. This raised exegesis and translation to a concern of the highest order in permanent interaction with dogmatics199. This became the hermeneutics that replaced the customary philosophical hermeneutics200. This change of course or decision, which can be called systematically total, was accompanied by a parallel rejection of the uncertainties of modern biblical criticism201 and a surpassing of the original 16th century reformation. It was believed – at least according to the Breukelman’s and Miskotte’s version – 197 This is an allusion to the influence that Breukelman exerted from modest Simonshaven on Amsterdam and the whole country. In his article on Miskotte’s inspiration, Breukelman noted repeatedly how important Miskotte had been for him. He stated that “I owe nearly everything to Miskotte” (p. 34). In the same article he counts himself among the “few minor labourers” who had to follow the great Miskotte “to unveil even the smallest details to demonstrate that he had been correct” (p. 41). As will be seen, this statement portrayed his work all too humbly. 198 Breukelman, 1975, 38, 41; Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 84-85. 199 Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 88, 99-104; Breukelman, 1975, 35-38. In this passage, Breukelman explains his striking resistance to modern translations. He wrote no fewer than twenty critical articles on the Dutch NBG translation. They raised a “minor public storm” (Deurloo-Zuurmond, 1984, 10). The interplay between dogma and exegesis held centre stage in Bakker N.T., 1984. 200 Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 63-64; Breukelman, 1975, 38-39, 47-48. His student R. Zuurmond treated this theme more extensively (Zuurmond, 1984). Here he referred emphatically to Breukelman as his inspiration (‘Sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres’) (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 33-87, esp. 83 n. 3-4). 201 Modern biblical criticism was not openly renounced (“not for a minute did any of us think that OT research could exist without historical and literary criticism”: Van DaalenDeurloo, 1984, 52), but it was placed under the guardianship of dogmatic views in various or minor ways. This was not glossed over in: Council for Church and Theology, 1976, 89101, esp. 95-98. Modern biblical criticism was only given a “serving, subservient, preparatory function”, i.e. not an “evaluating” role (Van Daalen-Deurloo, 1984, 51). “It is not the meaning of the story” (Smelik, 1984c, 69). However strong its emotional impact, modern biblical criticism found expression in statements such “The sense of being liberated from the tension of historical research” (comparable to Rendtorff’s similar comment: Zaman, 1984, 189-190) or “the conviction of being able to obtain the truth directly from the texts” (Breukelman, 1975, 34-35). Reference to a “non-historical history” (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 95 n. 53; Bakker N.T., 1984, 99-100) in any case implies an option against historical research.

89

to go back to the 2nd century BCE. In time, the ecclesia is to have deviated from the apostolic witness that was considered pure because it was grounded directly in Scripture and not in later philosophically-structured church dogmatics. The reference to Scripture here brings to mind first the Tanach that had never served in the “ecclesia as a framework within which the apostolic kerygma had to be explained”202. This immediately gave the Tanach, and with it Israel and Judaism, a place in theology and exegesis that they had never before held in Christianity, baring a few exceptions203. The importance that Dutch reform circles attached to the OT and modern Judaism, even on an academic level, did not fail to attract attention from outsiders. This is another characteristic in which the Dutch reception of Barth’s ideas showed its originality, even when compared to Barth himself. It is also striking that the typical characteristics in the Netherlands moved the local population deeply via preaching and catechesis and was in no way limited to higher academic circles. These, too, did not remain inactive, as will be seen below. First, however, we must consider another symptom of originality that is specific to the theological current that reached the Netherlands via Miskotte-Breukelman and others204. It 202

Barth, with Miskotte-Breukelman in his wake, expressly disassociates himself from the twofold Cognitio Dei (Breukelman, 1975, 40-43; Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 90-93) outline retained by Calvin, more specifically natural theology (anti-pagan witness: Breukelman, 1975, 11), and the historical nature-grace framework. This last was replaced by the singrace framework, historicised as of the book of Genesis, which serves as the start of history (Breukelman, 1975, 43-44). It is impossible to determine the extent to which Breukelman’s version corresponds to historical reality. It seems to conform to the reservations against early-Catholicism which had long taken root in Protestantism. 203 Miskotte, Breukelman and their kindred spirits go much farther than Barth in their appreciation of the OT. In his first dissertation Het wezen der joodse religie, published in 1933, Miskotte pioneered in introducing a more positive approach to Israel and the Jewish people (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 56-58). As is known Van Ruler adopted an exceptional position. 204 Berkhof described the difference between Miskotte and Barth as follows, “bei letzteren (Miskotte, L.Z.) ist Christus vor allem ‘Lesefrucht’ des AT, bei Barth ‘Leseprinzip’“ (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 61). Moreover, there seems to be – still according to Berkhof – a shift from Barth’s christocentrism to Miskotte’s YHWH centrism. Here we meet the parts pro toto principle, according to which the particular of the OT already comprises the universal of the NT (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 62). — The work of Miskotte (focussed on the world like that of Bultmann, but unlike that of Barth: Ter Schegget, 1984, 89-90) and Breukelman (who published under the revealing title: “On the Living Word”) is a model for involvement with a broader public. Especially in the case of the latter, his irrepressible penetration from pastoral work to the University of Amsterdam is a striking event (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 83-84; Council for Church and Theology, 1976, 90; Breukelman, 1975, 34) the effects of which are still felt in the Netherlands (Dekker, Den Hertog, De Reus, 2006).

90

involves the positive reception in the Netherlands of the intellectual legacy of Buber and Rozenzweig recorded in their exegesis and translations. Buber, in particular, was known for his emphasis on the Leitwortstil contained in the biblical text. According to this view, the word of God threaded it way through the spoken and written word. This is reflected in the unified biblical structure of form and content that is detected via key words and themes distributed throughout smaller text elements. It is a vision that is grounded primarily in theology and that emphasises the biblical text in its final shape, while to the same degree the historical growth of its elements as possible sources fades from view and thus is unconsciously excluded. Miskotte, and via him Breukelman, could not help but be attracted to such a vision. It very soon became widely accepted in the Netherlands. It fit their dogmatic-exegetical notion perfectly and allowed them to develop a biblical theology that was modelled on practice and that retained the unity view of the NAME as foundation205. This explains in part the rapidly growing influence of Jewish thinking on broad layers of the faithful in the Netherlands and the increasing appreciation within these circles for Judaism in general. To tap what at that time was the deepest source of the upward revaluation of Judaism in the Netherlands, it is necessary to go back further than Buber-Rozenzweig to the Jewish scholar and literary expert J. Palache. His appointment as professor in the theology department at the University of Amsterdam in 1924 was not without turmoil. Despite the fact that his academic career The liturgical and political currents (Miskotte was involved in politics: Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 70) were symptoms of the carry-over to the community. It will be explained below how Buber-Rozenzweig was accepted by a broad segment of the Netherlands via Palache, Beek and the University of Amsterdam. 205 Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 71-82; Oost, 1986, 45-53. “One of Miskotte’s theses is that ... the transmitted text ... is the first and last material of exegesis” (Oost, 1986, 22). “Miskotte hat von diesen jüdischen Theologen sehr viel gelernt. Ihr Werk geht Miskottes Werk voraus ... Er (Breukelman, L.Z.) fand seinen Zugang zu Buber und Rozenzweig aber von Miskotte aus” (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 71). “The universities ... are enthusiastic about the Buber’s and Rozenzweig’s translations ... Where do they find their inspiration? Only partially from their university instructors”(Council for Church and Theology, 1976, 90). “The Dutch Authorised Version is actually a 17th-century Buber-Rozenzweig, and Buber-Rozenzweig is a perfect German version of the Dutch Authorised Version” (Breukelman, 1975, 38). “Was Miskotte (und Barth) unter Exegese und Hermeneutik verstehen, bildet für Breukelman die theologische Voraussetzung. Um von dieser Voraussetzung her eine Biblische Theologie zu erarbeiten, waren die bibelwissenschaftlichen Leitlinien von Buber und Rozenzweig, die sie im Kontext der ‘Verdeutschung’ der Schrift entwickelt hatten, für Breukelman entscheidend” (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 71).

91

came to a dramatic end in 1940, this scholar had earned great and permanent respect within and beyond his university workplace. M.A. Beek, who was Palache’s true spiritual successor’ in Amsterdam, and his students (who made up the Amsterdam School) faithfully and creatively206 continued the line established in Palache’s legacy. He had already traced the line in his inaugural address which was entitled “The Character of the OT Narrative” and was delivered on 26 January 1925. It consisted primarily of two components: the positive was to explain OT narrative art, the negative was to emphasise the inadequacy of current modern biblical criticism for discovering the history of the development of the bible text. Literature study, by contrast, should be given a greater role since it could provide a solution207 by acknowledging the final shape. Beek’s students 206

Smelik, 1988, 8-21, esp. 9. Yet Beek did not cite Palache as his teacher. He thought of Eerdmans, Alt, Von Rad and Buber (Beek, 1984). Contrary to Oost, 1986, 15 n. 2, we believe we must choose the term Amsterdam School above that of Amsterdam Tradition, since it better expresses the personal and successive character of the tradition of Palache’s legacy within a circumscribed period. The vague and impersonal term tradition does not do justice to this. “A particular inspiration in their diversity related them recognisably to one another” (Deurloo-Zuurmond, 1984, 9). Amsterdam as place was less important in this regard, but still important enough to link the three components. — Upon closer analysis it becomes clear that not only did these scholars pass Palache’s intellectual legacy on faithfully to one another, but they also opened up new paths. Thus there are major differences to be noted between Beek and his students (Smelik, 1988, 11-12, 18). 207 Viewing OT narrative texts as linguistic creation offered an opportunity to apply the skills and techniques of modern literary studies. This inevitably led to the temptation to view the literary work as existing independently, a trait described as the autonomy movement in biblical science (Houtman, 1980, 154-159). Beek felt obliged to warn against the exaggeration of “seeing [the OT] purely as a literary creation” (Smelik, 1988, 19). His first thought at the time was that the narratives’ proclamatory function would be neglected. However, the risk of neglecting the narratives’ historical elements, few as they may be, was equally present. It would have meant loosing sight of the narratives’ historical character. To make a general practice of reducing these narratives to purely narrative paraenesis (so Smelik, 1988, 17) is no longer simply stressing the problematic nature of seeking their historical content; it is an application of dualism to dialectical theology. It is tantamount to a reduction (even a substitution or a “coming in the place of” [Smelik, 1984c, 73]) of the historical-critical approach (because of its limited effect) in favour of the literary method. The truth is that the latter cannot tolerate the presence of the former (at least according to the Amsterdam School: Smelik, 1988, 11; “not part of historical continuity”, wrote Miskotte: Deurloo-Zuurmond, 1984, 10). It provides a firm foundation for the “stubborn preconception” and “tenacious misunderstanding” that the Amsterdam School had no interest in historical research (Smelik, 1988, 11, 13, 17). The interest was there, but it was presented negatively (as less effectively) so that all attention could be concentrated on the literary form and paraenetic content. This does indeed lead to a “completely different picture than that of the historical-critical school” (Smelik, 1988, 11), more specifically a

92

(including K. Deurloo, his successor, as central figure208 and also several Jews) developed these two components in dissertations toward the end of the 1960s. Even though they placed different accents, all shared the confessional character, which can be discerned even when this is not explicitly expressed. This tentatively marked the zenith which led to a period of reflection on the place and aura of the Amsterdam School within the broader biblical-theology movement inside and beyond the Netherlands209. However, not everyone in the Netherlands followed the historical presentation that does not invoke the historically evolving nature of the text. Sitz im Leben is replaced by Sitz in der Literatur (Smelik, 1988, 15). Shifting the period in which the biblical texts were composed to the exile and, where possible, even later, is a procedure that is gratefully deployed to minimise the historical perspective so that, in the end, only the final text can be used as starting point. 208 Three components, which so enrich the Amsterdam School’s thinking, come together in Deurloo’s work. First there is the hermeneutical-dogmatic component that entered the University of Amsterdam via Barth-Miskotte and Breukelman To this was added the second component, modern literary science, which was cultivated for the OT via the Palache-Beek line. Buber-Rozenzweig enriched these two components (“Buber the name ... that ... serves as brackets” (Deurloo-Zuurmond, 1984, 9) with their contribution from Jewish exegesis. They were so marked by a vision of the Bible’s unity that they considered and treated its content and form as a harmonious whole. Although Deurloo tried to integrate all these components in his work, it still reflected a degree of exaggeration and loss of balance. Dogmatic and mechanical employment of pars pro toto (“However much the whole is present in each of these parts”: Breukelman, 1984, 42) and the a-historical approach (issues of authorship, social environment and dating are no longer seen as belonging to the essence of explanation) led to the same theme being recognised everywhere (Houtman, 1980, 161 n. 158). Moreover, an overemphasis of the aesthetic shape of the text can cause us to loose sight of its theological content. This is the case with J.B. Fokkelman (Houtman, 1980, 162). Under these circumstances, subjectivity is given too free a hand (Houtman, 1980, 157). 209 Beek led the way here with his “saturation points” that undeniably may be seen as “a type of creed” for the whole Amsterdam School (Smelik, 1988, 18). His first doctoral student, A. Van Daalen (in 1966 with Simson) who had been his closest colleague since 1948, “left tradition history behind” (Smelik, 1988, 13). “Historical reconstruction” led to differences between groups of authors that worked at nearly the same time. Deurloo’s 1967 dissertation Kaïn en Abel reveals a hermeneutical-dogmatic interest far surpassing any other (for this reason, he became known as “Breukelman in book form”: Oost, 1986, 91). His openness to developments in modern literary criticism is striking (Oost, 1986, 20-21; Smelik, 1988, 14). The Jewish author G.H. Cohn obtained his doctorate in 1969 with a thesis on Jonah. At first sight, the accent lay on the storytelling in Jonah. Its organisational unity clearly received precedence over its historical growth. This was explicitly confirmed in the conclusion (Smelik, 1988, 16; Oost, 1986, 19-20). Finally, we should mention Smelik whose 1977 dissertation on Saul has been called the “closest to historical criticism (and at the same time the most critical of history!)”; see Oost, 1986, 90. — “These new developments within and outside the historical-critical school put a new reflection on the

93

Amsterdam path. The results of historical researched seemed to breathe life into the study of the NT canon. This can be detected in the evolution in the thought of H. Berkhof, E. Flesseman-Van Leer and especially H.N. Ridderbos210. There is no doubt that their work displays a growth in openness toward historical argumentation on the NT canon. Specifically, they believed that the apostolic origin made transparent and even demonstrable the role of the faith community in the formation of the canon, including its delimitation. Ridderbos even invoked this to argue for his decision to consider the canon closed. That was a highly unusual conviction for a Calvinist author. It elicited a vigorous response in the Netherlands from F.W. Grosheide. Apparently reform circles in the Netherlands needed time and thought before it could integrate positively the findings of historical criticism in the theological concept of canon211.

3.1.11 Renewed Interest for a Single Canon with OT and NT The question of the relation of the NT canon to the OT canon was raised only marginally in the many articles that E. Käsemann collected in 1970. On the other hand, in the Dutch situation attention was focussed primarily and often exclusively on the OT canon. This brought up another facet of the recent evolution in biblical theology’s study of the canon, which until then seemed to have been beyond the ken of modern canon study: the relationship of the materials within the canon as ensemble212, especially the

foundations of the Amsterdam method of exegesis high on the list of things urgently desired” (Smelik, 1988, 19). 210 Klijn, 1987, 191-193 gave a clear picture of this evolution. 211 A witness to this is the phrase with which Klijn concludes his article, “This article must thus conclude that historical research into the origin and development of the canon is facing unanswerable questions. We note unceasingly that the Word was there before the Church and the Scriptures were there before they were recognised as the Word of God” (Klijn, 1987, 192). 212 Aland, 1970, 135-136. Käsemann, 1970, 358, limits itself to endorsing the legitimacy of this OT-NT problem without going further into it. Lönning, 1972, 30-33 does the same. — The gesamtbiblische dimension is an aspect that came under pressure when biblical theology emerged but then resurfaced with the theological revival. — The inner-testamental reworkings (Reventlow, 1983b, 13-14, 25; Dohmen-Stemberger, 1996, 24-29; Fishbane’s work [1985], is strongly oriented toward this and is very revealing) led Von Rad to pose his gesamtbiblische Frage (Kraus H.J., 19701, 1), which then ended in the important question of the relationship between the OT and NT. He thus also encountered the issue of the continuity-discontinuity between these traditions (Baker, 1991², 253-254). NT scholars, by

94

relation between the NT and OT canons. When seen from a Christian perspective as part of totality of Scripture, do they not comprise one canon and not simply separate OT and NT canons? In giving the canon a new theological image, it is not sufficient to limit this to one or other element of the single canon. From the perspective of biblical theology, a sachgemäßes Ernstnehmen213 in the biblical reality is, of course, related to a uniform study of the whole Bible, OT and NT. The timorous way in which the NT scholars included in Käsemann’s 1970 collection put the question of the unified canon clearly shows how hesitantly they entered this scarcely explored terrain214. This exploration threatened their thus far not overly contrast, tried to shift this discontinuity to the later church canon, favouring the original texts instead, and thus introduced a canon within a canon. 213 Kraus H.J., 1982³, 503. Lönning, 1972, 51, is aware of the unity, but does all in his power to argue, to no avail, for a separate treatment of the NT canon. 214 Besides the fact, already noted, that this compilation contains only articles from the German linguistic area, it is also noteworthy that only NT scholars addressed the question of the canon’s social environment (2.3.4). This cannot be reduced to the differences from the historical approach taken by OT scholars (for a general view see Smend, 1995). It was said that NT scholars worked more intensely (P.D. Miller, JR., 1988, 218 n. 3). But little was said of the briefer tradition history that they needed to treat (P.D. Miller, JR., 1988, ibid.; Mildenberger, 1986, 151-162, esp. 157-158). However, it has become known in the meantime that historical research appeared still and even primarily to be inspired by theology. The thorough historical investigation into the NT canon as performed in their day by Von Harnack and Zahn had a deeper theological substrata: the continuity-discontinuity between the NT writing and the later NT canon. It was an exclusively Christian issue in which the Protestant-Catholic antithesis was often decisive. The Christian denominations projected the disputes that arose among them onto the early Christian period in which an early-Catholicism is said to have emerged, apparently after the recording the oldest Christian writings based on the Jesus event. The Lutherans in particular held tight to the plain sense of the original text contrary the later interpretation of the church community (Barton J., 1984, 94-95). It is this early-Catholicism that is said to have created the later canon. The final broad consensus on this view did confirm the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, but also seemed to restore peace to the Protestant environment that relied more on the authentic NT writings than on the canon authorised by the church. Käsemann disturbed this peace when he focused attention on the irreconcilable contradictions to be found within the NT writings and the early church of their time (Käsemann, 1984, 66-74). Hence his disquieting argument that the canon was a source of division between the denominations – even within Protestantism – rather than a basis for unity (Theobald, 1990, 13-22). This is a theological argument based on literary-historical observations. The debate that has arisen since the publication of Käsemann’s book in 1970 was acutely theological but was oriented exclusively toward the NT canon, because its immediate occasion only concerned facts and texts related to the NT. In this way the debate became a matter that was assigned to NT scholars because of the situation of biblical theology since Gabler (3.1.3), which led to a separate approach to the OT and NT writings.

95

successful efforts to give the NT canon a new allure. The whole theological endeavour had to be regarded anew to include in the theological canon project the much broader terrain of the OT canon already addressed by OT scholars, particularly in the Netherlands. It is clear that many more difficulties waited there than had to be contended with in the NT canon. This irresolute sidling up to a canon that unified OT and NT had other, deeper reasons than the purely literary. The customary undervaluation of the OT within Christianity continued to have effects on the Christian social environment even after the Shoah. It is true that there were only a few who, as had happened in the past, were prepared openly to reject the OT as element of the Christian canon215, but the positive efforts of many OT scholars to give the OT a greater place in Christianity were still insufficient to win out against the resistance offered, more recently, by historical research. That is why, after 1970, the problem of the unified Christian canon had a slow start in modern canon study. It pursued the path that it received from general biblical theology within which this trend had taken its earlier reluctant steps216. Here it had already been learned This course of events brought them to the point where they limited the theological issue of the canon to the NT and gave scant attention to the fact that it could not be approached in a Christian sense without the OT. — “Im Zusammenhang einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie verschärfen sich die Probleme” (Zenger, 1996b, 1). The question of the specificity of the OT within the Christian canon will now come forward. Inseparable from this is the issue of the relationship between the Hebrew and Christian canons and the associated relationship between their respective faith communities. Only on this level can we speak of genuinely ecumenical contacts, and only in the 20th century, especially since Vatican II (for another view, see Childs, 1994, 325-333). 215 Bakker L., 1984, 97-114. Besides the generally prevalent lack of esteem for the OT in the Christian world, which reached a high point under the Nazi regime, there were arguments based more on principle such as those of Von Harnack, Hirsch and Bultmann (Reventlow, 1982, 40-44). 216 Barth, Vischer, Girgensohn and others were the first to take steps in this direction (Childs, 1986, 2). Toward the end of the 1950s, the question of an overarching OT-NT biblical theology was suddenly raised from various quarters, even among Catholics (Haacker, 1977, 9-10). This followed the time-honoured example of Zachariä and Kähler (Kraus H.J., 19701, 320-321), with particular attention for the relationship between the two testaments (Reventlow, 1983b, 11). As early as 1951, J. Schildenberger stressed the connection between the two testaments (Seidel H.W., 1993, 330-333). R. De Vaux spoke about this at an international congress of OT scholars held in Strasbourg in 1956. N.W. Porteous expressed the same views at nearly the same time (Reventlow, 1983b, 138, 140). In 1962, Ebeling, 1962, 88 addressed the issue of gesamtbiblische Theologie and viewed this as still an exclusively descriptive historical science. K.H. Miskotte’s work Het wezen der joodse religie was important in the area of OT-NT (Baker, 1991², 131-134). Starting from his appreciation for the Jewish religion, articulated in his 1933 dissertation, he argued

96

from experience that the practical and intellectual separation of OT and NT fields of study, as a result of the launch of Gabler’s programme to achieve a pure, historical biblical theology, could not be pursued further. The consistent implementation of this programme did more than lead to the practical separation of the OT and NT work areas, and this made biblical theology, understood as theology of the whole Bible, impossible; It also opened the door to the secularising influences of the philosophies of the day and to Religionsgeschichte with all the concomitant consequences. However, the change in the theological image of the biblical texts implied more than neutralising these secularising influences. It had to be implemented positively on the basis of the traditions and texts as recorded in the Bible, which for Christians consisted of the OT and NT in one totality217. However logical it may appear, this insight was put into practice only slowly, despite the fact that the path to it had long been prepared by the notion of salvation history, which had evolved over several stages. It led to several problems218 that remained an object of dispute, even after mainly in his major work Als de goden zwijgen (1956) for a greater appreciation of the OT with respect to the NT than was customarily the case in Christian circles but without this being at the expense of appreciation for the NT as was the case with Van Ruler. In 1965, Von Rad, in his turn also successfully defended this view. Yet he wondered whether it was not a phantom (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 1; Reventlow, 1983b, 140). His scepticism regarding a focal point in the OT ((Reventlow, 1983b, 138) can be felt here. Ebeling also foresaw many problems. He spoke frankly about a problemgeladene Aufgabe (Ebeling, 1962, 89). Nevertheless, a growing number of biblical theologians, including P. Tillich, addressed the problem of the relationship between OT and NT and theology (3.3.3.4.) (Kraus H.J., 19701, 299-305). 217 “Der Name ‘Biblische Theologie’ als Bezeichnung einer theologischen Disziplin hat heute (1962, L.Z.) praktisch zu existieren aufgehört” (Ebeling, 1962, 83). “Den Zusammenhang alttestamentlicher Texte mit dem Neuen Testament herzustellen, dürfe nicht am Ausgangspunkt der Auslegung stehen, sondern könne immer nur ‘Endpunkt’ des exegetischen Bemühens sein” (Seidel H.W., 1993, 309). 218 Baker, 1991², 145-179; for a general survey of its evolution see Dohmen, 1995b, 9-16. Its first appearance dates from the time of J.Ch.F. Von Hoffmann (1841-44). It was a preconceived notion of the sequence in time of rational ideas to reach a meaningful development of theological acts of salvation with Christ as the zenith and objective (Reventlow, 1982, 99-102). Even then it appeared that historical facts were insufficiently respected when inserted in salvation history (Reventlow, 1982, 102). Although this was already known, Barth still followed Hoffmann and the biblical theology movement also made grateful use of salvation history, despite some dissenting voices (Ladd, 1971, 41-44). The Roman Catholic community followed this trend which reached its height in Dei Verbum, a text produced by the Second Vatican Council (Reventlow, 1982, 102-105). Usually OT scholars look more favourably on the idea of salvation history than do NT scholars (such as Bultmann and his school, see Reventlow, 1982, 112-121) because it

97

deploying further scientific methods and techniques such as studying the continuous tradition, typology, prediction and fulfilment diagrams and lexicology219. The problematic relation of modern biblical criticism to theological valorisation always seemed to lay at the basis of this220. When the more specific question of the canon started to penetrate the heart of this problematic situation in biblical theology, it could not help but be marked, in its search for its answer, by the same unbalanced approach that favoured allows a theological upgrading of the OT (Reventlow, 1983b, 12). Yet even Von Rad, the most eminent proponent of salvation history, had to observe that despite the invocation of typology and the fulfilment theme (Reventlow, 1983b, 24-25, 52-53), the notion of salvation history showed deficiencies (e.g. inconsistencies or discontinuity in the tradition), which led it to fall foul of the theological canon of OT and NT in the Christian Bible when seen from the perspective of historical science (Reventlow, 1982, 81-82, 110-111; idem, 1983b, 12-14). That is why Käsemann was also obliged to set aside the a-historical approach to salvation history as it has been applied by Bultmann (who rejected typology because it relies on historical facts, see Reventlow, 1983b, 20, 23), while remaining faithful to dialectical theology (Reventlow, 1982, 119). — Originally inspired more by dogmatic theology (Reventlow, 1982, 108) than was the pneumatic approach (which was rather subjectivist; Childs, 1995, 3; it was thus substantiated more by dogmatics and historical criticism in dialectical theology) and only to a lesser degree attuned to history and facts (Reventlow, 1982, 100, 104, 109-110), the structure of salvation history gradually came under pressure from modern biblical criticism. This criticism arose in Catholicism only later (Merk, 1980, 467, 29-468, 36) so that salvation history, relying on the somewhat unscientific notion of sensus plenior and on natural theology, could long be practiced without problem (Reventlow, 1982, 107; idem 1983b, 32-49; Seidel H.W., 1993, 289-303). In time, scholars tried to reconcile salvation history with modern biblical criticism and to rely on the literal meaning of the words. 219 Reventlow, 1983b, 12-16. On typology see Baker, 1991², 179-202; Reventlow, 1983b, 16-32. A group of OT scholars tried in vain to forge a balanced link between modern biblical criticism and theological scope by using typology as method to construct a biblical commentary (Reventlow, 1983b, 24). This praiseworthy effort became a demonstration of the loss of biblical theology about which Childs spoke openly. Yet typology remained a point of discussion (Beauchamp, 1992; idem, 1990) when it came to Dtr (Lohfink, 1997; Cross, 1998, 233-246). — On the fulfilment diagram see Baker, 1991², 203-233; Reventlow, 1983b, 24-25, 49-56. — On the vocabulary see Hasel, 1985², 188-189. 220 After adopting Von Rad’s gesamtbiblische option as starting point for his pioneering and historically illuminating investigation of the origin of this question, Kraus H.J., 19701, 391395 ultimately decided that the most fundamental obstacle for the future lay in the resolution of the problematic relationship between the historical approach and dogmatics. By giving biased priority to dogma at the expense of historical research, even when linked to a rejection of all natural values, dialectical theology will impede, if not make impossible, a more realistic historical approach to the single canon for NT and OT, at least among its proponents. “Biblical theology has always been a theology of salvation history ... The urgent task of theology is to formulate a concept of history that is appropriated to its canon” (Ladd, 1971, 41).

98

theological valorisation at the expense of modern biblical criticism, which was regarded as guilty of the lapse in the 18th and 19th centuries. The result of this was that to the extent that the emerging holistic issue raised the question of the canon, this was done chiefly and exclusively in a theology that limited itself to the history of ideas and to a study of its essence that showed little historical accuracy and structural orientation. To the extent that this study took place at all, it was drawn into the wake of the theology of the OT and the redaction criticism that dominated it in that period221. It is thus primarily at the instigation of this academic social environment that a more positive222 solid theology of the whole Bible, with the canon as its foundation, would be developed in the following period.

3.2 From 1970 to the Present 3.2.1 Postmodernism Keeping in mind the contextuality of Christian faith and theology with regard to the spirit of the times, it is useful when discussing the most recent period of canon study to cast a glance at the evolution that this spirit, now called modernism, underwent in the period since the age of humanism and Enlightenment223. Many now consider modernism 221

This text means relying on more objective, historical data that starts from the text. 222

An example of this is the approach in Kraus H.J., 19701, 344-347. It is a primarily theological matter marked by what Protestantism calls anti-canon resentment. This is an approach in which the theological study of the canon is separated from the broader context of its contemporary faith community and is reduced to a strict exegesis of the text. Under these circumstances, the role of modern biblical criticism has been pruned to liberate the canon from its control. It is no wonder that the integration of historical critical scholarship becomes a problem (Kraus H.J., 19701, 363-366). The history of ideas tendency is clearly felt in A. Jepsen en N. Lohfink’s early inquiry into a theology of the whole bible and canon (Reventlow, 1983b, 27, 48, 130). The same criticism had already been expressed in the separate field of the OT (Zimmerli, 1980, 442, 3-4; 443, 3-26). 223 Beer, 1995; Ward; 2001, xii. “By contextuality of the Christian faith is meant that Christianity assumes, like a chameleon, the colour of the culture in which Christians live” (Houdijk, 1990, 276-297, esp. 277). This contextuality has been extensively explained in sections 3.1.6 and 3.1.7. “An exegete is restricted by his/her own time and social position” (Deurloo, 1986, 188-198, esp. 193). “Die Biblische Hermeneutik ist in vielfacher Weise mit der allgemeinen Entwicklung des Denkens verzahnt” (Oeming, 1998, 30). Since this spirit of the times is still being shaped and is flexible – the New Age is depicted as enveloped in mist: Champion, 1995, 233-242, esp. 236 – no one is able to delineate postmodernism

99

outmoded224. They consider themselves to be post-modern and argue that they not only want to, but are able to, replace this modernism. Which direction this response will take depends on the way in which those involved perceive this modernism, which facets of it they have in mind and how they evaluate them225. Typically, modernism usually calls to mind its intention to explain and control all of reality226. The appropriate means for this was, on one side, rationalism, which continually presents new and more penetrating resources, and on the other, technology, which allows human potential to grow and grasp reality227. Western expansion gave this accurately. — Those who speak of the post-modern period, usually do so from the perspective of the preceding modern period that is considered to have started with R. Descartes or E. Kant (Verhaar, 1994, 367-373, esp. 367) and to be in the process of ending now. 224 Ward (2001, xv) called this implosion. Hence the feeling of closing a previous era with a New Age that has new values (Bonnet-Eymard, 1993, 249-258, esp. 250). 225 Several, and even contradictory responses can be observed within postmodernism (Burggraeve, 1993, 5-35, esp. 16), hence the problematic (Geffré-Jossua, 1992, 6-9, esp. 6) nature of the term postmodernity and New Age. Postmodernity tends to revolt against history (Van Harskamp, 1993, 5-26, esp. 22) as counter-reaction to the past, which was experienced as a catastrophe (Champion, 1995, 228; Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 2001, 62, can only describe it as a “narrowing”). This deprives it of its sense of history (Burggraeve, 1993, 10) and of productive historicity (Houdijk, 1990, 279). With a total lack of insight in what preceded, it cannot possibly turn to the present in a suitable and balanced manner. After all, postmodernists have the tendency to make an absolute of their truth. They are unable to compromise (Burggraeve, 1993, 16). That is why they are sometimes compared to the defenders of dialectical theology, who are considered their precursors (Houdijk, 1990, 293). 226 Burggraeve, 1993, 6. Because it really involves the whole of reality, it is often called a “single narrative”. 227 “Seen anthropologically, rationality is the human ability to order and understand, to make logical connections in what at first sight is a complex world, to communicate, to make and process things according to plan. Seen historically, it is also that aspect of human culture that has come to dominate the modern period...” (Hoedemaker, 1993, 27-43, esp. 37). “The central theme behind it was and is the desire to create a safe existence amid threatened nature and muddled society ... . However, the need to eliminate fear and uncertainty uses a remarkable means, namely, permanently critical reflectiveness, a mechanism for the ceaseless testing of ideas and actions ...” (Van Harskamp, 1993, 9). — “...western rationality is characterised by a control paradigm in which the other, the opposite must always be denied, excluded or subjugated” (Hoedemaker, 1993, 33). “This ideal of a solid and supporting knowledge is given ultimate expression above all in modern science and technology. Biotechnology, genetic technology and their expanding grasp on life and death are terse examples. Computer sciences and cybernetics are the most recent variants of this control by knowledge. The familiar saying that ‘knowledge is power’ is implemented to its most radical consequences” (Burggraeve, 1993, 6).

100

modernism a worldwide penetration and attraction. While development workers spread their idealism, western countries228 have to raise immigration barriers because of they are so successful. There are those who feel that western modernism with its rational and technological pursuit of autonomy is at odds with religion as contact with the transcendent229. It would in this way promote the secularisation process, which consists of awareness that all can be experienced without the need for a deeper dimension230. Others accept the fact and even the irreversibility of the secularisation process231, but refuse a priori to submit to an Entgötterung of what they consider the indispensable dynamism of religion232. They point to the indisputable revival of religion, not this time on a universal basis, but in smaller groups233. Unlike postmodern theology, 228

Hoedemaker, 1993, 33; Delgado, 1994, 341-352, esp. 345. Anthony, 1983, 10-20; Van der Ven, 1991, 163-182, esp. 164. Hoedemaker, 1993, 33 speaks of the “probably inadequate secularisation thesis”. Raedts (1997, 147-158, esp. 147151) casts much stronger doubts upon the prevailing secularisation theory. 230 Lippert, 1987, 109-113; 165-170, esp. 110. 231 “Recatholicising Europe is an illusory dream” (Geffré-Jossua, 1992, 8). “Die Säkularisierung erscheint als ein Prozeß, dessen soziokulturelle Ursachen sich bis zu einem gewissen Grad namhaft machen lassen. Von daher ist m. E. zu betonen, daß dieser Prozeß nicht in die freie Wahl in dem Sinn gestellt ist, als ob man entscheiden könnte, Säkularisierung stattfinden zu lassen oder nicht, sie zu ‘stoppen’ oder durch fleißige Gegenaktionen ‘umzudrehen’” (Lippert, 1987, 165). In 1953, F. Gogarten presented the most positive view of secularisation when he wrote, “Secularisation can be seen in such a way that it is founded in the reality of the Christian faith and that it is its legitimate consequence” (Sperna Weiland, 19664, 29; Fischer H., 1983, 366-367). 232 Taken from the title of a book by Buber (Van der Veken, 1970, 9-65, esp. 13). GeffréJossua, 1992. 233 “Secularisation seems to call up its own antithesis ... at the same time it creates room for religious answers ... it arouses in itself a religious-cultural counter-tendency” (Van Harskamp, 1993, 8-9). “Chassez la religion, elle revient au galop!” (Delhez, 1984, 11). Individual people have unsatisfied needs such as their vain struggle for authenticity, their existential fear of death, their inarticulate boredom and the feeling that time is dissolving, all are factors that lead them to turn to religiosity (Van Harskamp, 1997, 243-264). “The permanent nuisance of religion cannot be missed” (Hoedemaker, 1993, 36). “...religion can be understood as a questioning and change-inducing force” (Van der Ven, 1991, 171). If today, contrary to the recent past as experienced by D. Bonhoeffer en K. Barth (Sperna Weiland, 19664, 91-93; Van der Veken, 1970, 16-21) starting with Tillich (Zahrnt, 1967, 334-335, 359-360), religion is again showing signs of success (even popular religion has its defenders: Henau, 1986, 64-71), it is because of its rediscovered function as a way to cope with human contingency: the limit experienced in human existence (Van der Ven, 1991, 163-171). — Postmodernity is anti-totalitarian (Houdijk, 1990, 288-292). This means that the totalising single narratives that purport to explain all of reality are considered no longer feasible. The disappearance of Marxism supports this idea (Van den Berg, 1997, 27). Under 229

101

fundamentalist currents in particular manage to present themselves plausibly to a small group and even to press toward expansion. Although fundamentalism has no adequate answer to the secularisation process, it has the merit of making clear that something must be done to satisfy the urgent need of believers that arises from the identity crisis234. these circumstances, postmodern individuals prefer fragmenting solutions (Burggraeve, 1993, 11; Houdijk, 1990, 279; Van Harskamp, 1993, 24), more tailor-made for differentiated modern individuals (“La vérité est plurielle”: Champion, 1995, 238; “Multiplicity of surfaces”: Houdijk, 1990, 278; “eclectically mixed cocktail”: Burggraeve, 1993, 12) and the small local groups in which they move. Here it is necessary take into account the proclamation of a universal vision of unity to avoid doing injustice to the existing variety (Van der Ven, 1991, 174-175). That is why the attempts to reconquer totality (“...l’ambition de reconquérir le monde”: Kepel, 1991), undertaken by fundamentalists with the sympathy of Cardinal Ratzinger (1989, 4; “C’est dans l’œuvre du cardinal Ratzinger qu’est exposée avec le plus de force la nécessité de ce combat”: Kepel, 1991, 91), should be evaluated critically (Houdijk, 1990, 284). “Die große Leitideen und Einheitsvorstellungen haben abgedankt, was offenbar auch für die Bibelauslegung zutrifft” (Oeming, 1998, 178). In Christian circles this is called the new evangelisation (Kepel, 1991, 110). — Those referring to the importance of smaller groups include: Hoedemaker, 1993, 31-32; Van Harskamp, 1993, 8; Van Knippenberg, 1993, 61-76, esp. 63-64; 70; Anthony, 1983; Coleman, 1983, 21-29; Bergeron, 1983, 97-104. For a survey of their number and distribution see Delhez, 1984, 35-36. 234 Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 354; Barr, 1984; idem, 1980b, 73-78; Van Harskamp, 1993, 23-26; Hoedemaker, 1993, 33; Ladd, 1971, 47; Theobald, 1990, 59; Sesboüé, 1991, 671681, esp. 671-672; Tracy, 1994, 14. “Theology’s meeting with modernity still seems to compel it to seek God further away in the transcendental depths of the ego or in the corner where faith only has meaning for the last remaining contingencies, e.g. death and suffering, not under the control of science” (Van Harskamp, 1993, 26). Although specific to its locality, fundamentalism is also a worldwide phenomenon (Tracy, 1994, 11; Kepel, 1991). “Fundamentalismus ... dessen Denominationen weltweit den größten Mitgliderzuwachs zu verzeichnen haben” (Körtner, 1977, 153-179, esp. 161). “A fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture invites people to commit intellectual suicide” (Beentjens, 1994, 405). With its reintroduction of the ‘rumour of angels’ (a restored security under the protection of the absolute divine authority as the fundamentalists see this), it once again gives a rational answer (an available divine foundation: Willems, 1993, 44-60, esp. 55) to the secularisation issue that arises from modernism’s rationalisation (Van Harskamp, 1993, 11-19). “Reflection on the sense and meaning of mankind and world leads ultimately to the awareness of human finality and the essential contingency of all earthly existence. The empirical knowledge arising from this insecurity can provide no answer (just as the divine foundation created by fundamentalism cannot)” (Willems, 1993, 54). — After all, “God’s truth precedes every human attempt to use God for what is humanly functional” (Van Harskamp, 1993, 25). “After all this we can describe present-day fundamentalism as an aggressive cultural disposition in individuals or groups that is provoked and made possible when the feeling of religiously guaranteed identity enters a state of crisis as a result of the modernist ethos. An attempt is made to maintain the threatened identity through total

102

3.2.2 Theology in the Postmodern Era In the field of theology, where the area of tension is still traditionally divided, with liberal theology and fundamentalism as the two extremes, it seems at first sight as if the postmodern intellectual current is consistent with dialectical theology235 because of the former’s absolutist and antihistorical attitude, at least insofar as this is anti-modernist. This, however, is premature, given the complexity of postmodernism, which obviously gives rise to divergent stances. Certainly, as an all-encompassing cultural trend, postmodernism obliges theology of all types to take it into account236. Its express emphasis on the current needs of individual believers, including their health in a pollution-free environment, increases the pressure to keep up to date, which is unavoidably perceived in church preaching. The destructuring tendency237, linked to a preference for subjugation to principles, values and texts considered orthodox” (Van Harskamp, 1993). “I had to realise that people had less need for truth than for certainty. If they have certainty, they hate and contend with all that threatens it” (Walschap, 1966, 166). How postmodern individuals are to reach the certainty of identity is by no means certain, because they reject the great narratives that can legitimate their identity (Lindijer, 2003, 44). Grenz, 2002, launched a positive proposal based on the biblical notion of Imago Dei. 235 Kamitsuka, 1997, 171-189; Bradford-Schner, 1995, 299-310. Numerous intermediary trends can traditionally be found between these two extremes (Tracy, 1994, 13-14). P. Stuhlmacher distinguishes radical, negative and positive critics (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 2632). He includes himself and the successors of dialectical theology among the last. He thus adopts an intermediary position. Barr sees some continuity between Barth and postmodernism. He was not alone. “With increasing frequency, one hears the suggestion that Karl Barth was the first postmodern or post-biblical theologian” (Barr, 2000, 167). Since the 1960s dialectical theology has found a new resonance; there was even talk of a Barth Renaissance (Fischer H., 1983, 352-355). 236 Verhaar, 1994, 368. Fundamentalism is also a universal phenomenon. “Die Problemsituation in der Biblischen Theologie berührt sich an vielen Punkten mit der Diskussion um die sogenannte ‘Postmoderne’ ... Hier geht es um die synchrone Koexistenz divergierender Wahrheits-, Sinn- und Aktionsmuster, um die Erfahrung von Pluralität in aller Radikalität, die nicht in einer übergeordneten ‘meta-Erzahlung’ versöhnt werden kann” (Oeming, 1995, 83-84). Lindijer, 2003, and Boeve-Ries, 2001, make notable efforts to give a positive twist to postmodernism’s stance toward the great narratives and transcendence despite postmodernism’s totally negative view – see Aichele, 2001 – of the biblical canon or the objective data on which it is based (Douglas-Klotz, 1999). Postmodernism seems to have penetrated as far as recent OT theology (Jeremias, 2003, 4750). 237 The present and the everyday is the only real world (Houdijk, 1990, 287). This is the source of the a-historical tendency. — Delhez, 1984, 80-81; Champion, 1995, 236;

103

experimental experience, leads to a detachment from past theologising. Rather than falling back on authorities such as authors, texts are invoked without critical commentary and are used and rethought creatively238. The subject believes it can freely choose its stance toward the object and can select from it eclectically and even aesthetically239. Even if this does not Houdijk, 1990, 286; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 567 illuminate the role of ecology. The ecology movement and process theology have made skilful use of this issue (Reventlow, 1983b, 144-145; Scheffczyk, 1984, 81-104; Van der Veken, 1970) at the expense of attention for the biblical tradition (Hanson, 1977, 111). TvT 30 (9-1990) 5-75 and Conc 19 (1983) gave special attention to this theme. — Fundamentalism has the strongest feeling for what is ‘in’. Dialectical theologians like Barth, F. Delitsch and K. Girgensohn also put up a good show. From the very start to today (Seebass, 1982, 28-45, esp. 36) they have been aware of the need that believers have today (Reventlow, 1982, 14, 18, 30, 37). This need is still manifested in the rift between autonomous biblical sciences and church leadership and its dogma. The up-to-date nature of preaching has become a tradition in dialectical theology (Koole, 1983, 195). Diem, 1970; Mildenberger, 1986; Oeming, 1986, 67-70; Bohren, 1986 have stressed this most recently. This shows that today’s faith community is also aware of the experience of the up-to-date nature of the faith event. It confronts exegetes with an additional responsibility (Gottwald, 2003). — The authoritarian character (Verhaar, 1994, 368-369) of dialectical theology is destructuring (Trible, 1994, 70-73) and this is the source of its anti-canonical orientation (with exception of the canonocratic minor fundamentalist groups [Platvoet, 1998, 122]) despite its pursuit of holism, which leads it to oppose dualism (Haers, 1996, 149-165, esp. 155). That is why it seeks an alternative for the authority of the canon. Certainly, the renewed interest for the Bible as canon has to do with postmodernity’s new view of reality (Sanders, 2001, 12). 238 Champion, 1995, 234, 240; Bonnet-Eymard, 1993, 255; Conc 78-3. “Les textes n’ont pas d’auteurs” (Verhaar, 1994, 367). “The demand for revelation has been replaced by the demand for relevance” (F. van Segbroeck cited in Talstra, 2002, 307-308). “The text as a shifting field of play” (Webster, 2003, 100). “Text, intertextuality and narrativity are thus preferential topics in postmodernity” (Burggraeve, 1993, 11). They are in keeping with the holistic view of postmodernism (Delhez, 1984, 79-80). “The Bible can be read without all that critical stuff! … They may not want critical history, but they do need historical fact” (Barr, 2000, 150-151). M. Bahktin, who is called the father of intertextuality, is in many ways also the father of the postmodernists (Claassens, 2003, 127). “Kaleidoscopic biblical readings” (Barr, 2000, 149). “Nothing goes above one’s own perception of the Bible pericope” (Holman, 1995, 224); “L’individu est au centre, comme premier critère de vérité. La réalité s’enracine dans la conscience de l’individu plutôt que dans les données du monde extérieur et dans une tradition” (Delhez, 1984, 75-76). “You can read any texts that you want … you can read the text in any way that you want” (Aichele, 2001, 17). 239 Willems, 1993, 51. This appears to be at least partially an illusion, see “The Death of the Subject” (Tracy, 1994, 15). The subject is dethroned, can only participate, and must thus even be supported (Houdijk, 1990, 281, 285-286, 294-295). To be sure, the accents in society have shifted to the individual (Van den Berg, 1997, 26; King Albert II of Belgium referred in his installation address to individualism as the most prominent threatening phenomenon, see Delhez, 1984, 15) or to simple groups (Burggraeve, 1993, 15 calls this

104

dethrone the current status quo, this attitude certainly promotes the standard text-immanent methods in exegesis, which, by no coincidence, have been on the rise in recent years240. On the other hand, it should be noted that the postmodern mentality does not seem to be beneficial for a positive theological appreciation of modernity and biblical theology in the strict sense. Today, invoking the Bible as source of authority is losing ground among the broad mass of people (decanonisation) or is at risk despite the durable cultural image of biblical literature. Inspiration for life is more frequently sought outside it241, even outside the three monotheistic quantitative individualism) but the we-feeling is lacking (Van den Berg, 1997, 17; that is why there is an insistent need for a starker Subjektbegriff: Müller K., 1998, 137-163). This phenomenon seems to be related to the growing subjective attitudes described in 3.7.1. In any case, it certainly does not benefit the community’s canon. “The lessening impact of the Bible upon Western society” (Coats-Long, 1977, IX). There is also a connection between individualisation and the renewed appeal to religion: individuals encounter insurmountable obstacles in their search for authenticity (Van Harskamp, 1997). “Suum cuique ist ein durchaus heidnischer Satz – aber nicht nur mit großzügigen sondern auch mit eigensüchtigen Implikationen” (Dietrich, 1995, 27). “If we can’t entertain them with relevance, then we do so with beauty or depth of meaning” (F. Van Segbroeck cited in Talstra, 2002, 308). “Everything becomes art and everyone thinks he/she is an artist” (Burggraeve, 1993, 11-12). 240 Tracy, 1994, 17-18; Barton J., 1984,2; Van Iersel, 1983, 98-103, esp. 101; Van Wolde, 1990, 333-361; Saint-Sernin, 1993, 487-495; Loader, 1986, 128-142. Schaper, 2006, 10 draws attention to contrary, conservative methods within postmodern exegesis. 241 Tracy, 1994, 11-15; Geffré-Josua, 1992, and the related issue of Conc 30 (1992) accentuate postmodernism’s negative attitude toward modernity. — On decanonisation see 2.3.3; Lindbeck, 1989, 46; Féret, 1981, 8-19; Sperna Weiland, 19664, 246; Carson, 1986, 548, esp. 46-48; Ganoczy, 1980, 79-85; Keck, 1996. “...the authority of the Bible is being questioned, probably more (at the end of the old biblical theology movement, L.Z.) than it was at the beginning” (Barr, 1974, 265-282, esp. 266). This presupposes that all theology worth the name is biblical, even Roman Catholic theology (Ebeling, 1962, 70). Yet much of Roman Catholic theology is more ecclesiological-dogmatic (Ermecke, 1981, 194-205). In these circles, too, it must now be observed that the sensus fidelium is weakening (Lindbeck, 1989, 66-78). Verifying and assessing this sensus fidelium is no easy task (Sartori, 1981, 67-72). — Berkouwer, 1968; Bartlett, 1983; Gnuse, 1983; idem, 1985 b; Kuitert, 1995², 5460 see the Bible losing terrain. “...Son statut flottant dans la société moderne” (Theobald, 1990, 64 n. 199). “The lessening impact of the Bible upon Western society” (Coats-Long, 1977, IX). These growing reservations with regard to the Bible apply even more strongly to its canonical shape, which the faithful experience as a straitjacket. Yet the Bible retains a fixed value: Pelletier, 1991, 381-392; Luttikhuizen, 1996, 346. “Auf dem Supermarkt der religiösen Möglichkeiten stellt sie (die Bibel, L.Z.) nur ein Angebot unter vielen dar ...” (Ebeling, 1978, 99-116, esp. 101). “...angesichts wachsender Vorbehalte ...gegen die Bibel” (Zenger, 1996c, 173-176, esp. 173). See the series of articles in Daco 1996-1997: “De Bijbel geopend?”. Van der Veken, 1970, 29 had already opined in 1969 that, “I suspect that these people (the radical theologians following K. Barth, L.Z.) will also think that they can

105

religions242. Theologising thus seeks open space, dares once again to address the question of God and faith, to rethink the notion of revelation and to enter into dialogue with the natural values and the so contested natural theology243. Theologising even becomes anthropology, a pursuit of the fullness of creation in which allies are sought and found among social and rational humanists244. No one worries about the bond with the leadership of their own faith community who regard this evolution with

build a human city without the Bible”. “… the lack of reference in these works either to the Bible itself or to the problems of biblical studies” (Barr, 2000, 167). 242 Bergeron, 1983. “Today’s differentiated religious interest leads to relativism” (Champion, 1995, 238, 240). Christianity’s universal value encounters increasing scepticism and doubt (Duquoc, 1980, 51-60; Comblin, 1980, 61-68; Boeve, 1996, 387396), and arouses the need for a pluralistic theology of the religions (Bernhardt, 1994, 231246). 243 Schreurs, 1980b, 61-85; idem, 1980, 229-252. “We would do better to focus on the main issue” (Zahrnt, 1967, 5). — On the rethinking of the concept of revelation see Lemke, 1982, 35-46; Göll, 1985, 532-545; Schwager, 1987, 257-275; Alberigo, 1983, 90-97; Van De Beek, 1987, 67-83; Pannenberg, 19824. God’s presence in history is a special question in this discussion on God. Pannenberg shows a feeling for this in particular in his attempt to reconcile faith and life (Warin, 1981). “Das Kanonproblem ist das Verhältnis von Offenbarung und Geschichte” (Söding, 2005, 12). —On natural value and natural theology, see: Berkouwer, 1974; Dembowski., 1985, 224-248; Beck H., 1986; Vörckel, 1985; Kremer, 1985; Page, 1985; Rendtorff, T., 1986, 298-314; Barr, 1993. P. Tillich’s attempt to bridge supernaturalism using the correlation method is well known (Schüssler, 1987, 513529; Heyde, 1974, 151-192). 244 Houdijk, 1990, 293; Leemans, 1974, 377-384; Zahrnt, 1967 255. The fact that the divine is only observable via human existence is stressed more heavily (Olivier., 1979, 447-480; Fiolet, 1968; Conc 18 (1982) is devoted to this theme). This gives rise to political, feminist, materialistic, narrative and psycho-analytical theologies. “These (theological) categories depend – in the most frequent cases – on the current dominant human sciences: sociology, psychology, education, etc. ...” (Féret, 1981, 10). — On the wholeness of creation see: Marx-Reiner-Jacobi, 1985, 196-211; Moltmann, 1985; Van der Nolle, 1977, 171-183; Greshake, 1986; Kowalski, 1982, 199-218. This is the broadest possible theological application to ecology, and it also has repercussions for ecumenism (Brattinga, 1991, 6584, esp. 80-81). This tendency can even be found in Judaism (Reventlow, 1983b, 109-110), i.e. in its present natural approach to Jesus as Jew (Van den Berg, 1997, 18). — The Christians for Socialism movement (Girardi, 1977; Conc 13 [1977]) is an example of overtures toward humanism. Before them, a long tradition of religious socialism has expanded since the end of the First World War (Fischer H., 1983, 301-309; Zahrnt, 1967, 388-389; Sperna Weiland, 19664, 246). See political theology (Aubert, 1988, 591-593) and liberation theology (Kamitsuka, 1997; Moltmann, 1996, 3-10; Beumer, 1990). “In an age which claims that all ‘the great stories’ are done with, canon critique and decanonization can be plausibly construed as proofs of the advantages of a non-canonical philosophy of life such as humanism” (Vos, 1998b, 362).

106

suspicion and assess it rather negatively245. The freer theologising with international colleagues from one’s own church community is also tangible in the field of ecumenism246. Liberal theologians247 move most easily in this situation, but they cannot conceal that as the theologising becomes deeper they are less successful in demolishing the divisions whose foundations were laid long ago in history248. Even without the support of their own church leadership or theologians, a considerable portion of the church membership seems unable to resist taking practical, issue-oriented steps toward unity. They have no patience to wait for a theologically developed foundation. In this situation, the only option is a structure-free

245

Danneels, 1990; Champion, 1995, 240-241. “Relations of most Christian theologians with New Age are thunderous” (Haers, 1996, 157). Here again we see more directly in the church’s own back yard how the influence of the church community on the personal ideas and freedom of the individual is declining (3.1.7). There is a growing gap between the individual and the church community with which he/she finds it increasingly difficult to identify (Neuner, 1997, 171). “… le hiatus profond qui s’est instauré entre les appareils ecclésiastiques et leur base, les accommodements personnels et les interprétations souples de la loyauté institutionnelle étant de plus en plus fréquents (y compris parmi les clercs)” (Willaume, 2001, 191). 246 Willaume, 2001, 188-193. “Wegen des Endes einer territorialen Integrität der Einzelreligionen” (Müller H.P., 1997, 317). “Church theology can no longer withdraw to its own denomination. Denominational theology must also follow the path toward a common Christian theology” (Brattinga, 1991, 80). The advancing secularisation process moving in the wake of humanism and the Enlightenment (3.1.6.) caused believers to become aware that the tide could no longer be turned within their own church organisations. They then sought to join with like-minded people beyond the borders of their own church organisations. “Kirchliche Gipfeltreffen und ökumenische Versammlungen werden kontrastiert von privatwirtschaftlich organisierten Esoterikmessen” (Körtner, 1977, 154). This is the deconfessionalising that has marked ecumenism since the Second Vatican Council. Accidental or not, this runs parallel with the feeling for holism and intertextuality in postmodernism. Similarly, it can hardly be accidental that the canon issue has grown into a worldwide phenomenon. 247 On the Catholic side, we can mention Küng, 1970, 175-204; Fries, 1992, and especially K. Rahner (Dulles, 1983, 243-245). On the Protestant side, Cullmann made a worthy contribution (1970, 98-108). 248 The ecumenical revival soon ran into the theological issue, with the canon as highlight (3.1.9). “Je mehr die Zuwendung zur Bibel sich auf der einen Seite praktisch zum einigenden Ferment im Umgang der Konfessionen miteinander entwickelte, desto mehr erwies auf der andern Seite die Bibel ihre Unbrauchbarkeit als theologische Basis für die Ökumene” (Luz, 1983, 142-161, esp. 142). — Lönning, 1972; Appel, 1964, 116-117 n. 16, 162 point to the persistently fundamental contrast. “...certain interconfessional tensions still remaining” (Dulles, 1983, 251).

107

ecumenism with little theological depth249. Another part of the church membership continues to seek this theological foundation beyond the church’s leadership and ends in one or other type of fundamentalism250, while still hoping that they will be able to live as proud believers amid the roiling tides of the world. Christian-Jewish dialogue has a special place. As a result of the prematurely begun separation between Christianity and Judaism, in which each became a separate faith community that delimited its own canon, genuinely bilateral dialogue between the communities was no longer possible. In addition to theological differences, many prejudices rigidified the unavoidable societal contacts between the two faith communities. The situation worked repeatedly to the detriment of the Jews who, as minority group, were persistently oppressed and occasionally persecuted by Christians and Muslims251. A nadir was reached with the arrival of Nazi Germany and the Shoah in the Second World War. Long before that the Jewish people, however dispersed and differentiated they may have been, began to develop Zionist currents252. It had become clear, especially after the disappointing results of attempts to achieve integration 249

Van den Berghe P., 1993, 43-47; Piétinement (Sesboüé, 1991, 681; Vercruysse, 1985, 539-543). “...weil in der streng theologischen Frage die Annäherung zwischen den Kirchen auf offizieller Ebene nur schleppend vorangeht” (Neuner, 1997, 182). “Les rencontres personnelles sont devenues fréquentes et aisées, mais des problèmes d’ordre dogmatique et historique demeurent non résolus” (Thils, 1994, 304). The meetings held in 1989 in Basel and in 1997 in Graz illustrate this trend. The meeting in Harare in December 1998 at which the Orthodox members could only be kept from leaving the World Council of Churches by a promise to relax the organisation’s structures is another symptom of a-structural ecumenism. Brattinga, 1991; Sesboüé, 1991. There is thus a long list of theological problems to be solved (Neuner, 1997, 185) but which apparently could not be addressed in Baltimore in the summer of 2000 (Bryner, 2004). On the other hand, the dialogue with the Lutherans appeared to be about to be crowned by the signing of a common declaration on 31 October 1999 in Augsburg. However, the agreement was torpedoed by the declaration Domine Jesus issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 6 August 2000 and the Orthodox Church’s nearly simultaneous Moscow declaration (Vercruysse, 2002). 250 The fundamentalist churches do not participate at all in the ecumenical dialogue (Brattinga, 1991, 67). 251 Rendtorff, R., 1991. If we consider the long and eventful history of what befell the Jews since the separation as they present it (Kedourie, 1979), a common theme seems to run through the many changing situations and events. The Jews’ minority position repeatedly led to their oppression despite their admirable persistence, which produced many heroes and martyrs. The theological and other prejudices provided a permanent underlying motive. But it was the political and social powers that served as instrument of oppression and persecution. This motivated Judaism’s search for a way out in a political independence that would allow it to live its religious unity. 252 Kedourie, 1979, 309-317.

108

and emancipation in the new nation states that arose after the French revolution, that only political autonomy could bring an end to their oppressed position throughout the world. As is known, the Zionist struggle resulted in the establishment of an independent state, Israel. This fact and the Shoah opened again the way to true dialogue after the world war. This dialogue is not restricted to developing reciprocal relations as equal political partners. Theological antitheses should also be clarified and, where possible, eliminated253.

3.3 Biblical Research after 1970 If the postmodern spirit of the age is able to influence Christian faith and biblical theology including the study of the canon254, then this is due to the continuous entwining of the objective and subjective factors that influenced the past usually unconsciously. In this process the subjective factors, here personal conviction, appear to have been determinative. This came under discussion most recently in the treatment of the theological revival that pursued canon research in the first half of the 20th century255. After having long been studied from a historical perspective as part of Religionsgeschichte, the canon was again elucidated particularly for its theological value. After 1970, the rehabilitation of the canon as theological fact came to full development under the impulse of the canonical movement. It thus deserves special attention in the following survey. Yet traditional historical criticism, text criticism in particular, which seemed to come under pressure during the theological heyday, may not be ignored. As in the past, it continued to provide a contribution to the formation of the theological position that should not be underestimated. After all, the 253

The basic treaty between the Vatican and the State of Israel signed on 29 July 1992 is an important step in this. It followed the logical line in the Roman Catholic endeavour since Vatican II to work on equal relations on a political level (see the declaration on the Jews in par. 4 of the council document Nostra Aetate [28 Oct. 1965]; for other important documents on this subject see Neuhaus, 1997, 249-276, esp. 249 n. 1; Untergassmair, 1996, 139-140). On the other side, there is the positive point of the Jews’ increasing recognition of Jesus as Jew (Reventlow, 1983b, 88-89). They even give the impression of accepting Jesus on a natural basis (Van den Berg, 1997, 18). The theological discussion is the most difficult aspect of Jewish-Christian dialogue (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 41-42). Söding (2005, esp. 80-98) made a noteworthy contribution. 254 This postmodern way of situating of the canon issue is striking in Sanders 1995, 56-63; Brueggemann, 1993. 255 3.1.8. – 3.1.10.

109

position taken at the time of the rise of modern biblical criticism – that a system of dogma that was faithful to the Bible could not be maintained without the data from historical criticism256 – had not been refuted. This is the reason why the following evaluation of the most recent period in the study of the canon devotes attention to the advances of classical biblical criticism in addition to the new structural approach that the canonical movement customarily invokes. The movement must continue to produce the scientific argumentation to support its positions on the canon’s structure and in so doing support the innovative concept of canon.

3.3.1 Textual Criticism Since around 1950, text criticism underwent a new unprecedented boom based on its linking the notion of canon with the written medium257. This is indisputably related to the discovery of many older manuscripts in recent decades. There had already been a remarkable discovery of OT scrolls in the geniza of a synagogue in Cairo at the end of the previous century. In the 20th century, several important discoveries from Nag Hammadi, Qumran and Wadi Moerabba’at were added to this258. For a science like text criticism, whose objective was to present the most complete possible biblical text, access to such additional material was a valuable aid that, after comparison, could be used to determine which version could be considered the most original and faithful witness259. The general experience is that flaws arise in the transmission of any text. The new supply of documents was special because of the great age of the manuscripts. While previously the oldest manuscripts dated from around 1000 CE, the time limit for some OT and NT writings was now pushed 256

Kraus H.J., 1982³, 573 n. 28. “...ils n’auraient aucune valeur théologique s’ils n’étaient pas raisonnables” (Grelot, 1994, 397). Conversely, there is little support today for the view that biblical theology is purely descriptive and averse to all dogma and theology (according to K. Stendahl: Hasel, 1987³, 35-36, 39, 78). 257 “A new stage in the history of textual criticism ... the beginning of a new rise... Never before has there been such an accelerated trace of flow of material ...” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 386). “A new day” (Sanders, 1979, 5). 258 Tov, 20012. Childs, 1983², 91; Luttikhuizen, 1996; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 438-439; Sanders, 1979, 6; idem, 1992b; Van der Kooij, 2002. 259 “To establish the text” (Sanders, 1979, 7). “Textual criticism is the discipline that tries to recover the original copy (autograph)” (Childs, 1983², 13). In the past, having new manuscripts, enhanced philological knowledge or work instruments and enlivened text criticism (Childs, 1983², 89-92).

110

back to the dawn of the Christian period. Thanks to this shift, modern scholars were in as comfortable a position, when it came to available materials, as that of Origen when he compiled his hexapla or Jerome when he made his translation260. If in its day the discovery of only the Samaritan Pentateuch had caused such an intense and long-lasting agitation261, it can be expected that the much richer, recent discoveries will open many more new perspectives. They have hardly begun to influence exegetical publications. The cause of this is that the processing of the new material presupposed considerable expertise in more than just philology. In addition, it is a public secret that in the past, scholars could differ greatly from one another, even if only methodologically262. In addition to offering scholars new opportunities, the richer supply of manuscripts available today also makes greater demands of them. The result of all this was that insights into the oldest textual history had to be radically changed263. It is the tentative and fairly general consensus for both OT and NT that the text in the oldest phase evolved from broad multiformity to uniformity. For the OT this uniformity took shape in the pre-Masoretic standard text during the period that extended from the 2nd century BCE to 70 CE264. For the NT, 260

Sanders, 1979, 13-14; Aland, 1982, 145-146, esp. 152. This shift is less great for NT mss, but it is still significant (Childs, 1984, 525). The discoveries are proportionately more important for NT study in general than for text criticism specifically (Sanders, 1992b, 326329). In the future, it will become apparent that beside the many parallels there are also considerable differences in the text study of OT and NT (Childs, 1983² 97; idem, 1985, 525-526; Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 366 n. 10). 261 Childs, 1983², 89-90. This was also repeatedly the case for earlier finds of other texts (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 368). 262 Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 367-368; Sanders, 1997, 315-327; Childs, 1984, 521. Comparative philology has its proponents and opponents (Childs, 1983², 93, 105-106). Today, the methodological differences are no less; quite the reverse, they have grown (Childs, 1983², 88, 103; Reeves, 1996, 61-73, esp. 68-72). 263 Van der Kooij, 2002, 174. “The new appreciation of the limits of textcriticism goes hand in hand with the need for the discipline to be considerably more thorough and precise in its work” (Sanders, 1979, 10; Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 386-389; Sæbø, 1998. “...a radical change of our understanding during the past generation with regard to the history of the text of the Hebrew Bible” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1992, 213). “...the history of transmission of the OT had to be rewritten ...” (Sanders, 1979, 10). “...recent criticism has become increasing by aware of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of reconstructing an adequate history of the NT’s textual transmission in the period before AD 200” (Childs, 1984, 525). “...we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries” (according to J.E. Epp cited in Reeves, 1996, 62-63). The effect of the new developments on insight into the text’s history is one of the most striking differences between NT and OT text criticism. 264 Sanders, 1979, 12-15; idem, 1992b, 331; Sarna, 1971, 832-836.

111

by contrast, this resulted since the 2nd century CE in a number of older divergent text traditions265. Of course, these discoveries had consequences for textual criticism266. It was less likely than previously to consider retrieving the Urtext (which was usually considered unattainable) as its primary objective. Instead of that, it preferred to direct its attention toward the delineation and critical examination of the oldest forms of the text267. 265

Childs, 1984, 526; Sanders, 1997, 325-327; Lange, 2003. This is one of the major differences in the tasks of NT and OT text criticism. It arouses deep disunity on the textus receptus (Moir, 1981, 614-18; Bartsch, 1981, 585-592; Aland, 1982). NT text study is now under fundamental discussion. “We find ourselves at the crossroads of purpose ... In 1973 Epp called this impasse “the twentieth century interlude in NT textual criticism’” (Ratzinger, 1989, 63). 266 “...wie Textkritik in Literarkritik übergehen kann und wie entsprechend eine textkritische Entscheidung durch die literarkritische Anschauung beeinflußt werden kann” (Bartsch, 1981, 591). “Dev’essere ribadito innanzitutto lo strettissimo legame che c’è tra critica testuale e storia del testo, nel senso che le due materie si condizionano reciprocamente e ogni acquisizione dell’una non può non avere influsso sull’altra” (Marucci, 1996, 274). There is thus a growing insight that canonical elements are discernable much earlier than in the final phase of the canon’s genesis. This insight was not yet present during the heyday of 19th-century and early 20th-century research into the most original sources of the biblical traditions and the prophets’ ipsissima verba. This fervour for the original arose often from disdain for the lower stages and the canon in particular. “People seem to forget that the text of the OT has a history: the shape and manner in which the text has been preserved and the circumstances that have determined its preservation are equally important information in studying the genesis, meaning and function of these religious writings” (Vervenne, 1992c, 25). 267 Sanders, 1992b, 331; idem, 1979, 12; Childs, 1984, 524; Goshen-Gottstein, 1992, 206. Even when the Urtext remains the historical objective, it is frequently not attained (Ellingworth, 1995, 119-125, esp. 120-121). Tov, 2002, 247, notes that Urtext is usually used to refer to the original text. He proposes, instead, to use the term Urtext for the final literary shape. This would then be considered canonical. — The delineation implies doing all possible to take into account the external and internal factors that can explain the nature and interrelationship of the manuscripts (Ratzinger, 1989, 64-65). “The Hebrew text was stabilized in the Masoretic tradition, the Greek in the Koine. Moreover, both processes were affected by both internal and external factors ... One evaluates a variety of factors which includes the age of the text, the quality of its text type, the geographical breadth of its witness, the inner relationship of variants, and the inner consistency of style and content” (Childs, 1984, 526, 528). The critical investigation of the formation of the text, also called ‘higher’ criticism, seeks, in contrast to ‘lower’ criticism which is increasingly difficult to distinguish from higher criticism (Van der Kooij, 2002,175), to use conjectures to reach a possible emendation or restoration of the probable original (It is gradually becoming more difficult to distinguish these two types of criticism. Van der Kooij, 2002). Given GoshenGottstein’s findings on the mss collected by Rossi en Kennicott (Sanders, 1979, 8), this operation should be avoided whenever possible because of its chancy and hypothetical character, or it should be used only as a last resort (Sanders, 1979, 12). “If we wish to make

112

This change in text criticism’s perspective and work method, which resulted from newer information about the text and its broader historical context,268 was partly inspired by the intellectual current that for some time had sought to disassociate itself from the overvaluation of the ipsissima verba preferring to shift attention to the dynamic of the development and the related later stages of the text’s formation269. This exceeded the area of pure technique and methodology to enter that of hermeneutics and theology.270. Since the transition often occurred intuitively and the text a textual criticism into something more than a guessing game, the absolute and uncompromising differentiation between the stage dealing with evidence ... and the stage dealing with conjectural emendational attempts leading finally to exegesis is a must” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 387-388). This practice is already reflected in the new apparatus that Jerusalem and Freudenstadt scholars prepared for the OT text referred to, respectively, as MOTTP en HUPP (Sanders, 1979, 7-15). This is not only about the different versions of the Masoretic texts and the non-Masoretic texts. It also includes all other texts such as the Septuagint (Childs, 1983², 94, 102-103; Hübner, 1988). An exclusive choice for the Masoretic text (as by Jacob, 1975,121; Childs, 1983², 103-106) is only justifiable on a theological-dogmatic basis (Barton J., 1984, 91-92), which now meets with increasing resistance (Murphy, 1980, 40-44, esp. 41; Zimmerli, 1981, 235-244, esp. 238-239; Kruger, 1994, 192; Simian-Yofre, 1981, 422-428, esp. 425-426; Füglister, 1982, 281-282, esp. 282; Tov, 20022). Most presuppose that the variants come from different equivalent text editions (Margain, 1992, 236). That is why Sanders speaks of a “multiform Bible” (Sanders, 1997, 326-327). In the same context, Vervenne 1992c, 34-35 argues emphatically that these are totally separate and divergent text traditions. Tov, 1991, 345-359, by contrast continues to adhere to a single original text, on the understanding that it is always the most recent literary composition that is considered canonical. The problem is the literary composition that cannot be separated from the text tradition, and the chronological situation of the final, canonical literary composition (Sanders, 1997, 321-322). 268 Loader, 2002b. Here we can distinguish between the direct context, which the canonical movement usually used in the wake of the current structural literary study and the broader historical context (Sanders, 1992b, 332-333, 335; idem, 1979; Luttikhuizen, 1996, 344-345) that extends to the whole Umwelt, about which recent archaeological discoveries have contributed many insights (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 435-438). Also part of the broader context are the socio-political data and those from the relevant faith communities with their changing needs (Sanders, 1992b, 332-333; idem, 1979, 13; Childs, 1983², 97-98). They lead to what is known as the contextual approach such as liberation theology and feminist theology (Beentjens, 1994, 405). 269 Kraus H.J., 1982³, 535-536; Sanders, 1979, 13, 20; Vervenne, 1992c, 33. This moves in the opposite direction of what had previously been customary, including the effort to find the Urtext. 270 “Although the enterprise of textual criticism is fully dependent upon the proper exercise of highly technical, scientific skills, the element of subjectivity should not be denied” (Childs, 1984, 528). “...textkritische Entscheidungen sind immer subjektive Entscheidungen” (Bartsch, 1981, 591). The canonical movement seeks to work in this thus far neglected field. “...our concern is to focus on some of the basic hermeneutical issues at

113

criticism usually presented itself as a purely technical affair reserved exclusively to specialists, it is superfluous to indicate how close the link was between text criticism and the theological concept of canon271. While it had long been a custom to start with exegesis only after using text criticism to prepare the text, it was nevertheless the conviction of working with a given that is authoritative in the faith community and that lies within a particular material expression and quantitative volume, in short, the conviction of working with an a priori existing canon concept that led scholars like Jerome and Origen to carry out the textual research272. Even in this technical activity, which absorbed considerable energy, the researcher’s theological motivation and hermeneutical perspective seemed to be decisive273. In this regard, very personal views of the Hebraica stake in the enterprise. In spite of the large amount of literature on different technical aspects of the critical enterprise, it is disappointing to discover how little sustained attention has been paid either to the hermeneutical issues involved or to the interpretive effects of the critical textual method” (Childs, 1984, 521). The proponents of the canonical movement are not the only ones to close the periodically gaping gulf between text criticism and exegesis, between technical research and theology. “One may have one’s misgivings as regards the position of biblical philology as ancillae theologiae, but textual criticism as an aim by itself may turn out, as history unfolds to be a doubtful undertaking” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 373, 378-382; Ellingworth, 1995, 119-120). 271 Goshen-Gottstein, 1992, 209; Childs, 1984, 528; Ratzinger, 1989, 62; Marucci, 1996, 276; Jacob, 1975 118 n. 2. “Text and canon go together” (Sanders, 1992b, 335). “The dialectical relationship of text and canon” (Childs, 1984, 522). 272 The custom of letting theology do its work only after the textual criticism is not to be rejected out of hand on the condition that it is kept in mind that historically the formation of the text is only one element, and then usually (this should be tempered) the last phase, of the complex whole of the formation of the canon (Childs, 1983², 95). “Das Interesse an der Textgestalt wuchs mit dem Maß der Autorität, die dem Text zugeschrieben wurde. Galt er schließlich als Heilige Schrift, wurde natürlich auch die genaue Textgestalt wichtig” (Maier J., 1990b, 19). “Let me emphasise: the strength of the critical study of the biblical text stems precisely from the fact that scholars attempt to reach one final goal: to establish what exactly is the divine word ... and this has never changed” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 372373). It is in this sense that we can understand the statement that “The textual history ... is ... a derivative of the concept of canon” (Childs, 1983², 74, 97). There is reciprocal influencing between text criticism and the concept of canon, “In the history of textual criticism a step forward was made at the moment when the philological insight of an individual scholar outweighed his denominational theological bonds” (Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Criticism’, 372). 273 We can refer here to the interest that generally motivates bible study. It gets bible study started and keeps it going without being able to guarantee its objectivity. “Ohne ein starkes Interesse in einem nicht zu kleinen Personenkreis entwickelt sich keine so gründliche und aufwendige Sache wie die wissenschaftliche Erklärung von Texten aus einer fernen Vergangenheit und fremden Kultur ... Das Interesse an der Sache liefert zwar nicht die

114

veritas seem to have been determinative for Origen’s and Jerome’s choice of text and its evaluation. How much text criticism and the view of the canon influenced one another274, was again demonstrated during the Reformation. On one side, the hermeneutic interest in the original text started from the characteristically Protestant Scripture principle and the theological instinct remained determinative for the technical discussions on the text with Rome. On the other, these technical discussions remained on such a high level thanks to the opportunities provided by humanism and the Renaissance. This entwining of text and canon, text criticism and exegesis was lost sight of over time, during which techniques were further refined and demanded increasing energy275. Now, however, new developments and the new rise in text criticism and the theological revival of the canon that influences them are coming to the fore276. It appears that in the meantime, the generally recognised transition from multiformity to uniformity in the oldest text tradition of both the OT and NT was not a purely material process. It is at least partially intentional because it is the Normen für den Vollzug wissenschaftlicher Arbeit, ist aber die entscheidende Voraussetzung dafür, daß es zu dieser Arbeit überhaupt erst kommt” (Haacker, 1993, 6675, esp. 66). 274 Tov, 20012, 234-245, shows how much this hermeneutical bias still plays a role in favour of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. “...one must relate basic concepts of text and canon: each illumines the other” (Sanders, 1979, 10). “...the interdependence of canon and text” (Childs, 1983², 95-96). 275 “The rise of the textual criticism of the OT is bound up with the advance of exegesis” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 371). Childs, 1983², 89-90. “It was the tension of the CatholicProtestant split that provided a major new impetus for both exegesis and textual criticism” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 370-372). “The rise of textual criticism depended on preconditions ... Ad fontes preceded sola Scriptura” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 367-368). “Textual criticism as an aim by itself may turn out, as history unfolds, to be a doubtful undertaking ... Late 18th-century advances were already connected to large specialized projects that made textual criticism an aim in itself ... Textual criticism became slowly divorced from other fields of critical inquiry. Subspecialization was soon to take on some threatening forms ...unwittingly transforming the very character of textual criticism into a domain for specialists” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 373, 376, 380-381). 276 Söding, 2003, 11-15. The intense interest for the development in current text criticism comes primarily from the theologically interested canonical movement. “The current position of text criticism can only be understood in depth if it is seen in the light of recent studies [on the] canon ...” (Sanders, 1992b, 334). “ ... the issue of establishing a normative text cannot be separated from how the text was received, which involves the subject of canon” (Childs, 1984, 522). It is from this personal theological interest that the supporters of the canonical movement have given so much attention to the hermeneutical approach. Sanders, ‘Hermeneutics’, IDBs, 402-407, in particular and especially Stuhlmacher (see below 3.3.3.5) stress this.

115

result of the dynamic contribution of the traditions concerned277. The evolution of the text thus evinces an inevitable degeneration in transmission, but offers an opportunity to enrich content by taking up in reflection the tradition that is on its way to becoming the canon within the faith community278. This last is somewhat similar to what in the past was only considered possible in literary evolution. But the evolution of Bible cannot be compared only with what develops there. The two phenomena 277

Sæbø, 1998, 36-46; Van der Kooij, 2002, 171. The transition from multiformity to uniformity is part of the in some measure conscious process of the formation of the canon. Its dynamic reaches further than that of the classical approach of the conscientious copyist that believes in good faith that he can restore the original text by introducing the corrections that he considers necessary (Marucci, 1996, 274). “The act of copying the sacred text ... included a significant element of interpretation ... The devout scribe felt compelled to correct misstatements which he found in the manuscripts he was copying ...” (Childs, 1984, 523). This is only a first step in this dynamic that leads from interpretation to a deepening and rewriting, comparable with that of the midrash and the inner-bible exegesis (Childs, 1983², 95; Teugels L., 1995). From this comes the ascertained relationship between text criticism and comparative midrash study (Sanders, 1979, 8-7). This dynamic transmission of the texts influenced by an interpretive attitude is present in every translation. That is the reason why studying the text and the translations will always be the oldest and most durable type of exegesis (Beek, 1968, 13). 278 Rofé, 2003. “Overwhelming from theology” (Barr, 1983, 112). “Le processus historique est bourré de conviction théologique” (Laurin, 1982, 273). “...the element of theological interpretation is not only constitutive of the church’s scriptures in general, but has also entered into the textual dimensions of the tradition as well” (Childs, 1984, 529). Conversely, text criticism always becomes stranded when it is isolated from theology and exegesis (Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 373, 376, 379, 380). — Sæbø, 1998, 41; Margain, 1992, 228-229 speak of the enrichment in content that accompanies the evolution of the text. This is what the supporters of the canonical movement intend when they spotlight the origin of the text within its broader context and within the broader faith community (2.2. C. Carr, 1996) and even the Umwelt. “All versions are to some extent relevant to the communities for which they were translated: it was because the Bible was believed relevant that it was translated. Much of the so-called Septuagint is midrashic or targumic. But even the Hebrew texts are to some extent; greater or less adapted to the needs of the communities for which they were copied” (Sanders, 1979, 13). “A basic characteristic of the canonical approach ... is its concern to describe the literature in terms of its relation to the historic Jewish community, rather than seeing its goal to be the reconstruction of the most original literary form of the book” (Childs, 1983², 96-97). In his argumentation, Tov, 1991, 357 also presents as determinative the religious community within which the original text was created. The connection among the various traditions and the communities that support them also determine the relations between these communities (Ackroyd, 1977b, 166-173, esp. 168-170). Within the current trend of general literary science and the structural approach (Barton J., 1984, 77), the canonical movement seems to be especially interested in intertextuality (Sommer, 1996, 479-489; Snyman, 1995, 205-222), which it can use to valorise the canonical text theologically.

116

coincide at least partially279. A biblical-theological revival of the canon must take these observations as starting point if it wants to result in a responsible theological evaluation280. It must, to be specific, ask how such meaningful facts as the various stages in the evolution of the text can be transferred with the theological notion of canon281. Understood traditionally, still starting from the historical notion that the canon came into being with the publication of the biblical text, this notion is no longer tenable and must be adjusted to agree with recently ascertained facts. It is, once again, an important reason to rethink thoroughly this concept of canon that has evolved so greatly since the Reformation. This is not insurmountable for an obviously changing notion; rather it is an opportunity for renewal and deepening. Yet it remains far from simple. If the notion of canon has been up-dated repeatedly since the Reformation without reaching a conclusive result, the discoveries relating to the evolution of the text complicate further the existing issue of the evolving notion of canon. It is thus not surprising that despite the enthusiastic efforts of biblical theologians, now supported by the canonical movement, we have only just reached the first study round, with diverging views arising

279

Stipp, 1990; Childs, 1983², 94-95; Sæbø, 1998, 43; Van der Kooij, 2003, 730-731; Zakovitch, 2003. “Clearly there is an important parallel between tradition-historical developments of the canonical literature of the NT and the tradition-historical development of the canonical text. Indeed, the line between them is quite fluid ad times. Both processes involve the reception of normative tradition which includes an interpretation of the material along with the activity of its transmission. Even though the textual process normally reflects a more conservative, even passive stage in stabilization when compared with the enterprise of shaping and restricting the shape of the literature itself, nevertheless a construal is also involved” (Childs, 1984, 523). Beyond the already overlapping processes of literature and text genesis (Tov bolsters his unusual theoretical position by allowing these phases to succeed one another strictly), there is the intertwining of the oral and written traditions (Childs, 1984, 524-525). 280 Adair, 1998; Sæbø, 1998, 41. “I shall start by recalling some facts that ought to be stressed over and over again” (Goshen-Gottstein, 1992, 204). “This whole amorphous area of our work might be illuminated if we were more self-conscious of theory of authority and were to modify it to fit the givens (Sanders, 1992b, 334). This theological evaluation, starting from the facts, is not free of commitment and puts accepted tradition at risk. “No tradition who takes the Bible seriously can evade the challenge by ignoring, rejecting or distorting the data” (Ellingworth, 1995, 123). After the Reformation, it was difficult to accept this starting point because of the aggressive historical criticism to which biblical theology had to be attuned. 281 Dunn, 1982, 13-60; Sanders, 1976a, 531-560; Reventlow, 1983b, 128-129; Mulder, 1988, 87-135, esp. 131-132; Ackroyd, 1977b, 171-172.

117

from the various mindsets282. This continues the differentiated line that has taken shape within biblical theology from its earliest days. The conclusion is thus that there is an evident reciprocal involvement of text and canon. But we are left with the question of how to delineate the way they are related to one another. It would appear that no definitive answer to this question can be given right now. It promises to be a long-term task283.

3.3.2 Classical Biblical Criticism In the period after 1970, modern biblical criticism was increasingly subjected to critical remarks and even frontal opposition. Nevertheless, nearly no one within the academic world284 doubted its importance285, at 282

This separate mindset is expressed in a discrete concept of canon. Although much is still unclear regarding the transition from multiformity to uniformity in both the OT and NT the text traditions (“...the grounds for selecting this one particular tradition are far from clear ...”: Childs, 1983², 103), most scholars, unlike Goshen-Gottstein, 1992, 105; idem, 1983, 389-390, even now interpret theologically the problem of the intermediary stages in the evolution of the text (Van der Kooij, 2002, 170-171). Van Der Woude, 1992, 13-20 does this subtly in favour of the Masoretic text. Others, especially supporters of the canonical movement such as Sanders, 1979, 20-29, Childs, 1983², 94; idem, 1985, 521, do this more emphatically using a vision that is very much their own. This again brings to the fore the interest of the subjective contribution. Theological and subjective interpretation of recent data on the evolution of the text need not be evaluated negatively, on the condition that present and future data are taken sufficiently into account. In this way, textual research can be reactivated. Isolation of text criticism from theology and dogmatics is detrimental. The two must be integrated, although this is difficult given the increasing specialisation (Sanders, 1979, 6-7; Goshen-Gottstein, 1983, 373, 376, 379, 380 n. 51, 386, 395). The new method for expanding the text critical apparatus is intended to rectify this. It seeks to let the reader/user, even the inexperienced such as the new student, make his/her own judgments in all objectivity on the basis of the original mss (Sanders, 1979; Ratzinger, 1989, 72-73). Whether or not this achieves the intended result remains to be seen. In reviewing the present situation we tend to feel “considerable trepidation” (Childs, 1984, 521). However, the technical issue in which text criticism and the many related disciplines (Sanders, 1992b, 333) are now embroiled may not be an excuse for ignoring them, as Childs tends to do, while focusing only on theology. The aid of text criticism is indispensable as guarantee for the objectivity of a responsible theology, although care must be taken not to make it an absolute (Vervenne, 1992c, 39). 283 Sæbø, 1998, 45. “...the activity of text criticism as a continuing process ...” (Childs, 1984 529). 284 For general information on this see Hasel, 1985², 19 n. 34-35; Reventlow, 1983b, 160169. Diebner, 1985a; White, 1983; Maier G., 19784; Ratzinger, 1989; Toinet, 1981, 381425; idem, 82 (1982), 575-602; Linnemann, 1987. Bankrott (Wink, 1976); Kaalslag (Van Der Woude, 1986a, 25); “It seems that the critique is sometimes far-fetched and borders on

118

least in theory. In practice, however, there were tensions and shifts between the methods applied in classical biblical criticism, while at the same time new literary and structural methods were on the rise286. The same double phenomenon already observed in present-day text criticism also occurred here: on one side the accent shifted to the later stages; on the other, the accent in technical work on the text shifted to its theological content, with as consequence that this came to dominate exegesis. In addition, substantial differences between NT and OT exegesis should also be noted. In both cases, literary study cannot be separated from historical examination. This, of course, follows from the unity that has long existed between the two in classical biblical criticism287.

3.3.2.1 The Old Testament Given its importance, the literary and critical study of the Pentateuch can serve as an example for the remainder of the OT288. In the past, historical and literary research worked jointly to develop many hypotheses, some of which became accepted as dogmas. That makes surprising the need to note today that these constructions are often undermined and sometimes completely demolished by the same literary and historical criticism. To cite a few examples, the historical profile of the patriarchs came under pressure and Moses’ role was reduced to a minimum. The Exodus epic nihilism” (Weinfeld, 1981, 423-434, esp. 423). Today, fundamentalism is not included in this scientific approach (Barr, 1984; Achtemeier, 1980). 285 “Few would wish to deprecate the enormous gains in understanding which emerged from the new historical methods” (Childs, 1994, 333). “...none of us uttered any doubt on the importance of the fundamental insights of historical and literary criticism” (Council for Church and Theology, 1976, 91). This is offset by the practice, “More or less disavowed by scholars at the University of Amsterdam” (Oost, 1986, 77). 286 “...a critically purified combination of several successive approaches” (Oost, 1986, 68). The shift from the literary critical over form critical to redaction critical methods is described in Kraus H.J., 1982³, 443. It is from this perspective that W. Richter seeks to include all of biblical science under literary science, leaving no room for classical biblical criticism (Oost, 1986 73-76; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 533-534). 287 “La critique littéraire a pour objet les textes, et la critique historique les faits. Mais les textes sont des discours écrits qui expriment une pensée énoncée ... d’expression vécue quant au fait: ce ne sont pas des choses, ce sont des expériences vécues que les textes s’efforcent d’évoquer ... les critiques littéraires et historiques constamment entremêlées” (Grelot, 1994, 387-389). Because of the bond between literary and historical biblical research, the customary term historical-critical research finds little favour. Preference is given to the more comprehensive term modern biblical criticism. 288 Bonte, 1996, 341-363, esp. 341 n. 1; “Barometer” (Fohrer, 1986, 17).

119

also unavoidably suffered from this289. In addition, doubts were expressed on the presentation in Josua and Judges of the way in which the tribes of Israel entered the holy land, particularly the extent to which there really were an amphictyony with a central sanctuary and a holy war in this premonarchic period. Many of the suggestions that had been made earlier on the use of the cult in that period appeared no longer sustainable after a thorough confrontation with the biblical texts290. Under pressure from the same need to step away from the more daring depictions of the pre-literary tradition history, the notion of covenant and the classical tradition sources in particular are again being subjected to closer literary-critical examination. As a result of this, the four-source hypothesis became so radically undermined that it is by no means certain what will remain of it in the future. But for the time being at least, it still serves291. This is due to 289

Kraus H.J., 1982³, 511. The documentary hypothesis in particular had the allure of a dogma (Bonte, 1996, 346; Gibert, 1992, 55-80, esp. 57; Rendtorff, R., 1989b, 83-94, esp. 83). “Alle Fundamenten des bislang Erarbeiteten sind ins Schwanken geraten” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 540). Kraus H.J., 1982³, 511-512; De Pury-Römer, 1989, 9-80, esp. 50-52. Smend, 1959, had already given a realistic image of the Moses figure, which, except for a few details, was little changed later (according to Rendtorff, R., 1975, 121-152). After Moses’ authorship of the whole Pentateuch was reduced to only a few of its elements, the historicity of these written traditions was questioned. Scholars such as De Vaux and the Albright’s American school tried in vain to preserve the historicity. The breach between general history and biblical salvation history grew; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 484-493; 513-515). On the socio-economic situation in this period see: Finkelstein, 1989, 43-74. Even today, biblical theology has not yet come to grips with the relationship between general history and biblical historicity (Hasel, 1987³, 97-115; Reventlow, 1982, 65-121). 290 Kraus H.J., 1982³, 460-463; 515-519; 519-522; De Pury-Römer, 1989, 52-53. 291 Formgeschichte, which relies more on the history of religion, and purely literary criticism affect and correct one another in an atmosphere of tension. That is why they succeeded one another, to fill in one another’s lacunae. “...form criticism turned on source analysis and began to bite the hand that fed it” (Barton J., 1984, 34). After the limitations of literary research first came to light, opening a door to Formgeschichte followed by tradition history and the history of religion, literary research has again taken the lead in recent decades (Trible, 1994, 73-80), but in the form of redaction criticism (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 440-445; Kratz, 1997, 10; Otto E., 2000). Many consider this safer (Vervenne, 1992b, 99106, esp. 105). Rendtorff threw himself into breach early on (Zaman, 1984, V 120). — On the revision of the notion of covenant see: Kraus H.J., 1982³, 527-532. — Reference had been made at the time to the radical nature of Rendtorff’s rejection of the four-source hypothesis (Zaman, 1984, V 29; V 191; VI 3). For more information on this see: Loza, 1990, 581-594, esp. 582, 584; De Pury-Römer, 1989, 48; Houtman, 1980, 146. — Many elements of the four-source hypothesis still held their ground: Kraus H.J., 1982³, 540. This was the case for Westermann and Emerton (Wenham, 1991, 85-109) and to a lesser extent for Zenger, Weimar and Vermeylen (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 55-62).

120

the division and extremes292 found among its opponents. Thus far they have been unable to gather a consensus on a new hypothesis that would definitively bury the documentary hypothesis. Pending this, the theory has had to make serious concessions293. It accepted that a later dating of most sources to the exilic period is unavoidable. This trend toward later dating is probably the most radical aspect of the Neuorientierung taking place throughout OT exegesis in recent years294. This trend is visible in special attention given to the final text in the study of the Pentateuch and other parts of the OT295. Beside this, there are also the growing methodological and hermeneutical296 issues. But these are no longer the only issues that demand attention297. In fact, uncertainty and scepticism are fairly general, however much some may try to conceal this298

3.3.2.2 The Historical Study of the OT Canon Long-held hypotheses in the historical study of the rise of the OT canon were knocked from their pedestals in recent years. For instance, the classic Law-Prophets-Writings triptych seemed no longer to correspond to the actual course of the formation of the OT canon299. Instead of three 292

Houtman, 1980, 140. “Le règne de la diversité” (Ska, 1996, 245-26, esp. 245). “Les recherches ... vont ... à peu près dans tous les sens” (Loza, 1990, 582). Kraus H.J., 1982³, 536, discusses their extremism. 293 There are few major lines (Ska, 1996, 248-252; De Pury-Römer, 1989, 67). These concessions were had already been noted in 1984 (Zaman, 1984, V 146, 165). 294 De Pury-Römer, 1989, 48-80; “Bilderstürmerischen Trend” (Müller K., 1996, 257). One can speak of a “tiefreichende Umbruch” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 532) that may possibly be related to the “Spätzeit” (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 80) or the postmodern period. 295 Ska, 1996, 248-249; Rose, 1989², 129-147. 296 Barton J., 1984. The rise of structuralism (Trible, 1994, 65-66) is related to this (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 53-54). The Amsterdam school’s special contribution should be recalled here (3.1.10; Koole, 1985, 7 n. 10; Houtman, 1980, 159-163). Kraus H.J., 1982³, 493-503, 533-534; Wenham, 1991. Another methodological problem is the reconciliation of the synchronic and diachronic approaches (Bonte, 1996, 360; Conroy, 1990). Talstra made a good attempt (Barton J., 1994, 3-15, esp. 1 n. 1) as Laato, 1996 and Jackson, 2000b, esp. 21-41, did recently using the semiotics. 297 For an impressive inventory see: De Pury-Römer, 1989, 67-80. 298 Schmitt, 1985, 161-179, esp. 162. “La période anarchique” (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 48). “La recherche sur le Pentateuque se trouve en crise” (Rendtorff, R., 1989b, 84). “Uncomfortable scepticism” (Campbell, 1993, 32-47, esp. 32). Loza, 1990, 593-594 and Ska, 1996, 265 respond with restraint. 299 Bruce, 1988, 36; Childs, 1983², 53; Dunbar, 1986, 302 n. 16; Ulrich, 2003. The most detailed overview of the evolution of this matter can be found in Chapman, 2000, 3-70.

121

successive stages, they represented three categories of sacred scriptures that simultaneously and gradually gained authority within Israel300. This is especially the case with the Torah and the Nebiim, which, as categories, are related in a special way301. The recent trend toward raising the status of the wisdom literature has brought to light its role as link between the Torah-Nebiim and the NT. The close relationship between the NebiimChetubim has become so evident, as has the easy with which a transition is made from one to the other, that it is sometimes presupposed that they all belong to the one category Nebiim302. Regarding the closure of the TorahPentateuch, it is generally accepted that this cannot be dated prior to the exile; it tend to be situated around 400 BCE, i.e. in the time of Ezra. This dating seeks no corroboration in the dating of the Samaritan event303, or in the separate preceding edition of the Pentateuch used for the Septuagint304. Support for the origin of the Pentateuch is now sought in the certainty that the Persian government of the time took the initiative in making this complex the legitimate law of the kingdom. That explains its legal character and the separate shape that it was given compared to the deuteronomistic unit Joshua-2 Kings, with which it had previously seemed

300

Van der Kooij, 1995, 43. Yet even now many authors work with this timetable e.g.: Rüger, 1988, 175-189, esp. 176-177 and Leiman, 1976, 16-17, 26-30. Childs, 1983², 62-67 also finds it difficult to escape such a timetable in which the literary completion of these categories is placed at the time of their respective canonisations. This last clashes with lucid canon terminology (see 2.2. under A). The term canon presupposes, of course, the entirety of the canonical writings and thus a part of the canon cannot be considered as being the canon. — Dohmen-Oeming, 1992, 94 n. 14-15 argues for a more simultaneous evolution. The roles of priests, prophets and sages within Israel are fixed parallel to the links and relationships among the major complexes within the TaNaCh. For more on this see: Blenkinsopp, 1995 and Grabbe, 1993, esp. 45. 301 Leonard, 1972, 122-124; Davies P.R., 1998, 107; Rendtorff, R., 1991, 64-71; Chapman, 2000, 150-292; Dempster, 2001. “Interplay between the authoritative character of the law and that of contemporary prophecy appears plausible” (Koole, 1983, 235). Such reciprocity was certainly in evidence in Qumran (Fabry, 1996, 304). Philo’s nearly exclusive use of the Pentateuch can be based on its interpretation as prophecy (Maier J., 1990b, 20). 302 Terrien, 1985, 129-130; Brueggemann, 1982; Sheppard, 1982. This is separate from the issue of the closure of the Chetubim and the OT canon as entity. But it does have to do with many observations found in sources contemporary with early Christianity (Barton J., 1983, 15) such as Flavius Josephus (Bruce, 1988, 32; Van der Kooij, 1995, 52-55; Dunbar, 1986, 303-305, 312-314; Hübner, 1988, 153 n. 22; Carr, 1996, 28, 40). 303 As is known, the Samaritans accepted only the shared Pentateuch as Torah, rejecting the Nebiim of the Hebrew canon. Crüsemann, 1989², 344; Dunbar, 1986, 302. 304 Van der Kooij, 1995, 52 agrees. Crüsemann, 1989², 345; Dunbar, 24, 1983 do not.

122

to form one whole305. The unharmonised juxtaposition of the various bodies of law306, in particular, point to the compromise made in the texts. Two intellectual currents, one priestly the other deuteronomistic, dominated political and social life at the time. They put aside their differences under pressure from the Persian rulers so that they both could accept the Pentateuch as a compromise. While the completion and closure of the Pentateuch can be dated in this way, this is much less so for the Nebiim and not so at all for the Chetubim307. The view of an early closure of the Hebrew canon conflicts with that of a still open situation lasting until at least 70 CE308. There is agreement that Jabne was not a council.

305

Zenger, 1996a, 10-12. This argument is closely related to the observation that the present Pentateuch contains not one allusion dating from the Hellenistic period (Crüsemann, 1989², 345 n. 25). Schmid, 1989², 361-389, esp. 369. Zenger, 1996a, 10 n. 19; Schmid, 1989², 366 n. 11-368, 384. Many have held this opinion for quite some time (Chapman, 2000, 18, 23, 28, 36, 60, 78). 306 Müller K., 1996, 261; Crüsemann, 1989², 339-340. 307 Zenger, 1989a², 370, 383 n. 37. Blum, in particular, speaks of this innerjüdischen Kompromiß (Zenger, 1996a, 15-16). The compromise character of the complex could also explain the striking juxtaposition of the bodies of law within the Pentateuch. — The Endgestalt of the Pentateuch and its final redaction remain a problem (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 69-73; Blum, 1991, 46-57). The end of prophecy and the resulting possible consequence of the closure of the prophets codex remains misty (Dunbar, 1986, 312-314) and cannot count on the argument that the book of Daniel is no longer included in the Chetubim. Meanwhile, it seems to be certain that it found its origin in the 2nd century BCE (Dunbar, 1986, 20). The main problem remains the Chetubim. — “Völlig offen ist die Frage nach dem Abschluß des Kanonsteils ‘Schriften’ und damit nach der Formierung der Schrift insgesamt” (Steins, 1996b, 213). This has consequences. “Alle neutestamentlichen Autoren (and not only they; this applies no less to OT scholars, L.Z.) setzen die Bibel Israels voraus, ‘die Schrift’, das ‘Alte Testament’ – unabhängig von der historischen Feststellung, daß die Kanongrenzen in neutestamentliche Zeit zwar bei der Tora und den Profeten, aber kaum schon bei den Geschichts- und Weisheitsbüchern ganz fest gewesen sind” (Söding, 1995, 159-177, esp. 163 nt. 11). 308 Carr, 1996, 58; Sundberg, 1968, 143 n. 1a; Dunbar, 1986, 309 n. 61; Reventlow, 1983b, 126-127; Childs, 1988’, 15-18; Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 220-224; Hübner, 1988, 151-154. These conflicting hypotheses invoke the divergent evaluations of what served as canon in Qumran and the extent to which this could have been the canon that may have been generally in use in Israel (Fabry, 1996; Idem. 2006, 45; Dunbar, 1986, 310-312; Leiman, 1976, 34-37; Van der Kooij, 1998). Both camps ignore the major role played by the oral Torah or Halachah and Haggadah (Sandmel, 1961, 105-122) in the formation of the canon, which seems to indicate a profoundly difference concept of canon when compared to that of Christianity (Maier J., 1990b, 17; Müller K., 1996). A special position is reserved for those like Clavier, Gese and Stuhlmacher who rely on their view of tradition history to see this as stretching from the OT to the NT even to the point where the NT is seen as completing the

123

The measures taken there to support the Jewish identity and the Hebrew tradition did not have the strict closure of the Hebrew canon as objective and need not necessarily be linked to the rise of Christianity309. The circumstance that Christian circles linked this phenomenon to a different and broader selection of the available authoritative Jewish writings than in the Hebrew canon may no longer be attributed to the existence of the what some refer to as the Alexandrine canon310. These corrections are important311. Reinforced in part by the trend in OT research to assign a late date to the text, the tradition continued to OT (Stuhlmacher, 1981, 136-165; Clavier, 1976; Hasel, 1987³, 77). For an evaluation of this view see: Oeming, 1986, 58 n. 30-60; idem, 1987², 136-138. 309 Schäfer, 1975; Stemberger, 1983; Stuhlmacher, 1986, 108 n. 66-68. Van der Kooij, 1995, 45-46. These measures to confirm the participants’ own Jewish identity were expressed in a corresponding canon theory such as that of the period extending from Moses to Artaxerxes (Rüger, 1988, 183-184; Koole, 1983, 242). Van Der Woude, 1992, 12; Childs, 1983², 67, see the closure of the Hebrew canon as separate from the rise of Christianity. Yet Christianity could not accept the canon concept that grew from the measures taken at Jabne – there were many tension within Judaism at the time Maier J., 1990b, 14 – without losing its own identity (Koole, 1983, 242; idem, 1985, 30-32; idem, 1977, 228-231, 233; Rüger, 1988, 182-183). That is why Christianity did not comply with what was decided at Jabne (Dunbar, 1986, 308). The question now is whether and to what extent a Jewish reaction to the emerging Christian traditions determined the closure of the Hebrew canon, See: Carroll, 1980-81, 76 n. 23; idem, 1980, 211-236, esp. 211; Gese, 1974, 16; Schnackenburg, 1986, 31-47, esp. 41 n. 24. 310 Sundberg, 1968; Dunbar, 1986, 308-310. One side argues that Jesus and those that followed him during his life accepted the authority and fixed number of the Jewish sacred scriptures but that later Christian tradition deviated from this or else Judaism, for some unknown reason, later reduced this fixed number (Beckwith, 1985; Dunbar, 1986, 318319). Others keep to a partially fixed canon (Bruce, 1988, 41; Koole, 1983, 245; “clear evidence for a date earlier than the end of the 1st century C.E. is at best weak and unconvincing” [Sanders, 1972, 843]), or leave its number undetermined (Sundberg, 1966; Sand, 1974, 27-28, 36), and point to the importance of the intertestamental writings, which they no longer wish to sacrifice as marginal writings to an absolute separation of canonical from non-canonical (Barr, 1983, 46). They opt to see them as a bridge or transition zone (Schillebeeckx, 1977, 61; Harrington, 2002, 206). Amid all this division, there is still one point of agreement: the number of authoritative writings was not a point of dispute between Jews and Christians at that time (Koole, 1983, ibid.), but their interpretation was. This could indicate that the number had not yet been fixed and that there were still variations and freedom still existed (Evans, 2002). 311 The corrections that have not been mentioned are of lesser importance. They envisage mainly the sequence (structure) and numbering of the writings. Others do give attention to these (Stuhmueller, 1988; Van der Kooij, 1995, 49-50’) and believe they can deduce a canonical principle from them (according to: Koole, 1977, 231-234). It is certainly clear that around the 1st century BCE that many variants in this area were still tolerated. The canon concept was still insufficiently mature (use preceded concept: Rüger, 1988, 184-188)

124

devote attention to the formal aspects of canon research, in particular the closure of the canon312. To the same degree, the acknowledged need to open historical research to other than formal aspects – especially those having to do with the process of the canon formation and the function of the canon – received much less attention313. Even when their existence and importance are recognised, they are shunted aside for reasons such as lack of data. When they are addressed, they are approached from the final shape314. This has the undeniable disadvantage that doing this while looking back from a later situation studies the dynamic process of the canon’s formation in reverse order. It is difficult to consider this the most suitable position from which to follow up faithfully a process of this nature. It brings with it the risk of anachronism and devaluation of the developments that preceded the final shape. It produces the surprising to exclude these variants. It was a wise decision to preserve these variants side-by-side rather than treat them as conflicting texts (Koole, 1983, 240; idem, 1977, 225). It followed the good example of inner-biblical development. “All by all, it seems that the history of the canonisation of the OT needs to be rewritten” (Koole, 1985, 7). 312 This is a consequence of the time-honoured canon concept according to which the closure of the canon and the literary closure coincide. This concept is reflected in the history of exegesis. This change was already observable in the treatment of the evolution of modern text criticism (3.3.1.) especially in relation to the evolving interest in the canon that took into consideration the deeper factors and the broader context that influenced the formation of the canon. 313 In this way, Koole (1985, 7 n. 9; idem, 1983, 195-196) wants to tie in with the new ideas on the concept canon that arose particularly after Käsemann (3.1.9.). Childs, 1983², 57-60, also wants this, but runs the risk of narrowing the formal aspect of the concept canon. By contrast, good examples of functional approaches are found in Sanders, 1972, for the Torah and in Blenkinsopp 1977 for the Torah-Nebiim relationship. By contrast Sand (1974, 3139) contrary to Crüsemann (1989², 340, 345) gave little attention to die treibenden Kräfte, Trublet, 1990, 79-110 treated the canon process formally only later, and Dohmen, 1996, 3560, esp. 35-38 treated the process of genesis and closure as successive stages. This last conflicts with the cohesion between canon function and canon list as defined above. “When scripture and canon are too sharply distinguished, the essential element in the process is easily lost” (Childs, 1983², 59). As for Childs, in principle he wants to give equal attention to the process of the canon’s genesis and to its closure. But because of the accent that he is the habit of placing on the canonical shape, he looses sight of the genesis (see: Childs, 1992, 70-71); even more striking is this shift in Child’s attention in Biblische Theologie 88 where, after he initially explains the canon process on pp. 13-14, he later appears only to discuss the final text and the canon’s closure. 314 Dohmen, 1996, 37 n. 7. “The origins of the canonization process in Israel are shrouded in obscurity. Max Margolis aptly remarked: ‘Now whatever we may know about the closing of the canon, it takes our text-books hundred of pages to say how little we know when the process of canonization began’.” (Leiman, 1976, 16).

125

observation that many of those who take the final shape as starting point (at least for the formation of the OT canon) tend to place this as early as possible in the post-exilic period315. Astonishingly, this runs counter to the general trend to assign a late date316. An inconsistency of this nature gives pause for thought.

3.3.2.3 The New Testament To a certain extent the literary-historical study of the NT follows the same lines as that of the OT. The same tension exists between the literary critical and form critical methods and those of redaction criticism. The latter can usually produce better results with as consequence an early dating of the NT texts. At the same time, however, they have to give ground before the structural tendencies317. Contrary to OT exegesis, that of the NT is better 315

G.E. Wright, S. Bright (Reventlow, 1983b, 136); H. Gese (Kraus H.J., 1977b, 61-73). Maier J., 1990b, 13; Steins, 1996b, 219. “Hat dieses Verfahren den Nachteil, daß gelegentlich nicht einleuchtend sein kann, wie sich die jeweils jüngeren Schichten auf die älteren beziehen, sie interpretieren, und auch korrigieren ...” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 536). Fohrer, 1986, 15-16 thus takes care in starting from the Endgestalt; it is no longer automatically seen as the one and only truth. Older versions can reflect more original interpretations no longer found in the Endgestalt. After all it is a false historicism to focus all attention on the Endgestalt. “Si nous nous résolvions à ne nous intéresser désormais qu’aux couches les plus tardives, à la forme finale du Pentateuque, nous n’aurions fait que substituer à l’historicisme unilatéral le principe contraire tout aussi contestable” (Schmid, 1989², 365). — “Anachronistic presumption” (Carr, 1996, 42, 64). Anachronistic use of terminology is not necessarily pernicious. This is only when it is used without taking into account the differences in the description of the historical phenomena as time passes. “Nevertheless, our own differentiations can help us in the understanding of ancient phenomena ... perhaps beyond the understanding of the ancient speakers themselves” (Falk, 1994, 49). Sundberg, 1988, 78-82, esp. 80; Barr, 1983, 14; Whybray, 1981, 29-35, esp. 3334. “In jedem Fall ist die Endgestalt eines Textes besser verständlich, wenn sein Zustandekommen zuvor aufgehellt wurde” (Maier J., 1990b, 94). “By and large, although with striking exceptions (e.g. Lightstone, 1979), recent scholars of the Jewish canon, despite of the exposure of the myth of Jabne (Lewis, 1964), have pushed (I think implausibly) for an ever earlier dating (e.g. Freedman, 1992)” (Smith J.Z., 1998, 296). Of course, they also believe that Jesus and the disciples of his time borrowed a fixed number of sacred writings from Judaism. 316 The inconsistency is even more striking when it is noted how the trend is reversed for the NT canon where the late dating is chosen (Smith J.Z., 1998, ibid.). 317 Robinson, 19768; Grelot, 1994, 297-302; Riches, 1993, 163-165, 171-173, 212-231. Redaction criticism seems to have been applied more successfully in NT research; although it was applied earlier to the OT (Oost, 1986, 70; Barton J., 1984, 47 n. 9), its expansion came later (Oost, 1986, 95; Riches, 1993, 121, 150-153). This supports the tendency to find

126

able to hold its ground by using the post-Bultmann disintegration of his synthesis between literary-historical research and theology318. It may even rejoice in the increased interest for historical research, with the quest of the historical Jesus as eye stopper319. Unlike with the OT, it is not necessary to expend so much energy on demolishing historical dogmas. Thanks to the newest information from Qumran and Nag Hammadi, the socio-political context can be determined not only for the figure of Jesus, but for all the NT writings320. It is striking to note the extent to which the socio-political interest gets its impetus from present-day needs. The postmodern symptom theological profit in the authentic text of the NT writings rather than in the later church canon. However, among Anglo-Saxon and German scholars, Stuhlmacher does maintain tradition history, although not without reservations (Stuhlmacher, 1972, 30-35), at the expense of redaction criticism. He also calls attention to intertestamental traditions (Theobald, 1990, 71). Tradition history is also used to buttress salvation history (Hasel, 1985², 111-132). 318 Riches, 1993, 198-207. “Stendahl’s dichotomy” (Hasel, 1985², 138). Stendahl, 1962, 418-432. An indirect consequence of this disintegration is the louder call for a history of religion (“… is a resurgence of the history of Religionsschule”: Riches, 1993, 199; Hasel, 1985², 59) – “Die neueste Entwicklung in der alttestamentlichen Forschung ist durch eine auffällige Zunahme religionsgeschichtlicher Untersuchungen gekennzeichnet” (Spieckermann, 1997, 36) – and the extra-biblical sources. More specifically, Cross invokes the 25 apocryphal texts including the Gospel of Thomas. History of religion is also on the rise in OT exegesis (Maier J., 1990 b), even though it is with theoretical support from Childs, 1984, 13. It was clearly on the rise in the 1960s as a result of discoveries in Ugarit. In 1973, P.D. Miller, Jr. announced a more independent course and thus encouraged the disintegration of the older biblical theology movement (Albertz, 1995, 5 n. 12). Albertz’ 1993 lecture (Albertz, 1995) gave the first onset for this. He argued for forschungsgeschichtliche Umorientierung. It was the occasion for the 1994 international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Leuven on the theme “History of the Religion of Israel or Theology of the OT” (Baldermann, 1995). It is certain that the actual or real history of the religion of Israel does not correspond to its presentation in the OT. This real history of religion cannot be separated from general real history (Lemche, 1994). Räisänen, 1995, 253-265, esp. 254-265 argues for a purely religious-historical study of the NT. A fairly elaborate summary of the recent works on history of the religion in the OT period can be found in Hartenstein, 2003. 319 Riches, 1993, 122, 229; Hasel, 1985², 67. Ladd, 1971, 44-46; Riches, 1993, 89-124; Mouson, 1968, 119-151; Kümmel, 1985; Van Oyen, 1997, 115-141. Jeremias and Kümmel have done pioneering work (Riches, 1993, 92; Hasel, 1985², 102-111). 320 Sanders, 1992b; Riches, 1993, 94, 121, 175-176. It is agreed that the figure of Jesus cannot be isolated from the context in which he lived. It is thus important to recover Jesus’ Jewish background (Van Oyen, 1997, 137; Kümmel, 1985, 453-467). E.P. Sanders made a noteworthy contribution in this area (Riches, 1993, 115-120). The use of the apocryphal gospels does little to add to the picture of the historical Jesus that can be found in the canonical gospels (Denaux, 1988, 25-35). “...the process of the re-evaluation of the place of historical studies within biblical integration” (Riches, 1993, 226).

127

individualism also seems strongly represented here via a marked diversity in approach that leads to confusion in NT studies. This is evinced in the methodological problems and in hermeneutics321.

3.3.2.4 The Historical Study of the NT Canon The historical study of the NT canon is highly stable when compared to that of the OT canon. This is apparent from the fact that since the consensus on the formation of the NT canon at the end of the 2nd century CE, reached in Harnack’s day, has generally weathered the test of time. According to this consensus the essence of the later NT canon had already been reached by that century. The Muratori canon is a primary witness to this322. Conversely, there seems to be a thorough disagreement on Marcion’s role at this important stage in the development of the NT canon. Shadowy trends like Montanism323 influenced the selection process that was imposed after the proliferation of many new and less reliable documents. These required the faith community to select those writings that corresponded most closely to the criteria that it believed it had to set to preserve its tradition of faith for the future. An important factor in this was the attitude to be taken toward Judaism324 and the writings inherited from 321 For a summary of the evolution of individualism since the modern (3.1.7.) and postmodern periods see Manenschijn, 1996. Riches, 1993, 122. There are many different depictions of Jesus (Van Oyen, 1997, 136). “The state of confusion is total” (Riches, 1993, 151). Kümmel, 1985, 1-32, 93-108, 426-438; Van Oyen, 1997, 138. “There is however disagreement over the historical strategies that are to be employed” (Riches, 1993, 122). The methodological issue in research on the historical Jesus has thus not produced the results hoped (Hasel, 1985², 58). “...one feels the lack in Käsemann of a conscious interpretative strategy” (Riches, 1993, 132-133). 322 Childs, 1984, 18; Groh, 1974; Klijn, 1987, 179. This implies an “identifiable core of New Testament books” (Groh, 1974, 336). Opinions differ widely on the function and authority of this core, particularly between Sundberg and Von Campenhausen. This is a current process (McDonald, 2002, 416-420) that is difficult to follow because terminology is not used consistently. — In dating and evaluating the Canon Muratori, Sundberg believes he must raise the issue of the prevailing interpretation (Sundberg, 1973, 1-41). At first he met with little agreement (Ferguson, 1982, 677-683; Bruce, 1983, 37-60, esp. 56-57). In the meantime, this has evolved into an issue on which opinions remain widely divided (Henne, 1993; Hahneman, 2002, 407 n. 10). On the most recent evolution, see Verheyden, 2003. 323 Harnack’s position on Marcion, adopted by Von Campenhausen, is given less credit (Childs, 1984, 19; Klijn, 1987, 174; Dunbar, 1986, 331-333; Barton, 2002). Montanism also remains obscure. “Vieles bleibt im Dunkel” (Schneemelcher, 1980, 22-48). Dunbar, 1986, 338 n. 274; Groh, 1974, 340; Georgi, 1993, 74-75; Perkins, 2002. 324 Tomson, 1998; Zevit, 1998.

128

it. Methodologically, many researchers continued to start from a canon that was seen as a formal and thus closed entity, primarily found in the sequence of separate writings which was later combined in larger complexes and finally in an ensemble ordered in lists325. A literary approach of this kind usually, but not necessarily, involves assigning the canon a place at the end of the classic introduction after the literaryhistorical treatment of each separate canonical book. This has the advantage of giving sufficient attention to those aspects that come mainly at the later stages of the canon’s development, such as the contribution from the leadership of the faith community. The disadvantage, however, is that one falls into the abovementioned anachronism as a result of the reversed approach to the development of the NT canon. H. Von Campenhausen’s authoritative book Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel (1968) was very important in the classical historical study of the NT canon. He shattered the custom, long-standing in Protestant circles, of separating the NT writings as basis of the apostolic kerygma from the later stages of the canonical process. Since the canon was thought to be a later ecclesiastical element inconsistent with the kerygma, it was considered of theologically lesser value326. Von Campenhausen returns to the view of F.C. Baur who, in the mid-19th century, posited that the NT texts had already undergone a process of theological development by the time they were written. Von Campenhausen applied this view of the canon as theological given, as already present at the creation of the first NT writings. He believed that he could find the idea of the Christian canon in Paul’s writings in particular. He used more than only a literary approach and applied a variety of criteria in his historical research when he delved for the themes and correlations in the genesis of a set of NT writings as if it were the equivalent of the NT canon already used in practice in Christian communities. He included more than only the later, canonically recognised writings in his study and did not simply accept the latter as starting point. He also took into account non-canonical writings that had attained a level of respect in Christian communities at the time in question. This gave him an opportunity to explain the distinction and complexity of the canonical process. He did not fail to make abundant use of the achievements of the history of religion school and the Formgeschichte of the previous 325

Hahneman, 2002, 412-415. Sundberg and Kümmel apply a more traditional method of this type (Childs, 1984, 13). 326 Apparently these reasons convinced Robinson. Bultmann also did so by rejecting earlier tradition on the historical Jesus. As did Sheppard, 1982, 32-33 more recently.

129

century327. Yet it must be observed that Von Campenhausen’s work could not shake itself totally free of anachronistic tendencies and that it gave too little attention to the broader context and general cultural background of the NT writings328. Because he could not relinquish the earlier, too formal approach, he now risked neglecting the later period of the canon’s development329. Yet this did not prevent Von Campenhausen’s work from opening up perspectives for historical and especially theological reappraisal of the notion of canon as the NT writings had already developed it. Via the canonical movement, the theological revival330, which had long been seeking a theological revaluation of the canon, would later make grateful use of this. In what follows we will view critically the extent to which this is done today in a balanced and responsible way.

327

“But it is a sheer historical fact that the permanent basic assumption of the Christian Bible is a Pauline conception” (Childs, 1984, 12-13). Groh, 1974, 332 n. 4; Dungan, 1975, 339-351, esp. 349; Childs, 1984, 13-14. 328 He rejects the thesis of the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the later kerygmatic evolution as defended by H. Koester (Hasel, 1985², 133-135; Dunbar, 1986, 322-323). Groh, 1974, 342-343. “Campenhausen has given us a history of the canon, not of the church. His history is a history of the important books that won the formal race; it is not a history of those that also ‘finished’” (Groh, 1974, 342). This critique raises the question of the return to the history of religion (Hasel, 1985², 135-136) that has entered NT study since 1970 as it has done in OT study (Merk, 1980, 467, 24-28). Thus inevitably raises the issue of the relationship between canonical and non-canonical writings. Authors like Gese and Sundberg (Reventlow, 1983b, 146-147) who defend an open Hebrew canon at the time of Christ and early Christianity strive for a more uniform historical study of the canonical and non-canonical writings. Among the latter, the intertestamental writings receive special attention (Theobald, 1990, 66, 69-70). They play a major role in this history of tradition approach (Seebass, 1985, 194-206). Grelot, 1994, 335-337; Barr, 1983, 46; Sanders, 1992b; Theobald, 1990, 59; Maier J., 1990b, 65-140 concur. 329 In this later period he takes a typically Protestant theological position in which historical research is made dependent Groh, 1974, 332-334, esp. n. 2 and 9; Klijn, 1987, 192) as was often the case earlier. Collins R.F., 1972, 51-59, and Bruce, 1988 follow suit. 330 Much remains obscure particularly in the older period before 200 CE, more than in the later period (Childs, 1984, 19; Schneemelcher, 1980, 22, 53-23, 1). It is striking that the period before the genesis of the NT writings remains unexplored territory. The nevertheless extensive quest for the historical Jesus is not utilised from a canon historical perspective. In this area tradition history could be particularly useful. 3.1.8. From this perspective, Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 26-27 would also see the canon already present from the time the OT and NT writings became attached to one another. He concludes from this that the canon cannot be a construction of the church alone. To the church he attributes only the formal closure of the canon.

130

3.3.3 Post-Classical Biblical Criticism The general feeling was that the results of modern biblical criticism were becoming less satisfactory. They met with reservations and even opposition from a growing public. The conviction gained ground that the classical methods that had gradually been developed in modern biblical criticism were again in need of development331. This conviction led to experimentation in modern biblical criticism with newer methods and techniques such as those used in literary theory332. Because the development of these newer methods was situated in the time after the accepted classical methods, the term post-classical was used to distinguish them. The designation post-classical also makes plain that the new methods arose in response to the preceding classical biblical criticism333. The very divergent character and differing forms represented in postclassical biblical criticism can only be understood against the background of the common breeding ground from which they arose: the failure of classical biblical criticism334. Growing disappointment with this criticism paved the way for the rapid rise of post-classical biblical criticism. In the

331

Barton J., 1984, 3; Zumstein, 1994, 57-59. “Schon ein Rückblick auf die Entwicklungsgeschichte dieser ‘gebündelten’ Methode zeigt, daß sie sich immer als erweiterungsfähig und integrationsfähig erwiesen hat” (Untergassmair, 1996, 141). “Modifikationsbedürftiges ... Arbeitsinstrument” (Stuhlmacher, 1992, 32). Beek, 1968, had already articulated the feeling of saturation and the need for renewal. The lack of results (hence the stagnation in the introductions, despite their expansion: Vervenne 1988, 1) was one consequence. “Ineffektivität gegenüber den Anforderungen der gegenwärtigen Praxis” (Hahn, 1972, 1-17, esp. 1) 332 Gunn, 2001, offers a thorough analysis of the recent evolution in literary theory. 333 “Clash” (Campbell, 1991, 1-18, esp. 1). “A tendency to polarization” (Barton J., 1994, 3). The exact implications of this response can give rise to discussion (Barr, 1989, 3-17; idem, 1995a, 105-120; Childs, 1982, 1-12). Usually it refers to the practice applied since Barth of providing classical biblical criticism with an orientation that exegetes consider necessary (‘steuern’: Stuhlmacher, 1992, 31; idem, 1979c, 172; idem, 1975, 88). This orientation differs from classical biblical criticism. Contrary to liberal theology, it usually imposed limitations. “The disappointment in turn leads to the fury with which ‘each new method tries to abolish its predecessors’, notably so canon criticism and structuralism in recent times” (Barr, 2000, 46). 334 Childs, 1995, 50. “The ... shipwreck of historical-critical method ...” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 20). “Fehlentwicklung” (Merk, 1980, 470, 15). “Disenchantment has played its role in the recent emergence of a series of new approaches to the biblical text” (Campbell, 1991, 1). The anti-historical intellectual current in modern culture also plays a role (Barr, 1989; idem, 1995a; idem, 1995b, 1-14, esp. 8).

131

diversity of the post-classical response the more formal expansion335 (3.3.3.1) is to be distinguished from its philosophical-theological foundation (3.3.3.2).

3.3.3.1 Formal Critique of Classical Biblical Criticism336 As a rule, classical biblical criticism sought to explain the current bible text by looking at what preceded it, at the original meaning hinter dem Text. Sources, text development, the author and his context are sifted for the minutest detail337. As long as the search appeared fruitful and liberating, the price was not thought too high. The result was worth the effort expended in scientific research and the needed adaptations to

335

On one side, there are the different types of literary theory: “narrative analysis, rhetorical analysis (including speech-action theory: Briggs, 2001, L.Z.), narratology, structuralism, semiotics, ideology criticism and intertextuality” (Van Wolde, 1990, 333). On the role of rhetoric in current biblical criticism, see Barr, 2000, 29-30; Lenchak, 1993, 39-82; Watts, 1998. On ideology criticism, see Trible, 1994; Barr, 2000, 102-140. On the other side, there are there are many types of bible reading more attuned to the subject and his/her current needs: ecological, materialistic, feministic, psycho-analytic reading as well as those of liberation theology. “Ces auteurs convergent sur un point: ils donnent la priorité au texte dans sa forme actuelle. La recherche des antécédents de cette forme est secondaire ou complètement négligée ... l’essentiel à notre avis est l’orientation méthodologique d’ensemble” (Ska, 1992a, 33-41). 336 Ska, 1992a, 34-35; Schart, 1998, 24-27. 337 Joyce, 1994, 17-27, esp. 19. Ska, 1992a, 36. “Atomisation” (Vervenne, 1992a, 65-71, esp. 69). “Atomistic details” (Miskotte: Oost, 1986, 23). This paved the way for complexity (Seebass, 1986, 115-116; Campbell, 1991, 1; Oeming, 1986, 48-49) via analytically oriented lexicography and the semantic approach (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 505). Attendant on this complexity is losing sight of the unity of the biblical text (“Zersplitterungstendenz”: Kraus H.J., 1982³, 513), so that a view of the Bible as ensemble becomes a problem (Klein, 1984, 76-93, esp. 77). The result of all this is that the bible text grows more distant from current events (“Alienation”: Joyce, 1994, 18; “Distanzierungseffekt”: Kraus H.J., 1982³, 559) and above all, from the faith community (Zahrnt, 1967, 224). “Ist es der einzelne Spezialist, die Republik der Gelehrten, oder ist es ... das Volk das sich als wahrer Besitzer dieses Buches entdeckt und ihm von seinen neuen Erfahrungen her neue Gegenwart gibt?” (Ratzinger, 1989, 8). “...the Bible is too important to be confined to the circles of scholarly specialists” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 3-14, esp. 13). Childs, 1970, 55-60 and Käsemann, 1970, 336-338 note early on that classical biblical criticism had no firm footing among the believing populace. This arouses concern among dialectical and Catholic theologians. This is a consequence of what has been noted earlier. “Als eine schwerwiegende Folge nenne ich die Ablösung des methodisch reflektierten Verstehens der biblische Schriften von ihrem traditionellen Ort in der Kirche” (Mildenberger, 1991, 269-281, esp. 273).

132

established insight338 that this implied. However, the deeper biblical criticism went into the wilderness and confronted its limits finding that it even had to retrace its steps; the more it met with grumblers that wanted it to return to the bible text339. Working with the text gave the feeling of building on solid ground. With this sure starting point the work glimmered as the Promised Land in comparison to the adventurous life in the desert of classical biblical criticism. Its winding and wandering paths led only to confusion and terminated in an obscure landscape340. 338

“The rise of the historico-critical method, in the 18th and (especially) 19th centuries was in many ways an exciting process of liberation” (Joyce, 1994, 17). In this sense, classical biblical criticism originally served the faith and was enlightening in the positive sense (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 38). “Niemand kann leugnen, daß sie (sc.) die historische Methode überall, wo sie angewendet wurde, überraschend einleuchtende Ergebnisse hervorgebracht hat”, Troeltsch wrote (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 18 n. 17). “Sacrifice of mental capacity” (Houtman, 1980, 153). Strathmann, 1970, 59. “...ein ungestörtes Festhalten an anderen Ergebnissen, nämlich an denjenigen, die in die Lehrtradition schon assimiliert worden sind” (Lönning, 1972, 35). “Erst dort wo dieser kirchliche Gebrauch im Leben des Auslegers fest verankert ist, wird die Kritik schmerzen” (Mildenberger, 1986, 161). “Everybody knows how very difficult it is to learn and admit that something, which we have long believed to be the meaning of a passage and which has thus been brought up into an important element in our faith, is not there at all” (Barr, 1966, 184). Modifications of this nature are proportionately more burdensome on the bulk of believers. They can experience them as tyranny (Ska, 1992a, 31) holding it in an iron grasp (Meijering, 1991, 44-60, esp. 48; ‘Iron curtain’: Childs, 1970, 111; “Eine neue Babylonische Gefangenschaft”: Maier G., 19784, 44). 339 “History remains the most doubtful science” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 64). “...toute recherche historique sur la préhistoire du texte ou sur un monde extrinsèque à sa structure stylistique est hypothétique et repose sur des a priori non démontrés” (Ska, 1992a, 32). Like Leiman, Childs (Childs, 1983², 45, 51-54, 67-68, 76; idem, 1985, 23-24) increasingly uses the lack of historical data to return to the canonical shape as his Fluchtmöglichkeit (Albertz, 1995, 15 n. 53; Brett, 1991, 100-104 supports Childs on this point). Gibert, 1992, 67 works in the same manner. Regarding this way of thinking it can be said that the canon arose to prevent further historical slippage or dehistorising and thus also had the intention of preserving the correct historical course, e.g. the quest for the historical Jesus (Kümmel, 1970; Krötke, 1985, 15-25). “Nowadays, with the change in attitude toward compilers and redactors, there is a demand for the final text to be interpreted in its own right” (Campbell, 1991, 4). “Am Ende erfährt man nicht mehr was der Text sagt, sondern was er sagen sollte” (Ratzinger, 1989, 15). 340 Even the most powerful proponents of classical biblical criticism must admit that it has reached only a limited degree of probability (Barr, 1983, 107) and that it may not be given the allure of an accurate science that is fully objective and verifiable (Schmidt W.H., 1985, 469481, esp. 478). “Often too much is claimed for literal-critical method; ... that it is fully objective, completely scientific, entirely open-minded; ... it is none of these things” (Barton J., 1984, 26). It possesses too little data (Zimmerli, 1980, 445, 4-6) and must thus often invoke many contradictory hypotheses: “L’inévitable disparité des résultats” (Zumstein, 1994, 56; Ratzinger, 1989, 8, 9, 12, 43; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 74-75; Childs, 1984, 42, 44-47). “Der exegetische Meinungswirwarr ... die Zerschlagung des Kanons, zu einer von ‘Kontradiktionen

133

How can hungry people continue to apply themselves to opening up such an unmanageable terrain? How can they keep themselves going with its limited supply of meagre manna, while the wealth of the bible text is within reach? Closer examination shows that the text has a lot more to offer than had long been supposed. Even new unsuspected values were now being brought to the surface, cultivated with joy341 and offered to the interested public. It is enticing. Instead of expending the effort in delving deeply into the substrata, it must seem much more comfortable to elucidate and admire all aspects of the qualities of the text in hand in the full light of day. This also satisfies the predilection for aesthetics that is so popular today. Moreover, modern literary theory offers tested means and techniques for this342. Intertextuality now offers freedom from staring durchzogenen Fragmentsammlung’ sind ... Symptome dafür, daß die Zunft zur reinen ‘Vermutungswissenschaft’ degeneriert ist, die sich wegen der ‘nicht mehr korrelierbaren Vielfalt’ ihrer Ergebnisse im Endeffekt selbst aufzuheben scheint” (Grässer, 1980, 200). Especially the acceptance of evolution in the text would threaten and destroy it (“détruire le texte”: Rendtorff, R., 1989b, 85). That is the source of the appeal for an unchanging text. “One area in particular is significant here: the question whether compilation and redaction allow the present text to be claimed as a text in all cases invariably” (Campbell, 1991, 5). That is why Childs insistently proposes the canonical shape as firm foundation, while consciously rejecting historical research into its past because it produces too little data. The drafter of the biblical text is allotted great trust. “...les narrateurs bibliques prétendent à une omniscience analogue à celle de Dieu” (Ska, 1992a, 45). “The apparent difficulties or inconsistencies, the presence of which has led to the identification of previous versions, are in fact not difficulties or inconsistencies but are highly subtle evidences of the writer’s skill and literary talent, qualities which the plodding minds of critical scholars were too lacking in insight to detect” (Barr, 1995b, 9). It was thought possible in this way to erect a dam against the gnawing uncertainty of so many bible readers as the result of classical biblical criticism (“alarming uncertainty”, “vacuum”: Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 65). But imposing a demand for absolute certainty on the bible risks turning toward fundamentalism (Untergassmair, 1996, 141). 341 “The question is why exegetes are so willing to eat from the table of literary theory” (Van Wolde, 1990, 333). The answer to this is the call to liberation (Breukelman, 1975, 35) which modern biblical criticism seemed no longer able to satisfy. In this way Buber’s Leitwortstil (Houtman, 1980, 154) and Palache’s emphasis on the narrative art (Houtman, 1980, 162) set many on the path to discovering and appreciating unsuspected values in the biblical text. “C’est donc en grande partie la tradition juive du midrash, surtout de la haggadah, qui nous a valu ce renouveau d’intérêt pour la narration biblique” (Ska, 1992a, 29-30). “In recent years, biblical exegesis has gleefully adopted literary theory” (Van Wolde, 1990, 333). Also striking is the rapid absorption of text-immanent methods by the Vatican (Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994, 1-60, esp 11-25). This was made possible by the Second Vatican Council and, in its turn, paved way for the canonical movement for Catholics (according to Stuhmueller, 1988, 5-18). 342 “...invitent le lecteur à entrer dans un monde qui est purement esthétique et littéraire ... un des principaux buts de la lecture doit être le divertissement ... le plaisir du texte” (Ska, 1992a,

134

blindly at the text’s details and its past. It also offers a holistic vision, a prospect of broader biblical landscapes343. Extra support is derived from newly arrived linguistic theory that brings to the surface the underlying linguistic structures that shore up the text. It offers the added benefit of a safe feeling of moving along scientifically responsible paths344. Under these conditions it does not seem difficult to abandon the bumpy diachronic byway of classical biblical criticism to follow the newly paved synchronic highway of post-classical biblical criticism that promises so much to so many. Even texts that after past revision with all known techniques did not reveal their secrets now seemed to flourish thanks to the magic wand of new criticism and its immanent approach to the text. It offered the Bible the opportunity to explain itself345: an event that 38, 47-48). H.R. Jauss’s rapidly adopted reception theory can be included here (Brett, 1991, 128 n. 29-30). “...deeply rooted in the literary criticism of the time” (Barton J., 1984, 137). “This postmodern paradigm has dominated philosophy and literary theory for the last twenty years” (Van Wolde, 1990, 340; Barton J., 1984, 140-157). Among other things, this refers to what is called new criticism, known mainly in the Anglo-Saxon world (Ska, 1992a). Yet this modern type of literary theory is not unknown in other linguistic areas (Houtman, 1980, 154). It is already included in current exegesis manuals under normale Wissenschaft (Schart, 1998, 17). 343 Van Wolde, 1990. “...a holistic approach is judged better than historical uncertainties” (Murphy, 1997, 265-274, esp. 266). “...the advantage ... was that it overcame the atomism of much of the older linguistics ... people profess to want a holistic approach and not an atomistic one” (Barr, 1995b, 6; Koole, 1968, 195; Meijering, 1991, 49). One example of a holistic biblical lecture can be found in Barton J., 1984, 128-129. 344 “L’arrière-plan linguistique” (Ska, 1992a, 39). This type of linguistics goes back to F. de Saussure’s publication of his Cours de Linguistique générale in 1916 (Barr, 1995b, 1; Houtman, 1980, 163-164). For a select bibliography of biblical structuralism see Barton J., 1984, 138-139. “...analysis appears ... to eschew appeals to ‘literary intuition’ or any other subjective sense, and to rest its case in hard fact – even numerical fact ... is the very opposite of subjective or vague” (Barton J., 1984, 126). Structuralism transformed rapidly (Saint-Sernin, 1993, 487-495). 345 The antithesis between diachronic and synchronic was often used to refer to the differences between classical biblical criticism and post-classical biblical criticism. Much can be said about this, as the meeting in Kampen in August 1994 demonstrated (De Moor, 1975). A distinction made on this basis is certainly not sound (Barr, 1995 b; Rendtorff, R., 1995, 34-44, esp. 42). Most exegetes take a more balanced position on this issue. “Even those scholars who remained faithful to a synchronic exposition of representative themes were fully cognizant of the historical changes in the ritual and rhetorical expressions of Israel’s faith in biblical times (Terrien, 1985, 130). Post-classical biblical criticism thus has the appearance of a radically subjective attitude (“L’acte de lecture”: Ska, 1992a, 53). Theoretical reception hermeneutics developed this type of intense turn towards the reader’s perspective and interest (Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 363-368). Yet is asserts in its formal criticism that it is more objective than classical criticism (Ska, 1992a, 35). Ska, 1992a, 42-

135

surpassed exegetical techniques and could only be approached in theological reflection.

3.3.3.2 Theological Critique of Classical Exegesis When responding to the shortcomings of classical exegesis, post classical exegesis built its critique on more than just methodological grounds. It relied much more heavily on deeper theological motives. Classical exegesis was mainly accused of adopting a positivistic attitude and as such of being at least neutrally secular if not completely closed to transcendent values346. This was so to such a degree that it failed to do justice to faith when it sought dogmatically to reduce faith to reason and biblical data to a profane object of scholarly study and rejected faith, Bible and the faith community347. This made classical exegesis inadequate for approaching the 43; Hieke, 2003. Barton J., 1984, 129, 191. It calls to mind autopisty and other views that considered the biblical text sufficient in itself (Lönning, 1972, 245, 249 n. 29). “Selbstmächtigkeit des Schriftwortes ... einer gewissen hermeneutischen Kongruenz unseres Interpretationsmodells mit dem der Reformation” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 125-126). “...in den Dienst der Selbstauslegung der biblischen Texte ..” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 364-365). “Die Bibel ... als ein kanonisch und narrativ einheitliches, auf sich selbst bezogenes und sich selbst auslegendes Ganzes ...” (Lindbeck, 1989; Ratzinger, 1989, 46-47). 346 “Ut si Deus non daretur” (Linnemann, 1987, 73). “Historical-critical exegesis is not in and of itself theological interpretation of scripture” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 90). “Diese Methode ist weltlich, menschlich und darum rein profan ... wie dem auch sei, sie rechnet nicht mit Gott und macht Gott nicht zu ihrem Gegenstand” (Gunneweg, 1979, 39-46, esp. 44). It is thought that classical biblical criticism endlessly postpones the question of the truth (according to Childs, 1995, 14) and adopts a secular attitude and thus excludes the supernatural (Hasel, 1985², 120-121). “Während in der Exegese mit der Betonung profaner Methodik die Gegenwart Gottes verabschiedet wird ... Die Aporien der Exegese haben ihre Hauptursache in ihrer Geistvergessenheit ... Damit meine ich keineswegs eine Leugnung des Geistes. Man vergißt ihn einfach” (Bohren, 1986, 170, 175-176). 347 Ladd, 1971, 49-52. “The very idea ... involves certain presuppositions” (Hasel, 1985², 120). The modern views on reality, reason and history that do not agree with those of the Bible are cited in this regard (Hahn, 1972, 13-17). “Das dezidierte Nein des Historikers zum Faktum des Kanons, es ist in Wahrheit kaum weniger als das ‘Dogma’ des Adogmatiken” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 64-65). ‘Diktatur’ (according to D. Boer cited in Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 160). “Objectify God reducing faith to reason” (Ladd, 1971, 59). “Captive of the norms of rationality” (Childs, 1995, 5). The scholarly character that modern biblical criticism believes that it must invoke is a transgression against faith by reason. It is “Fetisch jener ‘wissenschaftlichen Objektivität’, die es sich zu Aufgabe macht, Intentionen biblischer Texte geflissentlich zu übersehen” (Kraus H.J., 1977a, 124). — Besides sources, biblical data also contain primarily testimony to the events that transcend them but to which they still explicitly and insistently refer (according to Childs, 1986, 11-12). “Eine

136

fact of faith and particularly so for approaching the considerable theological orientation in the biblical material. On the basis of these observations, the proponents of the religious revival saw a dilemma in modern biblical criticism348. As a result of this, some of them rejected all of classical biblical criticism as inconsistent with faith-inspired biblical research349 and leapt into the arms of fundamentalism. However, by far most denominational exegetes did not succumb to this act of despair. They still saw a role reserved for classical biblical criticism. Although its recent results are mainly disappointing, this alone dies not furnish grounds for rejecting classical biblical criticism. After all – argued these scholars – the oldest child of modern biblical criticism could still prove useful. But it may not stand alone at the tiller. It must relinquish its monopoly and step Inspiration, die sich nur auf den konkreten Menschen erstreckt und nicht auf die Botschaft, läßt die Botschaft im Bodenlosen versinken. Das ‘Absolute’ wäre dann verschwunden” (Maier G., 1991², 91). Childs complains specifically of the separation of OT sources from the historical faith community of Israel within which it operated. The same complaint is made against the Jesus reconstructed by classical biblical criticism based on NT writings (Ladd, 1971, 49-52; Hahn, 1972, 14-15). “Removed from the life of faith” (Joyce, 1994, 18). It creates an unbridgeable rift between reason and faith (Kruger, 1994, 182) and between biblical theology or the history of religion and dogma (Kraus H.J., 19701, 391-395; Reventlow, 1982, 30). — The harm done to the Bible’s authority is plain to see (Gnuse, 1985 b; McKim, 1983; Bartlett, 1983; Ogden, 1976, 242-261; Barr, 1980 c; Hanson, 1989, 57-79; Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990). “The functioning of scripture was undermined” (Joyce, 1994, 18). It is observed that support is increasingly being sought outside the Bible (Childs, 1995, 4). “...a growing isolation from the steadily increasing problems of communication and understanding in the church today” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 62). The rejection of the church community takes the shape of emancipation from church tradition. “Excluding consideration of any ecclesiastical or confessional tradition” (Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 356; Mildenberger, 1991, 271; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 84). The problem that modern biblical criticism raises is being increasingly felt in the church community (Reventlow, 1982, 30; Childs, 1995, 17). “...die exakte Auslegung der Schrift erweist sich paradoxerweise als kirchenkritisch und für die Kirche gefährlich” (Oeming, 1986, 51). It made perceptible the need for a more adapted and intense preaching, especially among dialectic theologians. This need has become urgent; a whole segment of believers, even exegetes, fall victim to uncertainty. “...for all too many ... biblical criticism has produced a vacuum which causes them to desperate” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 65). Even scholars are not exempt (Childs, 1970, 55-57; Carroll, 1980-81, 73 n. 3). 348 Childs, 1970, 138, 141; Ladd, 1971, 49-52; Ratzinger, 1989, 34-38; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 61, 139; Mildenberger, 1986, 151. “We are faced with an obvious dilemma” (Childs, 1983², 67). The dilemma concentrates on the discrepancy between biblical theology and dogma. 349 ‘Unvereinbarkeit’ (Maier G., 19784, 267-270). “Ihr Anteil an der Kanonkrise, an der Preisgabe des Kanonprinzips und an der Misere der biblischen Theologie wird häufig so hoch eingeschätzt, daß sie geradezu als Hauptmissetäter gilt” (Seckler, 2000, 44).

137

aside to make room for other techniques350. All this must help burnish the emblem of biblical theology and eliminate the shortcomings in classical biblical criticism. But there is one item in this compromise that these denominational biblical exegetes resolutely regarded as not open for discussion: this time control over this newly established biblical theology must remain firmly in the hands of theology351. 350

“Wird Rechenschaft über die kritische Methodik abgelegt, so müßte dann auch in allen Einzelfragen die historisch-kritische Methode in den Dienst der Selbstauslegung der biblischen Texte gestellt werden” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 364-365). To this is added: “Where it is really productive” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 90). This refers to its usefulness in supporting the faith community. “In my judgment, use of scripture for shaping today’s communities of faith can generally proceed more fruitfully by focusing more on Israel’s story than attempting to get behind the story through historical reconstruction” (Melugin, 1996, 78). This does not prevent it from being indispensable for the needed verifiability of scholarly theology (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 85-87). “It alone” (Campbell, 1991, 2) is henceforth an insurmountable objection. Scholars try distrustfully to manoeuvre it into the background (Kruger, 1994, 182). The new “Biblische Auslegung ist der historisch-kritischen Frage nach der Entstehungsgeschichte des Textes vorgeordnet” (Hieke, 2003, 86). Indeed, “das Verstehen biblischer Texte ist ein von der detaillierten Erhebung ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte unabhängiger Prozeß” (Hieke, ibid). It is an enigma how this view can be combined with the assertion that “Die diachrone Arbeit … einen wichtigen Beitrag liefert” (Hieke, ibidem, 85). — On the monopoly of classical biblical criticism see Mildenberger, 1986, 156. He notes that its further contribution will be “relative” (Mildenberger, 1986, 153, 162). It is given only a subordinate place “...nicht vorgegeben” (Mildenberger, 1986, 153). In Barr’s view, this relativity seems to have often been a fact even earlier (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 10). — Forcing classical biblical criticism to give up its place is a difficult undertaking because, of course, all methods have a tendency to excommunicate all other competitors (Barton J., 1984, 5). Spurred on by their status as responses, these new methods present themselves as the only alternatives (Oost, 1986, 78). 351 “Problemverwindungen im Horizont der historisch-kritischen Methode” (Oeming, 1986, 55). “Aporien der historisch-kritischen Methode zu überwinden” (Bohren, 1986, 170). “We may not screen ourselves from the negative consequences ... the negative consequences are serious” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 65). — “Es mußte also mit der Direktive der historischen Kritik gebrochen werden” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 366). The exact meaning of this change of control will have to be investigated below. But it can be said now that it involves a reversal in the scale of values. For instance, according to Tillich, philosophy and theology embrace one another, but theology has the longest arms (Zahrnt, 1967, 351-352). “...for Childs theology exceeds in importance the examination and resolution of any philological, literary or historical problem” (Kruger, 1994, 189). “The primacy of theology is repeatedly emphasised” (Barr, 1988, 3-19, esp. 3). “Theological commitment” (Carroll, 1980, 212). “Die Frage nach der theologischen Funktion historisch-kritischer Bibelauslegung im besonderen ... in sofern ist die von einigen engagierten Vorkämpfern getragene Bewegung ein theologisches Programm” (Reventlow, 1983b, 141, 170). “Ganz offensichtlich theologisches und hermeneutisches Anliegen” (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 220). This theological primacy implies the right to call classical biblical criticism to order when it tries to impose

138

3.3.3.3 Toward a Canonical Explanation of the Bible352 Characteristic of the new biblical theology that was constructed as tentative replacement for the previous version is the special precedence it gives to theology. This preference for assigning superlative value to the theological content of the biblical writings has become the shibboleth that unifies all currents353 within this new biblical theology movement. In setting aside the misdirected development or Fehlentwicklung that had previously marked the earlier biblical theology movement, a group critical of classical biblical criticism came to agree upon a more conscious354 its own view of history. This is a resistance to what is felt to be the dogmatic and totalitarian character of modern biblical criticism (Mildenberger, 1986, 91, 269; Levenson, 1987; Lönning, 1972, 257). This dogmatic attitude is felt to be extremely negative. “Captive of the norms of rationality” (Childs, 1995, 5). “The tyranny of a positivism that takes political-economic form and that easily co-opts historical criticism” (Brueggemann, 1993, VIII). More generous is the opinion that classical biblical criticism may in no way become a “theologische Konfession” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 32). 352 A formulation of this nature is now more frequently used, see JbBTh 3 (1988), 11; Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 3-14; Oeming, 1966, 199-208. Thus far there is no precise definition (Steins, 2001). 353 “Wiederbegründung einer ‘biblischen Theologie’” (Reventlow, 1983b, 138). “Zu einer neuen ‘Bewegung’ geworden ist” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 54). The tentative nature of the new direction in biblical theology is stressed repeatedly (Reventlow, 1983b, 139, 164). “...eine biblische Theologie vorbereiten” (Seebass, 1982, 35). A degree of scepticism regarding these attempts is heard frequently. “Um mehr handelt es sich vorläufig nicht” (Reventlow, 1983b, 139). “Daß das Projekt trotz sehr gravierender Einwände bisher nicht als unrealisierbar erwiesen ist ...” (Seebass, 1982, 44). “...den Weg zu einer ‘biblischen Theologie’ von deren Gelingen wir noch erheblich weit weg sind ...” (Zimmerli, 1979b, 201). “Nach dem gegenwärtigen Stand ... zeigt sich noch kein durchschlagender und zum Ziel führender Weg zu einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie’ ab; wohl aber werden die Aporien deutlicher. Das zwingt zur Nüchternheit und zu noch eindeutiger kritischer Fragestellung” (Merk, 1980, 472, 3-6). “Die Vertreter einer neuen ‘Biblischen Theologie’ keineswegs hinsichtlich der genannten Prämissen übereinstimmen” (Merk, 1980, 40, 47-48; Rendtorff, R., 1995; idem, 1983; Schmidt L., 1983, 288-307, esp. 300). These advocates (Vorkämpfer) of new biblical theology thus come in various models (Reventlow, 1983b, 139, 160, 170). There were fundamental differences even within the canonical movement, which lies at the basis of new biblical theology. Attempts were made to reconcile these tendencies (Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990). Despite its divisions, the canonical movement is very influential (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 237-239). 354 “...an even greater heightening of the ethos and impulse of the older biblical theology” (Barr, 1988, 3). This intensified awareness arose only after a backward glance at the loss of the previous biblical theology. There was a gradual growth of the awareness that there was insufficient contact with the dogma of dialectical theology that had provided the impetus

139

prioritising of theology that was the case at the start of the theological revival. Gradually these critics joined forces to campaign for the preservation of something that all of them considered the primary objective in studying the Bible. This something is nothing other than the character of Scripture355 as revelation and means of sanctification, a basic article of faith and, as is seen from the history of its reception or Rezeptionsgeschichte and the history of its operation or Wirkungsgeschichte, undeniably the force from which the faith community then and now lives for the future356. If when invoking biblical science in its for the theological revival and that had been the driving force behind biblical theology. “...ihre Kraft aus einer weitgehenden, nicht bewußten Korrelation zu einer gleichlaufenden dogmatisch-theologischen Bewegung erhielt” (Seebass, 1982, 39). In good faith, scholars even began to defend theologically the classical biblical criticism that had begun to arouse resistance and to ground it in the Reformation and its teaching on justification (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 61-65; Childs, 1984, 45). Nevertheless, these scholars should have known better: even a rudimentary knowledge of history shows that the Reformation did little, and this reluctantly, to advance biblical criticism. But the long-successful system developed by Bultmann was deceptive, and not only for scholars. Even earlier, scholars such as W. Fischer thought they had to protect classical biblical criticism for theological reasons, even though this presented them with the currently acknowledged dilemma between classical biblical criticism and dogma (Reventlow, 1979, 113). This theological protection of classical biblical criticism did much to ensure that the Fehlentwicklung took so long to come to light in formal criticism (3.3.3.1.). That the mechanism that had earlier supported biblical theology remained long unconscious can be compared with the secularisation process referred to earlier that also came about in a largely unconscious way during the Enlightenment. 355 Reventlow, who is normally cautious in selecting his words, uses the term protagonist or Vorkämpfer (1983b, 129, 139) to describe the zeal that inspired these proponents of the canonical movement to continue in their sacred cause They drew along the broader new biblical theology movement in their wake. “Die Wirkkraft der heiligen Schrift ist die ihr von Gott mitgeteilte übernatürliche Kraft, durch die sie nicht nur den Willen Gottes offenbart und mitteilt (exhibet), sondern auch aus göttlicher Anordnung als aller wirksamstes Mittel (medium validissimum), die ihren Sünden verderbten Menschen ... selig macht” (D. Hollatz, cited in Mildenberger, 1991, 272). Today, Childs explains this theme from its association with the canon as follows: “...the decisive force at work in the formation of the canon emerged in the transmission of a divine word in such a form as to lay claim upon the successive generations” (Childs, 1983², 60). 356 Rendtorff, R., 1991, 121; Räisänen, 1992, 337-347; Blum, 1990a; Koch, 1991, 215-242; idem, 1988, 143-155; Brett, 1991, 127-134; Utzschneider, 1988, 182-198; Reventlow, 1983b, 162-163; Albertz, 1995, 10. For a reception hermeneutic see: Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 363 n. 36. Auslegungsgeschichte is close to this (Maier J., 1990b, 22-23). “Nun aber ist das Gespräch mit dem bisherigen Auslegen zu bedenken. Texte haben bekanntlich ihre Wirkungsgeschichte. Sie beeinflussen einzelne Ausleger ...” (Maier G., 1991², 350). This idea originally goes back to H.D. Gadamer (Grässer, 1980, 207). — On the Scriptures as

140

role as memorial history or Gedächtnisgeschichte, one has become aware that the absolute value of the Scriptures is put at risk and needs defending, then the extreme emergency measures taken by new biblical theology, spurred on by the canonical movement, to link Scripture and canon and raise them to the same level are logical and hardly surprising. The foundation for this is the natural theological link between canon and Scripture357. It is used to lift the treatment of biblical theology via the basis for the faith community see: Gnuse, 1985b, 65. “The authority of scripture is therefore demonstrated ... in its power to create and shape reality” (Achtemeier, 1980, 159). “Warum die ganze Bibel das unverzichtbare und lebendige Fundament ist auf dem die Kirche gegründet ist ...” (Zenger, 1996c, 173). “...a church whose very identity stands or falls by its connection with Holy Scripture” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 62). These denominational exegetes believe that biblical criticism has eroded (“Rupture of vital context”: Stuhlmacher, 1979b, ibid) this essence of revelation (Zahrnt, 1967, 222) with its dogmatic attitude. This is the source of their interest in the restoration of theological priority (Bohren, 1986, 165; Mildenberger, 1986; Oeming, 1986, 51-52, 62, 67-70). When theology is discussed to here, it refers to the most fundamental values that determine the present and future of believers. “Intertatsächliche Lebensbeziehung” (Strathmann, 1970, 61). “Alles, Konkrete -Text, Wort, Weisung, Anspruch, Zuspruch hic et nunc und gestern und morgen – löst sich ebenso zu vergangenen und vergehenden Stadien in dem allein wichtigen Prozeß auf ...” (Gunneweg, 1979, 44). 357 “Die enge Zusammenhang von Kanonprinzip und biblische Theologie verweist darauf daß auch wissenschaftstheoretisch gesehen der theologische Charakter der Bibelwissenschaft am Kanonprinzip hängt, wenn man unter Theologie nicht nur irgend eine freischwebende Form religiöser Rede verstehen will” (Seckler, 2000, 47). “Das Konzept einer Gedächtnisgeschichte zeigt, wo der wissenschaftliche Weg verlaufen kann, auf dem nicht nur besser zu erkennen ist, daß ein Zusammenhang zwischen der Entstehung und der Rezeption eines Textes besteht sondern worin er im Falle des biblischen Kanons besteht” (Söding, 2003, LX). “...den Charakter eines Notdienstes” (Oeming, 1986, 52). — N. Kahler already expressed the link between canon and Scripture (Reventlow, 1983b, 135-136) when he wrote, “Die innige Beziehung ... welche zwischen der Hl. Schrift und dem Dogma von dem Worte Gottes als Gnadenmittel” (Mildenberger, 1986, 153). Further, when Childs Introduction to the OT appeared, it was striking how closely he linked the terms Scripture and canon (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 232; Maye, 1980, 151-163, esp. 162). This is not surprising. As early as 1977 Childs defended the notion that the two terms meant the same (“without sharp distinction”: Childs, 1978, 66-80, esp. 67). So many years later, Childs confirmed this, insofar as such was needed, “The terms canon and Scripture are very closely related, indeed often identical” (Childs, 1995, 9). “Letztlich ist es die Eigenart der Bibel als Schrift, die Childs interessiert” (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, ibid). Sanders made the same association between canon and Scripture in the titles of his works Biblical Criticism and the Bible as Canon, “Text and Canon” and “Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times”. When the terms Scripture and canon are linked, the distinction between them becomes vague suggesting equivalency. “...daß der Begriff ‘Kanon’, so wie er ... gebraucht wird ... nicht scharf von der Schrift unterscheidbar ...” (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, ibid). The

141

canon to a new and higher level and to valorise more important values that had long fallen by the wayside. In this case, by including the canon as factor that gives cohesion to Scripture and thus guarantees its inalienable character, the more historically-oriented biblical theology in vogue since Gabler is side-stepped in favour of more fundamental and dogmatic theology358. No one can fail to see that in calling on the canon for aid in studying the Bible, the canon’s binding nature or Verbindlichkeit359 is notion of Wirkungsgeschichte is again applied to the canon from the perspective of the association of Scripture and canon (Baldermann e.a. [eds.], 1988, 113-214). 358 Even before the rise of new biblical theology there were those that encouraged the promotion of the normative trend (Reventlow, 1983b, 140-141). This trend gained momentum with the arrival of the canonical movement. “Zum anderen gewinnt ...der Kanon entscheidendes theologisches Gewicht” (Reventlow, 1983b, 164). “...dieses Verständnis der biblischen Schriftsammlung im Licht eines funktionalen Kanonbegriffs impliziert dann Ansätze für die Beantwortung einer ganzen Reihe von Fragen, die die bisherige Geschichte der Arbeit an einer ‘Biblischen Theologie’ innerlich gesteuert haben” (Herms, 1998, 101). “Heute ist Biblische Theologie der Hilferuf nach der sie ‘korrigierenden und weiterweisenden Dogmatik’” (Grässer, 1980, 206). The call for dogma arises from a broad base (Bohren, 1986, 171) and seeks to provide an appropriate answer to modern biblical criticism experiences as dogmatic behaviour (Albertz, 1995, 13). In fact, this is a reference to the generally accepted view that systematic-dogmatic theology, within which exegesis is integrated in biblical theology, has the last word within all types of theology. This does not mean that the way in which the two operated had remained hanging since Gabler’s day (Reventlow, 1983b, 170-172). Thanks to this shift in favour of dogma, exegetes now see their share in biblical theology reduced (Mildenberger, 1986, 153), although they remain involved. “...die Verantwortung für das Ganze der Theologie nicht einfach den systematischen Theologen überlassen bleibt, sondern Exegeten sie mittragen” (Seebass, 1982, 39). Nevertheless, Seebass, too, must ascertain that originally OT exegetes like Childs and H.H. Schmid gravitate toward theology and dogmatics (Seebass, 1982, 3940). 359 Söding, 1998, 80-82. After all, “die Frage nach einer Verbindlichkeit” (Mildenberger, 1986, 152; Spieckermann, 1997) is felt to be one that cannot be answered using classical biblical criticism. The appeal to dogmatics is thus unavoidable. “Denn erst so komme die Bibel als Maßstab und Quelle der Lehre selbst zu Wort, und der Dogmatiker erfahre so was in jedem Punkt wirkliche Schriftlehre und Lehre der ganzen Schrift ist” (Mildenberger, 1986, ibid). “Theologie ... im Sinne von für den christlichen Bereich normativen Inhalten und Motiven” (Gunneweg, 1979, 43). “Much more important is the question of authority. The word canon or canonical also has this connotation, and for some theologians this is the very essence of the problem” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 12). This Verbindlichkeit is closely associated with faith, which is usually presupposed in productive theological work (Childs, 1964; Noble, 1995, 350-352; Barton J., 1984, 90; Whybray, 1981, 30; Schnackenburg, 1986, 35). “Biblische Theologie als Glaubensverständnis ... muß auch ‘zu einem wirklich theologischen Verständnis des in der Bibel Ausgesagten kommen’” und dazu bedarf es des die Tiefe des Verständnisses aufschließenden Glaubens”, according to H. Petri (Reventlow, 1983b, 170-171). This faith refers, first of all, to fides quae creditur (Mildenberger, 1986,

142

called to duty from the wealth of the concept’s arsenal. Since Semler’s time, the authoritative and cohesive aspect of the canon had slipped in value on the theological ladder as a result of the Enlightenment. The extensive historical and literary investigations in which scholars became entangled in exercising modern biblical criticism ensured that exegetes preferred to work analytically. This automatically meant that a synthetic fact such as the canon fell beyond their ken and was approached only along its literary-historical perimeter. Shifting attention to the authoritative character of the canon as divinely inspired also entails a considerable shift in perspective. Until recently a liability and source of theological unrest for biblical theology360, today the canon is being used as a lever to get biblical 161-162). It is not only a question of the faith that led to the writing of the Scriptures in the past, as can be read from its Wirkungsgeschichte. It is nothing less than the effect it has today in the church’s use of the Scriptures. “...Biblische Theologie ... müsse sich von der gegenwärtigen Wirksamkeit der Bibel her bestimmen lassen ... sie habe nach dem gepredigten Wort zu fragen, aus dem die Kirche lebt” (Mildenberger, 1986, 153,159). In this sense exegesis becomes kirchliche Schriftauslegung (Reventlow, 1983b, 169) and must duly take church tradition into account (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 85) contrary to what classical biblical criticism is inclined to do. It is known that scholars, and not only normal believers, can recoil from having to subject their insights to church tradition. It then seems to them to be a Gesetzlichkeit in which certain powerful influences assert their rights (Bohren, 1986, 170, 172; Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 229; Schroeder, 1996). Canonicity, like knowledge and scholarship, then risks becoming an exponent of power (Platvoet, 1998, 106; ter Borg, 1998b, 69-79; Parker, 1996). Even the canonical movement runs the risk of being carried away by dogmatische Machtsprüche (Oeming, 1986, 66). Moreover, this is an ecclesiastical use of Scripture that the individual must experience and accept. This is thus the other side of faith, the fides quae creditur (Mildenberger, 1986, 161-162). This is personal territory that is difficult for science to verify. 360 Reventlow, 1983b, 129-130. Where Semler and the Enlightenment lowered the precritical authority of the canon to a human, ecclesiastical matter (Coats-Long, 1977, 10), now God’s absolute authority is invoked. The debate orchestrated by Käsemann on the theological canon, which was still restricted to the NT, was a recent memory (3.1.9). Using the canon as umbrella for many different and even contradictory traditions caused problems. It seemed to cause, or at least encourage, division among the denominations. The following stiff and far from rousing debate was gradually overshadowed after 1970 (3.1.11.) by the dynamic perspective arising in OT studies (Reventlow, 1983b, 125-137). Talk about surprises! (“Zumindest überraschend”: Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 217). While NT scholars had difficulty addressing the problem of the theological canon (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 218; Seebass, 1982, 39-40 n. 16) and the discussion risked getting bogged down, several OT scholars saw an opportunity to try something new with the canon. It was striking that they, rather than the NT scholars, took the initiative (Haacker, 1977, 10-11; Seebass, 1982, 39 n. 16; Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 218). They could do this thanks to their Neuorientierung (Childs did indeed “in wirklich radikaler Weise die Dinge auf den Kopf gestellt” [Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 233]). This happened as a result of new discoveries in OT

143

theology back on its feet. Thanks to this support, it offers an opportunity to revitalise the theological revival originally sparked by Barth and Bultmann but on the decline in recent years. It even provides a new fervour for restoring links to the glorious period of the reformers and their Scripture principle361. This has led to rumours about a fantastic liberation narrative362. It is clear that in this capacity the canon seems to be the exegesis (Reventlow, 1983b, 128), that caused much commotion (3.3.2.1.). These OT scholars used the malaise that this caused in classical biblical criticism to shift attention from the problematic historical study of the canon to the hermeneutical-theological field. This offered them an opportunity to stress once again the dynamic unity of the biblical traditions. The Frage nach seiner Mitte (Mildenberger, 1986, 157) makes the quest for Verbindlichkeit more specific. As Christians, they are convinced of the value of the NT, but as OT scholars they are no less convinced of that of the OT. They wish to return to the OT the irreplaceable theological place due it within the canon of the whole Christian bible. “Von hier aus wird verständlich, wieso Forscher am Alten Testament einen besseren Zugang zu einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie haben” (Klein, 1984, 88). After all, they have the advantage of starting from the awareness that the OT must retain its value in the heart of Christianity while upgrading it on its own is insufficient. This is different for the NT (Klein, 1984, 88 n 59). The OT scholars are thus more zealous than the NT scholars in tackling the gesamtbiblische theology within the new biblical theology. 361 “Versuche zur Wiederbegründung einer ‘Biblischen Theologie’” (Reventlow, 1983b, 138). Canonical hermeneutics sets the trend for the whole field of contemporary biblical theology (Reventlow, 1983b, 137, 160). “...inzwischen ist der Kanon jedoch zu einem Thema mit hermeneutischem, literarischem und theologischem Stellenwert geworden” (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 217). It is this hermeneutical-theological impact that ensures the vibrancy of the Vorkämpfer’s effort. While Childs is correctly associated with Barth (Scalise, 1994; Dunbar, 1986, 350; Noble, 1995, 4) because of his orientation toward the theological-dogmatic aspect of the canon (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 230-239), Sanders is compared with Bultmann because of his functional-existential approach (Scalise, 1994, 8285; Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 224-230). Meijering, 1991, Oeming, 1988, 241-251, esp. 245, Schmid-Mehlhausen, 1988-1991 and Stuhlmacher, 1975, 124 clearly return to the reformation Scripture principle. “...um so das reformatorische Prinzip der Sola Scriptura rein durchzuführen” (Mildenberger, 1986, 151). “...dann hängt das mit einem ... untergründig wirksamen Anspruch zusammen, unter Berufung auf das reformatorische Schriftprinzip normativ auf Dogmatik und Kirche einwirken zu wollen” (Albertz, 1995, 8). The classical teaching on inspiration thus again comes under discussion (Grässer, 1980, 214 n. 17; Stuhlmacher, 1980, 222-238, esp. 235-236; Kraus H.J., 1977a, 116). “Stuhlmacher hat ja den Inspirationsgedanken zu erneuern gesucht ... die Wiedergewinnung des Inspirationsglaubens” (Oeming, 1987², 127, 131). “The appeal to the reformation as the authoritative past epoch” (Barr, 1995a, 115). “Es ist zuerst und vor allem in der biblischtheologischen Arbeit zurückzukehren, umzukehren aus der ‘Autonomie des Historischen’ zu der biblischen, reformatorischen und von Karl Barth mit vollem Recht als Voraussetzung und Grundlage aller Theologie erklärten Theologie des Wortes Gottes” (Kraus H.J., 1977a, 116). 362 Following the book by D. Boer with the same title (see Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 164).

144

rescuer satisfying a current need in a faith community wrestling with unrest and confusion in this postmodern period363. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that Roman Catholic circles, equally exposed to the postmodern intellectual current, seeks affiliation with and support from an ecumenical-theological trend364 that is rooted in the 363

“Aufhebung aller Herrschaft” (see D. Boer: Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 165). There is a growing sense of the biblical theologians’ responsibility for the church community. “The vexing questions of purpose and method, which are interwoven, may well depend upon the function of the discipline and its responsibility toward the church” (Terrien, 1985, 129). “At this point canonical exegesis returns the Bible to the keeping of the religious communities where it has normative status” (Carroll, 1980, 229). It is thus understandable that the various church communities are pleased with the canonical current. It puts biblical theologians and church leadership on the same wavelength. “Hence, the re-examination of the canon, so long the province of councils and synods, has been assumed by biblical scholars themselves” (Terrien, 1985, 132). The relevance of the canonical writings in the present is being given greater attention consistent with the preceding theological movement (Bohren, 1986, 166). But the application can be very different. Childs operates directly – after the abbreviation of the history of tradition it was natural to gloss over the postcanonical tradition Terrien, 1985, 132) – on the basis of its shape, (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 235; Childs, 1986, 13; idem, 1978, 78-79); “upon all successive generations” (Childs, 1983², 60-79 [here it can be remarked: “so presented, the concept of actualisation becomes stretched beyond defensible limits”: Knight, 1980, 127-149, esp. 142] ), while Sanders starts from its dynamic hermeneutic (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 224). With the intention “to meet the demands of its confessional stance” (Carroll, 1980-81, 77), one dares, on one, side to pursue the higher truths (Ritschl, 1994, 385-397, esp. 387) of transcendent reality (Brett, 1994, 281-287, esp. 281-282) that are then used with imagination (Janzen, 1980, 411-414, esp. 414; Birch, 1984, V; Joyce, 1994, 17; Brueggemann, 1993; Perdue, 1994, 263). On the other hand, there is the danger of an orientation toward “world transforming praxis” at the expense of a responsible use of Scripture (according to Barr in his introduction to Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 10). “An die ‘relative’ Stabilität der Kirchen, welche noch vor zwanzig Jahren beschworen wurde, mag heute niemand mehr so recht glauben” (Körtner, 1977, 153). Historian J. Köttler summarised the situation succinctly in his valedictory lecture on 12 July 2000 in Tübingen: “Auf allen Feldern, die wir untersucht haben, sind wir auf Defizite in der Wahrnehmung von Wirklichkeit gestoßen” (Köhler, 2000, 285). The pursuit of certainty in updating is striking. “Denn mit dem ‘canonical shape’ wird ja bei einem Datum und nicht bei einer Hypothese angefangen, und man bleibt auf dem Boden des Überlieferten” (Seebass, 1982, 38). 364 Körtner, 1977, 161; Mildenberger, 1986, 161; Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1994, 160; Ratzinger, 1989; Zenger, 1996c. The Roman Catholic imitation of the Reformation’s return to the sources seems to be a consequence of its acceptance – albeit delayed – of modern biblical criticism in the footsteps of the Reform churches. Based on shared external opposition, the sense of solidarity and a degree of rapprochement are growing. Some see in this a type of ecumenism via academic exegesis (Terrien, 1985, 134-135; Grässer, 1998, 185-196; Stuhlmacher, 1975, 32; Murphy, 1997, 271; Auld, 1992, 18-27). “Perhaps secularisation is one cause leading to trans-confessional and supra-confessional Protestant

145

Reformation were it enlivens the Protestant Scripture principle via a consistent return to the authority of the Scriptures as a whole.

3.3.3.4. Recent Holistic Biblical Theology Canonical hermeneutics, which took flight around 1977 as part of new biblical theology, had increasingly sought inspiration from the entire Bible (gesamtbiblisch)365, i.e. in the entirely of the Bible. It was a drastic change from the course that biblical theology has followed since Gabler. This is palpable in the intensity and manner in which theology of the entire Bible is practised today, although this choice had been made much earlier. The first steps in the gesamtbiblische direction were taken hesitantly and not always successfully. Now, however, once the canon had been moved forward as principle of theological unity366, a major breakthrough sparked by Gese and Stuhlmacher seemed to have occurred. Several of their awareness or even the rise of the ecumenical movement” (Janse, 1998, 340, n. 38). A further step is made when entering one another’s specific territory; see Childs’ community tradition and Braun’s original authority (Smith D.M., 1986, 407-411, esp. 410). Schlier was the precursor of this trend. Childs tries to bridge the classic opposition between Scripture and tradition (Childs, 1986, 80-82). 365 Reventlow, 1983b, 137. “Im Rahmen dieses ... hermeneutischen Ansatzes ... ergibt sich ... die gesamtbiblische Perspektive ... wichtig ist gerade: der gesamtbiblische Kanon steht heute also ... zwingender da als früher” (Reventlow, 1983b, 163-164). 366 “Kehrtwendung ... rückwärtsgewandt ... Antithetik” (Grässer, 1980, 201, 205-206). “Nur von einem gewandelten Auslegungsverfahren her ... das erstrebte Unternehmen projektiert und aufgebaut werden (kann, L.Z.)” (Kraus H.J., 1977a, 110). “ ... sind gesamtbiblische Theologien die Steigerungsform von Biblischer Theologie?” (Höffken, 1987, 13). “Die Autorität der Bibel (3.3.3.4., L.Z.) ist nur geltend zu machen unter der Voraussetzung einer darstellbaren Einheit der Bibel” (Haacker, 1977, 16). It should be remembered that after Gabler biblical theology practically fell apart into an OT side and an NT side (although he did maintain a single canon for OT and NT, his emphasis on purely historical research served the universality of the Bible’s content [Knierim, 1995, 530]). This resulted in time in a tacit abandoning of the classic canon concept (3.1.4.) that new biblical theology later (Merk, 1980, 469, 55) included again in the wake of the theological revival (3.1.8.). “Und nun sind es wieder die Ergebnisse der gleichen historisch-kritischen Arbeit, die – dem in gewisser Weise gegenlaüfig – wieder neu zum Postulat einer systematisch reflektierten, Altes und Neues Testament umgreifenden Biblischen Theologie führen” (Schmid H.H., 1977, 75-95, esp. 75). Reventlow, 1983b, 140-141; 3.1.11. Childs in particular insisted on giving the canon a more central position as principle of the whole Bible’s theological unity, this with a view to launching new biblical theology (Childs, 1970, 99). The method he used at the time to encourage the use of the OT as point of departure in the NT met with near total rejection. Later Sanders more successfully took over the whole Bible perspective (Reventlow, 1983b, 131, 133).

146

detailed studies with clear gesamtbiblische tendency gave impetus to the start of the Projektgruppe Biblische Theologie in 1976 in Bethel and to meetings sponsored by the Institute for Biblical Theology in Pittsburg. The launching of new periodicals, with a worldwide readership, devoted to biblical theology aroused great expectations367. All this contributed to a new spirit that blew through the obsolete structures of biblical theology. Yet scholars continued to speak cautiously of tentative models368. And upon closer inspection, these were not all that new. They incorporated earlier notions, such as salvation history or the promise-fulfilment theme, and recycled these as renovation (Altbaussaniering). Earlier models were only rarely rejected categorically. The resolutely textgemäßer or textrelated treatment of the pericopes in the broader context of Scripture and even in the whole of the bible text via intertextuality was positively appreciated369. It offered the possibility of a thematic treatment spread over the whole Bible. This holistic usage could eliminate the oft-denounced atomism of classical biblical criticism. Via the application of modern literary criticism, it also allowed the unity of the biblical material in its varied composition to be judged on its merits370. The canon as a whole 367

Janowski, 1998, 1-36, esp. 2-3; “Wandel” (Reventlow, 1983b, 139). “Eine Wendung der Dinge zeichnet sich ... seit etwa 1972 ... es ist ... ein Durchbruch” (Haacker, 1977, 11-12). Reventlow, 1983b, 139, 142, 147-148; Daniëls, 1991, 299-309. After the periodical Horizons in Biblical Theology was first published in Pittsburg in 1979 with a mainly Protestant Anglo-Saxon readership, the Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie as of 1986 offered gesamtbiblische theology an international and ecumenical platform. 368 “Sachliche Struktur” (Haacker, 1977, 17). “Strukturanalyse... Strukturveränderungen” (Reventlow, 1983b, 144-146). Earlier efforts to achieve a gesamtbiblische theology fell shortest when it came to structures. Gese and Stuhlmacher provided a new approach by applying the history of tradition method. “ ... ein entscheidendes Strukturproblem ... ins Auge zu fassen” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 14). “Voruntersuchungen” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 371). “Entwürfe”, “Hinweise” (Merk, 1980, 469, 44-46). “Vorschläge, Arbeitsprogramme” (Seebass, 1982, 33-34). A series of new models were presented and explained in Reventlow, 1983b, 128. A more complete overview and a deeper evaluation of the various gesamtbiblische topics can be found Oeming, 1987². 369 Reventlow, 1983b, 139; Terrien, 1985, 128-129; Ladd, 1971; Lessing, 1984, 228-240. Oeming, 1986, 55. Childs, 1988, 14-15 tends to adopt this position and thus to display his extreme stance (Oeming, 1988, 248). Oeming, 1988, 242, 247; Vanoni, 1995. “Contextual framework” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 7). When it comes to intertextuality, Hübner (1988) seems to us to overemphasise the reception of the OT in the NT. For that reason, his work does not quality as a holistic approach (see 3.1.11). 370 Kraus H.J., 1977a, 109; Rendtorff, R., 1991, 11-12. “By the way, the term ‘holistic’ used here is quite close to what I call ‘canonical’” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 10). “ ... die kanonische Schriftauslegung ... will aufzeigen, daß und wie die einzelnen Elemente sich zu

147

became the context of exegetical-theological study. In this, the tradition history approach that Gese and Stuhlmacher used began to attract attention371. Of both authors it can be noted that they wanted to take the canon as guideline in their work, albeit to different degrees. Starting from opposite directions, Gese (OT) and Stuhlmacher (NT) encountered one another in their study of the canon and thus came to believe that they best served the kerygmatic character of the whole biblical text when including its historical development372. It became an extremely meticulous and complex undertaking that gave rise to interpretations if only because of the einem organischen Ganzen fügen. Von daher ist sie von ihrer Anlage her gesamtbiblische oder ... holistisch orientiert. Die kanonische Schriftauslegung ist nicht an isolierten Einzeltexten, sondern an Textgruppen und ganzen Büchern interessiert, ja, sie möchte sogar die Baustrukturen sowohl von Büchergruppen als auch des Kanons insgesamt erhellen” (Oeming, 1966, 202). 371 Barton J., 1984, 89. Childs already referred to this context (Childs, 1986). His references to it became increasingly frequent (Childs, 1984, 27; idem, 1986; Oeming, 1988). The idea of context remains somewhat vague – this indeterminacy in its meaning is its weak point: Beer, 1995, 48-59 – although it is certain that it involves the framework goes beyond a particular text extend but within which this text is contained, so that it can serve as a basis for interpreting the text. Childs seeks in the direction of the early faith community’s regula fidei (Childs, 1984, 28). What this, in its turn, could mean remains unclear, as does his notion of the early community. Kraus H.J., 1977a, 109-113 defines context in a more strictly text-related way. Childs also often speaks favourably about the religious context of the whole bible text. “...the total religious sense within the total context of Scripture” (Barr, 1989, 7). Thus the difference within new biblical theology movement finds expression in the delineation of the concept context (Albertz, 1995, 8-11). “Es ist in eine Fortbewegung auf das Neue Testament zugehende, dieses einschließende und sich in der Einheit des alttestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Kanons dokumentierende Offenbarungsgeschichte ... wobei der ‘traditionsgeschichtlich unlösbare Zusammenhang von Altem und Neuem Testament ... unüberhörbar’ ist” (Merk, 1980, 469, 47-51). It is impossible to treat here all the many other canon-inspired holistic models such as those of Clements (Reventlow, 1983b, 136-137; Terrien, 1985, 132). Only the most conspicuous accomplishments can be discussed. The supply and variety is great (Oeming, 1987²; HBT 5 1984, 6). 372 Gese is more consistent here than is Stuhlmacher (Seebass, 1986, 119 n 15). “...sucht Gese am Rahmen des Kanons festzuhalten ...sachlich ist es Stuhlmacher ... eindeutig um die Frage des Kanons zu tun” (Reventlow, 1983b, 146, 169). “...das zum kirchlichen Kanon erhobene Zeugnis” (Stuhlmacher, 1979a, 13-54, esp. 44). “Als leitendes Prinzip erweist sich dabei zunächst die Orientierung am kirchlichen Kanon” (Roloff, 1994, 241-245, esp. 241). Reventlow, 1983b, 149. “Das Wesen der Tradition besteht für Gese darin daß diese selbst Kerygma ist” (Reventlow, 1983b, 143). “Der Anredecharakter des Wortes Gottes ... muß also nicht im Widerspruch zu Geses Konzept stehen” (Mildenberger, 1979, 11-32, esp. 15). “...auch Gese an der Bestimmung der Biblischen Theologie als historischer Disziplin festhält” (Reventlow, 1983b, 145).

148

terminology used. This does not detract from the general recognition that the consistent canonical-historical approach considerably improved Von Rad’s tradition-historical model and made more visible the continuity of the canonical writings, particularly the interweaving of the dynamic involvement of the two testaments373. Yet the application of the canon as theologically normative idea was occasionally more hurdle than help for the architects of the new gesamtbiblische models. Their findings that the Hebrew canon did not correspond sufficiently to the actual tradition history elicited many critical comments. It prompted the critics with a more theological-dynamic orientation to guard the exposed flank of the theological canon and to insist on a consistent theological approach374. This sought to separate if not sever itself from the history of religion and 373

Oeming, 1987², 111. “Wenn Gese ... keine geeignete Terminologie gefunden hatte” (Reventlow, 1983b, 144). “...Unscharfe Formulierungen Stuhlmachers ... äußert sich auch Stuhlmacher eher schwankend” (Reventlow, 1983b, 166, 171). “Beide Möglichkeiten scheinen bei Gese verbunden zu sein, was zu Schwierigkeiten in der Rezeption seines Konzeptes führt” (Mildenberger, 1979, 12 nt. 5). “Geses Arbeit stellt einen großen Schritt der Weiterführung und auch Korrektur der einen Einschnitt markierenden Theologie von G. Von Rad dar” (Seebass, 1982, 34). In building a closer unity between OT and NT, Gese, unlike Von Rad, could use the wisdom books which were now appreciated more highly (Terrien, 1985, 129-130). “Aus dem ... Phänomen des kirchlichen Kanons aus Altem und Neuem Testament ... wird ... vor allem gefolgert daß ... ‘das Neue Testament ... den Abschluß eines Traditionsprozesses bildet’ der wesentlich eine Einheit, ein Kontinuum ist” (Merk, 1980, 470, 53-471, 1). 374 “Warnung vor einer Orientierung am verengten Kanon des nachbiblischen Judentums und eine Kritik am reformatorischen Kanonsverständnis” (Merk, 1980, 470, 54-56; Reventlow, 1983b, 146, 163-164). “In allen Grundfragen ‘Biblischer Theologie’ ist die Bedeutung der dogmatischen Prämissen und Implikationen ständig und strikt wahrzunehmen ... im Konzept ‘Theologie als Traditionsbildung’ wird Theologie in eine Phänomenologie der Überlieferungsgeschichte verwandelt” (Kraus H.J., 1977b, 64, 66). Kraus considered the canon problem akut (Kraus H.J., 1988, esp. 57). In resuming the Reformation’s Scripture principle, he displays “ein offensives Konzept” (Weinrich, 1983b, 253-265, esp. 253). Mildenberger, 1979, 12-16 (Reventlow, 1983b, 144) and Gunneweg, 1979, 43 are more lenient. Yet all these critics express concern to emphasise that historicalexegetical research and theology differ from faith (Gunneweg, 1979, 43), that the two are of different calibre (“kaum überbrückbaren Gegensatz” (Kraus H.J., 1977b, 71); “der Distanz des historischen Beobachters” (Mildenberger, 1979, 12). After all, “history is not a medium of revelation” (Carroll, 1980, 217). The deepest mainspring in this is God’s word as Anrede (Ogden, 1976; Gunneweg, 1984, 338 n. 13) must be maintained unabridged with respect to every human contribution or answer. “Doch trifft die Kritik Schmids nur unter der Voraussetzung, daß Gese dem als Offenbarungsprozeß interpretierten Traditionsprozeß den Vorentwurf historischer Gegenständlichkeit unterlegt mit dem moderne Historie arbeitet” (Mildenberger, 1979, 13).

149

rejected all extra-biblical elements375. On the other hand, Gese’s own tradition-history faction accused the structure of his tradition system of being too closed. It gave insufficient expression to the multiplicity of its tendencies, its strange twists and turns and its pre-history. It brought him to a violent repression of the tradition’s complex reality376. Stuhlmacher 375

As with profane history, it is shifted to a different, lower level, ineligible for theological consideration. “Totally different operation” (Barr, 1980a, 16). “Zum Unterschied von reiner Religionsgeschichte” (Gunneweg, 1979, 45; Weinrich, 1983b, 259-263). Albertz, 1995 reflects the growing call for the history of religion. He even goes so far that he would have history of religion take the place of theology. The discussion of his plea was the focus of the international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Leuven in 1994 (Baldermann, 1995). On that occasion, the majority seemed to restrict themselves to acknowledging the points of contact between the history of religion and theology. This view is held by Welker, 1988, 3-18; Hartenstein, 2003, 27-28; Jeremias, 2003, 54-57; Söding, 2003, 15-20; Theissen, 2005.. Others wished to keep the two separate. Rendtorff, for instance, thought these were “unterschiedliche Fragestellungen” (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 36), which amounts to a “Nebeneinander” (Albertz, 1995, 8). His reason is concern for the authenticity of theology. Others also wish to retain the separation, but motivated by a concern for historical research (e.g. Grässer, 1980, 311). Like Rendtorff, Kratz 1997, 23-25, recently opted for a position for the history of religion that is separate from the OT texts. Gese and Stuhlmacher wish to include the history of religion within their theologies. In practice, however, it is not simple to combine the history of religion with the theology of the canon (Reventlow, 1983b, 164; Grässer, 1980, 218). Stuhlmacher also acts gewaltsam here although he is open in principle to the history of religion (Stuhlmacher, 1972, 35-39). Specifically, he classifies all the external influences on the NT under Judaism (Stuhlmacher, 1976, 25-60, esp. 28; idem, 1978, 59-65; Grässer, 1980, 211-220). Relying on his recent multiform proposal, he exaggerates the continuity between Judaism and early Christianity (Klein, 1984, 77-78). For the present state of the question see DohmenStemberger, 1996, 209 n. 25. — On the rejection of extra-biblical elements see Ska, 1992a, 37, 50; Reventlow, 1983b, 146; Diebner, 1985a, 9-37, esp. 30-32. Childs seems to be thinking along the same lines (‘vehemently opposed’: Barr, 1980a, 15; Kittel, 1980, 2-11, esp. 5). It is a consistent application of the canon as delineating fact that establishes a definite dividing line. “Sie bestimmte äußere Grenzen” (Childs, 1988, 14). In that case, the existence of the canon also puts an end to tradition as truth criterion (Kraus H.J., 1977b, 64). The rejection of extra-biblical information is related to the rejection of the history of religion. It relies on the resistance, present since Barth’s day, to any type of natural theology (Stuhlmacher, 1976, 59-60 n. 63). It stressing dogmatics in new biblical theology, the anti-natural reflex receives new vigour. It is thus suspicious of H.H. Schmid and U. Luz’s holistic Bethel project (Stuhlmacher, 1976, 54-60) that relies on the overarching creation theme in the OT and NT and the experience of reality (Reventlow, 1983b, 157) and receives support from the ecological movement and process theology (Preuss, 1983, 68101; Gibert, 1993, 519-538). 376 “Ein in hohem Masse geschlossenes System” (Reventlow, 1983b, 142, 145; Schmid, 1977, 79). “Die in ihrer Geschlossenheit imponierende Konzeption Geses” (Mildenberger, 1979, 13). “...eine Vereinheitlichung der differenzierten Textaussagen ... die problematisch

150

was also not excused on this point even though he worked avidly to demonstrate the thematic unity of OT and NT. He was primarily criticised for the lack of clarity in his explanation of his method377. Apparently the newest attempts to launch a theology of the whole Bible based on the theological canon were not applauded in all quarters. They met, rather, with growing scepticism378. Yet they undeniably made progress. The textgemäß exegetical investigation intended to provide a firmer foundation for gesamtbiblische kerygmatic themes is a benefit. At the same time, this gesamtbiblisch exploration of the bible text includes the abovementioned duty of respecting the differences and contrasts between the biblical traditions379. This problem grows when we recall that the historical ist” (Mildenberger, 1979, 19). Violent suppression of the complexity of tradition is a consequence of a rejection of the hypothetical uncertainty of classical biblical criticism and the pressure proceeding from the principle of the canon’s theological unity (Grässer, 1980, 210 n. 38; Oeming, 1987², 112-114). This places the Bible’s content on the unsuitable Procrustean bed of the theological canon (Holman, 1995, 217-236). Since both Gese and Stuhlmacher tend to show preference for cores, themes or even centres (Hornig, 1997, 133137, esp. 132) within the biblical traditions (Reventlow, 1983b, 143, 147-148) despite their consistent holistic stance, the reproach of Verengung (Oeming, 1986, 125 n. 92) is justified. “In all these attempts, however, material that did not fit always remained behind on the table” (Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 150). “Smoothing out all differences between the biblical writers. There is no doubt that it (canonical method, L.Z.) has a tendency to do that” (Barton J., 1984, 5). “...the biblical writings are by their very nature filled with tensions, contradictions and even glaring discrepancies” (Terrien, 1985, 128). 377 “gewaltsam” (Grässer, 1980, 214). Oeming, 1987², 124-127. We will return to this in section 3.3.3.5. 378 Klein, 1984, 80 n. 29. The regular reports of the Biblical Theology Project Group also witness to a diminution in enthusiasm and an increase in disunity (Reventlow, 1983a, 6567; idem, 1984; Grässer, 1980, 205 n. 19). Stuhlmacher is aware of how “ausgesprochen umstritten” his model for a biblical theology is (Stuhlmacher, 1992, 30). “...die ins Stocken geratene Diskussion um die Biblische Theologie weiterzuführen” (Roloff, 1994, 244). 379 As the emphasis on the systematic-dogmatic aspect of the canon’s unity becomes stronger, as is the case in the canonical biblical theology movement (according to Kraus H.J., 1977a), it becomes more difficult to respect the diversity of the biblical traditions. Thus in addition to the positive effect of the notion of unity in the canon, the need to seek a centre in the biblical material also has the negative consequence of creating tensions with those elements that are not, or are less, involved with this centre, with as result a threat to the demarcated limits to the canon. The fear that the search for unity via the canon would fail to do justice to the diversity that they experience as a value leads some exegetes to defend diversity expressly (Albertz, 1995, 8-14; Luttikhuizen, 1996; Hanson, 1982; Achtemeier, 1986, 1-25). Yet they generally try to reconcile unity with diversity. “...it is unlikely that any biblical theology of an academic status will now neglect to reckon with the theological diversity of the Bible” (Barr, 1974, 272). This is done not only in synthetical works (Beauchamp, 1990; Gloer, 1981, 53-58; Baker, 1991²; Clavier, 1976; Schmidt W.H.,

151

evolution and stages in the canon tradition must be taken into consideration380. But it is the reciprocal dialectic relationship between OT and NT within a single Christian canon that is generally felt to be the most precarious obstacle for biblical theology381. As is known, the separate approach to OT and NT that had been customary for centuries, since Gabler’s time, have left deep scars in the minds of exegetes and on the many different theological disciplines that have arisen since then. It has become an irresistible, spontaneous reflex in exegetes to start either from the NT or the OT when designing their holistic project. Nevertheless, they are aware that a more uniform treatment of all biblical material is more logical from a canonical perspective382. But because OT and NT scholars 1983b, 13-22; Luz, 1983; more recently also H. Räisänen: Stuhlmacher, 1992) but also in analytical works on the thematic treatment of detailed questions. These too can be interpreted holistically (Gibert, 1993; Stuhlmacher, 1981). There is a growing realisation that the concept of a unified biblical theology is a prerequisite if these detailed questions are to prove fruitful. 380 “Some diverging growth” (Terrien, 1985, 130-132). With his dynamic view, Sanders has brought many proponents of the canonical movement to distinguish canonical stages (Reventlow, 1983b, 131-132; Oeming, 1988, 250; Dunn, 1982). He sees no contradiction between this dynamic in the canonical tradition and the unity of the canon, because he considers this both adaptable and a fixed and permanent given. However, Childs and his followers see things differently. Their concern for the canon’s unity leads them to invoke the strict canonical shape of the final text. For them this cannot be fabricated (Rendtorff, R., 1994a) or of human origin. It is a question of a theological-dogmatic interpretation. “The canonical Moses is the only one we ever will able to achieve – and he is the one whose impact worked through Judaism, Christianity and Islam up to the present day” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 9). The difference in theological appreciation of the formation of the canonical tradition is also the dogmatic-theological foundation for the discussion on synchronicity and diachronicity. “But precisely where the emphasis falls in canonical study and how the elements interact is heatedly discussed among canonical critics (Gottwald, 1985, 307-321, esp. 310). 381 Childs, 1995, 11-14. Kraus H.J., 1982³, 578. Hübner, 2003, 2-5. “Crucial” (Hasel, 1987³, 158). 382 The OT scholars that start from the OT in developing a holistic project in the canonical spirit remain a majority as in the past (Reventlow, 1983b, 135-137; SchwienhorstSchönberger, 2001), while the NT scholars work with “eine erhebliche Zurückhaltung” (Reventlow, 1983b, 139) Only a few, such as Childs, Barr, Barton and Seebass succeed in achieving a fairly balanced approach to the canon as totality. “Wer beide Testamente bearbeitet, fängt meist mit dem Alten an und behält dort in der Regel sein Standbein. Auch bei ‘Fachwechslern’ kommt zuerst das Alte, dann das Neue Testament” (Smend, 1995, 1). Ebeling had foreseen that this would be difficult if not impossible to bridge given the historically grown separation between the disciplines of OT and NT theology. “Bei dem heutigen Stand der theologischen Wissenschaft erforderte eine solche ‘Biblische Theologie’ die intensive Zusammenarbeit von Alttestamentlern und Neutestamentlern. Schon darum ist

152

each remained on their own river-bank, the water between the two seemed deep. They continued to demand the right to separate OT and NT canons and theologies383. Under these circumstances, we may ask whether a allerdings kaum zu erwarten, daß sie sich zu einer gesonderten Disziplin entwickeln wird. Sie wird vielmehr angewiesen bleiben auf das wissenschaftliche Gespräch zwischen beiden Disziplinen, und je nachdem bald von der einen, bald von der anderen der beiden Disziplinen stärker gefördert werden” (Ebeling, 1962, 88). — On the need for a holistic model see Oeming, 1986. “Eine biblische theologische Fragestellung muß es geben” (Schmid, 1983, 49). “Bei fruchtbarem interdisziplinärem Gespräch” (Seebass, 1982, 33). “...die sichtbar werdende Kooperation von alt- und neutestamentlichen Fachwissenschaftlern” (Reventlow, 1983b, 139). “...the main obstacle to meaningful interdisciplinary dialogue” (Halpern, 2000, 542). Just how difficult it is to carry out this type of interdisciplinary discussion, however desirable it may be, is evident in the awkward dialogue between Grässer and Stuhlmacher (Grässer, 1980; Stuhlmacher, 1980), just as earlier there was little communication in the dispute between Conzelmann and Von Rad (Stuhlmacher, 1980, 234-235 n. 21). 383 Also noteworthy is Merk’s defence of a permanent separation between OT and NT disciplines (‘Unanfechtbar’: Merk, 1980, 472, 39-47). Similarly, Knierim thinks that each testament should be treated independently of the other (Knierim, 1995, 52-53 n. 1, 554-555; Gunneweg, 1979). But there is considerable discussion on his approach (Birch, 1984, 7). More plausible is the notion that this is merely a “nur zum Zwecke notwendige Arbeitsteilung” (Gunneweg, 1979, 46; Stuhlmacher, 1992, 31, 280). Yet a theological motive can even be suggested for this: the ‘Ausschließlichkeit’ (Reventlow, 1983b, 155) native to each testament. In the Christian world, the “Absolutheit der Offenbarung in Christus ... Unableitbarkeit der urchristlichen Verkündigung” (Grässer, 1980, 218-219), as recorded in the NT, is a tradition. Dunn, 2002, still applies this theological principle today. Butt this strict presupposition is accused of having anti-Jewish tendencies. It would result in the Jews being excluded from OT theology which would be practised mainly in a Christian environment (Albertz, 1995, 13; Levenson, 1991). The same mindset also insists on recognising the “vorchristlichen, jüdischen Sinn des Textes” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 13, 4445; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 578; idem, 1977a, 121). “...the Old Testament should be understood in its own right” (Childs, 1995, 13). Childs does not go as far as Rendtorff, who believes that a Christian should be able to consult the authentic OT apart from the Christian canon (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 38). Childs labels this an anachronism (Childs, 1986, 9). Others think that this would lead Christians to have an incorrect understanding of the OT (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 140). Besides the concern to upgrade the assessment of the OT, an important motivation for this is the worry about relations between Christianity and Judaism (Neusner, 1989, 18-31; Blenkinsopp, 1984b, 3-15; Weinrich, 1983b, 264-265). “In order to maintain a common scripture with Judaism” (Childs, 1983², 686). “Bei einer Analyse der Gründe und Hintergründe, auch der Motive und Tendenzen der wissenschaftlichen Trends würde man sehr bald ermitteln können, daß sich das Interesse am Aufweiß der ‘gravierenden Unterschiede’, ja sogar der ‘unbestreitbaren Gegensätze’ zwischen Judentum und Christentum, zwischen Israel und der Kirche, als der eigentliche Antritt der Forschungen und Ergebnisfindungen herausstellt” (Kraus H.J., 1988, 55). The response from the Christian side was that this Judaising tendency implies a ‘Besitzverzicht’ (Grässer, 1980, 232). Certainly, reality requires acknowledgment of the fact that there is an insurmountable

153

biblical theology whose identity seems not yet firm but which is based on a single canon is even possible as independent discipline384.

3.3.3.5. Post-Critical Exegesis In the meantime it has become clear that the holistic model that arose under the influence of canonical exegesis received a specific orientation. The question now is to what extent exegesis is hermeneuticallymethodologically conditioned in this regrounding of, or new rationale for, biblical theology supported by the theological notion of canon385. This is the question of the meaning and scope of post-critical exegesis386, which divide between Judaism with its Hebrew canon and Christianity with its single canon comprising OT and NT (Barr, 1980a, 22; Hübner, 1988, 155-156). 384 Schmidt L., 1983, 300; Reventlow, 1983b, 170, 172; Wagner, 1988, 162-170; Merk, 1995, 225-236. “Umstritten ist, was Biblische Theologie ist. Mehr noch! Umstritten ist, ob es eine Biblische Theologie überhaupt geben darf” (Hübner, 1995, 209-223, esp. 208). As long as fundamental hermeneutical shifts (as ascertained in Hossfeld, 2001) take place, uncertainty will continue to overshadow the field of wholistic theology. “Das Stichwort ‘biblische Theologie’ in diesem Sinne markiert vielmehr eine Aufgabe, die allen theologischen Disziplinen aufgegeben ist” (Schmid, 1983, 49). “Dies aber bedeutet konsequent bedacht, daß gerade vom Ansatz und Interesse Biblischer Theologie her die Konstituierung von Biblischer Theologie als eigenständigem Begriff und erst recht als selbständiger Disziplin eine höchst problematische Sache darstellt” (Schmid, 1977, 95). “...die dringend nötige Zusammenarbeit der verschiedenen Disziplinen als unerfüllbarer Wunsch erscheint ... sie erst eine biblische Theologie vorbereiten, aber nicht sie konstruieren sieht” (Seebass, 1982, 32, 35). “...eines Tages wird es hoffentlich so weit sein, daß ein Team von Ausleger(inne)n eine Altes und Neues Testament umfassende Theologie vorlegen kann” (Stuhlmacher, 1992, 10). “Es ist evident, daß das ganzheitliche Verstehen der Bibel eine regulative Idee ist, die das Bemühen leitet, die aber niemals einzulösen ist” (Oeming, 1998, 175). 385 “Hier fällt die biblisch-theologische Fragestellung der Exegeten und die Frage nach dem dogmatischen Schriftgebrauch mindestens in einem Teilaspekt nahezu in eins” (Mildenberger, 1979, 29). The point here is to specify what effect this common theologicaldogmatic sub-aspect has on the exegetical method, particularly on the typical orientation imposed by post-classical biblical criticism. In this regard (Rendtorff, 1991, 1) speaks of a “Neuansatz” or a “New kind of approach to biblical texts” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 4). 386 Grässer, 1980, 209; Reventlow, 1983b, 163. “Methodologische Reflexion und Methodenkritik bilden daher einen wesentlichen Teil der neueren gesamtbiblischen Debatte” (Oeming, 1986, 52). In this investigation into a suitable method, the exegetes concerned give the impression that they wish to reach back to the pre-critical period. So the question can be posed “pre-critical or post-critical?” (Barton J., 1984, 95). In fact, a return to the pre-critical period does not seem to be the intention. This is an exegetical method that was suggested after the period of modern biblical criticism and that is post-critical in that sense and that, moreover, seeks to correct the criticism of the previous period. The term

154

now needs to be clarified. This question has a decisively technical character and in its background lies a complicated hermeneutical issue. It can only be answered effectively when the work of the exegetes concerned is examined closely. They seem to have had very different views on the application of their exegetical methods and their corresponding hermeneutics387. That is why it is necessary to restrict the discussion here to three figures that may be considered remarkable within the canonical movement. Childs is the first that may be mentioned. Taking into account his evolution and his often confused and occasionally apparently contradictory statements, it seems that this author was certain that exegesis must fulfil its critical role completely388. He was educated in modern biblical criticism and had shown that he could apply it constantly and with good results. His work, rather than theoretical considerations about what has become his canonical method allow us to deduce what was intentionally new in this method389. From the perspective of purely technical exegesis, Childs may post-critical exegesis again refers to the post-classical biblical criticism upon whose formal aspects it wishes to focus. 387 “Again, the proof of the pudding in de eating, the correctness of the exegesis becomes evident in its performance. But there is more at the basis of the various approaches than a difference of literary opinion. There is also a deep theological difference of insight” (Council for Church and Theology, 1976, 93). Earlier, the complaint was that theological hermeneutics had too little to say about the exegetical method of prevailing biblical criticism. “Sie wird darüber hinaus mit einer bestimmten theologischen Rahmenbestimmung verbunden, ohne daß diese sich auf die Methodik selbst auswirkt ... so daß wir es im Augenblick weniger mit ungelösten hermeneutischen als mit ungelösten Problemen der exegetischen Methode zu tun haben” (Hahn, 1972, 1-2). Hence the planned, shake-up in the area of methodology: “Canonical exegesis may also mean something entirely different when it tackles resolutely the birth-throes of the ‘norm’-idea” (Terrien, 1985, 132). 388 O’Connor, 1995, 91-96; Scalise, 1994; Noble, 1995; Brett, 1991, 27-57. Childs reached his exegetical apex in 1974 with his commentary on Exodus. Later his exegetical activity was eclipsed by his theological and systematic interests. “Self-contradictory” (Gottwald, 1985, 310). His confusing canon terminology has already been mentioned. Few are able to use the Bible consistency (Overholt, 1995, 364 n. 5). “To understand that canonical shape requires the highest degree of exegetical skill in an intensive wrestling with the text” (Childs, 1983², 73). “His mastery of traditional biblical scholarship is beyond question” (O’Connor, 1995, 94). Childs belongs consistently to modern criticism. Even when his system provides support to fundamentalists, the accusation that he is a fundamentalist is completely undeserved (Barton J., 1984, 98-99). 389 Steins, 1999, 11. (Childs, 2003 in his turn responds to Steins.) “Having been trained in the form-critical method, I feel the force of these questions and am aware of the value of the approach” (Childs, 1983², 75). “Er ist ein guter Kenner der literarkritischen Diskussion

155

correctly be classified among the literary methods customarily applied in new criticism. The assessment of the text as it is rather than on the basis of its origin, fits perfectly in his canonical option: to let the entire biblical text operate coherently390 and meaningfully in current events. Here, doubtless, lies the originality and merit of his system, although he did not apply it fully391 or consistently392. On a holistic level, he usually limited his ... Childs gibt eine sorgfältige Übersicht über den Gang der Forschung” (Zimmerli, 1981, 236, 241). “...Childs himself has failed to provide a coherent exegetical theory” (Brett, 1991, 27). “...a relative indifference to method in the narrow sense” (Brett, 1991, 144). Childs’ method remains within the traditional framework of modern biblical criticism, although he tried in vain to remain detached from it (Childs, 1980b, 52-60, esp. 53-54; idem, 1978, 68). This method is usually classified under redaction criticism (Barr, 1980a; Knight, 1980, 136; Gottwald, 1985, 310; Smith D.M., 1986, 408). “Perhaps these issues can be most sharply profiled by contrasting the approach which I am suggesting with other familiar methods of critical biblical scholarship ... The canonical approach which follows is understood as a post-critical alternative” (Childs, 1983², 74-127). “He understands it as different in kind from all previous methods ... Childs’ approach is genuinely new. Any criticism of it that assumes that is merely a minor addition to existing methods will be bound to miss the mark” (Barton J., 1984, 90-91). Today, many years later, the final author to be cited is more critical. “The canonical approach is neither as new nor as old as it appears” (Barton J., 1999, 39). 390 Childs, 1983², 74; Bartlett, 1983, 146-147. “The meaning which is ‘canonical’ for the Christian is the meaning the text has when it is read as part of the canon, with full allowance made for the other texts that also form part of that canon, in their overall, coherent pattern” (Barton J., 1984, 81). 391 “Our conclusion, then, is that Childs has made explicit, and skilfully illustrated, some rules for reading ‘canonical religious literature’. By this means he has increased the biblical scholar’s literary competence, enabling us to read larger complexes – up to and including the whole Old Testament – than we could cope with using historical-critical methods” (Barton J., 1984, 101). His endeavours have undoubtedly produced successful results (Zimmerli, 1981, 240-241). “He has argued against newer literary-critical approaches as too flat and secular ... though in some cases at least his comments reflect a failure to understand such work, resulting from his training in older methods” (O’Connor, 1995, 94). In 1987 he wrote, “Zugegebenermaßen haben viele neuere Zugänge noch keine nennenswerte biblische Auslegung hervorgebracht” (Childs, 1987, 242-251, esp. 245). His enthusiasm for new literary methods seems to have waned (Barr, 1995b, 11-12). He is not alone in this (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 28). 392 Even the use of the term canon is not consistent: Venter, 1998a, 517. Zimmerli, 1981, 239; Spieckermann, 1997, 42; Oeming, 1987, 289-300, esp. 298. “Exegetical ‘Schizophrenia’” (Brett, 1991, 68). “Childs on one side often fails to live up to his own claims, on the other side he often makes positive use of methods and approaches that he in theory rejects” (Brett, 1991, 135). His system sacrificed the literary-holistic aspect in favour of his theological interest. “...he is not really very much interested in literary questions: for him, they are a mere side-effect of the theological issues with which he is wrestling” (Barton J., 1984, 103). This theological interest runs counter to the literary character that

156

contextual considerations to each biblical book as separate whole393. Although he certainly intended to stimulate exegesis, he felt obliged to impose boundaries that it may not overstep394. In this regard, no one can fail to notice that he did not allow historical-diachronic research, whose value he claimed to recognise, to operate on the same level as the final canonical text395, despite his recent positive comments on the diachronic Childs wishes to use in his canonical system. “Canon criticism, like structuralism, works with the very pregnant idea of ‘reading as’; and to justify this, a theoretical foundation such as that on which structuralism rests is needed – theological appeals to ‘canonicity’ will not suffice” (Barton J., 1984, 133). 393 Zimmerli, 1981, 242-243; Davies M., 1986, 161-164, esp. 164. 394 “Rather, the approach seeks to work within that interpretative structure which the biblical text has received ... It is to be expected that interpreters will sometimes disagree on the nature of the canonical shaping, but the disagreement will enhance the enterprise of the various interpreters share a common understanding of the nature of the exegetical task” (Childs, 1983², 73-74). “...chart the boundaries within which the exegetical task is to be carried out” (Childs, 1983², 83). 395 Even on the level of canonical shape he is not prepared to recognise the friction that has remained between synchronically discordant elements. He slides them under the carpet (Oeming, 1987, 299). Hence the remark that he does not respect the dialectical nature of the canon process (Carroll, 1980, 217). His treatment of earlier diachronic stages is more drastic. These are only interesting by way of information, not as authoritatively canonical. “Kanonisierung bedeutete nicht die Anwendung fremder kirchlicher Kategorien auf die Literatur ... Der Text wurde kanonisiert, nicht ein historischer Prozeß” (Childs, 1987, 246). In his view, giving precedence to the historical process over the canonical shape of the final phase is also an act of decanonisation (2.3.3.; Childs, 1983², 79). It can be remarked here that while he does refer extensively and knowledgeably to the preceding stages, he does not really include them in his canonical shape that, contrary to the historical hypotheses, always offers a solution (Zimmerli, 1981, 238). “Les récits n’aboutissent pas à des ‘états de la question’ mais plutôt à des bilans qui, sans être exagérément négatifs, font bonne place à des constats d’échec” (Beauchamp, 1982, 343-378, esp. 346). This is actually a rejection of classical biblical criticism solely because of its “failure to pursue the goal of canonical exegesis” (Zimmerli, 1981, ibid). “Wenn die Transzendierung geschichtlicher Bedingungen gerade die Vitalität des als Gotteswort rezipierten Prophetenwortes ausmacht, dann ist damit auch den Möglichkeiten historischer Situierung und redaktionskritischer Analyse des Prophetenwortes eine Grenze gesetzt” (Barthel, 1997, 24). Childs does not disguise that he works intentionally with an apparently theological presupposition. He writes, “...the canon is the most appropriate context for biblical interpretation” (Childs, 1970, 99). Exegesis is understood exclusively in function of this theological canonical principle. Yet the preceding phases are far from ignored. “There is no facet of traditional biblical scholarship that he does not draw from, and his appreciation of the historical element in all biblical books is profound” (O’Connor, 1995, 94). But they may not be interpreted in isolation or autonomously, but only as subordinate to the final canonical text (Childs, 1986, 11-12; Rendtorff, R., 1983, 7). He admits that they cannot be harmonised, which leave an unbridgeable gap between the final canonical text and what precedes it (Childs, 1980a, 211;

157

approach396. His patronising of exegesis and historical research prevented him from building a balanced bridge between theology and exegesis: his post-critical exegesis leaned dangerously toward theology. The result was a violation of its critical calibre397. Rendtorff is a figure familiar from a previous study. As then, Rendtorff is again mainly interested in a conscientious description of the new exegetical approach398. More than Childs, he seemed interested in the Zimmerli, 1981, 243). “Indeed, the chief reason for my running polemics against the historical critical method is to protest its seeing such an easy continuity” (Childs, 1980a, 209). If Childs rightfully may assert that his work is highly descriptive (Childs, 1983², 72), even a “platform from which exegesis is launched”, then it is primarily in a theologicalconstructive manner. His work is dominated completely by the theological canonical option (“consonant with the theological function”: Childs, 1984, 52). “Le niveau canonique désigne un point de vue, qui l’emporte sur les autres et par conséquent, régit l’interprétation dans la mesure où l’exégète l’adopte” (Beauchamp, 1982, 345). This is the “Prüfstein für das ganze Unternehmen kritischer Bibelauslegung” (Miller P.D. Jr., 1988, 231). That is why Childs admits that he is interested not only the exegetical method – he opposes canonical criticism as one method in a series of many within modern biblical criticism – but the theological content of the bible text (Childs, 1980a, 208-209; “...a stance from which the Bible can be read as sacred scripture”, Childs, 1983², 80). It is a question of Childs’ theological-dogmatic Voraussetzungen. “...daß sich diese Biblische Theologie von bestimmten dogmatischen Voraussetzungen her versteht und definiert ... Insofern ist das Ziel der Biblischen Theologie nicht grundsätzlich von der dogmatischen Theologie unterschieden” (Rendtorff, R., 1994b, 359-369, esp. 364-365). Based on this “wissenschaftsmissionarischen Empfindung” (Zimmerli, 1981, 238), he resolutely opts for the Hebrew canon (Childs, 1983², 661, 667, 669) without adequately underpinning his option (Davies M., 1986, 163; Fowl, 1985, 73-175, esp. 175; Brett, 1991, 65). In this way Childs ultimately gives the impression that he slights exegesis. In every way he leave too little room for text criticism and philology (“extremely limitative”, notes Kittel, 1980, 2115, esp. 5). Moreover, while taking an anti-historical stance, he appears to work historically. “The arch-anti-historicist is himself a historicist!” (Barr, 1995a, 107). 396 Barr, 1995b, 12-14; Rendtorff, R., 1994b, 360-361. It seems to presuppose “...eine Hermeneutik, die grundlegende historische Sachverhalte ignoriert ... Er macht selbst klar daß er damit den exegetisch zugänglichen Bereich verläßt” (Rendtorff, R., 1994b, 367368). He equates placing the text back in its historical context with “decanonising” it. By contrast, he sees kanongemäße Exegese as “an attempt to do justice to the nature of Israel’s unique history” (Krauter, 1999, 28). 397 “It is an attempt to heal the breach between biblical criticism and theology” (Barton J., 1984, 90; Whybray, 1981, 29; Fowl, 1985, 176). “This approach to exegesis takes the texts out of the hands of the exegetes (unless they are also theologians) and puts it firmly in the hands of theologians” (Carroll, 1980, 204). Barton J., 1999, 51-52. “Thus Childs provided a broad outline of his conception of a ‘new Biblical Theology’ pointing to a post-critical approach” (Hasel, 1987³, 58). 398 Zaman, 1984. Before and at the time of Das Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (Rendtorff, R., 1976a), he showed his concern for methodology (Zaman, 1984,

158

exegetical aspect and remained active in this area, albeit exclusively with the OT399. The spearhead of his method was that he gave precedence to the canonical final shape of the text, as did the proponents of the canonical movement, which he had expressly joined. He appears to have done so as a result of his experience with the documentary hypothesis and the concomitant traditional method of modern biblical criticism400. Although his system is often closely related to Childs’, he saw a difference between the two, albeit a minute one. This difference results mainly from the discrepancy between the two author’s theological motivation401. After all, IV, 2-5). This is also evinced in the transition to “bewußten Veränderung, ja ‘Umkehrung der Blickrichtung’” (Rendtorff, R., 1983, 5). He works as hard on the adapted method in the “new kind of approach” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 4; idem, 1989b, 93). “Dabei möchte ich vor allem betonen, daß es sich bei dem Begriff ‘kanonisch’ um einen Methodenbegriff handelt” (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 38). 399 “Mein eigenes Interesse liegt hier vor allem im exegetischen Bereich” (Rendtorff, R., 1994b, 369). “What I have offered so far is mainly concentrated on the exegetical side of the problem. I started from this angle because I feel that this is the mean aspect of this new approach” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 12). On the similarities and differences between Childs and Rendtorff see Venter, 1998a, 517-518. Like Childs, Rendtorff does not attempt an exegesis of the NT or a theology of the Bible (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 13). He hardly mentions it (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 12-14). He clearly does not care for the Christian gesamtbiblisch interpretation. For him, it tends not to do justice to objective exegesis and the singularity of the OT (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 51-53; 188; idem, 1994b, 367-369). 400 “Then I joined the club of Sanders, Childs and others who used this (canonical, L.Z.) terminology” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 5). He does not hide his preference for the final form. Rendtorff, R., 1991, 38; idem, 1989b, 93; idem, 1984a, 165-184, esp. 165, 184; idem, 1983, 7. The documentary hypothesis failed in its historical reconstruction (Rendtorff, R., 1984b, 511-523, esp. 522), which led to the well-known “dramatischen Veränderungen in den Datierungsfragen” (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 36; 3.3.2.2.) He continues to have reservations because of their hypothetical character (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 22) and their lack of verifiability (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 36). Rendtorff, R., 1984c, 1-15. “Une mise à l’écart méthodique des principes de base de la critique du Pentateuque, telle qu’elle a été pratiquée jusqu’ici” (Rendtorff, R., 1989b, 93). “...my interest in reading the biblical text in its given form began with the shocking experience ... that the commonly accepted set of Pentateuchal theories did not work” (Rendtorff, R., 1977a, 24). Although on this occasion he had to relinquish the tradition history that had enjoyed his preference, he felt the reversal as a true liberation (Zaman, 1984, V 190, 194, 215). “Bann der Quellenscheidung” (Rendtorff, R., 1984b, 521). “Von der Hypothek befreit” (Rendtorff, R., 1984a, 184). 401 “Meine Position steht der von Brevard Childs ... nahe. Childs stellt die Frage in anderer Weise” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 123-124). At most there is a shift in accent. Rendtorff remains more theoretically aware of diachronicity (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 11, 25, 27, 163, 172 n. 2; idem, 1995, 42), esp. during the stages before the final text. Other than with Childs, they are given a near canonical status on the condition that they can be found dynamically in the final text. This seeming appreciation causes him “one of the problems I have with a purely

159

as in the past, Rendtorff appeared to have a strong theological-dogmatic orientation, albeit only inconspicuously and in the margin of his exegetical work402. In recent years, this has become gradually visible as he prepared a theology of the Old Testament. He has made known403 the major lines of its model and intention prior to its definitive publication. It shows that, where necessary, Rendtorff, to all appearances unconsciously, oriented his exegetical method, which he tried to keep as objective as possible, toward

systematic approach to Old Testament theology” (Rendtorff, R., 1977a, 23). The diachronic stages remain preparatory stages in the most literal sense (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 38) and cannot be equated with the final text (Rendtorff, R., 1977a, 24-25). In this way he shows his openness for the strain between Torah and Nebiim that Blenkinsopp and Carroll pointed out (Rendtorff, R., 1983, 9-10; idem, 1991, 70). Yet Rendtorff’s exegesis does little justice to the early stages. “Die Frage nach ... Vorstadien verliert ... hier Gewicht” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 138). “There is no reason and no possibility to ask for the ‘historical’ Isaiah” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 12). He expresses openly his doubts on whether historical research into the canon can contribute to the theological question of the canon (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 45). He also shows apprehension for “von außen kommende Überlegungen” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 132; idem, 1984b, 521), particularly those from the history of religion (Rendtorff, R., 1995). — Their difference of theological view is located in the area of biblical theology. As was noted, Rendtorff prefers to protect the singularity of the OT (Rendtorff, R., 1994b, 367369). 402 Zaman, 1984, V 29, 96, 119, 186. He is aloof on this subject and prefers not to offer an opinion. “Es ist hier nicht Ort, in eine theologische Diskussion über dieses Konzept der Kanonizität einzutreten” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 27). He does not feel at ease in hermeneutics, possibly because of his experience with history of hermeneutics (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 3334, 113-122). He also gives the impression that he wishes to shift the dogmatic aspect toward the background. “Die dogmatische Frage der theologischen Gültigkeit der Endgestalt steht dabei nicht im Vordergrund des Interesses” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 11). Although he claims that he does not want a religious war (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 184), he is still abides by his theological principles, as will be seen below. He admits finally, “Mein Hauptinteresse ist ein theologisches” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 123). “Allerdings liegt der Unterschied der Auffassungen weniger im exegetischen als vielmehr im dogmatischen Bereich: in der Frage der Normativität eines bestimmten, und d.h. hier: des letzten Stadiums der Geschichte des Textes” (Rendtorff, R., 1983, 7). If he had earlier given the impression that he arrived at a return to the final text primarily from exegetical motives, its theological function proved decisive in the end. “Der besondere Charakter und die besondere Funktion dieses Kanons sind für mich wesentliche Gründe, den Begriff ‘kanonisch’ beizubehalten” (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 39). He links this immediately to its operation as Holy Scripture within the church (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 39-46; idem, 1991, 27). This is then inseparable from the Rezeptionsgeschichte (Hornig, 1997, 131-132), about which he had spoken earlier (Zaman, 1984, V 215). 403 Rendtorff, R., 1991, 1-14, 54-63; idem, 1995; idem, 1999-2001.

160

his prior options or Vorentscheidungen404, that overlap for the most part with Childs’. In this sense, Rendtorff is also post-critical, despite his recent statements on the continuity and multiformity of the method, which 404

Auld, 1992, 14. In this regard he seems to take insufficiently into account the close relation between exegesis and its dogmatic motivation. “My personal impression is that the question whether and how the Bible is taken as authoritative is only partly related to the question of what exegetical method should be used for interpretation” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 12). His view of the canon also remains unclear (Grollenberg, 1984, 175). — Rendtorff repeatedly insists that theology should not be separated from what is contained in the OT (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 36-37, 43; idem, 1991, 9, 49, 80, 163). This theology seems to be a broad concept that must be defined gradually (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 37). Nevertheless, he sees interpretation as dependent on prior options or Vorentscheidung that, in its turn, is based on that of the faith community. “Bei der Auslegung wird der theologische Zugang des Interpreten unvermeidbar durch seine oder ihre religiöse Tradition beeinflußt werden” (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 49). These prior theological options are certainly present in Rendtorff, but are less observable than in Childs, since he remains less exposed in the theological area. Yet a few clear cases can be sited. First is the favouring of the Hebrew canon. As with Childs (Brett, 1991, 65), this comes from his desire to retain good relations with Judaism. “I personally try to undertake my Old Testament exegesis in as close a relation as possible with Jewish Bible scholars” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 13). He admits having learned the value of this (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 35, 38, 40-53, 115). This brings him to decide a question like the full priority of the Hebrew canon over the Christian canon. “One of the presuppositions of a canonical interpretation is the conviction that the Bible became canonized and served as the Holy Scripture of a community of faith, first the Jewish community, later also the Christian” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 13). This issue has not yet been resolved either regarding its historical course or in its significance. So his view can be challenged (Auld, 1992, 2324). Consequently, he bypasses a Christian biblical theology to keep his approach to the OT as authentic as possible. As we noted, Childs calls this anachronism. Rendtorff’s main prior option or Vorentscheidung is his choice for a type of biblical exegesis that he believes will always remain meaningful (R. Zuurmond similarly expresses his preference for a situation in which “God speaks comprehensibly in and through the biblical texts” [Hermeneutiek, 21]). He reached this after abandoning the hypothetical solutions that classical biblical criticism offered thanks to his holistic reading (Rendtorff, R., 1995, 39) of the final text with its Jewish tinted unity (Rendtorff, R., 1991, 94-112, 123-131) or Einheitlichkeit (Rendtorff, R., 1984b, 520) “We have to learn anew what I quoted earlier from Moshe Greenberg: to listen to the text ‘patiently and humbly’ and ‘to immerse ourselves in it again and again’” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 12). The similarity to Calvin is striking (see Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 21). Thus the Bible’s religious authority must by whatever means remain uppermost and unspoilt so that it can offer the faith community the reliable word of God. “It seems that many of those scholars are not as interested in what the word of God might really be but more concerned with historical reconstruction” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 89). Thus, meaningful exegesis automatically results in authoritative explanation of the Bible. In this sense, canonical exegesis has a special meaning in Rendtorff’s work. “Much more important is the question of authority. The word canon or canonical also has this connotation” (Rendtorff, R., 1994a, 12).

161

theology only supplements405. Hence, Kraus’ statement that every well thought out biblical theology contains dogmatic considerations also applies to Rendtorff. Unlike Rendtorff, the NT scholar Stuhlmacher406 did not concentrate on a methodological aspect of exegesis. From the very start Stuhlmacher turned to hermeneutics, the deeper foundation that underlies method and determines its choice and development. Following Childs’ example, he used the hermeneutical question to underpin and justify his holistic projects407. As no other he has devoted himself to unravelling the still unresolved relationship between historical-critical study, as held by classical biblical criticism, and theological Wahrheitsanspruch or pretension to truth, stressed by the canonical movement408. His motive in taking on this major project was motivated by the alarming situation of NT exegesis in which the gap with the present-day faith community is growing409. To correct this situation, Stuhlmacher again took up the new hermeneutics developed since Barth and extended it to what has become his Hermeneutik des Einverständnisses or interpretation of the final meaning. He was convinced that this offered a perspective for a positive contribution to the question, if not its complete resolution. Unfortunately,

405

Rendtorff, R., 1983, 4-5; idem, 1991, 28, 140, 171. In 1980 he spoke of a “fundamental break” (Rendtorff, R., 1984c, 11). 406 A NT scholar that consults the OT and consistently broaches holistic theology is rather exceptional. 407 Unlike Childs and Rendtorff, Stuhlmacher did not first have to undergo the disappointing experiences of applying the methods of classical biblical criticism. He could immediately adhere to the criticism of and dissatisfaction with classical biblical criticism when it had reached its apex and new biblical theology made its breakthrough with the support of the canonical movement. He understood immediately how intertwined intention and method were in biblical theology (Terrien, 1985, 129). “Bei meiner Analyse gehe ich von folgender Diagnose aus: ... daß die Exegese sich in den ungeklärten Prinzipien fragen ihrer eigenen Methoden verfangen hat” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 11). “Aus dem Vorverständnis leitet sich das eigentliche exegetische Sachinteresse her” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 219). He learned from Bultmann and Gadamer “daß es eine ‘neutrale’, eine ‘voraussetzungslose’ oder ‘objektive’ Exegese gar nicht geben kann” (Grässer, 1998, 186). 408 “Hier hat sich vor allem P. Stuhlmacher engagiert” (Reventlow, 1983b, 161). Stuhlmacher, 1992, 280. 409 He did not avoid repeated use of the work misère (Stuhlmacher, 1978, 11, 33; idem, 1979c, 51). “...den unseren Gemeinden durchziehenden Streit um die sachgemäße Auslegung der hl. Schrift” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 22).

162

his explanation was not always perspicuous410. In any case, it was clearly his intention to integrate the two opposites – objective historical research and dogmatic theology – so that they could operate in one balanced system411 without the role of either being curtailed. According to Stuhlmacher, new hermeneutics did not succeed sufficiently in this intent. He believed and hoped to do better, even if this meant surpassing Bultmann’s consummate model412. With his Modifikation or modification and erweitern or expansion he undertook action against the practice of classical biblical criticism, which was considered deficient because of its hypothetical413 and profane character. Here he referred to the principles in 410

“...teilweise unscharfe Formulierungen Stuhlmachers ... schwankend” (Reventlow, 1983b, 166, 171). “Der sachliche Gehalt jener Forderungen ... bedürfen noch der Klärung und Präzisierung” (Hornig, 1997, 133). 411 “...die Aufgabe das an der Inspirationsthese orientierte protestantische Auslegungsverfahren in geeigneter Weise mit jenem historisch-kritischen zu kombinieren” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 55). “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments muß sowohl dem geschichtlichen Offenbarungsanspruch als auch der kirchlichen Bedeutung des neutestamentlichen Kanons Rechnung tragen” (Stuhlmacher, 1992, 4). Barth and the proponents of dialectical theology were also deeply convinced that they had to maintain classical biblical criticism’s literary critical research undiminished in their theological revival. Yet it had to be noted at the time that despite their good intentions their compromise often failed to do justice to literary-historical criticism Here once again Stuhlmacher officially undertook the protection of historical research as prerequisite for a scientifically verifiable theology (“vérifiable”, Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 85-87). Yet he emphatically denied the existence of any restriction (“Einschränkung”, Reventlow, 1983b, 169). 412 “...Weiterführung und Modifikation der existentialen Fragestellung Bultmanns” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 194). “Bultmanns Meisterwerk ... nicht länger wegweisend sein kann” (Stuhlmacher, 1992, 19). “...Bultmanns kritische Interpretation ... müssen wir ... dort preiszugeben, wo dies nötig ist” (Stuhlmacher, 1978, 46-47). Stuhlmacher sought to soften the radical nature of his Entmythologisierung (Hornig, 1997, 133). 413 Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 47; idem, 1976, 31. The needed modification is rooted in the general dissatisfaction with and growing resistance to classical biblical criticism. “Unsere derzeitige wissenschaftliche Exegese ist darum ein in sich stark hypothetisches und folglich ... beschränktes Unternehmen” (Stuhlmacher, 1978, 57-58). “Es ist historisch geboten, der hypothetischen Zerfaserung der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung ... zu widerstehen” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 126-127). “Weitergehen“ (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 32, 36). “Erweiterungsbedürftig” (Stuhlmacher, 1972, 48). From the very start, allowing descriptive and then the theological treatment to be performed in succession endangered the project to integrate the two. Roloff (1994, 244-245) and Mildenberger (Reventlow, 1983b, 165) share this opinion. Stuhlmacher derived a good deal of his inspiration from the latter (Oeming, 1987², 131). “Mildenberger rät uns also insgesamt, vom historisch-kritischen Arbeitsvorgang zur dogmatisch-normativen Exegese fortzuschreiten” (Stuhlmacher, 1978,

163

its Vorverständnis or inherent understanding that require thorough correction. Indeed, one must learn from the negative experiences in applying the methods used in classical biblical criticism. Contrary to naive expectation414 they do not automatically lead to theologische Schriftauslegung or theological explanation of Scripture. Yet in bringing about this theologische Schriftauslegung, Stuhlmacher did not want to enter the rambling path of Spezialhermeneutik415 or specialised hermeneutics. His urge to overcome the inadequacy of the critical historical method led him to invoke the Prinzip der Vernehmens or principle of hearing as an additional critical principle that incontestably irritated classical biblical criticism416. It is henceforth required to listen to what the biblical text has to say. The text had to be approached as a sachgemäß or appropriate and unüberholbar or unsurpassable authority in itself417. According to Stuhlmacher this presupposes a willingness to listen to the operation of the biblical texts, including the church tradition and its 117). “...die Kette der kontradiktorischen Thesen und Hypothesen” (Stuhlmacher, 1978, 110). 414 Ebeling, for instance, had related the sola fides reform principle directly to classical biblical criticism (Stuhlmacher, 1978, 101; Reventlow, 1983b, 160). “The painful lesson that has emerged in the last fifty years is that the many serious attempts at a theological compromise that would build a confessional biblical theology directly in the foundation of a historical critical method ... have also failed” (Childs, 1995, 5). Stuhlmacher sought to learn from this. “Gerade weil die historische Methode für uns unabdingbar ist, dürfen wir sie nicht naiv, sondern müssen sie methodisch reflektiert zur Anwendung bringen. Um solche Reflexion geht es und gar nicht sonst” (Stuhlmacher, 1980, 224; idem, 1972, 22-23). “Unser Gesamtergebnis lautet demnach: historisch-kritische Exegese ist nicht schon in sich und als solche theologische Schriftauslegung” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 126; idem, 1972, 15). 415 Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 126-127; idem, 1978, 120. 416 Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 85, 172. He disseminated openness to transcendence (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 84; idem, 1979c, 185). Here faith clearly enters hermeneutics. “...das ... Prinzip des ‘Vernehmens’ von Phänomenen und Aussagen die jenem klassischen Geviert von Kritik, Analogie, Korrelation und Subjektivität zu widerstreiten scheinen oder wirklich widerstreiten” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 220). Criticism of das Prinzip des Vernehmens as not corresponding to theological hermeneutics can be found in Fischer J., 1988, 303-328, esp. 326 n 22. 417 “Meine Antwort auf die Frage nach dem heute sachgemäßen Umgang mit der hl. Schrift ... sei den folgenden Paragraphen vorangestellt” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 16; idem, 1975, 52). Grässer, 1998, 185 n. 2. “...die Schriftauslegung solle vor allem ‘Anwalt der Texte’ sein” (Hornig, 1997, 135). Stuhlmacher, 1980, 226-227. It earns him the accusation of “Hypostasierung der Biblischen Sprache” (Grässer, 1980, 209; Reventlow, 1983b, 169). The authority of the biblical text is considered a “Wahrheitsanspruch” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 201).

164

confessional tradition or Bekenntnistradition418. This is much greater and more reliable than the doubtful and changeable results of classical biblical criticism419. The operation and the church confessional tradition must be decisive in the decision process regarding what can and may be surrendered to classical biblical criticism. Above all when implementing this operation, the dogmatic motivations that he considered legitimate seemed to cause Stuhlmacher to loose the delicate balance that he had so carefully built up in his role as Grenzgänger420 or frontier commuter. He also endangered the scholarly and critical content of the historical research 418

His appreciation of the Wirkungsgeschichte was also borrowed from Gadamer. However, there has as yet been inadequate study of this Wirkungsgeschichte so that Stuhlmacher was not able to make sufficient knowledgeable use of it. Moreover, it appears that the Wirkungsgeschichte can be highly differentiated, even ambivalent (Hornig, 1997, 130-132). The fact that texts were accepted is no proof of their theological value (Knierim, 1995, 49 n. 7). “Kirchliche Bedeutung” (Stuhlmacher, 1992, 4; idem, 1975, 116-117, 120). This presupposes the person’s withdrawal to the reality in the community. “...der einzelne Mensch in der Geschichte nicht auf sich und bei sich allein steht, sondern stets in mannigfachen Relationen und sozialen Gemeinschaften angetroffen wird” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 38). Here once gain appears the prior dogmatic option or Vorentscheidung that reopens the path to a konfessionelle Hermeneutik (Hornig, 1997, 131). 419 Stuhlmacher, 1975, 100. “...Hang zu einer chaotischen Hypothesenbildung ... ist ... alarmierend” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 53). Like Childs, he pointed out the shortcomings of the historical sources (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 108-110). 420 “Im Kern geht es um die Entscheidungsfrage, ob die Ergebnisse der historischen Erforschung der heiligen Schrift die Kirchen zur Änderung ihrer Glaubensfragen zwingen ...” (Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 22). This reasoned decision implies unavoidable restraint in literary-historical criticism (Hornig, 1997, 130). His reasoned decision was influenced by Mildenberger. He made the dogmatic decision unwillingly (Stuhlmacher, 1980, 236) and seemed not to foresee its consequences for his hermeneutical research. It is primarily a matter of “Widergewinnung des Inspirationsglaubens” (Grässer, 1980, 204 nt. 17; Oeming, 1987², 122). It is palpable in statements such as the following that dogmatics takes the upper hand: “Der Inspirationsgrundsatz schärft hermeneutisch ein, daß dem Schriftwort als Offenbarungszeugnis eine selbständige Mächtigkeit und Wirksamkeit eigen ist, welche sich selbst durch die intensivste Bemühung methodischer Exegese nicht einholen oder nivellieren läßt, daß sich die Schrift nicht einfach losgelöst vom Bezugs- und Erfahrungsraum der Kirche und des gelebten Glaubens versehen läßt” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 98). The next statement is also meaningful: “Sieht man die Dinge so, läßt sich der Weg der Alten Kirche mitsamt dem im zweiten Jahrhundert beginnenden Prozeß der Bildung des Biblischen Kanons aus Altem und Neuem Testament historisch begreifen” (Stuhlmacher, 1978, 64). Thus, his notion of canon, which was shaped by his own conception of canon, made the course of the canon process understandable. This merits the accusation: “dogmatisierte Pseudohistorie” (Grässer, 1980, 215). Stuhlmacher, 1978, 61. Oeming, 1987², 124. “...erstrebte Einheit von historischer und theologischer Schriftauslegung” (Stuhlmacher, 1972, 40).

165

that he sincerely defended421. The classification of his work as a Rückgang or retrogression is not totally undeserved422. After reviewing his system, it seems that from the very start of the development of his hermeneutics Stuhlmacher was the victim of an incorrect assessment of the current exegetical question. As a result and contrary to his original intention, he ended up with a geistliche Schriftauslegung, or spiritual explanation of Scripture, that approached becoming a type of sacred hermeneutics. As conclusion based on the foregoing review of several representative exegete-theologians, we could say that post-critical exegesis also needs correcting. The historical-critical content, in particular, has deficiencies that result from the intended theological upward value adjustment423 meant to alleviate the needs of faith communities that walk in the footsteps of the biblical traditions.

421

“...unter Ausschaltung eigener kritischer oder rekonstruktiver Tätigkeit” (Hornig, 1997, 131). As a result of this his post-critical system must be branded uncritical. “Eine sich so verstehende nach-kritische Schriftauslegung ist faktisch eine unkritische” (Grässer, 1980, 209). “Zweitens muß man von der Exegese verlangen, daß ihr Umgang mit den Texten wissenschaftlich anweisbar d.h. methodisch kontrollierbar ist” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 122; Oeming, 1987²b, 128 n. 100). 422 Fisher, “Beziehung”, 326 n. 22; Hornig, 1997, 130, 136. He is correctly accused that he of having dogmatically baptised (“dogmatisch zu taufen”) historical research (Reventlow, 1983b, 165; Grässer, 1998, 193 nt. 38). 423 This subjective attitude is disadvantageous (Kratz, 1997, 11). “Der forschungsgeschichtliche Beitrag zum gegenwärtigen Gespräch über eine ‘(gesamt-) Biblische Theologie’ erweist sich desto nötiger je weniger das gewiß hermeneutisch komplexe Ineinander von Rekonstruktion und Interpretation im Sinne der Begründer der Disziplin weiter bedacht wird und ‘Biblische Theologie’ unter einer kirchlichen und darin weithin ‘nachkritischen’ Schriftauslegung in das Feld methodisch unkontrollierbarer Beliebigkeit neuer Zugänge zur Schrift abzugleiten droht” (Merk, 1995, 230).

166

Chapter 4.

The Present State of the Historical Study of the Canon

With the prospect of a new historical study of the canon, it seemed useful first to situate this on the long road already travelled. It quickly became clear that the brief overview given in 1.1 was too restricted. It could only present a bird’s-eye view of the main stages in the evolution of the study of the canon. The factors that gave these historical studies direction were too little in evidence. That is why it was necessary to give further attention to a more extensive evaluation of the study of the canon during the period extending from 1500 BCE to the present (1.3). The following conclusions on the current interest in the historical study are based primarily on the findings of this evaluation. Yet the work done on the canon in the period before 1500 BCE should not be forgotten. They, too, shed light on the present-day historical study of the canon.

4.1 The Present-day Historical Study of the Canon: Possibilities and Restrictions Historical research on the canon had taken flight thanks to the breakthrough of modern biblical criticism. Starting from the simplistic notion that the canonical stage started when the biblical authors placed the final touches on their work, the insight gradually grew that this was a process that required much time. After the biblical traditions underwent a generally long evolution, there was usually a relatively late but certain and inevitable stabilisation. Then, during a complex process, they were transformed into a single entity to serve as an authoritative foundation for the faith community that espoused them. As with the evolution of canonical and biblical research in general, the technical and material aspects of historical canon research is the most conspicuous. Having available the texts and artefacts that directly or indirectly bring the biblical traditions within reach is an absolute prerequisite for any historical study of the canon. On this point there is no essential difference between the

167

period of historical canon research carried on since or before 1500 BCE424. The repeated tapping of previously unknown texts and archaeological discoveries and the resulting impetus to develop new techniques to open up these discoveries have provided a much more accurate and complete image of the formation of the canon in its broader context425. Yet the present general picture of the canon as historical phenomenon has blind spots and irregularities426. Moreover, the recent crisis that has overshadowed biblical research along the whole line often with farreaching consequences has not left untouched the area of historical research into the canon. Long-held certainties regarding the formation of the OT and NT canons hang in the balance. Despite considerable and recent progress, the end result of modern historical research into the canon leaves many areas with sufficient room for new study427. The way to this is 424

This is already grounds for returning to the previous period when treating the modern bible question so that the two can be compared. Even in the pre-canonical period the formal aspects of the canon’s formation required much attention (1.1). 425 Each archaeological discovery sparked an upsurge in both literary and historical research. There seemed to be a close connection between text and canon, and canon and literary history (Childs, 1983², 60-62). The last in the series, canonical criticism, may not be omitted here. It, too, has an undeniable formal character. Tradition history, the history of religion and general history all made major contributions to explaining the canon’s context. 426 Historical research on the canon is unevenly distributed. It had long focussed on the final phase of the canonisation period. The boom in research into the most original biblical traditions was prompted by the presupposition that these were more valuable than later traditions, one of which was the canonisation period. This research was thus not carried out with the canon in mind. Only very recently did scholars become aware that the genesis of the canon had started even in the oldest traditions. Because of the current discredit of research into the older and more original data, attention has turned from the canon process in the older period to that in the final phase, with the final text as focal point. The interest in the canon lists and in the canon’s authority as regula fidei was also unevenly distributed. As with final phase of the canon’s genesis, the canon lists received much attention as of the start of the post-canonical period. The canon’s role as regula fidei was also taken for granted up to the Reformation. From that time onward it became a lingering problem that would flare up vigorously in the 20th century. The unevenness in the intensity of strict historical research into the canon was similar: as good as dormant up to 1500, later occasionally stormy as in the discussions between Zahn and Von Harnack. — McDonaldSanders, 2002, 4-8 recently listed the major questions. Lack of information and sources still hinder the study of the canon’s history. 427 See sections 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.3. Historical study shares this hypothetical character with every type of scholarly research (Childs, 1983², 51-57; idem, 1985, 18-19). Von Campenhausen’s and Sundberg’s contributions evince the progress. It is striking that they did not turn out any new documents or facts. After a thorough study of the available material, they reached a deeper insight into how the information was connected. Talmon, 1987, 47, complained about the lacunae in historical research on the OT canon.

168

cleared by broadening the question of the canon that has become popular in recent decades. This was only partially due to the discovery of new documents or facts428. Hope of more such finds in the future is gradually receding. It is more likely that the new insights made necessary by the abovementioned broadening of the canon concept will grow from meticulous study of unresolved issues such as the closure of the OT canon, the intertestamental writings and the still topical quest of the historical Jesus in his socio-political context. Even a methodological evaluation of long-acquired data and their interconnection can do much. The little studied area of the long genesis of the canon429 merits special attention. Many possibilities as well as many restrictions await a new study of the canon. A new study would have to take due notice of the present unfavourable historical climate430. It must also confront the opposition that has arisen in various circles as a result of the crisis in confidence sparked by the shortcomings discovered in prevailing modern biblical criticism. The lessons this teaches must certainly be assimilated. The most suitable 428

In this regard Georgi, 1993 tried to bring up the question of the canon’s closure using the possible discovery of biblical writings not included in the canon list. Talmon, 1987, 49, imitating Jepsen, relies more on new sources than on reflection on what is already known. 429 Childs, 1983², 57; idem, 1985, 21-22, 25. History is essentially always an interpretation from the perspective of the historian’s inherent understanding (Van Harskamp, 1997, 247). Childs outlines the historical development of the canon in accordance with his theological view of the canon, for the OT (Childs, 1983², 62-68) and the NT (Childs, 1984, 19; idem, 1992, 123-195, 219-322). He seems to be aware of this. “The establishing of the canon rests on a dialectical combination of historical and theological criteria” (Childs, 1984, 22). “The writing of history is a process of interpretation and history must be written anew each generation” (Stone, 1980, 9). This explains the need for successive representations of the canon’s genesis. At the heart of this process lies the historically contingent (Horn, 1991, 721-730, esp. 725, 727) interaction between external and internal understanding of history (Albertz, 1995, 19). Gradually more of the elements that play a role in the complex canon process were explained (Childs, 1984, 12). Interest in canon formation is the prime area of growth in canon studies (McDonald-Sanders, 2002, 2). 430 According to proponents of the immanent text method, historicising (Hieke, 2003, 88) should be avoided at all cost. “Wir befinden uns wohl in der ‘Epoche des posthistoire’” (Schart, 1998, 15-16). “The critique of the critical scholarly Tradition on the grounds of its ‘historicism’ is now so widespread and familiar that one might easily be brought to believing that it is true” (Barr, 1989, 10). Postmodernism (see sections 3.2.1-3.2.2) is marked by a-historical tendencies. On the other hand, there are signs of a revival (Deist, 1993, 384; Chapman, 2006, 10-11 refers to new historicism) e.g. in the area of the history of religion. There is still a feeling that a historical study is vulnerable in the context of a study of the canon (Chapman, 2003, 137-138). This is offset by awareness that textimmanent methods cannot ignore a diachronic approach (Loader, 2002).

169

opportunity for this is the discussion of the method to be chosen prior to undertaking a new historical study (5.2).

4.2 The Dependence on Theology Historical study of the canon is, of course, a field of positive science that can require extensive specialisation. Yet this historical study does not bear sense and meaning in and of itself. As with all aspects of exegesis, it derives its motivation from the theological interest in biblical traditions. Despite the fact that since Gabler’s day the historical study of the Bible has followed a course under the banner of biblical theology that is markedly autonomous from dogmatics, it has remained essentially a discipline supported by theological interest. Historical study of the Bible does not escape this theological involvement431. The theological influence is so fundamental and differentiated that its general aspect (4.2.1) must first be examined more closely. Afterward a detailed look can uncover more exactly the channels along which theological involvement exerts its influence (4.2.2-4.2.3). All this will make clear how closely historical study of the canon interacts with dogmatics (4.3) and that a new historical study of the canon is not just a pastime but an urgent necessity (4.4) arising from a biblical theology based on the theological canon concept.

4.2.1 The General Dependence on Theology Any time that the historical material on the canon’s genesis is taken in hand, the deeper motive is to search for a more perfect theological canon concept432. There seems to be a regularly occurring need to measure the 431

This was already discussed in the survey of the evolution of text criticism, which, of course, is closely associated with the question of the canon. 432 Despite the serious efforts made since the theological revival, the attempts to develop a canon concept that incorporates harmoniously the achievements of modern biblical criticism have had no satisfactory results (3.1.9-3.1.10). This finds particularly distressing expression in Christian circles. These noted that the canonical movement in biblical theology exacerbated the difficulty reconciling the canon’s notion of theological unity with the differences among the biblical traditions that critical scholarship have unravelled minutely, in particular the friction between the OT and NT. Judaism was also unable to escape this trend and is gradually becoming aware of the need to construct a academically solid theological basis for the Hebrew Bible (Levenson, 1991; Sweeney, 1997; GoshenGottstein, 1983, 372-373, 378-382; Murphy, 1997, 271-272). Basically, all faith communities suffer from the consequences of the continuing friction between dogmatics

170

theological canon concept against historical reality and to readjust these to one another at every notable evolution. This was perhaps most noticeable in the period before 1500 CE, when historical research had fewer resources than in the following modern period in which everything became so much more complicated. The theological canon concept that had long dominated Jewish and Christian circles in the oldest post-canonical period stressed the canon as closure and fixed demarcation of the biblical traditions. These differed tangibly according to the views of the two circles. In Judaism, the canonical period was limited to the time running from Moses to Artaxerxes, while the fixed demarcation within post-Jesus Christianity was shifted to the apostolic period433. In both cases, the respective historical representations of the canon’s closure are perceptibly rooted in a theological justification of what, in the meantime, had become the practice in these circles. Establishing whether these representations were agreed with historical fact was not an issue and was not even possible. A theological narrative such as the biblical authors would write was increasingly accepted and served as a basis for arranging historical material according to the preferred theological options. This, however, did not necessarily have the intention of violating established historical facts;434 rather it is a theologically grounded conceptualisation of history. As in all conceptualisation and historiography, the operation had an interpretation;435 in this case it was theological. Such a theological representation of the historical genesis of the canon, constructed with the help of questionable historical data has little chance of developing in modern times and has even less chance of persisting. The progress in historical knowledge compelled biblical theologians to peruse their models more meticulously for theological-historical conceptualisation. The reformers were apparently insufficiently aware of this when they reached and a biblical theology oriented toward history. They express this either by resigning themselves to this duality or in a sterile attempt to overcome the duality. 433 Lönning, 1972, 251 n. 39. This view now needs enlarging (Schumacher, 1979, 276-311). 434 Childs regularly points out how biblical tradents and redactors consciously try to conceal the historical data and the traces of their contribution to the canon’s genesis. Their intention is to have been to keep listeners’ or readers’ attention focused on the text. This assertion, which fits perfectly with his view of the absolute value of the canonical shape, is dubious (Brett, 1991, 22-23). On the other side, Childs used questionable historical data − such as those on the deuteronomists − to retroject awareness of the canon, particularly the effort to demarcate it, to an early period as herald of the canon’s closure (Budde, 1997, 41-54). 435 Archaeology also failed to escape theological bias in identifying archaeological material (Zevit, 2002, 3-9).

171

back to the Hebrew canon. They invoked Jerome to justify this significant reversal in the use of the canon. This sudden reference to a nearly forgotten minority view taken in times long past could hardly conceal that this was an abruptly arising theological urge, thinly veiled by questionable historical argumentation. It is no wonder that now the Hebrew canon is felt, even in Protestant circles, to be no more than a theological choice that is increasingly difficult to defend. The growth of knowledge has certainly ensured that the image of the canon’s genesis changed frequently436. Yet this did not bring an end to theologians’ attempts to use interpretation to mould the history of the canon’s genesis to their liking437. But they still had to guard against allowing themselves to be enticed into overly simplistic historical arguments. This is evident from the well-known controversy between Zahn and Von Harnack, this time on the genesis of the NT canon. Again a theological conviction lay at the basis of their respective historical studies that, despite this, contributed much to a more accurate insight into how the canon came into being438. In the end, Zahn’s theological conviction had to yield, but it was not given up without a struggle. Such is always the case when dogmatic convictions must surrender a historical conceptualisation that was established and maintained to support them. Even today theology and dogmatics tend to impose their rules on historical studies and findings. They even received support in this from the theological revival that began at the start of the 20th century. It is still present in the newest biblical theology movement and the closely associated canonical criticism in exegesis. Given the importance of this for a new study of the canon, it is worthwhile to look more closely at the ways in which theology, imitating the past, now consciously or unconsciously influences historical canon research. For convenience, two main manners are distinguished. First is demarcation, a task that theology performs at the behest of the confessions (4.2.2). The second is the influence that theology exerts on the basis of the authority of the biblical canon, which affects all confessions equally (4.2.3).

436

The tendency to force the historical development of the canon process to conform to preconceived dogmatic views can still be found in Webster, 2003. 437 The study outlined in sections 3.1-3.2 is a reflection of the author’s opinions. They will form the basis for the hermeneutical considerations explained in chapter 5 below. 438 Historical studies that are strongly dependent on theological inspiration can encourage the misconception that the theological issue of the canon can be reduced to its historical aspects. This misconception still occurs today (Theobald, 1990, 30-33, 54-55).

172

4.2.2 The Dependence on the Confessional Canon Concept The demarcation of the canon’s limits and the way in which this circumscription is interpreted and actually serves hold an important place within the broader canon concept. It certainly determines to a high degree the identity of the faith community. This is the reason why the different confessions have different canons. Each canon originated in association with the rise and autonomous development of each confession439 to the extent that these confessions linked their continued existence with this canonical demarcation. The fact of whether or not these differing canonical demarcations were similar or very different, involving much or little material, is irrelevant. It is always a question of a real demarcation in which a given faith community both distinguished and separated itself from the others. Once such a canonical situation has arisen, it can be expected that it will first place its mark on the faith community and only subsequently on the lives and wellbeing of the individual members of the community. If it could be posited that individual influential believers could play a leading role in the genesis of the canon, this role would certainly be smaller when it became a question of influencing or changing an existing canonical situation within a given faith community. This is evident from the experience of Jerome, Origin, Erasmus, Semler and many others440. 439

See section 2.2.A. On the relationship between canon and confession see Lönning, 1972, 214-242. The dependence on demarcation is not contradicted by the fact that relevant writings contain no direct indications that explain why the various faith communities included them in their specific canon lists (according to: Barr, 1983, 42-43). The fact that this addition took place at the request of the church community, with or without a specified reason or orientation, did not prevent the community from giving the added writings a functional place within its life (hence the existence of separate faith communities with the same canon and the reverse) nor did it prevent these writings from contributing to its identity and distinction from other communities. A canon concept linked to the identity of a particular confession and its specific demarcation of the canon can be distinguished from a canon concept as shared with the other confessions. The term interconfessional canon concept is used here to refer to the latter. 440 Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 23. “Wie wenig hermeneutische Grundpositionen einfach ins Belieben von Einzelnen gestellt sind” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 62). The following applies to each of the persons cited and to everyone else: “We belong to history in a much stronger sense than history belongs to us. Our attempts to master history through critical reflection are finally less significant than the effects which our own family, society, culture or research tradition have upon us” (Gadamer cited in Brett, 1991, 136-138). “Die Rezeption bzw. Akzeptanz der Verbindlichkeit ist ... im Hinblick auf den biblischen Kanon ein soziales Phänomen, das nicht, oder nur in begrenztem Rahmen, der Entscheidung des einzelnen Menschen überlassen ist” (Ritschl, 1998, 384).

173

Despite their great influence on their fellow believers, they proved unable to resist the canonical pressure proceeding from the entire faith community. Without treating exhaustively here the interplay between an individual and his confession, it can be concluded from the preceding that the individual member of a confession, however renowned, usually receives his religious identity from this confession. The logical consequence of this is that scholars as individuals generally include the same conviction at least as starting point in their academic work and, baring exceptions, continue to represent it in the historical image they present of the canon’s genesis. This finds particular expression when they articulate the canon’s demarcation.441. Indeed, the rise of individualism since the time of humanism and the Enlightenment has gradually reduced the preponderance of the confession over the personal position regarding the canon concept. Nevertheless, the evolution of ecumenical relations in the background of the postmodern intellectual current shows clearly that the confessional discrepancies within the faith communities, whether or not of biblical origin442, are far from superseded and this to the disillusionment of what was expected and hoped in the post-conciliar period. We should not be fooled by the current trend into approaching biblical and theological questions on a more interconfessional and even world-wide level. As soon as the discussion turns toward dogmatics, these 441

“But everyone is raised in a group with which all his fibres become entangled. We make our debut as member of a group. No individual can cut himself off from his group without suffering tragically. That suffering is by far the longest and most onerous for the Catholic, because his own do not recognise the intellectual freedom of the individual” (Walschap, 1966, 9). The influence of the group also applies to schools in scholarship. “Our scholarly activity is admittedly no [sic] arbitrary. Historians participate in interpretative communities whose rules are widely shared. Differences about rules of interpretation are quite often differences between communities rather than individuals ... questions about reliability are to a considerable accent settled on the basis of the community-produced standards” (Melugin, 1996, 76). 442 It can be correctly posited that the faith community reaches for a particular selection of biblical texts (a demarcated canon) because it sees in it a confirmation of the assertions it has adopted. This was clearly the case in the model of the various canons that the Christian churches of the Reformation preferred and the disputes that arose at the time. That is why it is wrong to attribute demarcation of the canon’s limits exclusively to theological disputes without taking into account their time-bound character. That is why Ritschl, 1998, 389, starting from his idea of the stones, wants to confirm the view in Barr, 1983, 63-74, 99-104, that the canon as an entity of sacred writings played no role when Jewish and Christian faith communities defined their theological teaching. He does not take into account the volatility and growth of the canon concept in that period. This had had an effect even before the notion of the canon was reflected in a definitively demarcated formal whole.

174

inter-confessional meetings become discouraging. Once again the confessional barriers become difficult obstacles. It then becomes evident how much the Bible gathers a confessional following443. This goes deeper than the churches’ erecting walls within the canon444. Upon closer examination we see that numerous subdivisions445 have been introduced 443

This is an allusion to Deurloo-Zuurmond (eds.), 1984. It is no accident that all the views of the Amsterdam school reflected in this publication are of Protestant origin. This gives pause for thought: the Bible gathers followers along confessional lines. “...modern critics stand within scholarly traditions which determine the kinds of method and modes of questioning deemed appropriate by the scholarly communities to which they belong. These traditions constitute a web of historical effects, which are often concealed by appeals to critical method” (Gadamer, cited in Brett, 1991, 137-138). The confession’s role is certainly more radical than lending the subject texts (Zuurmond, 1984, 23). “But you understand that we are secured to our traditions; not only is Urs von Balthasar glued to his Roman tradition, but Berkouwer – Barth later wrote the same with everyday frankness – to his traditional orthodox reformed structures ... and I am, of course, still ridden with a generous helping of liberalism” (Breukelman, 1975, 47). Van Daalen-Deurloo, 1984, 54 point to confessional dogmas existing elsewhere, but to what extent are they, too, determined by certain confessional dogmas? It does not help to reject confessional bias vehemently (Zuurmond, 1984, 23) while that is itself an application of confessional hermeneutics. Bauer U.F.W., 1991, esp. 26-70 and 83-104, showed clearly how the biblical hermeneutics of the Miskotte’s and Barth’s Amsterdam school wrestled with the Calvinist tradition. Barr, 1983, 43, points out in his way the degree to which the community tends to place the canon in the hands of the individual rather than that the canon list determines the community. 444 The traditional antithesis between Scripture and tradition often plays a role here (Budde, 1997, 45, 55). For information more directly related to the canon issue see Lönning, 1972, 243-268. Despite the evolution in ecumenism, biblical theology remains a primarily Protestant affair even today. “The shortcoming of canonical criticism in the area of history was that this process was too easily glossed in the interests of Protestant Christian biblical hermeneutics, in which the relationship between Bible and confessing congregation is the model” (Davies P.R., 1998, 53). 445 This frequently occurring phenomenon of temporarily or permanently undervaluing elements within the canon does not take on the formal shape of real canonical demarcation, but is a repercussion that is equivalent to it. That is why it could be called an inner demarcation, analogous to canonical limitation. At this point in the discussion, we can note the often pseudo-historical or even unhistorical arguments sometimes used during this theologically inspired inner demarcation. One example is the absolute, but not historically substantiated, theological priority of the Pentateuch as Torah which is certainly propagated in Protestantism and increasingly so in Catholicism (Zenger: 1996c, 173; for a critique of this from a historical perspective, see: Mosis, 1997, 39-59). Others, like Terrien, 1985, 134, believe that the inner divisions of the Hebrew canon, including the NT which is considered the last in the series, may be ascribed canonical status exclusively on theological grounds, ignoring any historical counter-indications. Somewhat similar is the questionable invocation of the notion of the creative phase in the exile to substantiate later tradition and the unity of the Tanach (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 194-195), or the history of tradition. A consequence of this

175

even within the jointly handed down biblical traditions. These hinder the attempts of the various faith communities toward reconciliation. The result is that the challenges during interconfessional contacts seem great and usually insurmountable. The approach to the relationship between OT and NT canon and the closely associated dialogue between Judaism and Christianity446 are not the least among them. From this perspective the current interest and importance of the historical study of the canon again come to the foreground. A better understanding between the confessions depends on a historically responsible and more harmonious theological vision on the origin of the at least partially divergent canon447.

4.2.3 Pressure on the Inter-confessional Canon Concept The theologically interested confessions seem to exercise considerable pressure on the historical conceptualisation of the canon. Yet this may possibly be outstripped by the pressure exercised by another, no less essential element of the theological canon concept, to which many tend to reduce it448. This other element is the canon as norm for faith. The text is the preference for the canonical shape or the final canonical text that fits in with the trend to assign a late date. However, this runs counter to the tendency to date the NT canon as early as possible. 446 Not wishing take historical reality fully into account (according to Childs, Rendtorff and others) purely because of a theological option and the current interest in Jewish-Christian dialogue (“whit [sic] that the conversation with the synagogue would essentially be cut a limine”: Deurloo, 1994b, 37-52, esp. 42) seems to us to render poor service to this dialogue. It is partly dependent on reciprocal meeting, recognition and assimilation of past history. 447 The demand for an explanation of the demarcation accepted in practice is relevant. It determines the value and meaning of the canon’s authority which is inseparable from the demarcation and the confession’s identity. — The correct way to go beyond the current denominational partitions is to return first to the historical moments where the paths separated and to move from there to where the common root can be rediscovered (Blenkinsopp, 1984b, 11-13; Lönning, 1972, 216-217). “L’enquête historique qu’il fait connaître est un préalable indispensable à la poursuite et à l’approfondissement du dialogue interconfessionnel sur la place des livres deutérocanoniques et plus fondamentalement sur le statut de l’Écriture et de la tradition ... l’étude du passé a ici une vertu critique: elle fait émerger des questions nouvelles et nous incite à reconsidérer nos positions traditionnelles sur le canon de l’Ancien Testament” (Kaestli-Wermelinger [eds.], 1984, 6). — The idea for a world canon (Budde, 1997, 55) was suggested as one possibility that would retain intact the notion of canon as unifying basis for identification without this requiring that particular canon limits be relinquished. They are retained so that they can be transcended. 448 Undervaluing the canon’s limits can unbalance the interpretation of the canon concept to such an extent − and cause it to topple so much toward canon as norm of faith − that this

176

form and canon list were established in function of this. Although both elements within the canon concept – i.e. the regula fidei and the formal demarcation – presuppose one another and, in principle, form an infrangible unity, they have each had turns to come in the news depending on the circumstances. As a rule, once it has become operable, the aspect of the canon’s demarcation draws the most attention from the faith community. For instance, from the time of their split, Judaism and Christianity were long concerned with dividing and demarcating the largely shared tradition that was their heritage. Without underestimating the importance of this, it is still strange to ascertain that this so meticulously pursued separate demarcation was only carried out on behalf of the same canon concept for which in time the same term canon came to be used. In this way, the two faith communities made clear that despite their split they would each consider the acquired part of the common heritage as absolutely binding on their respective communities and as such as equally inviolable. Since both establish the limits to their canons only in function of this, it could have been expected that this deepest motivation, i.e. biblical tradition as norm of faith, would also take precedence in the following period of reflection. That this did not happen and that this situation persisted long after the demarcation of the canon can only be explained by the fact that the canon’s function as norm of faith was selfevident in both Judaism and Christianity so that neither its existence not its origin needed debate. Facts have shown that the canon served long and stably as absolute religious authority without appreciable objection. This authority, couched in the familiar notion of inspiration curbed interest in the canon and in this way made research into its historical origin superfluous449. Even after 1500 CE, humanism and the Reformation did aspect overshadows all others except that of demarcation. The canonical movement seems to suffer from this imbalance in its approach to the canon. 449 “The question whether the biblical books could not be the result of centuries of work remained unasked. This seemed totally uninteresting given the divine inspiration of the final product. What difference did it make which people contributed to the historical process that produced the Bible? It was still God’s word.” (Koole, 1983, 193). “But just that latter dimension (the process in which the Tanach became Holy Scripture, L.Z.) has proved to be more a hindrance than a stimulus to the work of the historian (in the modern sense of the term). Again and again in studying the history and history of ancient Israel and its religion, people wanted – or sometime had – to try to pin historical reality to the truth of Holy Scripture” (Mulder, 1986b, 52-68). “...the Bible has been interpreted primarily within the context of and in the service of two interpretative communities broadly defined as the Jewish and Christian (with their many factions, L.Z.) ... The traditions of the Hebrew Bible,

177

not immediately make an issue of the canon’s authority. As a result of the interconfessional struggle, nearly all attention again went to disputes on forms of the text and canon lists. It is only with the Enlightenment and the expanding secularisation process that the canon’s content, whatever its demarcation, and divine inspiration came, usually covertly, under increased pressure partly or fully, consciously or unconsciously. More than mere trifles are put at risk here. At issue is nothing less than the revelatory and sanctifying character of Scripture. That this comprises the reserve and power from which every faith community lives, it could be expected that all the confessions that felt threatened would close ranks to support the canon against the common enemy. That this common front did not materialise was partly due to the pent-up animosity that divided the confessions at the time and led them to act in dispersed ranks and partly due to the disguise that the canon’s enemy assumed: the Enlightenment initially presented itself as enriching and liberating. Only in the second place did it appear to temper the transcendent and absolute religious values which it would later finally contest openly. Under these circumstances it is understandable that not the confessions but perspicacious individuals interested in the canonical writings’ pretension to truth450 and their preaching called only late but nevertheless loudly for a theological revival. The response that this call found among exegetes and faith communities was particularly pleasing, so that this time there was a genuine interconfessional ecumenical current. As during the Reformation to which it refers451, the revival faced the task of reinstating the theologicaltranscendental value of the biblical test, specifically its binding canonical with their theological stances ... provide an immense obstacle for the historian” (CooteWhitelam, 1987, 14). 450 Reventlow, 1983b, 161. 451 “Immerhin hat die Bibel für alle Konfessionen eine mehr oder weniger maßgebliche Bedeutung, mindestens als Zeugnis von den Anfängen der Kirche, damit aber auch als Grundlage der Frage nach dem Wesen der Kirche. Dabei stellt sich die Frage, ob diese gemeinsame Grundlage nicht auch als wichtiger Faktor in die Bemühungen um die sichtbare Einheit der Kirche einzubringen ist.” (Haacker, 1977, 17). “Observation by sociologists and anthropologists depict the need for self-preservation as the deepest motive of human action. Order and safety prevail over all, because they are a basic social tenet. Threat from a common enemy causes differences to be transcended. In the absence of extreme threat, theological difference can also be cultivated” (Janse, 1998, 240 n. 39). “But in Barth a decision was made and Miskotte defended the breach. It is a decision perhaps more weighty than the decision in the 16th century ... a decision from which the worldwide church will not be able to return” (Breukelman, 1975, 47). It is the principle of Scriptura scripturae interpres (Deurloo, 1994b, 38).

178

character. That is why it introduced itself as the newest biblical theology movement, under the banners of canonical criticism and the consequent holistic development. However, it tended to respond to an existing hiatus by swinging to the opposite extreme452. This posed the risk that theological-dogmatic enthusiasm would harm the historical shape of the canon by mishandling its conceptualisation if not openly then indirectly and in practice453. The fact that the common opponent is still simply associated with the Enlightenment454 is an omen. Mass identification with the diachronic method and the modern biblical criticism that utilised it is obvious455.

452

“Alles was in diesem Rahmen nicht paßt, einfach übergangen wird” (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 167). 453 Smelik, 1988, 10 (problematiek [problem]), 17 (koppig misverstand [persistent misconception]), and idem, 1984c, 60-64 (terughoudendheid [reticence]) contains numerous expressions evincing distrust of the historical value of the biblical narratives. This seems to be the result of this author’s extremely critical attitude, which seems justifiable from a purely academic perspective. However, should it appear that the theological motivation becomes irresponsibly dominant, a correction would have to be made from the perspective of scholarly historical study. If this is not done, a step will be taken in the direction of unhistorical history, reminiscent of Docetism (Oost, 1986, 115) and as such of Christian fundamentalism (Sanders, 2001, 24). A similar curbing and negative connotation regarding historical research can be heard in the following: “We see room for historical questions and study, but also the limits to its competence and conclusions. Regardless of its conclusions – negative or positive – pure history does not touch the essence. We see then ... how our faith ... does not really depend on the – ever faltering and tentative – results of historical research, how it need not bend to every wind that blows” (Van den Berghe P., 1969a, 65-104, esp. 89-90). This had been contested in many ways even at the start of the theological revival. 454 Barr, 1995a, 108; Deurloo-Zuurmond, 1984, 7; Dupré, 1991; idem, 1993; idem, 2004; Van den Bossche, 2005; De Dijn, 2005. “If – with Lessing – we believe it is possible to understand literature from a totally different culture because and to the extent that the author expresses generally prevailing truths, then we are summoning the texts before the court of reason ... this is the position of Enlightenment hermeneutics ...” (Zuurmond, 1984, 17). “The historical-critical method, which came out of the Enlightenment, views history as a closed continuum, an unbroken series of causes and effects in which there is no room for transcendence. The historian cannot presuppose supernatural intervention in the causal nexus as the basis for his work” (Hasel, 1987³, 172-173). In that case, one chooses openly for a duality between historical research and biblical theology, with as result that it is felt necessary to give priority to theology. 455 “It seems to many living readers that historical and literary criticism caused devastation in the present Scriptures” (Deurloo-Zuurmond, 1984, ibid).

179

4.3 Historical Research and Dogmatics: Indispensable Interaction Regardless of the path along which theological influence makes itself felt in the historical study of the canon, it does make itself felt and is present in every historian, even if concealed or covert. Every historical study bar none starts from some more or less undisclosed theological assumption on the value and meaning of the canon456. This need not necessarily be disadvantageous for the value of the historical study. First, theology and dogmatics are indispensable when it comes to fathoming the deepest meaning and value of the canon as it has grown in history. Dogmatics in particular is alone able to provide the foundation for the canon’s Verbindlichkeit or binding nature457. But more positive news can be reported on the contribution of theology and dogmatics to the historical study of the canon. Because they supply the indispensable dynamic for undertaking any type of exegesis and scholarly study, they create the possibility to reach new results in historical research without themselves having to guarantee its scholarly accuracy458. Accuracy is made or broken by objectivity, especially a faithful approach to the subject. It is the 456

The theological assumption’s contribution remains so topical because it persists in identifying itself with its historical representation. 457 Dogmatics can do this to the extent that it articulates God’s commands. “...der Kanon trägt seinen theologischen Anspruch nicht in sich selbst: er leiht ihn vielmehr vom Anspruch Gottes, dessen geschichtlicher Gestaltungswille und inspirierende Geisteskraft die ‘Schrift’ entstehen läßt” (Söding, 2003, LXVIII). That the canon contains a theological demand can be an incentive for starting a historical exegesis of the canon process (Söding, 2003, LX-LXI). 458 The pretension of modern biblical criticism to have achieved absolute objectivity − especially in alone being able to explain the correct meaning of the biblical texts − is correctly called in question, mainly by postmodernism. This is typically western (Barr, 2000, 35-36) with as premise “Der Text der Bibel ist eindeutig” (SchwienhorstSchönberger, 2001, 63). “Presuppositions are one thing, how one handles the evidence is another. One may have right suppositions and come to wrong conclusions; one may have quite mistaken presuppositions and come to right conclusions. The real operating force in biblical research, far from a scientific neutrality and objectivity has something more like what we could call “creative prejudice” (Barr. 1983, 112-113). “L’interprétation en effet vit de présupposés mais meurt de ses préjugés” (Zumstein, 1994, 56). “Es gäbe keine Bibelwissenschaft ohne das vor allem in der Kirche vorhandene existentielle Interesse an den biblischen Schriften, so wie es auch sonst philologische und historische Arbeit nur in der Masse gibt, wie die Gesellschaft oder Gruppen in der Gesellschaft ein Interesse am jeweiligen Gegenstand haben. Desgleichen fordert die biblisch-theologische Arbeit das gleiche selbstkritische Bewußtsein dieser Voraussetzung, damit Arbeitsgänge durchsichtig und nachvollziehbar und Ergebnisse übernehmbar sind” (Haacker, 1977, 21).

180

ultimate arbitrator on the scholarly soundness of the theological option adopted as it is for all the subjects’ inherent understanding Only when the theological postulates underlying the subject’s inherent understanding are consciously recognised and the confrontation with objective historical information is accepted459, can this, like all other, understanding become receptive to more detailed study of the biblical traditions in their textual form. It is in this sense that historical study can be enriching460 and liberating for the dogmatician and faith community instead of being seen as a threat. The historian’s at first sight disturbing contribution can illuminate the historical shape of the canon so that the dogmatician can credibly refer to the transcendent as depicted in the reality of the historical canon461. If the historical corrections made are objective and the 459

Quoting Stuhlmacher, Schlatter writes, “We are freed from our presuppositions and lifted above them only when we are keenly conscious of them ... we are always called to an act of reflection ...” (Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 47; Appel, 1964, 272-275). When this is not recognised, we remain blind. “Or, ideology is blindness ... on the past of the text and its readers” (Pippin, 1996, esp. 52). — Confrontation with historical facts is necessary. Hanson, 1993, 527-529; Van den Berghe P., 1969b, 6. “Dogmatics must yield to facts” (Schoof, 1968, 10). “Keine Behandlung der Biblischen Schriften hat heute noch irgendwelche Glaubwürdigkeit, welche der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit dieser Bücher nicht in voller Aufgeschlossenheit und Ehrlichkeit Rechnung trägt” (Strathman, 1970, 59). “...wird oft übersehen daß es sich auch hier um eine Tatsachenbehauptung handelt, die der historischen Nachprüfung unterliegt” (Ullmann, 1977, 201-205, esp. 202). “...daß der Ntl Kanon ein Faktum darstellt, das seine Begründung nicht im Kanon (as theological concept, L.Z.), sondern in der geschichtlichen Gegebenheit findet” (Untergassmair, 1985, 79-82, esp. 80). When here the history of the canons is called the foundation of the canon as given, this does not intended to mean that the history of the canon can ground the canon as theological concept, particularly in its function as regula fidei. This would be to overestimate the contribution of the history of the canon and is already recognised as beyond its abilities. 460 “...to salvage some notion of biblical authority from the wreckage of three centuries of historical criticism” (Dunbar, 1986, 299). This feeling of discord and threat that historical biblical criticism still leaves with many is an indication of a still unresolved Enlightenment (Seckler, 2000, 33).. “...ihre Erhellung dient der Wahrheitsfindung” (Seckler, 2000, 44). “The Biblical Theologian ... makes room that his tradition and the content of its faith may be challenged, guided, enlivened and enriched by his finds” (Hasel, 1987³, 176). “La conception historico-critique de l’histoire rend des services essentiels à l’interprétation de l’autre conception, la plus ancienne, qui contient la parole de Dieu” (Smend, 1982, 59-78, esp. 78). Albertz, 2003, 373-378, provides examples of how the findings of the history of religion can influence and correct theological bias. 461 The disturbing feeling historical reality causes has been expressed as “...eine Kompensation für historisch-kritische begründete Enttaüschungserlebnisse” (Müller H.P., 1997, 318). “Can one simply set aside the assured results of historical criticism as having no effect on one’s theological understanding of the Bible?” (Murphy, 1997, 272). “God’s Word can never be ... perennially valid without reference to its original context”

181

dogmatician truthful, he will not ignore the opportunity to reach a more scientifically responsible faith but will receive it gratefully, even though it can require much effort from him and his faith community to assimilate the adjustments462. In this way, they become part of the operation and the (Westermann, cited in Whybray, 1981, 33). As with metaphysics, the following can be said of the illuminating contribution of the historical study of the canon: “When theology invokes metaphysics it is not to bend religious doctrine to a rational construction but to illuminate it, to formulate it more correctly, to make it more comprehensible in accordance with Anselm’s fides quaerens intellectum” (Wildiers, 1985, 64-65). It can also be said of historical study of the canon that it “...uns fähig macht, in ausgewogener Weise mit den objektiven und subjektiven Dimensionen der historischen Überlieferungen Israels umzugehen” (Hanson, 1993, 551). When directly applied to the canon, this is called, “Der Kanon ist eine geschichtlich gewordene Größe. So ist zu erwarten, daß eine Betrachtung seines Werdens uns die Gesetze zeigt, nach denen er entstanden ist, und daß diese uns wieder Maßstäbe für seine Beurteilung geben. Ohne eine Berücksichtigung der Kanonsgeschichte schwebt eine rein grundsätzlich dogmatisch orientierte Betrachtung des Kanons in der Luft” (Aland, 1970, 135). All this implies that historical research should be burdened as little as possible by dogmatic bias. — The references in the text to the transcendent intend to articulate religious experiences and witnesses that surpass the biblical text (Hanson, 1993, 551). “We miss the whole truth of the phenomenon when we take its immediate appearance as the whole truth” (Gadamer, cited in Brett, 1991, 140). “For it is only by the particular and contingent, the historical and contextual, that one can possibly refer to the absolute” (Boeve, 1998, 378). This transcendence is illuminated in the genesis and final result of the canon as it is in the entire biblical text. “What is important is that ... the charismatic qualities are not completely lost in the process of objectification ... the canon itself is charged with charisma ... There are of course, traces of a power struggle in de text, but in the end, the text itself is charismatic” (ter Borg, 1998a, 416-419). “Auf der Suche nach einer Antwort darf die Exegese so frei sein, sich der kulturwissenschaftlichen Einsichten zu bedienen, ohne ihren theologischen Impetus, den sie von den biblischen Texten empfängt gedächtnisgeschichtlich oder konstruktivistisch aufzulösen” (Söding, 2003, LXI, n. 60). 462 “Im Rahmen der Theologie ist es ihre (die Exegese, L.Z.) Aufgabe, die Ratio der philologischen und historischen Wissenschaft zur Geltung zu bringen; gelingt dies nicht, bleibt die theologische Berufung auf einen Kanon wissenschaftlich obsolet” (Söding, 2003, LXI). It is here a matter of a rational justification of faith that does not have the intention of taking the place of faith, whose role is irreplaceable. “Der Glaube kann ... nicht auf historisch-objektive Wahrheiten gegründet werden, weil ‘in Bezug auf das Historische die größte Gewißheit doch nur eine Approximation ist’ weil die ‘meisterhafteste historische Erörterung nur das meisterhafteste Sogutwie oder Beinahe ist’ ... Einerseits kann ... die Göttlichkeit der christlichen Offenbarung nicht unmittelbar an den objektiven Fakten abgelesen werden, anderseits ist der Glaube dennoch notwendig auf objektive Fakten angewiesen” (Disse, 1996, 2-3). Even the most scientific observations cannot offer more than a subjective certainty based on Vorverständnis or inherent understanding. They can invoke no greater probability than that of the objective facts on which the faith is grounded. They do this by intuitively presupposing that they are reading signs of a transcendent reality. In this way they go beyond these signs and come to a certainty that is reasonable but

182

history of its reception, along with the theological ingredients of the bible text. Historical research and its theological motivation are entangled in and by the subject so that the familiar duality between natural and transcendental values, i.e. the friction between dogmatic and descriptive sciences prevalent since Gable, is rejected as not corresponding to the biblical traditions. Since the biblical text inextricably links its transcendent content to its historical shape, it does not lie at the heart of the abovementioned duality463. Rather, the subject incorrectly imposes it on the still a hazardous undertaking (Disse, 1996, 9-11). Because this is a subjective certainty, which is only partly ensured objectively and hence is still reasonable, it would be wrong to postulate that historical criticism as scholarly method determines certainty. This decision is in the hands of the believing subject. It is thus incorrect to assert that historical criticism is “in the grip of its own dogmatic presuppositions and philosophical premises about the nature of history” (Hasel, 1987³, 173). Historical criticism as method is neutral. Only the subject is susceptible to presuppositions for or against transcendence. That is why the Enlightenment falls apart into two or more tendencies depending on the bias of the adepts. “Das Gewicht der theologischen Vorentscheidungen wird daran deutlich, daß trotz Übereinstimmung in der Exegese verschiedene hermeneutische Positionen vertreten werden können” (Schmidt L., 1983, 300). In this sense, biblical theology is vulnerable to religious sciences. “Die Theologie der Bibel als notwendig durch die Geschichtswissenschaft verwundbare Theologie” (Hübner, 1995, 213). 463 In this regard, it is useful to stress the numinous impact of the canon’s religious reality. “...the canon itself is charged with charisma ... it is felt to be certain and to be guaranteed that it comes from heaven” (ter Borg, 1998a, 418). “Weil im Selbstbewußtsein des religiösen Individuums Gottes Geist und geschichtlich Erhellbahre Wirklichkeit zusammentreffen, lassen sich in der Wertschätzung und Darstellung der religiösen Persönlichkeit, ihres Wollens und ihres Geschicks, geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Interesse verbinden und versöhnen” (Stuhlmacher, 1975, 83). “Historical knowledge ... is a kind of personal knowledge with which I as a person am involved” (G. Wright, cited in Reventlow, 1983b, 166). Eissfeldt had noted that “...historische und ... theologische Betrachtungsweise ... bilden ... nur darin eine Einheit, daß eine Person sie handhaben kann ... Deshalb sei sie notwendig durch die zentrale christliche Glaubenserfahrung ihres Verfassers ... beeinflußt” (cited in Schmidt L., 1983, 291). “Die Gemeinsamkeit des Dilemmas” (Lönning, 1972, 257). Reventlow, 1982, 21, 30; 1.6.3. “...historical reading and theological evaluation are so related that neither can be properly carried out under the impression that the other does not exist or does not matter” (Barr, 1980c, 44-45). “...the inner unity of happening and meaning based upon the inbreaking [sic] of transcendence into history as the final reality to which the biblical text testifies” (Hasel, 1987³, 172). “Die historische und die dogmatische Theologie vermischen sich, statt klar getrennt zu bleiben” (Oeming, 1986, 68). “Das unvermeidbare Ergebnis ist eine Vermischung von historischer und theologischer Fragestellung” (Lönning, 1972, 255). “Er (der Begriff historisch, L.Z.) wird zwar nicht einfach Synonym von ‘dogmatisch’, hat aber doch eine systematische Dimension und damit systematisch-theologische Relevanz gewonnen” (Schmid, 1983, 39). “When ... we speak of the ‘word that happens’ and in this sense of ‘God who makes history’, does not then that ‘acting word’ ... de facto work in our

183

text. It only exists in the subject’s mind, which, understandably, is hindered by this unnatural division. It is for historical-exegetical research to show how reasonable it is for the subject to accept the canon as demarcated in theology. In doing this, exegesis removes the friction that the subject experiences with profane sciences464. From the cited intertwining between historical shape and theological content in the biblical text it follows that the historical and theological studies of the canon affect one another. The task of both is to approach the bible text appropriately [Sachgemäß], albeit that each focuses on a different aspect of the canon reality. That is why they should not replace or compete with one another. Quite the reverse, they are called to help and complement one another465, which is why they should not replace or complete one another. human history, and does it not de facto operate in our historical situation?!” (Oost, 1986, 115). 464 We should remember the complaint of post-classical biblical criticism that classical exegesis worked dogmatically and in so doing sought to reduce faith to reason. This is a misconception. The true intention of classical exegesis is only to act within the scholarly field and in so doing to remove dogmatic pressure from the theological concept of canon in the scholarly world. “Umgekehrt ist es die Aufgabe der Exegese, in den Diskurs der Philologen und Historiker die Theologie der interpretierten Schriften einzubringen; gelingt dies nicht, beherrschen die Dogmen der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaftlichkeit die Auslegung der biblische Texte” (Söding, 2003, LXI-LXII). 465 Söding, 2003. “If biblical theology is understood to be a historical-theological discipline, it follows that its proper method must be both historical and theological from the startingpoint” (Hasel, 1987³, 171). This alliance between the reality of the canon and its historical shape is rooted in the historical character of faith in revelation and the veracity of the incarnation (Untergassmair, 1996, 141), which forms the basis for the permanent need for historical study of the canon. “There is no revelation apart from the experience of historical Israel” (Childs, 1983², 71). “Wer für die Untersuchung der Heiligen Schrift die Anwendung dieser historisch-kritischen Methodik ablehnt, leugnet die Geschichtlichkeit göttlicher Offenbarung! ... Zugespitzt: Wer die Berechtigung der Geschichtswissenschaft, ihr entscheidendes Wort auch für die Bibel zu sagen, bestreitet, leugnet den biblischen Gott” (Hübner, 1995, 213). The theological evaluation of the canon as unity of many hallowed writings presupposes an insight in the historical growth toward this unity. Hence the improbability of an ad hoc decision. All this also applies to church kerygma: if we are to see the continuity with the earthly Jesus, we need historical evidence that shows that it is contained in nuce in the person of Jesus. This makes the historical Jesus theologically relevant (Zahrnt, 1967, 277). “...in its own terms” (Hasel, 1987³, 176). In this sense, it can be correctly posited that “The text may speak” (Deurloo, 1984, 30-40). — Albertz, 1992, 37 is clearly in the competitive position. Out of sheer necessity he prefers the history of religion. Later he explained how the history of religion relates to theology (Albertz, 2003, 373-375). Van der Toorn, 1998, stresses the benefits that a clear distinction between biblical theology and the history of religion has produced since Barth. This allows practising the history of religion free from theology, albeit not free of ideology.

184

As we know, reality is substantially different. Although the consensus is for a balance between historical criticism and dogmatics, in practice there is friction between the two so that many accept the unbridgeable duality between the two. It would be audacious to expect that this incorrect idea can be jettisoned forthwith. For the time being it is sufficient here to smooth the path so that the historical study of the canon and dogmatics can come closer to working in complementarity. It appears that their relationship is clouded by easy reference to the priority of theology over historical criticism, of canonical dogmatics over historical canon research466. Doubtless, it was the intention of this qualification to indicate the unique and irreplaceable character of dogmatics. This description is only correct as long as and insofar as it refers to the specific role of dogmatics. But it is excessive to play off this role against that of historical research. This, too, is unique within its own specific area of expertise in the sense that it is as equally important and irreplaceable as dogmatics. The latter cannot do the work of historical research, which follows its own rules, just as historical research does not wish to work under the dictate of dogmatics467. That is why dogmatics is not helped by pointing out the “Historische und theologische Problematik beginnen sich wechselseitig zu befruchten” (Gloege, 1970, 39; Keel, 2001). 466 “Eine Wiederherstellung des Gleichgewichtes zwischen historischer und systematischer Theologie, die heute mit erstaunlicher Einstimmigkeit als die Forderung der Stunde sowohl in der katholischen als auch in der protestantischen Kirche zur Sprache kommt” (Lönning, 1972, 34). “...führt jedoch häufig zu einem Denken auf zwei Ebenen: historische Erkenntnis, die zu ‘zufälligen Geschichtswahrheiten’ führt, und theologische Urteile, die assertorische Form besitzen müssen ... treten dann aus einander” (Reventlow, 1983b, 165). The priority given to theology at the expense of historical study is a chief element in the critical starting point of this study of the canon (see Prologue). This remains more than ever topical. After all, the canonical movement continues to postulate that “The whole scripture … aims at Christian formation rather than historical reconstruction” (Wall, 2002, 535). This starts from an unbridgeable dualism, while the two elements depend on one another. “The first home of the study of the canon is not literary criticism, but theology” (Van Leeuwen J.H., 1992, 53). “C’est surtout au niveau de la théologie que le principe canonique se révèlera important” (Jacob, 1975, 120). “In der gegenwärtigen Diskussion aber wird das Kanonproblem vorwiegend unter theologischen, vor allem ekklesiologischen Aspekten gesehen, nicht mehr – wie dies weitgehend früher der Fall war – unter rein historischen Gesichtpunkten” (Sand, 1974, 2). “Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis der beiden Testamente in der einen christlichen Bibel ist kein historisches, sondern ein theologisches Problem” (Zenger, 1995, 143-158, esp. 143). 467 Deist, 1993, 384-398, esp. 394. “… the Christian theologian and interpreter of these foundational traditions has no other choice than to examine that historical particularity in as much detail as possible” (Dunn, 2002, 575). “Weil das die Kanonizität des Kanons begründende Offenbarungshandeln Gottes in der Geschichte geschieht, muß in der

185

limitations of historical research. These deficiencies, which are indeed present, as in every academic endeavour, do not justify the rejection or suppression of the tangible results that the historical study of the canon has nevertheless achieved and that are offered in service of dogmatics. If dogmatics has found it difficult to give the canon a theological profile, it must not be so dishonest as to level accusations at historical research simply because its findings impede it by requiring corrections. Concessions are unavoidable, not only in the area of the historical accuracy of biblical narrative material, but also in that of its pretension to truth468 in general and its inspiration and notion of infallibility in particular. Similarly, dogmatics may not blame historical research for being unable to reach into the deepest essence of the canon and explain the why and ultimate meaning of the canon. Even the most fervent historian is now ready to recognise that historical study cannot do this. The confrontation, with limited results after so many centuries of historical research into the canon, has given rise to thought. Yet, should we expect historical research to provide more or even a definitive explanation of the canon? Would it not be excessive to demand that historical research answer dogmatic questions, while dogmatics alone is authorised to do so? It would be equally absurd to hold dogmatics responsible for the resolution of the question of the historical genesis of the canon.

Auslegung des Kanons als Kanon dessen Geschichte zur Sprache kommen” (Söding, 2003, LXXXVIII). “Die Religion (Offenbarungsgeschichte) des Alten Testaments, aus geschichtlichen Bedingungen nicht erklärbar, ist sie doch ohne geschichtliche Voraussetzungen nicht zu verstehen” (Kraus H.J., 19701, 127 n. 18). “Il faut comprendre la théologie essentiellement comme un processus historique de développement ... ainsi, quand les theologoumena particuliers peuvent être replacés dans l’histoire, ils acquièrent alors une importance qui dépasse beaucoup la précision et la délimitation historiques, ils se classent fonctionnellement dans le processus de développement” (Smend, 1982, 315-316). “...eine andere Reglementierung als die durch ihre eigenen methodischen Grundsätze hat sich die historische Theologie tunlichst zu verbitten” (Grässer, 1980, 201). 468 Murphy, 1997, 272-274. “...die historisch-kritische Wissenschaft Kirche und Theologie gezwungen hat, ihre Schriftlehre zu überprüfen” (Küng, 1970, 184). “Darf man aus Angst vor möglichen, den Glauben gefähdenden Konsequenzen Einsichten und Erkenntnisse unterdrücken? Sollte die Bibel etwa das Licht rückhaltloser Aufklärung aller in ihr enthaltenen Aspekte scheuen müssen?” (Oeming, 1986, 53).

186

4.4 Present-day Canonical Criticism in Biblical Theology versus Present-day Historical Study of the Canon If the relationship we have described above between biblical theology and the historical study of the canon based on their reciprocal interaction in the past has provided any objective insight, it can also shed light on the further development of their reciprocal relationship at the present time. Any new historical study of the canon must take this duly into account if it wants to respond efficiently to the current situation with its specific questions and needs. Today the student of the historical canon has the advantage of dealing with a theological partner that has a clear profile, i.e. with a canonical criticism that has become so widely known within the newest biblical theology movement that it captured our attention at the start of our study. It states its frank preference for the canon as theological fact, specifically for the verbindlich or binding and absolute character of the biblical writings that have been traditionally held as authoritative within the faith community. The historian of the canon can only rejoice at such an upward value adjustment of the theological canon, which had all too often been considered a problem in the recent past. Theology’s hermeneutical and ever increasing interest in the canon469 must, logically, also encourage the historical study of the canon. An aversion to theology is not a prerequisite for the student of the historical canon. The historian is aware that in the past the dynamic for canon research always arose from a theological substratum. Indeed, the historian’s work has always been stimulated, albeit to varying degrees, by this theological dynamic. It is thus understandable that the historian has high expectations when regarding the upsurge and worldwide development of canonical criticism in biblical exegesis. But these expectations are not being fulfilled. The cause of the disappointment cannot be sought in the general tendency of canonical criticism to stress the final text of the Bible as entity and to call upon the corresponding literary techniques for exploring this final text. It is true that this is a not a favourite area for historical research, yet this is not an insurmountable objection for the historian: the canonical movement does

469

“In steigendem Masse gilt der biblische Kanon als hermeneutische Grundlage für die Schriftauslegung” (Budde, 1997, 39). This theological mainspring is what keeps the canon discussion lively (Seckler, 2000, 32).

187

not work totally a-historically470. If this method and new techniques would do more to benefit exegesis (although this still has to be demonstrated), then the historian, certainly the believer, can live with this course of events. The historian experiences the canonical evolution in biblical theology as positive when the shared faith in, and appreciation of, the biblical traditions benefit. But the historian has a totally different impression when the intent is not only to restrict historical study to filling in whatever holes may be left in the investigation or to gaining new insight in exhausted areas by testing new possibilities, but also to use any excuse471 to go on to bulldoze and abandon those oft-visited areas more conducive to historical research. It become too much for the historian when the breadth and depth of the historical shape of the canon’s development is reduced to what theologians consider suitable and meaningful in the canon concept that they have come to cherish because, in their view, this would correspond better to the biblical word of God as they honour it and as they believe it should be allowed to operate in the present church community472 via preaching. The historian is not disturbed by canonical criticism’s positive motivation. The historian has no difficulty in acknowledging the irreplaceable role of dogmatics. In acknowledging that dogmatics alone can reveal and underpin the absolute authority of the canon’s content, the historian does not seek break into the dogmatician’s stronghold. But the historian must ascertain that, in their

470

Brett, 1991, 41-52; a contrary view is expressed in “A horizontal approach against whatever background means an abridgement of the literal or historical meaning of the Scriptures” (Oost, 1986, 80). 471 The attention that biblical theology is able to attract gives the impression that the historical study of the canon is complete and thus superfluous. “Die gegenwärtige Diskussion über eine biblische Theologie erweckt den Eindruck, als sei die Debatte über Charakter und Umfang des Kanons im wesentlichen abgeschlossen ... Hier wird ein Erstaunen vorgeführt, das scheinbar geschichtlich begründet ist” (Georgi, 1993, 45). The truth is that study has just begun on certain aspects of the historical study of the canon. “Die Fragen von Kanonentstehung und Kanoncharakter sind sowohl auf dem Feld des Alten wie des Neuen Testaments, erst recht aber hinsichtlich des Verhältnisses beider Testamente zueinander heute offener und mehr im Fluß als je zuvor” (Georgi, 1993, 46). 472 “...religious communities are seeking on the Bible a Word of God which is still valid” (Brett, 1991, 133). “The attempt to superimpose this model (the Protestant biblicalhermeneutical vision via canonical criticism) on the ‘producers’ of the canon bypassed historical inquiry. An important heritage of canonical criticism is its challenge to historians to deliver an account of the canonizing process that explains what they call canonical shaping by means of historical, and not theological, research” (Davies P.R., 1998, 53).

188

zeal473, the proponents of canonical criticism allow themselves to take excessive liberties in the historical field, just as occurred in days long past. They still believe as they did then that historical data can be used to buttress whatever suits them and that they can cut and shape it as if it could be tailor-made instead of seeing it as an objective fact that was historically conditioned and even historically determined. If the zealots on the canonical question think they can justify their infringement of the historical shape of the canon by thoughtlessly invoking the priority of theology or even the total duality that is said to exist between historicalnatural and theological reality, this would be a pretext either to totally ignore history and natural truth or to break into the area whose laws and priorities the historian must defend. Under such circumstances the historian cannot possibly make peace with these anti-historical and unchronological propensities474, not so much because they attack what the historian is accustomed to handling with respect (think on historical sources and facts) but because the historian is called upon to serve biblical theologians by providing them with material so that they can present and put into practice here and now the most reliable and defensible theological concept. It is in this theological canon that confessional historians also place their hope and that drives them to submit the canon to as objective an investigation as possible. This is the historian’s specific contribution to the theological canon and thus to the belief in revelation in history. From this single-mindedness, the historian can and must denounce and correct the dogmatician’s breach of the historical field. The intention is not to confute the dogmatician and to confound his favourite topics with gloating glee. It is the historian’s professional duty to serve historical truth and thus the theological canon. The historian of the canon hopes that much if not most of the much-discussed works on biblical theology can be retained. But each one of them must still be subjected to a thorough historical-critical examination. In the meantime everyone, not only the historian, knows that only what is historically justifiable has a chance to survive the tests of time. This must be sufficient reason for a critical study of present-day biblical theology, in particular that of canonical signature. Perhaps a new historical study of the canon is the most conclusive and, especially, positive answer to the present question. It will have to be decided below

473 474

“...make recourse to such question-begging theological arguments” (Brett, 1991, 134). Brett, 1991, 118-123.

189

which obstacles in the present situation should be examined first and how they will be included in the following historical study of the canon.

190

Chapter 5

A New Historical Study of the Canon: The Task

After having weighed, in sequence, the possibilities and limitations of, conditions for and current interest in a new historical study of the canon, (4.1-4.4), the road now seems clear to attempting this undertaking under the most favourable circumstances. The first step is to define clearly the hermeneutical principles adopted (5.1). Hermeneutical insights, after all, are what determine the method to be applied (5.2) and thus orient and undergird the whole historical study. They cannot remain uncertain without doing harm. Lucidity in this matter is essential. That is why we opt in principle for a global approach (5.3.1), albeit in a relatively brief scope. Further, the time interval and material to be studied within the long and complex process of canon’s genesis must be defined precisely. There is a good reason for selecting the earliest period (5.3.2).

5.1 Hermeneutical Principles The brief outline of the canon study in the past (Ch. 1), especially the more thorough evaluation of the modern study of the canon since 1500 (Ch. 3) repeatedly mentioned the covert and late study of hermeneutics. Time and again the unconscious nature of the hermeneutical process and the attendant entwining of subjective and objective factors were discussed. Just recently, the hermeneutical question came to the fore during the previous considerations on the current interest of historical canon study (Ch. 4), especially in outlining the permanent interaction between dogmatics and historical research into the canon (4.3). While the theme hermeneutics is brought up again here, it is not the intention to treat this comprehensive and complicated subject exhaustively. No such conclusive treatment has as yet been made, which leaves a general sense of uneasiness. In anticipation of a more general consensus in the hermeneutical field, the following considerations are an attempt to describe the present author’s Vorentscheidungen or prior options. This is the absolute precondition responsible475 historical canon research. 475

Thiselton, 1992, 3. “...eine Frage auf Leben und Tod” (Oeming, 1998, VII).

191

5.1.1 The Impact of the Subject: In General From a hermeneutical perspective, the explanation of the Bible is not exempt from the rules that govern the explanation of other texts. It is rather generally accepted that there is no distinction in principle between the hermeneutics of sacred texts and that of profane texts476. You could call them siblings. The emphasis in the history of hermeneutics has long been on the texts. All attention went to the question of which rules the explanation must follow. Only later did authors become aware of how deeply the person of the exegete is involved in the event, that the exegete’s understanding of the texts was an absolute precondition for explaining them477. The explainers receive naturally the key that with the help of reason and empathy can be used to bridge the time gap to the biblical texts. Shrill as it may sound in Barthian ears478, they are the object of the interpreter’s knowledge. Without doubt, the object also makes demands that must be taken into account if one is to do full justice to their essence 476

Zuurmond, 1984, 15. For another view see Bohren, 1986, 165-166. Zuurmond, 1984, 15-17. 478 Schmid, 1983, 47. Lessing and Schleiermacher discussed this (Zuurmond, 1984, 17-18). It is no accident that the rise of modern hermeneutics coincides with the awakening of historical awareness. Lessing first spoke of the “garstige breite Graben” that separates the present from the past. Overbeck correctly commented on how much Christianity has become alienated from its past. But it would be too pessimistic to say that the gap is unbridgeable or to underestimate the potential of the subject (Zuurmond, 1984, 17-18). For Barth’s kindred spirits, the text is the subject that corrects the criticism (Zuurmond, 1984, 23; Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 87, 127-148). They presuppose that reading the Bible is an existential event. This is true. But is not to deny that interpreters take the text in hand independently and normally only allow themselves to be addressed existentially by what they consciously acknowledge and approve of without necessarily having to follow their Vorverständnis. It is true that they can consciously resist this, but only to a limited degree. “Die Funktion religiös geprägter (vor)literarischer Formen geht freilich auch nicht schon dadurch verloren, daß deren Mechanismus durchschaut wird; die mit den Gattungen verbundenen Geistesbeschäftigungen pflegen vielmehr, ihrer tendenziell menschheitlichen Relevanz entsprechend, in Kryptoformen weiterzuleben” (Müller H.P., 1997, 317-355, esp. 328). A Vorverständnis, at least when conscious, only provides an orientation, it does not coerce. “When we realise that ... then it can do no harm to check whether we are not wearing any ideological earplugs. As long as these aids serve the explanation of the texts, and do not begin to treat it as its masters” (Zuurmond, 1984, 25). “A critical reading will involve the ability to acknowledge prejudice and so curable [sic] the peculiarities and ‘otherness’ of the text to become fully apparent and for the text to ‘speak’, if not precisely in its own terms, at least with sufficient respect for its own integrity that it does not merely mirror the prejudice of the reader” (Rowland, 1995, 431). 477

192

and content (or “affair”479). It can even be posited that the texts – certainly when they are considered classic in the tradition480 – have a certain character to which the researcher is susceptible given his confessional background481. Yet the interpreters have the final word in the explanation. They ultimately decide independently on how deeply they enter into the affair, however clearly it may appear to them. Whether or not the interpreters listen more or less closely to the biblical text, the history of exegesis clearly shows that subjects, oriented toward their inherent understanding, choose one or other explanation, often from among many possibilities482, or even alternatives, that are available. The version that the subject chooses is far from always the one with the best claims to correctness. If interpreters fail to select the most reasonable choice, they highlight – to their own disadvantage – the sway483 over the text given them by nature or their understanding. This does not mean that they must accuse themselves of imperialism484. They are simply following the rules 479

Zuurmond, 1984, 23. “Probabilities that are strictly objective and at the same time very great, although they can never be absolutely conclusive, ought nevertheless to influence our preference for one hypothesis over another” (Laato, 1996, 51). 480 Schmid, 1983, 45; Brett, 1991, 131-148. Barr, 1983, 107-110). 481 See 4.2.2. The history of reception and operation play a role here. Similarly, the confession’s influence can be transferred to the pressure that arises from all the family or other community ties such as theological schools or teachers (Melugin, 1996, 77 n. 39; Barr, 1983, 107-110). 482 “...the understanding of reality is always dependent on the interpreter” (Laato, 1996, 29). This is not only the case for the modern interpreter. In biblical times too, believers ultimately had to explain their experiences autonomously according to their own insights. Sociological laws and models are inadequate here and must accept the interpretation given in the biblical texts as normative. In this, the believing individual remains unpredictable to a certain degree (Lemche, 1996d, 285). “...contradictory assumptions from an analysis of the same text” (Heger, 1999, 284). In applying Brettler’s distinction between “beyond reasonable doubt” and “a preponderance of evidence” (Brettler, 1995, 142-144) in disputed cases, the present study will propose the position that is best defensible when compared to other defensible ways of thinking. 483 Given the inevitable prevalence of the subject over the object in the knowledge process, the proposal to adopt an atheistic approach to have a universal foundation for dialogue within the academic world (Laato, 1996, 24-28) is not feasible. The subjects’ opinions always remain involved in their attempt to approach reality from an exclusively rational perspective. Even Laato admits the impracticability of the proposed atheistic approach when he concurs with Pierce when the latter states, “… the understanding of reality is always dependent on the interpreter” (Laato, 1996, 29). 484 Zuurmond, 1984, 18. Barth had already attacked the adoption of a middle-class outlook that was said to have been imposed by natural theology (Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 50-51). D. Boer took matters to extremes in adopting the same criticism via Miskotte (Bauer U.F.W.,

193

of human knowledge to which they are as bound as those who claim they want to let the text decide and explain itself. That, too, is a choice, no less bound to rules than hermeneutics. It may well be the most subjective position485 that can unconsciously be adopted in hermeneutics.

5.1.2 The Impact of the Subject: In Practice In interpreting the Bible, in this case the canon, the researcher, as subject, is confronted with the same potential for and limitations to understanding as everyone else. Here we try to discover very consciously where these prevail in the historical situation just so that we can allow the biblical texts the greatest freedom. Seen from this perspective, the researchers’ own confessions come to the fore as the factor that probably has the deepest influence on their inherent understanding of the canon issue. The starting point for approaching the canon adopted here is the one customary in the Roman Catholic circles, on the understanding that contact is not lost with those tendencies that wish to anticipate the present canon issue creatively in the hope of preparing a more functional and faithful canon concept. The concept of canon demarcation, in particular seems necessary even though it is generally considered486 problematical. The current position of the Roman Catholic Church and of confessions in general on the question still remains that which Käsemann criticised years ago. He was not totally 1991, 159-162). This is a consequence of dialectical theology with its dualistic approach that drives a wedge between object and subject by making them compete (“second place”: Zuurmond, 1984, 19) with one another (“dominate and serve”: Zuurmond, 1984, 20) while they are really team members, each with their own role within the same hermeneutical game. The fact that the subject decides freely about the acceptance and acknowledgement of the transcendent is no assault on the freedom of this transcendent (contrary to Zuurmond, 1984, 22). The subject’s transcendence protect against this by not affecting the essence of the subject’s acceptance-rejection. The subject need not apologise to the object: the subject’s intellect has no intention of “calling the object before the court of reason” (Zuurmond, 1984, 17), but only to understand it using the means that are available. 485 Coats-Long, 1977, IX. “Es ist hermeneutische Naivität zu glauben, man könnte unbeeinflußt von persönlichem Wert objektiv das Alte Testament allein sprechen lassen” (Oeming, 1995, 83). The danger is that all the critical feeling found in nachkritische exegesis (3.3.3.5) is abandoned (“pre-critical notion of canon”: Coats-Long, 1977, X; “the logic of obedience”: F. Ferré, cited in Barr, 1966, 182), particularly by Rendtorff. “Wo man dagegen den normativen Charakter der Schriften in irgendeiner Weise zur Voraussetzung machte, hieß das leider immer die fragliche Sache selbst zur Basis des Beweises zu machen” (Grässer, 1980, 202). A lack of critical feeling has consequences. 486 Budde, 1997, 54.

194

wrong in noting that the canon appeared to him to be a divisive element between the various confessions. Whether the canon had already played this role from the very start is less certain. It is to be hoped that our new historical investigation can clarify this. However, it is certain that the canon – as it now operates within the confessions – does more to encourage division than unity. How can the absolute truth of revelation be localised exclusively within the demarcations of one’s own canon without flagrantly contradiction other confessions? Yet this claim to totality, which the confessions still seem to believe they can make for their canon, has not assailed the prior option in favour of the canon as a binding reality of faith. This should result in a positive response to developments within canonical biblical theology that promote a holistic exploration of biblical texts on an interconfessional basis. The concern to ground as appropriately as possible these achievements, which are so important to the mass of believers arose from a desire to prevent them from getting bogged down in an academically unjustifiable shape. The conviction that the absolute and infinite scope of the Bible’s canonical traditions can be approached and understood487 only within their finite and historically determined shape compels the author to take their historical dimension seriously as something that cannot be ignored. The faith community in which the canon arose played an important role in the genesis of its historical shape. This runs somewhat parallel to the impact of the confessions on their members in daily life. On this point, theologians seem to lean too far toward a conceptual evaluation of the canon and too little toward a structural evaluation. The experience in this area derived from within a specific church community points to other, insufficiently studied directions. It is hoped that the following historical study will be able to point out creatively the similar impact that the faith community in biblical times had on the canon488. 487

The fact that the “finite cannot contain the infinite” (Zuurmond, 1984, 21) does not prevent its being elected by the infinite to act as witness and bearer of the infinite. 488 The risk of subjectivism is inherent to the potentiality of personal experience (Schmid, 1983, 47), imagination and creativity to penetrate more deeply into the object (Hasel, 1987³, 51-52, 176; Zahrnt, 1967, 245; “reader-response criticism”: Ska, 1992a, 50 n. 79; Trible, 1994, 66-70). In this way, the subject tends to project itself into the object, which is then not or no longer treated (Schmidt L., 1983, 300; Albertz, 1995, 7, 6-10), and to indulge itself at the object’s expense (“divertir”: Ska, 1992a, 35 n. 25, 51). This can also lead to anachronism, which regularly raises its head in the study of the canon. This results from an unbalanced desire to respond to what is in style. This leads to everything being sacrificed for modernity (“modern ideational needs”: Gnuse, 1994, 893-918, esp. 895; “the price of

195

5.1.3 Option for Objectivity The preference just expressed for a scholarly historical treatment of the canon does not intend to be a declaration of intent by a subject that is entrenched in a hermeneutical position and that feels no obligation toward the object of study approached solely as an object of interest489. The believing scholar assumes that his object of study, the canon, is an essential medium for creating and maintaining contact with the totally Other. This transcendent reality is the true reason and sole objective that propels the canon researcher and that he keeps in mind at all times, even when, conditioned by hermeneutical poverty as he may be490, he still concentrates with all the potential of his human knowledge on examining the historical shape in which the canon is enveloped. Nevertheless, his task is not to achieve this direct contact with the totally Other491 and to cultivate contemporary relevance”: Barton J., 1984, 88; Drewermann’s psychological models may also be mentioned here: Oeming, 1986, 54). Influenced by this desire to conform to what is in style, proponents of the canonical movement approach the biblical traditions with a gesamtbiblische theology that is too selectively pro-theological. In doing so, they seek to inflate artificially the value of the less meaningful biblical texts. Furthermore, it is disquieting that they tend to prioritise the substance of the development of biblical theology at the expense of the history of tradition and the formal canon structures (Knierim, 1995, 5; Brueggemann, 1984, 1-11, esp. 7). From a historical perspective it seems more advisable to adopt the theories proffered by Murphy and Goshen-Gottstein as explained in the following: “But the most recent work concerning the unity of the OT wisely prescinds from conceptual unity and views the unity of the Hebrew Bible by analysing the process of its formation and honouring various trends working in the process ... He (Goshen-Gottstein, L.Z.) remarked that ‘OT Theology has not bothered hitherto to devise a method of inquiry so as to ask questions that might help us detect the structure’ (a reference to the ‘overall structure of primary and secondary issues’ within the Bible)” (Murphy, 1997, 268-271). This is tantamount to giving an objective approach the precedence it deserves instead of trying to be up to date. Yet the historical contingency of the fact of does more than create problems in closing the gap; it also creates opportunities to obtain enriching insights into what was delved from the fact of faith in the past. 489 “La lecture du ‘Livre’ a pour premier but non de divertir le peuple, mais de le convertir et de l’amener à choisir une voie bien précise” (Ska, 1992a, 51). 490 Barr, 1983, 45-46; P.D. Miller, Jr., 1985, 201-237 esp. 214-215. Zuurmond, 1984, 1924. 491 “Weder ein Erklären noch das einführende Verstehen richtet sich auf Offenbarung als solche” (Müller H.P., 1997, 323). “...für den religionshistorischen ‘Gott’ nur in sprachlichen Äußerungen von Menschen, in religiösen Erfahrungen, von denen sie berichten, in religiösen Symbolwelten, die sie entwerfen, und in Wörter, die sie zu ihm oder in seinem Namen sprechen, greifbar wird. Dies bedeutet methodisch, daß der Ort, von dem

196

it in a theological evaluation. His task is limited to explain this contact using all that scholarly historical study of the material can teach and to justify this without being a-theological492. That is the reason for his mainly technical historical analysis, whose tortuous investigation seems to hinder rather than illuminate a view of the transcendent. The historian cannot be held responsible for this state of affairs. It arises from his hermeneutical limitations and the laborious historical path that the transcendent has chosen to become manifest to believer. Because the scholar wishes to respect fully this material medium, and hence the transcendent, he chooses, as autonomous subject, to approach the matter as appropriately (sachgemäß) as possible, and thus to face the way in which the matter, here the canon, is tangibly present and explained in tradition493. According to the definition of canon given earlier, three aspects can be distinguished here. A. First there is the fixed ensemble of canonical texts as final phase of a long and complex process of development. An appropriate approach to this requires an investigation of both the final text494 and the traces that it contains of its own development. This is tantamount to a predominantly her der Religionshistoriker die Wechselwirkung beschreibt, nicht bei Gott, auch nicht in irgendeiner angemaßten ‘Vogelschau’ zwischen Gott und Mensch, sondern allein an der Seite der Israelitischen Menschen liegen kann” (Albertz, 1992, 31). 492 Miller, Jr., P.D., 1985, 214-215; Barr, 1983, 45-46. “...theological evaluation is not something that can proceed separately and independently of literary and historical factors ... though the two processes are going in different directions and leading towards different sets of results, they have an important common era” (Barr, 1980c, 44-45). 493 Textual research seeks the reality on which to which the text refers and in this sense already transcends its material shape. “The reading of the text i.e. the reconstruction of the referential world of the text is an attempt to penetrate into the invisible, extra-textual world of the text” (Laato, 1996, 54). That the historical reality to which the text refers can only be interpreted and not reproduced literally must also be taken into account. From the perspective of history, this reality always belongs to the past. The starting point is thus not to establish the historical canon, but to demonstrate and explain its presence and shape. Not all canonical texts lend themselves equally to this (Söding, 2001, 6-7, 14 n. 56). 494 “Alles Neue erwächst aus einem Alten und hat von ihm seinen ersten Lebensimpuls. Es greift das eine auf, transformiert das andere und steht nicht zuletzt auch da, wo es zur Kontradiktion zum Alten kommt” (Schmid, 1983, 41). Nevertheless, the final text is a problem, certainly in the case of the Pentateuch, and should not be overestimated. It cannot be explained on its own (Hermisson, 1990, 276). It cannot stand on its own (Oeming, 1986, 54; Ska, 1992a, 50-51) independent of the natural values, just as canonicity cannot stand along, but is rooted in a general religious and natural phenomenon (Platvoet, 1998, 96). It may correctly be posited that frequent formal invocation of literal exegesis reveals an unassimilated hermeneutical problem (Barthel, 1997, 17 n. 51), namely, ignoring text critical information (3.3.1.), which requires diachronic and contextual exegesis.

197

diachronic but still not totally a-synchronised investigation that includes the final text. In both cases, this goes beyond the strictly literary evidence in the canonical text495. Involving its proximate and broad historical context496 proves to be indispensable to the investigation. This presupposes utilising the traditions related to the Bible, especially the intertestamental

495

Zuurmond, 1984, 24. Diachronicity and synchronicity do not work at cross purposes, but rather complement one another (Kratz, 1997, 13). But practice often differs. “Every ‘horizontal’ approach against whatever background means an abridgement of the literal or historical meaning of the Scriptures” (Oost, 1986, 80). Sæbø, Rendtorff have observed this and Childs even more. To avoid this all diachronic stages must be reviewed, although not all necessarily to the same degree (Hanson, 1984, 13-24, esp. 2). “Es gibt eine Kopräsenz des Sukzessiven im Endtext” (Seckler, 2000, 51). “Salvation belongs not to the networks of meaning within a text, not even the text of the Bible, but to a set of people and events” (Barr, 1980c, 47). The texts point to facts that theology refers to as salvation. “We need the facts for a proper understanding of the words” (Jagersma, 1990c, 93-96, esp. 96). That led to salvation history (Maier J., 1990b, 26-27; Luttikhuizen, 1996, 344-345). “Gottes Worte sind dann von der Geschichte, in die hinein sie ergehen, nicht völlig ablösbar, sowie etwa im AT Heilsprophetie und Gerichtsprophetie nur aus ihrer jeweiligen Situation ihren Sinn erhalten” (Westermann, 1986, 13-30, esp. 14). 496 Sheppard, 1982, 33; Deist, 1993, 394; Barr, 1983, 46-48; idem, 1989, 14-16. “Eine Erforschung der religions-, sozial-, kultur- und machtpolitischen Aspekte der Kanonsfrage läßt sich nicht länger von der Hand weisen, ist aber erst in den Anfängen begriffen” (Georgi, 1993, 48). A sociological distinction can also be made between “The society behind the text and the society within the text” (Carter, 1996, 3-36, esp. 4). There is also the distinction between the context of the text in its original past and that of its orientation toward the future. “...the future direction of scripture can be rightly realized and exploited only in conjunction with its past references, for it is the past references that, although historically imprecise, provide the historically-given definitions of its terms. And here again we have a reason why the Bible has to be understood with a fully historical understanding, aligned with disciplines lying outside the biblical and theological fields” (Barr, 1980c, 127). “Historical criticism will often be able to show that the event interpreted appeared different historically, but that does not detract from the fact that the interpretation relates to or is a part of an irreversible interconnected progression of history. That is why we are compelled to consider this historical progression as co-determinative element in our exegesis and biblical theology (Council for Church and Theology, 1976, 96). The canonical movement sees matters differently and usually prefers to restrict the context is as far as possible (Childs, 1983², 59, 79). It must be admitted that recovering and evaluating the background of the canonical texts is not a simple matter (Brett, 1991, 100-104). Yet it is necessary, because it is there that the extra-canonical canons (Sheppard, 1992, 862) are active, even incarnated in persons (Platvoet, 1998, 100). “People understand their own canonical religion better when they compare it to other fundamental types of religion than canonical orthodoxy built on texts (Platvoet, 1998, 88). Indeed, even approaching the Bible as literature requires the prevailing extra-biblical norms in this area (Ska, 1992a, 49-52).

198

writings, and the information gleaned by the history of religion497, since the canon event surpasses the biblical authors and even the communities of the time498. Moreover, from a historical perspective, one may not bind oneself beforehand exclusively to a given canonical entity, a fixed sequence of writings499 or any particular shape that the text may have assumed. From a 497

On the use of intertestamental writings see Schmid, 1983, 48; Oeming, 1986, 57. They are theologically important for determining the relationship between canonical and noncanonical writings. “Zur Wirklichkeit der Bibel gehört auch ihr offener Rand, nicht nur in der Frage der äußeren Abgrenzung des Kanons, sondern auch in der Frage nach dem Gehalt der biblische Lehrung” (Haacker, 1977, 22). “Um es zugespitzt zu formulieren: Einen definitiven Abschluß des Kanonischen Prozesses und eine verbindliche Grenzziehung, die deutlich zwischen drinnen oder draußen unterscheide, hat es für die Christenheit als ganze nicht gegeben!” (Budde, 1997, 54). “...people must admit that the borderlines between what the ancient church called the NT (as book) and other writings from Christian antiquity is occasionally vague and uncertain” (Schillebeeckx, 1977, 61). This twilight zone helps provide a sharper view of the canonical texts (Bruce, 1988, 290; Welker, 1988). For a contrary opinion see “Der Anspruch des Kanons muß von den kanonisierten Schriften selbst her bestimmt werden, wenn er sich fundamentaltheologisch rechtfertigen lassen soll” (Söding, 2001, 13). This appears to us to beg the question, which was perhaps the reason why it was not included in the later official edition (Söding, 2003). — For the use of the history of religion see Barr, 1966, 97; Grässer, 1980, 217-218; Hasel, 1985², 137. “Die religionsgeschichtliche Fragestellung erweist sich an nicht wenigen Stellen des Alten Testaments als unumgänglich” (Schmidt W.H., 1986, 33-57, esp. 34). “Texte aus Nag Hammadi ... müssen ... ebenso ernst genommen werden wie alle anderen zeitgenössischen Quellen” (Räisänen, 1995, 257). “There are other contexts in which it is read and these are important as well: these include the community of faith and cultic setting in which a text was and is read, as well as the historical and socio-political situation or setting in which a text is composed ... equally important is the hermeneutical context in which a text is heard or read” (Sanders, 1992a, 843). 498 Brett, 1991, 72. On this point the proponents of the canonical movement are remiss. They say too little about the shape and operation of the communities of the time (Brett, 1991, 19). Barton, 1997, 14-31, also approaches the genesis of the canon incompletely when he relies mainly on the statistical use of the biblical writings. The context of the canon’s genesis is broader than that of temporarily occurring events within the faith community. 499 “...a history of canonizing in Judaism cannot confine itself to the history of one particular canon that survived” (Davies P.R., 1998, 38). This means that the still problematical relationship between OT and NT can be examined anew. The interrelationship of the collections of texts is also connected to the idea of the sequence of the writings. They cannot be viewed as canons in the strict sense. Terrien, 1985, 133, even referred to four similar collections/canons. When this happens, their similarities make us lose sight of their differences (Sheppard, 1982, 31; this happens to Breukelman when he reconciles Mt. 1-2 and the Tanach: Bauer U.F.W., 1991, 98; Houtman, 1980, 160-161; Koole, 1985, 9, shows the same tendency when he presents the NT and OT as entering the canon at the same time).

199

historical perspective, all variants and precursors of the final canon text are to be considered on the condition that their interrelationships are taken into account. B. The second aspect mentioned in the definition of the canon is that the canon is an event in which the tradents do no experience the transmission of the texts as something coming from outside that they undergo as a material process. On the contrary, they experience it consciously500 at least in part; gradually, through their actions it is oriented toward the operation of the canon as absolute dynamic norm of faith within their faith community. This has its repercussions on an evolving and varying canon concept501. An appropriate approach to this aspect requires a study of all factors that affect this deeply human event with transcendent. All canonical traditions without exception (thus not only specific theological but also more banal/profane elements502; here we must also take a possible decline in the traditions into account) must be seen as displayed in the text they have become and in the context in which they are embedded. This presumes respect for their rich diversity and the interconnection503 in which they have been placed, usually intentionally. 500

The transcendent surpasses this experience in the consciousness of the biblical tradents. “...to the extent that experiences lie outside the ‘cultural domain’ and beyond human personal or social control, the resultant values likewise originate outside the human consciousness. No person or society ‘plans’ what its values will be” (Herion, 1996, 248249). 501 The dynamic aspect, which Sanders, 1976a, Schmidt W.H., 1986, 39, Knight, 1982a, 173, Schillebeeckx, 1972b, 35-37, and others stress, is echoed in text criticism, which, in its turn, is an expression of the interpretation process that developed within the faith community where it takes place. “Peut-être le travail modeste des biblistes est-il en mesure de rappeler à la théologie dogmatique le lien du canon avec l’histoire et ainsi de l’orienter vers une notion du canon plus dynamique” (Jacob, 1975, 122). “Il faut plutôt comprendre la théologie essentiellement comme un processus historique de développement ... ainsi, quand les theologoumena particuliers peuvent être replacées dans l’histoire, ils acquièrent alors une importance qui dépasse de beaucoup la précision et la délimitation historiques: ils se classent fonctionnellement dans ce processus de développement” (Gese, 1982, 315-316). “Das denkbar intensivste Beispiel der Textrezeption durch eine Interpretationsgemeinschaft ist die Kanonisierung. Es ist gleichzeitig das ekklesiologisch alles entscheidende, besteht doch der sensus fidelium nach Lumen Gentium 12 ... wesentlich darin, im Wort der Heiligen Schrift das Evangelium zu vernehmen” (Söding, 2003, LIX). 502 “...there are limitations to the way in which the divine mystery is be found in her manners of biblical expression ... The biblical understanding of JHWH as a warrior God is a case in point ... Perhaps the only solution is to recognize it as a time-conditioned quality of the word, and not viable theologically” (Murphy, 1997, 273). 503 Interconnection here does not refer to everything in sum or summarised but arising from the same dynamic (Schmidt W.H., 1986, 53). “Forschungsfortschritte sind in Zukunft

200

C. Finally, but not least important, the definition of the canon spoke of the faith community’s contribution in the establishment of the canon. Its community character, its finality to regulate as ordering structure not only the internal but also the external relations of those involved finds explicit expression in present-day ecumenical contacts. A person’s sense of identity as believer emerges when he/she receives the canon from his/her own confession. That is the way it is now. And it was presumably504 largely the same in the early days of the confessions and their particular canons. The history of the canon’s reception and the history of its operation enter into the discussion more frequently in this regard but without having been studied with adequate objectivity from this community perspective. In sum, starting from the classical concept of canon we seek an opening to revise this customary canon concept and to enrich it via a more complete historical study.

5.2 Method It is logical that the hermeneutical positions adopted determine the method applied in the historical study505. The subject must make his choices in line with his views and interests with regard to the object. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the subject is completely free in this matter to take nothing else into account than his own preference. The choice of method – like everything else that has to do with the subject – is time-bound. A wellconsidered choice will be guided first of all by the object – here the weniger von einer bunten Vielzahl von oft phantasiereichen Hypothesen zu erwarten ... sondern eher von der Ausführlichkeit, Bedächtigkeit und methodischen Reflektiertheit der Verfahren mit denen Hypothesen begründet oder historisch-literaturgeschichtliche Zusammenhänge entdeckt und verifiziert werden. Ein Mehr an Vergewisserung und an Bemühen um umfassende Verifikation scheint uns, eine auf längere Sicht bessere Ökonomie der Forschung zu sein” (Hardmeier, 1990a, 21). 504 Käsemann’s well-known thesis that lays the division among the confessions at the canon’s door has correctly elicited numerous reservations. 505 “The statement of an interpretative goal logically precedes any question of method” (Barton J., 1984, 208). “Auch die dabei angewandten exegetischen Methoden sind entgegen einem verbreiteten Mißverständnis keineswegs nur technische Hilfsmittel der Auslegung, sie bewahren in sich vielmehr bestimmte Bedingungen und Voraussetzungen des Verstehens in geronnener Gestalt auf” (Barthel, 1997, 2). That is why the same method can produce differing results. Method that relied on a theological orientation consciously or unconsciously contained the inherent limitations that could be observed in dialectical theology (3.1.8) and in post-critical exegesis. In this regard, Hahn, 1972, 1, complained that in his day theology had too little control over the exegetical methods applied.

201

canonical text – which the subject finds so important in his study506. The results of the method applied must be evaluated in relation to this objective approach507. Every method is suitable insofar as it contributes in its own way to a deeper fathoming of the biblical text. The text proved to be so rich that it led even in the past to a growing number of supplementary methods. This evolution is continued in the newer methods derived from literary theory. They are justifiably linked to the canonical tendency in biblical theology that had long felt a need to critique the long trusted methods. It wanted to test more suitable methods for developing its canonical vision, and did so with some success. This showed that there is indeed still sufficient room to create new methods in biblical research, as is evident, especially now that the canon has come to the fore. The canon question is so comprehensive and complex that drawing on as many methods as possible, each according to its strengths, is not superfluous. None of them may be left out, and certainly not excluded, solely because they are imperfect or subject to particular laws508. This should be fully 506

“C’est le texte qui commande la méthode et non l’inverse” (Ska, 1992a, 53). “What good does it? (Barton J., 1984, 1). “They are neither good nor bad. Their value can be judged only in relation to the tasks they accomplish in the hands of the interpreters” (Hanson, 1984, 20). The choice of a method on the basis of an unconscious Vorverständnis or inherent understanding risks leading to a disruption of its operation (Davies P.R., 1995, 699-705). 508 “I think we must allow for canonization to be a very complex phenomenon, and try to adapt our imaginary model accordingly” (Tomson, 1998, 108). That is why it must be approached as a total entity, why it presupposes a broad interdisciplinary approach (Schröder-Field, 2003, esp. 196-205) and why fragmentation should be avoided at all cost. Respect for the specificity of each method does not mean a multiformity aimed at satisfying subjectivism (Fischer J., 1994, 487-539; Brett, 1991, 7), a simple juxtaposition of many methods as is customary in many classic introductions (Talstra, 2002, 109), but respect for the totality of the object. “Le vrai croyant ne sera pas l’homme d’une méthode, résigné à n’en connaitre qu’une, et prompt à la systématiser avec l’illusion de tout savoir; il sera l’humble chercheur de la vérité tout entière. Il aura le courage d’en inventer patiemment les moyens et les outils” (Laurentin, 1984, 184). Obviously historical criticism cannot be omitted from a historical study as the present one intends. Despite all objections, it appears to be the most suitable instrument in this area. “Die historisch-kritische Methode ist ein leistungsfähiger Instrument zur Erfassung der ursprünglichen Bedeutung(en), dem ein komplexen Geschehen des Verstehens eine unaufgebbare kritische Kontrollfunktion zukommt” (Oeming, 1998, 181). In theory, the methods are not usually seen as alternatives. In practice, however, reservations against one and preference for others prove to play a role (Zuurmond, 1984, 24). This is always rooted in the scholar’s theological-dogmatic attitude. There we also find the cause of the possible excommunication of certain methods. “Il est vain d’opposer méthode à méthode. La question est de savoir si une méthode rend justice au texte et si elle est logique dans l’application de ses principes” (Ska, 1992a, 48). This 507

202

recognised, not only for the classic methods but also for those of literary theory509. This does nothing to detract from their indispensable contribution to the study’s scholarship and verifiability510. The methods must be permanently subjected to critical revision to restrict and overcome the methods’ constraints. This also applies to sociology that applies to the canon because of its marked community character. During the canon’s genesis, criteria evolved for tracing canonicity throughout the process of the canon’s genesis such as canon intention versus canon structures511 and fixation versus a continuous need for modification. They can be identified in the historical area of tension between the individuals and groups that

imperfection also applies to the hypothetical (Ladd, 1971, 57) character of classical biblical criticism. “In short ‘we must regard all laws or theories as hypothetical or conjectural’. Science is not rendered invalid by its ‘time conditioned quality’ nor by its lack of absolute certainty ... we can and should distinguish between better and worse hypotheses ... but we cannot dispose of all such hypotheses simply because they are hypotheses” (Brett, 1991, 15). Nor does the analytical character (Zumstein, 1994, 57-58; Stuhlmacher, 1979b, 65; Barr, 1983, 114) pose insurmountable obstacles. It even has the advantage of returning to the text and thus promoting objectivity. “...a diachronic aspect is needed in order to avoid a simplistic presentation of data; otherwise a theological construal ... tends to become speculative and abstract, if not downright wrong” (Murphy, 1997, 269). Modern biblical criticism need not lead to atomisation and thus to a split in the unity of the canonical writings (3.1.3). It can even lead to the detection of what it is that binds the biblical traditions together (3.1.11.; 3.3.3.4.; Schmid, 1977, 75). The laws to which the methods are subject can include the underlying dogmatic impulses discovered in various places. “One dogma for another” (Ladd, 1971, 57). “Des canons esthétiques universels” (Ska, 1992a, 50). 509 They too can appear analytical. “Une sorte d’anthologie de morceaux” (Ska, 1992a, 49). Further, literary theory is threatened by an a-theological approach (Barr, 1995b, 11-12; Ska, 1992a, 33; Fokkelman is criticised for this: Houtman, 1980, 162). It is accused of alienating biblical texts from modern readers. “Do they (the literary critics, L.Z.) want to cordon off the biblical texts from ‘inexpert’ outsiders by creating a contest of expertise?” wonders Maarten ‘t Hart, cited in Van Wolde, 1990, 333. “The canonical approach threatens to become more sophisticated and more unintelligible to the simple average person than old historical criticism was” (Brett, 1991, 141). Finally, literary theory is not free from subjectivism (Houtman, 1980, 157; Campbell, 1991, 4) in establishing its literary canons. 510 “Labuschagne, cited in Vervenne, 1992a, 70 noted that many a straight shot has been made thorough a crooked barrel. 511 Sanders, 1976a. This is in addition to the need to follow the evolving canon intention (this can be linked to autopisty: Carter, 1996, 12) based on the canon intentions (Carter, 1996, 14). The conflict structure model (Carter, 1996, 9-10, 18-19) seems suitable for this, with reservations. This fits in with Blenkinsopp’s excellent study (1977), although it is limited mainly to the relation of the Torah to the Nebiim.

203

influenced the same faith community512. Yet the application of sociological achievements to the field of the biblical canon does not always run smoothly513 and thus must be utilised with a degree of caution. The careful interdisciplinary inclusion of sociological findings in current and longapplied methods of biblical research is called for here as is a stringently applied methodology. But despite all these good intentions, actions speak louder than words514.

5.3.1 A Global Approach When, instead of one, a whole range of methods must be deployed to study the complexity of the canon as object of historical research, the danger of uncontrolled proliferation arises: the study risks sinking to an obscure landscape515. It should be recalled that it was partly due to an aversion to the rambling paths of disintegrating classical biblical criticism, the centrifugal tendency of modern theology and the more alienating scholarly world view516 that proponents of canonical criticism began to cultivate the 512

Carter, 1996, 15-16. It concerns the “social forces underlying the production of that literature”, according to P.R. Davies (Carter, 1996, 4). Hence J. Assmann’s theory that “Schismatische Polarisierungen des kulturinternen Typs sind es die einen Kanon formen” (Budde, 1997, 53). 513 First there is the late transferral to biblical studies of outdated sociological findings (Carter, 1996, 24-25). Then there is the classic subjectivist temptation to retroject modern situations into biblical times (Carter, 1996, 26). 514 Carter, 1996, 26-27; Oeming, 1998, 177; Flanagan, 1995. “Eine wirkliche Studienreform ... mußte hier für ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen den Text orientierten und den sozialwissenschaftlich orientierten Disziplinen sorgen” (Körtner, 1977, 179). “The most effective way to avoid overly reductionistic or deterministic analyses ... is to adopt a methodology that is rigorous and self-critical” (Carter, 1996, 28). “The best explanation and defence of a given method (or of a methodological position) is not a theoretical defence but a demonstration in the practice of exegesis” (Oost, 1986, 9). “Practice without theory is blind, theory without practice is empty” (Brett, 1991, 27). Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 2000, explains the continuing problem of the sticking points with particular reference to the application of sociology to the OT. 515 All things considered, the method applied here will combine different alternatives as was foreseen by P.D. Miller, Jr. when he wrote, “Any attempt to recreate or describe Israel’s religion will organize that history in some way. But will that organization seek to clarify and set forth an essential structure or portray Israel’s religion in terms of various stages, or will it set forth with little overt schematization a complex phenomenon that resists organization if one is to portray it faithfully?” (P.D. Miller, Jr., 1985, 214). 516 Oeming, 1986, 52; Stuhlmacher, 1979c, 50-51, 53; Westermann, 1986, 29. “Damit intendiert die Biblische Theologie ... eine Überwindung der gegenseitigen Isolierung theologischer Fächer” (Bohren, 1986, 165). “This professionalisation has led to a growth of

204

holistic notion of the canon as basis for a holistic theology. Since in principle a historical study of the canon does not intend to thwart the legitimate theological pursuits, but rather to offer them the greatest possible historical-scholarly support, the present study seeks to do all it can to meet the need for clear organisation and lucidity. It seeks to reach this by putting the global approach first and in this sense being holistically canonical517. With this intention, it will strive from the start518 and throughout to give precedence to a systematic screening of the canon phenomenon, however complex this may be at each stage of its genesis. Nevertheless, this does not mean that it, as historical study, will relinquish its analytical character. Globalising presupposes not a less accurate but rather a more accurate survey of the detailed studies. Therefore, if the present canon study wishes to be authentic, it must study as many facets of

new disciplines – a growth with at the same time entailed a fragmentation of theology into diverse disciplines” (Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 356). “The interdisciplinary areas have become the most important areas of scholarship” (Wildiers, 1985, 71). “L’éclatement de la spécialisation est la faiblesse de notre culture et de nos sciences modernes. Il appelle des voies nouvelles. C’est tout le problème de l’interdisciplinaire, c’est-à-dire de la communication effective et fructueuse entre les sciences. On en parle beaucoup. On le réalise rarement” (Laurentin, 1984, 183). “Von einer breiter entwickelten interdisziplinären Kanondebatte kann freilich noch kaum die Rede sein, es gibt sie erst ansatzweise” (Seckler, 2000, 31). “The increased complexity of modern society has led to alienation insofar as this complexity overtakes individual’s power to integrate their lives” (Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 355). This alienation is the symptom of the Enlightenment. This view of culture as selfexpression is connected with on the observation that an item of cultural heritage will take on its own life, withdrawn from the subject it which it is the original expression (Dupré, 2004, 13). 517 The proposed definition of the canon (Ch. 2) was an initial attempt to stimulate a clear and lucid use of the term canon. The holistic notion is consistent with the concept and function of the canon. It is made to its measure, as it were (Paulsen, 1991, 61). “C’est dans sa totalité qu’il faut l’envisager (le canon, L.Z.)” (Jacob, 1975, 121). To see at least the essence of the canon, at least the totality of its genesis must be regarded. Hence that the biblical texts in the traditions that they articulate will be studied holistically, i.e. as they are interrelated and not as individual and independent, when regarding their contribution to the canon’s genesis. Apart from that, not all biblical texts are of use for tracing signs of the canonical (Söding, 2001, 14 n. 56). 518 Scholars such as Von Harnack and F.C. Bauer have discovered that this broad vision must be adopted from the start if it wishes to produce the desired effect (Meijering, 1991, 48-51). This vision should remain open to correction at all times. It may not entail any underestimation or neglect of details (Childs, 1984, 15; Epzstein, 1983, 13-15), even when it preferred to show them in the matrix of their interrelationships.

205

the canon’s historical shape as it can in all its wealth of gradations and diversity, and this without neglecting519 the attendant criticism. An undertaking of this magnitude is a challenge that may not be underestimated. It is even impossible. Yet there is the hope that all possible can be done to approximate this unattainable but still aspired objective by gathering all the available but scattered detailed studies on the canon and attuning them to one another more than is now the case, by correlating520 them under three main themes touched upon in the definition of the canon. Here we will take a closer look at these main theses because of the special role that they play in the process of the canon’s genesis. All things considered, they serve as three supports underpinning the canon phenomenon to its furthest extents and at al times, albeit in accordance with each stage of its development. The adapted method described above was foreseen with a view to investigating the complicated construction that marks the canon process. But before it can be applied to this immense and complex construction, it would seem useful to step back for a moment to look at the whole of the structure and the supports on which it rests521. 519

“Unless serious attention is given to details, all theories about the whole can only be castles in the air” (a statement attributed to W. von Humboldt, cited in Hurvitz, 1977, 301). “Kritik des Kanons als die Summe aller geschichtlichen Kritik” (Paulsen, 1991, 61). 520 Smend, 1978, 11-12. “Even if in practice none of us is capable of the necessary tour de force, we are all under an obligation to speak in terms of the global, of ‘historical totalisation’, to reaffirm that total history (is) the only true history, or as Michelet long ago put it, ‘everything stands and falls together, everything is connected”, Proudel, cited in Whitelam, 1995, 161. The limited bilateral contact of many detailed studies is even striking from their titles: Sanders, 1972; idem, 1984a; Blenkinsopp, 1977; Rendtorff, R., 1991. And these are studies written from a broad vision of the canon. Most others expound a more unilateral vision (Carr, 1996, 24-26). The lack of a broad and balanced study of the canon covering the whole process of the canon’s genesis up to its conclusion is symptomatic (Carr, 1996, 22 n. 2; Budde, 1997, 41-42). — If at first sight the procedure of assembling already existing studies may seem to lack creativity, one might compare it by analogy to the canon and claim that their combination is more than their sum and something new does indeed arise from their consideration. An attempt is made to do this in the notes, which, for that reason can sometimes become lengthy. Alerting readers to some of the themes (see index) in these detailed studies is considered an important part of this study. 521 Today it is no longer disputed that the canon’s genesis was a lengthy process. At issue is what this process signified. “Das Konzept einer Gedächtnisgeschichte zeigt, wo der wissenschaftliche Weg verlaufen kann, auf dem nicht nur besser zu erkennen ist, daß ein Zusammenhang zwischen der Entstehung und der Rezeption eines Textes besteht sondern worin er im Falle des biblischen Kanons besteht” (Söding, 2003, LX). That is why it is preferable to explore the canon’s main themes before becoming submerged in the complexity of its genesis.

206

At first glance, the most striking support on which the canon process rests appears to be its external shape in forms such as structures, institutions, traditions and texts that, being fixed, sometimes even in an extra-biblical context, finally result in the single entity canon. As such it long drew most of the faith community’s attention. The second support, the inspiration behind this exterior shape522, is less striking and only indirectly observable in the canon process. It explains why this important factor in the canon’s genesis has only recently drawn attention. Studies on this usually become stranded in the nearly impenetrable areas of the canon’s origin and sources. Finally, the third support was regularly considered in earlier canon research but remained contested and above all insufficiently discussed in canonical criticism. This is the role of the faith community in the canon’s genesis. As the author hopes to demonstrate, this faith community is indispensable for determining the connection between the two abovementioned supports, i.e. the external shape and the intentions that inspire it. It is, after all, the faith community that provides the framework for the canon process and the fabric that is indispensable for the dynamic of its development. It is hoped that sociology can extend a helping hand in investigating the role of the faith community in the canon process. These three supports together undergird the canon as entity and its historical development. But this does not mean that they distribute among themselves the material they influence according to their respective carrying capacity and thus attract interest separately. Amid the complicated canon event they operate harmoniously as dominant recurring themes that run through the whole and as such cannot remain unnoticed. It will suffice to refer briefly where necessary to their supporting role in the growth process. The recurring and yet varying phenomenon that they displayed will have to demonstrate the extent of their capacity. In this way, a convincing image of the canon phenomenon as entity comes into view as having sprung from the interplay of three main factors523. They dominate 522

“...some sort of ‘dogmatic theory’ was present in the whole history of the formation of the Old Testament literature, and not just in the period when the limits of the canon were being debated. The exposition of the theological concerns underlying the formation of the Old Testament literature would amount to the exposition of the origin of the canonicity of that literature” (Leonard, 1972, 37). 523 It was the great achievement of scholars such as Wellhausen, Noth and Weber – each in their specific area of scholarship – that they were so successful in giving a place in one single entity to the many details that impeded a global vision (Houtman, 1980, 76; Vermeylen, 1989b, 149-197, esp. 157; Talmon, 1985, 233-280, esp. 233-234; idem, 1987,

207

the whole of the canon process in conjunction with the innumerable smaller factors that they comprise.

5.3.2 First Steps There now remains only to choose the period in the genesis with which the present study of the canon will commence. The choice for the oldest period, which extends from the start to around the rule of Cyrus and the Persian Empire, is not really obvious. The history of canon research teaches that studies had long started predominantly if not exclusively from the perspective of the final phase of the canonisation period. Nearly all attention went to the completion of the canon lists on which the faith communities focussed during the initial stage of their, thenceforth, autonomous existence, in which the process of the canon’s genesis received considerably less attention and that only of late. The recent crisis in OT scholarship, which focussed primarily on the rise of Israel and the whole pre-exilic period524, produced a rather general trend to turn away from the older periods and concentrate on the later stages. This has led to a continuation of the tradition to approach the question of the cannon from its final stage, this time more expressly with the final text as starting point. There are many arguments in favour of this, certainly under the present circumstances. That is why this approach is not rejected when planning the method and why it will be applied where necessary525. The importance of 587-616, esp. 587). In the NT field, Bultmann can be considered the most successful in approximating a synthesis between the approach from the perspective of the history of religion and that of theology (Räisänen, 1995, 253). In Habermas’ view, the inability today, under pressure from the notions of freedom and pluralism (Houtman, 1980, 151-152), to include the many values in a single whole is the cause of alienation and impoverishment (Schüssler-Fiorenza, 1990, 355). “In the scientific study of the OT there is increasing evidence of a growing diversity whose results are both interesting and frustrating” (Vervenne, 1988, 7). 524 “Fragt man weiter zurück, steht man – jedenfalls als Neutestamentler – in der Gefahr, sich im Dickicht der einleitungswissenschaftlichen Diskussionen zu verfangen” (Söding, 2001, 16). 525 3.3.3.1.; Kraus H.J., 1982³, 535-536; Smend, 1978, 11; Schmitt, 1982, 170-189, esp. 171-173; Freedman, 1975, 171-207, esp. 75. Taking into account the later stages in the canon process is in no way equal to uncritical acceptance of the way in which canonical criticism is in the habit of approaching the final text. This was distinguished only with difficulty from other approaches to the final text (Conroy, 1990, 261-262). We reject Klinghardt’s (2003) view that the canon process can be reduced to the very last stage or edition of the biblical traditions.

208

the final text may not be underestimated when studying the canon. This was brought up in the past526 under pressure from the call to determine the original meaning of the biblical text. If this was wrong, it is equally unwise to fall into the opposite extreme and totally ignore the canon process527, particularly the early days of the biblical traditions only because it is not stylish today. As is know, scholars today appeal to the fact that many older hypotheses on Ancient Israel have been questioned and there is still insufficient material available to establish certainty. This lacuna is the first reason why we choose to begin our historical study with the initial period of the later canonical traditions: however difficult it may be to examine it historically528; the chosen global approach cannot simply ignore a whole period, especially the period in which the canon process first started, e.g. that of the sources. Like the sources of the Nile, they are more difficult to find the closer we get to them529. However, it is more than just worth the effort to track them down, because from them spring the secret of the inexhaustibly moving spirit that proceeds from the canonical traditions530 and makes them sources of life for so many today. Moreover – and this is the second reason to start with the origin – in doing so we follow the

526

“Das archaisierend Authenticmodell stiftet dazu an, den kanonischen Endtext zu unterlaufen in Richtung auf das ‘Ursprünglichere’ und darum (!) ‘Echtere’” (Seckler, 2000, 48). “Biblical studies never foreswore its confessionalist penchant of origins” (Halpern, 1988, 21). “Wie der Forschungsüberblick gezeigt hat, verband sich darüber hinaus mit der Frage nach dem Ursprünglichen die nach dem Normativen” (Schart, 1998, 26). 527 “Die Endgestalt hat zowar im Sinne der Kommunität, die sie festlegt, definitive Verbindlichkeit (weshalb im Gottesdienst immer der End-Text verkündet wird), will aber theologisch als Endgestalt einer längeren Entwicklung erklärt werden” (Söding, 2003, LXXXVIII). “Denn die Enggestalt einer Textkomposition ... ist kein zeitloses Gebilde, sondern das Ergebnis eines ... historisch beschreibbaren Prozesses ... Sie ist zuwar der letzte, nicht aber der einige Kontext” (Barthel, 1997, 16). 528 Thinking especially of the oldest period in the historical study of the OT, Kunen noted that, “Die Wißbegierde der Menschen läßt sich keine Grenzen setzen, und es wäre sogar nicht ausgeschlossen, daß sie mehr Interesse für Zeiten hatte, aus denen wenige Dokumente auf uns gekommen sind, als für diejenigen, durch deren Überbleibsel wir uns kaum einen Weg bahnen können” (Kraus H.J., 1982³, 252). 529 Because of its complexity, the process of the canon’s genesis alone much matter for discussion. How much more is this as we climb to the first stages? 530 “Torah and canon is a quest for the essence of the power of life the Bible demonstrably has. That power is evident not only in the Bible’s remarkable survival for over 2.500 years, but in his function as the vehicle of survival to those communities whose identities and lifestyles issue from their adherence to it” (Sanders, 1972, 10).

209

natural flow531 canonical process downward in time. While in the past studying the canonical process from the perspective of its end point all too often produced anachronistic retrojections532, following the canonical process from the source to the estuary promises a more appropriate treatment. This is logical when we think that simply following the canonical current can provide insight into why the high tide of authoritative traditions chose the canonical direction and why there are so many twists and turns in its channel533. Being able to start with the canon’s sources is also determinative for assessing the dynamic of its genesis and of the meaningfulness of its estuary: a turbulent event but still, via divisions, the start of many new currents. This last is also, perhaps, the most convincing argument to start at the present time with this restless area of the canon’s genesis534. That, too, is a lesson from the history of 531

The vision of the average Bible reader is still a-historical, and even goes against the historical current, and in that sense is unnatural. “Bis heute ist die Auffassung des Bibellesers von wichtigen Entwicklungen der äußeren und geistigen Geschichte Israels stärker durch die Überarbeitung geprägt als durch die originalen Traditionen und Berichte der älteren ursprünglichen Quellen” (Auerbach, 1953, 1). This also applies generally to current research. “‘Canon’ is almost always a retrospective category, not a prospective or primary one ...” (Smith J.Z., 1998, 298). 532 Katz, 1956, 191-217, esp. 202; Koole, 1983, 223; Veltri, 1990, 212-214; Sheppard, 1982, 33; Childs, 1984, 20-21. This retrojection of the final canon onto its origin and development is part of the assumptions found in Zahn and Von Harnack (Barton, 1997, 18). One of the reasons why Käsemann’s assertion that the canon is the cause of division among the confessions (3.1.9.), later adopted by his student Lönning, 1972, 224, is criticised is because it is a retrojection of present-day church situations to the early days of western Christianity (Platvoet, 1998, 94-97). Similarly, even before Käsemann, sound historical studies on the genesis of the canon in Christian antiquity written at the end of the 19th century are marked by bias toward the authors’ own church community (Söding, 2001, 5-7; Brett, 2000, 69). 533 Barr, 1983, 1-22. “Die Klarung der Genese und Funktion des Kanons muß diesen Fragen (Struktur, Zusammensetzung, L.Z.) vorausgehen” (Talmon, 1987, 50). “Wenn man aber zu Recht von einem ‘kanonischen Prozeß’ sprechen kann, ist von herausragender Bedeutung, in Erfahrung zu bringen, wo er seinen Ausgang genommen und wodurch er zu Anfang seine Richtung gefunden hat. Dann aber wird der Blick auf die biblischen Schriften gelenkt ...” (Söding, 1995, 162). “...a grasp of the beginning point should allow one to perceive and understand the on going history with greater clarity as well as simply claiming a larger perception of the history of Israel’s religion than one will find if all the material is late and reflects only its own time” (P.D. Miller, Jr., 1985, 213). 534 “… nicht der Weg nach ‘rückwärts’, sondern vielmehr der Weg ‘nach vorn’ nicht nur den faktischen Werdegang der Schrift am besten zu erklären vermag, sondern auch noch dem Verständnis des Kanons am förderlichsten sein wird. Denn der Weg ‘nach vorn’ ist sowohl ein Weg der Rezeption der weit verschiedenen Überlieferungselemente, der tradita, wie auch eine sich ständig bewegende traditio schöpferischer Interpretation des

210

historical canon research: never ever will the fragmented confessions be able to understand and appreciate one another when their identity and their existence are not grounded on the common tradition from which they all arose but from which they each went its own separate way535. If the confusion into which they have fallen is ever to be overcome, they must once again travel up along the biblical current536 to the point where the common source of their canonicity springs. Only upon reaching that point where all believers recognise one another in their biblical origin and where a regrouping can take place and a more united insight grow, will there be a chance that greater understanding and appreciation will be showed to the particular post-biblical tradition that each has developed. It is hoped that in uncovering the origin of the common canon the study about to be undertaken will help to construct the foundation of an ecumenical house Überkommenen. Die durch die vermittelnde und deutende traditio gebildeten tradita haben den Kanon vorbereitet und ermöglicht” (Sæbø, 2001, 50). 535 “All sorts of differences in doctrine can exist between various churches and currents in Christianity, but all acknowledge the Bible as the source and final norm of the tradition of faith, even if the relation between the source and the rest of the heritage of traditions is conceived in a great variety of ways. It is difficult to overestimate this function of the canon. It provides a common orientation to a nucleus of ancient writings upon which individuals can call” (Van de Beek, 1998, 331-332). Yet the return to the ‘common’ ground may not imply a return to a ‘neutral’ ground and the disavowal of the Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Scriptures that have grown over time (Lieu, 1995, 319-322). 536 “Die Frage ist also, ob neben der Rezeption der unterschiedlichen Kanon-Gestalt im 16. Jhdt. und danach, neben den Vorgängen der frühchristlichen Rezeption nicht auch der geschichtliche Hinblick auf den Ursprung dieser Kanon-Gestalt im Bereich des Antiken Judentums Aspekte bietet, die heute klärend wirken können. Also im Falle des Hebräischen Alten Testaments: wie ist es zu dieser geschlossenen Schriftensammlung gekommen, welche geschichtlichen Bewegungen und Anwege gelangen darin zu Abschluß und Ende, welche Urteile, sachlichen Motive liegen diesem Vorgang zugrunde, welche anderen Entwicklungen wurden damit bewußt abgewiesen, welche aktuellen Erfahrungen, welche theologischen Trägergruppen, welche theologischen Konzepte finden in diesem Vorgang ihren Niederschlag?” (Steck, 1992, 11-12). In applying this idea, Steck lapses into a too late stage of the canon’s genesis as in his study on the closure of the prophetic codex. Despite his option to follow the process in its natural historical course – a choice that is exceptional in customary research – he remains caught in a too exclusive approach based on the final text when he focuses on the final stage of prophecy so that the historical dimension is hardly discussed, since it receives little attention in comparison with the analysis of the text. In this way it becomes impossible to follow faithfully the natural course of the historical genesis and it is not surprising that he decides from the start that “Leider wissen wir wenig sicheres” (ibid). Conversely, the idea of developing stories based on “implizite Axiome” or “Strukturen hinter Texten” preceding the canon can prove useful. They can explain its genesis as process and make it ecumenically acceptable (Ritschl, 1994, and idem, 1993).

211

built on the so needed common ground537 conducive to forging a common future.

537

Sanders, 2001, 14-16.

212

PART II The History of the Formation of the Biblical Canon Chapter 6

The Canon Process around 560-521 BCE

6.1 Starting Point This study takes as starting point the single narrative as many acknowledge it, albeit with different arguments,538 in the written text extending from Genesis through 2 Kings. When this single narrative was compiled, old 538

Those holding a similar view are: Houtman, 1980, 243-258; Van Der Woude, 1986a, 1128, esp. 4-24; Ben Zvi, 1998. This starting point was chosen not only because it can be justified historically and exegetically, but also because it gave an immediate perspective on the canon’s genesis. The single narrative running from Gen. to 2 Kgs, as revised by Dtr (Lohfink 1992, 35-64, esp. 25, 43-51), is approached synchronically in the written shape that it had at the time. This starting point is only tentative and does not exclude a later diachronic treatment that would include unwritten elements in the canon process. “The notion that the formation of the canon in religious history is intrinsically bound to the development of writing and thus would only occur in a society that could write and in the religions of the book must be revised” (Platvoet, 1998, 100). “With texts, we have to consider both the accidental slippage and the deliberate distortion that come when people put social life down on paper ... often a text is revealing for what it does not say as for what it does say” (Scott Green, 1994, 307). Another view: “In a purely oral culture, canon is unnecessary” (Aichele, 201, 38). The choice of exegetes like Davies, P.R., 1998, to take only the written form into account when treating the process of the canon’s genesis is hermeneutically moot: it is to determine the canon’s genesis from the perspective of its final state, the product of the process. Another view: “...the social success of a canon may also (partly) be explained on a level that is much more down to earth, the level of social control” (ter Borg, 1998a, 411). — Houtman, 1980 2, 51 n. 18, contrasts a whole series of authors that think along the same lines, but often based on mutually different arguments, with another series having a different view. The following can be added to the first series: Smend, 1982, 61, the authors cited in De Pury-Römer, 1989, 67, n. 315, 330, De Moor, 1994, 183-196, esp. 183 n. 1 and Braulik, 2004. Smelik 1992b, 236-246, esp. 241 also seems to like the idea (Houtman, 1980, 29 n. 138).

213

material, previously used either autonomously or as part of small or large collections539, was combined with new material. Little attention is given to the documents of the classic documentary hypothesis well known since Wellhausen’s day. They should be thought of mainly as currents that contributed540 in oral and written form to the long and gradual genesis, 539

Houtman, 1980, 243-248, thinks mainly of the three, distinct, chief components Gen., Ex.–Num. and Dt. in the broadest sense, i.e. including the Dtr historiographers, so that the unresolved Tetrateuch-Hexateuch debate (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 73; Minette de Tillesse, 1999; Kratz, 2000b; Achenback, 2005) is transcended. This offers an opportunity to consider the hermeneutical positions (Ch. 4-5) on which exegetes develop their often complicated technical analyses as well as a further follow-up of studies on the subject (in Zaman, 1984, the present author had this opportunity earlier). “...daß die Exegese mit ihren Fragen eingebunden ist in das Bündel philosophischer und theologischer Fragestellungen, die sie allein mit ihren Methoden nicht lösen kann ... Bibelkritiker sind nicht immer unvoreingenommen und geben manchmal Analysen, die zwar ihre sympathischen Ansichten unterstützen, aber der komplizierten Situation nicht gerecht werden” (Untergassmair, 1996, 139-143, esp. 142). The exegetes’ ideology must be determined if their hermeneutical motives are to be revealed: ideology can often be equated with theology, Clines, 1995, 13; Garbini, 1988, XIII-XVI; Herion, 1996, 254, complains of ‘ideological historiography’. Another view: Chapman, 2000, 283, n. 77, who can only accept the notion of witness and not ideology in the context of the biblical writings, unless the latter is given second-class treatment; ideology is, in fact, used too chaotically in research to provide an accurate description. The term is usually used with a negative connotation as opposite of theology (Barr, 2000, 102-140) often amid complicated technical arguments (“...we are accustomed to impressive displays of detailed argumentation and remarkable claims to a high degree of precision in its results” [Conroy, 1990, 255-268, esp. 262]). It fosters the choice of position that could prove weaker than those adopted by opponents. “Ideology is about ideas - who has them, whose voice is privileged and why, what their agendas are, and the influence of these ideas in lived experience ... Ideological critical studies of biblical texts claim that biblical exegesis is no longer a neutral act; there are always class interests and power relations at stake” (Pippin, 1996, 51-78, esp. 53-54). The general hermeneutical motives (Ch. 5) behind, and the starting point of, the present study have already been presented. 540 The idea to present the classic sources as currents is taken from Houtman, 1980, 106107, who follows De Vaux, 1971. Authors with a similar view include: Perlitt, 1988, 65-88, esp. 86, Lohfink, 1987b, 459-475, esp. 459, and Steck, 1967, 445-458, and idem, 1982, 193-224. With some adjustment, the term school (Preuss, 1982, 20) and M.S. Smith’s idea of ‘party’ (1971) can be included here. Lohfink, 1995c, 65-142, esp. 65-76, 88-90. “The siglum P, therefore, like D, ... stands for the literary production of a ‘school’, a class of learned individuals sharing the same ideology and active over several generations ...” (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 185). Even the term movement can be applied here on the condition that we keep in mind that the D current only became sufficiently structured at its apex to be considered a movement (Lohfink, 1995c). Approaching it as current offers the advantage of being able to distinguish histoire de la longue durée from histoire événementielle (Uehlinger, 1995, 61-62) and to explain histoire conjoncturelle (Davies P.R., 1991, 11-19,

214 esp. 12-13; Lemche, 1996b, esp. 20-22). Van Der Woude, 1986a, 20, 22, stresses the simultaneity of these currents. — Dtr does not conceal the partially oral sources–currents (García López, 1985, 277-297, esp. 290-291). Scandinavian scholars, especially, are convinced that ancient Israel and the D current made greater use of oral traditions than written traditions (Leonard, 1972, 102-108; Barr, 1983, 5). The certainty of the oral tradition, especially in Israel’s first days, may not lead to the exclusion of possible early documents, in however limited a form (Houtman, 1980, 139; Koole, 1983, 208-210). Contrary to logocentrism (which stresses the material text form; Parker, 1996, 94; Aichele, 2001, 28-31), this could lead to scriptocentrism (here, treating the late text culture as an absolute). That would be to forget that “a text is never same as reality” (Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 154). “The criticism that texts, which reveal human values, are ignored seems to presuppose that it is only written texts which reveal these values. But what of other forms fashioned by human hand …? Do these not also reveal human values, directly or indirectly?” (Whitelam, 1995, 158). Smelik 1987, 9-22, esp. 15 n. 14, Van Seters, 1992, 3842 and Jackson, 2000b, 62. correctly point out the late entry of writing in Israel. They invoke the few finds of written documents. The oldest papyrus found thus far dates from the 8th century BCE. But it may not be too quickly assumed from this absence of written sources today that they did not exist then. “Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence” (Knoppers, 1997, 30; Zevit, 2002, 23; Carroll, 2001 esp. 156, correctly criticised the application of this principle). “In any case, nothing much relevant to the issue of literacy can be concluded from the scraps of writing that have survived from the period of the Israelite and Judean monarchies” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 77). This certainly applies to the purported archaeological silence (Knauf, 1991, 41), which refers to the archaeology’s inability to answer all historical questions. The lack of written documents is presumably due more to the short lifespan of papyrus than to the inability to write in that period. And this oldest known papyrus alludes to ‘learning laws’ (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 21). This gives the impression that that the limited written culture of the time was attendant on a more developed reading, learning and economic culture (Lang, 1979, 191; Niditch, 1996, 4, 58). They may not be equated and their functions should be kept separate (Barthel, 1997, 27, 456-459). They work on different levels. That is evident from the fact that the written vestiges of economic activity predate those of more extensive historiography and far exceed them in number (Smelik, 1984a, 54-64). The reasoning that the historiography of Israel, which is usually situated in a later period, automatically presupposes a higher mental development than the preceding economic culture (Guest, 1998, 95) is an unproven postulate. “Writing came into a world that was already full of (oral) literature” (Davies P.R., 2002, 43). Under these circumstances, it is possible to defend the idea that the existence and contemporary use (retrojecting modern reading culture into biblical times is anachronistic and thus wrong) of written sources even in the early monarchic period should not be excluded (Schmitt, 1982, 173 n. 8). — One factor that must be taken into account is the public nature of a document in a rudimentary writing culture such as Israel had at that time. The command of writing at the time was limited. In pre-exilic Israel this can coincide with the presence of presumably only a few schools attended by scribes (Lemaire, 1981; idem, 1992; Haran, 1988; Lipinski, 1988; Puech, 1988; Jamieson-Drake, 1991a; Perdue, 2002, 6582). Contrary to this, it would appear that even at an early date the reading of scripture extended to broad segments of the population, as the discovery of many written traces in the economic and practical sphere demonstrate. R. Finnigan noted in this regard that, “Once writing is available in a culture, it inevitably finds its way into everyone’s life, even the lives

215

without it being possible to date them separately. In all likelihood, the ultimate compilation of the single narrative may be mainly ascribed to the Dtr tendency541. It was completed in several stages as a result of the pardon of the illiterate” (Niditch, 1996, 44). The population’s literacy is thus not congruent with the number of written documents discovered. This number increases as the end of the monarchy approaches. But this cannot be used as an exact standard for measuring literacy and the ability to write. After all, the restrictions imposed on preservation, did not decrease automatically as writings were incorporated in a collection. “Die Integration einzelner Schriften in eine Sammlung bedurfte ein höhter Aufmerksamkeit beim Konservieren. Sie setzte noch größeres Können und anhaltendes Training voraus, was nicht allgemein zu finden war, erst recht nicht in der normalen jüdischen oder kirchlichen Ortsgemeinde. Der Wille, Texte zu sammeln und zu edieren, konzentrierte sich natürlicherweise auf wenige Personen und wenige Orte” (Georgi, 1993, 65-66). The rising production of written documents continued to depend on the dominant oral culture to which it remained oriented (Niditch, 1996, 108-130). It is thus hazardous to draw conclusions from the scarcity of discovered written documents and argue ex silentio (Lohfink, 1995c, 91-94, esp. n. 85) about the real presence of documents of this type in ancient Israel. This argument against can also be turned around into an argument in favour (Mulder, 1987, 23-27, esp. 26). Under these circumstances it is understandable that exegetes – from a minimalist perspective (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 31) – today take seriously the possible existence and use in ancient Israel of written documents that could date from long before the single narrative Gen.–2 Kgs posited in this study. — Even though oral tradition usually precedes written, the sequence is far from absolute (Zaman, 1984-5, 156-157). Oral end is correctly distinguished from literate end in their relative continuum and attendant interplay (Niditch, 1996, 78-107). There could also have been intermediary forms (Campbell, 1989, 77-85; Barrera, 1993, 113). In weighing the relations of oral to written word, neither seems able to demand absolute priority in the canon process (Parker, K.I., 1996, 91-103 esp. 95). That is why emphasising the gap (according to Schart, 1998, 22) between the two is not suitable for elucidating the interactive role that unites the two (Jackson, 2000b, esp. 41, 55-92). — This assessment of the single narrative as product of the diverse oral and written currents that have affected one another simultaneously is a choice for a solution consisting of a revised version of the documentary hypothesis mixed with fragment, addition and crystallisation hypotheses (Houtman, 1980, 243) as presented in Zaman, 1984-5, 146 and the position adopted there is section 5.2. See also: Van der Woude, 1986a, 23, and Schmitt, 1985; 178. 541 In 6.5 reservations will be made regarding an exclusive composition by Dtr of the whole Gen.–2 Kgs. Each reference to the Dtr as compilers of the single narrative Gen.–2 Kgs must be tempered in this sense. Furthermore, given its tendency to expand (‘pan-deuteronomism’ Schaering-McKenzie, 1999; Vermeylen, 2003, 216 n. 10; Wilson R.R., 1999, 69-71; Coggins, 1999. According to Uehlinger, 1995, 61 this pan-deuteronomism has resulted in a sub-deuteronomistic interpretation of history mainly as a consequence of the limited nature of literary research), the description Dtr must be restricted to texts with literary dependence on Dt. as whole and on the alleged Dtr canon (Lohfink, 1995c, 70-88), originally based on what has long been recognised as the Dtr paraenetic (Houtman, 1980, 166). “Tous les chercheurs insistent aujourd’hui sur l’impacte d’une rédaction ‘dtr’ pour la compréhension du Pentateuque” (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 67; Wilson, R.R., 1999, 69-71). However, there is a group of OT scholars that reject the intervention of D in the Pentateuch (according to Van

216

of the last king, Jehoiachin, described in 2 Kgs 25, thus around 561 BCE, but we are unable to say whether this took place in Canaan or Babylon542. Seters, 1997, 301-319). The question has been justifiably raised of the methodology for attaining a more secure identification of D-Dtr (Vervenne, 1994, 243-268; Ausloos, 1997, 341-366; O’Brien, 1995, 95-128, esp. 107-108). In addition, the historical-sociological context of D-Dtr may not be ignored. The attribution of the global redaction of Gen.–2 Kgs to Dtr is a conscious choice at the expense of other defensible solutions (Van Seters, 1997; De Pury-Römer, 1989, 74-75), including that of a late J as compiler of Ex.–Num. and its location before Dt.–2 Kgs (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 58). The reason for this is not that it is indefensible, but that it too easily accedes to late dating, which threatens to constrict the view of the historical dimension of OT traditions, especially the canonisation process. Finally, it should be mentioned that the relationship between D and the Tetrateuch is accepted. It offers a wider perspective on the older stages of the canon’s genesis. 542 Usually we distinguish an exilic redaction, possibly preceded or followed by other redactions. Furthermore, authors distinguish between redaction with prophetic, nomistic and historical slants. For a recent state of the question see: Römer, 2005; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 71-103; Eynikel, 1996, 7-31; Westermann, 1994, 13-30; Gonçalves, 1981, 131-139; Cortese, 1990, 179-190, esp. 179-190; Lohfink, 1992, 38-51; idem, 1985. These overviews tend to temper the different redactions, a stance taken by Ackroyd 19763, 62. This is again an indication of how limited literary research is (Albertz, 2003, 260-263). Clements, 1975, also stresses the continuity in D. Preuss 1982, 25 and Ben Zvi 1998, 37-39 stressed the formal continuity between Dt. and Dtr. Like the Pentateuch, Dt.–Dtr cannot provide a ready-made and unequivocal answer to the question in classical historical research on the date and circumstances of its origin. That research is not the object of this study. It consists in keeping in mind the historically defensible hypotheses and then only adopting a position to the extent that these hypotheses can shed more light on the canon’s genesis, preferably in its oldest stages. Because of the preference for a synchronic approach in this chapter and with a view to the advantages (see 6.4 below) of a precise historical location – the D current underwent a long and differentiated development, see Blenkinsopp, 1977, 39 – we adopt here the option for an exilic redaction. It overarches the whole single narrative and integrates all tendencies within D. If one opts, as does Freedman, 1975, 176-177 for a preexilic redaction, it is impossible to take into account the dramatic situation of the exile, which Dtr clearly records. Its prophecy of salvation shows that it already experienced the sad end of King Josiah and even the trial of exile. — The circumstance that the D current was linked to the monarchy since the time of King Joash (2 Kgs 11:14,20) and certainly since the time of King Josiah (2 Kgs 21:24; 2 Chron. 33:25) via the purported ‫עם הארץ‬ (Cook 1999, 228-231; for an extended bibliography see Blenkinsopp, 1995, 158, n. 68; Jagersma, 1990a3, 204-205, 233) still plays a role in the reference to the pardon of King Jehoiachin. The close nature of this tie between the ‫ עם הארץ‬and King Josiah is evident from his appointment and, later, that of his son Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:30) by the same ‫עם הארץ‬. There is probably also a link between this ‫ עם הארץ‬and the ‫( זקנם‬Niemann, 1966, 53 n. 223) that, according to 2 Kgs 23:1 the king invoked in implementing his reforms. If the D current felt attached to the monarchy, this was due more to religious–prophetic motives. Where necessary, it went counter to the political and social motives that moved kings and the wealthy (Halbe, 1985, 55-75, esp. 61-62). It should now be stated clearly that although at the start the D reformers leaned heavily toward the monarchy, specifically King Josiah,

217

This single narrative hypothesis is particularly suitable as starting point for the present study, for the time being because it gives insight in the canonical tendencies as they were being shaped during the exile (6.2) and also allows a view of what had already been done in the canonical field (Ch.7) and finally because it sets us on the way to what follows.

6.2 Unifying Ties and Themes in Genesis-2 Kings The single narrative Gen.–2 Kgs is visibly created by unifying ties, often more thematic than formal, that bind together logically the larger, more

their perspective differed perceptibly from his policy, which was aimed at the restoration of the purportedly one, single Davidic kingdom. That difference appeared particularly clear after Josiah’s political ambitions failed. For this reason, a later Dtr redactor of 2 Kgs 22-23 stressed the difference between the original events upon finding the book of the law and the following reformation (Clements, 1993², Sheffield 1993², 72-76). To recognise all of this, it will be necessary to identify the persons/groups that (the political and social context) that developed D, especially those concealed behind Dtr (another view: Chapman, 2000, 284, who asserts that this led scholars to “misconstrue the force and function of the canon”). “Es wird sich zeigen, daß sich die meisten konzeptionellen Probleme dieses Werkes (Dtrhistory, L.Z.), die seit Jahrzehnten Kontroversen diskutiert werden, lösen lassen, wenn man nur konsequent genug nach seiner Trägergruppe, ihrer sozialen Einordnung, ihrer politischen Herkunft und ihren Interessen im theologischen Diskurs der zweiten Hälfte des 6. Jahrhunderts fragt” (Albertz, 1989, 37). Given the many tendencies within Dtr, I think the idea of one writer, which Noth defends, should be abandoned (Ackroyd, 19763, 64; Preuss, 1982, 20; Albertz, 1989, tried to harmonise the unity and variety within the Dtr camp). This applies even more forcefully to the idea of one author for the whole Pentateuch that Whybray defends 1987. — 520 BCE is taken as the terminus ad quem, because of the absence of any allusion to rebuilding the temple and any reference to assumption of power by the Persians (Ackroyd, 19763, 64; Freedman, 1975, 181; idem, 1987, 30-31; Smelik, 1992a, 17; this author ultimately opts for a date before 550 BCE: Smelik, 1999, 130; Ben Zvi, 1998, 33-35). The choice for situating during the exile (an exact year is too chancy) seeks support in Dt. 20-30, primarily the work of Dtr (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 96) and 1 Kgs 8:46,51 (Negenman, 1986, 302 n. 61). Talstra 1987 treated the text of 1 Kgs 8:14,61 thoroughly. Other texts in Dt. can be considered for this (Preuss, 1982, 25). — We follow Jagersma, 1990a3, 263-264, who leaves the choice between Babylon and Canaan open. Today, scholars lean more toward Babylon (Römer, 1992, 71 n. 21). The idea of a possible use of a separate historical document written by Dtr is not discussed in Ch. 6. Later we will examine the extent to which in their later crisis situation the compilers of the historical work Josh.–2 Kgs used and up-dated older components of D that cannot be extracted from the mainly legal traditions in Ex.–Num. (Childs, 1983², 33) and for which reason that they are called deuteronomists (Negenman, 1986, 303).

218

distinct blocks of material543. The certainty that they are all by Dtr authors recedes the more closely one examines the material in the Tetrateuch. There they seem to have disappeared into the material544. This latter refers to a long-existing situation, before Dtr interposition, usually ascribed to the writings of the Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) signature, on which Dtr influence built more intensively as of the time of Dt., so that its own contribution became more expressly manifest, especially in the thematic elaboration of the material545. However, the Dtr unifying ties can be more or less distinguished from other unifying ties within the two major blocks Gen.546 and Ex.–Num. All this allows us to conclude that the Dtr contribution up to the start of Dt. took over practically completely the material that had previously grown into a unity and then provided it with the unifying ties that turned it into the single narrative.

6.3 General Tendency of the Deuteronomistic Contribution to the Single Narrative The objective of the unifying ties of the deuteronomistic tendency is to weave existing traditions and its own contribution into a single unity. This latter material is unequally distributed within the final entity: It is almost

543

Houtman, 1980, 245-247. The distinction of these three blocks of material does not imply acceptance of the fragment hypothesis as such (another view: Cazelles, 1987, 35-68, esp. 40, and De Pury-Römer, 1989, 66). 544 The pioneering work on D in the Pentateuch – first carried out by Lohfink and Brekelmans, later elaborated by Perlitt, Weinfeld, Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, esp.406-407, Vervenne, 1994, more recently by Ausloos, 1996, Blenkinsopp, 1999, Geoghegan, 2005, and many others resulting in pan-deuteronomism – was variously interpreted as D redaction (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 49; Halbe, 1975, 48; it is striking that A. Van Daalen, as part of the alleged Amsterdam School, adopts the exceptional position that Gen.–2 Kgs is one entity under the impulse of D: Houtman, 1980 n. 4, 138). Houtman, 1980, makes clear that he goes less far in this than Rendtorff and others. The latter sees D’s unifying ties as purely editorial. The criticism formulated in Zaman, 1984-5, 128-131 and 201 that the redactions cannot be approached without the redactors and their historical context is thus maintained. Whybray 1987, 222-225 adopted them. 545 Davies, P.R., 1998, 111-115 gives examples of this thematic elaboration. 546 Here the formula ‫תולדות‬, customarily ascribed to P, is the linking element (Houtman, 1980, 245: Tengström, 1982). This formula ‫ תולדות‬was repeatedly discussed earlier (Zaman, 1984-5, 170). The contingency that P could have provided Genesis with the needed unity before D is no objection, given the position adopted on the currents that lie behind the classic JEPD sigla.

219

absent in Gen., rare in Ex.–Num.547 often present in Josh. and Jg., less striking in Sam., but predominant in Kgs. This permits the conclusion that the Dtr compilers of the single narrative sought a connection with a preexisting story that began with Gen.548 and that they wanted to complete this with new material mainly as of Josh., and this in three stages: Josh., Jg.Sam., Kgs549. Their attention was most sharply focused on the history in the Promised Land because of the catastrophic end they experienced550, first with the disastrous death of their favourite, King Josiah, later in the exile. Their own historical work is visibly intended to provide an aetiological explanation for this catastrophe.551. Long-past days of faith are involved, but their inclusion serves on this occasion only to link them to the decline and catastrophe of the exile. The extension of the old story into their present offers an opportunity to show in that sequel what went so wrong that catastrophe became unavoidable. It also offered an opportunity to draw lessons, not only for the present, but also for the future. The pardon of Jehoiachin prompted people to prepare for this future, since that event seemed to mark its first steps552. In this way, past, present and future 547

Concentrated mainly in Ex. 1-32. With Dt., D appears to want to have closed the Torah and present it as clearly circumscribed whole (Römer, 2001, 188, 199). 548 Blenkinsopp, 1977, 47, contra Childs, 1983², 233. D-Dtr’s image of history started with the patriarchs (Preuss, 1982, 185-186) he rewrote their ancient, fundamental facts as contained in the known creed in Dt. 26 (Lohfink, 1990h, 263-290, esp. 278-282). Parallel to this is the interest in the oldest tribes (‫ זקנם‬Dt. 5:23; 21:2,19; 22:15; 25:9; 27:1; 31:9), an institution that became topical after the exile (Bucholz, 1988; Lohfink, 1993, 26-42; they are sometimes identified with the authors of Dt. [Hoppe, 1983]). It has recently been claimed that D only had in mind the ancestors from the exodus period, not the Patriarchs which were inserted by a later redaction (Römer, 1992, 65-98, esp. 76-94). 549 Ackroyd, 19763, 73-75. 550 The special historical circumstances that required a special, e.g. written intervention by D in existing tradition (Sanders, 1972, 6-9) must be distinguished from the normal historical course of events when studying the formation of the canon (Barr, 1983, 47-48 en n. 22). 551 “Ätiologie der Katastrophe” (Blum, 1990b, 340). “Etiological imperative” (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 40). Yet the socio-political context may not be raised to the decisive point (another view: Lemche, 1988, 221). The genesis of the canon seems to have been too long and too complex for this. It gradually accumulated on the shores and bottom of the intellectual current that, via concentration of the traditional material, provided the deposit that nourishes the progress of the canon process (Blum, 2000, 14). The establishment of the single narrative is a special moment in the concentration of this traditional material. 552 Barr, 1980c, 36. Von Rad and H.W. Wolff were the first to suggest timorously that there was openness to the future (Childs, 1983², 237-238). After them, scholars began to stress that D focussed on a programme for the future (Preuss, 1982, 23-25; Childs, 1983², 238).

220

were woven into an organic and dynamic whole under the pressure of very specific needs. Furthermore, the need for Torah and law was decisive553.

6.4.1 The Three Functions of the ‫ספר התורה‬554 The ‫ ספר התורה‬always arises at crucial moments in the history of the Promised Land555. In accordance with Dt. 17:18; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20; 30:10 and 31:24,26 this Torah556 – that Moses delivered in admonishing words, first orally then in writing, at the time of the entry into the Promised Land – became the norm for assessing this history. Each time it was accompanied by paraenetic words557 having the same meaning. These passages in Dt. form an inclusion with 2 Kgs 22:11 – where we are told how the ‫ ספר התורה‬is rediscovered during Josiah’s reign (which becomes the spur for the drastic reform programme outlined in 2 Kgs 22-23558) – Jehoiachin’s pardon was real: he could found an entire family (Garbini, 1994, 180-188, esp. 182). Dtr’s theological appraisal of that fact may presumably not be exaggerated (Becking, 1990, 283-293; Gerhards, 1999). Some authors believe that Dtr intended to announce the end of the Davidic monarchy and to draw appropriate conclusions (Smelik, 1992, 124 n. 107; Gerhards, 1998; idem, 1999). This would seem to be a radical presupposition. The historical fact of the pardon was the occasion for a postscript to the Dtr history. It can situate its completion at the latest around 560 BCE (Freedman, 1987a, 31; another view: Carroll, 1986, 67). 553 Braulik, 2004. The politico-social factor certainly plays a role here beside Dtr’s pronounced religious motivation (another view: Childs, 1983², 238). 554 To avoid anticipating the definition of the content and meaning of the terms used here, they are presented with their original spelling. There are various ways of understanding the comprehensive concept Torah (Greenberg, 1990b). This is confirmed by the differentiated terminology that D uses (Leonard, 1972, 176). Each time it is used, it will be necessary to state which aspect is meant in the specific context. 555 Childs 1983², 234 refers broadly (without being confined to the strict ‫ )ספר התורה‬to: Josh. 1:2; 22:1; Jg. 2:6; 1 Sam. 12; 1 Kgs 8; 2 Kgs 17 and 24. Kratz, 2000, 99-101, notes a inconsistent reference to ‫ספר התורה‬. This inconsistency runs parallel with that of the Dtr unifying ties within Gen.–2 Kgs. — On the use of Torah in Dt.: Crüsemann, 1987, 65-67; by Dtr: Preuss, 1982, 195; in general: Jagersma, 1990b, 89-92. 556 Dt. is striking in that sense. “Le Deutéronome ... est le livre qui raconte l’émergence du livre, associant ce dernier à l’existence dans la ‘modernité’ ... celui qui va de la communication orale à la communication écrite” (Sonnet, 1996, 481-496, esp. 482). Dt. is traditionally highly appreciated for its contribution to the canon process because it introduced the written Torah. In the present study that element is not considered exclusively determinative. 557 Even the paraenetic outline is used regularly in Dt. (Finsterbusch, 2000). 558 There are more diverging hypotheses than ever on the historicity of the event recounted in 2 Kgs 22-23 (Conroy, 1990, esp. 255 n. 1). It is one of the many disputes that require

221

that seems to mark the beginning and end of the original Dtr history559. Moreover, Dt. 28 gives a detailed preview of what will happen to the people if this Torah document should be disobeyed560, as did ultimately happen, with exile as nadir. This Torah document became a prophecy of disaster spoken by Moses and later fulfilled. At the same time, it was a prophecy for the future of what could happen if the lessons were learned and the Torah document obeyed. Thus, all by all, the ‫ ספר התורה‬has no fewer than three functions: it is a body of norms, with prophetic scope and clear wisdom ambition. Each of these three elements requires separate explanation561.

6.4.2 The Normative Function of the ‫ספר התורה‬ It is striking that the plural terms for law ‫החקים‬, ‫ המשפטים‬are frequently replaced by the singular ‫ התורה‬or ‫המצוה‬562 when referring to the norm employed in the Dtr history. There is thus a shift from the separate laws to one body containing them. This clearly refers to a complex of instructions or guidelines in oral but especially written form, e.g. the ‫ספר התורה‬563. In more than one meta-critical reflection (according to Conroy, 1990). It requires a hermeneutical discernment of what moved the scholars to present such eager yet discordant hypotheses. 559 Römer, 1997, 1-11, esp. 5-6. 560 Lohfink 1995c, 94-95 correctly prefers to translate ‫ ספר‬with ‘deed’ or ‘document’ rather than the anachronistic term ‘law book’ which would connote a later exilic impression. This document is to have been the sole copy as was often the case in primitive literate cultures. 561 These different functions practically coincide with the different tendencies in Dtr already mentioned. They will be examined in sections 6.4.2-6.4.4. 562 Dt. 1:5; 4:8,44; 5:31; 6:1; 30:10. For a more detailed treatment of the legal terminology used in Dt. see Lohfink, 1963, esp. 53-104. — The Torah as single entity is typical for Dtr. His thinking is steeped in the idea of a single entity. Hence his concern for the unifying ties (6.2). “Das deuteronomische Gesetz in seiner endgültigen Gestalt hat Einheitswillen, ist Gesamtentwurf” (Lohfink, 1990a, 26). This does not detract from the fact that for Dtr the individual prescriptions remained in force despite their inclusion in a larger entity (noticeable in Jer.17:22 and 34:8-11; Rüterswörden, 1991, 334). This shows that Dtr was concerned about more than attaining a single entity. He wanted to get across the point that from a theological perspective all the laws, of whatever type, were part of the single Torah, i.e. the law issued by YHWH (McKenzie, 1999, 267 n. 16; Bogaert, 1997, 83-84). 563 The term ‫ דבר‬is used to distinguish oral laws from written laws (Dt. 4:2; 28:58; 29:29; 30:14; 31:12; 32:46; Josh. 8:34). This oral shape, to which ‫ דבר‬alludes, would be a consequence of the way in which the Torah is proclaimed in the cult (Leonard, 1972, 176). It is certain that, despite the importance given to the written shape, the whole book Dt. is dominated by the oral transmission as evinced in its opening words ‫אלה הדברים‬. For that

222 matter, these words had long given the book its title and indicated the tendency of the entire work. — The importance of this transition for the operation of separate prescriptions in the written whole (“eine Buchgrenze”: Kratz, 2000, 113, that ultimately sees Dt. as complex of laws) makes many scholars recognise here if not the completion of the first canon or part of the OT, i.e. the Pentateuch, then at least the start of the canon process; they include Blenkinsopp, 1977, 24-36; Barr, 1983, 7; Leiman, 1976, 16; Childs, 1983², 63; elsewhere (233) this last author stresses the broader historical perspective in which Dtr places his ‫ספר התורה‬. The fact that this has to do with fixed written corpora is important for these authors. This is rated highly in the canonical field, and is even called the core of all canonicity (Blum, 1990b, 340). This trend is not free from the excesses of scriptocentrism (Platvoet, 1998, 98-102). But commitment to writing is not the only criterion for evaluating the canon process. The power factor within the community (2.2.C; 3.1.5; 5.1.3.C.) can be more determinative (Parker K.I., 1996, 95-96; Tomson, 1998, 111-118), especially when it coincides with YHWH as absolute authority that buttresses the legislation as entity as expressed in the term ‫( ספר התורה‬McKenzie, 1999, 267 n. 16). Commitment to writing, by contrast, is not an absolute condition for the genesis of the canon (Koole, 1985, 13 n. 38), but it is for the final canon (2.2.A). — Emphasising the transition from oral prescriptions to one written entity in Dtr (Phillips, 2002, 179-200), in line with the broader process of commitment to writing at the time (Seidel B., 1995, 51-64), may not lead us to forget that these are traditions that could have been developing for a long time (consequently, they need not date from the time that they were committed to writing [Laato, 1996, 17]) and that the commitment to writing was intended as an aid in oral teaching (Amsler, 1989, 235257); see also 6.4.4 where education in the ‫ ספר התורה‬is treated; the child’s question in Dt. 6 again points to the oral nature of teaching the ‫ספר תורה‬. Given the whole of Dt. it may be said that “pour le Deutéronome lui-même, Moïse n’écrit rien, il parle. Comme tel il est le chef et le modèle des lévites qui, eux aussi, enseignent la loi oralement (Lev. 17:9ff.; 27:9,14; 33:10)” (Amsler, 1985b, 51-54, esp. 51). This shows that the strong emphasis usually placed on the written character of the ‫ ספר התורה‬referred to in Dt. should be tempered in the sense that the written shape according to Dt. is only an extension of the oral teaching that it serves. At the basis of this lies the experience that the message of the original speaker gets across better in oral form than in written form. This is the reason why the word, which by then had been written, was proclaimed orally during liturgical gatherings (Fiddes, 2003, 141). The Masoretes later also seemed to wish to retain the oral reading with the ingenious system with which they sought to preserve the written text from any unauthorised change (Barton, 1997, 123-130). All this is confirmed by the use of ‫ דבר‬in Dt. (in Dt. 30:14 it even calls a law book to mind) especially in the liturgical scheme of Dt. Today, in contrast to earlier, this is accepted as certainty (Albertz, 1989, 38 n. 9-10). The festival calendar is an important element of Dtr’s legislation. It is almost completely oriented toward Israel’s joy in the cult (Lohfink, 1990a, 35; Van Goudoever, 1985, 145148; Braulik, 1988a, 161-218; idem, 1988b, 95-121; “The festival calendar of Dt. 16:1-17 goes to the very heart of the deuteronomic program and reveals the author’s literary and religious achievements”: Levinson, 1997, 53). For that matter, written documents had stimulated new oral tradition several times in the OT (Conrad, 1992, 45-59; Halbe, 1975, 222-223). Sometimes they were composed for oral use (Watts, 1995, 540-557) as part of the emerging memorial culture (Braulik, 1993). The well known ‫( שמע יׂשראל‬Dt. 6:4) is an

223

the first instance, this written complex coincides with Dt., but not at its stage at the time it was ‘found’ during King Josiah’s rule564. It is increasingly being supposed that the Dtr tendency gave the older element in Dt. (12-26) a suitable introduction (1-4) and conclusion (29-30) giving the impression of an up-dated version of the legal document (Dt. 5:3) that Moses presented as second law corpus or deutero nomium after descending from Horeb to the plain of Moab. This concentration of all norms in the person and time of Moses565 via one written legal document is one of the important exponent, the more so because it sets the tone for a line of reasoning that is developed throughout Dt. and that has an impact on the entire DtrH (Hardmeier, 2000). 564 Steck, 1992, 15; 2 Kgs 22:8; Childs, 1983², 206; Lohfink, 1992, 38-42. The identity of Dt. with the law book discovered during Josiah’s reign had long been generally accepted. Today it has been decided that there are tangible differences between Dt. as it is known to us today and the law book described in 2 Kgs 22 (Houtman, 1980, 165; Van der Woude, 1986a, 17). In principle, identity is not excluded, but it is not very probable. It presupposes that the purported discovery of the law book recounted in 2 Kgs 22 was a hoax: The D reformers would then have hidden in the temple a law book of their own design that corresponded with their planned reform so that it could be discovered at the right time. In that case, it would be a whole new law book now fictionally ascribed to Moses. This is difficult to defend historically. Rather, it appears as if Israel had legislation already under the authority of Moses but that had become disused or was in need of improvement. It was the latter that the D reformers had in mind. It may thus be accepted that they started from a proto-legal codex, which they revised and supplemented according to their own plans for reform (Clements, 1993², 70-72), a process they continued as the practical aspects of their reform required (another view: McConville, 1985, 156). Hence the many text evolutions perceptible in Dt. A proto-Dt. that contained Dt. 12-26, can be defended with reservations. For an outline of the conceivable growth of Dt. see Lohfink, 1992, 43-51. 565 Negenman, 1986, 64. Today the more traces of the presence of Dtr are being found within the text of Dt. (Preuss, 1982, 19). On issues relating to proto-Dt. see Preuss, 1982, 26-45. Further, we can note in this regard that Dt.–Dtr always reserves legislation to YHWH, while Moses’ role remains limited to proclaiming this law and this despite the fact that Dt. always speaks of Moses’ speech. This can be deduced from the terminology in Dt.–Dtr and from the way in which the legislation takes shape (Lohfink, 1995a, 157-165). — Striking is that no royal decree – and this holds for all royal traditions (Crüsemann, 1987, 65 n. 6) – before Dtr and even in the whole biblical tradition (Watts, 1998, 417 n. 13) is eligible to be called Torah (Sanders, 1972, 35; Cohen, 2001), although they were promulgated in writing as early as the time of Hezekiah (1 Sam. 10:25; Sand, 1974, 29; Albertz, 1992, 183, and particularly Boecker, 1976, 32-40, suggest that the king could legislate indirectly as pater familias along side popular legislation in his own specific domain: his residence and the army; Niemann, 1966, tries to depict the differences between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah according to the power of the king; it appeared to be more limited than was imagined on the basis of biblical data). It is possible that Dt. and earlier compilers attributed the content of royal decrees to Moses (Crüsemann, 1992, 76). The deepest reason for his is to be sought in the attribution to Moses of the tradition within D (Sanders, 1972, 45), and in the fact that because of the decline in kingship after Solomon it was stressed that all

224

special lines of force in this deuteronomistic construction. That is why Dt., which contains this ‫ ספר התורה‬in its essence, is placed prior to the actual Dtr history. All this smoothes the path to a concentration of the law within the Pentateuch and its tendency to an overbalanced nomistic authority in the later Hebrew canon. Yet the Dtr tendency kept placing Moses’ presentation of the law in broader contexts, first of the most specific nomistic elements and secondly within the larger whole of the single narrative. The Dtr tendency was not yet concerned with a strict nomistic elaboration566. That was guaranteed by the royal use of the historical authority, especially legislative power, belonged to YWH (this was an idea particularly cherished in Israel that YHWH was king: Brettler, 1989), including that of Moses (Sanders, 1972, 35). After Moses, ‫ ספר התורה‬takes his place (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 125-142, esp. 128). That is why Joshua was totally bound to this ‫ ספר התורה‬after Moses’ death (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 139). Even the law of the king, in which the king, more so than Joshua, received his power from the people, he is still subject to the ‫ספר התורה‬ (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 139-142). For a general picture of Moses in D, see Preuss, 1982, 188. In these law of the king, Dt. shows that it does not look kindly on the role of king, at least it is less favourable that Dtr (Knoppers, 1996, 329-346). 566 Partly in the context of D elements within the Tetrateuch there are clear content-related contacts between Dt. and the complex of laws thought older (the diachronic relations of the various legal complexes in the Pentateuch will be treated in 7.2.1). They are found in Ex. 34 (Scharbert, 1985, 160-183, esp. 162-170), and esp. in Ex. 20:23-23:33, the Book of the Covenant (Hanson, 1977, 110-131, esp. 113-114), which Dtr stresses formally as in Ex. 24:7 (Houtman, 1980, 184), where ‫ ספר הברית‬mentioned as it is in 2 Kgs 23:2,21 (the lone three occurrences in the OT contrast sharply with the frequent use of ‫)ספר התורה‬. But, in fact, they refer to ‫כל דברי יהוה ואת כלהמשפטים‬, i.e. all the ordinances contained in the Book of the Covenant, although Dt. is meant (Levinson, 1997, 153; Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 411-413; Davies, P.R., 1998, 95-99, underestimates D’s close contacts with Ex.– Num., wishing to ascribe them only to a ‘canonising hand’ in the Persian period). In this way and via the idea of covenant (Seidel B., 1995,62) – in Ex. 19:5; 20:1-17; Dt. 4:13; 2 Kgs 23:3 the covenant is equated with the ten or more written commandments – ‫ספר הברית‬ is closely connected with ‫ ספר התורה‬referred to in Dt. 29:21; 31:26 and Josh. 1:8 and is also related to the broader ‫ ספר התורה‬deduced from ‫ ספר הורה משה‬mentioned in Josh. 8:31; 23:6, and 2 Kgs 14:6 (Lohfink, 1990c, 99-165, esp. 123-126). When we also find a similar allusion to a written law book, ‫ספר התורה‬, in Josh. 24:26, which also serves as a basis for renewing the covenant, it is clear that for Dtr ‫ ספר התורה‬is a leitmotiv running from early to late periods. Since Perlitt, 1969, this has led to discussions on the extent to which Dt. and Dtr lie at the basis of the ‫ ברית‬idea (Davidson, 19934, 323-347) and this during the exile (Levin, 1985). In that case, this idea would be used as part of rising monotheism based on the covenant with YHWH forming a counterweight to the political dependence on foreign peoples (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 101). — A gradual nomism unfolded within D (Smend, 1981, 20-29; “...aus dem höchst expliziten juristischen Selbstverständnis des Deuteronomiums” Braulik, 1997a, 3-38, esp. 10) and is reflected in the use of the term Torah. Later it will come to be used for the Pentateuch as separate whole and even for its legal components

225

material567. For the Dtr this too belonged to the broad sense of ‫ספר התורה‬, more specifically the law of Moses, even though its modifications via Dt. show that the law of Moses needed up-dating and thus a Deutero-nomium or ‘second law’568.

6.4.3 The Prophetic Function of the ‫ספר התורה‬ With the completely negative balance in his historical narrative, the Dtr tendency is first of all a prophet of doom for its contemporaries: failure to obey the Torah of Moses as presented in Dt. justifies the punishment and catastrophe that was Israel’s fate. The intention is for Israel to acknowledge its guilt and accept the judgment so that in the future the same Torah or ‫ ספר התורה‬can play more the role of a prophecy of salvation

(Leonard, 1972, 176-177). Yet the main accents lie on the initiative and benevolence of YHWH (‫ אהב‬that leads to ‫[ ההר‬election] of Israel and that moves YHWH to practical deeds and blessings, including the gift of the land (Zobel, K., 1992, 78-87; Davies, E.W., 19934, 349-369, esp. 349-353). “...ist der Deuteronomismus noch immer fern von Legalismus und Unterschätzung der zuvorkommenden Liebe Jahwehs” (Perlitt, 1993, 279-295, esp. 294). 567 Yet at first sight Dt. is a collection of speeches, in contrast to the rest of the Pentateuch, which, despite the many legal prescriptions it contains, is a didactic history (Lohfink, 1990b, 53-82, esp. 55). “Le Pentateuque n’est donc ni récit, ni loi, mais les deux, de façon indissoluble. Il est Tora ‘enseignement’” (Ska, 1992a, 52). By using the introduction in Dt. 1-3 to place Dt. in its historical context – not only that of the works contained in it (Preuss, 1982, 199-200), but of the whole documents – it appears that the deuteronomists treat their Dt. no less formally or historically than they do the Pentateuch, although the historical narrative slows down in Dt. (Römer, 1992, 67). Nevertheless, their historical interest is certainly as wide as in the Pentateuch. In their own Dtr work, they prefer to start by rewriting history, while they leave it as good as untouched within the Pentateuch. In this sense we could say that “The Deuteronomistic History is not history. It is an extensive but extremely selective theological interpretation of Israel’s supposed past written” (CooteWhitelam, 1987, 15). 568 Nobile, 1990, 191-196, esp. 195, refers in this regard to ‫ ככל תורת משה‬in 2 Kgs 23:25. These ‘laws of Moses’ were probably identified in later times with the whole Pentateuch (Houtman, 1980, 258). On Dt.’s modifications see Lohfink, 1990b, 43-51. Examples of this are Dt. 12:5,14 and Ex. 20:24-25 (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 77). Other examples: Dt. 14:21; Ex. 22:30 (Fishbane, 1982, 285-311, esp. 292-294) and Dt. 22:1-3; Ex. 23:4 (Fishbane, 1980, 343-361, esp. 346). Changes of this nature via Dt. are also explicitly announced from the very start (Dt. 1:5, e.a). According to Dt. there are a series of versions, e.g. in Dt. 15 (Houtman, 1980, 176). For more information see: Houtman, 1980, 177. — The allusion to Deuteronomy’s purpose as ‘second law’ is particularly evident in the Samaritan Pentateuch (Margain, 1992, 236).

226

and promise569. Apparently the Dtr tendency appropriates the role of prophet, but then of a special kind570. At the time of the Dtr, prophecy offered a very varied image and was undergoing a serious crisis571. The Dtr 569

Dtr used history as a means to teach and motivate according to its own insights. Like the classical prophets, Dtr’s prophecies of doom and salvation are inextricably united (Ackroyd, 19763, 71; Schoors, 1998, 113-115; Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 85-163). It is even difficult to delineate where the classical prophets influenced Dtr and where Dtr influenced the prophets (Vanoni, 1995, 383-397). It is impossible to determine which had priority. We can say the following about Dtr’s prophecy of salvation: for the moment, it is striking that, contrary to elsewhere (where curse and blessing are juxtaposed as alternatives), blessing comes after curse in Dt. 28 and is thus an adaptation to the historical reality of the exile (Lohfink, 1990g, 167-191, esp. 171; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 96). This prophecy of salvation is even more impressive when we take into account the time when it is formulated in the narrative. The time of its fulfilment was hardly in sight (Ackroyd, 19763, 76; 78-83). Moreover, they use a vague description of the future as sign of its authenticity and the impossibility that it could have been added later (Freedman, 1987a, 32). Preuss, 1982, 198. 570 “They do not speak in the manner of prophets, and they consistently interpret the role of the prophets in a very distinctive way” (Clements, 1993², 78). This only becomes clear when the prophetic writings are laid out besides those of Dtr (Smelik, 1981, 57 n. 36; Koch, 1980, 19). On this confrontation see 7.3.5. The evolution of prophecy before Dtr will be treated in 7.3.2-7.3.4. Treatment here is restricted to prophecy at the time of the exilic Dtr. 571 Hardmeier, 1990a. “...the exile which saw so many prophetic reputations made and broken” (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 46). For a general view see: Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 177-188; Carroll, 1979, 184-198. This crisis within prophecy must be seen in the context of the general crisis in official Yahwism during the exile (Albertz, 1992, 383-413) but there was less pressure on personal religion within the family (Albertz, 1978, 190; idem, 1992, 413419). This will be treated in 7.5. Today, recent history of religion is giving greater attention to family religion within ancient Israel (Van der Toorn, 1998, 13-16). On all sides there was a feeling in official Yahwism that YHWH has abandoned the nation permanently (Sanders, 1972, 8; Vorländer, 1981, 84-113, esp. 85-88). For a general view see: Negenman, 1986, 69-74. Yahwism was even fundamentally discredited (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 47; 49-50; Roberts, 1988, 211-220). It seemed as if YHWH was no longer in control of his own territory (Negenman, 1986, 72). Signs of ambivalence (Rendtorff, R., 19883, 60) could be noted in this period as a result of this crisis in religion. On one side there were signs of scepticism toward prophecy (Jer. 7:16; 11:14; Ez. 9:8,10), of aversion (Zech. 8:2-7), of a return to idolatry (Ez. 11:18,21; 14:1; 20:31; 33:25,29; 36:2) or to non-Yahwist religions (Is. 40:18; Jer. 44:15; Ackroyd, 1977a, 225-244, esp. 233; Phillips, 1982, 217-232, esp. 228) so that even the majority in Jerusalem tended toward syncretism (Smith, M.S. 1971, 82) as ancient Israel had had earlier (Weippert, M. 1997). On the other, there are many signs of loyalty (Ps 137:4 and Lamentations: Freedman, 1975, 177-178; Kirchner, 1989, 785-796; Williamson, 1990, 48-58, 228). In Babylon, respect for the Sabbath is to have gained ground, but without any sign synagogue services being found. This is one reason why Dt. placed the main accent in the Decalogue on the Sabbath commandment (Lohfink, 1990i, 193-209, esp. 203-204). This of course left open whether this was a monthly or weekly observance (Briend, 1985, col. 1132-1170). — Amid the chaotic religious situation,

227

tendency tried to use reflection to take a clear position572 amid the chaos of its time. It did that by starting from the event at Horeb as highest foundation for authority573 and using the ‫ ספר התורה‬contained in the Law of the Prophets with its familiar fulfilment scheme. Understood according to the retribution principle in the religious world of the time, the Dtr tendency prophecy offered only tentative footing and even gave offence for many reasons, including its discord. At that time mantic divination had not yet been abandoned (Schmidt W.H., 1997, 55-69, esp. 55-58). R.P. Carroll saw this as the cause of the end of prophecy (Lange, 2002, 21-22). There was especially the opposition of false to true prophets. This terminology, derived from the later assessment in favour of the true prophets, disguises difficulty and slowness in reaching this assessment. Yet this did not prevent Davies, P.R., 1998, 111, because of his view of the ‘Moses canon’, from quickly considering the true prophets as ‘canon’ on the basis of their selected writings. The description to which tradition required a prophet to conform long remained open (Clements, 1996, 213). The subject of true/false prophets drew attention recently (Sanders, 1972, 87-90; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 50-51 n. 45; 147 n. 62; Negenman, 1975, 117-140; Tucker, 1985, 326-368, esp. 354355; Koole, 1985, 46-47; Lange, 2002, esp. 33-35). It also applies to prophecy outside of Israel, esp. in Assyria (Nissinen, 1996). Put briefly, the question of the contrast between false and true prophets – there is no conclusive criterion for distinguishing between the two according to Carroll 1981, 192, and many others ((Hermisson, 1995, 138; Lange, 2002, 35) – can be reduced to differing interpretations both of which start from the same prior tradition. The false prophets interpret this tradition optimistically and without criticism, but facts proved them wrong (Crenshaw, 1971; idem, 1984; Sanders, 1976b). Conversely, the true prophets were critical and in that sense spoke ‘true words’ (Jagersma, 1992c, 196-205, esp. 204). There was also division within the group purported to be true prophets. The different opinions held by Ezek. and Jer. on personal responsibility (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 187-188) in a period of increasing individualism in Israel (Lange, 2002, 13) is familiar. Moreover, during the exile the classical prophets were susceptible to criticism as group. They were open to the accusation that their demoralising statements caused the fall of Jerusalem (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 186), giving the impression that they were in league with Israel’s enemies (Smelik, 1981, 61). In short, the prophets’ situation was no better than it was in 722 BCE when the kingdom of Israel fell (for another view: Scharbert, 1969, 72). That the facts confirmed their negative outlook did little to gain them an audience as Jeremiah’s experiences show (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 185-186; Ackroyd, 19763, 44-45). The result was that the prophets’ role became controversial as we see in the narratives where their efforts did not turn out well (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 186-188). 572 Smelik, 1984c. Dtr wants to reach a new future via judgment and punishment (Preuss, 1982, 190, 194.) or, like Jeremiah, to pass through the chaos of crisis to reach a new covenant (Carroll, 1981; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 158). In this way Dtr is more a historical source of prophecy in its own time rather than during the monarchy (Ben Zvi, 1993, 331351). Ultimately, Dtr wanted to give his time an aetiology. “...the theological interpretation of a present to which a past was led” (Leonard, 1972, 170). 573 “...die Prophetie wird am Ursprung, am Gottesberg verankert ... Die Begründung am Horeb war das Äußerste, was man ihr an Dignität zusprechen konnte” (Schmidt W.H., 1997, 56-57).

228

now applied it in a spiral form to events starting with the history of the kings574. To invoke the law as foundation in this, the Dtr inserted fulfilment as criterion for true prophecy into the law in Dt.575 Because this criterion looked back at history from a safe position, rearranging historical facts to suit its purposes if need be,576it avoided the risk that it would not be fulfilled and safeguarded the retribution principle. At the same time, however, the original meaning of the prophecy as guideline to events that will take place in the short term lost577 ground. The Dtr tendency placed the prophecy in the distant past to satisfy the fulfilment criterion as it saw it578. In this way it designed its characteristic history according to what it considered to be orthodox prophecy since the time of Moses, the model for 574

Dt. 18:9-22; Schmidt W.H., 1997. Von Rad was a pioneer of Dtr’s idea of fulfilment (Auld, 1983, 3-23, esp. 16). This is not exclusive to Dtr, but was occasionally used before him (Seeligmann, 1978, 259; Thiel, 1991). Since Seeligmann, 1978, 258 n. 10, attention was focussed on that fulfilment scheme (Eynikel, 1990, 227-237; Weippert, H. 1991, 116131). Dtr applies the fulfilment scheme esp. as of 2 Sam. 7:4 with the prophecy of Nathan (Weippert H., 1991, 118-123). — On the retribution principle, see: Blenkinsopp, 1983, 4546; Vermeylen, 2000a, 640-641. “...the strong concept of retributive justice is certainly a hallmark of deuteronomism” (Wilson, R.R., 1999, 79). Another view: Ben Zvi, 1999, 254 n. 58. — On the application in spiral form see: Blenkinsopp, 1977, 51. Hence the conditional form given to the laws in Dt. (McConville, 1985, 157). 575 Blenkinsopp, 1983, 45-46. This fulfilment could not be maintained literally, not even in the broadest sense of the term, because the lacking fulfilment of short-term prophecies. 576 Blenkinsopp, 1995, 48-51. 577 This was the case in the dispute with Hananiah in Jer. 28 and Am. 1:1. It gave the onset to prophetic authority because of fulfilment in the short-term. But because other oracles were not fulfilled, their authority was put at risk so that Dtr had to intervene. Another solution was to separate the time of the prophecy and its fulfilment. That was particularly useful when preaching salvation, which in contrast to prophesies of doom, was fulfilled only gradually. In this way a mystery element was incorporated at the cost of historicity. This mystery element will come to full bloom in apocalyptic texts (Fishbane, 1980, 343361, esp. 354-359; Collins, 1993, 74-75). Highly time-bound promises appear at the end of the exile (Westermann, 1987, 33-148). At that time salvation was in sight with the arrival of Cyrus. 578 Weippert H., 1991, 123-131. “It implies that prophecy ... essentially belongs to the past” (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 121). Dtr placed the intellectual opposition of early prophecy in the distant past so that its role could be ascribed to contemporary religious leaders esp. the priests, prophets and sages (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 163-165; Grabbe, 1993, 43-62, esp. 53). On that point, Dtr differs from Dt. that is more emphatic in placing prophecy’s origin with Moses (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 190). Dtr also posits that Isaiah predicted the Babylonian captivity (2 Kgs 20:12-19). Dtr also intentionally extends the historical narrative to the episode of the release of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:27-30) to stress the fulfilment of the prediction that the monarchy would be restored.

229

all later valid prophets. Together they formed the recognisable group of ‘servants of the prophets like Moses’ who, like him but in their own time, explained the prevailing law and demanded that it be observed579. They could only fulfil this task in the future in an institution completely defined in the law580. In using prophecy, the Dtr tendency was thus obliged to introduce into it the corrections that it saw fit581. This left scars on the relationship between the Dtr work and prophecy in and outside the Dtr history582. It was decisive for the hallmark of authenticity that tradition

579

“Deuteronomy ... the first attempt to impose orthodoxy” (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 120). Coats, 1988, 201-211. Coggins, 1999, 31 n. 32; Davies, P.R., 1998, 109-110; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 52 n. 96; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 158; Seitz, 1990, 234-245; idem, 1989, 3-27. Rüterswörden, 1991, 334-335. In Dtr, the concurrence of the prophetic message with the YHWH’S command was the criterion for the true prophet (Van Winkle 1989, 31-43), even though Dtr tended to be critical of the law (Peckham, 1991, 108-146). It became legal prophecy instead of historical prophecy (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 44), i.e. history was used to preach the law. This shows a growth in nomism. 580 It would be exaggerated to assert that because of this transformation Dt–Dtr wanted to replace prophecy with a book (see: Römer, 1997, esp. 9). Blenkinsopp, 1977, 42-44; Rüterswörden, 1991, 329. Davies, P.R., 1998 is swift in calling it a canon. Another view: Coats, 1988, 205. The interest of the institutions in this process of canonisation soon became apparent. In canonisation, the content of the canon process became a type of institution as result of a series of institutions (such as prophecy and the priestly Torah) that were at work before the ultimate canonisation. 581 The restriction of prophecy to a delimited period is significant in this regard. Dtr is optimistic, and often transforms the classical prophets’ oracles of judgment into oracles of salvation. He also confirms the relationship with YHWH which, according to the prophets, was often in discredit (Smend, 1981, 22). He develops the oracles formally as covenant relationship using the ‘Hear, O Israel” formula (Dt. 6:4) (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 209) in keeping with the new covenant (Dt. 30:11-14; Swanepoel, 1992, 375-388, esp. 380-381; Blenkinsopp, 1992, 236) proclaimed by the Jeremiah (Jer. 31:33) and Ezekiel (Ez. 36:27). He seems to lean most closely to Micah and the ‫( עם הארץ‬Blenkinsopp, 1992, 216-217). 582 E.g. Dt. 13:1-6 – that, indeed, did not treat prophecy as such (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 41) – and esp. Dt. 18:20 show this friction with prophecy. Von Rad believed he could ascertain, “...daß im Dt. eine der Prophetie prinzipiell wesensfremde theologische Grundanschauung am Werke ist” (Zobel K., 1992, 4). Some authors also speak of the occasionally tense relationship between Jeremiah and D, as evinced in Jer. 2:8 and 8:8-9. These passages refer specifically to “those who handle the law” and those who say “law of the Lord is with us”. Some conclude from this that Dt.–Dtr is the target here. But full insight in this is lacking (Blenkinsopp, 1977,. 36-39; idem, 1984a, 162). It seems to refer to jurists or scribes. But we may not deduce from this that Jeremiah was against writing, or use Jer. 31:31-34 which speaks of writing “the law upon their hearts” (Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 203) to assume he turned away from written law altogether.

230

assigned to a particular type of prophecy583. The Dtr current is critical in its resumption of the Torah and prophecy584. That is why the Dtr tendency did not simply adopt prophecy, although familiar with prophetic preaching, but was very selective in its reference to the prophets585. Conversely, when it edited the Prophetic Codex and added it as supplement to its historical work, the Dtr tendency found it necessary to revise it thoroughly, especially by adding historical elements This was particularly the case for Jeremiah586. The Dtr revision of the prophetic traditions left a long wake in 583

We should think here of his selecting and editing role in the later Prophetic Codex, which will be discussed below in 6.5 and 7.3.5.4. Besides, the common and generalised patterns then started to play an important role in the canon process (Clements, 1965, 45-47; idem, 1977, 42-55; Steck, 1991, 122; Auld, 1983). This explains the value of the Strukturen hinter Texte or structures behind the text that the canon process uses. Regarding the selection principle, it can be posited that not everything that is missing from the biblical writings is the result of conscious selection. These lacunae can be just simple imperfections. This can lead to the danger of using the lack of contrary evidence as an argument ex silentio (Barr, 2000, 95). 584 Crüsemann, 1987, 67-73; Zobel, K., 1992. “It must be noted, however, that on a number of points he relaxed the emphasis demanded by the prophets and stressed other features instead” (Lemche, 1988, 56; Clements, 1977, 48-49). Broadly speaking, Dtr is to have transformed the purely condemnatory prophetic oracles into more salvation-oriented statements that allowed the judgment to be transcended (Clements, 1977, 53; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 191-192). 585 Begg, 1986, 41-53; Freedman, 1963, 250-265, esp. 259; Wittenberg, 1993, 295-311. Dtr’s reservation toward the prophets extends beyond not mentioning their names (called “Prophetenschweigen”: Koch, 1981; Terblanche, 2000), to not citing their words (Seeligmann, 1978, 267). Moreover, Dtr did not revise all prophetic writings (Coggins, 1982, 77-93), but only Amos, Hosea (only slightly revised in the exilic and postexilic period: Blenkinsopp, 1977, 100 n. 21), Isaiah (Barthel, 1997, 8-10), Micah Jeremiah and possibly Zephaniah (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 191). To deducing from this that Dtr did not know of these prophetic writings – or more strongly that it underwent little or no influence from the prophets – would be rash. More plausible is that Dtr respected the autonomy of the prophetic writings that existed at the time (Carroll, 1979, 55) and only edited them (Clements, 1975, 47-49). In that case, they seemed able to use the prophetic traditions in a refined manner when updating required this (Smelik, 1981, 56). 586 The term supplement requires shading (Freedman, 1963; idem, 1975, 180-181). This term does not mean that the Prophetic Codex as revised by Dtr is a literal continuation of Dtr. Dtr’s editing is a continuation of the prophetic traditions insofar as they showed an unmistakably independent authority (Childs, 1983², 236). Later, this editing was more thorough, esp. via the varied extension, diversified content and motley additions (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 108-109). Dtr did not rework all of them to the same degree. Dtr’s notion of the prophet’s authority left a permanent stamp on the prophetic tradition. As result, the image of the current Prophetic Codex, like that of the Pentateuch, is one of unity rather than diversity. — Although the relationship between Dtr and the classical prophets

231

the general prophetic colouring of older tradition. This was later confirmed in the permanent relationship between the Former Prophets and Later Prophets and that between prophecy and ostensible historiography587. It is because of this invocation of the prophets as religious authority that the

may also be due to their common idiom within Israel’s tradition (Houtman, 1980, 180, 193), that it is due even more to Dtr’s edition of the Prophetic Codex is still generally accepted albeit not everywhere as broadly and not on the same basis (Clements, 1977, 41; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 101; idem, 1984a, 22-23, 191-193). By way of reminder: we are speaking of the last Dtr version. An earlier Dtr version can explain a more optimistic attitude toward the monarchy and esp. Josiah (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 133 n. 93). — Is. 36-39 and Jer. 52 display these added historical elements, see: Wilson R.R., 1999, 76-77; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 98; idem, 1984a, 157 n. 51-52, 188-193; Childs, 1983², 236; Ackroyd, 1978; 21 n. 17. Dtr stressed the idea that YHWH acted primarily through the actions of the prophets in historical events. This is actually a development of a historical theory in function of the preaching of the law (Peckham, 1991). This historical concept justifies the later use of the title Former Prophets for Dtr’s historical work. The term has followed various paths in its continued use (Barr, 1983, 54). — On D’s introduction of historical elements in the cult see: Braulik, 1988a, 185 n. 98. On other of Dtr’s methods and insertions, such as titles, see: Tucker, 1977, 56-70, esp. 69; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 105; Wahl, 1994, 91-104; Leonard, 1972, 161. On the insertion of historical elements in Jer. see: Blenkinsopp, 1977, 101 n. 8; idem, 1984a, 153-176. The deuteronomists’ editing of Jer. is said to comprise nearly a third of the Dtr’s works (Clements, 1995, 445). 587 Auld, 1983; idem, 1984, 66-82, points to the evolution of the terms prophet and to prophesise. — Jacobs, 1975, 115, draws attention to prophesising in the Torah. This is the general tendency in Blenkinsopp, 1977, 81-82. Schmitt, 1982 thinks likewise. Not only does prophecy have a tangible influence on the core traditions, permanent interaction between the two traditions can also be noted, so that the relationship between the prophetic writings, Dtr and P is a continuation of the previous relationship between prophecy and the core traditions (see below 7.3.4). — Steck, 1991, draws attention to the reciprocal relationship between the Former Prophets and Later Prophets. The specific terminology used to distinguish the two prophetic components was only developed in the Middle Ages, although Zech. 1:4;7:7 could be invoked (Childs, 1983², 230). But that both had to be included within a single prophetic whole had long been accepted in tradition and remained current after and despite the distinction between the two made later. — “In the Old Testament, history and prophecy are closely related ... Prophecy, by divine inspiration, arose from Israel’s historical experiences and was to find its fulfilment in history” (Freeman, 19736, 11). “By and large one can say that Israel’s historiography is marked by the prophets’ preaching and that they offered a prophetic analysis of history” (Koole, 1983, 217). Ultimately the whole notion of inspiration grew from the close connection between history and prophecy. This attributes prophetic intervention and authorship to the entire OT (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 98; idem, 1984a, 22,255). It is the source of the interest of the ancient historical narratives, esp. those of D and P, for Israel’s faith during the crisis of the exile (Ackroyd, 19763, 233).

232

Dtr work holds a, if not the, pre-eminent place as the divinely inspired writing that was the first to tread the path toward canonisation588.

6.4.4 The Wisdom Function of the ‫ספר התורה‬ Particularly in the parts of Dt. that it edited we note Dtr’s conviction that the ‫ ספר התורה‬that Moses held forth intended to make Israel a wise nation in the eyes of the nations (Dt. 4:6-7). The condition for this was that the law be observed in practice589. The first requirement for this is that the law be unfolded before Israel (Dt. 1:5) and be heard590. Once the law has been heard, it must be ensured that it remains in the heart and that it is taught to future generations (Dt. 4:9). Although this concerns a law given by YHWH (Dt. 4:36) who is very close to Israel (Dt. 30:11,14) there is still a lot for the people to do (“search after him with all your heart and with all your soul”: Dt. 4:29). This requires the same education and instruction as private schooling (“as a man disciplines his son”: Dt. 8:5). Here there is reason for speaking of a confluence of wisdom tradition and Torah591. This is not a totally new. There had been contact between the two earlier. Dtr, having been set on the way by the classic prophets, knew the ancient Torah 588

Leonard, 1972, 137. Dt. 29:29. If the condition was not satisfied, wisdom led to doom as Solomon’s decline after his infidelity to the law showed (Parker, K.I.; 1992, 75-91). 590 Dt. 4:1; 31:10-13. It does not suffice to invoke Dtr’s interest in prophecy (Wilson, R.R., 1999, 80) or its ideas. Rather Dtr relies on the divine inspiration of the prophets in developing his design. 591 This is the tenor in Preuss, 1987, 161 and Blenkinsopp, 1983, 100, 130-158. Another view: Crenshaw, 1999. There is some reservation regarding this view of confluence as if these were two separate currents within Israel. Recent study of the evolution of the notion of creation and the principle of justification that include not just wisdom, but prophecy and even all of Yahwist faith, provide a more differentiated image, even during the pre-exilic period (Reventlow, 1982, 185-202). We can only retain the essence of the idea of confluence: within Dt. and the Torah tradition the presence of wisdom is, more emphatically than before, felt to be a didactic development of the laws (Reventlow, 1982, 185-202) to the point where Dt. even mentions this wisdom. There is no question here of subjecting Yahwism to non-Yahwist wisdom, but rather of using it within Yahwism e.g. in the formal/legalistic shape that Jer. and others oppose, such as the too demonstrative cultic ceremony, because this risks inhibiting charismatic prophecy (according to McKane, 1965, 102-112). This is not a wisdom text in the strict sense, rather a reference to existing wisdom data (Steck, 1982, 193-224, esp. 199) with as principal item the presentation of ‫ ספר התורה‬as wisdom. This is not unique to Dtr (Steck, 1982, 202, 207-208). The exact meaning of wisdom can only be understood in the broader context of the whole OT tradition (Crenshaw, 19862, 369-407, esp. 391). 589

233

as Weisung or instruction in a historical context and extended it592. This is what distinguishes Israelite Torah wisdom from the wisdom of the surrounding peoples: their own instructive history, developed on a Yahwist foundation, which also determined the future593. The didactic and hence strongly homiletic tenor594 anticipated the development of a need for a

592

Van Leeuwen, C., 1963, 69; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 74-75. The description of Torah as instruction is probably the most comprehensive and perhaps also the oldest. Blenkinsopp, 1983, 83-87. Dtr could even reserve the term Torah for history (Crüsemann, 1989, 250-267, esp. 251). In and outside the cult, Dtr insisted that it not be forgotten. This lead to the development of a memorial culture (Braulik, 1985a). Blenkinsopp, 1983, 74-91, 99; Fishbane, 1980, 351-354. In extending the ancient Torah tradition, the prophets often had to be critical (Zimmerli, 1982, 79-109). This then obliged Dtr to protect tradition from destabilisation by the prophets and to commit the Torah to writing (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 26). The relationship between prophetic and Dtr instruction is also visible in the the attendant homiletic style (Ackroyd, 19763, 72 n. 35). 593 Sanders, 1972, 3. 594 Many seek the origin of the homiletic style in Levitic preaching, said to date from the monarchy in Israel (Houtman, 1980, 175-176, 187-189, who builds on Von Rad). Cook, 1999, 228-231, and Akao, 1994, 174-189, also agree. The latter sees the Levites under Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20-23) evolving as opponents of the Zadokian priests in Jerusalem into a more into a more laicising–critical group of priests that formed the foundation of the Dtr current. Brekelmans, 1979, 28-38, also thought of an older preaching tradition. This hypothesis, which reduces Dtr to one circumscribed category, seems questionable (Hoppe, 1983), given the heterogeneous (Weinfeld, 1972, 55) and thus difficult to identify group that comprise the Dtr authors (Albertz, 1992, 391). The complex origin of the Dtr authors has come to light after study of the ‫( ספר התורה‬6.4.1.-6.4.4.). There is no doubt that the Dtr scribal function (Römer, 2005, 45-49; Preuss, 1987, 32, 176-177; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 145146) in public administration (Cazelles, 1985, 99-106, esp. 102-104) is a certainty. This also applies to their task of copying, revising and studying existing laws (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 100-101). All this can be linked to their possible prophetic–homiletic service (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 98-99). It is an established fact that the D movement underwent influence from the kingdom of Israel (Weinfeld, 1985, 76-98; Cook, 1999, 228-231). Some authors see this contribution from Israel coming from the purported Ephraimite/Elohistic prophetic tendency. Its repercussion can be found in Josh. 24 and 1 Sam. 12 (Rofé, 2000; Wilson R.R., 1980; Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000. Many authors still defend this Elohistic contribution: Gnuse, 2000; another view: Rendtorff, R.1997, 52). Ultimately the D tendency is probably best identified on the basis of the social layers in which its writings and thinking later found greatest response (Blum, 1990b, 342-344). — Whoever the authors of this typical Dtr style may have been, it is certain that this is a striking use of rhetoric aimed at a community that the authors wanted to urge to a specific choice and action. It raises the important theme of practical cooperation via the community’s intelligent obedience (legitimation). This presupposes an attentive hearing (Lenchak, 1993, 83-118) and, of course, an oral delivery.

234

permanent oral interpretation595 and exegesis of the ‫ ספר התורה‬in text form. It should not be surprising that the Dtr’s contribution from human wisdom reached such heights. The prophetic crisis that was part of a broader crisis in religion sparked by the exile compelled faithful Yahwists to an extreme rethinking of the tradition. This was beneficial to the sages, whoever they might have been. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the wisdom contribution to Dtr596, first with regard to the consistently extended application of the retribution principle and then in the evolution of prophecy as emerging wisdom. In addition to the prophetic reflection already mentioned, Dtr also subjected the past to a wisdom reflection597. The influence of wisdom may possibly have led to using models such as the elements that coincide with the political treaties of the day. This is not unusual for ‫ ברית‬terminology598. Wisdom also doubtless exerted a social 595

The adaptation of Ex. 20:24,25 in Dt. 12:5,14 is said to be the result of the permanent oral tradition (Person, 1998) required to harmonise the very different legal collections (Smith M.S., 1971, 12 n. 29, 101-102; Crüsemann, 1992, 397). The same applied to the whole Pentateuch in the Dtr’s broader single narrative (Fishbane, 1985, 265). As lay group descended from a rural population, (‫ )עם הארץ‬the Dtr would have been in the best position to conduct this coordination using this oral tradition and to commit it to writing. 596 “Was von Israel verlangt wird und was JHWH für sein Volk getan hat, soll ... mehr als bisher verständlich sein” (Preuss, 1987, 163). Rationalisation occurred in cases like the evolution of the lament psalms (Kirchner, 1989). Preuss, 1987, 84-90; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 32-33; Ackroyd, 19763, 71 n. 34; Sandmel, 1961, 105-122, esp. 114. Attention is also drawn to the wisdom character of the Song of Moses in Dt. 32 (Preuss, 1987, 157) and of Dt. 4:1-40 (Moore, 1976; Braulik, 1988c, 53-93). 597 Blenkinsopp, 1992, 67. Hence the well-known Dtr history that treats history as theological motivation to encourage intelligent obedience (Preuss, 1982, 128). This leads unavoidably to ideologising the historical representation and even to constructing history (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 118; Barr, 2000; 4.3.). 598 Preuss, 1987, 31-32; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 94-95. Weinfeld drew attention to the Dt.’s relationship to the political treaties of the time (Houtman, 1980, 180-181). The context of the then Assyrian empire may have influenced the royal court in Jerusalem in this regard (Lohfink, 1991f, 25-53, esp. 41-42). There are signs that Dt. was connected to the monarchy. These can be assessed against the law of the king found in Dt. 17:14-20 (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 98). This is probably related to the new hope stirred by the clemency shown to King Jehoiachin. The disappearance of institutions such as the monarchy and temple cult gave a greater role in social life to those circles that helped Josiah to power ( ‫ עם הארץ‬2 Kgs 21;23-24; Wittenberg, 1993, 305-308; Crüsemann, 1992, 248-251). This explains the social orientation of Dt.–Dtr toward ordinary people, e.g. by preferring local jurisprudence to royal power (Macholz, 1972b, 314-340, esp. 338), despite their lofty theological view of the institution (for a contrary view see Westermann, 1990, 144) and their interest in the monarchy as institution, although Dt. had more reservations on this point (Spina, 1994, 67-75, esp. 67) than Dtr (Knoppers, 1996, esp. 344-346). — On the use

235

and humanist influence on the content of the legislation in Dt. It gave the Dtr history the appearance of wisdom about the past that may not be ignored599.

6.5 The Integration of the Priestly Tendency According to the prevailing view, the priestly tendency is to be placed after the Dtr tendency600. It is also rather generally recognised that the priestly tendency contains old traditions as well as close contacts with prophetic circles, specifically those of Ezekiel. Although its own style is readily discernible, there are still problems because of its heterogeneous material601. Rigid adherence to the alternative does not seem able to resolve the problem of the priestly tendency. It is either a document or an editor/redactor. A compromise between the two seems inescapable602. This is only possible when this tendency is viewed as a current with long-term of the term ‫ ברית‬in Dt. see Eynikel, 1996, 58; Nicholson, 1988, 13-20, 87-117; Scharbert, 1985, 165-167; idem, 1981, 163-169; Cross, 1973, 265-273; Davidson, 19934. On the notion of covenant in recent research see: Hahn, 2005; Mayes-Salters, 2003; Linnington, 2002, Idem., 2003, Idem., 2005, Idem., 2006; Otto, E., 2005a. Contrary to those (Perlitt, 1969; Nicholson, 1988; Oden, 1987, 429-447) who wish to attribute the development of this idea exclusively to Dtr, it would seem more reasonable to presuppose with others (esp. McCarthy, 1986, 34-57, esp. 45-48; Cross, 1973, 217-264, Preuss, 1987, 186; Schenker, 1994, 481-494; idem, 2000a; idem, 2000c; Neef, 1987, 170-174; Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 165-208) that it was shaped gradually. This grew with the gradual awareness that Israel was a community that evolved from a tribal structure (Cross, 1998, 3-21), and may even have had an institutional covenant formula Lohfink, 1990c, 132, 149; idem, 1990g, 169-170; idem, 1990e, 211-261. It is further supposed that the prophets stimulated this long before the term ‫ ברית‬was used to refer to it. Dtr can be held responsible for the largely fictional representation of the way that the covenant idea was introduced, but not for the older notion of covenant. 599 Preuss, 1987, 162; Blenkinsopp, 77, 100-101; Westermann, 1990, 31; Phillips, 1982, 224. 600 On the current state of research on the priestly tendency (P) see: Vervenne, 1990, 67-90; Rendtorff, R., 1997, 55-56. 601 Hurvitz 1988, 88-100 gave linguistic arguments for the age of P. An explanation of the hermeneutical background that convinced Jewish and American exegetes to place P in a pre-exilic period and thus spurred a chronological debate can be found in: Blenkinsopp, 1996, 495-518. Milgrom, 1999, responded to this. — Blenkinsopp, 1983, 102-113, esp. 109, stresses the connection between P and Ezekiel. There is no consensus on the recognisability of P’s style, despite S. McEvenue’s praiseworthy study (Vervenne, 1990, 68-69). Vervenne, 1990, 70-72, draws attention to P’s heterogeneity. 602 Vervenne suggested this in 1990 and Blum, 1990b, developed it (Rendtorff, R.,1997, 55). The present author also noted this (Zaman, 1984-5, 182).

236

influence via written documents and editing. In this way, a similar stance is adopted toward all traditional sources603. This priestly current and its influence reached its apex during the exile with the addition of the priestly history, which originated around the same time as that of the Dtr, but which, according to the prevailing view604 was only integrated in the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) at a later date. The following objection can be made against this: 1. There is the P history’s connection to Ezekiel605, which refers back to the time of the Dtr intervention; 2. There are the many points of contact between the Dtr and P tendencies that appear from their contributions to rise from their similarity in situation and circles606; 603

Perlitt, 1988, 86; Milgrom, 2005. For another view see Campbell, 1993, who resolutely argues for P as autonomous document. 604 The connection with the Ezekiel current (Albertz, 1992, 446-459), and the purported uncertainty on the entrance into the country (Ackroyd, 19763, 81-102, esp. 97), are evidence for a dating during the exile. Blenkinsopp, 1977, 56-79; idem, 1984a, 196-197, correctly saw the P history in agreement with the other, esp. legalistic P, elements and possible additions, i.e. as integrated in the whole P current, as the present author defended elsewhere (Zaman, 1984). Another attempt in this direction can be found in Strauss, 1986, 21-28. This assertion does not imply that P can be considered a single continuous document. On that point the present author agreed with Rendtorff. — There seems to be a shift in the prevailing opinion on the integration of P in Dtr: Whybray, 1987, 231-232. ‘Growing number of scholars’, ‘... still winning adherents’ (Blenkinsopp, 1996, 495, 497; Wenham, 1999, 240 n. 4; “...neu zu überprüfen” (Fischer G., 1999, 6). Blum, 1990b, remained traditional. His argument that P took D into account, by regularly correcting and adding to the major Dt. legislation (Blum, 1990, 334-335), need not necessarily lead to the conclusion that P should be dated after D. This could also be explained by the simultaneity of the various traditions, all the more so because Blum incorporates a compromise between D and P in his thesis (Blum, 1990, 358). Yet we refer to our reservations against the exclusive precedence of D. 605 Blenkinsopp, 1977, 69-73; Steck, 1982, 203; Milgrom, 1991. This does not adopt a position regarding the priority between them (as answer to Houtman, 1980, 189-190). It is difficult to establish because they both have a heterogeneous construction as a result of being composed over a longer period. It is only asserted that ideas related to P (Houtman, 1980, 180, 193 called them idioms, Steck, 1982, theological traditions) were present in Ezekiel’s day, which makes it chronologically permissible for Dtr to have incorporated them in the large single narrative. 606 Contrary to the tendency to stress indisputable discrepancies between D and P, we refer with Auerbach, 1953, 2-4, Preuss, 1987, 13, Houtman, 1980, 181-182 and Smith M.S., 1971, 51-56, 101-102 to the numerous agreements between the two. First, regarding ideas: both were involved in the development of the notion of covenant (Rendtorff, R., 1989a, 385-393, esp. 391, who later expanded on this theme: Hahn, 2005, 267-268) and stressed

237

3. There is no conclusive evidence that the historical events after the exile influenced the priestly tendency607. Situations such as the existence of several cultic centres and their usages had already exerted influence. separation from foreign peoples (Smith, M.S. 1971, 54) and nationalism (Lemche, 1988, 184-185). Both also contained utopian ideas of the future arising from their state of exile (Coggins, 19934, 163-181, esp. 172-173). They both lose contact with reality due to a lack of permanent institutions (Albertz, 1992, 376; 470). Dt. 15:4, influenced by the prophets, puts it this way, “there will be no poor among you” (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 97). This is, of course, tempered by the awareness that the poor will have to be supported in the future (Dt. 15:11; Epzstein, 1983, 183). In Lev. 20:24,26, P reached utopian conclusions based on its static views on Israel’s holiness (Smith, M.S. 1971, 101), which is to differ tangibly from D’s more dynamic view arising from a similarly divergent view of life (Regev, 2001). In D this utopian element is also manifest in the modified acceptance of older traditions such as ‫( חרם‬Weinfeld, 1985, 91-92. In Dt., ‫ חרם‬also has to do with the notion of holiness. It is doubtful whether ‫ חרם‬status toward non-Yahwist population groups was feasible in Dtr’s day. “...a utopian law written in retrospect” [Nelson, 1997, 39-54, esp. 52-59]), the war themes (Braulik, 1997b. In prophetic contexts these now appear to be more historically reliable than was previously thought: Barstad, 1993, 53-56) and the portrait given of the future king’s role (Lohfink, 1990d, 305-323, esp. 313-314). The whole of the future programme present in Dt. exudes this utopian slant. P can also be future-oriented (Milgrom, 2000, 61). In addition P and D show similarities in the circles in which they grew (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 24-35; idem, 1983, 98-101). The history of the communities in Jerusalem and Babylon during the exile (Jagersma, 1990a3, 253-265; Negenman, 1986, 7476) and their interaction (Rendtorff, R., 1989a, 59) explain much about their interconnection. The limitation of the faith community and the accumulated external pressure, such as their subjugation to their shared enemy, left D and P no option than to work together (Perlitt, 1988, 87) to support Yahwism, albeit with individual accents. P was generally less oriented toward the country and more toward cultic institutions as seen from its promotion of the Aaronic priesthood, the Sabbath and cult-related prophecy. (D’s cultic interest, esp. its programme-related [Zwickel, 1994, 4] and anti-native [Zwickel, 1994, 4] cultic reforms [Dt. 12 and 16] was concerned more with centralisation in the one ‫קהל‬ [Boecker, 1976, 161; Levinson, 1997, 23-52] and, given its social-humanitarian interest, on its repercussions on popular liturgy.) P wished to safeguard the cult as rite and priestly institution. “The aetiology of a now defunct Israel hoping for restoration of its cultic institutions” (Leonard, 1972, 171). This vision is strikingly universal. Its historical perspective looked back to the start of time, to creation, but ignored the monarchy. D, by contrast, remained aloof to foreign peoples (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 105-106), ethnocentric, and focused on its own people. In that regard, D is generally more social and humanitarian (Blum, 1990b, 342-344) in its orientation to the lay population and thus more attached to prayer than to the cultic sacrifice (Lohfink, 1995d, 228). It held more strongly to the messianic/Davidic monarchy. On their divergent interpretations of Moses’ death see: Mann, 1979, 481-494. Finally, it should be noted that because of their shared ideas at the time of collation, P was used only in those fewer cases where it made a unique contribution (Perlitt, 1988, 87-88). 607 “What is required is to demonstrate that postexilic institutions and practices are antecedent to and reflected in P, and not influenced by or adapted from the material in P. It

238

4. Finally, there is the literary evidence that points to the predominance of the Dtr current over the P current, which does not mean that the latter had no chance to catch up by making later insertions, thanks to the turn of events more favourable to it608. As with the whole issue around the Pentateuch, it is not the task of the present study to provide a conclusive answer. It must restrict itself to determining the possible repercussions of the most defensible views on the study of the canon’s genesis. Seen from the predominantly synchronic approach used here, the time when the P tendency was integrated in the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) is less relevant than the way in which it, as religious document609 found its place in a literary whole that was already far along the road to becoming a canon. Even though this operation was a inestimable enrichment for the single narrative, it can be seen from the restricted extent of the historical contribution (it does not extend beyond is not enough to show similarities, or even connections; it is necessary to demonstrate priority and the flow of influence; in short, that P was produced by the postexilic community” (Freedman, 1963, 256; idem, 1987a, 32). The cultic practice described in P was more dependent on the first than the second temple (Milgrom, 1993, 83-85, esp. 8485). The absence in P of the centralised cult so strongly present in D shows P’s dependence on an earlier time (Gibert, 1995, 409-445, esp. 417). This is confirmed by the acceptance of several cult centres and the usages mentioned, such as the sacrifice of the first fruits (Milgrom, 2000). 608 Schart, 1998, 33 n. 80; Rendtorff, R., 1976, 164; Dammen, 1996, 391, Schmitt, 1979, 152 n. 61. In that regard, Perlitt, 1988, efficiently refuted Blenkinsopp’s (1984a, 22 n. 6) literary arguments and favoured the insertion of P in D. Chapman, 2001, 146-149, similarly corrected Blenkinsopp. Kaufman, 1985, 273-276, also believed it possible to use Dt. 15 to date D after P. But Blum’s (1990b) literary arguments for placing P after D did not convince everyone (according to H. Seebass, in Tr, 88, [1992], 17-21. Crüsemann, 1992, 63, had to recognise that there are so many cases where P texts precede D that it is contestable to place all of P after D without reservation.) This literary analysis must be supplemented with arguments from the historical socio-political context. Was D’s power more decisive in this situation than P’s? An argument in favour of D is its firm presence in the political system since Josiah’s day. Because of the pardon of Jehoiachin, the D current bounced back and certainly enjoyed favour among the people. This is confirmed in the following events around Zerubbabel (Ackroyd, 1977a, 236). P, by contrast, can initially only count on the small group of senior priests found mainly in Babylon (Jagersma, 1990a3, 256). Was P able to turn the argument in his favour after the restoration of the temple and thanks to the power base that the priests could then develop? It is certain that Dtr’s style, imitated or original, is found in late redactions and editions, e.g. of the Prophetic Codex, from the third century BCE (Steck, 1991, 146-150. — On Dtr’s recovery of lost ground see Kaufman, 1985, 15; De Pury-Römer, 1989, 70-73; Kratz, 2000, 224; Fabry, 1985, 351-356; Houtman, 2004, 3. 609 Blenkinsopp, 1996, 497.

239

Joshua) that it was of supplementary rather than decisive importance for the future canonical whole. In this regard, the contribution of the P tendency does not appear to have been dominant in a whole governed by unifying ties inserted by Dtr. This is also explained by the evidence showing that the P tendency did not carry out the final editing on the Pentateuch610.

6.6.1 Treatment of Traditional Material: Concentration and Selection The Dtr tendency’s single narrative extends over the largest part of the traditional material within the later Hebrew canon611. That was possible because of its own contribution but also because it amassed oral and written tradition that was available in Israel but distributed over the various parts of society. This last can be noted in the present products of the documents recognised by the traditional four-source hypothesis. Many other less identifiable sources612 were also used. However broadly the concentration was carried out, it still did not result in a more complete collection, not even in the area that can be considered specific613 to the compilers. It appears that they applied a selection principle consistent with their commitment of the information to writing. What this selection principle was and the extent to which the compilers can be held responsible for the missing traditional material in the historical chronicles 610

Blenkinsopp, 1992, 77. The material running from Gen. through 2 Kgs was organised into 11 of the 24 or 22 (depending on the count in 4 Ezra or by F. Josephus) writings that make up the Hebrew canon and represents nearly half of the canonical material, nearly all the legal material and approx. 2/3 of the narrative material. If we add to this its prophetic (6.4.2) and wisdom (6.4.3) pretensions, nearly all genres are represented. 612 Esp. the wisdom current. In Ch. 7 We will sound out the written and other sources that Dtr may have used. 613 Within this area there was much discussion on the completion of JEP (Van der Woude, 1986a, 20-21; Houtman, 1980, 214-242) and via this path on the selecting role of Dtr and all of orthodox Yahwism (Talmon, 1987, 55). We also note a limited dissection of the sources cited but not preserved in the tradition, e.g. 1 Kgs 11:41; 14:19,29; 15:23. The factual material that may have been available on the history of the kings was certainly not used uniformly. Little is used on King Omri in 1 Kgs 16 (Childs, 1983², 237; Smelik, 1985, 43-69), but much about the rise of the monarchy in 1 Sam. 7-2 Sam. Documents not mentioned may also have been adopted as the compilers saw fit (e.g. the “prophetische Vorlage” Auld, 1983, 14-16), but presumably developed notionally. Its own area did not include the psalms, lamentations, proverbs and collections of prophetic traditions, that later entered the Prophet Codex. 611

240

of the kings can perhaps become clearer by examining how they arranged and used614 the material that they had available.

6.6.2 Treatment of Traditional Material: Priority of Dtr’s Contribution to Creating Unity Despite potentially arbitrary circumstances615, the comprehensive body of traditional material in the single narrative arose via its conscious arrangement. The main concern was to create unity. The older material was united by more than the previously noted unifying ties. Everything possible was also done to harmonise and supplement616 it, if necessary by 614

“Daß es sich dabei um eine Auswahl von Materialien ... handelt ...versteht sich von selbst” (Soggin, 1991, 22). “The effect of tradition becoming scripture was to foreshorten the tradition, within the biblical period, to an astonishing degree”. (Barr, 1983, 47). “...eine solche ... Engführung ... sie ist ... nicht langsam herangereift. Sie bedeutet vielmehr radikale Selektivität” (Lohfink, 1991f, 39). Dtr’s generalising orientation (6.3) – further developed in its revision of prophecy (Dt. 44-45) and the legal material – is eligible for selection principle important for the study of the canon’s genesis. In prophecy Dtr disabled the mantic tendency while shifting classical prophecy from the margins to the centre of society (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 128). The legal material is also eligible (6.4.2.; “Seine [Recht, L.Z.] Funktion ... ist Selektion: Auswahl im Blick auf die Alternativen, die der Welt derer denen es gilt, ihnen als Möglichkeit bietet” [Halbe, 1985, 55]). The circumstance that this orientation took place during the selection of historical material (Lemche, 1988, 59-60; see 7.4.) is evident. The following considerations will show that the position adopted here differs somewhat from that of those like Soggin, 1991 ibid, and the Amsterdam School that wished to attribute the choice to the compilers. 615 One must “...continually realise that irregularities and inconsistencies in the text may not need any other explanation than that they should be attributed to the prehistory of the text” (Houtman, 1980, 156). In that case, a theological interpretation is called for. “...it is also quite possible that elaborations and combinations of traditional materials come about without the intervention of redactors ... There may be much more order in an apparently rambling Pentateuch, and yet there may be less order in it than redaction critics suppose” (Vervenne, 1990, 90). “Im Übrigen lassen sich eine Reihe von Unstimmigkeiten im dtn Gesetz wahrscheinlich nur auf der diachronen Ebene erklären, während sie auf der synchronen Ebene bestehen bleiben und die Logik des Aufbaues stören” (Braulik, 1985b, 252- 272, esp. 259). The exact relationship between the redaction and its sources in Dtr is open for discussion (O’Brien, 1989a, 14-34, esp. 16 n.8). This will be treated in Ch. 7. 616 Sæbø, 1988, 121. Regarding the harmonisation of the narrative elements, there are apparently D-related redactions between Ex. 19-34 and Dt. 5-11 (Vermeylen, 1985, 174207). If the other parts already referred to in the now remaining products of the JEP currents are lacking, this is partly due to the intercalation of JEP in the single narrative in the same way as already described for P (Perlitt, 1988, 87-88). — Regarding supplements to the narrative material: the existing Israel epic that extends up to the entrance into the Promised Land, is extended on a same level as that of the history in the Promised Land up

241

adapting the material617, preferably by placing it in a broader context. The picture of the single ‫ ספר התורה‬that the authors ultimately provide via Moses, is ideally suited to summon up the idea of unity. Recurring techniques and themes618 that overarch all the material, further stress the option for unity. Given this, it is unavoidable that the ultimate unity effect gives the impression of having priority. In the past this was generally felt to be the case, certainly up to the rise of modern biblical criticism. In the more recent period, thanks to the breakthrough of literary theory in biblical criticism, the focus is again on biblical writings’ option for unity619. This option for unity finds support in the case of Dtr single narrative. This is also the case for the specifically Dtr creations, no so much because of the volume of the authors’ interventions in the collected traditional material, as for the orienting role620 that they play in editing the tradition. Even just materially, it was already a major task to present as a structural unity the large amount of material described in 6.6.1. Given their Dtr tradition, the motive for the compilers pursuit of unity was sparked more by inner conviction than literary technique. In this, socio-political factors are so entwined with the religious that they cannot be separated and can hardly be

to the exile (6.3). Similarly, the older legal codices are also supplemented and centralised in the same source of authority by attributing them to Moses. 617 The intervention already discussed (only synchronically here) in the current legislation, in prophecy (6.4.3), in wisdom ideas (6.4.4) and the integration of P, presumably with the help of the D current (6.5) all illustrate how much the borrowed material was modified. In the history of the golden calf, Dt. 9:21 not only appears dependent on Ex. 32:20, it was also consciously modified (Begg, 1985b, 208-251, esp. 247). One more detail: The child’s question in Dt. 6 that the Dtr later inserted in Ex. 12 and 13 was probably included to promote unity in teaching (Fabry, 1985, 351 n. 7) and in the memorial culture. 618 The Passover feasts serve to promote thematic unity of this type (Nobile, 1990; Van Goudoever, 1985). The transition from plural ‫ תורות‬to the one ‫ התורה‬is also a recurrent theme in Dtr. 619 Rendtorff, R., 1997, 56-58. “Upon close inspection, the Pentateuch appears to be more of a unity than any critic will acknowledge” (Houtman, 1980, 244). This is the source of the notion that the whole Pentateuch has only one author (Whybray, 1987). 620 The aspired to Gestaltung or configuration of the single narrative in its stylistic and structural whole weighs more heavily (Locher, 1985a, 298-303 esp. 298) than the editorial technique subtly used in the construction. In this regard the following authors developed an interesting view in need of further study: Smelik, 1985; idem-Van Soest, 1993, 62-86; idem-Van Soest, 1994, 6-71; idem, 1996, 26-42. Similar approaches from a literary perspective that stress the unifying ties in the writings studied are given more chance as the methods of classical biblical criticism fail (3.3.3.1-3.3.3.2; O’Brien, 1995, esp. 101-102).

242

discerned621. On a political and social level, the exile reinforced the combination of various Yahwist forces to help cope with the emergency situation caused by a common enemy oppressor (a classic situation in Israel’s history)622. The Dtr authors, as successors to a long tradition known for its pursuit of unity, gratefully took advantage of this situation to use its unifying work as primary tool to nudge the Yahwist current step by step toward the intended unity623. In their view, the need for unity arose 621

Becker, 2005, 5-8; Crüsemann, 1989, focuses on the intertwining (concentration) to rate the legal codes at their true value. Contrary to the present study, he places this event fully in the Persian period. It is hardly possible to accept his view that the study of the social and political factors are of little use in studying the narrative parts (Crüsemann, 1989, 251). Literary differences conceal social and political factors needed to explain the differences. 622 Smith M.S., 1971, 48-56, saw the work of the Dtr as a collection (concentration) of the different ‘YHWH alone’ tendencies that focus (esp. in P; view of holiness and orientation toward institutional cult) on cult (covenant renewal). Hoffmann, 1980, emphasises the cult theme and its concentration in Dt.–Dtr even more strongly. For another view see Smelik, 1992b, 239. There is good reason for this. Dt. 12-18 is dedicated to the cult. This represents nearly the first half of the legal complex extending to Dt. 26. “...Israël n’a jamais manqué de champion qui le convoque pour résister à un ennemi...” (Crenshaw, 1982, 245-269, esp. 251). Since this common enemy has tied its lot to some god, and Israel increasingly to the ‘God of Israel’, the urge for freedom and unity of this relatively small population is stimulated almost exclusively via Yahwism and monotheism. This united front in the face of external pressure did not eliminate internal division. For that reason, Crenshaw writes, “Un ennemi commun et une foi partagée, ce sont les deux choses qui ont assuré la cohésion d’Israël en dépit des voix dissonantes” (Crenshaw, 1982, 251). 623 The extent to which cult reform described in 2 Kgs 23 undertaken by King Josiah was the result of the discovery of the law book described in 2 Kgs 22:8-23:27 should be considered a historical description and understood as the centralisation of the cult in Jerusalem (Heger, 1999, 285-299) as part of his political pursuit of Greater Israel rather than an anti-Assyrian cultic purification outside of Jerusalem is still not decided Houtman, 1980, 170-176; Lohfink, 1985, 24-48, esp. 26; idem, 1987b). It is certain that the D current was closely connected to King Josiah’s pursuit of political unity (Jagersma, 1990a3, 237 n. 14, 238-239; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 108-110; 133). In the time of King Josiah, the Dtr redaction purportedly retrojected his pursuit of independence and national unity as it was in David’s day into the conquest narratives in Joshua (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 172-173). As Dt. shows, more than just the cult was at issue. “La centralisation est une donnée fondamentale de la législation deutéronomique, même si l’on admet plusieurs strates dans cette législation” (Cazelles, 1985, 105). Apart from that, religion and the socio-political events of the time had little to do with one another. This is certainly the case for Josiah’s reform (Uehlinger, 1998, 76-77). — Dt. did all it could to bring the various voices within Israel into unity. “Il (Dt., L.Z.) est l’expression sinon de tout Israël, du moins de la grande majorité du peuple” (Jacob, 1975, 109). Popular liturgy was a target based on a theology of the united people of God ‫( קהל‬Braulik, 1988b, 95-121). “Betroffen wird zuerst der Kult als eigentlicher Brennpunkt völkischen Lebens” (Koch, 1980, 13). The extent to which the D current united the various tendencies among the cult personnel, reflected in the narratives

243

when the Davidic kingdom fell apart.. The location of the exilic situation within the framework of a larger and traditional religious history is also a consequence of their concern for a unified Israel. It offers the Dtr tendency abundant opportunity to use its talents for ethical and political structuring in a graphic and didactic manner for the benefit of its unity project. Its ambitious historical task seems intended less to provide a detailed historical account than to remain faithful under new circumstances to a tradition considered true. It is evident that Dtr authors consider the substance of their historical narrative as a declaration of their existence as a people and as such as a guideline to orthodoxy. That is why they place their religious conviction in a broad historical perspective. They believe that this develops linearly, not cyclically624 and thus from a distant past over the present (esp. in the establishment of the monarchy) to the future. With this procedure, the authors hope to avoid a break with the meaningful past and to prevent the threatened alienation sparked by the evolution. Where needed they will use historical and literary fiction to offer on the conflict between Moses and Aaron (Cross, 1973, 195), is uncertain (Houtman, 1980, 187-192). The attendant diachronic sequence is only touched on here, but will receive more attention in Ch. 7. 624 As Palache-Beek already mentioned, attention is correctly drawn to the creativity in OT storytelling. “For Israel, history is viewed as the record of Yahweh’s dealings with Israel, since it is in its relationship with Yahweh that Israel is constituted a people. The canonicity of the Old Testament literature would then be seen as originating in the ability of the literature to express the history of Yahweh’s activity in relation to his people” (Leonard, 1972, 159). Of course, the directive and canonising character of the already existing view of history that the Dtr authors presuppose does not mean that they could allow themselves broad freedom in their fictional-historicising development without doing a disservice to a fundamentally religious view of history. They even gave it texture from their historical and prophetic reflection. In the meantime it has become known how lively their narrative style is and remains for the modern reader – esp. as seen by the Amsterdam School. “The unique thing about Israel from the beginning was not that the invented history was the first to record it, but that history was for her the ‘myth’ accounting for things as they were”, according to H.H. Guthrie, cited in Leonard, 1972, 168. A. Jepsen noted that there is little if any sign in the OT of myth and fable, customary genres in Middle Eastern culture. “Thus ‘the historical character (at the basis, not the surface L.Z.) of this collection of writings’ is clearly evident. For Jepsen, ‘the special quality of the Old Testament writings’ is that ‘they intend to relate what (in essence, L.Z.) happened, and that not only between men, but between God and man, in the course of human history, especially the history of Israel ...’ Jepsen states that … ‘the Old Testament (in our study Dtr, L.Z.) does not purpose just to report this history, but along with this something else, namely, to show how this history is to be understood.’” (Leonard, 1972, 159-160). This last seems impossible without maintaining a modicum of contact with real history.

244

reassurance about the future625. Since divergent insights remain possible, the procedure can require further confirmation. This view fits in the Dtr’s general pursuit of certainty and security626.

6.6.3 Secondary Heterogeneity Despite giving priority to a unified arrangement of its material, the single narrative also shows traces of a heterogeneous composition627. We may not ignore this. The question is, how should this be assessed? We can emphasise the concern for continuity in the tradition to which the Dtr now give central place. It restrained the not to be underestimated creativity of the Dtr editors. Not only was the age-old general tradition considered authoritative, but later, differing tradition had derived such authority from the groups that adopted them that the Dtr could not simply ignore them628. That is why they seemed so concerned to preserve alleged Ephraim traditions from the Kingdom of Israel beside those from the Kingdom of Judah. As was mentioned, the Dtr considered older traditions of this type to be valuable and treated them with respect629. These circumstances 625

“Cela cesse d’être anormal” (Ackroyd, 1977a, 228). The liturgical rite can be seen from the same perspective, that of placing a current or personal event within a larger acceptable whole. This also explains the general tendency in organising and reworking the traditions to treat these traditions cautiously and respectfully, certainly in the Pentateuch (Vervenne, 1990, 90; Houtman, 1980, 162-163; Childs, 1983², 223-224). That was particularly the case for legal traditions. “Because of its prestige and normative status, the law could not be dispensed with or bypassed” (Levinson, 1997, 33-34). 626 Regarding prophecy, the pursuit of security was already noted in 6.4.3. The restoration of the interrupted institutions such as monarchy (2 Kgs 25:27-30 supported by Jer. 33:1426; Ez. 37:24-25, see García López, 1985, 296) and temple (all of P; Dtr, however, has the temple in Jerusalem in mind: see Hoppe, 1985, 109; Lohfink, 1995c, 107-110) can also be mentioned here. — The care for security was also Dtr’s concern in adapting the central tradition. He felt that restrictions should be incorporated (Fishbane, 1985, 263), esp. on ordinary people or zealous copyists, but without endangering the legitimate adaptations by authorised prophets (Lohfink, 1990d, 321-322). This is also supported by the preservation of diversity in the tradition as will be described in 6.6.3. See also Ch.7. 627 “...the building blocks are usually still recognisable and do not always appear to fit in equally well with one another” (Houtman, 1980, 244). “Wer nach der ‘Einheit der Schrift’ fragt, muß also nach ihrem Offenbarungszeugnis fragen” (Söding, 2005, 13). 628 Steck, 1992, 15. That is demonstrated in the respect with which the existing prophetic traditions were treated during their Dtr revision. 629 Clements, 1993², 79-83; Wilson R.R., 1980; Cook, 1999. There are many different opinions on this influence on D from the Kingdom of Israel (Rofé, 2000). To these can be added the suggestion of a possible connection between the E tradition in the Pentateuch and

245

hindered the Dtr in the creative development of their single narrative. One result is that, contrary to their will, a degree of heterogeneity remained in their single narrative. They are presumed to have tolerated this only under circumstantial pressure. But the persistent heterogeneity can also be given a more positive theological assessment. Rather than as simply an imposed literary growth to ensure the unity of the Torah as the Dtr identified it or a tentative compromise to preserve internal unity temporarily before the outside world, it can be seen as a consciously accepted dynamic process developed via explanation and revision for future use. In that case, the Dtr would have advanced this reworking with their single narrative and have foreseen that their successors would have continued the process630.

D (Cazelles, 1993, 288-319; Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000; Cook, 1999, 221 n. 15). Even if the traditions were only oral, they were still to be respected (Koole, 1983, 208; Schmidt W.H., 1983a, 41). Hence the shift of prophecy to the past (6.4.3.) where its authority with a view to the future is guaranteed. 630 Hanson, 1977, 118-131. The public reading of the legal texts may have contributed to the literary growth process (Watts, 1995). The same process is found in the Code of Hammurabi (Boecker, 1976, 72). The one Torah wanted to cover all aspects of life at the same time (Crüsemann, 1987, 66). The expansion of the traditional material – esp. into history and more so by the influx of legal provisions and addresses – all under the single heading Torah – makes this clear. For another view, see: Smith, M.S., 1971, 173-227 who supports the idea of a compromise. “Le discours et la législation deutéronomiques s’adressent à un Israël apparemment collectif ... cet Israël que l’on voudrait unifié, mais qui ne l’est pas” (Cazelles, 1985, 101). Behind this single narrative are groups/parties (Smith M.S., 1971, 101-102) that each evolved according to their own tendency. “It was not disinterested writing, not mere automatic copying. No writer ever writes without some purpose” (Sandmel, 1961, 121); “...die Diskontinuität ist intendiert” (Blum, 1991, 50). “...the fusion of parallel and conflicting sources attests to uncritical historical writing ... this was not the result of an underdeveloped sense of historical thinking, but of the fact that the biblical historians treated their sources as sacred materials whose authenticity was not be doubted” (Rofé, 1988b, 77). The redactors’ conscious collection of divergent versions is the basis of the canon’s continuing dynamic (Dozeman, 2000b, 45). “An entire trajectory of ongoing textual transformation takes shape as the revising text is itself eventually revised by another literary stratum, only to be revised in turn” (Levinson, 1997, 153). Dtr (at least de D redactors who put the last touches to the final text of the Pentateuch) left the contradictions in the traditions that they included, e.g. between the long-suffering YHWH and his anger (Crenshaw, 1982, 267), or contrasts, e.g. in the Book of the Covenant that they relayed and edited (Lohfink, 1996, 129). By including additions and their own material in their own Dt. law book, the Dtr show that despite retention of the contradictions that occurs outside their work, they do not resign themselves to them. They consider their own corrections to be inspired on what was taking place in the older traditions. They do not see them as an end point but rather as onsets for later generations’ further reflection and refinement (Hanson, 1977, 114, 127 n. 15. Another view: Childs, 1983², 212; 233-224).

246

6.6.4 Dynamic Loyalty to Tradition In 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 we saw how much the Dtr relied, when arranging their material, on their concern to preserve existing tradition as they preferred it and by the need to edit it. Their conviction that what had been built up in the tradition they chose is, in principle, of lasting value applied to more than the broad lines of the tradition, the epic of Israel, the structured Torah. It also included the divergent versions that they included despite the resulting heterogeneity as described. These, too, have a right to lasting appreciation and, in the Dtr’s conviction must always have their place within Yahwism. Hence their concern for committing all tendencies to writing and the attendant creation of unifying ties. In their view, Yahwism can only respond to the present situation and the future by drawing from the single, yet so differentiated, tradition. That is why their whole Dtr enterprise is dominated by the rediscovery of the old Mosaic law book in the temple. On the other hand, the Dtr are equally convinced of the need to adapt the tradition to which they wish to remain faithful, because of the crisis of their time. Under these circumstances they were obliged to revise it to do justice to its lasting value. This revision was often thorough, affecting the main features as well as the heterogeneous material631. This dynamism in their work led to a real shift in the whole tradition, despite appearances of the historical design632. But they did not believe that this They invoke the fact that all traditions, even the contradictory, have a permanent positive value for the future (Fishbane, 1985, 264; Gese., 1987, ThQ 167 [1987], 252-265, esp. 258). 631 The unifying ties include attribution to Moses at the expense of the Davidic tradition, linked to the emphasis on the authority of Moses to speak on behalf of YHWH in what had previously served as a different type of legislation (Fishbane, 1980, 347). More was done to the existing Israel epic than adding Josh.–Kgs to the historical material. This material was also given a new orientation to explain the catastrophe of the exile, which was seen as the consequence of failure to observe the Mosaic Torah. 632 “When we think of shifts, we think of ... a change to the significance of the whole as the result of editing or the addition of new material” (Verburg, 1983, 45). This shift can also be seen in the D current’s editing of the older Book of the Covenant. “Der Umbruch der JosiaZeit war so tiefgreifend, daß eine Reformierung des Bundesbuches durch unmittelbare Fortschreibung nicht mehr möglich war, sondern es einerneuen Sammlung des Deuteronomiums bedurfte, die das Bundesbuch auslegt und ergänzt” (Otto E., 1995b, 373392, esp. 380). The new material would be fictionally represented as a continuation of the older form. It would “...lend legitimacy to their innovation ... as if they derived from authoritative texts that neither contain nor anticipate those insights” (Levinson, 1997, 6, 15). Ch. 7 will show how the religious traditions from the Kingdom of Israel were

247

detracted from the value of the adapted tradition, which they considered inviolable633. The Dtr followed a fixed hermeneutical principle634. They do, indeed, provide a new construction, a second Torah635, built, faithful to tradition yet creatively, from the building blocks of the past to which it can no longer be reduced. Similarly, it cannot be rated at its true value without exploring the origin of its building materials and the way they were edited. integrated with those of the Kingdom of Judah (Ackroyd, 1977a, 242-244). “Quand la communauté entreprend d’exprimer ses croyances dans le langage du temps, il ne faut pas s’étonner qu’il y ait des gens pour lesquels les indices de changements semblent entraîner l’abandon des croyances anciennes” (Ackroyd, 1977a, 239). The use of old, but reinterpreted, texts and sayings cannot disguise the true scope of the changes made. “La préservation de matériaux anciens peut être trompeuse par la continuité qu’elle suggère; en fait, la différence peut être grande entre un usage ancien, plus littéral, et sa réinterprétation postérieure, que la discontinuité de la pensée est plus grande que la continuité” (Ackroyd, 1977a, ibid). 633 The aspired balance between old and new (in the new, preference is given to the fictive creative, rather than to exclude other versions) in D’s method, i.e. the selection principle, was fittingly described in the treatment of Dt. 17:14,20 as follows: “.. l’auteur de l’élaboration protodeutéronomique n’a pas seulement recueilli et agencé avec soin les matériaux qui allaient composer son édition, mais il les a aussi retouchés et élaborés, en y ajoutant un certain nombre d’éléments personnels, particulièrement au début, au milieu et à la fin du Code (Dt. 6-11; 17-18; 26)” (García López, 1985, 293-294). 634 Braulik, 1985b, 272, shed light on the hermeneutical principle applied when developing the Decalogue in Dt. In this way the importance of hermeneutics comes to the fore, this time on the level of the biblical authors, here the Dtr. This is no less central for them than for modern authors. “Central to Deuteronomy is the question of hermeneutics. In stressing the importance of hermeneutics, I do not restrict it to the discipline of the contemporary biblical scholar or exegete ... Hermeneutics is not simply a matter of the history of reception and interpretation of Deuteronomy by ancient, medieval or modern communities of believers or scholars. Instead, Deuteronomy was already a complex hermeneutical work from the beginning” (Levinson, 1997, 4). 635 “The Pentateuch is a construction, built with considerable creativity, in which very different building stones were use to erect a new building” (Houtman, 1980, 244). The name Deuteronomy can be ascribed to an incorrect translation of Dt. 17:18 in the LXX (Clements, 1993², 7). Yet the tradition has good cause to speak of a “second” Torah or Deuteronomy. Dt. presents itself as the second law given in the fields of Moab, distinct from that of Horeb (Dt. 28:69). This applies as much to the revision of Dt. by Dtr as it does to Dt.’s revision of the old legal collections. “In this regard, the deuteronomist makes the deuteronomic code speak with a new voice” (Knoppers, 1996, 345). It is not by chance that the classical prophets – whom Dtr takes as model (6.4.3) – speak of a new covenant (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 236). The newness in Dt.–Dtr should not be underestimated. “...not simply transmitting ... replacements ... turned” (Nelson, 1997, 51-53; Levinson, 1997, esp. 3-22, 144-157). The newness of the covenant consisted primarily in its interiority and more meticulous compliance with it (Linnington, 2003, 288).

248

Even more, the Dtr saw the new structure as only one element, one tentative achievement in a continuing series of constructions636.

6.6.5. Historical Contingency With their choice for dynamic loyalty to tradition, Dtr opt for a message with lasting value. The written and historical models are part of this637. In launching a work intended for all generations, the Dtr could not escape giving due consideration to the Sitz-im-Leben of their own generation for 636

The Dtr could be very creative, but still show signs that they were bound to their sources. “The revision of earlier works as well as the interpretation of a still fluid tradition display creative imagination and innovative freedom. On the other hand, considerable respect was shown toward the material they had at their disposal.” (Vervenne, 1990, 90). This results in differing images from one place to another in the single narrative (6.3). — Literary criticism, form criticism, history of religion (3.1.7) etc. can help us understand the texts in their present context. They can show that combining and ordering the material handed down can produce a new structure with its own tendency, without it being possible to assert that every detail in the new structure has an equally loaded function as it had in the previous stage of the tradition (Houtman, 1980, 156). Levinson, 1997, and Perlitt, 1985, 149-163 demonstrated that superbly in the limited area of Dt. 1-3, while showing the new unity in Dt. (6.6.2) in the same area. “Denn das Alte Testament selbst in seiner Fülle lehrt, daß Israel die großen Taten seines Gottes nicht einmal oder gar ein für allemal, sondern immer wieder neu und anders beschrieben, also geradezu fortgeschrieben hat” (Perlitt, 1985, 158-159). This quotation develops the idea of the sustained dynamic process referred to in 6.6.2. Here the purported “dynamic confessional centre” (Hanson, 1977, 122) can also be viewed as the driving force behind Dtr’s creativity. This is the principle of faith that says that the traditional past can provide a justification for any event now or in the future, even when this requires that the tradition be reinterpreted. Through their radical innovation of Israel legislation, the designers of Dt. created a precedent that Dtr could apply later. “In the way that they revised previous texts and previous norms of religion and law, the authors of Deuteronomy unintentionally provided a precedent for how their own composition would itself be revised by subsequent writers” (Levinson, 1997, 22). Here, by contrast, it is supposed that both the designers of Dt. and Dtr must have foreseen the further adaptation of their own work and, in principle, showed acceptance of this in their own methodology. 637 “Wer aber von der ‘Einheit’ der Schrift redet, muß sich fragen lassen, wie es dann um die geschichtliche Entstehung und textliche Vielfalt der Heiligen Schrift bestellt ist” (Söding, 2005, 13).“...it would be wrong to think that there is something false or spurious about this claim (that Dt. is the book containing the law of Moses, L.Z.). The book’s clear intention is to present to its readers genuine information about the content of Mosaic faith and morality” (Clements, 1993², 69). Dt. 29:29 clearly distinguishes between the “secret things belong to the Lord our God” and those made known in “the words of this law”. In this way the Dtr situate their work, “the words of this law”, within the period and in the shape (this law) that must allow it to be obeyed, which is impossible for “secrets things belong[ing] to the Lord our God”.

249

whom the work was intended. That is why we find reflected in the large single narrative the identity crisis of the exilic generation, embroiled in its struggle to survive as a religious nation of Israel638. It was already noted that the single narrative is marked by the specific needs resulting from the catastrophe that was the exile639. The time-bound character, above all with regard to the generation at that time, does not prevent a broader, generalised, perspective of the future on the condition that this application remains linked to the original historical context from which it arose. For the Dtr tendency, awareness of the need to remain in contact with the original context is clearly present640. 638

Childs correctly points out that Dt. (he referred only to the book Dt., but the present author to the whole Dtr current that it represents) wanted to keep the wealth of the Mosaic law within the reach of the “successive generations who had no direct access to Sinai” (Childs, 1983², 224). But this should be explained in the sense that the audience consists of “the new generations of Israel who are instructed from the past” (Childs, 1983², 238). If lessons can be drawn for later generations, these could only be modelled on the generation for which it was first intended. “I do not think that the influence of the Babylonian exile on the canonisation of the OT is accidental; the people in that situation had to recover their identity” (Koole, 1983, 196). See 2.2.C. 639 This concrete Sitz-im-Leben is the starting point for Dt. preaching. “Le (Dt., L.Z.) prédicateur ne fait pas de la rhétorique pure, mais il tient compte d’une situation réelle, d’un Sitz im Leben précis ... de même que ces textes, Dt. 17:14,20 reflètent une expérience particulière ...” (García López, 1985, 291-292). The updated development of the Decalogue in Dt. interprets the Sitz-im-Leben of the generation of the time. “Dieser Bezug des Dekalogs auf die Einzelgesetze als seinen Kontext ist zwar ... zeitgebunden” (Braulik, 1985b, 272); “Denn mindestens bei dem hier untersuchten deuteronomischen Modell zeigt sich deutlich ... es hat auch wieder seine einmalige Bindung an die Verhältnisse seiner eigenen Zeit, ja es ist so sehr zeitgebunden, daß es wohl niemals adäquat realisiert werden könnte.” (Lohfink, 1990d, 323). 640 “Cela ne signifie pas qu’il n’a pas le regard tendu vers un idéal, mais qu’il veut y parvenir à partir de la situation concrète que vit le peuple auquel la parole s’adresse ... sans que pour cela elle ne se réduise exclusivement à un seul moment historique. Dans un cas comme dans l’autre, l’auteur des textes protodeutéronomiques s’élève au-dessus des cas particuliers pour passer au plan des principes plus généraux, valables pour d’autres situations. En ne précisant pas la situation dans laquelle se trouve le peuple et le roi, il est sous-entendu que le prédicateur donne à ses exhortations pressantes un caractère général, qu’elles sont applicables non seulement à un roi mais à plusieurs.” (García López, 1985, 291-292). “Die eigentliche Leserschaft des Deuteronomiums, nämlich die Judäer im Babylonischen Exil, und auch alle späteren Generationen können sich mit dem ursprünglichen Israel, dem Volk des Exodus und Horeb, identifizieren” (Braulik, 1997b, 11). In this way Dtr intended to give their exilic redaction a message of lasting and binding scope (with the canonical option) for the contemporary generation but also for all following Yahwist generations. But the question regarding the specific Dt. laws as those in the XXXX is: How utopian is this legislation? Should it not be understood spiritually (Braulik, 1997b,

250

It is customarily agreed that the Dtr corpus was not created in one go, but in a sequence of stages running from King Josiah’s rule to the start of the exile641. The needs and political circumstances to which the Dtr corpus wanted to respond changed perceptibly during this interval. This was unavoidably reflected in remoulded visions and viewpoints. The present study confirms this observation in all areas where the Dtr corpus operates642. A global synchronic approach to Dtr’s endeavour, as we have thus far preferred to apply, is no longer sufficient under these circumstances. An explicit diachronic approach becomes more imperative as the study progresses. This will be commenced in Ch. 7. Anticipating the coming diachronic exploration of the sources of the Dtr corpus and on the basis of what has been ascertained regarding the single narrative (Gen.-2 Kgs), we can now offer a more detailed description of the identity of the Dtr authors. The more the single narrative is studied, the more important the identity of the authors is felt to be for its evaluation. A prime characteristic of this identity seems to be the concern for the survival and welfare of Israel as nation. This includes the former Kingdom of Israel and the then extant Kingdom of Judah as well as their respective traditions. According to the Dtr vision, they still comprise one nation with option for a sovereign and free country643. The sole purpose of the monarchy and all other administrative and juridical institutions, whose constitutional644 status was extensively described, is to serve the one Israel of the one YHWH. In this way the Dtr authors show that they operated in the administrative community that had close contact with the royal court645. 37-38) so that a synchronic approach like the one used here is no longer sufficient and thus requires a diachronic study? Is the Vernichtung or annihilation via the ‫ חרם‬not made dependent on maintaining the ‫ ספר התורה‬so that it operates for Dtr as conditional promise? It is not because Dtr compromised with history in developing their scheme that they must relinquish all historical reality. 641 Clements, 1993², 74-75; Wilson R.R., 1999, 82. 642 Römer, 1997; Knoppers, 1996; Levinson, 1997. 643 “...the act of Israel’s foundation” (Weinfeld, 1985, 76). “Its intent is to provide a binding and comprehensive blueprint for the Israelite commonwealth” (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 233). 644 “Deuteronomy insists on ... the basis of a recognition of some level of community membership and of obligations created by shared experience ... those groups have a share in Israel’s canonical experience of oppression” (Nelson, 1997, 49-51). “They aspire to a constitution, in which a society (nation) and its duty and its relations to other societies are all carefully defined, and in which ritual and civil regulations equally play a part” (Davies P.R., 1998, 92). 645 Römer, 2005, 47. It is certain that the Dtr had access to the royal archives (Vermeylen, 2003, 221). This is confirmed, if not by their direct use of royal inscriptions (Uehlinger,

251

Characteristic is that they prefer to entrust the continued existence and survival of Israel to a series of institutions operating under the hegemony of the prophetic ‘YHWH alone’ tradition. The monarchy was also subordinated to this. Evidence for this is the fact that the king’s restricted status came after that of the elders–judges (‫)זקנם‬, the prophets, the priests and even the Levites. This sequence shows the scale of values that the Dtr used to measure the institutions that serve YHWH’S Israel. The scribes646 were doubtless sufficiently well versed to develop a proper legal system. Yet they visibly lacked political realism, so that the political evolution after Josiah caught them unaware. This obliged them to revise their original design, which they did in several stages, the last presumably during the exile. Apparently the Dtr designers did not foresee that this last version would turn out to be utopian647. But they did seem to be aware that their ability to transform their constitution into reality was questionable. Although they persisted in maintaining the divine origin of the legislation they disseminated, they tried to use persuasion to get the public to obey it. Hence their familiar preaching style. Moreover, they were inspired by the four major classic prophets and the traditions from the Kingdom of Israel, on the understanding that this prophetic heritage had to be subjected to fundamental corrections. In this way they hoped to safeguard this prophetic heritage as acceptable for posterity. However, we can postulate that their corrections to this prophetic heritage resulted in disturbed relations with the prophetic community. The Dtr authors have apparently reconciled themselves to this, not only from concern for this prophetic heritage, but especially to use the message that YHWH alone is God as a 1995, 67-70; Parker S.B., 2000, 368), then certainly by the influence of “common court ideology and language”. That is particularly evident in the presumable use of royal lists by the authors of Kgs (Parker S.B., 2000, 370-374). Whether they were also sages in the strict sense is not clear. The terminology used is clearly typical for wisdom, but could also have been inserted at a later time (according to Braulik, 1997c, 225-265). — If the Dtr had access to all the documents stored in the archive, the royal palace and the temple, it is impossible to deny them all contact with, and even influence on, the rulers (according to Patton, 1999, 202 n. 1, who does not corroborate this reservation). 646 Dtr’s rhetoric illustrates their scribal skills (Parker S.B., 2000, 370-374). 647 “The transformation of public life was indeed utopian, as Lohfink contends, in subordinating each office to the ultimate authority of the Torah ... The deuteronomic agenda is thus ... both utopian and practical” (Levinson, 1997, 137). “Konzeptionen, die Charisma einplanen, bleiben notwendig utopisch und verzichten von ihrem Ansatz her auf Realisierung. Andererseits ist für die Begründung einer neuen Ordnung Charisma als anfänglich Autorität setzende und Legitimität vermittelnde ‘Instanz’ unverzichtbar” (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1995, 8-9).

252

means to offer the Israel a chance to survive. Schooled in didactics, they called upon all their rational educational skills to attract the broadest possible public support for their efforts to save the nation. In sum, it seems impossible to reduce the Dtr authors to one or other group in Israelite society. In any case, these social groups were intertwined and did not live is separate compartments648. The Dtr authors did not borrow their executives from one elite community, but rather, depending on the circumstances, from all of them: priests, prophets, elders, the royal court but especially the ‫עם הארץ‬, who shared the king’s power over the state with varying success. But they could be organised by family structures. That offered them the possibility, in the fluctuating sociopolitical circumstances after Josiah, to do all they could to respond to the needs that arose with regard to the transmission of Israel’s Yahwism649. In this sense, they formed a permanent current that at times could grow into a true movement650. Beside their attachment to the historical context of their own time, the Dtr, despite the creativity of their historical presentation, seem bound in principle to the authority of pre-existing traditions, including those

648

Bruggemann, 2001, 20-21. Albertz, 1996, 384-394, believes the Dtr can be divided into two groups. A first tendency is to have been more socially oriented and have leaned more toward the prophetic current around Jeremiah. Another group, more cult-oriented, is to have been at the basis of the Dtr historical work. — Cazelles, 1993, 293, points to the intertwining of the social groups in Israel. “Angemessener ist es, mit einem fortlaufenden Diskussionsprozeß innerhalb der Trägergruppe zu rechnen” (Albertz, 1989, 40). This constant dialogue within a population group corresponds to what we understand by current. This tradition process at the heart of a current allowed a wide variety of traditions to be fused. “In Deut. gibt es so unterschiedliche Traditionszusammenhänge (weisheitliches Denken, altorientalische Vertragstexte, Humanitätstendenzen, Kriegsgesetze, didaktische Formulierungen, Kultzentralisation, Ethik), daß man mit H.D. Preuss die These Weinfelds bestätigen kann: ‘All dies scheint bisher und heute nur so miteinander verbunden werden zu können, dass man an Jerusalemer Hofschreiber und Beamte denkt, die das Dtn gesammelt, gestaltet und weiterbearbeitet wie vermittelt haben’” (Schoors, 1998, 164). 649 Albertz, 1989, 47-50; Dutcher-Walls, 1991, 77-94, esp. 93. The king’s dependence on his family and military entourage became clear in the history of the succession (2 Sam. 720; 1 Kgs 1-2), as well as in the advice given Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12:8-16). “...weil im alten Orient jede Änderung oder Besserung der Verhältnisse nur über die verantwortlichen und maßgeblichen Schichten oder Kreise erreichbar war” (Perlitt, 1994, 183). 650 Dutcher-Walls, 1991. Lohfink, 1995c, 107-133 esp. 68-69, correctly casts doubt on a constant and lengthy intellectual current seen as a movement such as suggested in Steck, 1967, and later in Veijola, 2000, 192-240.

253

coming from the Kingdom of Israel, which they also used651. Usually, this is apparent from the retrojection of traditional material to the time of Moses. This shows a palpable awareness that when the most recent tradition – as handed down from the past – does not suffice and must be updated now and in the future, the value of the past in indispensable652 and will always remain, even if its original context can no longer be determined. How all of this actually happened should become apparent we see, in Ch. 7, how the Dtr authors used their sources when they articulate a historical dimension. Conclusion: If it were to depend on the Dtr, updating would always have to take into account the historical context within which they write but also that of the past to the extent that this serves the value held by tradition. That is why the Dtr do more than weave their contemporary historical context through their work. They also use older history insofar as it is available and serves their intention. Starting from this same motivation and from security considerations, they opt for a completely written form, their intention being to hand down tradition as valuable even in its historical dimension (which cannot be equated with an exact historical description). But this does not mean that the written form, which like all 651

In Dt., Moses is presented as interpreter of the oldest tradition, not as a renewer (Crüsemann, 1987, 68). That is why the whole Decalogue can only be updated in specific laws when readers/listeners are reminded of its origin in the Exodus. “Umgekehrt kann die vom Dekalog her systematisierte dtn Gesetzessammlung nach dem Dekalogprolog (Dt. 5-6) nur unter der Voraussetzung jener Freiheit verwirklicht werden, zu der Jahwe sein Volk erlöst hat.” (Braulik, 1985b, 272). This shows the importance of exact historical context, whether accurate or not, in which the whole single narrative is understood. One could even assert that this historical situating is an important fact for the Dtr. That is why this occurs in Dt. 1-3, while Dt. in principle presents itself as a law book. The post factum historicising of the important liturgical feasts in Dt.–Dtr (Preuss, 1982, 135) – without this having to correspond fully to the original historicity – also lies in this line. Von Rad presented the familiar and brief historical creed (Dt. 26:5b-10a) as a post factum construction (Preuss, 1982, 145-146). Historical contingency here is not to be equated with historical accuracy or historicity. The aim of invoking this Sitz-im-Leben so strange to readers/listeners is to update the original tradition, which would not be possible without a largely fictional representation of history. 652 This can be said of the headings that Dtr added to the prophetic writings and that contain purported historical material (Carroll, 1988, disagrees with this): “Rather than an embarrassment, their historicity is a key to their meaning” (Tucker, 1977, 68). This ideological construction may obviously not be equated with historical reality (Davies P.R., 1991, 13). This does not prevent the construction from being attuned to a real event in history (Albertz, 2003, 315-318).

254

things is contingent on history, is flawless653. It is in permanent interaction with the living tradition654, which is an absolute prerequisite for dynamic loyalty to this tradition as the Dtr seem to understand it. 653

In this regard, Smelik, 1997b, 263-278, esp. 275-277; idem-Van Soest, 1995, 78, 86, following Jepsen (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 37-39) posit that the Dtr occasionally invoked one or more documents that they considered historically reliable. Of course, they did so to provide their own theological slant while remaining within the confines of the actual historical event (“l’historiographie est toujours idéologique, mais l’idéologie reste toujours à son tour ancrée dans l’histoire” [Römer-De Pury, 1996, 118]). Corroboration of the event is found in extra-biblical sources such as those found in the inscriptions left by surrounding peoples (Na’aman, 1999; Parker S.B., 2000; Bordreuil, 2001; Couturier, 2001). Thompson (2000) is less certain of the historical value of the Moabite Stone. P.H. Davies, by contrast, recognises the inscription of Tel Dan (Davies, 2000, 122). Smelik (2006, 64-66) too, now follow, albeit minimally, when it comes to the historicity of the books of Samuel. This illustrates the disharmony among the revisionists. In short, Dtr only provides their theological explanation after solidifying the boundaries of historical reality. This gives a balanced answer to the question: “Did he (the biblical author L.Z) want to establish the events of the distant past?” (Smelik, 1981, 50). Commitment to writing was usually used as a guarantee against a possible interruption in the tradition (Jagersma, 1990a3, 265; Ackroyd, 1977a, 241) or even its destruction, as in the case of the scroll in Jer. 36. “Notons la fonction attribuée au mot écrit: Celle d’un rempart contre une destruction virtuelle” (Ackroyd, 1977a, 142). The Dtr used the written form to prevent unrestricted revisions in the tradition (Fishbane, 1985, 263). — The possible disadvantages of commitment to writing are the constriction of the traditional material and its dehistoricising when placing it in a schema. A typology is created that only partially reflects the historical context (Ackroyd, 1977a, 232). This does not intend to manipulate tradition as value (Barr, 1966, 21-33), but to update its lasting value. “One of the peculiarities of scripture was that by the nature of its own formation it obscured its own earlier history” (Barr, 1980c, 115; Rendtorff, R., 19883, 132 agreed). Childs (1983², 237-238) suggested that this dehistoricising was intentional in Dtr because it was needed for the canonical value of Dt. Veltri (1990, 213) saw a general decontextualising – by which he meant a reduction of insight in the faith – as necessarily inherent to the genesis of the canon. We cannot agree with this last, at least not as a whole (Childs usually does this; but elsewhere he says, “The original events are not robbed of their historical particularity; nevertheless, the means of their actualization for future Israel is offered in the shape of scripture self” [idem, 1983², 176]). Each case must be examined separately. 654 During the historical summary of the study of the canon (Ch. 1 and Ch. 2) we noted that the use of the notion canon usually obfuscated or dehistoricised past reality. The question is whether that also implies a principle abandonment of historicity. Further study is needed to determine this. — We mentioned the need for continuous contact with oral tradition in 6.4.3. Despite commitment to writing “most resolutions [remained] oral” (Fishbane, 1985, 264). The reason is obvious: after commitment to writing the contrasts between the many tendencies and versions, such as those collected with the single narrative (6.6.3), became more evident than previously (Fishbane, 1982, 307-308; Ackroyd, 1977a, 241-242). This made dialogue with the oral tradition more obligatory than ever in the following exegesis and interpretation to give the parties or tendencies that existed at the time and that wanted

255

6.7 Authority The book Dt. makes no secret of it: YHWH claims Israel with divine authority. This is a recurring and possibly a chief theme655. The Dtr current adopted this theme. This requires us to examine more deeply the authority to continue their work an opportunity to become coordinated with one another. This offered an opportunity to stress the importance of the role of the faith community in the process of the canon’s genesis (2.2.C.; 5.1.3.C.). The role of the communities during the exile has already been mentioned. Recent research on the canon process stresses the importance of the faith community (2.2.6., 3.1.5., 5.1.3.C.). See such authors as: Dohmen, 1995a, 453455; Barr, 1980c, 111-113; Sanders, 1984a; Hanson, 1993; Ackroyd, 19763, 20-38, 55-58; Tomson, 1998, 108-118; “...associated with community and city” (Carroll, 1979, 215); “I stress the role of community...” (idem, 1981, 257). In the last book cited, the author outlined the role of the community and tradition throughout the evolution of the prophetic writings, esp. Jeremiah. But it only addressed tangentially the relation of the community to the individual in the prophetic writings (see also: Collins, 1993, 19). This theme has already been treated in the context of the wisdom current and education (6.4.4). Albertz, 1978, by contrast, ran through the evolution of this subject during Israel’s history, which will provide an occasion to return to this subject. In the postmodern context, the question of the person’s relation to the community again played a special role (Grenz, 2002, n. 501). Usually the theme community is treated superficially without developing specific examples. Childs, 1983², 83, 106 persisted in this when he spoke of the Jewish community as community of faith. “At this point, the interest of canonical critics in the historical production of the canon generally ceases” (Davies P.R., 1998, 41). The last cited author remains below par when he restricts the community’s involvement in the canon process to the contribution of elite scribes. Idem, 1998, 15-18, 74-88. Collins, 1993, 28-29, showed the same tendency when he underestimated the role of individuals in the genesis of the prophetic texts in favour of that of the faith community. Clements, 1996, 14-17, also thought that because of the prophetic charisma of the editors of the prophetic writings he had to exclude all prophetic activity by the prophets’ disciples and ordinary members of the faith community (“if anyone could speak or write prophecy ...”). In the case of canonicity this is not sustainable after the findings on the relation between the community and the individual in this study. “But leaders need followers as much as followers need leaders, and without continuing community support leaders have no effect in the canonical process” (Sanders; 2002, 253 n. 7). It is hoped that at the appropriate place further on in this study we can draw attention to the specific and varyingly structure of the faith community with which Dtr is in dialogue (when updating and reformulating the faith traditions) and of which Dtr is the reflection. All this must be placed in the broader framework of the socio-political environment within which the faith community lives. This is an inseparable part of its history. For another view see: Davies P.R., 1991, 12, who wished to reduce all of history to politics and sociology, with as result that he risks reducing the canon to its external shape. That cannot be justified (Whitelam, 1995) and misjudges the religious quality of the biblical traditions at work long before the exile (Chapman, 2000, 73-86). 655 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 125.

256

that the Dtr believed they could invoke. But this seems far from easy, because it can only be approached indirectly656. The sanctioning of the literary Dtr work with the purported canonical formula helps. It is certain that it has in mind the inviolable and obligatory character insofar as the origin of the authority – whether this goes back to all or part of the Torah and whether this is mediated by Moses or others after him – can be retraced to the absolute authority of YHWH as sole and ultimate foundation657. Lasting loyalty to the ‫ ספר התורה‬was based on this obedience 656

Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 125 n. 1. “But central to Deuteronomy as a text is its own bid for authority” (Levinson, 1997, 64). 657 When Dt. 4:2 and 13:1 both formally forbid anyone to “add to the word which I command you, nor take from it”, they give the impression of calling upon the same authority that was invoked in treaties and law codes such as that of Hammurabi (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 158 n. 5; Oeming, 1992, 70-81) and that only later would be applied to the whole canonical text (canon process). “The colophonic character of the prohibitions stated in Deuteronomy against adding to a subtracting from the text of that book was still far from the same as the utter taboo later to arise when the concept of sacred text became the dominant concept” (Sanders, 1997, 21). Dtr does not hesitate to reshape the tradition where needed, and appears to expect that this will be repeated in the future. This appears from the challenging function that the prophets are assigned in Dt. 16-18 (Lohfink, 1990d). It is so that Joshua, like everyone in Israel, even the future king (Dt. 17:18) is pinned to the written Torah (Dt. 1:7) via the canonical clause. That is doubtless an important step toward canonisation (Söding, 2001, 17 n. 72). Nevertheless, textual study urges tempering (Zenger, 20066, 136; the canonical formula occurs in the OT only sporadically: Childs, 1990a, 357; Reuter, 1989, 107-114. “...that formula does not function as a superscription to introduce ... Instead, the ancient witnesses agree that MT Dt. 13:1 actually marks the conclusion of chapter 12 and that a new unit begins with 13:2: Levinson, 1997, 48. For another view see: Steck, 1992, 15; Ackroyd, 1977b, 167) and a spiritual interpretation of what theology offers on the basis of fiction. For an application of this to ‫ חרם‬see: Braulik, 1997b, 8. Houtman, 1997, 213-231, esp. 220-221, by contrast, is sceptical toward this spiritual interpretation or Vergeistlichung. It is no wonder that, when read contingently and subjectively, Dt.–Dtr can lead to irresponsible applications (Deist, 1994, 13-29; Braulik, 1997b, 3-4; Houtman, 1997, 225 n. 35). This again (Ch. 5) draws attention to the need for a hermeneutical study of exegetical methodology. That is why at this stage of historical research it is premature to focus hermeneutically only on the final shape and thus exclusively on the theological canon (according to Braulik, 1997b, 9-10). That would conflict with the standpoint adopted here on the interaction between theology and historical research (4.3). The pursuit of immutability is a symptom of the closure tendency. This also occurred to a limited degree even before the commitment to writing. A degree of textual fixity can also be attributed to an established oral tradition (Dohmen-Oeming, 1992, 68-89, 104-105). “Wird die Position Moses in bezug auf die Torah in seiner Relation zu Israel absolut gesetzt, so ist zu erwarten, daß nach dem Tode Moses eine andere Größe diese Position zwischen Israel und JHWH im Hinblick auf das Gebiet ‘Torah’ einnimmt. Alle nachmosaischen Autoritätsrelationen, in denen Israel Subjekt der Autorität ist, müßten dann über diese dritte Größe gegründet werden” (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 128). In this regard Crüsemann, 1992, 76-131, and

257

to YHWH, a question of life or death for Israel. Nevertheless, as was said earlier, keeping the law does not imply a strict legal norm and invariant form. Even the perception of YHWH’S absoluteness is adjusted by focusing on his unity, so that monotheism at least comes within reach even if it does not become a fact658. This has consequences for the practical application of Blenkinsopp, 1977, 42-45, 73-79 discussed at length the mediating function of persons and institutions after Moses. Dtr certainly displays a nomistic tendency here, but sacralisation takes precedence as introduction to the presentation of the detailed laws (Fishbane, 1980, 347-348; Otto, 2005e). This shows how great a priority is given to the Decalogue over the updated laws based on it. Some authors believe that when the Decalogue was elaborated in Dt., even its sequence was respected: Preuss, 1982, 110-112. This is the result of this elaboration being a product of its time (Braulik, 1985b, 252, 271). Dtr’s interpretation of Dt. was a determining factor in the Decalogue’s authoritative position (Clements, 1975, 55). Divine authority is shown to be the absolute foundation first for the sacred traditions then for the institutions and finally for the canon. Everyone, including the prophet and even the king was subject to this Torah given by YHWH through Moses. As the Torah became associated with the holy YHWH – see Crüsemann, 1992, 39-75 – it participated in this holiness. Sacralisation took visible shape with the Dtr, partly through the valorisation of the cult, Scripture, Moses’ charisma and general prophecy (ter Borg, 1998a, 418-419). It cannot be accidental that the discovery of the ‫ ספר התורה‬in the Dtr narrative was situated in the temple (2 Kgs 22:8). At the same time its ancient origin and its preservation in the temple emphasised the Torah’s sacral and authoritative character (Leonard, 1972). It made Dtr’s use of the temple chronicles in DtrH probable (Halpern, 1988, 209-212). But we may not deduce from this that the temple operated like a modern library. This would be anachronistic (Niditch, 1996, 110, 114). It has mainly a sacral and monumental function (think of the Shiloh tunnel: Niditch, 1996, 54-55) as was customary at that period (Niditch, 1996, 39-77). This is confirmed by the sacred context of the preservation. 658 “...die geschriebene Tora ... ist ein schriftliches Dokument, das viele einzelne Gesetze enthält. Doch weniger darauf kommt es an. Sie wird ermahnend ans Herz gelegt, und letztlich geht es um ganz wenig: um den Dekalog, ja um dessen Erstes Gebot ... die wahre Herrschaft kommt nur der Tora zu, oder genauer: Jahwe durch seine Tora und seine Propheten” (Lohfink, 1990d, 321-322). Dt. 28-30, presents its audience with the choice between life and death. “Seiner Absicht nach ist das Buch Dtn nicht so etwas wie Verkündigung über Gott. Im Gesamt seiner Botschaft sind die Aussagen über Jahweh dienender Art. Sie dienen der Absicht, dem Volk Israel beizubringen was Israel ist und wie Israel sein soll” (Lohfink, 1991f, 28). Hence the importance of the retribution principle and its conditional form in Dt.–Dtr legislation. “Sacred matters are dealt with insofar as they touch religious-social aspect of the national life” (Weinfeld, 1985, 95). “His (Moses, L.Z.) heroic quality makes sense only insofar as it serves the edification of the community” (Coats, 1988, 41). This goes so far that in Dt. “...es geht in den meisten Fällen nicht um Jahwe an sich, sondern um Jahwe in seinem Verhältnis zu Israel ... für das Deuteronomium nur sinnvoll vom Bundesgott Israels und seinem Amts-träger und nicht von ‘Gott an sich’ gesprochen werden kann” (Krinetzki, 1994, 262). This confirms that canonisation affirms the identity of the faith community. The community’s existence depended on what the canon process cultivated and protected. — The purported canon formulas already cited

258 should not be understood as indications of canonisation in the strict sense, but as an important step in the canon process (Dohmen, 1995a, 453). They do not introduce a strict prohibition against changing the text and a legal system in the modern sense (for another view see: Labuschagne, 1985, 111-123, esp. 122-123), but draw attention to an option in that direction (an ‘Anspruch’: Crüsemann, 1987, 72). For the most part, Dtr’s ‘option’ still has to be put into practice.; The emphasis was on the importance of the legislation that the canon formula introduces and the intention was to prevent unbridled manipulation. “Die Formel ist uralt. Sie meinte ursprünglich nur unberechtigte Veränderungen des Textes. Im älteren Israel empfand man es jedenfalls nicht als Widerspruch zu ihr, wenn autorisierte Hände von Zeit zu Zeit die Bundesurkunde überarbeiteten” (Lohfink, 1990g, 175). The canon formula could not envisage more than the conservation of the essential content of Dt. Later, once Dt. became a fact, its interpretation and exegesis could start (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 101). Dt. thus allowed for creativity as well as loyalty to tradition (6.6.4.; Crüsemann, 1992, 230; Zenger, 20066, 135). Moreover, despite the canon formula, Dt. was later incorporated in the Pentateuch (Bruce, 1988, 37). As we noted, Dt. appears to have been utopian or unfeasible, at least in part. “JHWH hat sich Ihm dabei stets als ein und der Selbe erwiesen, doch war sein Bild von Ihm nicht stets das gleiche. In dieser Dialektik von Festigkeit und Veränderlichkeit liegt der Zauber israelitischer Religionsgeschichte” (Dietrich, 1994b, 20). Yahwism was marked by a steady dynamism (Weippert M., 1997) – influenced from above and below (Stolz, 1994, 44) – which allowed diverse qualities ascribed to other gods to fall within the competency of YHWH (Uehlinger, 1995, 67-70). In Dt. many divine qualities are fused into a unity: Dt. 6:4; 6.6.2. For another view see: Lohfink, 1991c, 223; Becker, 2005, 3, who believe that Dt.–Dtr never explicitly based this pursuit of unity on the theological notion of the unity of YHWH. This idea of YHWH’S unity was probably not the first motive for eliminating the cultic centres outside Jerusalem and the centralisation of the cult in Jerusalem (Kyle McCarter, 1987, 137-155, esp. 142-143). Rather, the motive was more likely exclusivity in worship or monolatry as Dt. 6:5 clearly shows. Lohfink, 1987b, 468, thought differently, but sought support solely in the purported centralisation formula, which is to have gone back to the promise to David. Nevertheless, besides being a motive for pursuing cultic unity (Braulik, 1988a, 164-171) the unicity of YHWH is also a motive for unity within the so differently structured people or ‫קהל‬, that takes precedence over the king (Smith M.S., 1971, 39. For a different view see: Preuss, 1982, 140). That is why there is a preference for addressing Israel as a whole (Preuss, 1982, 182-183. Albertz, 1992, 169, differs). This ‫ ספר התורה‬is “a book for the whole people” (Weinfeld, 1985, 97). Dtr’s preference for ‫ כל‬can be seen here as elsewhere (Dt. 1:1; 5:1; 27:9; 29:1; 31:1,11,30; 32:45; 1 Kgs 15:23; 16:16-17; 2 Kgs 10:34; 20:20 etc.; Lenchak, 1993, 85-86). It is a symptom of Dtr’s general pursuit of unity that also finds literary expression (6.6.2.). — The question now is whether this notion of unity also presupposed monotheism. Rofé, 1985, 310-320, esp. 319-320, believed that D’s notion of election ultimately involved the introduction of a pure monotheism as basis for YHWH’S power over foreign nations. Authors are ready to acknowledge serious progress toward monotheism within D (Braulik, 1985a, 115-159; Lang, 1981, 73-78), but there is less consensus on the origin and growth of biblical monotheism (Dietrich, 1994; Becking-Dijkstra, 1998; Albertz, 2003, 359-373). It is usually seen as having been achieved by the time of Dtr’s work (Haag, 1985; but see Hoffman, 1999), although Dtr continued to use polytheistic terminology (Lohfink, 1991f). The study of the growing monotheism amid the surrounding nations is impeded by the asymmetry between the surroundings and Israel (Stolz, 1994, 38-40) and

259

the Torah particularly for Israel as elected nation and its relationship to the surrounding peoples659. But from their experience as administrators and scribes operating in the shadow of the royal palace, the Dtr knew that the strengthened reference to the absolute origin of the authority of their work was not sufficient to have it put into practice. Moved by this awareness of the practical situation, they perceptibly devoted most if not all attention to

even more between biblical Yahwism and the Western idea of monotheism. McDonald N., 2003, 216, correctly stresses the uniqueness of the range of biblical thought summarised in the Shema. 659 Preuss, 1982, 178-179. The sacralisation of the purportedly casuistic and more profane rules for life, already started in the Book of the Covenant (see 7.2.1), is intensified in Dt., esp. because of its insertion in the shadow of the centralisation of the cult (Otto E., 1995b, 377-380). — The practical details of Israel’s election were developed in Babylon in separate measures (Jagersma, 1990a3, 257-258; Ackroyd, 19763, 35-36) and showed pronounced nationalistic and separatist tendencies (Lemche, 1988, 250). The purported humanism for which Dt. is famous appears restricted to insiders (Nelson, 1997, 49-51). Here we presumably encounter the problem of mixed marriages (Braulik, 1997b, 6-7 n. 9) that confronted Ezra–Nehemiah. In this regard the canonical pursuit again seems to be to distinguish the religious community’s identity from the outside world: Braulik, 1997b, 2433; Preuss, 1982, 184. Without being justified in speaking of censure (see Crüsemann, 1987, 69, who must concede that no measures were taken with regard to other writings) all that cannot be harmonised with the cult of the one YHWH in his elected nation is resisted or even suppressed. “Konnte es gar sein, daß religiöse Intoleranz, Fanatismus und Fundamentalismus am besten auf monotheistischem Boden gedeihen – und womöglich schon in biblischen Zeiten gediehen sind?” (Dietrich, 1995, 25). The attitude toward internal matters, including the strict selection and editing of traditional material, esp. prophecy, must be the result of these notions of YHWH’S unity and holiness. In all respects, the emphasis on the greater value of its own law as tangible element separating it from the outside world and as the domain where their God, YHWH, demonstrates his dominion (Lohfink, 1990g, 177), replaced the temporarily lost temple and king. (Only in this sense can we agree with Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 136, and Römer, 1997, 5 n. 23, 9. These authors believe that for Dtr the ‫ ספר התורה‬definitively replaced temple, king and even prophecy and must also be viewed in relation to the rising synagogue) It certainly provided an impetus toward sharper divisions (“impenetrable barriers”: Nelson, 1997, 53) from the peoples amid whom they became the holy people of the Most High ‫( עליו‬Koch, 1980, 18). The impenetrable barrier was not set up against them but was the D tendency’s pursuit of an independent and own identity based on being bound to YHWH by the ‫( ברית‬Blenkinsopp, 1983, 101). One of the means for this was the abovementioned ‫ חרם‬idea (Nelson, 1997, 5354). Hoffman, 1999, by contrast, believes that the ‫ חרם‬idea was used in just the opposite, i.e. anti-separatist, sense. Is the Vernichtung or annihilation via the ‫ חרם‬not made dependent on maintaining the ‫ ספר התורה‬so that it operates for Dtr as conditional promise? “Le Deutéronome ne connaît pas de droit international” (Cazelles, 1985, 101). In developing this barrier, Dtr sought support in the P tendency’s notion of holiness (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 112-113).

260

the operation660, to the crystallisation of their mediation of the absolute authority of YHWH via Moses and those who came after him. Yet they did not restrict themselves to a cautious selection and revision of traditional material with as main support Torah and the Prophets, strictly connected to Moses. Aware of the possible failure as a result of the dramatic death of King Josiah and its aftermath, they profile the institutions that had to safeguard this mediation of authority in their time and in the future661. Moreover, they gave attention to education that leaned more toward prophetic persuasion662 than toward a direct route to orthodoxy. In this way 660

Jagersma, 1990a3, 265. Among these are the commitment to writing and the attendant pursuit of security to the very invariance of the text. Dtr seemed to be aware of the disadvantages of a written rather than oral form (Aichele, 2001, 40-43) and seemed to do all possible to keep these to a minimum. There is also a connection between the use of writing in Dt. and the political power that used scribes in the exercise of its authority (Coote-Ord, 1989, 1-2) e.g. via rhetoric. Hence the important role reserved for the scribe at the court of the King of Israel (Coote-Ord, 1989, 2 n. 1). 661 When King Josiah died, the D reform movement lost more than an important source of support for its reform programme. Its successors landed in a new political situation where the D reform movement no longer had the same scope as under King Josiah. Evidence for this is found in their indifferent attitude toward the treatment that the prophet Jeremiah had to endure (Dutcher-Walls, 1991). “...mit einer institutionalisierten Offenheit für völlig neue Fragen und Probleme ...” (Crüsemann, 1987, 70). “It is not just tradition as it happened to be, but tradition shaped and edited in such a way as to present to the believing community an adequate and necessary presentation of that tradition, as the older community wanted it to be known to the later community” (Barr, 1980c, 115). That is why the Dtr single narrative strove to fill in the hiatus during the exile, especially the loss of the temple. Dtr tried to provide a replacement liturgy. The Passover celebration restored under King Josiah was not a high priority for the Dtr editors. But this was the case for his pursuit of unity via community liturgy (contrary to Thompson, 1987) in which psalms, prayers and special sermons were used (Smith M.S., 1971, 102). The covenant renewals and other liturgical rites (Cazelles, 1987, 53) that they provided can also be understood from the exilic perspective, although not exclusively. After all, the Dtr’s work is founded on the value of the distant past. The programme for the long-term future had to grow from this past, however updated it may have become. Dt. 31 is rightly seen as a precursor of what would later become the synagogue service (Preuss, 1982, 163). The increasing importance of written texts, already noted in the prophetic tradition (Coggins, 19934, 172), now comes to the fore in Dtr’s own major work. Yet this does not mean, as some posit, that this implies a complete fixation of the text. 662 This instruction or Weisung is gradually exercised by the law and other elements such as history (6.4.1.; contrary to Lohfink, 1990d, 317-318, who sees instruction as different from law. That may be the result of a too strict equating of biblical legal codes with those of the modern day. Jackson, 19934, 185-202). — Orthodoxy here meant the norm for faith and religious practice. It was only in the area of religious practice (not in dogmatic or literary areas [Coggins, 1999, 23 n. 4] via formation of a purported deuteronomistic canon) that we

261

they became dependent on being accepted by the people663 of their own time and of following generations. They hoped to present something practical, broad and fixed664 to the community for whom they wrote and can speak of Dtr’s pursuit of orthodoxy given Dtr’s tendency to nomism and the normative operation of the ‫( ספר התורה‬6.4.2). This pursuit of orthodoxy is oriented toward Dtr’s selection principle. Jagersma, 1985, 169, saw this orthodoxy growing only gradually and very late, although the term orthodoxy feels anachronistic. “Orthodoxy is a later and in large measure an artificial concept” (Ackroyd, 1991, 31). In sum: We have a first glimpse of a mainstream (Barr, 1972, 151). This is not the same as what later will come to be called orthodoxy, but is a first attempt to delineate it. So the following is justly asked: “Is the orthodoxy of ancient Israelite religion really laid down along Deuteronomistic lines as had recently been claimed?” (Coggins, 1999, 23). “Der dringend für nötig gehaltene strenge Schutz wird ganz und allein in die Souveränität und Autonomie der Angeredeten gelegt” (Crüsemann, 1987, 69). The authority that the Dtr ultimately invoked, despite their intended sharper measures as expressed in the canon formula, is not a command but a conviction (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 125-127; Ben Zvi, 1993, 348-349). Dtr gave due consideration to Israel’s autonomy (Houtman, 2004, 17). “Deuteronomy seeks to motivate whole-hearted obedience ... to inspire obedience (Nelson, 1997, 60). Hence D’s well known paraenetic style, possibly an echo of prophetic preaching (6.4.3; see also 7.3.5), that tempers what may be the assumption of modern law’s insistent character. Dtr’s innovations to the legislation show that his orientation was not very nomistic (“...daß das Deuteronomium in der Exilszeit nicht in dem Sinne, in dem heute Gesetze ‘gelten’, ‘geltendes Recht’ war” [Lohfink, 1995c, 125; Albertz, 1992, 326 n. 84]). Rather, Dtr was more concerned with achieving a spirit of intelligent rather than stringent obedience to the law (Hoppe, 1985, 107-110, esp. 110; McConville, 1985, 154). The term ‫אהב–אהבה‬, used several times in Dt. (Dt. 1:1,13,22; Preuss, 1982, 71) cannot be ignored here. YHWH demands this love from Israel not because of his love, but because of his exaltation (first commandment). Israel acknowledges YHWH’S exaltation when it feels obligated to obey the commandments. This is not love between equals (‘covenantal love’: Zobel K., 1992, 51-77; Moran, 1963, 77-87; McCarthy, 1965, 144-147). It is one of the shapes that covenantal love between YHWH and Israel can take. Hence the complexity of the concept of covenant in the OT (Hahn, 2005, 285). 663 Dt. turned the appointment of the king into a democratic event that must have detrimental consequences for the king’s power. “In seiner Selektionsfunktion ist Recht nicht souverän. Es ist angewiesen auf Zustimmung derer denen es gilt, und verlangt Modi der Stabilisierung” (Halbe, 1985, 55). In this regard, the distinction between the charismatic offices received directly from YHWH, such as that of Joshua and the Judges, and democratic appointments such as the king’s. In this way Dt.’s humanistic concern led it to reduce the subjugation of people to one another to a minimum (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1990, 137142). 664 Because of the heterogeneous composition of the group of Dtr and their work (stressed in Dutcher-Walls, 1991, 77-94; Cazelles, 1993) they are in the best position to be accepted by the group for which they write. For another view see: Westermann, 1990, 144, who argued that the Dtr and their theology are far from the people. This might have been so up to the time of King Josiah, because of their elite origin in the Kingdom of Israel: Lemche, 1988 165-166. Crenshaw, 1999, 156 denies the origin from the Kingdom of Israel. It is the

262

reality after the exile that confirmed their view and was the breakthrough for their popularity (Negenman, 1986, 78). — Blum, 1990b, 340-341, stresses the scope of Dtr work. “...comprehensive nature of the proceeding” (Nelson, 1997, 49). “Il ne nous semble pas que le Deutéronome soit l’expression d’un parti ... il est ... l’expression sinon de tout Israël, du moins de la grande majorité du peuple ...” (Jacob, 1975, 109). As was noted, because of the broad organisation, Dtr frequently uses the expression ‫קהל‬. “All Israel is a favoured expression and suits well Deuteronomy’s exclusive concern with this people” (Deurloo, 1994, 31-46, esp. 45). The future generations intended here must, like the exilic generation to which Dt. belonged, identify with the Moab generation that, in its turn, looked to the Horeb generation (Römer, 1992, 73-75). Because of the same broad organisation, Dtr is very aware of the sovereignty of the people (Crüsemann, 1992, 277-291). “All Judeans in theory were to hear this Torah recited and understand themselves to be subject to it” (Davies P.R., 1998, 99). “...where their knowledge was greatest, there would the value of the biblical material also be greatest, and vice versa” (Barr, 1972, 104). Contrary to all appearances, the inclusion of divergent, sometimes contradictory, versions increases authority (Crenshaw, 1982, 268-269). All this brings to light the indispensable role of the community in the canon process (2.2.C; 3.1.5; 5.1.3.C). Dt.-Dtr was a pioneer in this matter. “In der Israelitischen Religionsgeschichte wurde mit dem Deuteronomium etwas völlig Neues geschaffen, das die größten Chancen auf Anerkennung dann haben durfte, wenn es erkennen und durchscheinen ließ, daß es sich in einer Linie mit den altehrwürdigen Überlieferungen ganz Israels befindet” (Zobel K., 1992, 222). — Dtr offered a fixed system and attendant terminology that updated past tradition to serve current and future events and in doing so left different options open. Yet he certainly retained a historical framework, not to confirm in the first place the historical description, but rather its value as authority. This finds particular expression in the self-revelation of the God of Israel at Sinai–Horeb, presented as historical event (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 77-78). Future modifications and interpretations can no longer ignore this (6.6.3.). In this sense, Dtr and his work did not provide a real rule of faith or what later would be called a regula fidei (Barr, 1980c, 121) and even less a creed (i.e. the positioning of the faith by performing one or other act of faith). Hence the criticism of Von Rad’s view of the brief historical creed: it is the final point and not the foundation of the Pentateuch (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 49-50. Kreuzer, 1989, treats the other creed texts in the Pentateuch from this perspective). Dtr’s work is more a database for faith (“Reservoir für die Urformen biblischer Wahrheit und späterer Lehrbildung”: Ritschl, 1998, 385), a storehouse of theological material (hence the broadest possible organisation despite its selection principle) without itself being a creed within the mass of collected documents. A creed, by contrast, builds on a few specific historical facts (Barr, 1980c, 34) to which later believers look back. It, rather than the Scriptures which provide a more general theological orientation (Barr, 1972, 83, 104-105), thus takes on the role of a regula fidei. That is why the brief historical creed in Dt. 26:5-9 cannot be placed on the same level (Barr, 1966, 74 n. 1) as all the material in the Pentateuch as Von Rad tried to demonstrate. In any case, it was in the context of later historicising. In providing a general frame or reference that nourished creeds, that Dtr demonstrated once again his usefulness to the people of faith. After making it possible for traditional material to be used for a creed adapted to his time – the brief historical creed in Dt. 26:5-10 is an example that is still eligible for imitation according to Lohfink, 1990h, 290 – they counted on their example being followed in the future

263

worked and to later generations. Their success must be determined from the use and respect665 that this aroused in those later generations despite the utopian character of Dtr’s work. The last word on the authority of their work has thus not yet been pronounced. This can only be spoken after an examination of the authoritative tradition on which it built. First the Dtr work’s degree of authority would have to be determined on the basis of its actual operation or Wirkungsgeschichte in later Israel. That falls outside the scope of the present study666. 665

Respect for Dtr is apparent from later historiography that was unable to ignore Dtr’s work (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 98; idem, 1984a, 22; Freedman, 1963, 263-264; Leonard, 1972, 163-167). This is also observable in the 19 copies of Dt. found in Qumran (Albertz, 2001, 35). The length of Dtr’s work, which fills 2% of the Masoretic text, shows its importance (Barstad, 2001, 54). In this regard we can invoke the canonical formula in the broadest sense: as literary whole, nothing essential was added to the single narrative (Gen.–Kgs). The postexilic history was placed elsewhere and the Later Prophets had to be considered a separate complex. Yet we may wonder why this respect was not obtained by establishing stronger formulas than the canonical formula. This can be interpreted as Dtr’s not needing an explicit authoritative formulation because it would have been obvious, making an explicit formulation superfluous (Leonard, 1972, 79). But that is a weak argument ex silentio. Moreover, it may not be assumed that Dtr’s work was universally respected despite its broad support base (Blum, 1990b, 342). According to Smith M.S., 1971, that was only the case for what he called the YHWH alone party: a minority precursor of later orthodoxy. Hence: “...du moins de la grande majorité du peuple qui avait pris conscience de son rôle de Dieu” (Jacob, 1975, 109). Not everyone in the YHWH alone party appreciated Dtr’s work equally highly. Those who intended to remain established in the ‫ גולה‬were far more retentive toward the written tradition that Dtr presented. Others who looked toward the return to the Holy Land, thought more of a normal renewal of religious practice as it existed prior to the exile and thus reverted more toward earlier traditions (Negenman, 1986, 73-75). Conclusion: Dtr and the people contributed to the creation of a highly authoritative body of tradition. “...the followers’ quest for certainty that makes it possible. It is the surplus of plausibility that makes the winning canon the most authoritative” (ter Borg, 1998a, 420). 666 This history of Dtr’s operation (Wirkungsgeschichte) only really gained momentum when the Dtr corpus was committed to writing. This was not restricted to Dt.–Kgs, but, according to many, also included a series of other OT texts including Jer. If this view is confirmed, it would become clearer than ever that Dtr complied with the canon formula that some believe was intended to preserve textual immutability. Dtr lay at the basis of a rich textual tradition that resulted in the Hebrew Bible (McKenzie, 1999, 267). The copious use by Chr. of the Dtr history shows Dtr’s rapid and broad influence during the Persian period (Patton, 1999, 202 n. 5). — The assertion that D propagated the idea and tradition of a greater Israel (“Ohne das Deuteronomium hätte es kein exilisches und nachexilisches ‘Israel’ gegeben”, Otto E., 1999, 377) during the transition to later Judaism (Negenman, 1986 62; Lemche, 1988, 172) can rely first on the observation of Dtr’s effect on the exilic period and its later operation (Wirkungsgeschichte) (Smend, 1981, 45-57; Wellhausen had already realised this: Perlitt, 1994, 182-198, esp. 197), but also on the value of the prior traditions on which Dtr built. Dtr gave the idea of a portable homeland (Braulik, 1985a, 9 n.

264

Conclusion: State of the Canon Process around 560-521 BCE We now seem to have reached the stage where we can summarise the tentative conclusions drawn from this chapter. The purpose is to use the information gathered to situate the stage at which the process of the canon’s genesis was around the time that the Dtr single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) – which was taken as starting point – reached its completion. The tentative definition of canon (2.2) and the profile of the canon process (5.3.1) will serve as guideline in the following evaluation. A. In form, the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) shows certain undeniable signs that a canon is taking shape. A voluminous whole is selected from a still broader supply of traditional material circulating in Israel at the time. An important factor is that this whole is committed to writing with an option on the immutability of the text. At that time structural elements such as unifying ties and a series of other editorial techniques were used to give the text cohesion to such an extent that it remains recognisable today as a single unit within the larger whole of the Hebrew canon. Statistically this unit makes up around half of the later volume. But it is generally felt that in quality it comprises by far the largest portion. With the establishment of the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) spurred on by Dtr, the Hebrew canon seems to have progressed around halfway along its genesis. 4; Crüsemann, 1987) a strong stimulus particularly in its memorial culture. — On the other hand, from a historical perspective it would be premature and anachronistic to assert that Dtr’s authority (which seems to be dependent on the degree to which Dtr instigated theological revision and expansion) and broad base allow it to lay claim to the concept canon “Kanonischen Anspruch”: Blum, 1990b, 340) as it was later developed under the heading of “core within the OT” (Crüsemann, cited in Blum, 1990b, ibid n. 22), or even to being the ‘centre’ of the OT (Reventlow, 1982, 144. The view that Dt. serves as centre of OT theology is along the same line: Kraus H.J., 19823, 556; Hasel, 19873, 135-136; Houtman, 2000, 395; Crüsemann, 2001, 112), which was far from complete at that time. Even in anticipation we can express a doubt about the assertion that Dtr legislation changed character when the Davidic dynasty fell at the start of the exile (see Vermeylen, 1997, 4852). The unique character of legislation in Israel is retained as much afterward as before. It is based on the relation to YHWH and thus prevailed absolutely, but the way in which it prevailed was dependent on the new rulers whereas earlier it was dependent on the Davidic dynasty. Yet it is so that Dtr deepened the relationship with YHWH on which the legislation is built when they expanded the notion of covenant, which may not be reduced to a mental exercise and cultic matter (see Vermeylen, 1997, 78, 80). In Israel it remained something practical and was not merely a mental exercise.

265

This means that despite the way already travelled, there is still a long way to go and many formal elements in the canon process are not yet fully developed. This encompasses more than just later additions to the texts and complexes that would, by then, have become familiar via its interaction between the oral tradition which the Dtr work had far from exhausted. These additions taken together are good for the second half of the total volume of the Hebrew canon. Beside this, we must also keep in mind that a later series of editors will also make changes to the organised whole handed down to them. When the Dtr made their own visible and sweeping changes to the pattern of existing tradition they showed that they expected their successors to be similarly industrious. It thus proved to be premature to consider the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) or its Dtr elements canonical or near canonical. It worked wholly at the pre-canonical stage. B. The formal shape of the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) as described sub A did not occur to the Dtr accidentally. Their work was based on a conscious hermeneutical principle. It found its inspiration and vitality in the classical prophetic tradition that wrestled with the threat of the total annihilation of the nation of Israel. They agreed with the prophets that Israel could only survive as a one sovereign nation thanks to its alliance with the one YHWH and loyalty to his Torah. They differed, however, from the prophetic tradition when it came to the practical achievement of this prophetic reflection. As presented in the past, the Torah had to be meticulously and unambiguously deposited in a constitutional form and updated, and its implementation had to be entrusted not just to the monarchy, but to the whole nation, supported by a series of institutions including the cult in the one sanctuary. Instruction and persuasion are the means that the Dtr used to move a politically threatened and socially riven nation to turn as one to the one Torah of the one YHWH, who alone could safeguard the one and sovereign nation of Israel. In this way the Dtr and their ‫ ספר התורה‬produced a code of behaviour based on law in which signs of orthodoxy were present in their instruction and preaching. Despite their prophetic inspiration the Dtr did not reach the point of reflection on divine inspiration667 and a circumscribed canon concept. Nevertheless, with their notion of ‫ ספר התורה‬they reached a level containing many elements that will later have a fixed place in the canon concept. The Dtr are certainly 667

The absolute authority of YHWH’S Torah and the institutions are, by contrast, a fixed and secure given.

266

convinced that what they present as ‫ ספר התורה‬is of lasting value, not only for their contemporaries, but for future generations. C. It is no accident that Dtr’s attainment of an already high canonical level with their single narrative paralleled the intensity of their sense of community. Their concern for the survival and wellbeing of the nation was so far-reaching that YHWH and religion are invoked as foundation for its authority. In this way Dtr follow the generally accepted view of the time that more or less identified political and social events with religion668. It is characteristic for Dtr that they want to leave the state religion largely to the customary public services led by an absolute ruler or monarch and exercised by a series of institutions entrusted with the task of structuring the charismatic ‘YHWH alone’ inspiration of prophecy and thus ensuring the welfare of the broader community. A prerequisite for this is that continuity in the transfer of power be ensured669. The Dtr started from a minority view but aimed at a broad social support base670, even at the whole community. They sought to provide it with an inward YHWH identity and an outward sharp demarcation from the surrounding peoples. The rapid sequence of changes that the Dtr had to make to their constitution as the political situation and the attitude of the kings changed showed that they did not develop a feasible vision of the religious national community. Certainly they did not succeed in putting this vision into practice before the end of the exile671. Nevertheless, despite their limited 668

“...in the biblical literature even non-mention of God does not divest political events of their theo-political significance ... It can therefore be stated that in biblical literature politics and theo-politics are in most cases one and the same” (Amit, 1994, 28-40, esp. 28). “Adherence to the mosaic ‘constitution’ as the only guarantee of national security ... It is the work of a society, or on behalf a society, that needs to define itself” (Davies P.R., 1998, 98-99). Here we see traces of the source from which the biblical texts, and thus the canon, derive their authority. “Here we have a situation where the text draws its power from the situation. Once it has been verified, it achieves power. The power of the text does not reside in what is in it, but in its relevance to the history of the people” (Parker K.I., 1996, 96). 669 “Die Einsicht, daß die Kontinuität von Autoritätsbeziehungen Voraussetzung für den Bestand einer Gemeinschaft ist” (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1995, 6). 670 This in no way means that the Dtr adopted a sectarian position but they did launch ideas that were not widely accepted within Israel or at least could not be presented as orthodox. The Dtr reflected this heterogeneous but still single Dtr group. 671 “C’est peut-être là que se trouve la cause profonde de l’échec de la réforme deutéronomique, soit au temps d’Ézéchias, soit après Josias au temps de Joyaqim. En fait, jusqu’à Sédécias, c’est le roi et ses conseillers qui restent les maîtres dans le droit public d’Israël” (Cazelles, 1985, 106). “Das zu übersehen, hieße die Abstraktion riskieren, die in

267

results the Dtr showed that even with their insufficiently thought out vision of how holding control over power within the religious nation state was a prerequisite for later canonisation, they still pointed out the correct path that had to lead to canonisation. The path to canonisation apparently did not run in a straight line as the biblical tradition generally did but via many strange twists and turns.

Chapter 7. The Period before 560 BCE

7.1 The Issue 7.1.1 The Sources672 of the Dtr Single Narrative: Hermeneutics of its Pre-history The presence of the oral and written materials incorporated in the Dtr single narrative requires us to pose the question of their origin and history. The prevailing view had long been that older materials were present in the Dtr opus as well as in other collections. But a growing number of scholars have come to question or even reject this. They go to the extent of minimising the role of ancient oral tradition, even to labelling it a contribution of questionable value673. To the extent that this presence of der Nachfolge des Deuteronomiums etwa die deuteronomistische Redaktion der Königsbücher auszeichnet: nicht nur oder zuerst, weil sie frühere Könige an späteren Forderungen des deuteronomischen Gesetzes mißt, sondern vor allem, weil sie unterstellt, daß diese Forderungen im Rahmen staatlicher Ordnung und Machtbefugnisse exekutierbar gewesen wären” (Halbe, 1975, 524-525). 672 The preceding chapters spoke on several occasions of the possible existence of sources and traditions used in the single narrative. This subject is treated directly here in this chapter. All material that preceded compilation of the single narrative during the exile is eligible for this category, including oral tradition. The redaction will also have to be taken into consideration. 673 Diebner, 1974, 38-50; Whybray, 1987, 136-185; Thompson, 1987, 41-59. “He (Soggin, L.Z.) is working with the common assumption in biblical studies that ‘history proper’ can only be written on the basis of written documents” (Whitelam, 1996, 127). Here Lemche, 1988, 54-58; Smelik, 1977, 96-99, and Guest 1998 are distinctively radical (we will return to this later). This goes counter to our view (Koole, 1983, 206-208) and no longer takes sufficiently into account the contribution that tradition history, including the Scandinavian school and its appreciation for oral tradition, has made to the study (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 46-48). Obviously, the relative value of the of the Scandinavian school’s input must be

268

ancient materials within the Dtr single narrative is still accepted, authors continue to disagree on their identification and their age674. Today there is a tendency to stress the creativity with which the redactors compiled the single narrative675. This does not prevent all authors – even those who emphasise most strongly the late date of the final literary shape of the Pentateuch – from acknowledging components that originate before the exile, albeit that they confine themselves increasingly to the written form676. These older components seem to appear in many if not all the literary genres that enrich the Dtr single narrative: collections of laws, prophetic traditions, historiography, and poems677. Even wisdom elements recognised without its being called upon ‘as a last resort’ or ‘at long last’, according to Mulder, 1987, 26. The established biblical text remains a historical source that cannot be ignored. “...il est essentiel de se laisser guider par l’étude attentive du matériel narratif écrit” (Harrelson, 1982, 21-40, esp. 24). For all that, the degree of accuracy with which the author(s) of Kings transmitted oral tradition has been observed occasionally (Becking, 1992, 102). 674 This is already a problem for Dtr’s own work (Knight, 1985, 263-296, esp. 283-284). We can cite research on this by F. Langlamet in RB 85 (1978), 277-300. The very first thing to be done is to recognise the oral sources. Then come the written sources (Rofé, 2000). A series of author seek them in the prophets: O’Brien, 1989a; Lohfink, 1987b, 463; Ben Zvi, 1978, 100-105. Others search more recent precursors for these written sources: Hardmeier, 1990, 165-184. As for material in the Pentateuch but outside Dtr’s opus: the J and E material used automatically to be considered of earlier origin, but the consensus in unravelling (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 73-75). Yet certain documents are still held to be very old (Cross, 1973; Weinfeld, 1987, 303-314; Freedman, 1987b, 315-335). 675 Wilson R.R., 1999, 72-73. The Amsterdam School considered this an important fact. McKenzie, 1991. For another view see Westermann, 1994. Stressing the contribution of the individual, the artist, is consistent with modern thinking as offshoot of the Enlightenment. 676 Whybray, 1987, 236, did not automatically exclude any date for the sources. He believed that no data was available to justify precise dating. Van Seters, Polzin and Auld kept to the written form (Wilson R.R., 1999, 72). This is clearly also Smelik’s preference (1954a). This author recognised traces of written sources only when unavoidable (see also Idem, 1977, 76-99). 677 Whybray, 1987, 238, Crüsemann, 1978, 60-66, Nicholson, 1991, 21 and Carmichael, 1985, 16 invoke the law collections as ancient components. They also believe that ancient legal rules are also present, but that they can no longer be distinguished from those of a later date. Weippert H., 1991 acknowledges the ancient origin of the historiography. Blum, 1984, 181, chooses the Davidic period for the oldest components of the Jacob stories, although he does not exclude a pre-monarchic origin. The author leaves vague which components he has in mind. While Lemche, 1988, 117, does not want to go any further back than the 9th century for written historical traditions (he distrusts the oral traditions completely), Lemche,1991, 105 and 114 goes back much further for the poetical passages such as the Song of Deborah and Ps 68:9. For another view see Turro-Brown, 1968, 518; Cross, 1973, 103, 113 and Gottwald, 1993, 169, who go back to the 12th century BCE and

269

can be taken into account, as came to light in the early findings on the single narrative. All of these can help establish the course that the canon process passed through before it took flight in the Dtr single narrative that caused these elements to converge in a single powerful tide678. To establish the part that these elements played in the preceding stage of the canon process each separate element will have to be identified and each time situated in its broad historical context so that its assigned task at that stage of the canon process can be weighed. Before entering into the exegetical-historical investigation, it would be beneficial to recall the hermeneutical value that can be attached to the canon’s precursors [prior stages]. If these first stages did contribute to shaping the present final text, studying them would produce more that just worthwhile information about the canon’s still relevant past. In that case, these stages are permanent co-factors that still operate in the final text of which they are a part in the strictest possible sense679. Always persisting in even further. Until comparatively recently, this was the traditional view, but it is now under fire because of its methodological approach. It turns out that the poetic parts such as the psalms are difficult to date. Frequently constructed in several stages with a view to incorporating current events, they can be situated in nearly any period (“in jede Zeit”, Diebner, 1995, 126). This is no excuse for speculating (according to Diebner, 1995) or for attributing the content and value of a poetic passage such as the Song of Deborah to the editors that probably adapted text at a later time (Globe, 1974; Vincent, 2000). There seem to be sufficient reasons to use the pronounced redemption experience to situate the older core at least as far as the pre-exilic period (Soggin, 1981). “...each has its own intrinsic interest, and each is a fine example of literary craftsmanship in its own right” (Lindars, 1983). More recent findings see: Römer-De Pury, 1996, 100-109 n. 415-416. 678 It was noted that the Dtr did their utmost to attain unity (6.2.; 6.6.2.); that is why their work is correctly called a ‘single narrative’. 679 As is known, not everyone – especially in the canonical movement – attributes the same value to the precursors. “...um Ihn besser zu verstehen” (Lohfink, 1983, 48). “Thus, that peculiar dilemma arises which enforces itself upon every serious reader of the Old Testament, namely the discovery while the present text does indeed ‘say something’, that is, has a message to convey, yet there are also other messages in the text, namely those which earlier editions of the traditions in question attempted to convey” (Lemche, 1988, 45). It is presupposed that the preceding tradition was not totally eliminated or concealed during the canon process and that it was not simply copied as soulless edifice, but that its distinctiveness was at least minimally and recognisably preserved. Many such biblical writings with a clear demarcation and with a separate title have been preserved in the final canonical text where they appear to operate as a single block. They may not be denied this operation when the whole Bible is explained (according to Lohfink cited in Steins, 1996a, 240). The following investigation will also have as task to bring to light the long-term purpose of the sources and preceding traditions within the single narrative. Barth, Bultmann, and now the Amsterdam School, tend to ignore the older stages. All who

270

this presupposition, it is thanks to these stages that the final text can operate with the staying power of the full richness that it contains. This means that these precursors are a truly indispensable theological factor. They cannot be reduced to an obligation-free ornament in a study of the canon. They are part of the canon process680. Starting from the observation that the identification of the single narrative within the current Tanach as defined in Ch. 6681 has furnished a good deal of insight on the genesis of the Hebrew Canon, it may be presumed that the older materials used in the single narrative via this channel also played a far from inconsequential role in the canon process. When they were included in the single narrative, they were not simply dumped there like a load of lifeless bricks. Their characteristic voice was not completely stilled. Depending on the case, they, like the single narrative, have their own message for the reader. The condition is that they are heard within the new choir of which they will circulate the final text are more or less exposed to the danger of undervaluing the precursors. The canonical biblical text contains references to the precursors. “...im Kanon selbst vorfindbaren” (according to Lohfink cited in Steins, 1996a, 240). This actual presence in the final text may not be restricted to literary quotations. It is a real and genuine insight from preceding tradition that surpasses its literary form (Lohfink, 1997; Mettinger, 1993). “...the text records the Other’s voice, even if only implicitly ... A deconstructive analysis helps, therefore, to give ‘voice’ to that which the text is so desperate to hide” (Parker K.I., 1996, 102-103). “...it is quite conceivable that an important theological meaning deriving primarily from a text’s original historical setting may be recoverable only through the exercise of historical-critical as over against canonical analysis, where the present form of the text has either suppressed or overlooked that meaning. Yet the theological import which that text originally scored may speak as vitally and pertinently and powerfully to our present situation as the final canonical understanding” (Emmerson, 1984, 7). 680 Steins, 1996a, 237-240. “...viele andere Exegeten halten die diachrone Textforschung auch auf der Grundlage des finalen Kanonprinzips für theologisch relevant ... wegen der eigenständigen theologischen Bedeutung der Teiltexte und Vorstufen” (Seckler, 2000, 49). “Should only the final form of the book and thus, the perspective of the final redaction be considered authoritative? In that case, the prophet himself loses his relevance and the authoritative basis for the tradition is undercut. Instead, it must be kept in mind that the book is received as the product of its transmission process. It presents all of its perspectives at once, but these must be uncovered” (Sweeney, 1988, 200). For another view see “… mit der Endgestalt ist das geschichtliche werden des Textes vergessen” J. Assmann, cited in Dohmen, 2004, 184 n. 38. The conclusion in that case is obvious: “… die Erklärung der Entstehung etwas völlig anderes ist als das verstehen eines vorliegenden Textes, und das vor allen Dingen die Methode, die zum Finden des einem hilft, zum anderen gerade nichts beitragen kann” (Dohmen, 2004, 181-182). 681 That chapter starts expressly from the final text without bending it by launching a speculative search behind the text (Diebner, 1995, 128)

271

henceforth always be a part. The up-coming critical argumentation will have to show whether this hypotheses if not provable682 can at least be retained.

7.1.2 The Complex Progression of Tradition Tracing and pinpointing possible older materials in the Dtr single narrative Gen.–2 Kgs proves to be a precarious undertaking. This was underestimated in the past, with as consequence that many hypotheses – including the documentary hypothesis accepted at the time – proved not to be immune to the contemporary discoveries. If present OT research questions the future of the once so generally and nearly dogmatically683 accepted 4-source hypothesis, this is even more the case for the analysis of the Dtr’s sources, which have lead to many more differences of opinion. That explains why today a growing number of OT scholars either return to 682

“Dieser geschichtlichen Dimension entsprechen die Texte auch in ihrem Sprachtypus, das vorwiegend narrativ ist, nicht wie ein flächiges Lehrbuch, sondern zerklüftet wie ein Gebirge, mit einem Pluralismus von Stimmen, Gegensätzen und Spannungen” (Seckler, 2000, 51-52). “Er muß innerhalb der biblischen Rezeptionsgeschichte zwischen dem ursprünglich intendierten und dem rezipierten Sinn eines Textes unterscheiden. Letzteres gilt auch dann, wenn sich nachweisen läßt, daß die (End-) Redaktion ältere Vorstufen im Rahmen einer umfassenden Gesamtkonzeption neu interpretiert hat” (Barthel, 1997, 17). Absolute proof as in positive sciences is beyond the reach of exegesis. “… for history, ultimately, is susceptible to evidence, but not to proof … The standards are those of evidence and argument, not Euclidean proof” (Halpern, 1983, 13). Those who impose such a demand on others (according to Diebner, 1995, 125 n. 79; Smelik, 1980, 42; “...we have not check or control on it”: Guest, 1998, 58) find that it is made of them. “Inequality in the application of the demand for proof is a serious fault” (Barr, 2000, 101). “If scepticism is indeed to be the denoting feature of the historian, however (s)he should at least attempt to be consistent about it” (Provan, 2000, 294 n. 30). “Rejecting the probable is tantamount to intellectual suicide, so few objects of contemplation does it leave secure” (Halpern, 1988, 28-29). “How much history, ancient or otherwise would we know about, if the verification principle were consistently applied to all testimony about it? The answer is clearly: ‘very little’” (Provan, 2000, 294). Only after weighing all available information (“on the balance of probabilities”: Emmerson, 1984, 8), can one shift the balance toward what one’s own feeling and insight says is the most probably solution. 683 The dogmatic argument that J was older than the other documents because of its supposedly more primitive theology was frequently used in constructing the documentary hypothesis. This was challenged by the most recent findings that J and D show extensive similarities so that it can be hotly disputed which preceded the other. It seems reasonable that they delve their material from a shared idiom as found in the cult and elsewhere (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 58-62). Today there is greater need to ward against dogmatic influence issuing from A.N. Whitehead’s process philosophy.

272

a Dtr representation that is closer to Noth’s original view that stressed the one Dtr history, or no longer venture to undertake a study of the Dtr’s sources because of its problematic nature or because of a preference for the more recent literary study at the cost of discredited classical biblical criticism684. That last permits them to join the dominant trend, the reliable history of Israel, and to shift the commitment of the OT to writing to a later date. One then resigns oneself to the current Dtr text as the only, massive, extant data. This means that only the ultimate whole is considered valuable and sufficient in itself and that it is accepted without any further in-depth study. It gives the impression that this immense single narrative running from Gen. through 2 Kgs simply fell from heaven, suddenly as a completed work685. That was obviously not the case. The Dtr current may 684

According to this view, the unevenness within the single Dtr history is attributed solely to either the sources or the later additions. This view is held by Hoffmann, Van Seters (Schniedewind, 1996, 22) and Römer (idem, 1992, 70-71). McConville, 1985, 155-156, shied away from what he considered a too problematic study of Dtr’s sources. But it should be recognised that much of what classical biblical criticism had published in the past is no longer valid (3.3.2.1). Alt’s “God of the Fathers”, Noth’s “alliance of the twelve tribes”, Von Rad’s “brief historical creed” are but a few examples. Nearly all of ancient Israel’s tradition up to the monarchy as described in the OT writings, and with it modern biblical criticism, became contested. It drew tradition history (Whybray, 1987) along with the documentary hypothesis (Zaman, 1984) in its fall. Current introductions now present a very different picture of the pre-exilic period (Steck, 1988, 234 n. 10). 685 Smelik and Van Soest also voiced this opinion. “They spare no effort in their attempt to give the creation of Kings a late date” (Eynikel, 1996, 125 n. 315). Beside the shift of the commitment to writing to a later date, there are also the revisionist historians (Barr, 2000, 58-101; Dever, 2001, 23-52) who see the OT as only one of the possible historical sources. External sources are then given precedence as of the exile (yet Thomson, 9 n.17 writes “… what is primary is not necessarily historical and what is secondary not necessarily unhistorical”). According to Barr, this revisionism found part of its inspiration in postmodernism (Barr, 2000, 165; Dever, 2002, 243-264; 3.2.1.-3.2.2.). The authors following this tendency tend to take too little into account that Israel’s more recent history, such as that of the exilic and Persian periods, also has lacunae (Zevit, 2002, 16; Albertz, 2003, 303-307). “It has become evident that very little is known about the social and historical background of the second temple period”, according to Whitelam, cited in Barr, 2000, 86. This shows that his historiography is ideologically inspired by postmodernism (3.2.1.-3.2.2.; Dever, 2001, 249-264). Yet its representatives are no means a homogeneous group (Dever, 1996, 35; Davies P.H., 2000, 122). There are major differences between Lemche, P.R. Davies, Thompson, Ahlström, Dever, Whitelam and Garbini. These authors pointedly contradict the idea that the single narrative Gen.–2 Kgs has no prehistory. “I know of no one who suggests the book of Kings is written entirely out of an author’s head” (Davies P.R., 1997, 211). But they do embrace a tabula rasa notion: because of a paucity of information they feel excused from further study of the older tradition.

273

well have been exceptionally creative and contributed a large share to its imputed historiography, it is still impossible that it produced its gigantic and multi-faceted literary work all alone. The findings relating to the structure of the Dtr single narrative stand surety for this. The Dtr used the preceding tradition on a large scale. Stronger arguments than a docta ignorantia686 will be needed if they are to be released from examining the sources of the Dtr work. This study will require more study than in the past. Suitable lessons should be learned from the crisis in the study of the Pentateuch. The text – which should be read more ‘from below’ than ‘from above’ – must be adhered to strictly687. That is why the present study starts from the already identified text of the Dtr single narrative from which it then seeks the remaining indications in this text of materials that may have been used in the composition; it then places these in the broader historical context of the period that preceded the Dtr. Only after that can a new step be taken to climb further back in time. This cautious treatment can prevent a proliferation of irresponsible conjectures without making it impossible to formulate hypotheses, which are unavoidable in scholarly exegesis. If one is to develop them responsible, one must be open to all methods that can make any contribution, however minor, to that stage of the investigation. It would be irresponsible to accept only written documents as evidence and to reject radically methods such as transmission history simply because they also appeal to oral methods of transmission688. All methods must be 686

6.6.5.; Reventlow, 1982, 76-77; Barr, 1980c, 126-128. “...these stages (the process of the canon’s genesis during the monarchical period, L.Z.) will have to be disregarded for reason of our virtually total ignorance” (Davies P.R., 1998, 87). “Our most important duty is to acknowledge our ignorance” (Lemche, cited in Whitelam, 1996, 213-214). The revisionists seem quite content to invoke this docta ignorantia. “Revisionist history attempts to explain the uncertain by pushing it into the unknown” (Barr, 2000, 85). In addition to the docta ignorantia, there is also reference to literarkritische Schweigspirale and praktische Abstinenz (Lohfink, 1983, 48-49). Basically this is a choice for historical demolition (Van der Woude, 1986a, 25), historical nihilism (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 20) or ‘extreme scepticism’ (Zevit, 2002, 14). When applied to the history of the canon’s genesis, it amounts to saying, “If there were a history of canonizing in monarchic Israel and Judah, it cannot be written” (Davies P.R., 1998, 87). 687 Diebner, 1995, 125-126. “The most we can strive for is a reasonable degree of probability, and the method that seems to hold out the best prospects of success is to work backward from the text as we have it rather than forward from its hypothetical origins in ancient traditions in oral or written form” (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 111). 688 “All literature participates in the discursive space of the culture to which it belongs ... A new text can only be fully appreciated in terms of a prior body of discourse which it implicitly or explicitly takes up, cites, prolongs, refutes or transfers. We may indeed speak

274

taken into account because all methods contain at least one element of truth689 without being able to lay claim to a totally faithful description of the course of tradition. This tempers everyone’s input while not detracting from its indispensability. Each method is valuable insofar as it helps detect the traces of tradition left behind in the Dtr single narrative and appreciating their operation in the single whole of which they are parts. The complexity and oral nature of the course of the older tradition may not excuse a failure to subject it to renewed hypothetical study. It is a given that scholarly agnosticism may not ignore simply because it is difficult to study.

7.1.3 The Informative Value of the Old Tradition: Its Historical Reliability690 The Dtr single narrative reveals more than just traces of previous traditions. It also frequently refers to events in Israel’s distant past. The Dtr opus invokes these to explain for its contemporaries Israel’s ordeal after having entered the promised land, especially the decline under the monarchy and to provide a perspective for coming generations. In this context Moses is invoked specifically as YHWH’S authoritative spokesperson. What value, if any, can historical study attribute to this treatment and the many fictive691 Dtr narratives? It is also far from simple of ‘the intertextual nature of any verbal construct’ and of the act of reading as experience of a series of déjà lues” (Mettinger, 1993, 257). 689 Ska, 1992b, 146-147. Several of these valuable methods have already been mentioned. To these should be added: form and redaction criticism, the notion of separate units as Rendtorff and Blum advocate (their truth element consists in stressing the separate evolution in tradition, mainly in Gen. 12-35 with respect to Ex.–Num., see Houtman, 1980, 244 n. 10; De Pury-Römer, 1989, 76-78); similarly, we may not forget Sandmel’s (1961) Haggadah view, which receives support from Blum (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 56), and Sanders (Reventlow, 1982, 135). 690 Here we refine and correct the discussion of Dtr’s historical contingency in the single narrative Gen.–2 Kgs (6.6.5). 691 It should be noted here that Dtr did not apply this fictive treatment surreptitiously. He presupposed that his readers were aware of his procedure (Römer, 1992, 74) because he addressed first what was held most dear by those around him, without this necessarily corresponding completely to the facts in the modern historical sense. Dtr considered his sources sacred and thus did not subject them to source criticism as is the case in modern historiography (Rofé, 1988b, 76-77). Dtr is thus not literally a historian, nor is he a writer of fiction in the modern sense. He does not create things to put in the place of real history. His creativity is directed at the formal and interpretive articulation of the fact of tradition,

275

to provide a sound scholarly answer to the question of the historical value of ancient tradition. If the hypotheses on the ancient biblical tradition have been put under pressure so often in the past, the reason was usually that they were all too often built on the sand of speculation about the origin and growth of ancient Israel. Only Dt.’s guiding tenet and its location around the time of the exile could be retained692 and this owing to the sense of stability offered by the cult at the time. But what about the history that the Dtr had developed using their own views, especially where they reached back into the distant past to lay foundations for the authority that was to underpin their entire endeavour693? Everyone now recognises that the historical value of biblical historiography had been grossly exaggerated in the past. It must be understood more from the historical genre customarily used at that time among surrounding peoples [the biblical authors’ Umwelt]694. This draws attention to the biblical writers’ creative use of the materials they had available. The method used in examining the older tradition thus requires thorough revision695. But before starting this we must address the question: What is the informative value of the Dtr history, now universally recognised as fictive, if it is admitted, even by purported minimalists, that it contains historical elements696? Once the existence of which for him remains sacred (Cross, 1998, 27-29). “Fictive is not however the same as arbitrary” (Clements, 1975, 53-54). “Historie ist nie frei von fiktiver Narration, und Fiktion ist nie von den objektiven Ereignissen zu trennen” (Duque, 1997, 42 n. 41). “Den fiktionalen Gehalt der Texte in dieser Weise in das Zentrum der Interpretation zu rücken, erfordert aber keine grundsätzliche Abkehr von der historisch-kritischen Forschung” (Schart, 1998, 27). Liss, 2004 completely de-historicises the legal texts in the P tradition. 692 De Pury, 1992, 12, 175. 693 This is a rather general pattern in the culture of the time, which by no means guarantees the historical value of the past described. It usually reflects only the authoritative view of the text’s author, i.e. that the present is no more than a degeneration of the past; the oldest is the most valuable (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 54-57). The reverse can also be maintained. Ultimately every fact must be assessed on its own merits. 694 Here one must agree with Smelik, 1992a, 5-10, 1987, 11-14, and Diebner, 1995, 108111. 695 Smelik, 1992a, 3-15; Diebner, 1995, 125-130. 696 On the debate, ongoing since 1990, between minimalists and maximalists see Smelik, 1987, 11, 21; Zevit, 2002, 9-19. On occasion the minimalists acknowledge the existence of historical components in the biblical text: Whybray, 1996, 72; Smelik-Van Soest, 1995, 78, 86; Smelik, 1977, 52-53, 131-132, 156, 167, 203, 206, 213, 226, 236, 247-249, 260; idem, 1997b, 275-277. Weinfeld, 1987, esp. 310, Van Cangh, 1991, and Johnstone, 1987, 31-37 show this openly. Despite its later redaction, we even find traces of original events in Chr. (Crüsemann, 1992, 114 n. 196). The appreciation of Chr.’s historicity is disputed (Japhet, 1985). The chance of historical reliability obviously becomes greater as the commitment to

276

some historical material within the Dtr historiography is accepted, it is unreasonable to want to avoid examining details by branding them negligible a priori697, and even suspicious because of being tainted by their being inseparably intertwined with the fictive data698. That last is not rare. It is common knowledge that every historiographer inevitably, consciously or unconsciously, mixes his/her personal vision with his/her representation of events699. De Dtr were no exception in this regard. One cannot avoid assessing their account, like they would those of all other historiographers, and distinguishing it from the colour and selection that they added, even though this may be proportionally larger than average and more difficult to trace700. Even from just the historical perspective the biblical text needs to writing becomes closer to the facts (Seidel B., 1995, 56) and in this way can operate as primary source (Uehlinger, 1995, 59-61). Later commitment to writing need not necessarily result in excluding the historicity of the information. As long as a degree of probability remains after critical examination, it is still defensible. “...probabilities cannot be used as an argument for regarding some event recounted in the testimony as unhistorical” (Laato, 1996, 51). 697 “...Il nous semble que l’historien ne peut se contenter de refuser toute prise de position sur cette période” (Lemaire, 1990a, 291). Those (see list in Lemaire, 1990a, 291) doing this – usually because of the disappointing historical results of modern biblical criticism – concentrate more than proportionately and almost exclusively on literary research, and then on that studying the final form of the Pentateuch (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 69-73; 155). A. Soggin also believes he has to exclude period prior to the monarchy when writing Israel’s history. Lemche, 1988, 7, 46, 91, also thought along the same lines, but believed he could use social data from this older period although not the historical data, which he considers completely useless. The allegedly revisionist historians maintained a variety of different views except on one point: they nearly all consider the pre-exilic period beyond reach of historiography because the Bible is the only source. In that regard, P.R. Davies speaks of ‘certain details’ or ‘the rest’. Here the historian takes the easy way out. He should at least investigate the details that are available, however scarce, and assess their historicity. “However, the fact that an account has an ideological component is not sufficient ground for dismissing it in its entirety” (Laato, 1996, 9). 698 ‘Gesamtheitliche Verknüpfung’, Lohfink, 1983, 48. “...the historicity of Jonah ... does not make the story of the great fish ... into fact rather than fiction” (Davies P.R., 1997, 211). 699 This involves the subjective contributions of the writer and reader of a biblical text (5.1.2; Clines, 1995). “All history writing reflects the point of view of the historian who consciously or unconsciously ‘bends’ the facts in a particular direction by selection, emphasizing, understating or omitting themes he sees fit, and by making judgments about causes and effect” (Whybray, 1996, 72). “This observation applies with equal force to all periods of the Bible’s formation” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 13). 700 Relying only on the majority of the tradition does not suffice as argument in the scholarly world (Davies P.R., 1997, 212; for another view see Whybray, 1996, 73). The distinction between historical reality and its subjective elucidation by the biblical writer may not lead to a separation that would betray the text. The connection is a fact in the text.

277

be examined for its historical value701, notwithstanding its dubious treatment of the oldest period of Israel’s history and the history of its tradition. To ignore systematically a period in Israel’s history because of the problems it poses for research is to create an irresponsible gap702. The The distinction is, however, necessary for evaluating the author’s theological intention regarding the whole of the text (Whybray, 1996, 72) For another view see Davies P.R., 1997, 211, who intended to write a profane history to circumvent what he calls impressionistic rationalization’. But how can he write a profane history of Israel without starting from his own coloured vision? “The ideological bias of ancient historians may often have been more marked and more blatant than is the case with modern ‘scientific’ historians, though the propaganda composed in the present century in dictatorial regimes may be even more blatant than that of the ancient world” (Whybray, 1996, 72). In the case of biblical history, the involvement of author and reader is proportionally greater where it is a matter of the religious community’s traditions (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 14, 167-177). This can be observed in the emotional-intuitive stance of authors like Whybray (1966) and the apparently no less moved response from Davies, P.R., 1997. The problem of determining historical reality also arises in later periods of tradition history. In particular there is the ‘quiet period’ extending from 400–200 BCE (Negenman, 1986, 86; Donner, 1986, 433-439. Davies P.R. seems to treat this period inconsistently according to Provan, 1995, 602-604), the exilic and post-exilic periods generally (Lemche, 1988, 173-175), and even the monarchical period (Kyle McCarter, 1987, 138; Rendtorff R., 19883, 68). One may confidently maintain that comprehensiveness in this area will never be attained and that no one will ever identify exactly how the Pentateuch developed (Houtman, 1980, 243). That, however, is not an insurmountable obstacle for the present historical study. 701 “Die Sache des Textes selbst zwingt zur historischen Frage” (Lohfink, 1983, 47). 702 As was said, Lemche ascribes no historical value to the information contained in the Pentateuch on the period before the monarchy. He even remains critical of the period up to the exile. He is more radical than Wellhausen, Noth and esp. Wette (Halpern, 1988, 19, 21, 25) in applying the principle that literary works can only be of historical value for the time in which they were written. This view is not totally without merit, but should be applied judiciously (Provan, 2000, 292 n. 24). The spirit of the age and the theological assumptions have certainly affected these authors (Miller P.D. Jr., 1985, 213; Kasher, 2001, 55). But it is not realistic to separate their work completely from preceding tradition, i.e. it does not respect the course of events. It attributes too much creativity to the authors (mirakulöse Gedächtniskraft: Gunneweg, 1985a, 237). Certainly, they displayed a degree of creativity. Usually this is associated with a minimal adherence to the previous tradition, as Dtr saw it (6.6.3.). When earlier traditions are invoked in a later time of crisis, they can still provide hints of real history (Mendenhall, 1987, 338, 343). Why would they have to reinvent events (McCarthy, 1986, 44-45; Weinfeld, 1987, 310)? It is not reasonable to presuppose complete creativity beforehand (Barr, 2000, 87-88). Creation from nothing is even harder to accept as one increasingly observes that prior to the exile various crisis moments threatened the existence of the people and that these gave sufficient cause to reflect on history. Certainly at least part of this was put in writing before the exile (Gunneweg, 1985a, 243; Loza, 1989, esp. 130). It is not possible to reconstruct the original events from which the folkloristic (McCarthy, 1986, 44) traditions sprang. After all, one text can refer to a collection of many

278

fact that the biblical, here Dtr, history is nearly the only source due to a lack of extra-biblical sources or their unfitness for use may not prevent the historian from using it for historical research703. To the extent that the Dtr history is closer to the historical facts, it should even be embraced704, albeit, as we noted, with methodological caution. When, despite this, a growing number of biblical historians let themselves be carried along by ahistorical impulses and the trend to assign the biblical writings a late date and therefore let themselves be turned away from studying ancient Israel, they give the impression that they seek excuses for a tacit hermeneutical option made consciously or unconsciously. However, this does not help them escape the underlying problem. They are still encounter indirectly situations. But they are often original and can contain a historical core (Lapointe, 1977, 147-148; Barr, 1966, 26-27). Shifting the commitment to writing of the OT scriptures en bloc to later periods (even to the last 3 centuries BCE as T.L. Thompson does according to Zwickel, 2001, 297-298) – as the trend to date late would have it – offers no solution. It just displaces the problem. “I do not think that the historian as literary critic can simply dismiss the ‘old’ by subsuming it under the ‘new’. That is to say, finding the ‘new’ among the ‘old’ does not make the ‘old’ any less ‘old’ … that we date according to the ‘latest’ feature of the text, does not solve the problem of the composite text” (Gunn, 2001, 188-189). Certainly a late dating does not diminish the fact that Israel as population group is cited as being present on the international scene, at least as of the 9th century BCE (Davies P.R., 1992, 63), and possibly even from the 13th–12th centuries BCE (Smelik, 1984a, 79; idem, 1984b, 88). The strongest argument for the earliest dating is the Egyptian Merneptah stela, dating from 1207 BCE (Gottwald, 1993, 170; Brett, 2003, 406; Whitelam, 1996, 206-201; Otto, 1979, 199-223). Why would a Pharaoh use a victory over Israel as claim to fame for his rule if there was no honour in it? Israel must have been a people with a respectable reputation and significance (Shanks, 1992, 17-19), with a socio-religious identity (Sparks, 1988b, 94-109; for another view see Guest, 1998, 50-52; Hjelm-Thompson, 2002). This means that from a historical perspective it is necessary to identify Israel’s earliest origin. Waiting until the post-exilic period is uncalled-for. 703 Whybray, 1996, 71-72. Davies P.R., 1997, 211. It is noted, correctly, of this view that it “...is, to say, at least extraordinary” (Whybray, 1996, 73). It exhibits a “hyperpositivistische Auffassung von Wissenschaft” (Lohfink, 1983, 48). “Even though this history is a dense narrative construct, it engages the past and should not be ignored” (Knoppers, 1997, 43). Even Lemche thinks so. “However, if a historian wishes to undertake a historical evaluation of this (monarchic, L.Z.) period, he or she must make some attempt to penetrate this (biblical, L.Z.) framework” (Lemche, 1988, 143). 704 “Wenn auch der jetzige Text ... keineswegs in seiner Hauptintention als Report über bestimmte Ereignisse ... verstanden sein will, verarbeitet er doch Vorstadien, die solchen Ereignissen zeitlich noch näher standen als er selbst ... Wenn diese auch in noch so durchformter und überformter Gestalt referiert werden - sie sind trotzdem durchaus auch als faktische Ereignisse gemeint, und in sofern ist die Rückfrage nach dem Faktischen mit Hilfe der Methoden moderner Geschichtswissenschaft dann auch sachgemäß” (Lohfink, 1983, 48).

279

arising hypotheses that confront them with the fundamental hermeneutical question. In this situation, it would have been better to approach the Dtr text openly as it deserves to be approached705.

7.1.4 Methodological Adjustments It will have become clear that if this complex and difficult to identify ancient tradition is to be studied with any better results than in the past additional measures must be taken when it comes to methodology. In developing the unavoidable hypotheses on the origin and growth of the older tradition, it is more necessary than ever to start from the text, here the Dtr single narrative as identified in Ch. 6. It offers the most secure basis for distinguishing what is typically from the Dtr and what can be considered part of the continuity of tradition and, as such, still resonant in the text706. It is plausible that at the very least research is essential into the two main sources from which the Dtr seem to have drawn: on one side the central legal tradition on which Dt. was built (7.2); on the other the prophetic tradition that the Dtr took as their inspiration, but subjected to substantial corrections (7.3). Furthermore, it is firmly established that the ambitiously conceived Dtr history must have been preceded by at least a few historiographic components of restricted magnitude such as the 705

“Denn in Wirklichkeit ist gar keine Hypothese auch eine, und sie ist gefährlich weil nicht kontrollierbar” (Lohfink, 1983, 50). Hypotheses are unavoidable in biblical scholarship, but they must be quite plainly documented. The fundamental hermeneutical question raises the issue of overall biblical history (“within the events”: Whybray, 1996, 72) as acutely present in the quest of the historical Jesus. This is somewhat similar to what happened to Bultmann. Based on his inherent theological–philosophical understanding (Vorverständnis Gagey-Soulette, 1995, 558 n. 4), he, too, appealed to the lack of historical information on Jesus. “Une tentative pour ne pas avoir à tirer les conséquences théologiques du dossier historique. Et l’on continue ainsi d’honorer un Jésus revu et corrigé en fonction des exigences de la mentalité moderne” (Gagey-Soulette, 1995, 567). Today this is happening to exegetes once again. “Il en ressort que ce ne sont pas seulement leurs positions explicitement philosophiques et théologiques qui préforment leur abord des textes. En fait, leur outillage strictement exégétique porte en lui-même la marque d’influences philosophiques (le dualisme kantien) et théologiques (influence de la théologie luthérienne de la Parole)” (Gagey-Soulette, 1995, 561). Conclusion: Every historical fact, of whatever period, must be taken into account as bearer and exhibitor of the transcendent. “...since both Judaism and Christianity are faiths that attach great importance to God’s involvement in human affairs, the history of ancient Israel in its main lines cannot be brushed aside as a matter of no significance for these faiths” (Whybray, 1996, 72). 706 De Pury, 1992, 12, 125.

280

narratives recounting the rise of David (1 Sam. 16–2 Sam. 5) and the succession to the throne (2 Sam. 7-20; 1 Kgs 1-2). The Dtr integrated them in their single narrative. Strong doubts are now cast on their historical value, but they must nevertheless be assessed (7.4)707. Finally, it was mentioned that the Dtr historian also included many wisdom elements and a few passages with a poetic character in his single narrative. Because these Dtr elements offer less certainty, the present study will only address their provenance to a limited degree (7.5). Each time, the treatment will focus on the lasting resonance of the older tradition as it plays a role in the Dtr representation and its contribution to the evolution of the text as evinced in the use of language708. Although portraying an evolution 707

The Dtr seem to have forsaken this when he juxtaposed historically contradictory sources (Rofé, 1988b, 77; Lemche, 1988, 143). Today a historian cannot avoid confronting mutually contradictory historical sources. 708 “...that reconstruction bears on the ways in which later ideas of Israel developed and functioned in communities of faith” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 16). This is already about past representations of the faith (not necessarily so much the facts themselves as the representations of the faith they invoke) from the time before Dtr moulded them to suit his vision. First of all these facts guide Dtr and his time to the extent that they remain faithful to the tradition (6.6.3) without their inhibiting Dtr’s creativity (6.6.2; 6.6.4). This early representation of the faith also determines the future to some extent. “Furthermore the set of conditions and circumstances within which Israel is understood, includes the future of the groups, organizations, and societies calling themselves Israel and of their self-identities” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 24). Drawing attention once again to those more original representations of the faith allows a critical screening of what later representations of the faith had overshadowed to permit representations of the faith could come to the fore that were allegedly canonical, not necessarily richer and certainly not the most complete. “A critique of origins is the basis for a critique of any definition of Israel which assumes – explicitly or implicitly – that Israel corresponds to its origins” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 24). De Pury, 1992, 175, refers to the evolution of the language. Hurvitz, 1997, and Young, 1993, contribute to this issue a weighty argument with strong external confirmation that not only established the long-running course of ancient biblical traditions but also followed their evolution. They correctly conclude that evolution in the biblical tradition was rejected because the evolution of language had been neglected. “The very existence of development is denied: there is no such thing as ‘tradition’” (Whybray, 1996, 73-74). The cause of this rejection can be sought in the underlying a-historical approach (Hurvitz, 1997, 306) and even to a-chronological penchants. In Davies this penchant is plain to see when the preexilic period is discussed. “Davies strongly advocates the hypothesis that BH was used in writing rather than in everyday speech adducing this supposition as an argument to support his claim that BH is virtually devoid of any real chronological dimension” (Hurvitz, 1997, 303). This a-historical approach does not mean that the author or authors concerned had no feeling for historical research. Rather, it means that they become so selective that some eras and their archaeological artefacts (e.g. the excavations in Dan; Couturier, 2001; Ehrlich, 2001) are ignored (Zevit, 2002, 13, 16). They do this out of an exaggerated distrust of the

281

presupposes research over a longer period, a global approach like the present one cannot aim at producing a full-scale historical reconstruction709 of the canon’s genesis at the time of ancient Israel. For technical reasons, only its general outlines can be presented710. Moreover, a full reconstruction based on all available biblical texts is not essential for a historical study of the canon process. The principal thing remains to err on the side of caution when it comes to the existence and minimal insight into the course of the canon process before the Dtr. If certainty is the prime objective, it should be kept in mind that in biblical scholarship this is never an absolute but only a hypothetical certainty711. This does not deny that biblical sources, with as result that what purports to be historical research becomes what Veijola, 1996, 232 called “Dekonstruktionen der Geschichte Israels”. When the notion of evolution is unfolded, it is not in the sense of the optimistic progression (3.1.6-3.1.7) that Hegel clung to so long ago and that now often arises in A.N. Whitehead’s process philosophy. The tradition must be open to strange twists and turns. 709 “The perspective of la longue durée is able to readjust and balance our own view of the emergence of Israel” (Hurvitz, 1997, 25). The pursuit of elucidation over a longer period is inherent in the term current (in the sense of current with long-term influence). The total reconstruction lies beyond reach because of the restricted nature of historical criticism which has been sufficiently established (3.3.3.1-3.3.3.2; Melugin, 1996, 64; Barthel, 1997, 464). “...it will remain impossible to offer a definitive reconstruction of the emergence of Israel” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 20). “No continuous history can be inferred” (Whybray, 1996, 71). This also applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to the later editorial stages (for another view see Jeremias, 1996a, 156, whose doubts regarding the reconstruction of the prophets’ ipsissima verba make him want to eliminate them in favour of later redactional stages. He disregards the fact that there are often doubts about these later redactional stages, too, when it comes to reconstruction.) 710 Whybray, 1996, 72. “The search for broad patterns and generalizations helps to throw valuable light on periods of social change” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 22). That these general historical lines are limited does not detract from their sound historicity. 711 “Biblical data do not provide the grounds for such proof or disproof” (Carroll, 1981, 10). There are degrees in this certainty that, as we mentioned, will be identified in this study chiefly when it is a matter of contentious issues. The value of certainty should certainly not be turned into an absolute. “Certainty is not a prerequisite to understanding. It is the will to understand rather than simply the will to know for certain that is the driving force for the inquiry to be undertaken here” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 20). “In fact, however, the question ‘What is the minimum we can know?’ is a question that impoverishes historical interpretation if it is not followed by the question ‘What in addition can we reasonably surmise?’. Indeed, the historical question is ‘What is the most probable, not the certain, cause of events and causation to posit?’. Certainty is a stock-in-trade of theoretical sciences such as philology; history is an applied human science” (Halpern, 2000, 545). The point is to discover ‘why it happened’, rather than ‘what happened’ (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 18). It is a matter of more than investigating what may have been the author’s intention: it is a matter of determining the underlying intention in the process of the canon’s genesis.

282

besides the facts in the biblical text on which the abovementioned research methods focus, other facts are also examined that are not immediately observable712. Moreover, important sociological facts contained in the historical–fictive narratives can be uncovered indirectly, whether these concern the behaviour of individuals or institutions. Although the focus is on internal biblical facts, the scarce external data from the relevant period should not be ignored. Archaeology and the genres of civilisation arising from local custom can also elucidate the shape in which the old traditions are presented713, if treated with the right methodology. The comparative method will prove more useful there, even though it is restricted to what is actually comparable. Losing sight of this has led to disenchantment in the past and even now some scholars risk being led astray714. 712

“If certain elements ... will never be directly observable, it obviously does not follow that those unattested elements did not exist in the living culture, nor does it mean we cannot infer their presence in an orderly, rigorous way. Inference is a dynamic process which allows the formulation of new questions, the investigation of previously unexplored areas and the refinement or reformulation of hypotheses to take account of new discoveries, fresh ideas or greater understanding of available data” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 20). 713 On the contribution of archaeology, see Zevit, 2002, 1-9. Here we should warn against ‘biblical archaeology’ and the temptation to ‘dovetail’: to use biblical texts unduly to fill in the gaps in the archaeological picture (Smelik, 1995, 131; Grabbe, 1998a, 152-154; Thompson, 1997, 167-178; Lemche, 2001b, 292 n. 12). It is appropriate first of all explore the archaeological artefacts and biblical texts separately (Müller, 1991, 94). They can be supplemented with socio-economic studies (Knoppers, 1997, 34 n. 92, 41). Secondary application of an array of methodologies is indicated here. Smelik, 1992a, 5-9, 22-25, and Whybray, 1996, 71-72, stress the importance of genres here. “Interpreting material artefacts themselves is a profoundly subjective enterprise” (Knoppers, 1997, 44). 714 The comparative method only leads to true results when all that is phenomenologically perceptible is involved (Boecker, 1976, 12). “The sea-change in the reception accorded Noth’s hypothesis of a premonarchic amphictyony in Israel, which has declined in the last decade from general acceptance to general rejection, demonstrates the inherent risks of analogy. These are compounded by the lack of objective controls that provide a check upon free-ranging eclecticism” (Coote-Whitelam, 1987, 19). “It is difficult to find a parallel” (Whybray, 1996, 73). The social structures that lay at the basis of legal codes must certainly be taken into account when the codes are compared. For another view see, FitzpatrickMcKinley, 1999, 54-80. “Because ... laws are intimately related to the socio-economic and political structures of specific societies, comparisons of laws between societies having different social structures are of limited value” (Marshall, 1993, 104). The biblical codices share not only the stylistic methods with their surroundings, they also, to a certain degree, share their ethical and religious reasoning. “...Ainsi que le montre pertinemment S. Lafont, seul l’étude du droit comparé permet d’avoir une vision globale du problème juridique dans le Proche Orient ancien ...” (Bord, 2001, 105). Yet we should warn once again about the limited nature of the comparative method. “L’expression ‘droit comparé’ ne veut certes pas dire ‘comparaison des droits’; ce dernier exercice se contente de relever les points

283

7.2 The Legal Traditions as Source of the Dtr Single Narrative715 The Dtr use Dt. to introduce their original historical narrative. After a brief historical introduction (Dt. 1-3) this book consists primarily of legal material (Dt. 4-26) and closes with paraenetic exhortations (Dt. 27-28, 30)716, a covenant renewal (Dt. 29) and reflections on Moses’ successor (Dt. 30-34). The location and scope of the legal material clearly shows that it not only holds a, if not the most, important place in Dt. but that it orients the whole Dtr history717. The nature of the legal material precludes that the Dtr author or authors had the same freedom in treating it that they had in developing their historical material, where they only had to preserve the facts known to their contemporaries. Their sources were too limited and verification beyond reach of most. Conversely, for the laws, they used the order that was familiar to everyone community. These were established customs and rules of behaviour718 that probably had to be supplemented and adjusted to new situations after new experiences. As time went by these law were codified, attuned to one another and transformed into a surveyable and manageable whole. It is evident that the legal corpus in Dt.

semblables ou dissemblables, sans toujours tenir compte ni du développement historique propre à chaque entité géopolitique, ni du fait qu’à des situations identiques le droit apporte souvent des solutions semblables” (Bord, 2001, ibid.). Rofé, 2001, esp. 217-219, insists in this sense on first studying biblical legislation separately before comparing it with that of surrounding peoples. Diebner, 1995, went amiss here. The fact that this author regularly calls his hypothesis based on the comparative method ‘speculative’ is indicative of the lack of gravity in applying the method. 715 The material treated under 7.2 is a more detailed elaboration of what was mentioned when discussing the normative scope of Dtr’s ‫ספר התורה‬. 716 The Dt.’s link with Josh. and the other historical books is the fact that persists best amid all current discussions (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 56). 717 Dietrich, 1996a; Kratz, 2000, 157-158. 718 This corresponds to sayings prevalent in the Israelite community such as: “such a thing is not done in Israel” (2 Sam. 12:12) or “committed abomination and wantonness in Israel” (Gen. 34:7; Jg. 20:6,10,12; Dt. 22:21). The regulation governing the spoils of war (1 Sam. 30:24-25; Greenberg, 1986, 3 n. 5) – purportedly introduced in David’s time – can be ascribed to custom. These sayings witness to the sense of unity in the population subgroup. The development of customs is a general sociological occurrence. “… all societies recognized some code of human behaviour without which no society could exist” (Felton, 2001, 134). The close connection between the way customs were shaped and the content of the law in the OT has also been insufficiently studied according to Jackson (2004b, 13 n. 7)

284

4-26 and the variety of material incorporated in it719 was not constructed at one go. There is no longer any doubt that previously existing sources, including the Book of the Covenant (BoC)720, were used as inspiration for the final design that found its home in Dt. The focus of the rest of this study will therefore be primarily on the composition and meaning of the Book of the Covenant (7.2.1). After that it will be possible to study with greater insight the nature and meaning of Dtr’s treatment of pre-existing legal traditions, incorporated chiefly in the Book of the Covenant.

7.2.1 The Book of the Covenant The Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20:22-23:33) plays an ample role in the growing regard among exegetes for the biblical legal codes in recent years. It was the focus of OT study, esp. of the Pentateuch721. It draws interest 719

We already mentioned the government and legal institutions, including the striking law of the king, which in Dt.’s view together serve as the constitution of the nation of Israel: The body of laws in Dt. thus covers many areas of life as it then was in Israel. We can note specifically the extensive family law (Ex. 21-25) and the strict religious–cultic decree (Ex. 12-17, 26-27) which once again show Dt.–Dtr.’s interest in cultic affairs. Contrary to in P, this interest applies to the imminent cult centralisation under Josiah as political and social event. Despite the lengthiness, the body of laws in Dt is quoted eclectically and selectively as are the other legal codes in the Bible. This selectivity is an argument for, not against, their option for a system of binding laws. “En ce qui concerne le cas particulier de l’Israël biblique, le caractère ‘incomplet’ du corpus juridique présent dans le Pentateuque milite en faveur de l’existence de lois non écrites fondées sur les jugements rendus par ceux qui avaient examiné et décidé pour tous les cas” (Bord, 2001, 106). According to Marshall (1993, 28) the legal codes treated only the exceptional cases. The commitment to writing of existing codes presupposes a broader body of unwritten laws. 720 “Das zeigt sich am Gesamtcharakter wie an jeder Einzelbestimmung” (Crüsemann, 1992, 132). Dt.’s dependence on the BoC need not necessarily imply a direct literary contract. Most scholars (Levinson, 1997, 84; Lohfink, 1996, 128) believe that this cannot be demonstrated. The utilisation of common sources can explain the similarity in material and treatment. 721 “Die Beschäftigung mit der biblischen Rechtsgeschichte erhebt gegenwärtig in der atl. Wissenschaft eine Renaissance” (Otto E., 1995a, 284). For an overview of research in the last decades see Schottroff, 1977; Otto E., 1995a. In the last decade new attempts were made to reconstruct all of the OT’s legal history. (See: Niehr, 1987; Lohfink, 1992, 52-56; Crüsemann, 1992). Usually only the larger legal codes are described (Epzstein, 1983, 171172; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 74-101) without giving an opinion on the order of their genesis (Houtman, 1980, 176-177) unless to say that the BoC customarily is considered the oldest and that it holds a key position (Crüsemann, 1988, 27; Otto, 2003). For another view see Van Seters, 1996, who maintains that while the BoC may contain old material this was only compiled into a code during the exile). Today the prevailing opinion is that the legal codes

285

principally because of its being situated in the Sinai pericope and its connection with the entry into the covenant. The framework created for this purpose is usually ascribed to the Dtr. tendency. But there are other candidates722. The Dtr.’s diverse literary style seems less suitable for came into being when they were concentrated and committed to writing at a late date (Amsler, 1989, 239). The transformation of the Decalogue into a single whole that set the course for the legal corpora that it precedes (Hossfeld, 2000) is now considered recent (Aurelius, 1988; Amsler, 1989, 256; Hossfeld, 1982; Knight, 1982a, 164; Carmichael, 1985; Scharbert, 1985; Lemche, 1988, 221; for another view see: Loza, 1990, 389; Miller P.D. Jr., 1989. Some authors tend to start from the larger legal codes in which the Decalogue is now included Sanders, 1972, 33). It is thought to operate as unifying basis for the many separate laws that it introduces (Hossfeld, 2000). “Doch gibt es seither hermeneutisch kein Zurück mehr hinter das Prinzip einer solchen Verbindung von Dekalog und Einzelgesetzen als seinen Durchführungsbestimmungen. Im Gesetz erhält der Dekalog seine ‘positive Füllung’ und vermag so ‘das Leben positiv inhaltlich zu normieren’”. (Braulik, 1985b, 272). Nevertheless, the legal codes, even the most recent, can contain rules originating in oral tradition (Boecker, 1976, 132-133). Without being directly from Moses, they can still go back to the time of the conquest of Canaan (according to Hossfeld, 1982 and Scharbert, 1985, who relies on Halbe, 1975). Even Lemche, 1988, 210-211, considers the oral origin of old precepts possible. There is no doubt that the legal prescriptions belong to the oldest written traditions (Davies P.R., 2002, 44). That is why the question of the function of the oral and written law in ancient Israel is increasingly being asked. Various methods are used to seek an answer. This is reflected in the diverging definitions of biblical law. See the definitions given by Marshall (1993, 22-26) and Jackson (1998). — On the connection to the Pentateuchal legal codes see Otto E., 1995b, 375. As long ago as 1963, Lohfink drew attention to the importance of the link between the BoC and Dt. in matters concerning Pentateuch issues (Otto E., 1993b, 260) and via this path, he drew attention to the canon’s genesis. 722 Blenkinsopp, 1999. Even in Wellhausen’s day many passages were assigned to Dtr (Lohfink, 1990f, 29) partly because of his well-known paraenetic style. The experts convinced of a Dtr revision have made few modifications since then. They must increasingly ascertain that it is a pluralistic Dtr redaction (Otto E., 1988, 4-6) whose stages are difficult to discern (Smith M.S., 1971, 48-49). “Denn die Kriterien und Modellvorstellungen der Deuteronomiumanalyse sind seit über hundert Jahren umstritten” (Lohfink, 1996, 129). This provokes very different interpretations extending from pre-Dtr over proto-Dtr (Lohfink, 1991c, 209) to strict and late-Dtr divisions (Crüsemann, 1992, 141); all of which as a means to avoid pan-deuteronomism. This makes studying D’s style both intricate and intriguing. The result is that a synchronic inspection of the BoC aggregate does not suffice. As always in a long-term occurrence such as the Dtr current, there is also openness for diachronic developments and requirements (Auld, 1999, 126). A series of authors rejects this for the BoC. Among them are Greenberg, S.M. Paul (Schottroff, 1977, 20-21) and more recently Westbrook (Levinson, 1994b). A new trend started since Beyerlin (Lohfink, 1990f, 41) that is gaining acceptance from authors like SchwienhorstSchönberger, 1990, 406-414. Dissociation from traditionally accepted Dtr influence on the BoC seems not to be limited to its redaction. Particularly since Halbe, 1975, it has found expression by involving what some call the Cultic Decalogue (Ex. 34:10-16) in the study of

286

codifying the details of a legal entity such as the BoC. It offers too many occasions for fluctuating and even contradictory interpretations. These have only increased in recent research723. The inherent hermeneutical understanding of these authors is immediately conspicuous724. Authors the BoC. Halbe and his followers, such as Otto E., 1999, 324-340, Osumi, 1991, 70-80, and Crüsemann, 1992, 139-145, contrary to Blum, see no text in the Cultic Decalogue that was later edited by Dtr. Rather, they see a more original whole (Lohfink, 1991c, 227 n. 50) inspired by older Yahwist currents. Since Alt’s form critical approach (Schottroff, 1977, 27; Otto E., 1995a, 285-286) was discredited, disputes on this are now based more on literarycritical arguments (Kratz, 2000). “Der wissenschaftliche Streit geht nach wie vor, genau wie für Ex. 34,11 ff im ganzen um Früh- oder Spätdatierung” (Crüsemann, 1992, 149; Levinson, 1997, 69-70). Accordingly, the trend to date late is meeting greater resistance. The underlying issue here is still the time-honoured question of whether the Yahwist cult (fas) should be given precedence over profane legislative developments (ius) or the reverse (Otto E., 1995a, 285-286). This question, in its turn, results from query, “Which came first, the religion or the society?” (Herion, 1996, 244). 723 “Extrem verschieden beurteilt” (Crüsemann, 1992, 133). “Während eine Entscheidung zwischen diesen diametral entgegengesetzten Standpunkten beim gegenwärtigen Stand der Diskussion außerordentlich schwerfällt ...” (Schottroff, 1977, 16). “...it is possible to reach opposite conclusions using only a purely literary analysis of the same text” (Heger, 1999, 319). “Freilich scheiden sich genau an diesem Punkt die Geister und Methoden. Das Bundesbuch, sein Ort in der Geschichte Israels wie seine Vorgeschichte werden nach wie vor extrem verschieden beurteilt. Das macht den Streit um den historischen und theologischen Ort so ungewöhnlich heftig” (Crüsemann, 1992, 140). 724 E. Otto occasionally goes overboard with his typically Protestant theological view of the Word of God, which he vests in the biblical text. In that regard, he ascribes the provision governing the altar found in Ex. 20:24-26 to Yahweh’s Selbstkundgabe (self-revelation). He explains this as follows: “Die Wortverkündigung wird also zu Voraussetzung der Segenkraft des Opfers” (Otto E., 1988, 55). Crüsemann harbours the idea that the BoC, and this alone, provided the unique Torah concept that balances law, ethics and cult. His slogan is: “Am Bundesbuch hängt jedes Verständnis von Entstehung und Wesen der tragenden Grundlage der Tora”. (Crüsemann, 1992, 133). The author carries this matter to such an extreme that he fails to do justice to the existence and worth of possible older stages, with as result that they are overshadowed. Similarly, Jackson, 1988, gives precedence to the final literary text (but lesser so in Idem. 2000b), not only to the detriment of the preceding stages, but esp. in the juridical scope of the casuistic component in the BoC, and this to allow the broader context of biblical narrative literature to play a role. This author believes that the older legal codices have only a moral and doctrinal scope. This assertion repudiates the status of the texts as legally binding. “Mais les scribes qui ont ainsi formalisé le droit ne sont pas partis de rien ou de seuls préceptes moraux; il existait tout un vaste corpus à caractère indéniablement juridique, même si la formation ne correspond pas à notre idée de la loi énoncée... La mise en regard de ces diverses sources montre que préoccupation éthique, règlement par composition et organisation légale de ce dernier peuvent fort bien cohabiter dans un même texte et constituer les diverses approches simultanées et complémentaires d’un même cas ... Avancer que les ‘codes’ n’avaient d’autre but que

287

want too much. They seek to explain everything in the extant text with Western and modern concepts. They give too little consideration to the fact that irregularities in the text could simply be due to tradition history725. While recent research on the BoC as legal code and its enthusiastic reconstructions threaten to overwhelm the genesis of the canon (7.2.1.2), a l’enseignement de la lecture et de l’écriture ... est difficile à soutenir. La transmission des sources juridiques passe par les scribes qui leur donnent la forme, mais cela n’obère en rien l’appartenance au droit du matériau primitif” (Bord, 2001, 102-104). Finally, Halbe (1975, 15-17) rejects all similarity to D because of his zeal to put what he calls an ancient right of privilege at the basis of the BoC. It was to be expected that this extreme position would encounter criticism (Otto E., 1995a, 285-286). 725 According to Rendtorff and others we must start with the idea that a biblical text must always be meaningful. “There are no idle words” (Peckham, 1991, 114). “Demnach geht man allgemein davon aus, daß … er einen Text äußert, der vom Empfänger becodiert werden kann” (Schart, 1998, 19). From an inherent understanding of the canon, they think that they must accept without comment all the assertions made by the drafters of biblical texts (Clines, 1993). In this case that means that a legal codex must be perfectly composed in all its provisions. “...one must question his assumption that any legal system is noncontradictory and compasses every impossible situation” (Marshall, 1993, 24). Jackson (2000b, 215) denounces the attribution of perfectionism to the biblical authors. The Bible fosters this presupposition of innate perfection. The OT assumes that the perfect comes first; the later form is an deterioration (Crüsemann, 1992, 135). Boecker, 1976, 13-14, condemns the Western approach. McDonald N., 2003, 209-221, concentrates this critically on the intellectual notion of monotheism as it has arisen in the Western world since the Enlightenment. Since the Bible like the legal codes in the surrounding countries lacked any type of commentary, there is a great temptation to consider these legal codices anachronistic (Bord, 2001, 100). A typical Western and modern view is that of perpetual progressiveness. This is a holdover from Hegel’s philosophy that has found a home in process philosophy. It is often wondered in how far the legal prescriptions in the biblical codices should be understood as real legal prescriptions. This implies that these legal provisions are similar to those in our modern Western world, which have been influenced by Roman law (Bord, 2001, 100). The question of Dt.’s status as law has been raised repeatedly (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 92). Querying the biblical legal codices, including the BoC, in this way is to take an incorrect starting point. The legal codices should be situated and understood in the legal culture of the neighbouring countries at the time (Boecker, 1976, 13), which was oral rather than written (Lafont S., 1994, 106-107; Bord, 2001, 105), as was tradition generally at the time. However, the comparative method should be wielded cautiously (Epzstein, 1983, 171-177). It is also not accepted that instead of the expressing originally trusted meaning the biblical shape can be twisted out of the context in which it was used. In legal texts this can lead to “simple dismissal of inconsistencies in legal material as indications of composite structure as though that is the only, or most logical, solution to the problem” (Marshall, 1993, 29 n. 5). This places a dogmatic yoke on the canon that is impossible for it to bear when it operate in historical reality. Hanson, 1977, wrestles with this problem. He makes a praiseworthy attempt to give theological meaning to the numerous inconsistencies in the text of the BoC.

288

study of the larger parts of the BoC and the individual precepts (7.2.1.1)726 can offer a broader perspective, at least for tracing the origin and meaning of the law codes and BoC as they were at the time. Moreover, it does no less justice to the present biblical text than when it is regarded exclusively from the synthetic moment of codification727. 726

The divided findings in the research shows that the customary methods such as form criticism and literary criticism provide too little prospect for a reliable reconstruction of its course. They must be combined so they can correct one another when applied to specific domains of legal material (Crüsemann, 1992, 135-138). This urge to reconstruct can also exert its influence when it comes to localising original data. It is clear that when reconstruction the original Wallfahrtschicht [Pilgrimage to Jerusalem] in Ex. 34:17-26, Halbe, 1975, 210-223, let his zeal go too far. More recently, Otto, 2003, displayed the same exaggerated urge to reconstruct; In going so far into detail in this past history, one runs the risk of losing sight of the mainstream that are so important from a canonical perspective. Alternatively, an exclusively redactional-synthetic view does insufficient justice to the historical shape of the text (Levinson, 1997, 26-27). Synchronicity and diachronicity should be used together. The redactions can be evaluated diachronically (Levinson, 1997, 31). “Die Einordnung des Gesetzkomplexes sagt jedoch nichts über dessen Alter aus” (Zwickel, 1994, 303). “Die Interpretation dieses Rechtsbuches ist bisher weitgehend von seiner Einbettung in das gesamte Bundesbuch aus erfolgt ... Für eine Rekonstruktion der israelitischen Rechtsgeschichte aber ist es wichtig, die Aussagen und damit die Funktion dieses Komplexes zunächst für sich herauszuarbeiten” (Crüsemann, 1992, 170). “...in order to gain a true appreciation of the contribution of biblical law, one must first isolate those elements which were originally influenced by earlier sources” (Paul S.M., 1970, 102). This also applies to the older, smaller units within the BoC. “...several of these sections might well have had an originally different Sitz im Leben and thus are to be studied as independent units” (Paul S.M., 1970, 27-28). For another view see Zenger (20066, 186.Others, by contrast, think it is necessary to give the redaction precedence at all cost. “Individual laws have to be interpreted within their redactional structure” (Otto E., 1994a, 185). Yet this author goes far toward reconstructing older stages (idem, 1994a, 183 n. 73), particularly in idem, 1993b, 268-272, where he outlines an extensive tradition history of the BoC. “Too often such detailed reconstructions of the redactional history of the legal corpus became self-generating” (Levinson, 1997, 13). The best solution is obvious: one stage does not exclude the other. Each has its own value. “The discovery of several collections of laws from the ancient Near East ... obliged us ... to distinguish more carefully between the age of individual laws and that of the collections” (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 25). This need for a distinction between the individual laws and ritual regulations from an earlier period compared to the corpora from a much more recent date also becomes imperative (Rofé, 2002, 205-209) when examining the P tradition (Blenkinsopp, 1996, 496, 517). From a purely literary perspective, their older origin cannot be demonstrated. This requires sociological data from intra-biblical and extra-biblical narrative texts (Gottwald, 1993, 170). 727 “Aus der Bestimmung der in dieser Gegenwartsgestalt anzutreffenden Strukturen geht die Frage nach Gehalt und innerer Geschichte des Textes hervor” (Halbe, 1975, 55). “Several of these sections (literary units within Ex. 19-24, L.Z.) might well have had an

289

7.2.1.1 The Individual Prescriptions and Larger Components in the Book of the Covenant If one were to disregard temporarily the many composite elements that the redactors of the BoC have used to combine its varied material into a clever whole, one would encounter two types of prescriptions. The first are the ‫( משפטים‬Ex. 22:2-17). They use an almost exclusively objective legal style (and are called casuistic prescriptions)728 to treat problems that could occur originally different Sitz im Leben and thus are to be studied as independent units” (Paul S.M., 1970, 28-29). From the exclusively redactional perspective, research tends to focus on biblical legislation. This view is held by Knight, 2000; Albertz, 2003, 187-208, esp. 193 n. 18. “Die Suche nach einem verborgenen Dekalog und die Fixierung auf (angebliche) deuteronomistische Anteile oder auf die Beziehung zum Kontext, nicht aber die Eigenheiten und der Aufbau des Textes selbst haben die Forschung beherrscht” (Crüsemann, 1992, 145). “Allen ist gemeinsam, daß sie die Interpretation der Israelitischen Rechtssätze von der Beschränkung auf den ja einzelnen Rechtssatz auf eine höhere Ebene der Einordnung in einen umfassenderen Kontext heben wollen” (Otto E., 1991a, 145). Despite all of literary criticism’s efforts, particularly redaction criticism, it must be recognised that it produces divergent results (Person, 2002). They all deserve attention. Meanwhile, this may not prevent assessing certain data relating to the profile of the community that sought to use the growth in the legal material evinced in the BoC to ensure its existence. “Redaction criticism used in the context of form-critical analysis attempts to delineate the final product from earlier stages of the text ... All accumulations and accretions are a part of that process ... Thus redactions need not deter the current task, namely to discover clues in those laws that will allow a reconstruction of the BC society that created and used the legal collections as it now exists” (Marshall, 1993, 104-105). 728 In times past Alt used his form critical approach to distinguish between two types of legal prescriptions. The first was characteristic for its casuistic style: if a particular case occurred (protasis), the regulations foresaw (apodosis) what should then happen. Given the general prevalence of these casuistic rules and their profane character (a false assumption since even purportedly casuistic profane regulations always had a religious–ethical basis with roots in general religiosity in and beyond Israel), Alt thought that they, unlike the other ostensibly apodictic regulations, were borrowed from the surrounding peoples. According to Alt, apodictic regulations, being couched in authoritarian, jussive or prohibitory style and with a deep involvement in the YHWH cult were exclusive to Israel (Otto E., 1995a, 285). Meanwhile, it has become sufficiently evident that the two types of rules cannot be strictly separated according to formulation or origin. For instance there is the hybrid form in Ex. 21:12 (Boecker, 1976, 168-169). Moreover, the apodictic rules, no less than the casuistic rules, appear to arise from the same domestic and oral context (Jackson, 2000) and further, are commonplaces in the legal codes of the contemporary surroundings (Kilian, 1999a; Phillips, 1982; Boecker, 1976, 129-149, 166-180). From all this it may be concluded that the BoC may not be evaluated solely according to its form. “The formal aspect of a legal document does not give any particular information about its content” (Lafont S., 1994,

290

in daily life in Israel. Then follow several religious, Yahwist, prescriptions (Ex. 22:17-23:26), usually in apodictic style. They normally have in mind the relationship between Israel and its God YHWH, and from that perspective put into words the regulations governing worship and a whole series of people in need. These ‫ משפטים‬and Yahwist precepts will each be treated in turn.

The ‫( משפטים‬Ex. 21:2-22) On the Slaves (Ex. 21:2-11) From the very start people were confronted with an aspect of the problem that encumbered social life at the time: the presence of compatriots as slaves. They were bought (Ex. 21:2) and sold (Ex. 21:7) like merchandise. The redactor cannot do otherwise than take note of the economic value of his compatriots and assume it in trying to change it729 via restrictions, first 101). “On doit admettre que la formulation ne joue pas nécessairement sur la qualification même de nos textes” (Bord, 2001, 102). The content must be included in this operation because the BoC was determinative for the redactors (Crüsemann, 1992, 171-172). 729 The apposition ‫( עבד עברי‬Hebrew slave) permits speculation on the possible social/ethnic meaning of ‫עברי‬. This term may well deserve preference (Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 306-307). The BoC redactor’s apparent borrowing of the expression from Dt. 15:12 is used as an argument to date the BoC after Dt. (Sparks, 1998a, 594 n. 4) contrary to the common view. The use of the term ‫ עברי‬in Ex. 21:2 is an insufficient basis for resolving this question (Crüsemann, 1992, 183 n. 239). However, given the presupposition that the BoC contains older material that goes back to Israel’s distant past, the possible association of the Hebrew term ‫( עברי‬1 Sam. 4:6,9; 13:3) and the word apiru (Lemche, 1988, 133; idem, 1996a, 141147) found in external sources is not without meaning (Jagersma, 1990b, 25-29). These two expressions may not, however, be considered equivalent (Fritz, 1996, 11-113). “...romantic ideas about ‘the growing consciousness of brotherhood’ among the Hebrews should not interfere with a realistic picture of a society in which Hebrews were bought, sold, disciplined, and whose lives could be ransomed for a fixed sum of silver”, according to P.M. Van der Ploeg, cited in: Marshall, 1993, 116). — The economic situation (need) takes precedence for the redactor. The commitment of the biblical traditions to writing seems to reflect the same priority. “Das hier fortgeschriebene Recht setzt die soziale Realität voraus” (Crüsemann, 1992, 187). It is the need for a means to pay a debt (“for the slave is his money”: Ex. 21:21) that led to slavery. “Slaves provide the state with the laborers and children it needs ... Slavery exists in societies which have labor-intensive economies and a birth rate which cannot cope with the need for laborers. It is also found when labor service needs are coupled with a weak economy or marginal environment which drives households into debt which they cannot manage. In the Near East there was both permanent as well as temporary slavery. The former was due primarily to warfare and the latter to economic exigency” (Matthews, 1994, 121). If there had been no restrictions or reversal, slavery could have disrupted society. Probably for this reason the legislator designed measures to

291

of all on the duration of the slavery. For the owner/purchaser, the restriction on slavery to a period of seven years (Ex. 21:2) entailed a serious concession on the debt for which the debtor was sold into slavery730. Not just the length of the slavery but the way in which the slaves were treated perturbed the legislator and moved him to curtail gradually the abuses and gross mistreatment that could result in death (Ex. 21:20-32). The legislator could invoke as grounds the respect for human life that prevailed in Israel. This respect for human life is essentially deeply religious: God is to be respected as giver of life731. The new measures were far from perfect. Moreover, it is an established fact that despite the deity’s, ‫האלהים‬732, being involved in their implementation, they were not accepted without argument. That is evident introduce the humane attitudes by protecting personal interests such as human life, freedom and family values (Ex. 21:9-11). Everyone must be aware that the prophet Amos repeatedly used mercantile terminology when referring to persons (Am. 2:6; 8:6) and the link with Ex. 21:2-22 is obvious (Crüsemann, 1988, 32 n. 17). Osumi (1991, 167-177) wrote an extensive study comparing Amos with the content of the BoC. 730 “Eine in schuldgeratene Familie fing meist mit der Preisgabe der Töchter an. Dann erst kamen Frau und Söhne an die Reihe, schließlich am Ende der Hausvater selbst” (Lohfink, 1996, 156 n. 89). 731 “The biblical law introduces a new evaluation of the intrinsic worth of a slave i.e. he is considered a human being in his own right. There is a concern here for the interest and protection of the slave as a person” (Paul S.M., 1970, 69). This is a matter of the fate of the individual over against the community. 732 “Es (the BoC, L.Z.) ist sicherlich nicht zur Aufhebung der sozialen Schichtung in Israel geeignet” (Schoors, 1998, 212). Even the harshest mistreatments, even the worst remained unpunished as long as the slave remained alive. “Es war üblich und wird von unserem Gesetzgeber als selbstverständlich erlaubt vorausgesetzt daß ein Schuldsklave von seinem Herrn geschlagen wurde” (Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 77). Basically, these measures amounted to systematising chronic slavery (Crüsemann, 1992, 182-185). Yet there was a natural aversion, certainly in Israel (Ex. 21:2), to forcing compatriots into slavery. “The interests shared by people of the same origin is so strong as to prevent creditors from permanently enslaving the own people” (Matthews, 1994, 127). Phillips (2002, 95-110) stresses the concern for compatriots in Israel. he sees in this the reason for antedating this law in the BoC. —The expression ‫( האלהים‬Schenker, 2000a) occurs in Ex. 22:8 as well as in Ex. 21:6. Given the family setting, ‫ האלהים‬probably refers to the hearth gods. The expression is absent from Dt. 15:12-18 because of the centralisation of the cult (Matthews, 1994, 130). This shows how even this most profane component of the BoC had a religious aura. At that time there was no strict separation between profane and religious, only between cultic and non-cultic. That is why, when the cultic reforms were implemented later, Dt. continued to view local lay sacrifices as religious (Levinson, 1997, 49-52). “Thus the inseparability of religion and law in the life of ancient Israel takes the form of grounding Israel’s social ideals in the will of God” (Greenberg, 1990a, 101).

292

in Jer. 34:8-11 where we are told how the king of Judah did not have the courage to carry out consistently the measures stipulated in the BoC for freeing slaves. It should also be noted that Ezra 2:64-65 and Neh. 7:67 mention that the assembly returned from exile with many slaves733.

On Manslaughter, Damage, Injury and Theft (Ex. 21:12-22:17) The redactor of the BoC is again confronted with daily life, this time universal occurrences: manslaughter, damage injury and theft. Like every legislator, he tried to keep these breaches of the peace to a minimum to the extent that this can be done in the given situation734. This is a very realistic stance with practical attempts to intervene when situations so required. It explains why the BoC has so many contacts with older and extant codes used by the surrounding peoples, e.g. Hammurabi, except, of course, for manslaughter735. Commonly held customs such as blood-guilt and the lex talonis were also invoked. They are combined and augmented in a manner unique to Israel736. Like the surrounding peoples, Israel based legal 733

Epzstein, 1983, 199; Marshall, 1993, 21-22. On the state of the question at the time of Jeremiah see Schenker, 2000a. This is an example of how historiographically connected facts can explain a legal issue (Barmash, 2004). On the link between law and narrative see Jackson (2000b, 225-230). 734 Property was protected under law to the extent that it was oppressive for the non-owner. “Wer aus Armut stehlt, ist mit Sklaverei bedroht” (Crüsemann, 1992, 182-185). 735 Epzstein, 1983, 171-177, 193; Childs, 1974, 473. “Analogien und zwar ausgesprochen enge, hat dieser Text aber in den altorientalischen Rechtsbüchern” (Crüsemann, 1992, 170). On the BoC’s relationship to the legal tradition in surrounding peoples see Otto E., 1991a. Unlike other codes in the ancient near east, the BoC did not automatically impose the death penalty for manslaughter, because in Israel the gift of life was considered sacred (i.e. reserved to God, see Phillips, 2002, 139-147). See Paul S.M., 1970, 61; Otto E., 1991a, 162-163; for another view see Jackson, 1988, 239. The death penalty was also applied when an animal caused a death, even a slave’s (Ex. 21:32). A foetus, by contrast, was not considered a human being (Paul S.M., 1970, 71), but it was considered a creation, as something of religious value (Lafont S., 1994, 109). Another point of difference with the surrounding peoples was that capital punishment was not meted out for theft (Paul S.M., 1970, 90). 736 Ex. 21:12; 21:23-25. The person claiming blood vengeance had a larger role in Israel because there was no strong central authority. As a result, blood vengeance was arranged in a family setting. For that reason, an offence against the familial authority in Israel is treated much more gravely than in Mesopotamia” (Paul S.M., 1970, 64). That is sufficiently clear from the death penalty imposed on those who curse their parents (Ex. 21:17). “The originally independent talion was expanded ... This expanded talion formula formed the centre of this redactional structure of the bodily injury laws in Ex. 21:18-22” (Otto E.,

293

principles on case law and not the reverse. It is risky to deduce principles from case-related rules, especially because they are only implicit in the wording737.

Yahwist Precepts Barring two precepts (Ex. 23:4-5), Ex. 22:17-23,33 is presented in apodictic style, albeit not in the same consistently standard form738. This component of the Yahwist precepts gives a heterogeneous impression in more than just its formal aspect. The content also addresses so many different themes that it does not appear to be a unity at first sight. All things considered, the dominant theme is YHWH, who speaks regularly as lawgiver and sole God of Israel739 and in that way provides his subject 1994a, 184). “...the introduction of the talionic rules ... was an attempt to enlarge the scope of criminal law and embrace a class of delicts which had been previously treated as purely civil torts. The effect was to provide protection to members of inferior social standing and provide equality before the law from acts of physical violence ... thus the principle of lex talionis marked an important advance in the history of law” (Childs, 1974, 472). Paul S.M., 1970, 77, draws attention to the typical application to the situation in Israel. This is apparent from the endeavour to restrict the rule automatically applying blood-guilt either by assigning it, where possible, to a local authority for further investigation into guilt and intention (Ex. 21:12-13,22), or by granting a partial or total exemption in exchange for compensation (Ex. 21:18-32). On the other hand, Israel typically applied the lex talonis in a more equal manner to everyone, even slaves (Ex. 21:23-27; Paul S.M., 1970, 101; Otto E., 1988, 20, 29, 30-31; Crüsemann, 1992, 190). There are very different opinions on how the BoC saw this and how it was applied in Israel (Otto E., 1995a, 287; Boecker, 1976, 149153; Martin-Achard, 1989; Jackson, 2000b, esp. 271-296). Here again fictive and utopian techniques as applied in Dt.–Dtr are cannot be excluded here (Gnüse, 1985). 737 Boecker, 1976, 29-30. Based on how they are applied in disputes, legal texts can gradually come to have multiple applications. This can explain certain irregularities in the text (Locher, 1985a; Jackson, 2000b, 187-202). Otto E., 1988, 35-37. Elsewhere the same author warned against using principles implicitly present in the legal prescriptions (Otto E., 1991a, 141-142). “Patrick thinks scholars can extrapolate these principles and reconstruct the underlying concept of justice” (Marschall, 1993, 23). This has its risks (Welch, 1990). Jackson (2000b, esp. 171-207) gives detailed treatment to what he calls the postulates and values in biblical legislation. 738 Alt distinguished no fewer than four apodictic styles. All shared at leased the series style. In practice, however, it has become evident that the different apodictic precepts cannot be separated from one another, just as the casuistic rules cannot be separated from the apodictic rules (Boecker, 1976, 129-135, 166-180; Schottroff, 1977, 19-27). 739 YHWH speaks in the 1st person: Ex. 22:22-24,27,31; 23:7,13,14,15 and as of v. 20 at least once in each verse. YHWH as figure also appears as comparatively stronger in the third person (Ex. 20:33) than YHWH as legislator does elsewhere. YHWH as 3rd person figure

294

people with urgent instructions regarding social relations, cult and jurisprudence.

Social Ordinances (Ex. 22:21-31; 23:10-12) Legal ordinances relating to the judicial procedure (Ex. 23:1-9) can also be classified under Yahwist ordinances with social ramifications (Ex. 22:2131; 23:10-12) because they, too, focus on concern for the weak and even for the enemy (Ex. 23:4-5). Yet the instructions on judicial procedure deserve separate attention in view of the exceptional importance of this theme for the operation of justice in a legal code such as the BoC. Understood as a single whole, the components of the social provisions are preceded (Ex. 22:18-20) and followed (Ex. 23:13-33) by sections that focus on the figure of YHWH and the worship owed him. The placement in an inclusion shows clearly that the social provisions are grounded solely in the unique relationship between YHWH and his people740. It was at the occurs repeatedly (Ex. 22:20; 23:17,19,25) where he is represented familiarly as the ‫אאהים‬ ‫ יהוה ם‬unique to the people concerned. The reality confronting the people is approached from this relationship. The 1st person address plays a more important role in shaping canonical authority than the 3rd person usage (Hettema, 1998, 393). 740 The use of the familiar ‫ את עמי‬is conspicuous here. It is surprising to meet such a deep affinity between YHWH and Israel, even before Dt.-Dtr and their customary locution with ‫ברית‬. “L’élément de contenu le plus important dans le développement des récits vétérotestamentaires est la référence à Israël et à Jahweh, son Dieu. Ce n’est pas toujours aussi fort et aussi direct dans tous les domaines de la tradition, mais ce n’est jamais absent. Cette référence a laissé son empreinte sur les récits et plus encore sur la tradition toute entière.” (Smend, 1982, 72). However, this is not yet an articulated covenant relationship (it thus follows the evolution of the commitment to writing: first the economic contracts [Kaiser, 19845, 70], later the literary development), as would later be found in Dtr, based on prophetic tradition that during the early monarchical and even pre-monarchical periods (Rofé, 1985, 319-320) themselves built on still other traditions derived from the surrounding peoples (Laato, 1996, 16). Yet they are related, although there is no agreement on how this relation should be understood. The importance of the notion of covenant for canon research lies in the background of this discussion. An early establishment of the notion of covenant can also help demonstrate an early conscious development of a canon concept (Schnabel, 1995, 16 n. 12). The relationship between YHWH and Israel is an idea that serves as medium for connecting other elements such as cult, judicial practice and ethics (Lohfink, 1987b, 469). Yet this relationship may not focus exclusively on the covenant relationship. It must include a much broader underlying tradition (Miller P.D. Jr., 1985, 220-223; Clements, 1975) such as that of the election. In Hosea this would take the shape of a marriage which would serve as background and basis for stressing the personal relationship between YHWH and Israel (Neef, 1987, 170-174, 240-241). This was so close that it was an exclusive relationship, resulting naturally in the covenant relationship (on the linkage between covenant

295

initiative of YHWH and on the basis of his affinity with this people of Israel then and in the past that protective measures were issued that came to cover specific categories in the population who were weak and oppressed. The list included foreigners (Ex. 20:20)741, widows and orphans (Ex. 22:23) and those who needed to borrow money (Ex. 22:24) or even to give their garment (Ex. 22:26-27) in pledge of payment. YHWH seemed to have such sympathy for them that he again led his people as in the past and offered them protection (Ex. 23:20-33) amid the foreign nations that threatened them. He also wanted to be a refuge in their midst for the weak (Ex. 22:26-27) and to fight for them when required (Ex. 23:24). Whatever this may have meant originally, in the context of a legal code like the BoC linkage between covenant and marriage see Hahn, 2005, 266-267). The substantial unity of the tradition is broader than that of the covenant relationship, as can be seen from the unifying ties in the content of the Israel epic (6.2.; Gunneweg, 1985a, 121-126). 741 Ex. 22:19. This type of historical reasoning (not the social thrust as such, codes from neighbouring nations had this as well, see Schottroff, 1977, 17-19), draws attention once again to the unique character of the understanding of law in Israel (Boecker, 1976, 178; Lohfink, 1990a, 26-27). This is evinced more explicitly in the Yahwist precepts, whereas in the casuistic legal rules it is only implicit. Also characteristic for Israel is the socio-didactic intention already visible in the BoC. In this perspective, the motive for returning the garment (Ex. 22:26-27) is “for that is his only covering”. “Law, then, becomes a body of teaching directed to the entire community ... Thus, unlike most other ancient legal corpora, motive clauses are occasionally appended to both apodictic and casuistic injunctions” (Paul S.M., 1970, 39). Yet the law is a factor that determined life in Israel at that time and would do so later rather than being purely didactical. “...it seems equally illogical to assume that any socio-cultural evolution could have occurred without a correlative development of certain norms of conduct, i.e. ‘law’ ... The ancient Israelite who transgressed the sacred tie uniting the group, the real or fictitious blood relationship, (had to) take to flight. His own act ... cut him off from his people”, according to De Geus, cited in Tappy, 2000, 177. “The new constitution is intentionally inserted within a ‘prologue-epilogue frame’ which inextricably binds the history and destiny of Israel to the discipline of law ... the Israelite society was greatly indebted to its Mesopotamian predecessor for its deep respect for law, for the view of man not as the ultimate source, but rather as the servant of law, the force that held the world together [and] made the essential difference between order and chaos, civilisation and barbarism, became the focal point of the Israelite society” (Paul S.M., 1970, 35-36, 42). — Noteworthy in the BoC’s positive/protective attitude toward foreigners is that passages like Ex. 23:20-33 show that the BoC takes a defensive stance toward foreigners and prefers to show concern for its own people (Ex. 21:2,8; 22:25), albeit not so radically as Dt.-Dtr. According to the portrayal influenced by Dt.-Dtr, Israel still grappled with the question of why the land given YHWH only gradually came into Israel’s possession. When Ex. 22:20 spoke so positively of foreigners, it must have referred to persons of foreign origin who in one way or another – possibly as a result of the Assyrian invasion (Crüsemann, 1992, 216) and slavery – have become integrated in Israel so that they can be equated with compatriots. Later, these foreigners became proselytes.

296

it implied at least that YHWH is portrayed not only as lawgiver but as guarantor for the implementation of the precepts given in the code742.

Cultic and Related Ordinances (Ex. 20:22-26; 22:17-19; 23:13-32) In the Yahwist precepts, YHWH speaks alone not only to issue extensive and exceptional protective measures for the weak based on his historical affinity with the people since what befell them in Egypt. Internal social decrees also seem to be directly bound to YHWH worship in the cult. Because of this connection, the social measures in Ex. 22:27-30 shifted almost automatically to the requirement to cede the first fruits directly to YHWH. The execution of this presupposes a cultic shape. In its turn, this cultic ordinance expressly directed toward YHWH shifts seamlessly into new social measures in the course of the judicial procedure to be discussed below (Ex. 23:1-9); this, in its turn, evolved once again into cult-related ordinances: the cyclic use of land and working hours. These measures deeply affect the life of the people and the individuals that comprise it743. 742

For another view, see Zenger 20066, 186. That YHWH, and YHWH alone is the lawgiver is perhaps the most typical characteristic of Israelite legislation, certainly for individual legal rules. This is in contrast to codes such as Hammurabi’s where the king was in full control of the legislation (Albertz, 2003, 187-191, Heger, 2005, 324). “In sharp contrast to the Mesopotamian secular concept of law, biblical law has a divine authorship ... since law is an expression of the divine will, all crimes are considered sins, and certain offences (e.g. adultery and homicide) are not capable of pardon by human agency” (Paul S.M., 1970, 100). One consequence is that no person, but only YHWH can forgive a contravention of the law (Greenberg, 1986, 16-17). Yet Israel’s theologising of its legislation cannot be presented as an isolated characteristic. “When society becomes more complicated, people develop what is often called a conscience. A number of the rules according to which they have to behave are internalized. These rules have become a part of the mental apparatus of every individual. The numinous or charismatic may be present here in quite a new way. In an early phase of conscience formation, social control may be perceived by the subject as voices of Gods or demons” (ter Borg, 1998a, 415). That is why the question of whether the religious orientation of legislation in Israel was added to a profane version of it or whether it had preceded it in a separate form still persists. Albertz, 2003 chooses too resolutely for an exclusive theologising as of the 8th century BCE. There is no doubt that the theological orientation did not put an end to the intention of the profane legislation. Rather, it reinforced it. That was its aim. For another view see Kratz, 2000, 148. 743 The measures relating to fallow ground and the weekly day of rest as formulated here are first of all social laws. This is notably so for the weekly day of rest, the later Sabbath. This is indicative of the original Sitz-im-Leben: a measure imposed by human need that came to be viewed in the broader context of the BoC as a religious precept from YHWH (by the cult-oriented redactor according to Otto E., 1994b, 48). Supported by sage experiences

297

They are enacted in YHWH’S name. With all previous and later Yahwist precepts, they come under the supervision of the one YHWH worshipped in the cult (Ex. 22:17-19). He tolerated no other god beside him on pain of death and demands total servitude from his subjects, not only regarding himself but also regarding those who act on behalf of his name and ordinances, both in social life and in the ‫מקום‬744. This term seems to refer to undergone amid the tribal community, the practice of a weekly day of rest blossomed into divine revelations in Yahwism (Kilian, 1999b, 150). In this way, the human and economic Sitz-im-Leben is as present here as it is in the casuistic precepts. “Auch noch in der jüngeren Schicht spricht Gott aus der Gegenwart für die Gegenwart” (Crüsemann, 1992, 119). — The 7-cycle, also used in the three celebrations (Ex. 23:14-17), – especially in the new year or autumn celebration, the most original of them – is intended to undermine the monthly calendar used by the surrounding peoples, notably by the local non-Israelite population. This indicates friction with the local population, a factor also found in Dt.-Dtr in a stronger form. “Durch die Aussonderung für JHWH wird der Bereich, aus dem für JHWH ausgesondert wird, der Herrschaft Gottes unterstellt und damit die Herrschaft des Menschen über diesen Bereich begrenzt” (Otto E., 1995b, 377). The sanctification via attribution to YHWH (Ex. 22:30 = RSV 22:31) affects the Israelite existence so deeply that it forbids consumption of any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field. It must be cast to the dogs. 744 “La lutte contre l’idolâtrie étant un des premiers objectifs de l’Ancien Testament, la législation israélite frappe celle-ci de pénalités extrêmement sévères” (Epzstein, 1983, 208). Even too intimate relations with an animal (Ex. 22:18 = RSV 22:19) is considered an affront to the special relationship with YHWH, and thus worthy of capital punishment. Yet it would seem that in Israel worshipping other gods beside YHWH, as was customary at that time, did not imply turning away from YHWH. That would seem to be an interpretation of the prophets later considered orthodox. In their day, they were probably in the minority (Smith M.S., 1971, 27, 35). — Who is meant by ‫ נׂשיא‬in Ex. 22:28 is unclear. It is certainly an eminent body that must make decisions and issue ordinances in close cooperation with the lawgiver, ultimately YHWH. “Its status as a divinely legitimated leadership position seems certain” (Marshall, 1993, 153). The author relies on parallelism between ‫נׂשיא‬ ‫ נ‬and ‫ אלהים‬in the wording of the law. — Crüsemann, 1992, 201-213 notes that ‫ מקום‬is a Leitwort, or leading word repeated throughout the BoC (Ex. 20:24; 21:13; 23:20), that thus serves as connection with the redaction of the Sinai pericope. The term ‫ מקום‬presupposes a stone sanctuary surpassing the more primitive forms of the ‫ במות‬and the ‫( מצבת‬Albertz, 1992, 91, 129-135). This goes some way toward explaining the lack of archaeological evidence for these older cultic centres more suited to natural experiences of the divine. Minimalists like Garbini, 1988, 17-20, gladly invoke this archaeological gap to support their biased assertions. — There seems to have been a difference between the ‫ מקום‬in the ‫משפטים‬, where these sanctuaries are family-related and had only to do with ‫( אלהים‬Ex. 21:13), and the ‫ מקום‬meant in the Yahwist decrees. Weippert M. (1997, 9-19) believed that these family-related sanctuaries may have been used for family gods and rituals and would thus have been used for more personal, individual religion. Yahwist sanctuaries seem to be regional sites located amid non-Yahwist population groups. They are described as specially appointed places (Ex. 21:13) where YHWH reveals his name (Ex. 20:24). This wording stresses the epiphany function of the Yahwist sanctuaries that are seen as dynamic, contrary

298

a series of clearly defined cult sites to which the population is insistently asked to go three times a year because it is there that YHWH reveals himself745. Due in part to their being mentioned in the prologue and their to the notion held by the surrounding peoples of the sanctuary as residence (Hentschke, 1957, 47-49). As regional sanctuaries they fell directly under state authority. Traces of this are found in many OT writings and in archaeology (De Vaux, 1962, 265; Milgrom, 2000, 60). — An important fact was the introduction of state sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan (Wesselius, 1999; Smelik, 1995) when the kingdom was divided into Israel and Judah. A special prohibition against images will be aimed especially against these sanctuaries (Crüsemann, 1992, 232-233). The temple in Jerusalem was not just materially linked to the king; this link was also spiritual. Zadokian priests were so subject to the king that King Ahaz could order them to place a new altar where he chose (2 Kgs 16:10-16; Smelik, 1997b) and King Hezekiah could order them to destroy the bronze snake called Nehushtan. The dream in which Isaiah was called to be a prophet (Is. 6) added further confirmation of this dependence on the Yahwist notion of kingship. — All this allows us to deduce that at the time of the BoC there was an extensive network of sanctuaries with different levels and purposes. That so little is known about these now is probably due to the influence of D (De Vaux, 1962, 258). Archaeology has had little to contribute (Fritz, 1996, 153-155). Zwickel, 1994, still tried to provide a survey using recent archaeological discoveries. His work provided an instinctive glimpse of the role of the temple staff whose work is assumed in Ex. 21:6,14 and Ex. 22:7. Under these circumstances, those administering justice locally must inescapably have been involved. Contrary to the pater familias (Boecker, 1976, 21-22, 171) and the local elders (‫זקנם‬. Blenkinsopp, 1995, 148; Boecker, 1976, 19, 22-27), whom the lawgiver relied on to dispense civil justice, their task was to see to the operation of the divine YHWH authority unique to Israel (Boecker, 1976, 27-28). “Ihnen unterstehen also jedenfalls dem Anspruch nach alle JHWH-Heiligtümer im Land” (Crüsemann, 1992, 207). This made them more cultic functionaries than administrators of the law (De Vaux, 1962, 281; for another view see Johnson, 1979, 44). There is also the question of the extent to which the priests working in the Yahwist sanctuaries can be linked to D or P. Earlier it had been posited that the two intellectual currents showed similarities and differences and that they could both be dated as far back as the pre-exilic period. Otto E., 1988, 51, saw the work of rural Levites in Ex. 22:28; 23:12, without necessarily considering them part of D or P. Traces of them can also be found in the purportedly Cultic Decalogue (Ex. 34:10-26) that Halbe (1975, 316-314 340) assigns to pre-promised land Yahwism. Everyone agrees that the decrees on the festival calendar, the BoC and the purportedly Cultic Decalogue are parallel if not identical. However, there is less agreement than ever on priority in dating (Bar-On, 1988). It is impossible to take a position on this now, although it would appear that the Decalogue is increasingly being called the most original version. It would certainly be more likely to have served as the basis for Dt. 16:1-17 than would Ex. 23:13-32 (Otto E., 1999, 324-340). 745 The multiplicity and diversity of these cultic centres – which seem to exclude the existence of a single central sanctuary – could only mortgage the quality and unity of the YWH cult (Halbe, 1975, 514-515; Zwickel, 1994, 343; Albertz, 1992, 128). This may be the source of the expression “where YHWH causes his name to be remembered”. Syncretism always remained a threat to the YHWH cult as Ez. 8:8-13 showed (De Vaux, 1962, 180; Miller P.D. Jr., 1985, 215), not least of all because of the kings’ control over state

299

being placed in an inclusion, both Yahwist and casuistic precepts appear decisively oriented toward the cult746. Ordinances relating to cult sanctuaries. It will never be possible to have only one sanctuary despite Dt.-Dtr’s centralisation of the cult. The same inspiration produced the measures in the BoC against the religious practices of local non-Yahwist population in the pre-Dt.-Dtr period. — The revelation of YHWH seems to have had a mythic-dramatic nature. It was a matter of celebrating the meeting with YHWH in the cult (appearance rather than residence) as circumstances required. In addition, the relationship with YHWH as then understood had a determining influence. The mythic cult of YHWH sprang from a pattern taken over from the indigenous cult practised in the cult centres where YHWH did not cause his name to be remembered. In Israel this pattern was combined with commemoration of historical facts important to Yahwism (Cross, 1973, 87), which led to abandoning the cyclic view of time current among neighbouring peoples. That would explain why the dramatic myth and historicising were so closely associated in Israel’s cult, while remaining inseparably linked to legal practice. 746 Besides a prohibition against images (Ex. 20:23), the prologue also contains laws governing altar usages (Ex. 20, 24-26). The latter passages use the word ‫ מקום‬to refer to the cult places. The inclusion and chiasm are stylistic devices increasingly noted in the BoC (Halbe, 1975, 430-435, 446; Crüsemann, 1992, 213; Otto E., 1994a, 183). It is an indication of planned editorial work. “This cultic structure is the framework within the various legal materials of Ex. 20:22-26 + 22:17 (=RSV 22:18)-23:19 are set. This setting casts light on the intended function of this material ... The materials are diverse, but they do not come together willy-nilly. They constitute an organic whole. We must inquire further into the reason why this is so” (Hanson, 1977, 119). The cultic unifying ties in the BoC are plain to see, but it is not the cult that creates the tradition (De Vaux, 1971, 178-179; Harrelson, 1982, 32-38; Koole, 1983, 221). It is the tool used, in this case, by the priests working in the ‫ מקום‬who, in their turn, are driven by their inherent understanding (Knight, 1982c, 13; Lengsfeld, 1967, 12-13; Smend, 1982, 65) or view of YHWH, which Hanson (1977, 122128) calls the “dynamic confessional centre”. They express this in legislation and in those parts of the cult where this legislation is brought up (Otto E., 1994a, 87). It is also arguable that a degree of identity or overlapping existed between the ministers at the ‫ מקום‬and the BoC’s authors/scribes given Israel’s small size and the numerically restricted corps of intellectuals that resulted from its late cultural development (Van der Woude, 1986a, 19). Under these circumstances, these people had no choice but to borrow material from surrounding cultures, the primary of which was the Canaanite (Cross, 1973, 87; Van Leeuwen C., 1963, 121; Rendtorff R., 19883, 262; Kapelrud, 1978, 125-129; Ackroyd, 1977a, 238). Their influence was also restricted to the boundary of the ‫מקום‬, to which they had to try to pilot the population. Since this was done at the risk of economic loss (Ex. 23:29), that will not have been an easy task. On the other hand, at temporary stay at the ‫ מקום‬offered opportunities to indoctrinate those pilgrims who did come with authentic Yahwist ideas. This could only produce small but fervent groups of adepts. They stimulated a sense of regional fellowship (Albertz, 1992, 139; Frick, 1996, 452, 465-466). Use of the festival calendar was an effective means. There must also have been opportunities for daily contact with those who were driven by some need to turn to the ‫מקום‬. — All by all, the Yahwist priests working at the ‫מקום‬, must have had some resonance. “Nirgendwo sonst erweist sich die Lebenskraft der Tradition so klar wie in der Geschichte des Festes”

300

celebrations in the ‫ מקום‬were later supplemented with an extensive, paraenetic epilogue. There was reason for this. The ‫ מקום‬where YHWH reveals himself seems only to be accessible after a trip straight through anti-YHWH areas, even areas that were hostile to him. Contrary to what was done with previous ordinances in the BoC, the cult-oriented drafters of these ordinances can only present as YHWH’S words statements that conditionally747 hold out the prospect of his blessings and their fulfillment.

Regulations Governing Legal Proceedings (Ex. 23:1-10) Ex. 23:7 shows how far YHWH serves as protector of rights for all members of the community748 even in legal disputes. He decides what the (Braulik, 1988a, 190; Kapelrud, 1978, 114). “Die Begeisterung des Festes, wo bei erlebter Gegenwart Gottes die Kultgenossen einander als Brüder erkennen, weckt ein Bewußtsein der Solidarität aller Israeliten ...” (Koch, 1978, 71). The BoC was Dt.’s precursor when it came to promoting the festive spirit. The cultic centres’ ‘dynamic of creativity’ (Hanson, 1977, 121) made them the matrix of oral and written (Gunneweg, 1959, 77-81) Yahwist traditions which, working together, they moulded into a unity (“Le grand creuset” ... “cette soudière entre traditions”: Kapelrud, 1978, 131-132). It is not surprising that, despite enriching liturgical activities, so little was committed to writing so late. Among the oldest psalms and hymns some certainly date from the time of the BoC (see section 7.4). As with the laws and administration of justice, they too were long preserved only in oral form (Otto E., 1994a, 187). Nevertheless if they provide no hints on the liturgical rites used, they do give clues about the sanctuaries and the function of the cult practised there and to which P bears witness. 747 “Ex. 20-21 move from an unconditional promise. Verses 23-26 again go from an unconditional promise to imperatives, and then return to a conditional promise. Finally vv. 27-32 consist almost entirely of unconditional promises (vv. 27-31) with a concluding imperative” (Childs, 1974, 486). In this way the redactors take on the role of the prophets proclaiming coming salvation. At the same time, the Dtr view arises and warns for the possibility that the land could be lost due to the people’s disobedience. 748 Ex. 23:2 envisages the protection of the individual facing a majority that adopts an unlawful stance in legal proceedings; nevertheless, it confirms indirectly the principle that everyone who participated in legal proceedings – and in Israel this meant everyone – is responsible for the just outcome of these proceedings. Hence the public announcement of legal prescriptions anticipated in Ex. 21:1. At that time, this was more suited to the purpose than using writing. “God selects the entire corporate body of Israel to be the recipients of his law. His care and concern extend to all members of this community and not merely to one chosen individual. Thus everyone is held personally responsible for the observance of the law. This leads in turn to the concept of individual and joint responsibility. No longer is it the sole concern of the leader of the community ... to maintain justice and to protect the rights of his community. This responsibility is now shared by every member of the society ... Each must see that justice is executed” (Paul S.M., 1970, 38). “...the collective responsibility of members of the covenant community invites mutual surveillance and

301

judicial procedure seeks and what its central concern is, i.e. who is guilty, who innocent. It also shows the inadequacy of oral agreements in the judicial procedure of the age. These had to be reinforced by suits and buttressed by YHWH’S intervention749. Once again the chiastic composition of the legal rules in vv. 1-4 and vv. 6-10, combined with the purely social rule to aid one’s enemy in vv. 4-5 – not a measure that fits in the context of legal proceedings, but rather an ethical exhortation – uses the YHWH’S intervention to place the most problematic human relation, reciprocal animosity, on a higher religious level750. This was also the case Ex. 22:1730.The individual facing the majority in legal proceedings received YHWH’S support (v. 2) as did all the humble (v. 3).

pressure to conform to divine norms as oppressive to the individual as any tyranny” (Greenberg, 1990a, 109). Boecker, 1976, 23-27, stands up for this democratic condition of legal proceedings in ancient Israel. He believes he sees an illustration of it in Ruth 4:1-2. The question is whether this story reflects historical reality. It is clear that once again that the biblical texts do not provide an exact description of occurrences, certainly when it came to the role of the community in legal proceedings. Rather, they even present the course of events in a reverse perspective (Weissman, 1995). 749 The oral agreement offered an opportunity for rational input. Otto, E. (2003, 21) stresses this aspect. It was a step toward intelligent obedience. Jackson (19934, 197-199) invoked legal rules for agreements as presented in the BoC to deny the binding character of the BoC. The prescriptions governing lawsuits challenge this thesis. “Where a dearth of evidence – the absence of either testimony by witnesses or material proof – deprives human reason of the possibility of making a determination, the cult granted the community access to a supra-human agency of judicial decision making” (Levinson, 1997, 113). 750 Crüsemann, 1992, 221. The interruption of the running composition in Ex. 23:1-10 by the divergent format of vv. 4-5 shows again that the substantive link – the protection of the weak and innocent in a legal procedure – takes precedence over the formal structure in the BoC, however structured it may be. “Wie auch sonst wird das, was formal in Struktur und Aufbau zutage tritt, erst auf der inhaltlichen Ebene wirklich faßbar” (Crüsemann, 1992, 221). Jackson (2000b, 215-225) draws attention to the planned chiastic device. For another view see Wright, 2004. Otto E. (988, 49-51) makes the core of Ex. 23:1-10 the capstone of his thesis: the impact of ethics on Israelite law as evinced in the BoC. He explains, “Das israelitisch in JHWH begründete Ethos der Solidarität wirkt ... als Ferment der Geschichte bis heute” (Otto E., 1991a, 167). That is not particularly the case in Ex. 23:4-5. Yet Israel was not unique in this. A parallel expression had long been present in Hittite law (Childs, 1974, 481-482). This common ethical orientation in casuistic legislation is a symptom of the universal character of wisdom (Albertz, 2003, 189-193). More recently, Otto, 2004, placed the relationship between ethics and law in a broader context in the Ancient Middle East. This religious orientation (Otto E., 1988, 47-48) was also to be found, more implicitly, in the ‫משפטים‬. The classical prophets hammered on the protection of the rights of the poor and oppressed (Crüsemann, 1992, 222-223 n. 413).

302

Conclusions on the Basic Material in the BoC Some few facts can now be considered established in the search for the greatest possible certainty regarding the material in the ‫ משפטים‬and in the Yahwist precepts as incorporated in the BoC. As with every publication of legal material, distinctions can be made within this oldest Israelite collection of laws between this important ad hoc systematising intervention – the oldest known of its kind – and the reform of legal practice as it had been exercised up to that point. Contrary to ad hoc interventions, the latter underwent gradual evolution751. During this 751

Crisis situations that threaten to dislocate or even terminate community life usually spur the work of consolidating legal material. According to Fleischer (1989, 347 n. 1) legal material was consolidated during codification in the modern sense. Schottroff (1977, 14) by contrast believes that this modern codification concept cannot possibly be applied to the ancient legal codes, given their unique character. In times of crisis, restoring law and order is the ultimate means to restore internal ties. Obviously, the material that receives greatest attention during this ad hoc intervention is that most in need of reform and completion. “...in times of national crisis, the writers can call for spiritual renewal” (Levinson, 1997, 14). For another view see Fitzpatrick-McKinley (1999, 54-80) who question the relation between the biblical legal codes and social life in Israel. There is reason to accept that the problem of slavery in the society of the time was acute. That is why this subject leads the list of priorities in the ‫ משפטים‬which, in the same capacity, heads the other precepts in the BoC. The BoC’s character as ad hoc code also explains why its composition is eclectic (Paul S.M., 1970, 102). However diverse and wide-ranging the material in the BoC may be (buntes Gebilde: Crüsemann, 1992, 132), it by no means covers all subjects. It cannot be expected to, not even in a primitive society such as ancient Israel’s. “The sixteen paragraphs of the covenant code ... even when augmented with the categoric statements about cult and other matters, cover only a small area of public life” (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 84). Only two verses (Ex. 22:15-16) treat family law (for a different view see Jackson, 1988), while coverage in the Code of Hammurabi is extensive (Boecker, 1976, 120; for another view see Marshall, 1993, 21-22). This is also the case in Dt., that nevertheless is also considered eclectic like the other biblical codices. “...nicht nur das Bundesbuch, sondern auch die beiden anderen großen alttestamentlichen Rechtssammlungen, das deuteronomische Gesetz und das Heiligkeitsgesetz, in ähnlicher Weise aufgebaut sind. Auch für kleinere alttestamentliche Rechtssammlungen läst sich dasselbe feststellen” (Boecker, 1976, 124). “...daß es sich hier um einen Rechtscodex handelt ‘der wohlüberlegt und systematisch zusammengestellt worden ist’ wobei die verwendete Systematik derjenigen der altorientalischen Codices entspricht” (according to Boecker, 1976, 119, referring to Wagner and Petschow). We have already noted the need to renounce Western approaches to this. We require insight in the typical Eastern view of the system applied here. Boecker (1976, ibid. still citing Petschow) describes the Eastern system in this way, “Die Haupteinteilung des Rechtsstoffes und teilweise auch die Untergliederungen erfolgten, wie schon von Anfang an in der modernen Literatur erkannt, nicht nach modernen juristisch-wissenschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten, sondern regelmäßig nach Sachgruppen und -

303 gebieten, die vorwiegend an äußeren Lebensbereichen, Objekten oder Sachverhalten teilweise der Sinnlichen Wahrnehmung - orientiert sind”. That is why the appreciation that authors express for the systematisation techniques applied in the BoC should be assessed cautiously. It appears as if this unjustly projects Western techniques onto the BoC. Rather, it would seem better to apply the techniques that contemporary, foreign legal specialists and scribes used when compiling the legal codes and that served as models for Israelite legal specialists and scribes. There is no agreement on whether there were schools of scribes in Israel at the time. Crüsemann (1992, 195-196) and Otto E. (1991a, 164-165) are decidedly pro. Jamieson-Drake (1991, esp. 146-151) sees these schools centralised only in Jerusalem. Davies P.R. (1998) is radically contra. Lemche (1996c, 115) notes, “Nothing comprehensive was needed to control these societies: a scribe and a few soldiers were sufficient”. Barstad (2001, 73) noted how the concept school had to be adapted to the society of the time. There was probably a scribe or someone who could act as such for each community. — Otto E. (1994a, 182-186) points to the reform of legal practice. “No code is the original invention of its legislator; he must work on material provided by others, he may alter, amend, or extend it, but he does not create de novo a code of laws” (Greengus, 1994, 75). In this revision, a distinction should be made among the current adaptation of existing legal practice (Wachstumsmodell: Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 81) the purported amendment (Fortschreibung: Otto E., 1988, 20; idem, 1995b, 380; for another description see: Kratz, 1977, 13-15; Lohfink, 1996a) and the real revision and correction of the code in force via interpolation (Levinson, 1994a, 44-59), because it cannot be both supplemented and retained as is. That last is difficult to ascertain for the BoC. To do so, we would have to have the prior legislation available for study. Its reconstruction is a precarious if not impossible task. — In as far as is known, legal practice before the BoC was exclusively oral as was all tradition at the time (Greengus, 1994, 77-84); this was particularly the case for subjects such as marriage. Crüsemann (1992, 178) speaks of a mündliche Einheit in Ex. 21:12,15-17. Thinking of the circumstances under which the Israelites had first to inhabit the less hospitable areas when it first entered the promised land, Boecker (1976, 134-135) writes, “Hier aber hat man sicher auf lange Zeit mit einer nur mündlichen Rechtstradition zu rechnen”. It is certainly an established fact that at the time of Dt.-Dtr oral tradition was still influential. Oral tradition – that apparently continued developing on legal subjects (Jackson, 2000b, 216), possibly as a result of the idea, unique to Israel, of the strict attribution of legislation to YHWH as sole king (Boecker, 1976, 32-40; De Vaux, 1962, 268; Whitelam, 19934) – could provide an explanation for the lack of written legal codes in Israel prior to the Pentateuch and during the long period extending from it to the revival of legal material (“The full literary and substantive development of Jewish law”: Jackson, 1990, 254) when the Mishna and other rabbinical legal material was committed to writing. “We cannot assume thereby that ancient Israel from the time of the escape from Egypt down to Solomon’s time had only some ten or twelve axioms to guide the whole communal and national existence” (Sanders, 1972, 31-32). Also significant is the underlying view that oral tradition is as much Torah as is the written Torah (Childs, 1974, 492; Müller K., 1996). The public proclamation in the cult may have played a role in this regard. Osumi (1991, 210-211) speaks of “Belehrung im Heiligtum” relying on the 2nd person pl. that occurs in several passages. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (1990, 283), by contrast, does not consider this input from a Dtr redactor. The dispensation of justice certainly had to rely on oral dictates. Schenker (2000b) draws attention to the gradual evolution of the legal system. Marks of development are the increasing didactic-historical reasoning and systematic

304

evolution, ‫ משפטים‬and Yahwist precepts each developed traditions of different natures and scales that long preceded the redactor of the BoC752. This is most notable in the selection of the ‫משפטים‬, especially where sizable amounts of material are derived from legal codes, borrowed from the surrounding peoples, that go back to far in the pre-Mosaic period. The input from Israel’s own tradition and customs – which is presumed to be mainly if not exclusively oral – shows signs of a having undergone a protracted evolution753. However certain this steady evolution, neither its method. This was a general tendency in the legal matters. “Any law or system of law is a cultural product. As such it is always subject to addition, revision, interpretation and reinterpretation ... rather than emerging as complete and intact systems, legal systems are products of accretion that evolve from piecemeal construction in the process of change” (Marshall, 1993, 33). Many authors confirm this general growth process in the BoC. “Zahlreiche Spuren weisen auf eine längere Entstehungsgeschichte hin” (SchwienhorstSchönberger, 1990, 1). Others cannot reconcile themselves to the notion of development. Mistakenly so. They can point to stable elements after comparison with the older legal codes, but they do not see the evolving elements within the same Israelite legal system that are unmistakably present in the BoC. Why could they not have occurred earlier? — The abovementioned distinction of the Wachstumsmodell fits in well with the Quellenmodell (Schart, 1998, 31-34), and the Fortschreibung (i.e. the Bearbeitungsmodell) cannot be considered an alternative (according to Crüsemann, 1992, 13-17) and as antagonistic to the notion of gradual growth. When this distinction is felt to pose a dilemma, it is the result of a Hegelian linear view of historical development, albeit via a dialectical approach (3.1.6 3.1.7.). Legal development in Israel runs parallel to the general canon process. It is not a smooth or even stepwise climb, but a differentiated process with strange twists and turns, as is the case with the traditions on which the canon process is built. This uneven evolution also occurs in the perfection and humanising of the legal system. Here again there is dissention with the view of continuous progress. Although Israel was late in developing its legal system, it did not always progress beyond the older systems of neighbouring peoples. It frequently even regresses (Crüsemann, 1992, 182-185; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 85). It was only to be expected that the BoC would require corrections, even new codifications (Crüsemann, 1992, 188). 752 Authors’ opinions on this differ greatly. Everyone sees at least the element of the ‫משפטים‬ as a separate whole, albeit not of the same proportion and with the same pre-history. There is no consensus on the Yahwist part. In that regard, Schwienhorst-Schönberger considers it only an appendix that the BoC redactors added in several stages; E. Otto (1994a, 182-183) goes far in the same direction, but distinguishes a separate redaction for the ‫ משפטים‬and considers the Yahwist input as an independent whole. Others like Halbe, Osumi and Crüsemann see the Yahwist part as more than an independent whole. They also ascribe to it the later integration of the ‫משפטים‬. In this way we again encounter the standoff regarding age. Ultimately it is a general argument for the late dating of the OT writings. Jackson (1988) working on occasion from a literary perspective, distinguishes three stages in the development of the BoC. 753 Paul S.M., 1970, 104; Epzstein, 1983, 217; Roberts, 1986², 92. The close correspondence between the BoC and the legislation of neighbouring peoples has become

305 clearer since the wealth of old legal material discovered mainly in Mesopotamia. “A general survey of legal documents discovered in Mesopotamia and its cultural satellites reveals such a wealth of riches that it justly deserves the title ‘Ex Oriente Lux’” (Paul S.M., 1970, 3). Familiarity with these legal codes is so extensive that some authors have the impression that the BoC just borrowed its casuistic section from them. “Die Nähe ist so groß, daß sie gelegentlich sogar zur Vermutung außer israelitischer Herkunft geführt hat” (Crüsemann, 1992, 170). Westbrook (1988) even believed that a common constitution lay at the basis of the BoC and the older legal codes used by the surrounding peoples. Their interconnection is a fact. Its explanation is much less evident. Literary dependence is often defended, and while it cannot be proven, it cannot be excluded. Dt.’s suggested canonical clause is said to have been inspired by the Code of Hammurabi. Authors usually base their explanation of the ascertained similarity between the BoC and the older legal codes used in the surrounding populations on a common idiom, a shared legal culture (SchwienhorstSchönberger, 1990, 240-254). — Bellefontaine (1987) points out the importance of traditional customs. That there is such a thing as customary law is beyond dispute. It is also found in developed institutions like British common law. The casuistic laws in Babylon and Mesopotamia were also examples of customary law even though they were committed to writing (De Vaux, 1962, 258). “It might not be unreasonable to hypothesise a customary origin for the context of the individual rules” (Jackson, 19934, 199). At such times there was a transition from internal and autonomous shaping by the local population and the pater familias (Lemche, 1996c, 111 speaks of a patronage society: “nobody can really tell his godfather how to judge”) to external control by a higher level that drafted laws. On how the two relate see Bellefontaine, 1987, 51-55; Lafont S., 1994, 94. “Custom refers to internalized social control, whereas law refers to those forms of social control which must be accomplished externally ... Customs are those so-called established practices with which the majority of the group readily adheres, laws regulate those practices with which only a minority of the group agrees” (Marshall, 1993, 30-31). The customary law is a movement from below that draws its dynamism from life at the grassroots. The Javne Jam ostracon provides one example (Smelik, 1984a, 91-98; idem., 2006, 109-117). The commoner’s need, referred to in Ex 22:25, rises to the surface and enters the channels provided by legal procedure (presumably located in Ex. 22:25-26). Another example is the story of the widow from Tekoa (an individual), who pleads before King David for the life of her condemned son (2 Sam. 14:4-21; Bellefontaine, 1987). “Even if direct dependence exists ... these codes were always adjusted in accord with specific needs of various societies, and thus in some sense unique in each situation” (Marshall, 1993, 20). That is why the characteristic feature of Israelite legal codes is sooner found in customary law than in the examples of formal legislation found among the surrounding peoples (Paul S.M., 1970, 102-104). This is an expression of Israel’s identity (Reventlow, 1982, 124-133). The legislation cannot simply manipulate customs as it sees fit. Customs move according to their own rhythm (Heger, 1999, 87). “Und bei aller Selbständigkeit der israelitischen Rechtsentwicklung, die sich auch in den Mischpatim zeigt, so daß hier ganz sicher nicht ein fertig übernommener Text vorliegt, partizipieren die Mischpatim von diesem Erbe und können nur in einem prinzipiell ähnlichen Milieu entstanden sein” (Crüsemann, 1992, 195). The “distinctive Israelite contribution” (Paul S.M., 1970, 105) to its legislation is thus established (Phillips, 2002, 98) despite its extreme dependence on surrounding peoples, as evinced in texts such as the prohibition against lending (Ex. 22:24; Marshall, 1993, 144). Jackson (2000b) stressed the contribution of oral tradition, but stresses the historical literary approach because of his

306

casuistic conventions nor its Yahwist tradition can be reconstructed in their proper literary and historical movement. The present state of research does not permit giving priority to either754. Presumably it is more a matter of simultaneity in the development of the two traditions, albeit that when the BoC was compiled the primary focus of the effort lay with the Yahwist tradition. While the two tendencies are different in form and content, they semiotic interest (idem, 2000b, 14). The benefit of writing to the development of legal prescriptions in biblical tradition and canon process generally needs to be tempered. “The widely held distinction between history and prehistory embodies the common assumption, prevalent within biblical studies, that the writing of history is dependent upon the existence, or more accurately, the accidental preservation of written materials. Yet the ebb and flow of historical process is not dependent on written materials ... The insistence on the importance of written sources for the reconstruction of the past betrays the Eurocentric nature of the historical enterprise” (Whitelam, 1996, 65). We have already warned against a westernising approach. Despite his explicit reservations toward this western approach (Jackson, 2000b, 171) his thinking is typical of western rationalism. — Brin (1994) points out the lengthy evolution of the BoC. “All das ist zumindest auch das Produkt einer längeren Entstehungsgeschichte” (Crüsemann, 1992, 133). “By nature, law is in motion, because it belongs to the world of things. Law is an object, a tool which adapts to the demands of a society” (Lafont S., 1994, 107). This development appears to have been continuous and, above all, slow because it was rooted in customary law that naturally arose from the community before the government could channel it as it saw fit. 754 It is harder now than in the past to acknowledge this insufficiency even when applying the most advanced research methods. “Warum findet ein solches ignoramus et ignorabimus heute offensichtlich kein Wohlgefallen mehr?” (Lohfink, 1996, 142). — Casuistic arrangements repeatedly demonstrate how gradually the separate cases and their settlements were supplemented to become precedents that served as the basis for more general legal principles. Successive additions in Ex. 21:37 can be viewed in this sense although these Fortschreibungen are not the only way legislation was developed. Moreover, there is a generally recognised shift from local, customary settlement to procedural rules (Otto E., 1988, 38; Boecker, 1976, 27). — It is also worth mentioning that the distinction between culpable and accidental manslaughter also grew sharper (Ex. 21:13-14). This distinction produced the asylum system (Crüsemann, 1992, 205-206). We should also note the developments that Halbe and Osumi discerned in the Yahwist element’s dependence on the old Cultic Decalogue. Although Crüsemann (1992, 135-147, 167-170) largely endorses this, he does not give it the same right of privilege that Halbe and Osumi do. Most scholars continue to defend Dtr authorship of the Cultic Decalogue. — Priority in legal matters has been moot since Wellhausen’s day. The root of the problem is the standoff between the view according to which the law stems from the prophets (Wellhausen: Lemche, 1988, 209210) and the view reversing this sequence (Tucker, 1985, 6). Opinions are still divided (Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 1-2). While Halbe and Osumi give priority to what they call the Yahwist right of privilege, E. Otto and Schwienhorst-Schönberger give priority to casuistic law that was only gradually theologised in the BoC. Crüsemann’s proposal (1992, 138 n. 35) of a simultaneous evolution and interpenetration of the two trends is also arguable.

307

do overlap, which allowed the BoC’s redactor to consider them complementary and to interweave them into the structure typical for the Torah. This means that in the BoC the religiously oriented Yahwist tendency could effortlessly graft itself onto and even seek indispensable support from purportedly profane, casuistic material that, in fact, was more deeply religious that had been at first apparent755. 755

“The similarities between the social stratification of Part 1 and Part 2 (‫משפטים‬-Yahwist element, L.Z.) are obvious ... Part 1 and Part 2 are not contrary conceptions” (Marshall, 1993, 173). It is indeed so that the Yahwist element like the ‫ משפטים‬is based on reality. The measures taken to protect the weak in society, the procedural rules and precepts on the weekly day of rest and the use of the land all spring from the confrontation with daily life. Conversely, the ‫ משפטים‬and their implicit reasoning based on community experience rooted in daily life provide the basis on which theologising finds support and thrives. For, even if the casuistic material in rules for legal agreements derives initially from practice and not legal principles, it inevitably evolves toward generalisation and the attendant reflection that, on occasion, results in didactic, theological and historical reasoning. After abstraction from daily legal cases (Boecker, 1976, 133) practical wisdom (Jackson, 19934, 199), primarily in a domestic context (Jackson, 2000) and the ethos of the local community provide the material from which legal principles are drawn. This leads authors like Gerstenberger to place tribal wisdom (Sippenweisheit) at the source of the Torah (Whybray, 1982, 182-186; Boecker, 1976, 179-180). “Law is simply a specialisation of tribal wisdom” (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 80). Via reasoning developed in the group (Buss, 1989; Patrick, 1989; Milgrom, 1989), the individual came to defend an intelligent obedience to the law (Boecker, 1976, 179; Fretheim, 1991) and personal responsibility (Crenshaw, 1969, 132). But this was a very long process. Instructions and admonitions suitable to a domestic context grew into the extant bodies of law; they also became the common foundation for casuistic and apodictic legal prescriptions (Gerstenberger, 1961; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 78-81). “In a broader sense, early Israel ... was a traditional society, which implies that norms for conduct were determined by appeal to the wisdom of the group accumulated over centuries ... in such a society then, law is simply a specialisation of tribal wisdom” (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 80). A more developed stage of this reasoning wisdom, aimed at conviction and a sense of responsibility, can be found in Dt.-Dtr (6.4.4) and the Book of Proverbs. We will return to this in section 7.5. — In some ways the casuistic material seems indispensable for the Yahwist theologising’s efficiency and sense of reality. “Aber die Mischpatim haben Eingang in die Tora gefunden und stellen sogar eine ihrer Grundlagen dar. Und das ist ein theologisch höchst relevanter Vorgang ... eine theologisch begründende Sicht des Strafrechts ... findet seinen harten Kern in den Mischpatim als Teil der Tora” (Crüsemann, 1992, 198-199). As such the ‫ משפטים‬become the foundation (tragende Grundlage Crüsemann, 1992, 132-133, 230) supporting the Torah. After all, “A theology of biblical law must relate specifically to the structuring of the concrete historical life of the people of God” (Childs, 1974, 496). In other ways, casuistic law at that time, being oriented toward profane reality, needed theological reasoning to refine and uplift it. “Das Theologische kann noch dort Schutz und Solidarität begründen, wo eine nur gesellschaftliche soziale Identität an eine Grenze kommt” (Otto E., 1988, 39-40). In short, the two elements, casuistic substance and Yahwist theologising, enhance one another in their

308 complementarity. “Man darf sagen daß das Recht die Grundlage der Gottesanschauung ... bildet, soweit sie theologisch ausgeprägt ist, und das rückwirkend die religiöse Sinngebung der Rechtsbegriffe zur Ethisierung des Rechts beitrug”, according to G. Quell, cited in Boecker, 1976, 20. This, too, is what one could call a coalescence of profane wisdom with religious Torah in Israel. — The chiastic device has been discussed above. But it is not the only device used in gearing (Verzahnung Otto E., 1988, 65) and structuring (Gliederung Crüsemann, 1992, 173; Boecker, 1976, 118) and interlacing. Leading words (Crüsemann, 1992, 172, 184, 194) become developed into themes (Otto E., 1988, 23). “Dabei sind jeweils deutliche Überschneidungen und Überlappungen an den Grenzen der thematischen Abschnitte festzustellen ... Theologische, kultische und rechtliche Kompetenz fallen zusammen und können nicht auf eine der Seiten reduziert werden” (Crüsemann, 1992, 178, 208). — The typical structure that the BoC lends to the Torah makes it a model for OT legal development. “Der Redaktor hat ... auf diese Weise die Grundstruktur des Bundesbuches geschaffen und so erstmals in den uns greifbaren alttestamentlichen Rechtstraditionen eine Verbindung von Jus, Fas und Ethos hergestellt” (SchwienhorstSchönberger, 1990, 285). “Diese Überlegung erhält zusätzliches Gewicht durch die Tatsache daß nicht nur das Bundesbuch, sondern auch die beiden anderen großen alttestamentlichen Rechtssammlungen, das deuteronomistische Gesetz und das Heiligkeitsgesetz, in ähnlicher Weise aufgebaut sind. Auch für kleinere alttestamentliche Rechtssammlungen läßt sich dasselbe feststellen ... hier stoßen wir auf ein Strukturprinzip alttestamentlicher Rechtssammlungen” (Boecker, 1976, 124-125). The possibly divergent evolution of individual legal prescriptions does not detract from the BoC’s influence as model according to Sparks (1988a). The BoC’s influence as model can be explained by the “comprehensive guide for living” (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 85) that it offers despite its selective content. — “Es ist aber gerade das Charakteristikum des alttestamentlichen Rechts, daß hier das Leben in seiner ganzen Vielfalt vom Willen Gottes beansprucht wird” (Boecker, 1976, 124). The versatility of life in Israel becomes evident in daily practice, even though the BoC presumably reflects only a portion of this. The precepts speak of nothing less than a struggle between death and life, freedom and slavery, property and poverty. — In certain emergency situations – in Israel and among the surrounding peoples – (e.g. when evidence is lacking in a court case Crüsemann, 1992, 193; Albertz, 2003, 190) casuistic legal rules are also dependent on divine intervention, i.e. as oath with God as witness or a trial by ordeal. Vestiges of this are found in the BoC’s ‫( משפטים‬Ex. 21:6; 22:8,10,12). Casuistic judicial procedure, like every material task in that period, was not considered profane, i.e. as withdrawn from or not governed by divine experience (De Vaux, 1962, 99; for a contrary view see: Fishbane, 1985, 347-349). Social order was not possible without a common religion (Negenman, 1986, 44). Every legal rule, every treaty was established under the auspices of a divinity (Reventlow, 1963, 277-288); all social relations were based on the sacral. This was shared with the surrounding peoples in the sense that this was presupposed in every contact governing secular matters. Even when the laws and treaties contained no worshipful reference to divinities, they were still considered subject to their rule. That is why people at that time felt that experience arose from a divine sphere, that it was not profane but permeated by the divine, even when it was not expressly cultic and religious. This is what Buber called pan-sacrality (Von Rad, 1970, 42; Boström, 1990). It also explains why the wisdom books, which have so few references to God’s name, were included in the cult and often even entered the canon. This makes understandable why reason and human wisdom considered the casuistic laws in the BoC, which were based on

309

Still assuming the original material on which the BoC is built, we also catch a glimpse of the socio-political structure that Israel had at the time. We see a pronouncedly rural, self-employed pastoral and agricultural population756. Their work produced visibly expanding prosperity evinced by a flourishing monetary system that replaced the bartering that prevailed in more primitive economies of the time757. But there was a downside to human experience, suitable and in accordance with the more religious Yahwist precepts. Yet this did not prevent both collections from having a long history as oral or written codes, as is now usually assumed (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 82; for another view see: Albertz, 2003). That does not mean that the communities in which they operated developed in total independence. “...within a social group multiple legal levels coexist and achieve some degree of integration although this integration is not complete” (Marshall, 1993, 57). The differences between the larger sections of the BoC (‫ משפטים‬and Yahwist precepts) need not necessarily be ascribed to totally separate groups within the same community. This was evident from the connection between P and D. This is equally true for the groups responsible for the various parts of the BoC. The differing elements could not have been connected if there had been no prior vibrant link. The emergency situation at the time when the editorial work was done (Albertz, 2003, 193-197) helped bridge the differences. 756 Law is unavoidably dependent on sociological constellations within a society. It embodies the prevailing balance of power (Knight, 2000, 104-106). For another view see Fitzpatrick-McKinley, 1992, 54-80. Because of the intensely present theologising in the biblical texts it is difficult to separate the socio-political relations and their underlying ideology from their religious phrasing in the laws. “It is precisely this religious context and its tendency to overshadow the human context and its power groups that makes it so difficult to determine the locus of law in Israel” (Marshall, 1993, 25). Yet there remains sufficient evidence to visualise the society that the BoC has in mind. “...though the law may not provide a perfect mirror, as a symbolic representation of society and a means for settling disputes within a society, biblical law can aid our understanding of Israelite society ... religious sanctions are legitimate means of social control and may in fact inform us about the structure and ideology of the society” (Marshall, 1993, 31). But one must be wary of projecting modern sociological events, circumstances and ideology on ancient Israel (Herion, 1996, 231). — Knight (2000, 101-104) points out the rural character of the population. Crüsemann (1992, 133) calls it a “bäuerliche Gesellschaft”. “...das kasuistische Recht des ‘Bundesbuches’ das Recht von Hirten und Bauern ist”, according to Liedke, cited in Otto E., 1991a, 14. “...dimorphic pastoral and agrarian subsistence base of the BC society” (Marshall, 1993, 141). 757 “So setzen die Mischpatim eine entwickelte Geldwirtschaft voraus. Viele Rechtsprobleme sollen durch Ausgleichzahlungen in Silber erledigt werden (Ex. 21,11.21.32.34.35; 22,6.16), bei anderen ist es gleichfalls anzunehmen oder zumindest nicht ausgeschlossen (Ex. 21,19.22.30; 22,14)” (Crüsemann, 1992, 195). It is certainly possible to refer to the many talents in gold and silver that the kings of Israel and Judah paid to Assyria. It is certain that Tiglath-Pileser III imposed a similar tribute which did not rest solely on the king of Israel. If the report in 2 Kgs 15:19 is correct, King Menahem is to have called upon 60,000 prosperous citizens to help pay the tribute (Schoors, 1998, 84). “Thus something beyond a purely agrarian and barter economy must have existed”

310

this increasing wealth: the parallel expansion of the gap between free owners and those owning nothing. The latter included a sizeable number of slaves in consequence of endemic poverty. This was further exemplified in a socially deprived group that included widows, orphans and foreigners who could not maintain themselves in a demanding society as they had been able to do when they could rely on their families758. All this shows that in addition to the social divide between landowners and the bonded, rich and poor in Israel formed concentric circles that evolved in local groups at varying levels. The smallest group forming the core of all others is the nuclear family led by the pater familias759. This family was part of a broader local community comprised of several families from the same (Marshall, 1993, 143). It is even justifiable to assume urban development (Schoors, 1998, 87). 758 De Vaux, 1962, 54, 62-63. “Produziert die Gesellschaft ihre Schwachen und Außenseiter, so kann sie selbst immer weniger zu Begründung eines sozialen Schutzrechts aufgerufen werden. Es bedarf eines neuen, die Gesellschaft transzendierenden Begründungszusammenhanges. In JHWH als Rechtsquelle wird dieser neue Begründungszusammenhang gefunden” (Otto E., 1988, 72). 759 “The society is divided into only two groups, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (Lemche, 1996c, 110). The 60,000 better-off citizens that, according to 2 Kgs 15:19, King Menahem needed to pay his tribute can be compared to the ‫ עם הארץ‬that, according to 2 Kgs 21:24 and 2 Kgs 33:25, intended to further their own interests by helping King Josiah gain the throne (Schoors, 1998, 84-88). They were part of the elite group from which kings like Jehu were chosen (Lemche, 1988, 161). — The pater familias stood at the head of a large family or house consisting of family members extending over three to four successive generations (Lemche, 1996c, 113-114; Halpern, 1991; Bellefontaine, 1987, 49-51). He had absolute jurisdiction over those within his own family (Phillips, 2002, 111-226) according to the principle governing life that he and his descendants were expected to hand down (Boecker, 1976, 21-22) and that was considered inviolable and sacred in Israel. Yet the jurisdiction of the pater familias was not based strictly on blood ties, but on leadership capacity and a common ideology or a feeling of kinship, as Lemche 1988, 130-131 calls it. “...kinship becomes an organizing principle ... kinship also operates as a code in which relationships of power are described and quantified” (Davies P.R., 1992, 64-65). The domestic structure depicted in the patriarchal narratives (Albertz, 1992, 35), certainly at the time of the BoC, provided the basic fabric for the national community even in strictly religious domains, by virtue of locally developed, authoritative tradition (Gunneweg, 1959, 77-78). It shaped a covenant community that governed all aspects of its members’ lives. This is the total identification meant in the union of man and woman in Gen. 2:23-24 (Cross, 1998, 8). Essentially, this is the notion of covenant as Dtr would voice it later. “For very simple faceto-face communities ... direct communication will do. People live in continuous face-toface contact with the same people and therefore they are able to control each other continuously. The reinforcement of the standard rules happens in special interactions in these communities, in rites with a numinous or charismatic character” (ter Borg, 1998a, 415).

311

tribe. These overarching communities near – or at least not greatly distant from – a cult place managed by temple servants760 were in their turn included in the national community of Israel under what at that time served as a central authority761. Each of these groups had its corresponding rule of 760

Around twenty, large families formed a clan (the tribe is a vaguer concept for the community that encompasses this regional/territorial clan: Frick, 1996, 453-457; Tappy, 2000, 188-191). The clan was governed by a college of ‫ זקנם‬or elders. It operated as local court of justice where disputes arising within the extended family were settled (Boecker, 1976, 22-23; Schoors, 1998, 195). According to the description in 2 Kgs 22-23, King Josiah appealed to the ‫ זקנם‬for the entry into the covenant that marked the start of his reforms. In doing this he followed Solomon’s example. His son Rehoboam, by contrast, did not take their advice with as consequence, the breaking up of his kingdom (1 Kgs 12:6-16). — Her archaeological excavations have led H. Weippert to conclude that only five sanctuaries dedicated to YHWH worship can be found for the period extending from the 10th to the 8th centuries BCE. Moreover, it is striking that all are distant from the capital cities of Samaria and Jerusalem. She concludes that these were either places of pilgrimage or sanctuaries that operated as fortified cities (Schoors, 1998, 78). Alternatively, Ps 80-81 clearly witness to the YHWH cult in Northern Israelite sanctuaries (Schoors, 1998, 190). Various authors suggest the importance of Gilgal (Schmitt, 1972, 158-169, 174-175; Kraus, 2000) and Shechem as base of operations for later monotheistic Yahwism (Lemche, 1988, 161-163; Halbe, 1975, 519-521). “Those cases which could not be cleared up were remitted to the local sanctuary and decided by cultic means” (Otto E., 1994a, 194). It is evident that the drafters of the BoC wanted to use the cult at the Yahwist sanctuaries to gain control (Albertz, 1992, 53) over the hybrid popular religion (Albertz, 1992, 57). 761 After earlier views on the origin of ancient Israel came into discredit (Lemche, 1996b; Thompson, 1999; the demolition was complete: “There is no more ‘ancient Israel’. History has no more room for it” [Provan, 2000, 305]) – especially the amphictyony hypothesis – research turned to the previous period in Israel’s history (Davies P.R.-Fritz V., 1996; Coote-Whitelam, 1987; Halpern, 2000; Dever, 2001, 245-294) where it sought assistance primarily from sociology (Herion, 1996, 242-251; Lemche, 1996b, esp. 17-19). A degree of reservation regarding some modern tendencies would not be amiss here. “Religion is of course socially linked but is not so directly socially linked that nothing happens in religion except for social advantage” (Barr, 2000, 94). Study of the patriarchal and exodus periods and even the entry into the promised land (Whitelam, 1989; ancient Israel demonstrated to many agrarian characteristics from its earliest days: Garbini, 1988, 54) have been abandoned as unverifiable (sociologists, by contrast, are as eager as ever: Carter, 1996, 1322). Yet despite this and opposition from authors like Rofé (2000), the united kingdom under David and Solomon is increasingly the subject of critical study by authors such as I. Finkelstein, Zevit (2002, 19-26), Whitelam (1986), Davies P.R. (1992), Coote-Whitelam (1987), Knoppers (1997), Thompson (1999), Soggin (1988). Hallo (1999) by contrast, believes that by applying the comparative method to similar Middle-Eastern texts it is still possible to include proto- and patriarchal history in the bedrock of historical research. The rise of the monarchy in Israel is now being subjected to thorough study based on archaeology and comparative sociology (Sigrist-Neu, 1977) although some authors have reservations regarding sociological and ethnic models (Lemche, 1996d; Herion, 1996).

312 Scholars are gradually discerning shift in 12th-10th-century Israel from allegedly egalitarian/segmentary communities to a more centralised nation state (Finkelstein, 1995; Holladay J.S. Jr., 1995; Dietrich, 1972, 108) led by a monarch, with a chiefdom (Lemche, 1996c; Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 1996b) as intermediary step (Frick, 1996, 457-467). The BoC contains traces that allow it to be situated at the transition from a segmentary to a more centralised society. Jamieson-Drake (1991, 142-145) sees a slow transition from chiefdom to a nation state. The multiplicity of sanctuaries, that permit the assumption of a parallel structure on the socio-political level, are an indication of this. There is certainly no explicit evidence of a ‫מלך‬. This does not permit us to decide, as in the past, to place the BoC in the premonarchic period (Crüsemann, 1992, 134 n. 12). Conversely, it is certain that the preDtr edition of the BoC may be situated at least during the monarchy. If despite this the monarch is not mentioned explicitly, this need not necessarily be interpreted as an antimonarchic tendency in the BoC (Boecker, 1976, 132). By and large the monarch had only limited power on a local level in the hinterlands outside his residence and the military system (Otto E., 1991a, 151) that restricted his freedom. Rehoboam had to learn this the hard way. He overestimated his power and was compelled to return to a partial decentralisation (Lemche, 1988, 144). Domestic and tribal concerns more than other areas fell beyond his reach because of their rigid system of customs; the monarch could only gradually bend them to his will via centralisation. Under such conditions it is not surprising that the monarch is not mentioned explicitly. This does not mean that the BoC ignores the monarchy (Albertz, 2003, 195). We do not wish to argue ex silentio. We must use such tools sparingly and not only from a minimalist perspective (Uehlinger, 1995, 63-64). Nor should we turn our Western ignorance into a norm (Crüsemann, 1988, 29-30; docta ignorantia). But it can be accepted with certainty that according to the understanding of law in Israel, as is evinced from the use of ‫ נׂשיא‬in Ex. 22:27, the king had the task of making YHWH’S kingship and the law tangible e.g. as judge (Boecker, 1976, 32-40; Whitelam, 19934, 128-134; De Vaux, 1962, 268; in 1 Kgs 21:10,13 the king and YHWH are mentioned in parallel like ‫ האלהים‬and ‫ נׂשא‬in Ex. 22:28, without themselves being lawgivers [Greenberg, 1986, 3 n. 5]). That was the case throughout the history of Israel (Brettler, 1989), although there was an evolution. At the time of the BoC the king’s legislative power was just starting to take shape. “The king has administrative, judicial and military powers but cannot publish laws under his own name ... Hebrew kings merely transmit the divine commandments by which they are themselves bound” (Lafont S., 1994, 100). If the BoC, contrary to Dt. does not mention the king, this indicates that in the view of the BoC’s redactors/scribes he had an even more independent position than when Dt.-Dtr was compiled by which time he was encapsulated in the familiar law of the king and no longer had such a high profile. Yet the compilers of the BoC were not indifferent to the monarch. After all this was a demarcation and reform of general law, a domain within which the king and his special powers still had to evolve (Otto, E., 2005c). During the transition from segmentary to a more centralised nation state, the monarchy had greater need of reinforcement. It had long been so, even in Solomon’s day (Halpern, 1974, 529-532) that the strongly entrenched tribal structure was an obstacle. Even during the Assyrian period and at the time of Dt.-Dtr, its power was not completely broken (Halpern, 1991). Regression in this regard remained possible depending on the particular situation in Judah and Israel (Lemche, 1988, 138, 146-148). Their separation into two kingdoms was rooted in such regression (Miller P.D. Jr., 1985, 218-220). It cannot be accidental that the measures in the BoC, understood in combination as a constitution for the broader community in Israel

313

law that, like the groups, were interrelated and merged. This was a multiple structure; the various levels were in permanent contact with and shaped one another. All this was affected by the abovementioned pastoral and agricultural means of production and the cultural and cultic values in the three levels of groups. Of course, one result was that even aside from the permanent circulation, the corresponding legal system could not hold all levels and groups equally in its ordering grasp762. It can be deduced (Paul S.M., 1970, 102), shift the stress from the family to the overarching local community and the cultic sites. Via their grasp on the national cult, these latter offered the monarch a chance for legitimation. This was sorely needed given the opposition that the monarchy had faced since its inception, possibly because of the earlier decentralised community structure (Crüsemann, 1978; De Boer, 1991; Albertz, 1992, 174-179). The integration of the king’s function in that of YHWH as legislator offered the monarch a chance to enlist theocratic authority (Flanagan, 1996, 328; Becker, 2005, 5 speaks of Theopolitik) proceeding from the ‫ מקום‬to gain control over the popular, social and religious customs. The condition was to be on good terms with the elitist Yahwist functionaries at the ‫מקום‬, and this was not come automatically. There were, of course, close ties between the elite and the monarch. They were rooted in the same elitist tradition to which the whole OT belonged (Coote-Ord, 1989, 3-7). Nevertheless, there was competition between the two. The king employed Yahwism to serve his political interests and sought to reinforce his position via his religious prerogatives (Whitelam, 19934, 134-136). That Ahaz could impose his will on the erection of an altar shows this. Dtr’s later removal from the king of all authority over the cult allows us to presume that it had existed earlier (Levinson, 1997, 95-96). Meanwhile, the royal prerogatives culminated in a bond between the palace and the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 7:12; Ez. 43:8; in Solomon’s day the temple was much smaller than the palace: Lemche, 1988, 211) and the remarkably developed royal ideology immortalised for all time in the messianic texts. 762 The corresponding legal rules for each group were reflected in the way in which the casuistic and apodictic rules were applied. “Thus, casuistic law is used primarily on an intermediate level, whereas apodictic law functions in familial legal settings and also the uppermost legal level which regulates the most loosely applied social components” (Marshall, 1993, 170). “Within more loosely organized social groups such as tribes or chiefdoms we can imagine such diversity of legal systems existing with greater ease. These societies contain multiple power-bases that somehow co-exist with other similar based groups. Each of these power-bases is potentially a legal level as well” (Marshall, 1993, 34). “Dennoch zeigt sich hier, daß die Rechtsordnung ... nicht anders als die Legitimation der interkursiven Machtsverhältnisse, die zwischen den verschiedenen politischen Gruppen innerhalb der Rechtsgemeinschaft bestehen, sein kann” (Crüsemann, 1992, 197). “...social change is a continuous force: which means it is improbable that law and society are ever completely congruous. Furthermore, since law is both a product of and an influence in society, some type of mutually influential relationship must exist whereby the law and society interact with each other” (Marshall, 1993, 35). “It is now generally agreed that there are two facets to the mode of production. The former refers to such things as available technology, available labor and ecological conditions, the latter includes such things as division of labor, use of environment, and the forms of appropriation and distribution of

314

from the social diversity and economic structure presupposed by the legal material in the BoC that Israel was a primitive or segmentary society still dependent on patrilineal lines for cohesion. The shift from the family’s structuring function to a more extensive level was still ongoing763. This process increasingly required divine authority, in Israel embodied in the Yahwist current, to adjudicate disputes and legal issues and to reinforce the national group’s identity as distinct from that of the surrounding peoples764. Because of its threatened position at that time, Israel seems to surplus ... the more developed the society, the more likely for class stratification to exist” (Marshall, 1993, 36, 56). “Because law and society exist in tension ... and because there are multiple legal levels in a society, it is unlikely that any one set of laws can effectively control all of any given society ... In its simplest form, segmentary groups are free of outside control and are not subservient to a chief or council of elders” (Marshall, 1993, 39, 41). As will appear below, the compilers of the BoC planned to target the midfield of society. After all, the strictly domestic matters remained, at least temporarily, subject to the pater familias. At the same time, the highest level with the king and his military/residential domain remained beyond sight (Niemann, 1966). The BoC thus tries to shift the primary focus to the social midfield. This was more or less Boecker’s (1976, 120) conclusion. In the rest of the Middle East, by contrast, the primary focus was on the king (Schottroff, 1977, 8). 763 “It is more useful to use the term segmentary, rather than primitive, for groups without permanent legal offices or legal institutions” (Marshall, 1993, 41). Lemche (1996b, 17-19) stresses this lineage element and criticises the egalitarian view held by the national community at the time (Gottwald, 1993, 179). “Such a decline is subtly evident in the content of certain BC laws. The need for laws that provide for oppressed widows and orphans implies a break down in the extended family structure of early Israel ... Increasing complexity within the segmentary form requires better defined leadership roles capable of reinforcing social norms and resolving conflict” (Marshall, 1993, 42, 175). 764 “Appeal to the supernatural is more closely related to the ideological pole and to the authority and power of the society’s socio-political groups” (Marshall, 1993, 55). Yet this does not mean that the YHWH cult was central for the broad mass of the population as it was for the rulers and leaders of the Yahwist current (Miller P.D. Jr., 1985, 215-218). Contrary to the elite (Lemche, 1988, 144), the general population leaned more heavily toward the minor tradition (Coote- Ord, 1989, 3-7). Even within the elite there was a difference between the more political and more religiously oriented Yahwism (Albertz, 1992, 232, 244). The general population is more inclined to reach for religion, here Yahwism, when the necessities for life were threatened. Such emergency situations can bring them to turn to other more current gods in addition to YHWH (Smith M.S., 1971, 28-29) or to sanctuaries where YHWH is worshipped in a highly local manner. After all, there can be differences or shifts (Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 158) within Yahwism (hence the problem of polytheism Albertz, 1992, 128). These can include the contrast between official and unofficial tendencies (Albertz, 1992, 42-43) in which the eruption of the monotheistic tendency is an important phase. “The reconstructed society is one in which the cult of Yahweh is present, but it does not appear to be the central focus of society reflected in BC. Instead, it provides an overarching unity to the three levels because it sanctifies the authority of the uppermost level” (Marshall, 1993, 176). The BoC’s redactors implicitly indicate that they consciously

315 pursue a legal system specific to Israel and thus regularly diverge from the rich range of laws in established codes that have grown from a long and edifying cultural tradition among the surrounding peoples. They do more than modify legal codes in accordance with the legal custom that prevailed in Israel. They include foreign relations beside internal affairs in their policy. While they accept and even promote the integration of foreigners who have found a place within Israel, and thus have adapted to the prevailing situation there, they seem to disassociate themselves from foreigners who live outside of Israel. The prohibition against graven images (Ex. 20:23) that, with the altar laws, sets the cultic/ Yahwist tone for the whole BoC and that is without parallel among the surrounding peoples, could serve to distinguish the divine authority of YHWH from those gods to whom they, like the surrounding peoples, appeal (this can be seen in the use of divine names: Lemche, 1988, 224-226). This would place Israel beyond all competition and manipulation (Boecker, 1976, 125-126). Israel rejected other gods with horror to the same degree that YHWH became held as the God of Israel and Israel became bound to him in a special relationship. This is monotheism emerging as a rejection of external syncretism via repulsion or exclusion (Dietrich, 1994, 23-24; Stolz, 1994, 36). This is in keeping with the conclusion that the Yahwist current (on Yahwism in the pre-monarchic period see De Moor, 1990) introduced (Albertz, 1992, 200) YHWH – although worshipped (Smith M.S., 1971, 27-28; Garbini, 1988, 55-58; Albertz, 1992, 84-85) beyond Israel as member of the divine pantheon (the expression ‫אל עלין‬, King of the gods, is evidence for this: Lemche, 1988, 227-229; Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 75) – and that Israel monopolised him. This soon led to henotheism and monolatry (De Moor, 1990; Garbini, 1988, 52-65; Smith M.S., 1971, 15-56) as a result of the increasing demarcation of and adjustment to the perception of the person of YHWH under pressure from socio-political evolution (Lemche, 1988, 256-257; Dietrich, 1994, 14-20). This was directed against syncretism within Israel. This was done by absorbing the characteristics of other gods like Baal (Dietrich, 1994, 23-24) or by adopting an inclusive approach (Stolz, 1994, 36). The upsurge of what was originally a Yahwist minority becomes evident in the pervasion of Yahwist names in the upper classes in Israel, even to the royal court (Smith M.S., 1971, 23). With the support of the classical prophets’ preaching (see section 7.3) Yahwism was gradually able to worm its way into the majority (Lemche, 1988, 171; Halbe, 1975, 525-526). — An additional expression in the BoC of the tendency toward separation from foreign peoples as a means of self-affirmation is found in the drastic measure of a separate division of time that was diametrically opposed to nature’s cyclical rhythm used by surrounding peoples. The weight of the problematic relations with surrounding peoples on Israel is particularly evident in the final addition (Ex. 23:20-23) in which YHWH offered special protection and assistance to pilgrims to the ‫מקום‬ who had to travel through areas controlled by non-Israelites. This marked a tangible and radical change (Crüsemann, 1992, 153-154). After the previous period in which Israel had not considered sharing the same territory as something negative (up to and including the pre-exilic prophets there was no mention of the issue of mixed marriages; there was certainly a long period when no one wrote of a struggle against other gods and cult places: Smith M.S., 1971, 16-18, 20), there was a movement, characteristic of Dt.-Dtr, toward a complete obliteration of foreign peoples. According to the classical version, the cause of this is the distress aroused in Yahwism by the failure to fulfil expectations that the land as a whole would pass to Israel alone (Childs, 1974, 487). It is not clear whether and how this hypothesis is supported by actual historical facts, i.e. ethnic tensions. It is, however, certain that the later, more radical statements in Dt.-Dtr are rooted more in internal strains within

316

have had a need to set itself off from the peoples with whom it shared the same territory. This resulted in a greater need than previously for Israel to use its own divinity, YHWH, to affirm its identity. This situation appears to have been the immediate impetus for compiling the BoC765. The conclusion drawn from this is that the legal material codified in the BoC depicts Israel between the time of its tribal expansion over the promised land and the period of the Assyrian invasion in the 8th century BCE when a more thorough centralisation became an abrupt necessity. The latter event marked the end of a period that had lasted at least three centuries as is evident from the signs of gradual and slow growth766 in the legal prescriptions.

Israel. The term foreign peoples seems to be a disguise for groups and practices in Israel that are rejected by the orthodox Yahwist current that produced the text (Levinson, 1997, 148-149). The theological justification that is offered for his show how greatly Yahwism’s desire for exclusivity led it to be interested in politics. It was an exponent of a yearning for liberation and independence possibly associated (Westbrook, 1988, 134; SchwienhorstSchönberger, 1990, 312-313; Smith M.S., 1971, 30; Albertz, 1992, 118-119) with earlier experiences such as the exodus and later confrontation with the Philistines (Lemche, 1988, 133). This yearning for liberation did not derive solely from external pressure, in this case the menace from Assyria. The problem of syncretism also had to do with internal stress within Israel (Miller P.D. Jr., 1985, 224; this explains the resistance to the crown and the establishment), which was all too easily equated with the territory and occupants of the promised land (Garbini, 1988, 60; Whitelam, 1996). To circumvent this misunderstanding, the present text prefers the description ‘promised land’ to refer to the territory within which Israel’s ancient history unfolds (Ausloos, 2001). — Finally, the extent to which the BoC’s tendency to legislate private matters coincides with the maturation of a Yahwist religion specific to Israel should also be noted. This accentuates that the state structure and development of law in Israel runs parallel with the evolution of the Yahwist cult. This, in its turn, cannot be understood apart from contacts with the surrounding foreign peoples (Miller P.D. Jr., 1985, 211-215) with which Israel interacted and which it opposed (hence the abovementioned urge for liberation). “Da also das Besondere sich in der alttestamentlichen Rechtsgeschichte offenkundig ... zeigt, ist zu untersuchen, welche Umstände und Kräfte dazu geführt haben und wie es genau zu fassen ist” (Crüsemann, 1992, 20). 765 “It seems more likely that they (the laws, L.Z.) were intended to provide guidance in more difficult and problematic cases of law” (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 84). “...die Unabgeschlossenheit ihres Lebens unter Kulturlandbedingungen mit seinen gesellschaftlich-ökonomischen Anpassungsproblemen, seinen Unerfülltheiten im Hinblick auf das noch verwehrte Land, seinen Feinden” (Halbe, 1975, 515). 766 Obviously, this growth implies a consolidation of legal material.

317

7.2.1.2 The Redaction of the Book of the Covenant Thus far we have concentrated on examining the basic material contained in the BoC. Now we can examine how, under what conditions and with what intentions the editors’ interwove this diverse material. Analysts are becoming increasing aware of how carefully the redactors did their work. They appear to have used an array of devices following the example and customs found in older oriental legal codes767. It is apparent that the redactors’ devices, however close to being a fine art they may be, are still subservient to the content which, in their view, takes precedence. Scholars have reached no consensus on this, especially when it comes to evaluating the content – the BoC’s operation as legal code – as the redactors intended it768. The redactors appear to have produced a unique769 systematic whole 767

“Erst auf ihrem Hintergrund kann genauer nach dem Vorgang der Komposition des Bundesbuches selbst gefragt werden” (Crüsemann, 1992, 138). “...when once arranged in their present literary complex, they (the various literary units, L.Z.) exhibit an overall structure which must be subject to further investigation” (Paul S.M., 1970, 28). “heterogeneous combination” (Paul S.M., 1970, 28). “Das Bundesbuch ist ein in jeder Hinsicht ausgesprochen buntes Gebilde. Sein zusammengesetzter Charakter ist mit Händen zu greifen. Außer in der inhaltlichen Breite zeigt sich das besonders an den unterschiedlichen Rechtssatzformen” (Crüsemann, 1992, 132). The difference in form and content was sufficiently expressed in the review of the individual precepts and parts of the BoC. “Extrem verschieden beurteilt” (Crüsemann, 1992, 135). There is general wonderment at the refined manner in which the interweaving of the materials in the BoC was achieved. By the same token, nearly everyone has a different appraisal of the devices used. Do these still derive from oral custom or are they literary? (Jackson, 2000b, 225). There is agreement that the BoC borrowed its devices from older oriental codes. There is dispute on how far this dependence reaches and how the influencing took place. Researchers often appear to assess objective facts (e.g. on the scribal schools; Talmon, 1987, 62-63) from a subjective Western perspective. 768 “...was formal in Struktur und Aufbau zutage tritt, erst auf der inhaltlichen Ebene wirklich faßbar” (Crüsemann, 1992, 221). For another view see Jackson, 1988, esp. 241. Because of the heavy dependence on the devices of the surrounding peoples that is increasingly being documented, it is reasonable that the same dependence would be extended to the content of the biblical legal codes, in the first place to the BoC, since this is by far the oldest and was at that time closer to the older oriental codes. It is not surprising that under such circumstances a series of authors starting from the BoC’s literary shape ascribe to it the same legal scope as to the Code of Hammurabi. It is seen as a compilation of judicial precedent and theory for the convenience of judges and law adepts. In short, the BoC is reduced to scholarly reading (Schottroff, 1977, 15-16; Paul S.M., 1970, 3 n. 5, 2326; Lemche, 1996c, 111 n. 12) with limited impact on legal matters. According to these authors, this can be seen in the absence of its repercussions and even the absence of references to it in legal practice (Schottroff, 1977, 16 n. 39). It is certainly not a code in the

318

that tends to nudge the juridical in the direction of the ethical and religious770 however much it may have intended to present a balanced composition and structure. Nevertheless, the equilibrium of all the incorporated material was sufficiently preserved to betoken the typical Torah structure for the first time. Yet a good many scholars proceeded to dismember the Torah equilibrium reached in the BoC by dwelling on either its literary character or one or other constitutive element to such an extent that, by their own admission, they cast doubt upon or even denied the juridical/legal character of the whole771. In doing this they relied on the customary sense of the term. “The conclusion seems to be that our modern model of law, based upon the ‘application’ of statutes in court, is not applicable to the ancient Near East ... at very least, we may conclude that such features suppose a different, more literary audience than that presupposed by the individual law. They make statements about law, as well as law” (Jackson, 19934, 186, 198). 769 “Sie ist durch Sprache und Charakter deutlich von ihrer Umgebung unterschieden und hat in den anderen alttestamentlichen Rechtsbüchern nach Form und Inhalt keine Analogie” (Crüsemann, 1992, 170). The BoC uses the devices found in the surrounding peoples but in an independent manner. It lets tribal community life speak for itself (Otto E., 1991a, 159160). In this way the BoC shows that content has priority. It is thus in the content that the BoC achieves its systematisation and interweaving of law, ethics and religion that forever will serve as a model of the typical Israelite Torah structure. In this sense it is the first visible step toward the later canon. “...aus dem Nacheinander verschiedener Rechtsbücher die eine Tora, der eine Pentateuch, die eine Kanon wurde ... Am Bundesbuch hängt jedes Verständnis von Entstehung und Wesen der tragende Grundlage der Tora ... die ToraStruktur mit ihrer Verbindung von Kult und Recht, Religion und Ethik” (Crüsemann, 1992, 15, 133, 140). “Die weitere Diskussion hat schließlich dazu geführt, von einer Dreiteilung der in das Bundesbuch aufgenommen Materialen zu sprechen, die man als Kultrecht, Jus und Ethos bezeichnet. Mag die gewählte Terminologie auch einige Problematik in sich tragen, so ist damit sachlich doch etwas Richtiges für das Verständnis des Bundesbuches und damit der alttestamentlichen Rechtssammlungen überhaupt ausgesprochen” (Boecker, 1976, 118). 770 This movement cannot be ascertained from the quantity of the material contained in the BoC (in that case the casuistic material would preponderate), nor from its quality (perfection is not reached in ethics nor are the surrounding peoples surpassed). Beside the didactic element, the scope of the programme of the Yahwist/cultic ordinances and their placement are what ultimately carry weight throughout the entire BoC. This provides a prospect for providing an affirmative answer to the insistent question of the extent to which the BoC operated as legal code. 771 Crüsemann (1992, 226-228) correctly disputes E. Otto’s isolation of ethics within the BoC, which resulted in the BoC’s being torn apart as body of law. Ethics definitely has a place within law. Authors also correctly point out that by virtue of a heavy dependence on the legal codes of the surrounding populations, the BoC adopted the customary division of prologue, casuistic regulations and epilogue as it appears, for instance, in the Code of Hammurabi. But the BoC did this in its own way, as it did many other things. While it was

319

lack of references to the BoC in contemporary judicial practice, the meagre size of the BoC and the extensive powers that judges appeared to hold according to the information provided in the Bible. According to these authors, this is evidence that the BoC, like similar codes at that time, had no binding legal force comparable to the legal codes from later and modern periods. At most it would have had a pedantic/didactic purpose. The objection can be raised against this that the juridical character of a legal collection cannot first and foremost be deduced from its practical the custom among the surrounding peoples to view the parts of this division as separate compartments (Paul S.M., 1970, 101), the BoC made perceptible changes by using devices to interweave the three elements. But we may not overestimate the influence of these literary devices. The foundation of judicial practice at that time was more oral than literary. The latter could only exert influence later when applying rhetorical devices during the redactional phase (Watts, 1998). The study of these devices is on the rise in modern research (Wagner A., 2003). Despite the importance of this for the juridical practice and the exercise of authority, it was only one element that contributed to these. — As was said, a series of authors gives precedence to redaction at the expense of the older elements to the extent of ignoring these precursors to concentrate totally on the editorial work. Moreover, they belabour the didactic/literary character of the editorial work to such a degree that they disallow its juridical character. E. Otto’s view is more balanced. As we already noted, he thought it necessary to explain ethics and theologising in such a way that their juridical content was overshadowed. That is why we find him making the following statements: “keine Rechtssätze im strengen Sinne”, “fließende Übergang von Recht zu Ethos”, “keine juridische Funktion mehr” (Otto E., 1988, 36, 38, 56). — The basic principle in current research is almost unavoidably the modern Western concept of juridical efficiency. “...we are still far distant from the modern use of the law book as a permanent record of the authoritative wording of the rules, to be consulted whenever needed by both the subjects of the law and by those charged with his administration” (Jackson, 19934, 195). That is why the authors cited (Jackson, 2000a, 33, recently disassociated himself from this) tend to relapse in the error of imposing the norms of Western thinking on the BoC. In comparing the BoC with the Justinian Code (Lafont S., 1994, 105) and the Code of Hammurabi, they took the constraints of the comparative method too little into account (Jackson, 19934, 185186; idem, 1990, 248-249). They reach too eagerly for arguments such as semiotics (Jackson, 1990, 257-259; idem, 19934; idem, 2000b, 55-92.) that are difficult to apply to a unique code such as the BoC. Conversely, they are insufficiently familiar with the views intrinsic to the legal tradition of the time. “The lack of doctrine in the ancient Near Eastern laws precludes us from discerning their own conceptions on this matter” (Lafont S., 1994, 95). Blank spaces on the archaeological map (Jackson, 19934, 185) are a serious obstacle to comprehending the typical understanding of law at that time (Schottroff, 1977, 13, 19, 20). “Stellen wir die Frage nach der Funktion keilschriftlicher Rechtskorpora für das Verständnis des Alten Testaments, so stehen wir vor dem Problem, daß es bislang keine Darstellung dieser Rechtsgeschichte gibt” (Otto E., 1991a, 139). There is much too little insight in the differences that distinguish contemporary codes from one another (Otto E., 1991a, 151-153).

320

effect772. If anything, it should be inferred from the compilers’ intention when working and above all by taking into account the institutional context within which they worked. Based on their unfaltering Yahwism, the compilers have indisputably hoisted their work to an absolute, divine level so that there could be no doubt that they intended it to have a legally binding force773. As jurists and scribes and unlike the compilers of the Code of Hammurabi, their task was not to provide a literary propaganda instrument to bolster a king’s – the BoC does not mention any king – credit before gods and population so that he could pose as defender of

772

Schottroff, 1977, 15; Jackson, 19934, 187-188; idem, 1990, 244-254. This selectivity is said to be an indication of the BoC’s literary and theoretical character (Carmichael, 1992, 237-238). “One absolute, all-binding, normative law code never existed in Mesopotamia” (Paul S.M., 1970, 9). At any time the kings/legislators could issue edicts or mesarum (Lafont S., 1994, 93) in which existing legal obligations were abrogated or corrected. — Davies P.R. (1998, 90-92) recognises only a literary/didactic function. The reasoning is as follows: If the codes had been sufficiently effective, then the kings’ edicts or provisional juridical intercessions would have been superfluous (Jackson, 19934, 186). “Such a conception is questionable ... the author mistakes the effects and the nature of the law. A legal rule is not defined by its effect on judicial reality” (Lafont S., 1994, 94). Similarly, E. Otto incorrectly posited that a law only deserved that name if it was sanctioned. Crüsemann (1992, 225) correctly replied that a sanction cannot possibly serve as sole criterion for determining what law entails. But then again, his definition of law (“der Rechtscharakter derartiger Bestimmungen letztlich immer davon abhängt, wen und wie weit sie überzeugen”: Crüsemann, 1992, 226) is incomplete and thus insufficient. Even then the exercise of juridical authority consisted of several elements. 773 “Consequently the nature of a legal act depends on its institutional origin ... such reasoning may sound tautological: law is given by the one who has the power to do it. However and contrary to all appearances, this analysis defines the limit and at the same time the peculiar nature of the legal provision as a source of law among others” (Lafont S., 1994, 95). The biblical texts, including the BoC, provide sufficient information for this purpose. “...the biblical authors have provided us with a wealth of material which informs us of their views about law and legal administration” (Jackson, 19934, 185). We should also recall the primarily oral framework within which judicial practice took place. — For the redactors, YHWH serves as the God and legislator of his people Israel. They let him speak directly in this role. All aspects of the BoC legislation are pervaded by and oriented toward the dependent status of individual and nation on YHWH in the cult at the sites where YHWH reveals himself. Many see the Yahwist/divine character of the BoC as their most typical characteristic (Greenberg, 1986; Schottroff, 1977, 27-29). It determines the juridical nature of this legislation as well as its binding structure (not its practical effect) in a different way, e.g. not in the short term as is customary in modern legislation. For another view see: Crüsemann, 1992, 226, who makes this juridical nature totally dependent on the power of the various measures to convince.

321

justice. The BoC’s redactors spoke for YHWH774 as lord and protector of his people in service of the justice that he promised to give them, admittedly conditionally. All this takes shape in the BoC Torah structure that, besides ethics, wisdom, didactics and cult, also carries with it an inevitable juridical structuring of the national community. Yahwism is concerned with the welfare and identity of this local national community775 and as such is indispensable for the survival of Israel, in the view of the Yahwists. That is why the BoC’s Yahwist redactors concentrated so earnestly on ensuring that their legal work would provide a structure for and would fulfil the needs of the entire population as it was locally776, and 774

The dearth of references to the king does not prove his absence but does demonstrate his weak position in the system at the time the BoC was compiled. His grasp on local judicial procedure was apparently so limited that he had no room for initiative. “So sehr es der Durchsetzung einiger Forderungen des Gesetzes diente daß der König seine Autorität und Machtsbefugnis im Staate Juda in seinen Dienst stellte, so wenig konnte doch von Staats wegen das Ganze des Gesetzes in die Wirklichkeit umgesetzt werden, da es eben gar nicht als Staatsgesetz gemeint war”, Noth cited in Halbe, 1975, 524. This means that the BoC’s redactors had room to manoeuvre on a higher political level and, if anything, had to take into account the local, rural judicial procedure. This is a typical situation for a segmentary national community where the cult centres could exert weighty authority. “Die Verfasser des Bundesbuches sprechen ... im Namen und im Auftrag Gottes ...” (Crüsemann, 1992, 207). 775 “Eben darum eignet (das Privilegrecht as recorded in the BoC, L.Z.) sich zur Grundlage eines Rechtsbuchs das mit der Notwendigkeit entsteht, die innere Konflikte dieser ‘Rechtsgemeinschaft’ zu regulieren und schließlich ihre Identität selbst zu behaupten” (Halbe, 1975, 505). For another view see Fitzpatrick-McKinley (1999, 81-177, 181) who bases the legislative character solely on the elite scribes and their tradition. 776 This calls to mind mainly to the social ordinances contained in Ex. 22:21-31; 23:10-16. “Das Bundesbuch ist mit den Problemen der Gemeinschaft erwachsen, die als Trägergemeinschaft jenes Privilegrechts durch die darin gestaltete Jahweerziehung konstituiert gewesen ist” (Halbe, 1975, 503). “Early Israelite society was egalitarian” (Cross, 1998, 27). Without Israel being mentioned by name, except perhaps in Ex. 34:27, the BoC always imagines one nation as a whole (this is still a local entity and not the sizable, centralised body that Dt. has in mind) (Halbe, 1975, 503, 518 n. 12; For another view see: Epzstein, 1983, 14). This uses speech in the 2nd pers. pl., in contrast with that in the 2nd pers. sing. used in the ‫( משפטים‬Crüsemann, 1992, 231, 233), as is the case for all the codes in the Pentateuch (Epzstein, 1983, 176). “Sie ist stofflich auf einen relativ engen überlieferungsgeographischen Horizont beschränkt, enthält Vorschriften, die nie oder erst viel später gesamt israelitisch Geltung erlangten (Bündnisverbot, Vernichtungsvorschriften, Spezialbestimmungen über Opfer und Abgaben), rechnet in der Grundschicht nicht einmal mit der Gegebenheit ‘Israel’ und sucht bei alledem doch eine Grundsätzlichkeit, die allen lokalen oder gruppenbezogenen Partikularismus verbietet: zugunsten des reinen Personenverbands derer, die Jahweh verehren. Mit dieser inneren Spannung aber mußte der Text entstehen, wenn er entstand, wie wir annehmen. ‘Israel’ aber auch Jahweh als ‘Gott

322

this in accordance with the long-established yet growing tradition of being one community777. The redactors of the BoC felt called to strengthen this Israels’ war noch im Werden” (Halbe, 1975, 518). Schoors (1998, 212) noted that the measures in the BoC on behalf of the poor are derived from “Ansprüche des Armen als Teil des Volksganzen”. Thus much earlier than Dt.-Dtr, the BOC’s redactors adopt the position that places all particular traditions under the single identity of YHWH and Israel. “...die Berufung auf die Einzigkeit Jahwehs als den inneren Grund aller Einzelgebote” (Halbe, 1975, 519). “La plupart des histoires sont des histoires sur Jahweh et comme telles critères de canonicité avant le canon” (Smend, 1982, 70; Zimmerli, 1982, 81). This conclusion, first reached by Noth, is amazing beyond words: there was sufficient variance in Israel, including the polarity between rich Israel and Judah (most authors situate the origin of the ‫ משפטים‬in Judah and the Yahwist precepts in Israel), and the gods were numerous. This was a conscious effort toward unity that created an identity for Israel. At any rate, that was Dt.Dtr’s intention (Blenkinsopp, 1992, 135) in enlarging the profile of the major overarching personages (Jacob, 1975, 111; Auld, 1983, 16-23; Seitz, 1990; idem, 1989; Porter, 1982, 25). But this does not mean that they lacked all historical background (Clements, 1975, 5872; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 74; Cross, 1973, 91-111, 226), although there were probably no written models (Vorlage) (Römer, 1990; Lohfink, 1991d; Ackroyd, 19763, 93-94; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 63; Brekelmans, 1979, 38). “Ce noyau de tradition a joué, dans une large mesure, dans l’ancien Israël, le rôle que les anciens mythes de création et les autres mythes des origines ont joué dans d’autres sociétés. Il fournissait une identité commune, une histoire communément partagée, dans les termes desquelles se trouvaient dévoilées les origines du peuple, sa vie présente et ses futures possibilités” (Harrelson, 1982, 31; Reventlow, 1982, 135-137). The redactors of the BoC seem to have followed this canonising much earlier in the juridical domain specific to it. The circumstance that this need for canonical/institutional unity was felt earlier in the area of law than in that of history/theology is logical. It follows the same sequence as in the old law: first the problem arises; this specific case triggers an explanation that serves as foundation for a legal principle that is later expanded with a historical/theological justification. The collective compulsion to evade external oppression could have served as basis for the historically grown unity among the Israelites in both Israel and Judah, In this sense, the association with the extra-biblical Apîru (Jagersma, 1990b, 25-29; Lemche, 1988, 25-29; Lemche, 1988, 133) is insightful. However, the Apîru issue remains moot (Gottwald, 1993, 170-171; idem, 1997, 23; Sparks, 1998b). 777 “...die ... mögliche potentielle Einbeziehung aller freien Männer” (Crüsemann, 1992, 222). The Yahwist cult cultivated this sense of community, expressed in such matters as blood vengeance (Stolz, 1994, 41-42) at the ‫מקום‬. In this way, the bond that had arisen in the past was tightened despite all diversity. This bond gradually came to distinguish Israel from the non-Israelite population. “Wir sehen dies Israel als eine immer noch recht lose Assoziation von Stämmen, die sich aufgrund der (im einzelnen hier nicht fraglichen) Vorgeschichte als untereinander nicht fremd, sondern Dritten gegenüber verwandt erkennen” (Halbe, 1975, 515). In this way, Yahwism collected Israel’s population and gradually unified it so that YHWH’S unicity and absoluteness gradually had to assume more vigorous shape within Yahwism. “Die Blutrache entstammt einem Rechtsdenken, das völlig an der Gruppe orientiert ist ... Kollektiva stehen sich gegenüber, die als Einheiten leiden und handeln. Gruppen werden verantwortlich gemacht und übernehmen bedenkenlos die

323

community in two ways. The first way was by binding it more closely via the historical relationship with YHWH778. The social and cultic measures were the practical signs of this. The second way was that the BoC’s redactors introduced defensive measures as protection against external threat. These were based on the notion that there were external threatening influences against which they had to make a stand779. The practical consequences of this apprehension are found in several tenets intended to raise a dam against this external danger. The redactors of the BoC used the scribal literary modalities that the rich tradition of the surrounding peoples offered them when they created legislation that was remarkably individual and typically Israelite. The Yahwist theologising and historicising780 had greatest impact on the Verantwortung” (Boecker, 1976, 28). Of course, the general participation in judicial procedure did not include persons without rights such as foreigners (Crüsemann, 1992, 214215). But the involvement of the community did apply to the execution of a sentence, such as stoning (De Vaux, 1962, 283): The sentence was carried out collectively as it was pronounced collectively. It thus becomes understandable that the tribe or community was the body that traditionally determined the legal principles at play in judicial procedure. Yet the individualisation that will be felt in the conflict between Ezekiel and Jeremiah is already presaged in Ex. 23:2. 778 These historical allusions are rare and seldom explicit in the BoC. “Ein auffallender Zug des Textes ist die Tatsache, daß sowohl die grundlegende Gottesbeziehung, aus der heraus die Gebote und Weisungen ergehen ... nicht erwähnt werden ... Das Fehlen kann aber nur heißen, daß die göttlichen Weisungen aus einer für völlig selbstverständlich gehaltenen Beziehung kommen und daß die Beziehung so eindeutig und so ungebrochen ist, daß ihre Geltung ohne jeden Hinweis auf mögliche Folgen feststeht” (Crüsemann, 1992, 170). Later Dt.-Dtr used the covenant formula more explicitly (Halbe, 1975, 523), which did not prevent growth in the theological principles based on the creation relationship (Davidson, 19934) and the rise of a pre-Dtr notion of the covenant relationship. The fact that Yahwism was stronger in the Kingdom of Israel, in part because of the greater number of Yahwist cult places (Zwickel, 1994), may have precipitated the rise of the tradition of entry into the covenant in Shechem (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 82). 779 Recent history of religion now presents this threat of syncretism more realistically than in the past. 780 As was noted, the theologising is especially noticeable in the YHWH’S speech couched in the 1st pers. sing. This is distinct from the more original passages that speak of ‫ האלהים‬in the 3rd person. “Zweifellos am auffallendsten ist aber der Wechsel zwischen Gottesrede und Rede über Gott ... All das spricht dafür, daß eine ältere Grundlage von Gott in 3. Person geredet hat und diese dann durch den Beginn und durch andere Ergänzungen in eine Gottesrede verwandelt wurde” (Crüsemann, 1992, 146). The Yahwist divine speech in the 1st pers. inspired the redactors drafting of the cultic and social laws that encompass the BoC. “Das Anliegen der Rechtsvereinheitlichung auf der Grundlage eines durch den Jahweglauben bestimmten Rechtsverständnisses mag dann zur Konzeption des Bundesbuches geführt haben” (Boecker, 1976, 124). The central focus of this theologising

324

content. Since their work is very primitive when compared with subsequent legal codes found in Dt., it is to be expected that the inclination toward religion and ethics will be more strongly felt as Yahwism unfolds and takes hold in Israel’s public life781. If the BoC was somewhat off-target and open to later improvement and even if the Dtr had to adapt it soon to new circumstances, this was not due to the redactors’ lack of effort and proficiency but to the dynamic of Yahwism782. is the implicit covenant notion built upon the unique relationship between YHWH and Israel to which the subsequent Dt.-Dtr redaction could attach the explicit entry into the covenant (Ex. 24) and its framing Sinai theophany (Ex. 19-20). “Die Verlagerung, die stattfindet und die das Bundesbuch zu einem Wort der Vergangenheit macht, das in der Gegenwart Beachtung sucht, das sich auf eine Autorität der Vergangenheit stützt, um die gefährdete der Gegenwart zu autorisieren, spiegelt sich gerade in den Formulierungen des sogenannten Anhangs. Diese für die Geschichte der Tora entscheidende Wende hat im Bundesbuch Spuren hinterlassen” (Crüsemann, 1992, 213). Examples of this are Ex. 22:21; 23:9,14,18. The BoC’s editors do not speak of Moses (Crüsemann, 1992, 229). The divine word descends from heaven (“vom Himmel her”: Boecker, 1976, 125). YHWH’S loftiness is apparent from Ex. 23:20 where he addresses his people through an angel in preaching style alternating the 2nd pers. sing. or pl. depending on the cultic content of the parlance. A start was also made (Ex. 23:28-33) on a fictive/historical presentation without yet using Dt.’s ‘present’ (Crüsemann, 1992, 233). Only later in Dt.-Dtr did Moses play an important role in historicising and enlisting human events in Yahwism (Coats, 1988). It is the expression of an experience of transcendent revelation in history and through people (Kilian, 1999c). 781 Since Israelite law is highly attuned to growing Yahwism, law and the Yahwist view of God will change as social and political relations evolve. (“Das alttestamentliche Israel ist in seiner Gotteserkenntnis nicht stehengeblieben. Jahwehs Königtum wuchs und änderte sich mit den neuen Erfahrungen und Einsichten seines Volkes” [Jeremias, 1987, 165]), as will the notion of turning to other gods. Notably, it is a matter of Israel’s recording how YHWH can unexpectedly act in different ways in history (Boecker, 1976, 116-117; Schmitt, 1979, 141 n. 12; Barthel, 1997, 475, 478). Given its ample place in the OT, YHWH’S ability to change can be put forward as a theological centre (Reventlow, 1982, 145-147), that does not appear chronologically before Dtr (Blenkinsopp, 1999, 105). “So einlinig entwicklungsgeschichtlich, wie es oft dargestellt wird, hat sich die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnisses nicht ereignet” (Boecker, 1976, 125). 782 These deficiencies found ample resonance in the prophetic tradition that seems to have developed by the time of the BoC. The prophets’ religious conviction made no objection to sowing the seeds of change: for them every change (challenge) that YHWH requires is sacred. See below section 7.1.2. For Jackson (19934, 188) the revision that the BoC sparked indicated that law was neither sacrosanct nor binding. This adaptation will be treated more fully in section 7.2.2. — Presupposing that the redactors of the BoC witnessed the decline of the monarchy in Israel and Judah as a result of the Assyrian menace – which is not so improbable – it would have induced them to turn even further away from this institution and to seek refuge all the more eagerly for their reform in local institutions such as the ‫מקום‬, where it could design a Yahwist constitution that would shift strict Yahwism from a minority movement and minority opposition into a leading current. They certainly did not

325

7.2.2 The Book of the Covenant in Deuteronomy Study of the redaction of the BoC shows the extent to which it is related to the Dtr’s Dt. In many ways, their very similar language and their common interest accentuate that the redactors of both collections lived in proximity in time and environment and melded in ways still to be discovered, even though a clear difference between the two could still be perceived783. It is certain that the Dtr redactors of Dt. used the BoC intensively in their own stop with rejecting foreign influences and pursuing a nationalistic realism like that of Jehu (Schmitt, 1972, 139-152). The prophets were the driving force. “die Forderungen der religiösen Opposition des Nordreichs” (Crüsemann, 1992, 199). “Es siegt darin die oppositionelle, dem Ausgangspunkt nach: Untergrundbewegung ... Und sie siegt, als der Zusammenbruch der bestehenden Ordnung das radikale Gegenbild verlangt” (Halbe, 1975, 526). 783 Otto E., 1999, 359. There was little room in a small country like Israel to ensure that groups and tendencies could remain completely separated, so the argument that there was a shared range of ideas or idiom is plausible. “We ought not to think of priests, prophets, and sages in terms of watertight compartments and differentiate between them so sharply that all contact between them would have been impossible” (Brekelmans, 1979, 36). This was certainly the case for D and P. “Darüber hinaus läßt sich beobachten, daß die von dieser Redaktion rezipierten und redigierten Texte im Grundbestand eindeutig vordeuteronomistisch sind, gleichzeitig aber bereits in eine Fluchtlinie gehören die zum Deuteronomium hinführt ... Unter traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive hatten wir diese Redaktion als ‘protodeuteronomistisch’ bezeichnet. Sie liegt zeitlich und traditionsgeschichtlich vor dem Deuteronomium, gleichzeitig aber auf einer Entwicklungslinie, die zum Deuteronomium hinführt” (Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 285). “...move in the direction of its (Dt.’s, L.Z.) concerns ... Indeed certain didactic, theological and ethical expansions within the covenant code ... betray such an affinity to Deuteronomy that they are labelled ‘proto-Deuteronomic’” (Levinson, 1997, 12, 147). These findings are consistent with the studies on the stages of evolution within D that have been on the rise for some time and that are attendant on a new vision on the evolution of the notion of covenant (Halbe, 1975, 525). Contrary to the idea of a gradual evolution in this area, Halbe (1975, 523) sees only one dilemma: either the simultaneity of, or the revival of an intellectual current that had long smouldered underground. It is increasingly being recognised that the two currents influenced one another (Levinson, 1997, 11-13), but views differ on how this happened. It seems established that Dt.-Dtr, already being compiled (Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 325; in this capacity, Dt. differs from the previous proto-Dtr phase), left its traces in the Pentateuch and transmitted the BoC as a true book of the covenant (Lohfink, 1990f, 91-113; Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 331-357, 417; Otto E., 1988, 4-8). “So nahe sie aber der deuteronomistischen Sprache auch stehen, sie sind gerade nicht typisch dafür und weisen gewichtige Differenzen in Stil und Inhalt auf” (Crüsemann, 1988, 35). In sum: proto-Dt. lets the BoC operate at half power. The other half of the BoC is corrected and enlarged (Fohrer, 1989, 84).

326

codification, although this cannot be demonstrated conclusively with literary arguments784. The fact of this profound relationship is sufficiently important to consider at length. The BoC appears to have been an important source for the Dtr single narrative as a whole and for Dt. more than the rest. This makes the comparison between the BoC and Dt. extremely useful in studying the process of the canon’s genesis. So it is not surprising that Dt.’s use of the BoC is increasingly being studied. This extends from detailed comparisons to studies covering the entirety of the material incorporated in the collections. This permits an analysis of the confluence in Dt. of loyalty to the BoC’s tradition785 with its occasionally drastic revision. In this way, Dt.’s generally recognised dynamic loyalty to preceding tradition is confirmed and illustrated by its use of the BoC. Only then does it appear how complex the relationship is between the redactors of the BoC and those of the Dtr.’s Dt. Literarily, the Dtr redactors of Dt. – clearly inspired by the surrounding peoples, particularly the Assyrian legal culture – worked with scribal intensity. Their work was not restricted to amendment (Fortschreibung)786. It moved on to a true revision of the BoC 784

The redactors of Dt.-Dtr had their own Sitz-im-Leben. “Der Umbruch der Josia-Zeit war so tiefgreifend, daß eine Reformierung des Bundesbuches durch unmittelbare Fortschreibung innerhalb dieser Rechtssatzsammlung nicht mehr möglich war, sondern es einer neuen Sammlung des Deuteronomiums bedürfte die das Bundesbuch auslegt und ergänzt” (Otto E., 1995b, 380). “...besteht eine unübersehbare Affinität all dieser Texte zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Literatur, und es ist das Deuteronomium in seinen ältesten Schichten, das zum erstenmal auf breiterer Basis die in ihnen ausgebildete Tradition eigenständig reflektiert” (Halbe, 1975, 523). For another view see: Otto E., 1993b, 236, 247. 785 For a bibliographical survey see Lohfink, 1996, 127-128 n. 4. In that regard we can mention the following: Levinson, 1997; Otto E., 1993b; idem, 1999; Lohfink, 1996; idem, 1990f; Japhet, 1986. The most extensive study is that of Otto E., 1999. Levinson (1997) published a rather elaborate, but not totally comparable study. Excellent detailed studies are: Japhet, 1986 (on the law governing slavery as contained in the biblical codes; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 87, also treats only the slavery laws in Dt. and the BoC) and Lohfink, 1991i. “Die Reformulierung der Tradition in Gestalt des Bundesbuches setzt diese keineswegs außer Kraft. Vielmehr sollen die Gebote des Bundesbuches im Horizont des dtr Programms gelesen durchgängig weiter gelten, ja müssen weiterhin gültig sein” (Otto E., 1999, 376). It is quite possible that Dt. is dependent on a BoC model that is older than the one known from our present Pentateuch but that has not been preserved (Lohfink, 1996, 128). 786 Otto E., 1993b, 268; idem, 1999, 203-217. Here again we must warn against an overly subjective, Western mindset that would impose an order on the composition of Dt. that does not take into account the circumstances (Rofé, 1988a) in which it arose. The amendment (Fortschreibung) model “paßt sicher besser zur konservativen Grundeinstellung antiker

327

using methods adapted to its design, such as new ordinances, displacements, additions, omissions and changes787 in the text. The Dtr redaction of Dt. relied heavily in this on its own pronounced hermeneutics788. Working from this personal insight, it perceptibly altered the original model with historical, theological and social reasoning. Didactics and homiletics were so richly interwoven in the legal texts that they permeate the entire legal construction789. The legal content could not Menschen als die heutige, von evolutionistischem Grundgefühl gespeiste Manier, traditionelle Erbstücke einfach zu entsorgen und durch unerprobte neue Plastikprodukte zu ersetzen. Es gab damals keine Wegwerfgesellschaft. Deshalb wird sich das Fortschreibungsmodell’ in der Tat auch oft an den Befunden bewähren” (Lohfink, 1996, 143). Yet the Dt.’s redactors seem to have reworked the original BoC so thoroughly that there is no longer any question of Fortschreibung. 787 The conclusion that this is a true revision is unavoidable given the legislation dealing with slavery that the BoC and Dt. have in common (Japhet, 1986, 70-74, 82-86; Lohfink, 1996, 149-166). — Lohfink, 1996, 151-154. ‘Kunstvollen Strukturierung’ (Otto E., 1993b, 261). ‘Concentrically redacted’ (Otto E., 1994a, 193). “by citing selected key-words ... highly formalized genre ... The Deuteronomic authors skilfully break up and recast the syntax ... the degree of technical scribal sophistication involved is remarkable” (Levinson, 1997, 5, 15, 32-33). Otto E., 1994a, 194-195; 1995b, 379. ‘Umordnungen’ (Lohfink, 1996, 151-152). “...die Reihenfolge der in beiden Rechtsbüchern behandelten Rechtsmaterien nur selten übereinstimmt” (Boecker, 1976, 157; Lohfink, 1996, 154-165). “The polyvalency of its transformations is striking” (Levinson, 1997, 34). 788 “hermeneutischen Schlüssel” (Otto E., 1999, 375). In this case (the biblical texts use difference types of belief systems to integrate shifting images: Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 149158. For another view see Heger (2005, 331-333) who interprets the theological concept at the basis of the biblical laws as unchangeable. E. Otto thought the hermeneutical key should be sought in the centralisation of the cult (Otto E., 1999, 274). “Sehr klare rhetorische Zielsetzung” (Lohfink, 1996, 159). “...the legislative and the hermeneutical were inseparable of each other” (Levinson, 1997, 52). Dt.-Dtr introduces an emphatically different interpretation as a result of a new development (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 101). “Eine veränderte sozialgeschichtliche Situation ... erkennt man daran, daß jetzt offensichtlich auch die Frau als grundbesitzfähig und damit rechtsfähig angesehen wird” (Boecker, 1976, 158). Levinson stresses Dt.-Dtr’s own hermeneutics (Levinson, 1997, 3-22, 144-157). He reduces this distinctive hermeneutics to the intended centralisation of the cult without taking into account the separate purification of the cult as response to syncretism. 789 Dt.-Dtr does not confine itself to lemnatic transformations of the BoC texts Levinson, 1997, 34-43, 75-81). it is a matter of “Erweiterungen ... Veränderungen ... die Konstruktion des Gesetzes als ganzen ... Neuorientierungen ... Umbau des legislativen Gesichtspunktes ... die Perspektive des Gesetzes ... wechselt” (Lohfink, 1996, 159). Von Rad had already seen in Dt.’s purported centralisation formula that “eigentlich nur wie eine Neufassung der Altarformel des Bb” (Lohfink, 1991i, 169). After meticulous research, Lohfink can not only confirm that, but can also demonstrate in detail how, Dt.-Dtr achieved a thorough reorientation of the original text by changing just a few words a wavering between a simple preference for the temple in Jerusalem to its exclusive (Lohfink, 1991i, 168-173). But we

328

keep step790. It is not surprising that in reviewing this typical new input from the Dtr one gets the impression that, contrary to all appearances, the Dtr redactors of Dt. only used the BoC model to set it aside whenever they could put their own view in the place791. Yet all things considered, much of the BoC was kept in the Dtr’s Dt.792 Without the achievements of the BoC, the theological text and authoritative content of Dt. would have been impossible793. The later redactors of the Pentateuch wanted to show the must challenge the author on the question of the evolution of the centralisation formula from a longer to a shorter form (Keller, 1996, 43 n. 211). — Dt.-Dtr greatly sped historicising in its emphasis on Moses. Before that, the law in its entirety would have been ascribed to YHWH (Lohfink, 1995a). Others think that the Moses already figured in the original proto-Dt. (Hossfeld, 2000). Otto E. (1995b, 388-389) and Boecker (1976, 159) accentuate the theological orientation. “Die in ihm sichtbar werdende humanitäre und soziale Ausrichtung ist auch sonst im Deuteronomium immer wieder zu beachten” (Boecker, 1976, 159). However, this humanitarian tendency has its nationalistic limits. “Das Gesetz ist zu einer einzigen großen Paränese ... gemacht worden” (Lohfink, 1996, 161). “Die einzelnen Teile des Gesetzeskorpus sind allerdings in unterschiedlichem Außmaß der paränetischen Durchformung unterworfen worden” (Boecker, 1976, 157). “...bei der Übernahme von der Bundesbuchvorlage ist nicht nur das Detail der Formulierung in den einzelnen Sätzen verändert worden, sondern auch die Gesamtkonstruktion” (Lohfink, 1996, 162). 790 “Das dtn Reformprogramm des geschwisterlichen Ethos ist vom Recht geschieden. Es ist vor keiner Rechtsinstitution einklagbar” (Otto E., 1999, 377). “Die angesprochenen Besonderheiten der deuteronomischen Rechtssammlung machen hingänglich deutlich, daß hier die juristische Kategorien weitgehend verlassen sind” (Boecker, 1976, 162). 791 Levinson’s (1997) whole argument is aimed at this. “...in substantive terms, they (their innovations, L.Z.) abrogate it (BoC, L.Z.)” (Levinson, 1997, 33). Zenger (20066, 146) seems to agree with him. Otto offers a more balanced wording: “Im älteren Gesetz des Bundesbuches als des gebenden kommt dieser Perspektive die höhere Dignität zu als dem deuteronomischen Gesetz als dem nehmenden” (Otto, E., 2003, 48). 792 Otto, E., 1994a, 195 n. 118. According to Boecker (1976, 157), half of the BoC, including the commandment on the weekly day of rest (Otto E., 1999, 376), was reformulated. For a complete list of the reformulated passages see: Fohrer, 196911, 187. Even when additions were made, the original text was the starting point indispensable for a proper understanding of what was added. “The addition gives further direction to that which is there, and cannot be properly understood independently of this” (Clements, 1977, 53 n. 15). 793 “...the authors and editors of the legal corpus did not create lex ex nihilo. They confronted existing legal texts ... they may have been only prestigious texts ... but they were nonetheless texts that could not simply be ignored or dispensed with. The authors of Deuteronomy, in one way or another, had to take account of these texts and justify their departure from their norms ... The authors of Deuteronomy employed the covenant code in other words, not merely as a textual source but as a resource, in order to purchase the legitimacy and authority that their reform agenda otherwise lacked. The reuse of the older material lent their innovations the guise of continuity with the past and consistency with

329

continuing value of the BoC even after Dt. not only by reconstructing the original version of the BoC in Ex., they even assigned the BoC the most prominent place in the Sinai tradition while Dt. was literally and figuratively demoted to a second law794.

7.3 The Prophetic Input in the Deuteronomistic Opus795 7.3.1 The Issue The Dtr single narrative, which relied on existing legal tradition esp. the BoC, sought inspiration in more than the law. It also assigns an important role in its historical narrative to the prophets796. Moreover, it ascribes a prophetic role to the ‫ ספר התורה‬contained in Dt. and for which the Dtr single narrative is intended as a buttress. Hence the care given to the traditional law. The authors of Deuteronomy cast their departure from tradition as its reaffirmation, their transformation and abrogation of conventional religious law as the original intent of the law” (Levinson, 1997, 5, 21). The law on asylum is a case in point. “Das dtn Asylgesetz bedient sich der Autorität des entsprechendes Gesetzes des Bundesbuches und gibt sich als dessen Reformulierung und Reformierung zu erkennen” (Otto E., 1993b, 253). This means above all that Dt. confirms completely the BoC’s binding legal scope. “Die Flüche (Dtn 28:20-24) dagegen lassen keinen Zweifel daran daß die Einhaltung des dtn. Es ist vor keiner Rechtsinstitution einklagbar” (Otto E., 1999, 377). At the same time, it is made clear here that there is at least a shift veiled by a variety of camouflage methods. “...the authors camouflaged the radical and often subversive nature of their innovations” (Levinson, 1997, 6). Levinson used the following terms for this: ‘usurpation’ (22), ‘manipulation (30), ‘pseudepigraphy’ (34), ‘pseudocitation’ (42). All this allows the conclusion that Dt. could not have established its own authority without the BoC and its preceding authoritative traditions; that is why it goes so far in its borrowing and emulation. Dt. was especially dependent on the BoC’s content. Very much of its editorial structure was adopted (Otto E., 1999, 351-364). “Structure originates in the corresponding structure in BC” (Otto E., 1994a, 193). The Torah concept (Otto E., 1995b, 380) and the heavy scribal, wisdom slant (6.4.4; Crüsemann, 1988, 532-533; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 100101) were borrowed from the BoC. Dt. even owes details such as the idea of the fallow ground (Otto E., 1994b, 51) to the BoC; this is also true of the commandment on the altar that also applies unreservedly for Dt. (Otto E., 1993b, 349-350). For Dt. the BoC is ‘Vorbild’, ‘rezipiert’, ‘Setzt voraus’ (Otto E., 1993b, 271-273). It is thus a sign of bias that Levinson, 1997, focused solely on what Dt. changed in the BoC when determining their relationship. 794 Levinson, 1997, 153; Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 1990, 411-413. 795 The material in 7.3 is a more extensive explanation of what was discussed in 6.4.3 on the prophetic bearing of ‫ ספר התורה‬in the Dtr single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs). 796 For another view see: Blenkinsopp, 2000, 24, who stresses the evaluation of the history of the kings.

330

demarcation of the status of the prophet in Dt. 18:9-22. This status is perhaps the most tangible indication of the way in which prophetic influence was exerted via the Dtr. Yet this proves to be only the proverbial tip of the iceberg announcing the prophets’ more hidden influences on the Dtr. To identify the proper shape and scope of the input from the prophetic tradition in the Dtr single narrative it is necessary to seek further than the prophet’s constrained status as described in Dt., and the attention that the Dtr devoted to prophets in their single narrative. We must use the most reliable information available to pierce through to prophecy as it developed historically and influenced the Dtr opus797. The exact facts relating to the downfall of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, the fall of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah in 587 BCE and the restoration that took shape after the rise of the Persian Empire after 538 BCE offer a respectable level of purchase. They indicate exactly how and when a decisive turn unfolded in the profiling of prophecy in Israel. Since the prophecies of doom, such as those by Amos and Hosea seem to have been fulfilled in 722 and those of Micah, Isaiah and Jeremiah in 587, the foundation for the authority of such prophecies seems firm798. In their

797

These historical facts relating to prophecy in Israel as contained in the Dtr texts are meagre and uncertain. Yet this is no reason to avoid an investigation of historical prophecy in its oldest form (Laato, 1996, 6-7). However important they may be, historical data on the rise and evolution of prophecy in Israel are only one means for gauging the underlying process of the canon’s genesis. The objective is neither to reconstruct the course of prophecy nor to recuperate the ipsissima verba of the prophets, rather it is to single out the formation of the prophetic tradition and its contribution to the whole of what later became canonised literature. When we consciously start from the role of prophets we do so on the basis of the final text. It relies consistently on prophets for its tradition. What this actually means must be seen from the further study of the prophetic texts. This study can certainly not be reduced to that of the historicity of these prophets. It is a matter of gauging the value and the scope of what is mentioned in the final text and this via the long and complex path that the tradents have followed. Much study is now being given to the path ‘vom prophetischen Wort zur prophetischen Tradition’ (Lange, 2002) “Dabei geht es nicht um ein rein historisches Interesse: zur Debatte steht zugleich die Autorität jenes Propheten, dessen Verkündigung den Prozeß immer neuer Aneignung und Interpretation in Gang gesetzt hat, an dessen Ende das nach ihm benannte Prophetenbuch steht” (Barthel, 1997, 24). 798 Clements, 1977, 50. “Die entscheidende historische Zäsur liegt darum im Jahr 722 v. Chr.” (Kratz, 1997, 19). Other events, such as an earthquake in the case of Amos, appear to have had great resonance in the tradition (Dijkstra, 2001, 121). Only then did the population begin to take the rejected prophets of doom seriously (Scharbert, 1969, 72-73), but the reservations regarding their chaotic behaviour continued. The oracles of deliverance spoken

331

critical/affirmative integration of prophecy, the Dtr authors could not do otherwise than take into account the authority emanating from what is now thought of as classic pre-exilic prophecy799. In this way, after having acquired a place within this prophetic circle (7.3.3) and anticipating the contemporary historical and legal traditions (see 7.3.4), this prophecy could exert its influence on the canon process via the Dtr single narrative (see 7.3.5). Before examining that process more closely, we must first glance at the oldest prophecy in Israel (7.3.2) from which pre-exilic prophecy grew and of which it bears unmistakable traces. In this way, the study can combine the facts that the biblical – esp. prophetic – texts offer with the real course of the historical canon process800.

7.3.2 Pre-classical Prophecy The pre-classical prophets left no extant writings. We learn of their activities only indirectly from biblical, primarily historical, texts like those in the Dtr single narrative801. Today, scholars are usually very sceptical by the prophets of doom had a low profile, yet, if not formally, they were still stealthily present as the later tradition correctly noted. 799 The many designations that gradually became used for pre-exilic prophecy (Boecker, 1981, 169-172; Petersen, 1981) reflect a forcefully evolving subjective interest (5.1.1.5.1.2.) in the study as described in Neumann, 1979; Scharbert, 1969; Osswald, 1984; Deist, 1989. The present trend once again indisputably emphasises the later phases and the final form of prophecy (Lemche, 1992; Carroll, 1998; Barton, 1983; Seeligmann, 1978, 254-255; Chapman, 2000, 201, ruled out pre-emptively the contribution of the prophets in favour of the written traditions). Lange, 2002, adopts the same attitude. Yet many researchers keep to the middle path and include equably all stages in the rise and development of the prophetic writings (Zimmerli, 1979a; Clements, 1995). In this way the precursors, i.e. the oldest prophetic tradition, including the supposedly ipsissima verba of the prophets manage to retain attention. 800 This certainty is constricted, as has become evident the critical enquiry in recent research. Nevertheless, the prophetic texts continue to offer reliable information on many points Laato, 1996, 1-21). Barton (1983, 1) gives the impression that he is not allowed to broach the historical course of prophecy for reasons of certainty. It is, indeed, so that the historical study of prophecy may perhaps lead to many uncertainties and much disagreement. But this may not quench the fervour for further historical research (7.1.2). In a study like the present one, we can only pursue hypothetical certainty. This is achieved by coordinating as much information as possible. Apart from that, there are many points of agreement in the research (Scharbert, 1969, 88). 801 Information on this can be found in Neumann, 1979, 15-24; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 53-59; Ringgren, 1982b; Gordon, 1993. Today authors tend less to venture studying this period of prophecy. It is understandable given the scarce and historically unreliable information. Yet

332

about the historical value of such traditions which can be characterised as legends. Meanwhile, it has been sufficiently established that these texts had a mainly theological inspiration and can only be used to a very limited degree for reconstructing the oldest prophecy in Israel802. Yet they do provide historical data, however constricted it may be. First of all, credibility may be attributed to the activity of Elijah, Elisha, Samuel and possibly even Balaam, contrary to Abraham, Moses, Miriam and Deborah803. Further, it is certain that they played an important role in the social and religious life of their day. When needed, they asserted themselves before national leaders for whom as royal prophets they played this first chapter in the history of prophecy cannot be disregarded. Classic prophecy could only arise after and on the foundation of this. Like the Dt.-Dtr single narrative, classical prophecy did not develop from thin air. 802 Würthwein (1989, 282) sees the account of the sacrifice in 1 Kgs 18:21-39 can only be seen “...als literarisches Produkt dtn./dtr. Denkens zu begreifen und dementsprechend als Glaubenszeugnis zu interpretieren”. This literary/theological transmutation of historical reality was already noted when developing the profile of the major overarching personages in the history of Israel. Recent criticism presumes that the prophetic legends were added to the Dtr narratives only late, even in the post-exilic period. That has consequences for historical research (Smelik, 1992a, 123-128). This does not prevent identification of older pre-Dtr elements. These show how dependent Dtr was on pre-existing views on such things as the fulfilment of prophecies and the transmission of divine oracles (Thiel, 1991, 159). 803 Rofé, 1988a, 57, 190-191. D. Marcus and W.J. Bergen interpret the Elisha tradition, like that of Jonah, as a criticism of prophecy (Lange, 2002, 33-34). — Samuel’s intervention in the appointment of Saul, by contrast, seems to fit a then current pattern that served as model for the classical prophets’ familiar call narratives (Richter, 1970). From these we can distil a few certain historical details about these personages including their religious inspiration and charisma (Henry, 1969, 3-4; Clements, 1965, 35-36). “But the principal factor in shaping the story and its focal point was the prophet. By virtue of an extraordinary personality, he made a deep impact on his contemporaries which provided the impetus for the literary creation” (Rofé, 1988b, 183). Even the brief dialogues in call narrative of Moses in Ex. 3 can be situated in the context of pre-exilic prophecy (Schmid, 1976, 24). The prophetic legends also contain indications of the socio-political situation of the period (Rofé, 1988b, 7). Of course, they must be handled cautiously. “By reading the document we cannot recreate the historical reality but only one interpretation of that reading” (Rofé, 1996, 54). — On Balaam see Porter, 1982, 25-28; Gnuse, 2000, 204-206. For another view see: Carroll, 1997, 91-95; Smelik, 2006, 95-103. The ostensible political legends with a degree of historical foundation witness to this (Rofé, 1988b, 55-70). Later tradition has artificially moulded many known prophets (Lindblom, 19735, 99). Elisha’s activity can be rather precisely dated between 840 and 800 BCE (Rofé, 1988b, 73-74). While in Israel, prophecy normally played a role critical of the monarchy, in Judah it was largely supportive of the Davidic dynasty (Uffenheimer, 1999, 308-314). In both kingdoms it played a prominent socio-political role and thus should be included as sociological fact in the canon process.

333

a role that often extended from critically supportive to opposition. They even had an influence on national and military decisions804. Beside this, they were active in the cult, but in a role clearly different from that of fulltime cultic functionaries. During this occasional presence, we see the extent to which this oldest prophecy used visionary and ecstatic elements. In this regard, it had much in common with prophecy among neighbouring peoples805. This raises the issue of the distinctive character of this oldest 804

Lindblom, 19735, 74; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 73-77; Rofé, 1988b, 57, 73. Becker (2005, 813) saw the prophets’ role solely as one of support to the monarchy. “Er (Elisha, L.Z.) ... besitzt gute Beziehungen zum Königshaus” (Schmitt, 1972, 173). Contrary to what is usually thought, Elisha seems not to have been King Ahab’s opponent (Schmitt, 1972, 183187; for another view see: Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 71). “The larger prophetic movement had emerged in Israel during the Philistine crisis ... and its history may be seen as a manifold response to various political and religious crises” (Carroll, 1979, 8). To raise a voice critical to the national leaders, the prophets had to adopt a socially independent position. This lot was reserved for the prophets living during the crisis of the later monarchy (Albertz, 1992, 234-235 n. 33-36). This was the case for Amos who purposely referred to his occupation as herdsman (Am. 7:14-15). — On the prophets’ role in affairs of state, see Richter, 1970, 177. “Königsmacher” (Seeligmann, 1978, 265 n. 21). The prophets’ important political role resulted from their strong position when they were asked to speak an oracle in times of crisis, as was the general custom among the surrounding peoples (Barstad, 1993, 51-56). It is not impossible that the deeds of the prophets were first committed to paper by (Schmitt, 1972, 71) and preserved in (Gunneweg, 1959, 81-119; Beckwith, 1988, 40-45) the cult places. The later ordinance found in Dt. 17:18 – that entrusted custody of the original Torah to the Levitical priest – may confirm this; 2 Macc. 2:13-14 refers to the Jerusalem temple’s having a library at a later date (Van der Kooij, 1998, 31). This grants much greater historical credit to the legends about the prophets Elijah and Elisha than to those about other prophets which Dt.-Dtr revised more thoroughly (Wilson, 1980, 192). 805 The cult seems to be the basic historical fact in the legendary stories of Elijah’s sacrifice on Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18:20-40; Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 88; Uffenheimer, 1999, 346-368), that Dtr revised thoroughly (Wilson, 1980, 192). This story may well already indicate the fundamental difference between the priest mediating the tradition of salvation and the prophet who speaks God’s own words. The localisation of the prophetic activities in Gilgal is also historically important for this (Schmitt, 1972, 158-162). This permits us to get an idea of how the ‫ מקום‬operated. The older prophets did not have an intense relationship to the cult (Schmitt, 1972, 170-172). Nevertheless, it is not accidental that even the older prophets operated within socio-political and cultic bounds as they saw fit. It is not very surprising that prophets seem to have been housed in the temple (Fenton, 1996, 135 n. 14). Driven by their divine task, the prophets believed they were entitled to operate in that area where they believed God’s reality unfolded no less than in the immediate socio-political area. They made no distinction in this between socio-political and cultic terrains (Vawter, 1973², 195). — 1 Sam. 9:9 alludes to the visionary practices at that time. Lindblom, 19735, 83-95. The visionary element in Israel is to have been a legacy from the nomadic period. It is prominently present in Amos, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 70-76). — Older research from the history of religion period gave much attention to occurrences of

334

prophecy in Israel. After many discussions on the subject, the observation still stands that only Israel produced prophecy continuously and gave rise to a living tradition, while everywhere else it died out and can be found only in archaeological artefacts. This is also the primary argument for keeping the oldest prophecy in mind when studying subsequent classical prophecy. It builds on the personal impact of the preceding prophets806 and ecstasy (Neumann, 1979, 40-41). This ecstatic element in particular seems to have been adopted from the local population after Israel’s settlement in the Promised Land. Today, authors are often reluctant to include this ecstatic element in their study of prophecy (Wilson, 1996; Levison, 2003). Mistakenly so. Ecstasy is a constantly present element in the prophetic tradition, albeit to a lesser degree. It was gradually transformed into a method that the prophets used to make the transcendent message comprehensible. Hence Aaron’s paradigmatic role as spokesman for ecstatic Moses (Fenton, 2001, 131; Laato, 1996, 149208). — On the role of ecstasy in the prophecy of the surrounding peoples, see Ringgren, 1982b; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 53-59; Lindblom, 19735, 1-32; Gordon, 1993; Naumann, 1991, 161; Hardmeier, 1988, 122; Uffenheimer, 1999, 9-88, 480-501. There had long been a tendency, based on utopian bias, to assume that the character of prophecy in Israel was something exceptional (Gunneweg, 1959, 15-16). Freeman, 19736, 15 still considered similarities to surrounding peoples ‘superficial and non essential’. As knowledge about the surrounding peoples increased, it became more difficult to sustain the uniqueness and superior value of prophecy in Israel when faced with the many similarities. “...the more we learn about the non-Israelite version the less wide the gap between it and its Israelite counterparts appears” (Gordon, 1993, 78). Comparison with the surrounding peoples once again shows the limits and opportunities of the comparative method. It is certain that prophecy is a universal occurrence (Overholt, 1996) that exhibits strong similarities (Lindblom, 19735, 32) esp. in clothing (Lindblom, 19735, 66-69). It is thus not surprising that Israel and the peoples surrounding it should exhibit extensive agreements in its oral (Winward, 1968, 19) and ecstatic style (Porter, 1982, 20-24). The continuity in content and function, inside and beyond Israel, can no longer be denied (Petersen, 1991a; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 62; Barstad, 1993, 47-51) despite the equally undeniable differences. The singularity of Israel’s prophecy must be sought in the metamorphosis it brought about in certain aspects of the surrounding people’s customary prophecy (Fenton, 2001, 139; Wilson R.R., 1995, 333). Kratz (2004) sees this metamorphosis as total. In his view this metamorphosis becomes clear in classical prophecy that set up a straw version of its opposite and then projecting it onto the past. This projection is to have come in the place of the now historically unrecognisable early tradition. Von Rad refuted such a arguing from his study of Amos, “Would it not surprise us if t here had been no mention of the tradition in which he (Amos, L.Z.) was most at home?” (Cited in Seitz, 2003, 32) 806 Hardmeier, 1983, 122; Wolff, 1973c, 211-213; Lemche, 1992, 242; Kaiser, 19845, 275; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 62. “...entscheidend bleibt die fortwirkende, zu universaler Ausformung der Glaubensinhalte drängende Kraft der israelitischen Prophetenzeugnisse. Sie ist im Bereich der altorientalischen Umwelt Israels ohne Analogie geblieben” (Henry, 1969, 3). However, this living tradition encompassed the written (Collins, 1993, 13, relies solely on this to stress the particular character of Israel’s prophecy) and the oral form. Style as such does not ground the distinction between prophecy in Israel and among the

335

surrounding peoples; that is the task of its living and future-oriented character, for which the Scriptures are sole an instrument. For another view see: Jeremias, 1996a, 20-33. — Attempting to penetrate to secret experiences (according to: Gunkel, 1979) is a venturesome undertaking. Today it is approached with reservations. Yet these experiences are the indispensable link for the conveyance of prophetic revelation (Gunkel, 1979, 109). They articulate the pious interpretations of events in which YHWH’S intervention can be recognised. “Miracles are phenomena beyond history, belonging to the realm of belief, not of science. For the historian a miracle is an indicator of the intensity of the faith of a religious group in a given period or of the extent to which a community of believers was influenced by the unique personality of a leader” (Rofé, 1988b, 190). The divine dimension can also – and even more so – be recognised in events. The foundation of prophetic deeds lies in all these major and minor events. “In many ways the simple belief that it is God who is causing certain events to take place has provided humankind with the simplest and most basic of reasons for a religious interpretation of the world. It is when such beliefs are pressed to question how and why such events have happened, and what their outcome will be, that the foundations of a prophetic theology are laid” (Clements, 1996, X). — The dynamic emanating from the older prophets, contrary to that of the classical, written prophets, can only be measured from their deeds as reported in what is labelled the prophetic legends. Hence the importance of the prophetic biography (Rofé, 1988b, 106121) in which the wondrous deeds played such a great role as manifestation of God’s veritable presence in these ‘men of God’. The classical prophets’ symbolic actions, which shaped their preaching, served approximately the same purpose (Fohrer, 1952; idem, 1968²; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 87). The prophetic statement should thus not be opposed to the wondrous prophetic deeds (according to D. Marcus en W.J. Bergen: Lange, 2002, 33-35). Think here of the Jeremiah’s purchase of land in Anathoth and Ezekiel’s many symbolic actions mainly intend to draw attention to the message of his own prophetic ministry (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 2000, 195-202). Of course, it is true that the effect of this divine dynamic only occurred in the oral tradition (in 2 Kgs 21: Crüsemann, 1997, 18; Lemaire, 1990b) and its subsequent commitment to writing. In spite of this the narrative is first of all a repercussion of the experience of the divine initiative that sets all in motion. “Tout en restant complètement le geste d’un homme, l’acte prophétique revêt la portée significative d’un acte visible de Dieu” (Amsler, 1985a, 83). “Legendary elements have certainly played an important part on the growth of the tradition, and yet through the legends an impression of enormous spiritual power still comes to us from that remote time in the past” (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 72, 75). “An den Legenden läßt sich ablesen, mit welcher Kraft das Tremendum, von dem die Propheten ergriffen waren, auf Zeitgenossen und Nachfahren übertragen wurde und unter ihnen lebendig blieb ... Diese Stufe des Verstehens und Deutens prophetischen Daseins ist durchwaltet von der tiefen Ehrfurcht vor der Erscheinung des prophetischen und von die kompromißlosen Unterwerfung unter ihre Strahlungskraft” (Henry, 1969, 48-49). The later prophetic traditions as Dtr reworked them also eagerly appropriated the prophetic biography. It was clearly not their intention to provide an exact description of events, but to express their conviction regarding the degree to which YHWH works in prophetic deeds.

336

will, in its turn, develop this very complex heritage in its own way. Accordingly, it became the driving force for a rich prophetic tradition that continued to develop long afterward807.

7.3.3 Classical Pre-exilic Written Prophecy versus the Prevailing Prophetic Tradition The classical pre-exilic prophecy discussed here pierced the prophetic current in which it was rooted. The breakthrough came with the appearance of Amos and Hosea in the Kingdom of Israel. This first confrontation with existing prophetic tradition sheds some light on the specific character of the new prophetic evolution (7.3.3.1). This trend continues with the subsequent appearance of Isaiah, Micah and especially Jeremiah in the Kingdom of Judah, albeit in a different way (7.3.3.2). An evaluation of the next two stages in classical written prophecy permits us to delineate a few lines of force along which classical prophecy moulded Israel’s traditional prophecy into its definitive new shape (7.3.3.3).

7.3.3.1 Amos and Hosea Researchers have long been aware that Israel’s prophetic tradition entered new avenues with Amos and Hosea. Amos drew Amaziah’s attention to this during his confrontation at Bethel. He does not belong to the local prophetic tradition, customary in the Kingdom of Israel, and is thus

807

Petersen, 1981, 25-33; Naumann, 1991, 161. The close link between Elijah and Elisha and the sectarian Rechabites is a clear indication for the disunity that existed within the Yahwist movement. The confrontation between Micaiah the son of Imlah and the prophets at Ahab’s court (1 Kgs 22:1-28; 2 Chr. 18:1-27) is another example of this. “A classic example of interprophetic conflict” (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 75). — The dynamic emanating from the prophets and their traditions impelled the canon process toward canonisation. Here we may recall the use of the structures behind the texts. For another view see: Chapman, 2000, 188, who only wishes to take into account ‘the existence of a prophetic corpus in front of the text’). They draw attention to the dynamic of the canon process (‘steuernden Kräften’: Ritschl, 1994, 386). This is in keeping with the description of the dynamic object (the dynamic reality) as distinct from the immediate object (the formal representation of the object in the text) (Laato, 1996, 45, 55). — On the long development of the prophetic tradition see Wilson, 1980, 252; Otto E., 1999, 348 n. 604-605. The long and extensive book of Isaiah is a special example of prophecy’s protracted development (Ackroyd, 1978, 25).

337

banished808, while Hosea as no other disassociates himself from the cult as practised in the sanctuaries of that same Israel809. Closer examination shows that his point had nothing to do with the cult as such. For him the cult as practiced by his contemporaries could not be reconciled with what the cult was supposed to be: a special relationship between YHWH and his People810. In Hosea’s view, this was so disrupted by the harlotry of his compatriots that the cult no longer seemed meaningful. In his view, it was a rupture in the relation with YHWH such that he was obliged to turn

808

Duhm (1979, 97) already saw a new prophecy starting with Amos. In 1899, R. Smend had called him “den Anfänger der neuen Prophetie” (Schoors, 1998, 104). What exactly was new can only be determined later on after a comparison with what preceded (7.3.2) and with what was at that time prevalent. The written shape that classical prophecy took, to the exclusion of the oral shape of pre-classical prophecy is one factor (Clements, 1996, 203216, tried to describe the added value of the written shape; he did not seem to get any further than an instrumental function in service of a new theological interpretation under changed circumstances) but it was not necessarily the only determinative factor for its contribution to the canon. The study that follows does not presuppose a minimal body of tradition that alone can be considered authentic. What the final text contains is canonical as corpus, including the purportedly biographical information on the prophets. When they are mentioned here, they are not automatically understood as historical personages but as facts contained in a long current of tradition in which historicity and impression are intertwined. — Within this body of tradition, we will examine how the transmitted prophetic materials grew historically and how its shared balance of power was determined. Of course, as with the history of ancient Israel, we may not forego sociological observations. In that regard, one should be on guard against Western and modern notions (Herion, 1996, 233 n. 5, 237242). “… we may expect Israelite society to have been involved in every phase of prophetic activity, from the prophet’s call to the delivery of his message” (Wilson R.R., 1980, 86; Am. 7:10-15). 809 Hos. 5:1; 8:5; 9:15; 12:12; Schoors, 1998, 190; Hentschke, 1957, 53-55. The book of Hosea has the prophet list in his argumentation nearly all the sanctuaries in the Kingdom of Israel. In his view, they are all sinful places (Hos. 4:15; 6:6-10; 8:11-14;10:1). He demonstrates how Yahwism came under attack at these sanctuaries (Lemche, 1992, 249257). However, this does not mean that Hosea found fault with the multiplicity of cult places and thus pursued cultic centralisation (Emmerson, 1984, 159-160). 810 Hentschke, 1957, 123-125; Boecker, 1981, 174-175; Jeremias, 1970, 160; Scharbert, 1969, 77. Even in the BoC there was a clash with the personal relation to YHWH. Hos. 8:1 uses the term ‫ברית‬. Whether this term comes from Dtr is a subject of dispute (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 106). In Hosea it already seems to refer to the notion of covenant (Lohfink, 1991c, 226; Carroll, 1979, 14-16). Peckham (1991, 119) drew attention to the presence of the notion of covenant in Isaiah. This seems to be a precursor of Dtr term for covenant and covenant ideology. In this regard, too, Dt.-Dtr did not arise from thin air. “They show that however much the Deuteronomists may have given increased prominence to the notion of covenant, they did not evolve it out of nothing” (Day, 1986, 11-12).

338

against his people as he would turn the beast of the field against them811. Amos shouts his agreement with this, albeit from somewhat different social grounds812. In this view, his contemporaries’ immoral behaviour is such that it endangers the existence of Israel. The two prophets reach the same conclusion: the end is nigh. It was a message thus far unheard in Israel, as is apparent from the tumult that it caused813. There arose discord 811

Hos. 13.7. Going over to Baal (Eynikel, 1996, 196-199) is the customary description in this case (Hos. 2:7,12,16). This traditionally refers to every digression from orthodox Yahwism (Albertz, 1992, 244 n. 76). The expression in all likelihood sprang from the prophet’s words (Jeremias, 1996a, 86-103; idem, 1999, 27), but underwent considerable evolution later (Domeris, 1999, 260-262). The book of Hosea does not hesitate to use suggestive imagery. It lets the prophet declare that YHWH is no longer his people and that the end of the kingship is near in Israel (Hos. 1:4-9). The tradition coming from the prophet Amos specifies that King Jeroboam will die by the sword (Am. 7:11) while the book of Amos maintains silence about the kings [Königsschweigen] as does the BoC [Fleischer, 1989, 347 n. 3]). This seems to refer to a veritable destruction (Vernichtung of certain kings, not of the monarchy as institution, of Israel as state, then Judah, to be distinguished from Israel as people) and no longer a simple chastisement as previously with the former prophets (Fohrer, 1979, 491). Yet this radicalisation of the classical prophets does not imply the invocation of power and violence. They are no more aggressively militant than their predecessors (Uffenheimer, 1999, 315-479). 812 The image of the roaring lion (Am 3:8) is familiar as is the admission that prayers are of no further use to the people (Am. 7:8; Jeremias, 1997, 32). Koch (1979, 568) points to the social purpose of the book of Amos. He aims at the establishment in particular (Coote, 1981, 16). 813 Am. 8:2; Hos. 1:4. For the non-classical prophets, prophecies of doom were also customary in the cult, but then always presupposing that they would benefit Israel. This already indicates the connection (they should not be put under the same heading: Fohrer, 1979, 485) between prophecies of doom and prophecies of deliverance (Rohland, 1979, 428). Initially the literature postulated that original classical prophecy overlapped with prophecies of doom (according to Vollmer [1971, 54] and Kratz [2003] who sowed the seeds of a dilemma). Now a series of authors consider prophecies of doom to be a retrospective theological reflection (Scherer, 2005, 2 n. 7). We concur with those who continue to accept the prophecy of doom as an authentic historical fact on the understanding that from the very start the message of deliverance was always present in the background (Scharbert, 1969, 65-66; Clements, 1975, 52). The familiar prophetic remark on the cornerstone (Is. 8:11-15) can be cited as an example. Both elements – the warning against stumbling and the granting of a positive future – proceed from the same fact: YHWH’S action (Barthel, 1997, 475-477). — Before the classical prophets, the destruction of Israel as people was beyond the range of vision in traditional prophecies of doom (Jeremias, 1970, 150-175). Thus when the classical prophets start to proclaim the downfall of the entire population and label the cult as practiced, senseless; this is a new element in the prophetic tradition. In that sense it is correct to posit that “Dieses Ende ist aus keiner Tradition ableitbar” (Vollmer, 1971, 51). Yet even this message was intended to benefit the listeners. The traumatic statement is intended to act as a warning that will bring them to

339

in the prophetic class that recognised the two prophets of doom as colleagues and to which they also reckoned themselves814. They made it repent at the last minute. “The book of Hosea speaks before the judgment … The book of Hosea must be perceived as a warning and not as an inevitable oracle of doom” (Holt, 1995, 146). However, to avoid weakening the effect of the announcement of doom the prophets could not stress the orientation toward deliverance (Liwak, 1987, 314-315). It would thus be wrong to think that the prophets did not initially believe in the possibility that the people would repent – Jeremiah’s idea according to which definitive calamity would only fall on those who reject the prophetic message is from a later Dtr redaction [Hermisson, 1995, 125-134]) and is reserved to Dt.-Dtr (according to Zobel K., 1992, 88107, ea.). Houston (1995) sought a solution to this dilemma in the declarative effect of this preaching. – or that the preaching of doom would only be a creation of later reflection retrojected to the prophets (Kratz, 1997, 20-22). Only if this method fails will the message be adjusted to the new circumstances and can the orientation toward deliverance gradually come to the fore (Fohrer, 1979, 488-489). — Amos’ banishment by the priest Amaziah is paradigmatic for the way in which Amos’ message and that of all classical prophets will be treated by the ruling classes in Israel. Hosea must also note how he encounters animosity at the cult places (Hos. 9:7-8). This can once again be a confrontation with priests as in Bethel. However, there is a distinct possibility that here prophets from different schools confronted one another and thrashed out their differences in the cult building This does not necessarily imply that the prophets operated in the cultic centres – either every so often like the former prophets, or permanently – and thus were cultic prophets in the strict sense. Yet this is not so implausible. It appears, after all (see Jer. 35:4 etc.), that the prophets had rooms at the cult places where they could carry out their task. The allusions to the intervention of priests as the supervisors of prophets that disturbed the peace in the cult building (Jer. 20:1; 29:26) are also evidence for the occupational activity of these prophets. — As soon as the existence of the cultic prophets became recognised, it elicited the question of the extent to which they could be identified with the pre-exilic classical prophets. That supplied scholars with material for a lengthy discussion (Hentschke, 1957, 126-174; Scharbert, 1969, 76-82; Gunneweg, 1959, 81-119; Jeremias, 1970; Neumann, 1979, 24-32). Between the two extremes – one being that there was no connection between the classical prophets and the ministry in the cult, the other that all classical prophets were also ministers of the cult – is the one that is probably closest to reality: the view that if the classical prophets did not serve the cult regularly (among them Nahum, Habakkuk and Obadiah were certainly cultic prophets in the strict sense: Jeremias, 1970, 11-109; Scharbert, 1969, 114; Wolff, 1987b, 276) or occasionally, they at least gave the cult a place in their prophetic notions. This means that, where appropriate, the classical prophets could also perform their task outside the cult. The city gate is explicitly mentioned in this regard (Am. 5:10; Is. 29:21; Malamat, 1991, 232). 1 Kgs 14:1; 2 Kgs 8:8; Jer. 42:1 (Jeremias, 1970, 145, 184-185) seem to confirm this. Probably for this reason we learn something from Is. 3:2 about the many categories of people that resorted to the prophets. Ezekiel certainly continued his task calmly after the destruction of the temple and held office hours at home (Ez. 20:1). 814 There was much ado about the confrontation between Amos and Amaziah, the priest at Bethel, esp. regarding Amos’ statement, “I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son”. Using this statement, later tradition (Jeremias, 1996a, 277-284) tried to specify how this prophet’s task

340

quite clear that if a split in the prophetic tradition arose, it did not happen at their instigation. It overwhelmed them along with the YHWH’S message, which had caught them unaware and which had to do with what was about to happen to his people at that very moment and with which the classical prophets identified. The message came above all else, even if it meant being abandoned by their colleagues and virtually all of Israel815. and message differed from that of his colleagues. Based on the same criterion, authors see a similarity to other, contemporary prophets and to a whole series of earlier prophets (Am. 2:11-12). This criterion is clearly substantive. Formally, their activities did not necessarily lead to dissimilar behaviour. This manner of activity appeared to be commonplace among the prophets of the time (Overholt, 1995, 359-362) so that it was familiar to contemporaries and Amaziah noted no difference and counted Amos among the prophets, even though he did not call hem a ‫( נביא‬the most customary word for prophet) but ‫( חזה‬seer). He banishes Amos solely because of his discordant message. That according to tradition Amos and Hosea considered themselves prophets can be noted indirectly from their positive references to the prophet’s duties (Am. 3:7; Hos. 9:8), especially when they include themselves in a series of earlier prophets that they consider exemplary (Am. 2:11-12; Hos. 6:5; Jer. 28:8). However, this offers no guarantee for the historical accuracy of their view. But it does hint at the attitude of these prophets toward tradition. They used it to the extent they approved of it. When offered the opportunity, they chose for continuity in the tradition. 815 One consequence of the direct inspiration beyond all formal characteristics is the outspoken demeanour that marks the classical prophets. These were often called free or charismatic (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 16) prophets in contrast to the prophets firmly attached to the cult. If need be, the free prophets received their clients at home. This freedom is needed nor for their own sake, but to allow YHWH to show himself: the God who can come in a surprising manner at any moment without being tied to the past and to tradition. Amos demonstrates in his preaching on the ‘day of the Lord’ (Am. 5:18-20; Zimmerli, 1982, 8486). — Even in the older prophecy, current events play a large role. They are even the basis for prophetic activity. “Bereits in den ältesten Überlieferungstücken ist das Auftreten Elias so gestaltet, daß im Reden und Handelen der Propheten Zeitereignisse in ihrem wesenhaften Bezug zu Jahwe sichtbar werden; dies ist das bei Formung der Überlieferung leitende Anliegen, aus dem sich ergibt was erzählt wird und was nicht” (Steck, 1967, 138). This examination of current events (Außenseiterrolle: Lange, 2002, 2) is strongly present in both classical prophets and Dt.-Dtr. It is historicised prophecy. “Wesentliche Funktion dieses Wortes ist es, die politische Wirklichkeit transparent werden zu lassen für die hinter ihr stehende Wirklichkeit Gottes” (Barthel, 1997, 461-463). “Die konkrete Situationsbezogenheit ihrer Verkündigung” (Rendtorff R., 19883, 120). They cannot be understood without this close involvement in political and social events (Scharbert, 1969, 79). A comparison of historical allusions in the prophetic writings with external sources offers opportunities for research, albeit constrained (Laato, 1996, 10-11). In this regard, Carroll has done productive work in his probing studies on Jeremiah in which he examined the role of the community’s needs as important factor in the redactions of Jeremiah. — To the extent that the message of the pre-exilic prophets is future-oriented, it is dependent on its meaning for its contemporaries. “Zwar bringt den Propheten die Sorge um die Zukunft zum Sprechen, aber nur, sofern die vergangene Zukunft voraussetzt” (Liwak, 1987, 322).

341

7.3.3.2 Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah The traces – found fragmentarily, presumably and sometimes in the books of Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah that have come down to us – of the prophets816 allow us to deduce the extent to which history repeated itself in The prophets focus on a very proximate event. That is the case for authentic preaching of doom. “Der Blick des Amos ist ganz konzentriert auf das unmittelbar bevorstehende Ende Israels” (Vollmer, 1971, 44). “Nous avons touché l’ensemble du discours prophétique dans son pathos premier et véritable: c’est l’annonce de ce qui est imminent ... C’est dans son jugement imminent qu’il faut le connaître” (Zimmerli, 1982, 82-107). Classical prophecy was not restricted to a narrow analysis of its own day. “Gottes Wort bzw. seine Verkündigung ist durch die gegenwärtige Wirklichkeit, die allgemeinen Lebenserfahrungen, nicht ausreichend gedeckt. Der Prophet lebt in der Spannung zwischen Ankündigung und Ereignis, zwischen der im Wort vorweggenommenen Zukunft und deren Eintreffen” (Schmidt W.H., 1991b, 355). Gradually, as of the 7th century BCE, and esp. during and after the exile, this future will shift to later, although still very proximate. It thus also serves to give hope to those who soon had to endure the calamity. “Auch die eschatologischen Propheten vom ausgehenden Exil an verkündigten ein neues Heil für die unmittelbar bevorstehende Zukunft und erfüllten ihre Gegenwart mit dem Mut, auf seine Verwirklichung zu warten” (Fohrer, 1979, 491). That is an explication (Rohland, 1979, 433) of the message of deliverance (e.g. Hosea: Carroll, 1979, 63) that was already enclosed in that of the prophets of doom. The immanence of the announced event (Am. 7:11-17; Hos. 1:4-5; Is. 6:8-11; Jer. 1:13-19) give the prophets of doom a threatening character (Schoors, 1998, 203-205). — The prophet’s personal adhesion to his message is expressed in the title placed at the head of all writings: they are the proclaimers of ‫דבר יהוה‬. They are considered the mouth through which God speaks (Duhm, 1979, 95, 99-100). In Hosea, the identification of the prophet with his message is particularly visible in the links between his personal life and YHWH. Yet it is telling that Hosea like all classical prophets has the prophet’s ‘I’ cedes precedence to YHWH’S (Zobel H.J., 1993, 188-193). — Am. 7:16-17 and Hos. 9:7-8 tell how the people rejected Amos and Hosea. Nevertheless, this did not mean that the prophets made no impression. They were cursed, but also feared and respected. That the people did not attack them demonstrates their immunity (Rofé, 1988b, 200). — Rejection by the people brought the prophet into a position of material isolation without this placing him outside the community of Israel. The divine message that lays at the foundation of his prophetic remit came to him as part of the relationship between YHWH and Israel and thus placed him in the centre of the community (Barthel, message 1997, 467). The relationship between the prophets and the prevailing tradition evolved similarly. To the same degree that the gap grew between the prophets and the people, the prophets also withdrew from the people’s tradition, without actually breaking with either the tradition or the people. 816 “ad hoc formulierte Worte” (Hentschke, 1957, 174). “Am Anfang steht das mündlich vorgetragene Prophetenwort. Gewiß werden solche Worte bisweilen eine sehr knappe, spruchartige Form gehabt haben, vor allem wenn es um Orakel im eigentlichen Sinn geht” (Scharbert, 1969, 71). The most original situation can generally only be reconstructed indirectly and partially (there are several gradations in the reference to the original

342 situation: Barthel, 1997, 456-457) and is in this sense is dehistoricising. Because it arose under pressure from current events, from the strain of opposition and from the people’s obstinacy, no systematic account, from the prophets’ perspective, of the first phase of the classical prophetic tradition can be expected. Rather this will be from the perspective of those that committed it to writing enlightened by their later experience. “The prophets had nothing to do with proposing systematic reforms” (Vawter, 1973², 16). When the original public first heard the prophets’ words, these words were incoherent (Duhm, 1979, 95, 104). — The real but distant link to the Sitz-im-Leben of the original preaching had consequences for its study. “Wegen der Überlieferung und Komposition der Prophetenbücher müssen insbesondere die vorexilischen großen Einzelpropheten entgegen dem Anschein, den die Überlieferung erweckt, von ihren Einzelsprüchen und nicht von der Komposition ihrer Schriften her verstanden werden” (according to Fohrer, cited in Diedrich, 1977, 500, whom Barthel, 1997, 459 supports on the basis of the final text). Leene, 1983, 55, also argued for this, albeit indirectly when he sought to breathe life into the prophet’s oracle as transmitted in its present narrative framework. Without disregarding the final shape in which prophecy is embodied (Kaiser, 19845, 275), this shape may not lead to the conclusion that for the purposes of historical research one should prefer to treat the most original words of the prophets – assuming they can be extracted from the final text – without assuming a minimum of prehistory. They are able to draw on something unique (Clements, 1995, 446447) that cannot be appropriated by any addition or revision. “...denn eine solche Neukonzeption findet ihre Grenze an der semantischen Heterogenität des vorgegebenen Materials, dessen Autorität den Prozeß der Neuinterpretation überhaupt erst in gang gesetzt hat, sie bleibt daher in Hinsicht auf dessen ursprünglichen Sinn notwendig selektiv und partiell” (Barthel, 1997, 17). Given this preference to commit the prophetic tradition to writing to the detriment of its oral origin, the characteristic feature of OT prophecy is reduced to its literary transmission. “Wir exponieren hier also Indizien für eine dem Prophetenbücherbefund angemessene Literarkritik eigene Art, die diesem gegebenen Befund als Ausgangspunkt allen Fragens möglichst nahe zu bleiben versucht und statt auf Buchbeachtungen aufbaut” (Kratz, 1997, 10). This tendency is thought to have been inspired by Derrida’s vision. “The theory of speech acts has been criticized especially on the grounds that utterances may be separated from their original situation” (Houston, 1995, 134). — One consequence of this intertwining of prophetic writings with the original Sitzim-Leben is certainly the presence of the oral shape derived from the original prophetic preaching (Person, 1999). A witness to this is the many types of argument that can still be found in the prophetic writings and occasionally in the prophetic legends (Thiel, 1991, 159170). For an overview of this subject see Neumann, 1979, 44-51; Westermann, 1960; Schoors, 1998, 108-116, 130-135; Sweeney, 1996, 22-30. Even Wellhausen recognised their presence (Gunneweg, 1959, 7). The literary forms containing the prophetic traditions also deserve attention as redaction criticism stresses (Sweeney, 1996, 10-29). — This had long meant a study of the prophets’ ipsissima verba. It was considered important to be able to isolate them from the rest of the material in the prophetic writings. The objective was to distinguish the true or authentic material – considered the most important – from the secondary elements, considered of lesser value. Other insights have come to prevail. Not only have authors come to realise that isolating the ipsissima verba is difficult to achieve (Kaiser, 19845, 275; Scharbert, 1969, 59-70; Schoors, 1998, 135-156; tradition history has better credentials: Schoors, 1998, 132), the reconstruction of the original oral prophetic preaching is usually beyond academic reach (Jeremias, 1999, 24-35). Moreover, the

343 literature now seems aware that the tradition of the original prophetic material also witnesses to true prophetic inspiration and reflective creativity so that it has correctly earned a place in prophecy, of which it is now an inseparable part. Under these circumstances, the question of the difference between authentic and unauthentic materials (Collins, 1993, 14-15, puts the discussion on this level; it is sometimes called ‘written prophecy, inner-biblical exegesis’ or intertextuality: Nogalski, 1993, 16), as distinct from post-biblical exegesis and commentary and even the question of the priority of the oral versus the written tradition (or the reverse) loses its urgency. For another view see: Kratz, 1997, 14, and Gunneweg, 1959, 75. The latter gave the impression that the written form of the prophetic tradition should have precedence at whatever cost, although he had to admit that at that time the oral tradition was the more customary. — Nevertheless, after these observations it is important to do all possible to form a picture of the prophets’ own input (Liwak, 1987, 309. For another view see: Lemche, 2003, 276) without this having to imply a verbatim reconstruction of their original statements. Even from a historical perspective we should answer the question who the prophets were (Lemche, 1992, 241-242). Theologically, the question of the prophets is still more important, even when one wishes to make use of the later prophetic tradition. The theological difference between the prophets and their redactors is real and cannot be ignored. “Especially does it highlight the difference in status and perceived authority between the individual persona of the prophet and that of the editors and interpreters who transmitted the sayings” (Clements, 1995, 448). The redactors of the prophetic writings themselves stimulate acceptance of this distinction by retaining the original source of the prophetic tradition to some extent. It is not written off in favour of a customary generalising and trans-temporal explanation (Jeremias, 1999, 21). “Denn alle Interpretation, auch alle Nachinterpretation lebt von dem Interpretandum und die Beobachtungen die als prägende oder bestimmende unseren Überblick charakterisieren, beziehen sich deshalb auch mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit auf das Ursprüngliche” (Zobel H.J., 1993, 191). — It certainly remains particularly important theologically to assay the special value and meaning of each stage of the transmission. “Allerdings bleibt diese Rückfrage keine zu vernachlässigende Nebensache, vielmehr für das Verständnis schlechthin grundlegend: sind die Visionen, Worte und Symbolhandlungen, welche die Überlieferung einem Propheten zuschreibt, aus der Vorschau oder aus dem Rückblick zu verstehen?” (Schmidt W.H., 1991b, 349). This can give insight in following the stages through which the canon process passes. The written phase is important to the canon insofar as it, as interpretation (Utzschneider, 1989, 12-16), can point to a specially creative contribution to the development of the prophetic tradition and thus open new avenues (‘free play’: Trible, 1994, 70-71). In that case, it doubtless gave new capabilities to the existing prophetic tradition, but did not necessarily provide any surpassing theological quality that would supersede or diminish the prophetic tradition. One cannot invoke what Jeremias (1999, 20-21) calls the ‘übertragbaren’, ‘grundsätzlichen’, ‘zeitunabhängigen’, ‘allgemeingültigen’ that the titles to the prophecy contribute. All these indisputable characteristics do not divest the prophetic experience of its specific and irreplaceable power of expression. This illustrates its dynamic. “Aber in ihrem Anspruch auf Algemeingültigkeit hatte auch solche Anklage ihren Ausweis nur in der Vollmacht des Propheten” (Hermisson, 1998, 2). There is no need to choose between original oral prophecy and its later written shape. Each has its own theological quality. “Das Verhältnis ist dabei nicht im Sinne eines Entweder-Oder (Utzschneider, 1989, 21 n. 4 agrees. This is an allusion to Gunneweg, 1959, L.Z.), sondern einer Skala mehr oder weniger großer

344 Übereinstimmung und Differenz zu bestimmen” (Barthel, 1997, 27). This can only be assessed by using the indications that the historical canon process yields. Besides, the focal point should be the relation between the prophet and his redactors/issuers (Clements, 1996, 218). We will return to this in section 7.3.5.4.5. — We can conclude from the preceding that it is not this note taking (Niederschrift) that turned the prophetic tradition into Holy Scripture in the canonical sense. That was the distillation of many factors including the original spoken word of the prophets, even though this cannot be reconstructed verbatim. The formal phraseology does not detract from the content of the original prophecy. It is not a matter of the magnitude or number of writings but of their theological quality. For another view see: “Es ist deshalb ein kurzschlüssiges Vorhaben, ‘im Sinne einer grundsätzlichen methodologischen Forderung die konkrete Redesituation als Schlüssel zur Deutung der einzelnen Unheilsprophezeiung’ erheben zu wollen” (Jeremias, 1996a, 142). “Das Interesse richtet sich im Gegenteil heute eher auf die sekundären Zusätze und späteren Textschichten. Denn sie und nicht das vermeintlich gemeine Prophetenwort prägen die literarische Gestalt der überlieferten Bücher” (Kratz, 1997, 14-15). However, the following standpoint cannot be reconciled with the objective of the author last cited: “Der Text wird wieder beim Wort genommen” (Kratz, 1997, 10). Apart from that, the words of the prophets remain spoken words, even when committed to writing. “Der Wille zur bewahrenden Vermittlung des aufgetragenen Wortes steht am Anfang der Schriftprophetie” (Willi-Plein, 1999, 52). In the prophetic writings, the prophets’ résumé (Selbstbericht) operated from the very start as kernel of written prophecy in the canonical sense (Willi-Plein, 1999, 50). — Finally, one tends to posit that the original context of the poetic sections of prophetic preaching is usually older than the prose. According to Liwak (1987, 316) the two had been treated together in the first tradition and cannot be separated (Scharbert, 1969, 70). This means that the poetic material is more likely to stem from the prophets’ authentic utterances (Auerbach, 1953, 9). For another view see: Thiel, cited in Lalleman-de Winkel, 2000, 25; Hermisson, 1998, 2; Carroll, 1981, 9-13 n. 12. It is said of the latter author that he intended “to extract as much information as possible from the body of the dying prophet” (Laato, 1996, 7). But the prose may well be older than the poetry (Clements, 1998, 2-3). The involvement of prophets and prophecy in the cult is a fact. In Israel, as among the surrounding peoples, there was a close link between poetry, singing and direct divine inspiration (Mowinckel, 1979, 206-211). The similarity between the language of the confessions attributed to Jeremiah and customary turns of phrase in many psalms is striking (Carroll, 1981, 108, 128; on how they are evaluated in the literature see Herrmann S., 1990, 129-139; Bultmann, 2001). The prophets are to have chosen the poetic genre to deliver their transcendent message to the public in a suitable manner, including the use of metaphors (Fenton, 2001, 133; Barthel, 1997, 460-461). — Many scholars still believe they can detect evidence in the texts that some prophets took the initiative to commit their preaching to writing and even wrote their own texts (Sweeney, 1996, 18; Willi-Plein, 1999, 41-48; Hardmeier, 1983, 124; Schoors, 1998, 132-134; Ackroyd, 1977a, 241; Bright, 1977, 97; Naumann, 1991, 160-164; Liwak, 1987, 316; Lange, 2002, 1). For a list of biblical texts that may allude to the prophets’ writing see Gunneweg, 1959, 32-40. No one now dares to speak with the same conviction about the role the prophets’ disciples may have played in this. While earlier it was facilely assumed that every prophet could rely on a small group of supporters (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 40, 45; Clements, 1975, 45-46; “there can be no socially isolated intermediaries”: Wilson R.R., 1980, 30), this is now called into doubt (Clements, 1995, 445; Herion, 1996, 240-242). “Eigentliche Schülerkreise werden in den

345

the Kingdom of Judah after the fall of the Kingdom of Israel in 722. There, too, the activity of a new generation of prophets brought even greater disunity to prophecy. Like Amos and Hosea before him, Isaiah started by acknowledging in principle the rightful place, even the elevated role, of prophets and priests in mediating between YHWH and his people Israel. He only withdrew from them and undertook to perform the task as he saw it under direct prompting from the “Holy One of Israel”817 because they did not perform this exalted task as they should have, specifically because they sought only to please the people and lapsed to immoral practices. He felt totally committed to this task personally. It spanned his entire life. This commitment is so intensely presented that when required he spared none of

Prophetenbüchern nirgends erwähnt” (Scharbert, 1969, 72; Collins, 1993, 28. For another view see Rofé, 1988b, 21-22, 120-121). Apart from that, it is far from easy to trace the social context in which the prophets evolved (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 38-46). Nicholson, with Thiel in his wake, replaced Jeremiah’s disciples with his ‘ideological circle’ to which he entrusted his mental legacy (Clements, 1995, 445). The elimination of mediation by the prophets’ disciples is used to stress Dtr’s and other redactors’ determinative role in shaping the prophetic canon (Davies P.R., 1998, 115-119). Nevertheless, the abbreviation of the prior tradition does not automatically consolidate the weight of later, written tradition. Without the prior and intermediary traditions, prophecy in written form is inexplicable (Ackroyd, 1978, 29). Yet Barstad (1993, 58 n. 53) correctly argues for the likelihood of the rapid commitment of the prophetic oracles to writing soon after their delivery. 817 The recognition of the adversaries as prophets can be deduced from the accusation Isaiah levels against the priests and prophets that they do not provide the people with the ‫ תורה‬and the ‫( דבר יהוה‬Is. 2:3). As Jer. 30:10 shows, they bring messages of deliverance ( ‫ – שלום‬Verkündigung: Hentschke, 1957, 173) solely intended to please listeners. In that regard, the opposing prophets are fictive, but that does not mean that they are quoted inaccurately. “Die Bedeutung dieser Fiktion besteht aber gerade darin, den wahren Charakter des Verhaltens der Zitierten aus Licht zu befördern” (Barthel, 1997, 461). For another view see: “But the text (Is. 1:21, L.Z.) converts that historical experience into a fictive scene ... we can readily see only the fictive world which we can construe by reading the text” (Melugin, 1996, 71-72). — Besides not fulfilling their own real task, the prophets are accused in the book Isaiah of falling into immoral practices such as deceit (Is. 30:12) and a variety of excesses (Is. 28:7-9). As in the BoC, justice and ethics appear to coincide (Scharbert, 1969, 77). The task of proclaiming the ‫ תורה‬and the ‫ דבר יהוה‬is a core element in Isaiah (Is. 1:10; 30:9). He is the spokesman for the Holy One of Israel (24 occurrences in Isaiah including Is. 1:4; 29:23; 31:11, elsewhere only 5 occurrences: Schoors: 1998, 196) since he has sent him (Is. 6). The prophet’s personal charisma takes shape starting from the ‘shaking’, that the prophet experiences when meeting YHWH (Henry, 1969). “Die grundlegende Gotteserfahrung Jesajas wird in der Komposition zum Modell der Darstellung des göttlichen Handelns in der Geschichte der Völker” (Barthel, 1997, 459). Although Isaiah situated his call in the temple, this does not mean that he served the cult or that h was a cultic prophet at the time.

346

the community’s leaders818. According to this portrayal, the prophet and his disciples must have encountered hard resistance despite his diplomacy. He expressed the impasse to which his preaching had brought him in the well-known theme of his people’s obstinacy819, so that Isaiah, too, was obliged to hold out the prospect of the total destruction of Jerusalem. Micah is presented in the same way as no less stirred by the mental power of his God. He, too, like Isaiah, decried the sins of the priests and fellow-prophets. He accused both of acquisitiveness. He took particular offence at fellow-prophets when they inappropriately and with bias promise ‫ שלום‬to the people in YHWH’S name. Micah made a somewhat clearer distinction between the priests and prophets. His words give the impression that the prophets tended to tilt their visions toward oracular devices such as divining. He considers the consequences catastrophic: “Zion shall be ploughed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height” (Mic. 3:12) He also addressed the same severe language to political leaders. He could be sure they will respond vigorously. He could consider himself fortunate that they did not send him to a martyr’s death as was done to his kindred spirit Uriah. In the Jeremiah tradition, this is recalled this820 on the occasion of one of the many confrontations in which the prophet is portrayed as embroiled with his opponents. The priests and sages joined forces in this 818

The intense commitment to his prophetic task is not only noticeable in this call (Is. 6) but also in the way in which his wife and children were included in the weal and woe of his task (Is. 7:3; 8:3,18). This personal commitment to the prophetic task throughout life is also noticeable in Hosea. “Yet their lives were also included in their message” (Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 225). — Jer. 1:10; 22:6,15,20 articulates in its way the inevitability of the coming catastrophe (Schmidt W.H., 1991b, 350).

819

There are the familiar stories of Isaiah’s interference with kings Ahaz (Is. 7:3-17) and Hezekiah (Is. 37). The descriptions in the following passages show that he had easy access to the royal court: Is. 8:2; 22:15-17. Yet this channel for his influence seems constrained. Probably for this reason Isaiah also tried to exert pressure by calling upon the public in an open protest against the support that the royal court sought in foreign parts (Is. 2:7-9) esp. Egypt (Is. 20:1-6). “This kind of protest, characteristic of peripheral groups, confirms the impression that during the three decades from the beginning of vassal status under Ahaz to the revolt of Hezekiah Isaiah and his support groups were deprived of power and opposed to official policies” (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 114-115). 820 Hentschke, 1957, 157-159; Mic. 3; Jer. 26:18-23. Hardmeier, 1991. That Micah was saved was probably due to his supporters, the ‫ עם הארץ‬to which he belonged (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 122) and which played a distinguished role in social life, including the appointment of King Josiah.

347

resistance against the prophet. Yet according to Jeremiah, each has a task. As with Isaiah821 the ‫ תורה‬and the ‫ דבר‬are assigned to them, but in the book Jeremiah the tasks are more sharply defined than in Micah. The reference to the sages points to a growing rationalisation, already tangible in Isaiah822. The priests and prophets that confronted Jeremiah were judiciously assessed against the standard of their relation to YHWH. While the priests have turned away from YHWH by not pursuing his ‫תורה‬, the prophets have abandoned his council and have turned instead to Baal and this in the very temple of YHWH. They thus became lying prophets that used dreams to promise the people ‫ שלום‬that they seek when they should have brought the people to repentance. Their promises are false and empty823. They must be forcefully contradicted at the place where they are accustomed to act,824 the singular place where YHWH and his people meet, 821

Jer. 18:18 recounts the plot by prophets, priests and sages to oppose Jeremiah. According to some, these opposing prophets are a construction by the later Dtr redaction (Carroll, 1986, 75-77) with a view to the tension between Jerusalem and Babylon in their day. Once again, this shows how much the original prophetic legacy is interwoven with later tradition. 822 The call narrative in Is. 6 covers his entire life history. It is the result of a reflection a posteriori (Barthel, 1997, 459) that required time to develop and that contrasts with the punctual report of facts in a vision that could be the historical foundation for the whole call narrative. That is why it is important to continue to focus on the importance of the call event for the prophet (Kselman, 1985, 126). 823 Jer. 2:8; 4:9; 5:31; 6:13-15; 8:10-12; 14:13-14; 23:9-32; Malamat, 1991. The council image is said to be typical for prophecy in Judah, and to be closer to the E tradition (Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 73, 74 n. 138). According to the tradition embodied in the book that bears his name, Jeremiah is the only classical prophet to consider dreams unacceptable in prophecy. This is merely consistent with Dt. 13:2-6. (For another view see: Köckert, 2000, 83-85, who quite the opposite, argues that this view in Jeremiah is dependent on Dt 13:2-6). Yet the D current rejects dreams as a channel for revelation (Gnuse, 2000, 209). Jeremiah’s aversion to this type of aberrant prophecy demonstrates that it still existed in his time, probably a consequence of contact with the surrounding peoples. It is a symptom of the reflection on the prophetic mission of the classical prophets. Originally YHWH’S commentators on present and future events (in this sense, they predicted what YHWH planned to do and what subsequently happened) they became mediators working on behalf of YHWH to convince his people to turn freely to repentance (Rofé, 1988b, 165-182). This helps prevent or explain unfulfilled prophecy. 824 The subject of prophetic preaching is YHWH’S acting in Israel’s history as he achieved this from the temple. That is why prophecies are proclaimed by preference in the temple (Smelik, 1991a, 8), which presupposes convergence with the cult (Jer. 7:1-15; 26; 28:1). — The literature generally considers Jeremiah’s temple speeches as the work of the Dtr (Seidel B., 1995, 175). Yet it demonstrates how the cult had long been generally considered an important locus for fulfilling the prophetic mission. “Since the prophets were religious

348

whatever the consequences may be for the prophet. The well-known confrontation with Hananiah also took place in the temple. This showdown determined just how the true prophets like Jeremiah differed from the false. This difference was not one of formal aspects; these they shared. Neither ethical behaviour nor tradition, not even that of the traditional prophecies of doom that Jeremiah, like Amos and Hosea, incorrectly invoke825 could provide listeners with a conclusive answer. According to Jeremiah, true prophecy was ultimately based on the commission that he, persons, devotees of their God, it is natural to find them in the shrines in which religion centred”, according to Rowley and Porteus, cited in Jeremias, 1970, 148 n. 2. 825 “Die Art ihres Auftretens und der Mitteilung des Gotteswortes samt den Sie begleitenden prophetischen Handlungen ist genau die gleiche” (Hentschke, 1957, 166; Schmidt W.H., 1997, 67). “Hence the conflict between prophets must have been one between persons of essentially the same social identity and location” (Long, 1977, 7). “...fließend ... engstens aufeinander bezogen” (Jeremias, 1970, 141, 152). Based on this appearance, Amaziah saw no difference between Amos and the other prophets. It was only the tendency of his preaching that ran counter to the prevailing tradition. — It is striking how Jeremiah can make no accusations regarding Hananiah’s behaviour; most other prophets, like Isaiah and the classic prophets that preceded him, lodged serious charges of corruption against their contemporaries (Jer. 23:9-15; Lange, 2002, 81-82). “Dabei ist zu beachten, daß Jeremia seinem Gegner weder einen unsauberen Lebenswandel noch Verwendung zweifelhafter Mittel zur Erlangung des Gotteswortes vorwirft” (Hentschke, 1957, 166). As a matter of principle, Micah ascribed to opposing prophets the same right as he did to authentic prophets to invoke the prevailing tradition (Lange, 2002, 83). — Hananiah could invoke the authentic tradition, the same one on which Isaiah relied (Crenshaw, 1971, 71-73). “...Jeremiah and his opponents held equally strong theological convictions” (Bright, 1977, 17). “Es steht Gottesspruch wider Gottesspruch. Bei der ersten Begegnung spricht Jeremia seinem Gegner den Besitz eines echten Jahwewortes nicht ab” (Hentschke, 1957, 166). In time, the MT came to consider Hananiah a prophet, contrary to the LXX that calls him a pseudo-prophet (Auld, 1984, 72). — According to a series of authors Hos. 6:5, and Jer. 28:8-9 incorrectly invoked their preaching doom. This is said to be an idea of Dt.-Dtr’s redactors (Dietrich, 1972, 104-105; see n. 813 above). We do not agree with this. We do endorse that a tradition on this topic developed within classical prophecy by way of reflection. “Von hier aus muß das Faktum der Traditionsbildung in der Prophetie primär gesehen werden. Als Vorbote von Geschichte weckt das Wort zunächst ein Warten auf Geschichte... Sogar die Wurzelstöcke der alttestamentlichen Kanon müssen von solchem Vergleich von ergangenem prophetischem Wort und eingetretenen Ereignissen verstanden werden ... So hat die Korrespondenz von prophetischem Wort und Geschichtsverlauf auf das stärkste an der Traditions- und Kanonbildung mitgewirkt” (Wolff, 1973a, 291 n. 3). Meanwhile, it has become sufficiently evident that every prophecy of doom is essentially oriented toward deliverance and that all prophets issued prophecies of doom to some degree (Becker, 2003). It is incorrect to do as the same Becker does later (2005, 10) and artificially divide the prophecies of deliverance and doom in the periods before and after the monarchy.

349

like the other classical prophets, received directly from YHWH, and to which Jeremiah, more than any other, felt personally committed826. But Hananiah also believed he could invoke this, which left the fulfilment of the predictions as the only means to provide a hesitant public with certainty, albeit ex post facto, about whom YHWH has sent827. The confrontation with Hananiah demonstrates how ambiguous prophecy – even classical prophecy – could appear to the public. Under these circumstances, it led to a broad range of reactions, among Yahwist supporters and even among the classical prophets. This portrayal shows the people of Judah confronted with a wrenching choice, a question of life or death for prophet and people, just as had been the case in the Kingdom of Israel828. 826

Jer. 1:4-10. “Der Inhalt ihrer Verkündigung ist ihnen also letztlich nicht durch Tradition vorgegeben, sondern im persönlichen Umgang mit Jahwe offenbart” (Hentschke, 1957, 167). The emphasis here is on the concept revelation as highest level of prophetic inspiration. Other factors such as tradition, changing circumstances and personal reflection also certainly play a role. See 7.3.4. — “From his conception, Jeremiah” (Jer. 1:5) was confronted with his mission. This description does not envision the precise course of history, but the essence of Jeremiah’s mission in his life. For another view see: Holladay W.L., 1986, 1-10, and Cazelles, who believe they can attain an accurate reconstruction of Jeremiah’s life. His personal commitment to his prophetic mission compelled Jeremiah to live a solitary life (Jer. 16:1-9) and made him an object of dispute to such as extent that the groaned under the burden of his mission (Jer. 15:10-21; 20:14-17). His confessions (Jer. 20:7-13) are well known. They are reckoned among what is thought to be the most personal witness offered by a major prophet (Herrmann S., 1990, IX, 129-139). It is the prophet’s personal commitment that makes the total transference to others, such as redactors and their texts, so difficult. “Wesentlich ist die Einsicht, daß diese Texte Jeremias prophetische Existenz zum Thema haben. Dann aber sprechen nach mein Einsicht die besseren Gründe für Originalität” (Hermisson, 1998, 1). 827 Jer. 28:2,8-9,11,16-17. The need to establish fulfilment later did not operate on the prophets, but rather later on the commitment to paper and on what Lange (2002, 2) calls Rekontextualisierung. It is also a factor that benefits and helps bring about later canonisation. “The written word testifies to the prophetic message, especially after it has been fulfilled” (Carroll, 1979, 53). And that, according to this view, is just the prophet’s point: being genuinely sent by YHWH. Anyone not so sent is a lying prophet: Jer. 27:15; 28:15. 828 “...it is often difficult to discriminate between truth and falsehood; even the promulgator of truth himself is sometimes confused” (Rofé, 1988b, 107). “Die schwankende Haltung des Ältesten und des Volkes in der Frage der Echtheit der Prophetie (Jer. 26) war nur deshalb möglich, weil der Nebiismus ursprünglich und wesenhaft keine deutlich begrenzte, organisatorisch straff zusammengehaltene Klasse von besonderen Kultbeamten bildete ... Mann besaß eben letztlich keine festen, dogmatischen Maßstäbe zur Beurteilung der Prophetie ... Bei der inhaltlichen Undefinierbarkeit und formellen Ungebundenheit konnte nur das Eintreffen der Prophezeiung über die Echtheit, bzw. Unechtheit des

350 Prophetenwortes entscheiden” (Hentschke, 1957, 168). The historical evaluation of prophecy is rendered difficult by the basically uniform presentation of the content of its message, despite the many differences. It would appear that the appeal to fulfilment had just recently been introduced. — Only later did Dt.-Dtr use this in the fulfilment scheme and in designating the prophets’ status. Furthermore, fulfilment does not appear to be a watertight argument, e.g. there is Hulda’s (2 Kgs 22:14) unfulfilled prophecy: Koch, 1980, 20; for another view see: Dietrich, 1972, 55-58. There is also the persistent problem of unfulfilled prophecy (Scharbert, 1969, 85; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 91; Carroll, 1979, 112-120; “The lack of valid criterion”: Crenshaw, 1971, 49-61), esp. Hananiah’s discredited oracle of deliverance. This could not prevent continuing disputes in prophecy during and after the exile. The problem was that the prophet’s exercise of authority remained dependent on acceptance by his contemporaries despite the divine origin of his mission (Long, 1977, 8). Hence the attempt at persuasion via prophetic deeds with their ecstatic and visionary elements during the prophet’s life and esp. after the prophecies’ fulfilment. This was tantamount to rejecting current prophecy and relying definitively on past but fulfilled prophecy (Lang, 2002, 181-184). — All this became the object of reflection in the extensive call narratives. “Das Wort von Außenseitern und Oppositionellen wird kanonisch und entscheidet zugleich darüber, was von der Literatur der vorexilischen Zeit weiter tradiert werden soll und was nicht” (Wolff, 1973a, 291 n. 3). This raises the question: Who was able to determine that there was a correlation between the prophetic message and the course of history? Juxtaposition of a prophetic statement and historical events is not sufficient. They must be compared and authoritatively confirmed. This could only be done by those who could distinguish false from true prophets and show tradition the path to canonisation. This illuminates the authoritative prophetic role of those who edited the prophetic writings. The Dtr have thus laid the groundwork for this purported orthodoxy with their idea of the true prophets as exemplified in Moses. But this does not mean that they made the prophets. They only judged them on their merits: on their enduring meaning for later generations. They situated their own prophetic role in clarifying the text (tradent prophecy) as extension of the original kerygmatic prophecy. — Jeremiah underwent many ordeals and faced death countless times (Jer. 8:4-22; 9:1-26; 11:18; 12:6; 18:18-23; 20:1; 26:6,23-24; 27:1-22; 30:11). Their relation to YHWH (Jer. 2:26-3:5, 11:1-17) and the prophets’ ability to intercede for the people (Jer. 7:16; 14:11; 21:1; 37:17; 42:1; Von Rad first raised this theme: Jeremias, 1970, 140-144; Balantine, 1984, added critical remarks) stands or falls with their acceptance of the prophetic message. This intercession was intended to sustain the relationship between YHWH and Israel and thus to guarantee the welfare of the people. “Dann dürfen wir ruhig annehmen, daß es sogar die normale Aufgabe der Propheten war, ihren Zeitgenossen aus allen Schichten des Volkes als Vermittler bei Jahwe zu dienen, indem sie für ihre Klienten ‘Jahwe befragten’, für sie Fürbitte anlegten und ihnen in mannigfaltiger Weise Rat erteilten” (Scharbert, 1969, 83). Hence the many categories of people who appealed to the prophets intercession. Today, some scholars believe that this prophetic experience of the refused intercession led to the drafting of proclamation of doom during the exile. The redactors of the prophetic writings would then have transferred these retrospectively to earlier times (Jeremias, 1997, 38-39) during which there had actually been only been proclamations of deliverance (Becker, 2001). This assertion relies solely on literary-critical research and contradicts the position that both types of prophecy had always coexisted and interacted. It also appears now that the relative proportion of intercession in the prophetic task should not be exaggerated. It

351

7.3.3.3 Conclusions We can draw several conclusions from what befell pre-exilic classical prophets amid their contemporary prophetic environment first in the Kingdom of Israel and then the Kingdom of Judah as it is described in the various prophetic writings. First of all, the difficulty they had making their influence felt in this prophetic environment is striking. The classical prophets were certainly a minority in this complex829 and nearly unfathomable world. Moreover, until the exile in 587 and even thereafter, their authority was still disputed in prophetic circles and by the broader public830. By degrees, this endangered their position and even their lives831. Depending on the king in power and the political circumstances, their dedicated efforts generated little recognition832. They were far from being does not seem to have played a role with all classical prophets (Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 209-233). But it has not been proven that it is purely the creation of a later tradition (according to G. Münderlein: Lange, 2002, 20-21. 829 Even after studiously reading the prophetic writings, the exact nature of prophecy in pre-exilic and exilic Israel remains obscure. Basically, each prophet is a complex fact (Bodner, 2001). “Immer klarer tritt vor unseren Augen der komplizierte Wachstumsprozeß der prophetischen Tradition und der verschlungene Werdegang der jeweiligen Prophetenbücher in die Erscheinung” (Zobel H.J., 1993, 190). The terminology used in this regard offers little practical help (Hentschke, 1957, 148 n. 2; Auld, 1983; Gonçalves, 2001). This may not temp us to a ‘vereinheitlichendes Verständnis’ (Fohrer, 1979, 488). There is even ‘a degree of fluidity’ (Crenshaw, 1971, 62) between false and true prophets. “Diese Weite und Unbestimmtheit der zur Bezeichnung der prophetischen Funktionen dienenden Begriffe zeigt, daß die Nebiim keinen geschlossen Stand mit gesetzlich festgelegten Rechten und Pflichten gebildet haben ... Das Wesen des Prophetentums kann man also nicht mit formalen Kriterien, sondern nur von dem Inhalt seiner Verkündigung her erfassen” (Hentschke, 1957, 173). 830 ‘Dissident intellectuals’ (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 144-145; ‘Protest movement’ (Fenton, 2001, 137). “Jeremiah ... represented not the society at large but rather an anti-society (the Yahweh-alone party) and the text follows the format of an anti-language. As a representative of the prophetic minority, Jeremiah sought to devalue the dominant ideology of the popular religion” (Domeris, 1999, 244). 831 Hos. 6:5; Jer. 26:18-23; 37:11-16. “The history of the Israelite prophets is a history of martyrdom” (Lindblom, 19735, 203). This martyrdom came to the fore only as of Manasseh’s time (Rofé, 1988b, 197-213). Steck (1967) treated this theme at length. 832 “Thus the curious fact that the prophets are both silenced and venerated stares us in face, both here and in other late literature (cultic prayers, Chronicles)” (Crenshaw, 1971, 106). The reforms under Kings Hezekiah and Josiah may have been at least in part a consequence of the influence exerted by Isaiah and Micah (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 143; for another view see: Seybold, 1972, 174-175). Notwithstanding the dissenting view of a large part of his

352

guiding lights for the common people living amid religious confusion. The prophets’ performance and the puzzling fact of prophecy exceeded their judgment. Even the most recent argument of fulfilment proved insufficient to resolve the situation833. We can deduce from all this that these prophets tended to be outsiders and that their contemporaries certainly did not consider them in any sense classical. Classical is a qualification that can only be conferred after one has become conversant with a phenomenon. It political support, King Zedekiah of Judah consulted Jeremiah several times (Jer. 21:1-3; 3738; 42:11) as such prophets had been consulted in earlier times. Apparently the king could not completely circumvent that authority (Wilson, 1980, 243). “During most of the ancient period Israelite prophets enjoyed immunity, not because of the righteousness of the people but because the prophets were feared by the population who dared lay a hand on God’s holy men” (Rofé, 1988b, 189). “Das Wissen um die Souveränität Jahwes war in Israel, trotz allem Synkretismus so weit wach geblieben, daß man es immerhin nicht wagte, die Prophezeiung der Vernichtung des Tempels als schlechthin unmöglich offen abzulehnen” (Hentschke, 1957, 168). At the same time we must note that the thwarted and persecuted prophet did not eschew contact with the establishment. He seemed aware that it was an indispensable step in bringing the prophetic message to fulfilment among the people. This sheds little light on the prophets’ nearly undetectable social role within the groups and structures where he operated (Mayes, 1993). 833 As charismatic men of God, the prophets confronted the public with many problems, even in earlier times (Hentschke, 1957, 148). There is no shortage of similarities with the older prophets. The invocation of direct, divine inspiration in combination with strange, ecstatic behaviour (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 41) took away any possibility of objective verification of whether this invocation of divine inspiration is justified. “The fundamentally ambiguous phenomenon of prophecy (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 38). “...the inevitably unverifiable nature of the prophet’s claims” (Ackroyd, 1978, 47). “If men may claim to be inspired by God and therefore equate what they say with the words of God then there will be no protection against any number of so inspired persons proclaiming any number of discrete, and even incompatible messages in society” (Carroll, 1979, 14). “...one must conclude that prophetic conflict is inevitable, growing out of the nature of prophecy itself ... Within the two-fold task of the reception in experience of divine mystery, and the articulation of that word to man in all his nuances and with persuasive cogency rest multiple possibilities for error and disbelief” (Crenshaw, 1971, 3). The prophets sensed this communication problem and made more attempts than their predecessors and their colleagues among the surrounding peoples to give the impression that they mediated the divine message. Hence their switch from ecstasy to preaching. — Thus, the problem of the distinction between true and false prophets had always existed, but was more acute in the chaotic times in which the classical prophets operated. In that period, more than others, prophecy was susceptible to conflicting interpretations (Clements, 1977, 52). It brought the issue of true and false prophecy to an apex, but also marked a turning point in favour of thee true prophets. That can be inferred from nearly all texts from the exilic and post-exilic periods (Auld, 1983, 5-9). Apparently the true and good prophet was usually a dead prophet (Auld, 1984, 67). Is. 36-37 show how even after the exile classical prophecy could be ambiguous and abused (Smelik, 1986).

353

presupposes that it is an established value and that it has a recognisable character shared by the different personages that represent it in various times and places834. That these prophets are called classical must have been 834

Boecker, 1981, 169-172; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 115; Wilson, 1980. ‘Tradition prophétique’ (Zimmerli, 1982, 103 n. 48). ‘Mainstream’ (Coggins, 1982, 79). ‘The classic is both different and the same, read in a new way but the same text” (Boer, 2002, 3). “Hence the conflict between prophets must have been one between persons of essentially the same social identity and location” (Long, 1977, 7). “Trotz ihrer Verschiedenartigkeit stellt prophetische Verkündigung aber zweifellos kein beziehungsloses Wirrwarr dar; vielmehr äußert sich in den selbständigen Einzelsprüchen im Wechsel der Situationen etwas gemeinsames, das es zu suchen gilt” (Schmidt, W.H., 1979, 564). “As in the case of the message of judgment, so also with that of the hope of restoration, there is a broad thematic unity linking together prophecies which display a great deal of variety and individual expression” (Clements, 1977, 48). Compared to Amos, Hosea is ‘das Gegenbild in allen Stücken’ (Duhm, 1979, 99). We will return later to the diversity within the classical prophetic tradition. — The characteristic and essential feature that furnished the classical prophets’ common identity as classical and allowed them admission to the classical group will be described in greater detail below. However, attention for the classical prophets’ common denominator may never marginalise their diversity. J. Jeremias inclined toward this. He wrote, “Nicht die Unterschiede zwischen beiden Propheten (Hosea and Amos, L.Z.) haben die Tradition beschäftigt, sondern die Gemeinsamkeiten” (Jeremias, 1997, 38). Theological bias is decisive here. That is why this author stated, “...das eine göttliche Prophetenwort hinter den zahlreichen prophetischen Äußerungen ... erkennbar zu machen” (Jeremias, 1997, 29). The canonical process gradually gave rise to the primacy of the common to the particular, in other words to generalisation. This tendency led to a situation where classical prophets – who originally stressed the proclamation of doom – became a univocal choir speaking oracles of deliverance (Clements, 1977, 43-44). Here again this played a role in the gradual emphasis on the one people of Israel (Bright, 1977, 34; Koch, 1978, 71; Wilson, 1980, 17). — It is clear that generalisation played a major role in the successive stages through which the prophetic tradition passed in its transition from the Kingdom of Israel to that of Judah and in the integration of the traditions of these kingdoms (Wilson, 1980, 254, 263, 270). Until that moment, the individual accents had a more profound impact than the final redaction hints. This is a reduction resulting from the generalist, canonical adaptation that even then relied on the growing insight in YHWH’S unity (Coote, 1981, 99), a notion that the Dtr put fully in the spotlight. The canonical adaptation overshadowed individual reality in favour of a generalist theological elucidation. It is the same rationalisation of national unity (Peckham, 1991, 109) deployed and developed in the synthesis of the BoC’s legal prescriptions during their codification. — The BoC also amply treats the concern for the single identity and ordering of the diversified community. “La préservation au Sud de traditions prophétiques associées à Osée et Amos, et adressées à la communauté du Nord, montre qu’à un moment donné on a essayé de rassembler en un tout les éléments dispersés de ce qu’on pensait avoir été une communauté une, quels que soient les particularismes qu’on peut discerner même aux périodes anciennes” (Ackroyd, 1977a, 243). The elite launched this initiative (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 141-147). Without a doubt, the priests and temple school also played a major role (Jeremias, 1970, 189).

354

the result of a rather long reasoning process835. The term classical risks concealing classical prophecy’s slow and laborious advance toward its acknowledgement as classical. This deficiency in the term classic is corrected with another qualification usually used in the same breath with the word prophets, i.e. written836, because this term recalls somewhat the classical prophets’ unsettled start. The writings of the classical prophets only become perspicuous with this start in mind. If, as some would have it, the prophets in some cases instigated the commitment of their preaching to writing, this was not due to their sense of material progress or their prescience837. Rather, it was pure necessity. The opposition that the prophets and their message encountered was so vehement that they were obliged to withdraw

835

We already referred to the long tradition with many stages that started with the prophets. Inevitably the abrupt start, marked by free inspiration, evolved into a gradual pondering that started with the commitment to writing (Barthel, 1997, 27). In a certain sense this can be traced using the terminology related to prophet and prophecy. Yet this evolution did not run totally parallel to the term ‫נביא‬, which the Dtr assigned to the classical prophets at a late date (Auld, 1983; idem, 1984; Gonçalves, 2001). The enlistment of reason and wisdom by inclusion of hymns (Koch, 1974) and the creation theme (Mowinckel, 1976, 248 n. 16; Von Rad, 1970, 243-244) at the expense of irrational elements such as ecstatic and visionary practices was a logical evolution evident when reviewing the writings of the pre-exilic prophets. Many wisdom elements have been found in Amos (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 89 n. 13; Fritz, 1989, 39; Coote, 1981, 64). Although this does not imply that the classical prophets were sages in the strict sense. They used wisdom elements only in service of their performance (Osswald, 1984, 643). This seems to have been the case for Jeremiah’s confessions. They display many similarities with the psalms. Yet there are many differences. This makes it likely that the text’s compilers only included wisdom elements because they wanted to remain faithful to the original context of Jeremiah’s preaching (Hermisson, 1998, 16-36). The influence of wisdom on Dt.-Dtr will be addressed below (7.5). 836 This term, originally intended only to refer to the typical material shape in which the prophetic preaching was passed down, is now used more to stress the contribution of its redactors and tradents. This written amendment is correctly considered authentic prophecy. There is no need to use this written prophecy against the original prophetic preaching or to disjoin the two (according to: Utzschneider, 1989, who apparently wished to raise the exceptional case of Malachi to a blanket rule). 837 Assuming that the prophets wrote their sermons to demonstrate their fulfilment later, Gunneweg (1959, 47) concluded that this evinced “eine magische Wirkung des geschriebenen Wortes”. Jeremias (1970, 199) agrees in part when speaking of the ‘Überlieferungswillen der Propheten selbst’ committing their preaching to writing. Hardmeier (1983, 119-120) challenged this. The commitment of prophecy to writing was not so future-oriented, but was rather directed toward current events.

355

in reflection and then to regroup privately838. Writing not only gave them a means to preserve the prophetic message safely; it also gave them an opportunity to legitimate their message and to keep proffering it even after its rejection, this time addressed to all the people, with the establishment at its head839. This rapid commit to writing did more to help the classical 838

Albertz, 1992, 256-257; Ackroyd, 1977a, 241; Bright, 1977, 97. ‘Opposition literature’, according to: Nielsen (Schoors, 1998, 134). “Er kann sich in Anfechtung seiner Berufung vergewissern” (Zobel H.J., 1993, 191). Given the emergency conditions in which the prophetic personages operated, there were doubtless several reasons of varying importance for committing why their words to writing. “In Amos as in the other prophetic books, then, the drama of the spurning of the prophet imbues the entire book” (Coote, 1981, 61). “Such conflict inevitably led to self-interrogation ... but regardless of his answer, the prophet could not escape the inner doubts forced upon him by the unbelieving populace, his disagreeing and often disagreeable colleagues” (Crenshaw, 1971, 3). — Since the emergency resulting from rejection of the preaching of doom affected the prophets first, the conflict about the authenticity of their message has historically been postulated as the primary reason for commitment to writing. “La mise par écrit des traditions est spécialement liée à des crises générales de confiance” (Ackroyd, 1977a, 241). “...the experience of dissonance forced individuals or groups to reinterpret their basic material or the contemporary events so as to avoid dissonance” (Carroll, 1979, 110). — Confirmation is found in the structure of the call narratives, where the personal struggle with the issue of faith always precedes the problem of the population’s obduracy (Henry, 1969, 19-41, 55). The tradition notably used the call pattern as argument for credibility and authority (Long, 1977, 11-13), an important factor in the canon process (6.7). “Thus the need to assert his divine call arose when this message and continued ministry were opposed and rejected” (Clements, 1975, 39). This primordial, personal situation that confronted the prophets can be detected in Is. 7:9; 30:15 and Hab. 1:5; 2:4, which are very similar (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 152). As time and reflection progressed, later tradition used the call narratives for its own legitimation. This is evident from their gradual shift to the core of prophetic writing (Carroll, 1981, 51-52). — Henry (1969, 42-75) clearly individuated the prophet from his presumed disciples in this reflection period. The latter look more to deliverance “Schon die ‘Erstverschriftung’ stellt sich als ein Vorgang nicht nur der Kodifizierung sondern auch der Interpretation der Prophetenworte dar” (Barthel, 1997, 27). Clements (1975, 45-46), by contrast, focussed more on the evolution in the prophetic tradition from the disciples to the redactors of the writings. Starting from a theological assessment of the amendment and the literary form, Kratz (1997, 18-25) reduced classical prophetic tradition to a single whole, including the prophets. He saw everything as a product of the redactors. 839 One of the call narratives’ purposes is to provide legitimacy; ‘Identitätswahrung’: Hardmeier, 1993, 134 (Domeris, 1999, 248-250). — Prompted by the Assyrians, it became customary to address the people as a whole and not only their leaders (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 27 n. 16). Similarly, the BoC exhibits a growing sense of the community as a whole. It is no coincidence that Dtr-Dt. stressed the notion of unity. “Here especially the act of writing is the way of making a claim stick, even though in the circumstances it could only be vindicated in the future” (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 38). “Die Schriftlichkeit garantiert damit zugleich, daß die Sendung der Propheten nicht vergeblich war” (Jeremias, 1999, 20). Since

356

prophets and their message than they anticipated. Due, in part, to the turn of political events that could be interpreted as a fulfilment of their prophecies of doom, their writings gave support and refuge to later pious generations. It gave them a podium that that lasted through the ages. It is a much-needed, sturdy witness to the authenticity of prophecy that was in an unstable position and hard to assess. The classical prophets are thus correctly called written prophets in commemoration of the extraordinary role that the commitment to writing played in this authentification840. the prophets were oriented less to the future than to current events, they were more interested in their contemporaries than in future readers when their work was committed to writing, assuming they participated in this (Hardmeier, 1983, 119-120). The later redactional tradition, not the prophets, used a written version of the fulfilment scheme to lend persuasion to prophetic preaching. Writing offered more avenues than prophetic preaching, certainly when addressing the establishment. “The only way they can speak effectively to the ruling elite in their own setting is by speaking through a medium utilized by the elite. Writing is such a medium” (Coote, 1981, 101). That is why Jeremiah (Jer. 36) resorted to a scroll to get his message into the royal court. In this description, he was forbidden to enter the temple. Yet it was apparent from what happened later to Jeremiah and his scroll that this means could also fail. He had to deal with a use of writing that was detrimental to his prophetic task (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 35-39). Thus, the written form cannot automatically be equated with a higher theological qualification, according to Kratz (1997, 18-19) who incorrectly identifies prophecy’s written shape with its permanent character, reserving this exclusively to written prophecy. According to Jeremias (1999, 20-21), the conscious selection usually, but not always, made during commitment to writing may not be ascribed exclusively to the written form. The commitment to writing was a special opportunity to select and may have coincided with reflection. The written form is not identical with the reflection and interpretation process that the prophetic material continuously underwent independent of its written form. The committing to writing can teach much about the direction that this reflection took. 840 Since prophetic preaching was first oral, it is not always so that it is encountered solely in writings. “Es ist daher alles andere als selbstverständlich daß die Worte der Propheten überhaupt aufgeschrieben worden sind” (Kaiser, 19845, 269). The old prophets and many of the classical prophets’ contemporaries, such as Uriah, left no writings (Hos. 6:5; Is. 30:1011; Hentschke, 1957, 154). “...notiert sei, daß natürlich auch in Israel die Worte der überwiegenden Mehrzahl an Propheten nie schriftlich tradiert werden” (Jeremias, 1999, 19 n. 1). Yet they, too, played a meaningful role in the prophetic tradition. It cannot be argued theologically that prophecy is made or broken with its commitment to writing (Kratz, 1997, 18, seems to have held this view. Dohmen, 2004, 178 asserts, “Sie [die Aufzeichnung, L.Z.] alleine hat die Möglichkeit für einen derart komplexen Überlieferungsprozeß hervorgebracht”) or that it is the basis for unity in biblical prophecy (for another view see: Jeremias, 1999, 19). Written prophecy, like the biblical legal codes, is a curtailed deposit of the oral tradition which it presupposes. It should be recognised that without writing, the classical prophets’ preaching would have been passed on in a greatly abbreviated form. “Wie klein mag der Ausschnitt der Prophetenliteratur sein, den wir jetzt im AT als ‘die

357

Yet like the designation classical prophets, written prophets also has its constraints. Although each highlights important characteristics of classical prophecy, neither uncovers its essence841. To communicate this, one must disregard all external variations in form to reach the fundamental dynamism842 that drove the representatives of this prophecy as distinct from all other types of prophecy. This type of prophet felt uniquely called to be YHWH’S immediate spokesman. He proclaims his arrival in current and universal history843, this time not for individuals or for one category of people, but for the whole people. The arrival is impending, admits no delay and unexpectedly844 and immediately puts at risk the whole people’s life and well-being. This type of prophecy appointed itself the prime factor; it intended to guide all members of religious society via performance legitimated directly from above. Because it used a message that was

Schriftpropheten’ zu bezeichnen pflegen!” (Spieckermann, 1982, 60). But this does not diminish the value of the oral information on which it is based. 841 Superficial changes in prophecy can be isolated from more fundamental changes (Petersen, 1991a, 193-194; Lindblom, 19735, 216). It has been ascertained that the external shape is not determinative for classical prophecy, just as it is not in law. Classical prophecy largely shares this with older and contemporary prophecy. Further, the urgency of its free inspiration is such that it tries to utilise all forms and means (Scharbert, 1969, 66-69). 842 This has little to do with basic certainty (Grundgewißheit Schmidt W.H., 1979, 543). This is expressed in extraordinary circumstances and behaviour that set the prophet off from his time and environment. According to H. Nissinen, the notion of YHWH’S absolute contribution could rely to some degree on Assyrian royal ideology (Lange, 2002, 27). 843 Zimmerli, 1982, 83, 106. “Das Verständnis der Geschichte als Eintreffen des von Amos angekündigten Unheils ist der eigentliche Beweggrund für die Arbeit der Amos-Schule in 7-9” (Fritz, 1989, 35). “Geschichte ist für die Prophetie das gezielte Gespräch des Herrn der Zukunft mit Israel ... Geschichte ist für die Prophetie als kontinuierliche Einheit erkennbar, weil sie im kommenden Gotteshandeln die Anfänge der Heilsgeschichte wiedererkennt” (Wolff, 1973a, 293, 299). Amos is a pioneer in this. “ Mit dem Buch des Amos wird so zum ersten Mal die Prophetie als umfassende Deutung der Geschichte in der Form der Ankündigung des Gotteswillens für die Zukunft faßbar. Damit haben sich Erscheinungsform und Wesen der Prophetie grundlegend und für immer verändert” (Fritz, 1989, 42). With prophecy, awareness that YHWH’S actions in history are not restricted to those favourable to Israel also grew. He dominates all of world history. “Die prophetische Daseinshaltung bedeutete ferner den Übergang von der Volksreligion zur Weltreligion ... Demgemäß war die prophetische Botschaft universal” (Fohrer, 1989, 94). 844 “Cette venue dont ils doivent parler est cependant l’inattendu ... Une attente contraire dans le peuple” (Zimmerli, 1982, 83, 85). This idea of YHWH’S unexpected variability started in the BoC, evolved in the classical prophets and is thus not native to Dtr (Blenkinsopp, 1999, 105).

358

simultaneously far-reaching845 and at odds with the current societal situation, it is logical that the prevailing system could not attain it in the short term. It showed clearly that this type of prophecy was doomed to land amid a furious clash between loyalty to its views and their attainability within society. This society was under pressure from numerous other factors that also determined its continued existence. This clash between classical prophecy and Israelite society led to a lengthy process of reflection and a continuous complication of the prophets’ relation with the people and their leaders846. 845

The profound behaviour toward the Holy One of Israel brought to light the failing conduct of the cultic functionaries, prophets and entire people. Hence the familiar and farreaching ethical demands made by these classical prophets, which largely established their authority (Vawter, 1973², 39). “Das Gottesbild der Propheten ist der ‘ethische Monotheismus’” (Neumann, 1979, 9). “Ceux qui semblent être parmi les premiers, sinon les premiers à introduire la primauté du moral” (Epzstein, 1983, 159). “Das neue was bei diesen Männern also geschehen ist, daß hier der fromme, und sittliche Charakter in die Prophetie eintritt” (Gunkel, 1979, 140). 846 ‘Reflexionsfähigkeit’ (Lange, 2002, 25). “Denn hier (in prophecy, L.Z.) werden Jahwe und die Götter deutlich unterschieden, und hier wird der Prozeß der Entgötterung der Welt stärker reflektiert als anderwärts im Alten Testament” (Wolff, 1973d, 422). This reflection comprised not only the message’s authenticity; it also included its correlation with the current events and their gradual explication. It led to a “Wandel im Verständnis des Prophetenamtes dem ein Wandel von Gottesbild entspricht” (Jeremias, 1997, 33; Kratz, 1997, 21). — The broadening of the view on world events (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 83-84; Albertz, 1992, 275; Spieckermann, 1982; Schoors, 1998, 64-97; Petersen, 1991a, 193) was combined in the classical prophets with a growing insight in the universal implications of Yahwism and the absoluteness of YHWH’S person (Fohrer, 1989, 93-94). “In der Prophetie erwächst das universal geschichtliche Interesse, weil sie den kommenden Gott Israels als einzigen Herrn der ganzen Wirklichkeit erkennt” (Wolff, 1973a, 301). In that regard, one can speak of a type of enlightenment (Dietrich, 1995, 22). Faith in creation (Westermann, 1987, 188-193), already present in the BoC, is typical of this and stands at the forefront in prophecy and wisdom (Vawter, 1973², 196). — The prophecies against the peoples, a genre inherited from older prophecy along with the cult and the idea of a holy war (Clements, 1975, 38-72), draw on this (Jeremias, 1989; idem, 1996, 172-182). They are usually considered a product of later reflection (Herrmann S., 1990, 163-165). Because of this comprehensive and developing reflection, the role of those responsible for the later phases of tradition, principally the redactors of the prophetic traditions, becomes very important. They have now taken root in the literature (Kratz, 1997; Davies P.R., 1998, 107-125 even wishes to give the Dtr redactors such a principal role in shaping the Prophetic Codex that the prophets fade from view). Tradition’s occasional further development of prophecy is a continuation, and constant rethinking, of earlier Yahwism as study of the BoC made apparent. — The prophets’ ideology, which was often at odds with public authorities, was unique among its contemporaries (Gottwald, 1996, 141). The Dtr encountered similar entanglements in their own area. They, too, had interests that differed from the rulers’

359

Finally, the deeds of the pre-exilic prophets provided much information on their attitude toward tradition. Their discordant performance gave the impression that they broke completely with all that could be called tradition. Upon examination, it appears that their performance contained many features of older prophecy847 from which they inherited these customs and continued them easily. More than that: They adopted a position consistent with a series of prophetic predecessors whom then considered bearers of authentic prophecy. Even their opponents continued to call them prophets, however deficient their performance. This shows that the classical prophets only criticised the way in which these opposing prophets performed their task, not prophecy as such, just as their radical criticism of the cult intended only to purify and improve it, not abolish it848. There seems to be a discriminating attitude toward tradition within their gradually arising circle of new prophets. The classical prophets were quickly aware that they shared similarities. They stressed that by adopting one another’s themes and devices849 and by building a unique but real prophetic tradition whose branches are being uncovered in the literature. Moreover, it seems abundantly clear that these new prophets were part of the same tradition, which allowed them all to be categorised under the same heading classical prophets850. Nevertheless, all policy. As with the prophets, their view of socio-political reality did not coincide with a purely rational approach. However rational it may be, it is imbued with their theological Yahwist conviction that, again as with the prophets, causes to veer away from traditional reflexes customary within Israel (Barthel, 1997, 467-469). Hence that purported true prophecy cannot be judged using only a criterion such like fulfilment. Prophecy as inspired by YHWH surpasses human rationality and is both charismatic and transcendent. 847 Schmitt, 1972, 224-225. Biographical narratives or legends such as usually arose during older prophecy can also be found, albeit fewer in number, in the classical prophets, e.g. Jonah (Coggins, 1982, 78). 848 “It sought to correct, not to replace” (Fenton, 2001, 136. 849 Clements, 1975, 37-40. “Auch die kanonischen Unheilspropheten haben traditionsbildend gewirkt… die kanonischen Unheilspropheten in ihren Neubildungen selbstraditions- und formprägend wirkten” (Jeremias, 1970, 137, 161). They reflect upon one another. “Was die vorhergehenden Propheten (wie Am. 3,8; Is. 9:7) ergeben, wird stärker reflektiert” (Schmidt W.H., 1991b, 355). Succeeding other prophets had advantages: there were fewer problems with unfulfilled prophecies, according to R.J. Coggins (Lange, 2002, 29). It is a symptom of the community’s role in the canon process. 850 The relationship between Hosea and Jeremiah was long recognised (Jeremias, 1996a, 122-141) as was that between Amos and Micah, and to a lesser extent that between Amos and Isaiah. Today many interconnections are drawing attention, such as Isaiah with Nahum (Coggins, 1982, 82-83) and Amos with Jeremiah (Schmidt W.H., 1991b, 353-354). At the same time a method for this study is being developed from a purely statistical study of

360

these prophetic writings exhibit a unique character as expressed by the name of the prophet under which it appears. It is significant that these writings were consciously collected under the name of a person851. Just as vocabulary to extensive research into the intertextuality (on the evolution in the new century see: Tull, 2000a; idem, 2000b; Koehl-Krebs, 2004) and the thematic-theological similarities in the broader context of reception history (Carroll, 1998, 63-65). Redactors also seem to have included influences from later prophets on their predecessors’ writings (Schulz-Rauch, 1996; Fey, 1963; Beyerlin, 1989; Jeremias, 1996b; idem, 1997; Berridge, 1979; Naumann, 1991; Coggins, 1982). — Israel’s small size was conducive to the familiarity with the idiom and to intertextuality between the very different prophetic writings (Jeremias, 1999, 33). 851 However much familiarity between prophets such as Elijah and Elisha were stressed in parallel descriptions, their singularity remains preserved (Levine, 1999). “The prophets as recipients of divine revelations, their disciples, and those who collected these revelations were the primary actors in the complicated process which finally resulted in the books of the prophets as we now have them” (Lindblom, 19735, 220). Both the familiarity and the singularity of the prophetic writings must be taken into account (Ben Zvi, 1999, 259, n. 76). However, redaction criticism tends to ascribe the characteristic feature of the prophetic writings to the individual groups or generations that the redactors had in mind instead of to the separate prophets whose preaching they transmitted and adjusted to current events (according to: Ben Zvi, 1996, 265-267). But it makes little sense to speak of the prophetic books without letting the first authors, the prophets, speak for themselves. Kratz (1997, 1415) and Carroll (1998, 72) tend to do this because of their broad interest in redactional work and canonical criticism. Carroll, 1998, 77 n. 34. “The literary prophet is larger than the historical prophet ... Whatever the historical Amos, for example, once was or might have been is insignificant when compared to what Amos has now become part of” (Collins, 1993, 126). But the Yahwist impact or dynamic issued first from these prophets. “...the original status of the prophet is a necessary element in the continuing reinterpretation of his words” (Ackroyd, 1978, 27). “Dabei geht es nicht nur um ein rein historisches Interesse: zur Debatte steht zugleich die Autorität jenes Propheten, dessen Verkündigung den Prozeß immer neuer Aneignung und Interpretation in Gang gesetzt hat, an dessen Ende das nach ihm benannte Prophetenbuch steht” (Barthel, 1997, 24). — The redactors later played a major role in the reflection on and development of this prophetic current. However, their role can only be truly understood by placing them within the whole of the prophetic process in which the prophets, tradition and even each individual within the community has a designated share. From this perspective, the redactors of the prophetic texts remained dependent on their originators, the prophets. Without them, there would have been no prophetic current. They started the reflection in the very act of appropriating current tradition and thus stimulated later tradition. “Den Prozeß des Sammelns und Überarbeitens der Verkündigung Jeremias leitet der Prophet selbst im Jahre 605 mit der Niederschrift der ‘Urrolle’ ein” (Scharbert, 1969, 102). “Die im prophetischen Wort gesetzten Maßstäbe sachlicher Glaubensorientierung befruchteten das Denken und Urteilsvermögen, förderten weiterführende Reflexion und die ihr verbundene Weisung” (Henry, 1969, 43). — This charisma emanating from the original prophetic personages is expressed in the 1st pers. sing. repeatedly found in the prophetic writings, even in the redactional parts (Jeremias, 1989, 96). Admittedly, in some cases such as Moses speech in Dt. 1:9-18, the 1st pers. sing.

361

it is notable how none of the classical prophets borrowed material from kindred spirits without applying individual accents. In each case they delved in one another’s achievements to use them as basis and source of inspiration to develop and update the same, yet renewed, theme. Long before the Dtr, these prophets demonstrated how to deal faithfully yet dynamically with inherited prophetic tradition.

7.3.4 The Pre-exilic Prophets versus the General Traditions The prophetic tradition was not isolated in Israel. It found its meaning and mission in function of the broader religious community852. That is why the contribution of the pre-exilic prophets was not limited to a new direction within the prophetic guild. Its renewal of prophecy resulted in a rethinking of the religious traditions. We still have to examine how this actually happened (7.3.4.2). However, just as the prophetic tradition could not be taken up without contact with its representatives, the prophets’ treatment of the general religious tradition could not be taken up without contact with its advocates. Among these advocates were the priests that the preexilic prophets encountered on their way. It would be constructive to focus on them (7.3.4.1) before moving on to study the way the pre-exilic prophets worked on the traditions. can serve as literary device (Collins, 1993, 159); but it is more difficult to assume that it is such when well-known prophets like Jeremiah speak from personal involvement. That is why it is impossible to choose either solution automatically (according to: Collins, 1993, 158). Each case must be evaluated separately. In using the 1st pers. sing., the prophetic personages demonstrated that they could operate as individuals within a society dominated by a sense of community and that they were able to accept personal responsibility. In this way they played a dynamic and exceptional role in the canon process that developed amid the religious community (2.2.C, 5.1.3.C). “Ohne Zweifel hat auch das prophetische Pathos inspirierten Sprechens auf die Wertschätzung der Bücher abgefärbt; mehr noch: hier dürfte die stärkste Quelle für die spätere Überzeugung von der Inspiration nicht nur der prophetischen Bücher, sondern der gesamten Schrift liegen, zumal auch Mose und David als Propheten erscheinen” (Söding, 2003, LXVI-LXVII). 852 Lemche, 1992, 242-245. “Sie (die Propheten, L.Z.) kommen uns also nur darin in Betracht, wenn die Prophetie selbst ein integrierendes Moment in der Begriffsbestimmung der Religion ist” (Duhm, 1979, 91). Apart from that, the classical prophets – as religious persons rooted in the conviction that their task was to serve as spokesmen for YHWH – were oriented toward the community’s welfare. Their interest in political events and their external intricacies arose only from this primordial concern for YHWH’S relation to the nation. It is presupposed that this nation is Yahwist. It does not coincide with the territory of the Promised Land and its inhabitants at the time, many of whom were descendants of the original, non-Yahwist indigenous population.

362

7.3.4.1 The Spokesmen for the General Traditions: The Priests Traditions have impact mainly through those who transmit them. Similarly pre-exilic prophets had contact with long-standing religious traditions in Israel by way of persons and institutions that shaped and controlled them. This confrontation must have started early in the lives of the pre-exilic prophets. It certainly preceded their vocation as prophets. It is usually situated early in the prophetic writings, in Jeremiah’s case even in early youth. Even if this depiction only partially reflects historical reality, it is certain that the prophets imbibed the religious customs and atmosphere of Israel from their youth in a family context and later in daily contacts. As with all Israelites of the time, numerous people in their immediate vicinity educated them in traditional values and passed on to them their spiritual heritage853. The prophets’ acquisition of their own influential position could only have been reached gradually after reflection not restricted to abstract thought without practical repercussions854. It was at once the 853

“Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Überlieferungen nahm Amos nicht auf sich, weil die Überlieferungen ihm als eine eigenständige Größe vorgegeben wären, sondern weil seine Hörer in diesen Überlieferungen lebten ... Hosea mußte sich mit dem Volksglauben auseinandersetzen. Das geschah am besten, wenn er von der Voraussetzung seiner Hörer her argumentiert” (Vollmer, 1971, 54, 120). The ‘weitere geistige Heimat’ (the situation of people and time) can be distinguished from the ‘engere geistige Heimat’ (immediate environment) (Scharbert, 1969, 73-81). The latter played a prominent role in the transfer of tradition in language (Lapointe, 1977). “L’ancienne tradition d’Israël offre le vocabulaire qui permet d’exprimer l’action imminente” (Zimmerli, 1982, 108). “Il était difficile d’employer un langage différent du lieu” (Epzstein, 1983, 158). “Wie alle großen Volkserzieher, Redner, Dichter, Lehrer und Seelsorger übernehmen die Propheten die Redeformen, die sie zu ihrer Zeit in ihrem Volk vorfinden” (Scharbert, 1969, 69). If there are non-Yahwist expressions in this vocabulary – which the prophets also adopted – this did not necessarily mean a departure from Yahwism. For a different view see Lemche, 1992, 248-254. Hosea’s notion of YHWH as Israel’s husband can be ascribed to this strict, narrow environment. It was probably inherited from experience with the Baal cult (Smith M.S., 1971, 43). — The theme of community versus personal religion re-enters here. Albertz (1978, 57) believed he saw signs of the lack of widespread traditions in personal names. This is a narrow basis for such a sweeping conclusion. There is little chance that these widespread traditions would have exerted no influence on personal religious life. 854 Just as the redactors of the BoC needed the wise experiences of the community and nature when systematising and developing legal principles, the prophets and their successors also began to need the sage contribution of reason. It was not sufficient to predict catastrophe, it also had to be explained. The Dt.-Dtr more than others will take up this task (6.4.4). — Unlike prophecy which relies on its charismatic inspiration (a priori

363

inception of different behaviour that tried the mettle of their relations as their behaviour diverged from what was expected. Echoes of this were heard when the prophets spoke of their confrontations when this divergent behaviour became public. We have already discussed the disputes with their colleagues. However, these are by no means the only ones they had to face. Several persons are mentioned, all of whom appear to belong to the elite class855. This shows that friction was not restricted to one particular intuition), wisdom starts from prior examination (a posteriori observations). Yahwism integrated these two diverging criteria, although not without difficulty (Murphy, 1987; Phillips, 1982, 224; for another view see: Crenshaw, 1982, 256 n. 15-17). Hence the apparent conflux of wisdom and Torah in Dt.-Dtr. Signs of this were already noted in the BoC. They also gradually appeared in the prophetic tradition (Barthel, 1997, 471). Israel’s wisdom approached reality from a rational but, for all that, practical experience. It did not confine itself to religion (for another view see: Crenshaw, 1982, 245-247), but envisaged apprehending all reality in all its facets. For this purpose it used adapted techniques (including aesthetics: Crenshaw, 1993, 374), presumably copied from the surrounding peoples but applied in their own characterise manner. This resulted in the formation of a prophetic tradition unlike any other discovered thus far. 855 See 7.3.3.1-7.3.3.2. These internal disputes, often resulting in isolation, did not diminish the prophets’ conviction that they served Israel as community, given their awareness that the divine message was entrusted to them because of YHWH’S relationship to Israel. — On the elite, see Rüterswörden, 1985. The ‫ רב שקה‬play a major role for the first time in Is. 3639 and 2 Kgs 18-20 (Smelik, 1981, 58-64). An added illustration is the treatment of Jeremiah (Jer. 37:1-10; de Jong, 1984, 139). Hardmeier (1990, 408-420) focused on words ‫ עבדים‬and ‫ שרים‬that occur in these narratives. As court officials, they resemble the historical figures that provide a foundation for the narratives. Amos criticises many senior officials (Schoors, 1998, 200). These are often the ‫( זקנם‬elders): Is. 3:5,14; 9:14; 20:4; 24:23; 47:6; Jer. 19:1; 26:17; 29:1; 31:13; Ez. 7:26; 8:11; 9:6; 14:1; 20:1; 23:3. They were the bridge to the older tradition: Ez. 8:1; 14:1; 20:1. ‫( נׂשיא‬tribal head, leader), which occurs once in the BoC, is frequent – no less than 37 occurrences – but exclusively in Ezekiel. There is sporadic use of ‫( קצין‬administrator): Is. 1:10; 3:6; 22:3; Mic. 3:1-9, ‫( ראש‬head): Mic. 3:11, ‫ר‬ ‫( ׂש ר‬military commander) – on these and the expansion of their legal power in Josiah’s time see Niehr, 1987, 91-94. A special case is the commander of the ‫( אשר עלהבית‬palace servants): Is. 1:23; 22:15; Jer. 37:14-15. He was mentioned on the Javne Jam ostracon, because the worker appealed to him to restore his rights. Also mentioned are ‫( שפט‬judge) Is. 1:26; Mic. 4:14; 7:13 – on their troublesome introduction in Josiah’s time see Niehr, 1987, 94-101 – and ‫( יעצק‬councillor) Is. 1:26. — In traversing all these terms it is striking that, as with the BoC, there is no mention of the king. Since the king undoubtedly had contact with these highly placed persons, including the priests in the national sanctuaries, he would inevitably be present even if directly, contrary to the later Dtr. model in the Law of the King (Rüterswörden, 1994, 322-323). Recall that the terminology here, like that relating to the prophets, gives no insight in the role and function of the persons mentioned (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 24). The most that can be learned from this is that they all belonged to the elite class. Since the prophets criticise all of them without exception, their total opposition (Albertz, 1992, 225-257) to the prophets could not be unexpected.

364

circle such as the prophetic guild. The stake seemed to be nothing less than the spiritual heritage of the whole religious community of whose lot these elite circles were the primary determinants. Like the prophets, the priests were noteworthy members. It is not accident that they are most frequently mentioned in conjunction with the prophets856. Priests and prophets customarily undertook the task of mediating the people’s relationship with YHWH857, albeit in different ways. Where the prophets acted from their charismatic call to articulate the ‫דבר יהוה‬, the priests only fulfilled their inherited function, following rules that had grown over time858. This led

856

They are mentioned conjointly at least 30 times (Jeremias, 1970, 2 n. 1). Four occurrences are in Jeremiah (Jer. 5:31; 6:13-14; 14:18; 23:11). 857 “We have to bear in mind the differing functions of these two professional classes, which continued to exist side by side as the accredited representatives of Yahweh in his dealings with his people until at least the early years of the post-exilic period” (Johnson, 1979, 44). The people’s welfare is dependent on YHWH’S relation to them. All Yahwist priests and prophets agree on this. They only differ in the way in which this relationship should be protected (Carroll, 1979, 63). Given the common design on the same relationship, the boundary between priests and prophets was fluid, certainly in ancient Israel (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 31). Their terminology often overlaps (Jeremias, 1970, 141, 156-162). “A sharp differentiation between the role of ‘priests’ and that of ‘prophets’, accordingly, is not always practical or feasible” (Barstad, 1993, 47). — We can ask here whether the common character of the two ministries is the result of the generalising influence of the canon process. “In the formation of the canon there is no contrast between prophet and priest, between charisma and institution” (ter Borg, 1998a, 418). Nonetheless, the intermingling of terminology between priest and prophet is also due to their evolution. Priesthood evolved from providing oracles and exhortations to offering sacrifices (De Vaux, 1962, 229-235). Prophecy shifted from its charismatic slant to shaping tradition and cult. As the charismatic inspiration grew rigid, prophecy shifted to the priestly functions (Hentschke, 1957, 127-128, 145-148). The confluent juncture is noticeable in Ezekiel who, as transitional figure, showed priestly/cultic tendencies. Jeremiah also strove toward good contacts with the priests in the ‫( גלה‬Blenkinsopp, 1977, 55-56, 70-72). In addition, neither Dt.-Dtr’s interest in the cult nor the cultic activity in post-exilic Judah can be understood without taking its continuity into account (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 59). These meant unavoidable and permanent contact between prophets, cult and cultic functionaries. That is why P and D have so much in common. 858 Hentschke, 1957, 127, 171-172; De Vaux, 1962, 228; Blenkinsopp, 1995, 128. “Wo der Offenbarerer ein amtlich bestellter Diener der Obrigkeit oder Gesellschaft ist, da müssen die Offenbarungsmittel notwendig rein technischer Art sein. Der Priester muß Mittel in Händen haben, durch die er jedesmal, wenn er erwünscht ist, eine Antwort hervorrufen kann” (Mowinckel, 1979, 192). In time, the altar service became the prime duty of the priestly ministry (Hentschke, 1957, 133; Zwickel, 1994, 309-313). “regelmäßig wiederkehrende liturgische Teile ...” (Jeremias, 1970, 147-148). Neither prophets nor priests form a monolithic block. There are also varying tendencies within each group. One

365

them to choose always for a preferably unchanging tradition and to undertake its defence when necessary. Consequently, they tended to seek the material means and power to maintain established order859. This conferred on them the role of supervisors in the cult, a position of power that was not to be underestimated, certainly in a socio-economic centre like the temple in Jerusalem860, as the king and the state bureaucracy were well aware. They saw in the priests an ideal instrument for maintaining public order in important places like the much-frequented sanctuaries. Since, moreover, they could appoint them to the sanctuaries, it was obvious that they maintained close contact with these priests861. When the more oriented toward P, the other toward D. They were divided into different categories (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 79). 859 The BoC, certainly in effect in the classical prophets’ day, evinced an orientation toward order (Jeremias, 1970, 129; n. 479), inspired by the surrounding peoples. The priests stepped into the breach – not totally for altruistic reasons: One way was by making their ministry hereditary they perpetuated their position of power (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 78-79). “Die Kultfunktionäre vermochten als Vertreter der status quo diesen Ordnungswillen nur ‘von ihrer Kultideologie her zu beurteilen’ und sahen ‘den willen Gottes durchgesetzt, wenn die Verhältnisse bleiben, wie sie sind’. Demgegenüber führte der sittliche Ernst der Gerichtspropheten und ihre unbedingte Forderung nach der Durchsetzung des göttlichen Ordnungswillens zu einer Hinterfragung des status quo”, according to: F. Stolz (Lange, 2002, 30). — The sway of materialism over the priesthood is evident from the use of ‫אתיד‬ ‫( ימל ד‬filling the hand) that was customary at their appointment/ordination (Jg. 17:5,12; 1 Kgs 13:33). 860 Jer. 20:1; 29:26-27. In the Middle East, the temple served as a religious centre and was also a political and economic factor (Löhr, 2003). For that reason, the prophets preferred to preach in cult places. They wanted to be at the heart of political and social life. The centralisation prompted by Dt.-Dtr was not merely a religious matter. It was essentially a centre of the king’s power (Smith M.S., 1971, 51) and even more so of the priests’. “Because of their traditional claim to hold office by virtue of divine election alone and the broad authority given them in judicial as well as cultic affairs, the Levitical priests potentially exercise more power than the king over the Israelite nation” (McBride, 1987, 243). 861 “Pour atteindre le peuple, il lui (la culture royale, L.Z.) fallait subir une transformation et cela s’effectuait par l’intermédiaire du culte” (Kapelrud, 1978, 113). Amaziah illustrated this subordination during his actions against Amos at Bethel. Recent study has shown this event to be historical (Dijkstra, 2001, 127) which is not the case for everything that tradition had linked to it after Josiah’s reforms. It is also significant that the high priest Hilkiah felt required to inform the king about the discovery of the ‘new’ law book (2 Kgs 22:8-9). The king exercised his power over the temple through his agent Shaphan (Spieckermann, 1982, 48). In that regard, it is significant that Amos earned his own living and could thus preserve his independence. Yet prophets regularly entered the king’s service. Traces of these prophetic services are found in the royal psalms that, like all psalms, originated in prophetic and poetic work (Jeremias, 1970, 187-191). The temple

366

classical prophets called for change and then generally came up against the priests, they not only ran up against the representatives of customary religious traditions and institutions but also against the representatives of the socio-political system862. In the contention that then ensued, the priests had an advantage over the classical prophets who were already controversial in their own guild. On a religious plane, the priests had only to defend what was already accepted by broad layers of the population thanks to their activity at the sanctuaries863. Moreover, the priests could always count on the support of the public authorities and the state bureaucracy. It appeared to be a one-sided contest that went against the prophets of doom from the very start864. It compelled them to think about their strategy from the very beginning of the contention. This taught them that they could only propagate new prophetic insights by rooting them in tradition and not by opposing them to it. In this way prophecy could also influence the Dtr tradition to such an extent that it gave the Dtr opus a prophetic character865. Beside this, prophecy also addressed the embryonic priestly tradition. Prophecy had little opportunity to gain acceptance for its preaching. Its moral and religious authority was not sufficiently great. It could not find an alternative for the cult it criticised866. Because its reform programme implied a radical change to all of socio-political life, the prophets – after having criticised this system – had to call in the

liturgy thus became an extension of the court culture, just as the temple building was a continuation of the royal palace. “…the temple and the king constitute the two most fundamental institutions …the two are interrelated in that kings generally found and support temples … and temple legitimize the kings” (Sweeney, 1996, 15). 862 “The claims staked by him, or by others on his behalf, would tend to set him in opposition to dominant elites dedicated to maintaining the status quo. Prophecy would therefore play a destabilizing rather than a corroborative role in society” (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 42-43). 863 Since sanctuaries served as archives and libraries (Jackson, 19934, 192-193), the priests could maintain control of traditions and exercise enduring influence on Yahwist Israel. This makes it plausible that the familiar P tradition has its roots here (SchwienhorstSchönberger, 1990, 285 n. 2-3). The tradition is probably correct in tracing its own roots to the dawn of Israel’s history. 864 “...the prophets were no masters of the art of pedagogy or communication...” (Crenshaw, 1971, 35). 865 There is a natural tendency to ensure a minimal continuity in tradition, even when adjustments are required (Ackroyd, 1977a; 6.6.4). — 6.4.3. The classical prophets’ special influence on Dt.-Dtr will be treated in 7.3.5. 866 Hentschke, 1957, 123.

367

authorities867 if they were to make any progress toward reaching their objective. All this meant that classical prophecy, extended in the Dtr tradition, became a protracted affair with trans-temporal content. For one thing, it deepened insight in the structure of Israel’s religious society with respect to the BoC868. It is now markedly Yahwist, but for all that it was nota univocal choir. In this varied Yahwist landscape, there were two mutually influential tendencies. On one side there is that of the Priestly Codex. This was developed within economically and politically strong classes such as the priests usually concentrated in the capital or the cult869. On the other there was a more social Dtr tendency that derived its primary support from the rural population. Both tendencies attracted public from among strict and elite Yahwists that, moved by older prophecy870 and later 867

Blenkinsopp, 1995, 143. Jeremiah exhibited this oscillating attitude: he “functions both as antagonist and protagonist to the rulers of his day” (Crenshaw, 1971, 68-69). 868 Dtr’s broad content is t he result of the differentiated composition of the D current. — Much of what the BoC says about social as well as religious matters can be encountered in the prophetic writings. It should be mentioned in passing that following up the community’s contribution is one of the main themes in this investigation into the process of the canon’s genesis (2.2.C, 5.1.3.C). 869 ‘Kanoninterne Vielstimmigkeit’ (Weippert M, 1997, 1). “Es kann nicht pauschal vorausgesetzt werden daß die Faktizität des religiösen Lebens in Altpalästina mit der faktische Geschichte der damaligen Nationen identisch war, weil sich Religion und geschichtliche Ereignisse nicht auf derselben logischen Ebene befinden” (Lemche, 1994, 61). YHWH does seem to have operated beside the other gods, on a national level (Weippert M., 1997, 3). — Just as Dtr drew its members mainly from the ‫עם הארץ‬, while not refusing candidates from layers of society, P drew its members mainly, but not exclusively, from the priestly cast. This gave the Dtr access to the temple archives as well as the royal archives. — The link to the cult reflected a social fact. The cultic repercussion on prophetic writings was thus unavoidable (Sweeney, 1996, 17). It is striking how often the prophets directed their criticism at capital cities (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 150 n. 59; Am. 3:9,12; 6:1; Hos. 7:1; 8:5; 10:5,7; 14:1; Mic. 1:5-6; 3:10-12; 6:9-16; Is. 1:21-23; 28:14-22). Accidentally or not, these were always the sites where cult centres are located. P and D felt an affinity for the cult, each for their own reasons and from their own place in society. P concentrated on the service of the cult and participated in its rites. D’s affinity arose more from socio-political involvement. Both are present where the cult operates in Israel. 870 The prophets seem either to belong to this (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 152-153) or to have affinity with it (Is. 5:8; Mic. 2:2; 3:2-3). — Yahwism’s exclusivity is expressed in the theme of YHWH’S jealousy (Smith M.S., 1971, 41-48; Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 151-152). This exclusivity sparked the separation between orthodox and less or non-orthodox (syncretistic) Yahwists. Exclusively Yahwist tendencies gradually rose to the surface in Dt.-Dtr. This tendency developed its basic principles in close association of one God, YHWH, with one population group as body (Albertz, 1992, 99). It had its origin in the total allegiance based on blood and tribal ties. That was an exceptional characteristic for its place

368

the classical prophets, turned toward pure monotheism. Beyond this elite class was the broader national community. It is uncertain how this population responded to the strife. Given its popular character, it is expected that it may have been easily influenced by whatever did most to satisfy its needs at the time871. Moreover, this popular voice was naturally conservative and attached to its familiar tradition. In this way, internal and external non-Yahwist influences gained entry to the population872. Yet, we should keep in mind, however, that however extensive the classical

and time (Dietrich, 1994, 18). — The Elijah series contains older elements dating from the 8th century BCE with a purely monotheistic outlook (Rofé, 1988a, 192). 871 Carroll, 1979, 51 n. 71. “Neben der ‘Offiziellen Religion’ des politischen Zentrums und der Unterzentern ist mit so etwas wie einer ‘Volksreligion’ zu rechnen, sodann mit einer ‘elitären’ Religion der ‘Spezialisten’” (Stolz, 1994, 42). Popular religion, the family and personal religion should be explained in terms of the various levels on which it operated. As the study of the BoC has shown, this can be divided into family, location and clan (Albertz, 2003, 362-373; Hartenstein, 2003, 4). The issue of providing for a means of sustenance and satisfying daily needs, and not theological questions, were the common peoples’ first concern. That is why the common people and their personal religious life were attracted to older narratives about Saul, David and Solomon (Vermeylen 2000a, 624, 687) and the miracle narratives now contained in the Elijah and Elisha series (Stipp, 1987, 480; Rofé, 1988b, 14). These did not arise directly from a P and D environment. 872 Crenshaw, 1971, 26-28; idem, 1979, 50. The prophets were not indifferent to the attitude of the common people (Crenshaw, 1971, 69-71). Recent history of religion has shown greater interest in family/popular concerns (Van der Toorn, 1998, 13-16). This has repercussions on their reflection in their continuous grappling with scepticism and popular resistance (Carroll, 1979, 81). The cult, where prophets and people met, was often the locus for this grappling. Hence the suggested disputes between people and YHWH found in the prophets and psalms Wolff, 1973b, 85; Jeremias, 1970, 110-127; Carroll, 1979, 79-81). Apart from that, there was the broader area of the people’s private contacts with the prophets, where rites of passage (Segal, 1976, 7; Weippert M., 1997, 12) and private interests played a role in religion. — Allusions to the powerful presence of syncretistic currents can be found in Jer. 7:16-20; 8:2; 19:5,13; 32:35; 44:17-19,25. Moreover, the prophets often mention ‫( במות‬Am. 4:13; 7:9; Mic. 1:3,5; 3:12; Hos. 10:8; Is. 14:14; 15:2; 16:12; 36:7; Jer. 4:13; 7:31; 17:3; 19:5; 26:18; 32:35; 48:39) and ‫( מצבה‬Hos. 3:4; 4:19; 10:1,2; Mic. 5:12; Is. 6:13; 19:19; Jer. 43:13) and even the ‫( אשרה‬Mic. 5:13; Is. 27:9; Jer. 17:2). This syncretism was not anti-Yahwist. In Israel and its surroundings it was customary to worship more than one god. Only the strict Yahwists and the prophets sowed the seeds of exclusivity first via monolatry, later via strict monotheism. This was essentially different from, yet related to (Hartenstein, 2003, 14-16) the prevailing custom among the surrounding peoples. Monotheism as it prospered in Israel is extremely complex; it cannot be classified in Western categories. Thanks to the history of religion’s more independent position since Barth, it has become possible to view Israel’s syncretistic past more objectively.

369

prophets’ written legacy may be, it can only give a restricted impression of the reality that developed in Israel’s religious community873.

7.3.4.2 The Treatment of the General Traditions: in Actual Form After situating classical prophecy within its own prophetic environment and the broader socio-political framework (7.3.4.1) that decided its development, we can now probe the way in which prophecy treated the people’s religious heritage – established central traditions as they had come to be generally accepted – and most of all how their representatives, transmitted and protected them. Among these, traditions on justice and judicial practice can be distinguished from those treating the origin and history of Israel as people of YHWH. This distinction is only practical and implies no value judgment. The two categories occur intertwined nearly throughout the prophetic writings. Both were probably rooted in cultic practice874. 873

“For written traditions were only the iceberg tip of prophetic communities; the other nine tenths of the iceberg were constituted by the community and his activities. So we cannot judge reality from the text though only they provide us with any data for reconstructing that reality in any way” (Carroll, 1979, 117). This restriction on traditional material can be ascribed to Dt.-Dtr’s orthodox control followed by that of the Masoretes (Dequeker, 1975, 115). It resulted in selective restriction of the literature to the Yahwist orthodox tendency (Weippert M., 1997, 7-9). Another consequence was that the Bible refers almost exclusively to a male God in Israel, although it is quite certain that there had long been a goddess ‫ אשרה‬in the cult (Blenkinsopp, 1995, 77-78; Braulik, 1997a; Eynikel, 1996, 200-205; Emerton, 1999; Dietrich, 1994b, 15-16; Van der Toorn, 1998, 16-19; De Bakker, 2004). Inscriptions found near Hebron and elsewhere confirm this (Weippert M., 1997, 16 n. 38; Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 11-113; Albertz, 2003, 376). 874 No one has failed to notice that starting from the messenger formula (Schoors, 1998, 108-116), the prophets often used terminology customary in the administration of justice in their day. They use devices such as the introductory indictment and the subsequent adjudication. In the prophets, they are usually found in the rib oracles (rib being the Hebrew word for strive or contend) and law suit judgments that contain condemnations of the sinful population. For a bibliography on this subject see Bright, 1977, 89 n. 26; Seybold, 1972, 15 n. 22; De Roche, 1983. Together they make up what the prophets usually treat as dispute before judges (Barmash, 2004). Upon closer examination, this is not a true application of the legal formula but a free use of many legal terms and customs (Sanders, 1972, 73-90, lists seven) in service of the prophetic message (Schoors, 1998, 111-112; Wolff, 1973b, 90) that here again takes primacy and demonstrates its creativity (Phillips, 1982, 217-218) and impact. A reason for borrowing this legal terminology is its usefulness in transmitting the prophetic message, presumably in the more reflective stage of the prophetic tradition. At that time, more refined frames of reference and stylistic devices such as disputations, were used in developing the original proclamations of doom. This certainly

370

The Legal Traditions All classical prophets without distinction regularly raise themes law and justice, albeit with some difference in intensity depending on their personal disposition875. In each case the terms law and justice were related to shows how intensely the legal material and its use in judicial practice were connected to prophecy. — In the discussion on whether the prophets’ use of legal formulae was inspired by judicial practice (according to Wright, Huffman, Harvey (Clements, 1975, 17) “...prophetic indictments often follow quite closely stipulations of law in the Pentateuch, and verdicts of divine judgment pronounced by prophets often correspond to curses attached to laws”: Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 25) or by legal preaching in the cult (according to: Boecker and Waldow [Kaiser, 19845, 267]). The latter seems closer to the course of events. The prophets no longer used these disputes before judges in connection with the individual’s interests as in a court, but for the community as a whole in a cultic context. Klopfenstein (1987) is an exception to this. He saw the prophets using the term Torah in a manner similar to Dt.-Dtr where it referred to a body of legal provisions. Moreover, in addition to the pre-exilic prophetic/priestly Torah, he isolated a prophetic Torah with ethical rules in the priestly Torah. Finally, he also discerns an eschatological Torah in the post-exilic prophets. 875 The integration of the idea of justice is one of prophecy’s prominent contributions, according to Chr. Schneider (Lange, 2002, 23). The terms ‫ משפט‬and, ‫ צדקה‬often found together (Am. 5:7,24; 6:12; Is. 5:7; Jer. 23:5-7; ‫ צדקה‬does not occur in Micah: Koch, 1978, 107; Weinfeld, 1995, submits both terms to a thorough study) in the classical prophets may not be viewed as was formerly done as the equivalents of the modern terms law and justice (Koch, 1978, 67-72). They must be understood in their own context. Their original starting point is the ascertainment of abuses in society that, according to the prophets, amount to a transformation of ‫ משפט‬and ‫ צדקה‬into their opposites. In this way, the prophets, relying on their Yahwist conviction, reach a theological description of the familiar values that determine the welfare of society in Israel. “Damit meint er (Isaiah, L.Z.) die solidarische Gemeinschaftsordnung, die allen Volksgenossen ihre elementaren Lebensrechte sichert” (Schoors, 1998, 195). YHWH gave them to Israel with the gift of the land (Hos. 12:5,7; Am. 2:21-25); since then they came to Israel continually through the cult (Am. 5:24; Hos. 10:12). As in the song of the vineyard (Is. 5:1-7) YHWH was then entitled to expect that Israel would put them into practice to create a society marked by peace and wellbeing. To YHWH’S great disappointment, Israel did not produce the expected results (Hos. 10:4). “How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of ‫ צדקה !משפט‬lodged in her, but now murderers. (Is. 1:21). Under these circumstances, the cult no longer brings about more welfare but conceals the downfall in store for Israel (Mic. 1:8; 7:1). That is why, according to the prophets, the only course was to halt the cult immediately and to accept ‫ משפט‬and ‫ צדקה‬once again so that the fundamental conditions would be fulfilled for deliverance and the true cult. “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; ... seek ‫( ”משפט‬Is. 1:16-17). This seems to imply that the classical prophets always had the cult in mind, even when they explicitly discussed social justice. At the same time, it became clear that ‫משפט‬ and ‫ צדקה‬were practical not abstract values and that they exceeded the individual (Koch,

371

specific cases and situations that the prophets encountered. The prophets sympathise with them because they have a deep affinity876 with those in the situations described. In charged poetical images, they describe in vibrant colours877 their contemporaries’ moral misconduct, which they consider the cause of so much social misery. Upon closer inspection this is an abuse of the dispensation of justice despite casuistic laws like those in the BoC878. 1978, 71). — The special way in which justice is mentioned illustrates once again the diversity within the common character of the classical prophets. Amos, Micah and Isaiah speak most intensively of justice and most closely related to one another. Hosea is their opposite, even though there is no shortage of social themes in his work (Hos. 12:8-9 demonstrates this: Jagersma, 1990a3, 215). “Hosea, der dem Kult näher steht als Amos, weiß nicht nur um die innere Liebesbeziehung zwischen Jahwe und Israel, sondern auch um seinen Rechtswillen” (Osswald, 1984, 643). Jeremiah takes an intermediary position and links the trends (Phillips, 1982, 228). In his confessions, the legal battle seems more to be the prophet’s personal lot and ministry than a theme. Essentially, all classical prophets, moved by their Yahwist dynamism, experience societal/profane reality as united with its religious dimension as was the case in the BoC. “Ils avaient une conception unitaire des choses ... Ces ‘ministres de l’inquiétude’ recherchent l’absolu, leurs regards sont tournés vers le haut, mais en même temps ils sont très sensibles à tout ce qui fait partie de la vie quotidienne ... Il faut ne pas oublier que le judaïsme est foncièrement non-dualiste (thus not dialectic [L.Z.]: 3.1.8): que l’univers du vrai judaïsme est celui de l’unité” (Epzstein, 1983, 154, 157, 166). 876 “...ils sont très sensibles à tout ce qui fait partie de la vie quotidienne. Ils parcourent le pays en long et en large; ils se rendent partout où ils croient pouvoir accomplir leur mission; ils côtoient la foule et les masses aussi bien dans les lieux du culte que sur les marchés ... les abus de luxe les font réellement souffrir. Avant de prophétiser, ils observent attentivement le milieu environnant” (Epzstein, 1983, 157). Amos’ empathy with victims goes so far that they call them ‫ צדקים‬because they keep to the law as laid down in the BoC, while he condemns the entire upper stratum. The prophets’ description is thus “keine objektive Gesellschaftsanalyse, sondern eine bewußt einseitige Parteinahme” (Schoors, 1998, 193, 196). 877 One consequence of this metaphorical language is that the often difficult historical context from which it arose can be traced (Barthel, 1997, 30, 460-461; Melugin, 1996, 7072). Conversely, this use points to the transcendent character of the prophetic message (Barthel, 1997, 460-470). It may thus not be associated with fiction (Blum, 2000, 14-17) which is a typical Western notion. “Radikalisierung des herrschendes Trends ist der Auftrag der Propheten” (Schmidt W.H., 1991b, 349). 878 Literal references to the casuistic laws in the BoC or Dt. are not present before Jeremiah, but there are references to the place where the lawsuit takes place according to the BoC (Is. 29:21; Am. 5:10) for another view see: Klopfenstein, 1987, 287-293). Yet many authors feel justified in assuming that under certain circumstances indirect allusions may be accepted with certainty (Crüsemann, 1992, 168, 185, 196-198, 212, 222-223, 228; id. ‘Bundesbuch’, 28 n. 5; Osumi, 1991, 167-177; Schottroff, 1977, 29; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 96; Schoors, 1998, 193; Greenberg, 1990a, 124). Another view notes, “What is striking in Amos’ indictment of Israel is the total lack of reference to those wrongs against person or

372

The prophets can only observe what occurs from the sidelines. As protest, they depict an ideal legal system as longed for in strict Yahwist view and as emerging in the Yahwist precepts in the BoC879. This protest was intended to offer a perspective and support to the oppressed with whom property for which the law provided sanctions ... Had Amos been able to cite a more obvious breakdown of law and order ... he would presumably have done so” (Phillips, 1982, 220-221; Fleischer, 1989, 347 n.3). — Even if these authors allowed themselves to be deceived by hinted allusions and energetically believed they can identify individual, casuistic laws in the prophets’ words, it is still sure that they reflect their substance. “Auch dies (the absence of reference to the origin of the quotations, L.Z.) weist darauf hin, daß die prophetischen Zitate ihren Sitz in der Regel in der lebhaften Auseinandersetzung haben, der an genauen Quellenangaben wenig liegt” (Wolff, 1973b, 46). “...while it is a very complex problem to determine how much of the Mosaic law existed in written form throughout the prophetic word, critics are now ready to recognize that the substance at least was there in one form or another, written or oral. And with that substance there is agreement in the prophets, who certainly do not contradict it and just as certainly furthered its purposes by their mediation of the living word” (Vawter, 1973², 280). As outsiders looking in on the legal world, the prophets did not get involved in elaborating the details of a new legal code (Bright, 1977, 42-43 n. 51-52), but limited themselves to quoting current law and its application (Mic. 6:1-2) freely (Wolff, 1973b, 87) in their innovative preaching (on the new religious use of legal terminology see Diedrich, 1977, 472, 474-475) and to presupposing (Hos. 8:1-12; Mic. 6:8; Is. 10:1-2) and applying (Jer. 32:10-15; Vawter, 1973², 268) the current, even written, law or to denouncing (Jer. 34:8-22) and criticising its infraction. All this was possible because the administration of justice in Israel was a public matter and it was assumed that the people knew the law of the land (2 Kgs 17:24-28; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 83). In anticipating this, prophecy showed it had the same objective as did the law. “...prophecy and law were directed to a single agreed end” (Vawter, 1973², ibid). “The law and the prophets are thus seen in conjunction very early” (Phillips, 1982, 218). This is important in the present study of the canon process. After the specifications in the BoC, which point to a time-honoured construction of law in Israel (7.2), the prophets confirmed that this construction was not only current (Schnabel, 1995, 17 n. 17) but that it should be accelerated and refined. 879 This has to do with a Yahwist precept contained in the BoC (7.2.1) or, as of Isaiah, in Dt. It can be associated with edifying moral requirements, formulated in prophetic preaching either via the preaching based on these primarily apodictic laws (Phillips, 1982, 220-224; Vawter, 1973², 16-17) or via preaching that helped shape these laws (Epzstein, 1983, 152; Crüsemann, 1992, 212), particularly the laws in Dt. Even Hosea’s and Jeremiah’s more or less concealed invocation of the emergent Decalogue are included (Phillips, 1982, 224-227; Blenkinsopp, 1983, 91; idem, 1984a, 106; Neef, 1987, 206-209). Admittedly Dt.-Dtr put this Decalogue in its final form; but it used earlier forms known to the prophets (Peckham, 1991, 24-141; Bright, 1977, 89-90). “Given the tradition of a special relationship between Israel and Yahweh, whether formulated as a covenant, or in some other way, the particular indictments of Israel which are made by the prophets and others, simply represent the application of vocabulary and imagery drawn from the processes of law to this special situation” (Clements, 1975, 19).

373

they dealt. Whether these people felt any alleviation of their situation in the short term is doubtful880. The gap between the ideal held up by the prophets and the harsh reality was too deep to be bridged swiftly881. To attain that ideal, the casuistic legislation would have to be supplemented from high-principles Yahwist ethics882 with practical measures that would prevent the abuses described. This required time and efficient lobbying. The prophets visibly lacked both. Their socio-ethical plea was credible, pointed the matter in the right direction and would gradually persuade. However, the prophets were not revolutionaries capable of enforcing systematic reforms883. In matters of legislation, the prophets were traditionalists, loyal to what had been long established. They did see the need for a thoroughgoing reform, but did not instigate this. They could do no more than draw a blueprint884 of what others must achieve. The longterm influence of the Dtr current will take up this task. 880

Some result was certain. “N’oublions pas les nombreux cas d’emprise morale et l’influence concrète que les prophètes exercèrent sur le comportement des rois” (Epzstein, 1983, 168-169). Yet the impact was meagre. Their performance was too lofty, too utopian. The Dtr inherited something of this prophetic/utopian spirit. 881 Koch, 1980, 19. “From the prophets the conflict between the religious ideal and the political reality can be observed” (Greenberg, 1990a, 102). “Les prophètes ... s’efforcent de concilier le physique avec le spirituel, le concret avec l’idéalisme le plus extrême ... il y eut aussi un écart considérable entre la norme et l’état donné des choses, entre ce que préconisaient les prophètes et la réalité. Le ton même sur lequel ils réclamaient la justice était déjà un signe de son extrême insuffisance” (Epzstein, 1983, 166, 168). 882 “D’après les prophètes, toutes les lois étaient provisoires et conditionnelles; elles ne pouvaient prétendre à l’immuabilité puisqu’une telle exigence freinerait la liberté d’action de Dieu et cela ne pourrait être toléré” (Epzstein, 1983, 165). The eschatological Torah can be situated here (Klopfenstein, 1987, 293-297). 883 “...une flèche qui fonce vers l’avenir” (Epzstein, 1983, 165). “L’enseignement prodigué par les prophètes était souvent sans grand effet direct sur leurs contemporains, mais il joua le rôle de puissant ferment, de catalyseur de longue durée” (Epzstein, 1983, 169). Jagersma, 1990a3, 214. “Die Propheten versuchen nicht, die bedrückten Schichten der Bevölkerung zum Aufstand aufzuwiegeln, sie sind keine Revolutionäre mit einem eigenen sozioökonomischen Programm” (Schoors, 1998, 195). “Ils se tournent contre les privilégiés, contre les rois, mais non en tant que partisans de la lutte des classes” (Epzstein, 1983, 168). Laws usually arise only from specific needs and not on the basis of prophetic interventions. “...so entspringt das einmal dem wissenschaftlichen Gesamtbild vom Werden des Pentateuchs, zum anderen der Einsicht, daß Rechtsreihen, Rechtsbücher und Kultordnungen in der Regel auf Grund konkreter Bedürfnisse und nur in seltensten Fällen aus prophetisch- utopischer Absicht entstehen” (Kaiser, 19845, 60). 884 Albertz, 1992, 276-277. “Amos prangert nicht die Institution der Schuldsklaverei an sich an” (Schoors, 1998, 7). “Le fondement du droit ... paraît antérieur aux prophètes ... les prophètes pouvaient se référer à une tradition de droit déjà existant” (Epzstein, 1983, 152).

374

The Historical Traditions The Day of the Lord In addition to the disputes and the customary court terminology, the Day of the Lord was a gratifying subject that the prophets could pull from tradition. Like the terms ‫ משפט‬and ‫ צדקה‬the Day of the Lord was a term familiar to the common people885. As popular expression it was ideal for speaking to the masses on a level on which the classical prophets had concentrated from the beginning: the expected arrival of YHWH amid current events886 affecting Israel, his people. Everyone who appealed to “They addressed communities guilty of failing to live by the laws of the land in a time of grave crisis” (Carroll, 1979, 9). Again the prophets’ allusions to law are invoked in this regard (Vawter, 1973², 249, 265; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 144). This alleged link is strengthened by the observation that the prophets’ criticism of the state functionaries and elders did not aim at the legal basis for their function, but only at the way they fulfilled it. By contrast, the extent to which Jeremiah (Jer. 8.8) stepped away from the laws in Dt. is debated (Bright, 1977, 152-165; Carroll, 1981, 101-106; for another view see: Hentschke, 1957, 136). This question is difficult to resolve given the thoroughgoing Dtr influence on the redaction of Jeremiah (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 159-162). None of this denies that at the time of the BoC and certainly that of the prophets there was a body of law that they took into account. The casuistic facticity in the BoC and prophets derived its authority from YHWH alone and this on the basis of the close tie between Israel and YHWH, whether or not supported by a formalised covenant relationship. “The pattern of the divine lawsuit, which is employed by the earliest prophets ... likewise presupposes awareness of a prior legal relation between God and people, for in these speeches Yahweh brings suit against his people for their failure to live up to obligations that they have assumed” (Bright, 1977, 4243). The classical prophets have a dynamic perspective intended to encourage the laws long-term evolution. In the short term, by contrast, they did not succeed in mobilising their public. “Prophets do not give us developed and nuanced encompassing accounts of how they think society and government should be arranged, much less detached blueprints” (Gottwald, 1996, 148). 885 The roots of this tradition are a matter of conjecture (Zimmerli, 1982, 84-85; Bright, 1977, 20). It is certain that when Amos first introduced this theme into biblical tradition, it was already a familiar and established concept. “This is chronologically the first mention of the day of Yahweh in the Bible. But it is clear from Amos’ words that he was not introducing some new concept hitherto unknown to his hearers, but rather was addressing people in whose minds the expectation of a day of Yahweh was already firmly entrenched” (Bright, 1977, 20). 886 “Hosea mußte sich mit dem Volksglauben auseinandersetzen. Das geschah am besten, wenn er von der Voraussetzung seiner Hörer her argumentierte” (Vollmer, 1971, 120). “Sie (Rezeption der Tradition, L.Z.) ermöglicht es dem Propheten, seine Hörer auf einer

375

YHWH shared this expectation in some way. What they usually understood by this differed considerably from what the prophets felt they must proclaim. The people had long been taught that YHWH as God of Israel would never abandon his people. He would help them in their need as he had always done in the past. In its suffering, the people looked with confidence toward this intervention, the Day of the Lord, that he would set887. The priests, with the prophets of deliverance in their wake, thought their task was to confirm the people’s traditional, optimistic vision of YHWH888. The classical prophets, by contrast, came with a message that saw the Day of the Lord as a day of disaster about to dawn. Upon his immanent arrival, YHWH would confront his people with what only the prophets saw with true clarity: the extent to which Israel had turned away from its God. Israel was not to expect help but settlement and vengeance. Put briefly, the prophets acknowledged the tradition of the Day of the Lord and yet, were the first, as far as we know, to point out its drawbacks. Instead of a day of deliverance, it would be a day of catastrophe. The prophets thus remained faithful to the original tradition, but gave it a new and thus far unknown meaning which came down to launching a renewed tradition889. gemeinsamen Verstehensebene und ein Horizont einer gemeinsamen Symbolwelt anzusprechen” (Barthel, 1997, 471). Starting with traditions familiar to and accepted by the prophets’ audience is characteristic for the rhetoric that the prophets used to try to convince them of their new input and interpretations (Lenchak, 1993, 62). 887 “They were looking forward with eager anticipation to a day when God would once again intervene in history, smash the enemies of Israel and bring victory, deliverance and blessing to the people” (Bright, 1977, 20). 888 “Its heads give judgment for a bribe; its priests teach for hire; its prophets divine for money; yet they lean upon the LORD and say, ‘Is not the LORD in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us.’” (Mic. 3:11). 889 Thanks to their direct contact with YHWH, the prophets saw how YHWH would really reveal himself in his meeting with his people. After reflection, Ezekiel repeatedly articulated this revealing element: “Then (at the meeting L.Z.) you will know that I am the LORD” (Ez. 7:4). It is this deeper insight in YHWH that gave a totally different picture of historical reality. — Sweeney, 1988, 189. Beside Am. 5:18-20, the theme of the Day of the Lord is also found in Is. 2:12-22; Zeph. 1:14-16, Mic. 5:9-14. Zephaniah and Micah almost simultaneously took aim at the abuses in Jerusalem, the former stressing syncretism in the cult and social abuses (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 140), the latter focusing on the corruption of the wealthy classes. “La proclamation prophétique du jour de Yahvé, dont on peut retrouver dans l’œuvre d’Amos l’origine, est transmise aux époques postérieures comme un theologoumenon prophétique particulier” (Zimmerli, 1982, 103). “Amos by no means denied the validity of the notion of the day of Yahweh ... nor did any of the other pre-exilic prophets deny the validity of the concept, but rather adapted it along the same lines as

376

The Election Traditions The classical prophets’ revolutionary message on the imminent arrival of YHWH is tense and condensed. Enlisting long established tradition on the Day of the Lord was not sufficient to bring home its scope to the prophets’ contemporaries. The use of legal terminology was insufficient to do justice to the message as dispute. The prophets thus had to invoke many other traditions890 to delineate the rich content of the message of YHWH’S coming. The election traditions offer them an opportunity to place YHWH’S arrival in Israel’s current situation in a broader historical framework that linked Israel’s past with that of the history of all the peoples among whom it seemed to develop with a specific destiny891. Much can be learned from Amos had. In fact, the day of Yahweh occupied a central position in prophetic eschatology from the eight century onward” (Bright, 1977, 20). 890 “Als erstes Ergebnis ... muß zweifellos der Nachweis des großen Umfangs gelten, in dem die Propheten auf die Erwählungstraditionen zurückgreifen” (Rohland, 1979, 420). These election traditions generally referred to the Exodus theme primarily developed in Israel (Am. 2:10; 3:1; 5:25; 9:7; Hos. 2:16-17; 8:13; 9:3-6; Mic. 6:2-4; 11:8-11; 12:10-14; 13:5; Is. 11:16; Jer. 2:2-7; 3:17; 7:22; 11:4; 16:14-15; 23:7-8; 31:31-33). The Zion (Is. 1:21-28; 2:1-5; 14:32; 28:16-17) and the House of David themes (Am. 9:11; Mic. 5:1-8; Is. 7:1-17; 9:5-6; 11:1-9; 29:1-7; Jer. 21:11-14; 22:2-4; 23:5; 33:17,26; David and Solomon were inevitably associated with the temple that they donated to Jerusalem: Jer. 7:3-7) presumably arose in different circles, probably in Judah. The prophets did not associate term ‫( בחר‬election) with these traditions. That link was only made after Dt. Yet that is no reason to disallow the prophets’ faith in election (Scharbert, 1969, 75), or in Israel’s exclusive covenant with YHWH. It is an established fact that Hosea, as oldest written witness, refers to the much older tradition of YHWH’S exclusive election of Israel (Holt, 1995, 144). However, it does not seem to have contained the tradition of the journey through the desert and the related notion of YHWH’S protection (Doseman, 2000). 891 The classical prophets’ understanding of historical can only be distilled indirectly from their statements (Liwak, 1987). “Die Eigenart prophetischer Geschichtserkenntnis ist nur von dem spezifischen Einsatz ihrer Botschaft her zu erfassen” (Wolff, 1973a, 290). The guiding tenet seems to be that when the prophets met YHWH in Israel’s historical situation and traditions, they experienced him as “Herr der Geschichte schlechthin” (Wolff, 1973a, ibid). His identity and actions allowed the prophets to see all of history – past, present and future – in a single perspective (Dtr seems to have taken their inspiration on this matter from the prophets). “...tout est exprimé par l’usage sans détour du nom propre: celui qu’on peut reconnaître dans cette action est celui qu’on appelle par ce nom; c’est par cette action même qu’il sera identifié ... Tout ce que les prophètes ont adopté du langage traditionnel relatif au Dieu d’Israël, tout ce qu’ils en ont repris ou inséré dans leurs propres propos, tout cela est lié au nom de Yahweh” (Zimmerli, 1982, 82, 84). “Phänomene des ganzen Geschichtsverlaufs können ein prophetisches Wort erscheinen. Denn der Gott, der als der

377

the way in which this ingenious argument is composed via the election tradition. First, the prophets seemed to have invoked traditions from various private circles in Israel and Judah. Despite the original differences, these diverse traditions have now become a strong unit. They became synchronised during the progress of the prophetic tradition. Yet their different origins remain visible892. Moreover, despite their unity, the Kommende verkündet wird, ist kein andere als der, der in der vergangenen Geschichte schon an Israel gehandelt und zu ihm geredet hat und dem deshalb das gegenwärtige Israel verantwortlich ist. In dieser Selbigkeit Gottes ist für die Prophetie die Einheit der Geschichte gegeben” (Wolff, 1973a, 294). The prophets’ unifying Yahwist perspective is the result of the confluence of three elements: their experience of God, their confrontation with current events and all this in the context of one Israel and its traditions (Barthel, 1997, 468). “The prophets did not actually ‘invent’ the theology of exclusivity, for they are drawing upon tendencies that were already present at an earlier stage in Israelite religion … This knowledge should and ought to be the people’s possession, and Hosea can also presuppose that certain portions of it are known” (Holt, 1995, 144). Nevertheless, the prophet’s insight on the subject of election differed greatly from what was customary among the people. Obviously, the starting point for the experience was the future-oriented current situation of which the traditions were a customary part in Israel. Yet that insight into the future was not purely the result of a rational analysis of the material world. YHWH’S free dealing and its implied changeability stood between the two. “Richtig bleibt allerdings, daß sich die Zukunftsansage nicht einfach aus der Gegenwartsanalyse ableiten läßt. Beide Momenten stehen vielmehr in einem synthetischen Verhältnis: Das Unheil ergibt sich zwar durchhaus folgrichtig aus dem Verhalten des Adressaten, aber es behält den Charakter eines freien Handelns Jahwes, das jene auf überraschende Weise trifft” (Barthel, 1997, 475). “So muß prophetische Geschichtserkenntnis zunächst verstanden werden als Erkenntnis der Geschichte von ihrer Zukunft her ... Die Zukunft erscheint in der Prophetie durchweg als die Zukunft Jahwes, des Gottes Israels selbst” (Wolff, 1973a, 290). — “Mit Notwendigkeit bricht eine universalgeschichtliche Sicht auf. Schon für Amos ist die Wirklichkeit als Geschichte erst dann voll erschlossen, wenn sie im Zusammenhang der Völkergeschichte erkannt wird ... Das universelle Interesse der Prophetie greift in einer letzten Ausweitung über der Völkergeschichte hinaus in die Geschichte der Natur ... In der Prophetie erwacht das universalgeschichtliche Interesse, weil sie den kommenden Gott Israels als einzigen Herrn der ganzen Wirklichkeit erkennt” (Wolff, 1973a, 299-301). — “Die Zukunft Gottes erscheint im prophetischen Wort zumeist als geschichtliche Zukunft, nicht als Ende der Geschichte. Sie ist vergangenen Geschehnissen vergleichbar ... Dem kommenden Tag folgt eine weitere Zukunft ... In der Mehrphasigkeit des künftiges Handelns Gottes ist eine Absicht zu erkennen ... So erkennt der Prophet mit der Zukunft die Finalität der Geschichte” (Wolff, 1973a, 292-293). Looking back ever further into the past made this orientation toward the future proportionately wider (Weippert H., 1991, 131). 892 More affected the adoption of the prophetic traditions than the different origin, caused by the familiar contrasts between the kingdoms Israel and Judah. The traditions were also prevalent in different circles that that nourished various currents such as D and P. — “Trotz der hier noch einmal herausgestellten Verschiedenheit die die Selbständigkeit zeigt mit der die Propheten die ihnen vorliegenden Erwählungstraditionen jeweils verwendeten, ist der

378

classical prophets seemed to have used the same tradition in unique and occasionally contradictory manners893. Nevertheless, they were united in their fundamental intention to announce that the YHWH who was about to come at that time in history was the same who demonstrated his presence Gesamteindruck dieses Überblicks doch überraschend einheitlich: in der Aufhebung, Erneuerung und Erfüllung der Erwählung sollte sich die Verwerfung, Neuschöpfung und Vollendung des Volkes Jahwes vollziehen” (Rohland, 1979, 427). It is obvious to everyone that the historical traditions mention proportionately few or no accurate historical events, although they undoubtedly are built on them. The reason for this is that, as with the formation of the legal traditions, the facts that gave rise to traditions also shaped them and determined their application. Their general formulation shifts the separate original facts into the background in exchange for which it let them operate the more strongly in a summary witness in a typological/aetiological or paradigmatic fashion (Barthel, 1996, 461-463). “...so fällt zunächst auf das ausdrückliche Bezüge auf vergangene Ereignissen selten sind ... das Interesse richtet sich dementsprechend offenbar weniger auf konkrete und klar faßbare Ereignisse der Vergangenheit als vielmehr auf eine Typologie von Situationen” (Barthel, 1997, 469). That is one of the important reasons why the prophetic texts and historical allusions in them are so difficult to date. — The transformation of these so different traditions into a close-knit unity was primarily the work of reflection that thus enabled concentration. The basis for this reflection was the parallelism between prophetic inspiration and the shared view of the prophetic mission, which explains the unity achieved better than alleged literary dependence does (Rohland, 1979, 432). Bright (1977) recounts how all this came about. The evolution toward generalisation is confirmed by the presence of all the election traditions in the later classical prophets in contrast to their more limited representation in the earlier classical prophets (Rohland, 1979, 420). Tradition history is needed to gauge the value of this evolution. We must return to the original, individual facts and their historical context (Barthel, 1997, 472-473). — “Wichtig ist vielmehr, daß die einzelnen Traditionen auch bei ihnen noch zu trennen und vor allem bei den frühren Propheten sehr unterschiedlich bezeugt sind. Von daher liegt die Vermutung nahe, daß wir es hier mit verschiedenen ursprünglich voneinander unabhängigen Traditionskreisen zu tun haben ... ihre Verkündigung wird in ihrer Tragweite offenbar nur dann verständlich, wenn man die Tatsache im Auge behält, daß auch dort, wo sie sich gegen das Volk wenden, sie dies tun als Vertreter der alten Glaubenssätze Israels” (Rohland, 1979, 420-421). That is sufficient reason for using the input and experience with which the prophets articulated the traditions that had been handed down before directly examining the contribution of later tradition and its redactors. However rich it may have been, it cannot replace the prophets’ input. 893 “Ces liens à l’égard d’une transmission interne du message prophétique font d’autre part pendant à la très grande liberté avec laquelle un prophète peut traiter le message reçu de son prédécesseur, même s’il dépend étroitement de la proclamation d’un autre prophète. On perçoit cette souveraine liberté par exemple dans l’usage fait par Ézéchiel de la tradition relative à la période de l’exode et du désert: tandis qu’Osée et Jérémie la dépeignent en couleurs brillantes comme le temps de l’intimité entre Israël et son Dieu, Ézéchiel (aux ch. 20 et 23) en fait l’image diamétralement opposée d’une absolue insoumission” (Zimmerli, 1982, 105).

379

in Israel in the past. Because he was always the same and inseparably loyal to his people Israel, there was continuity and even typology894 in this YHWH. Yet at the same time there was discontinuity. YHWH remained free. Nothing, not even the most sacred tradition, could prevent him from surprising and new action in the future with regard to what he had indicated, in the past,895 was a final objective. YHWH did not do this 894

Each time the prophets appealed to the past and to history, they did so to serve their prophetic mission. “Daran sieht man auch, daß hier die die Beschäftigung mit der Vergangenheit und Überlieferung, dem Ziel und Zweck der prophetischen Verkündigung untergeordnet erscheint” (Diedrich, 1977, 503). “Die Einheit der Geschichte ist in allen Bereichen und Zeiten beschlossen in der Selbigkeit des Gottes Israels” (Wolff, 1973a, 295). “So liegt nur im Paradigma Konsistenz vor, aber nicht in der Verknüpfung des Geschehenen mit dem Geschehenden und auch nicht in der Verbindung von Unheil und Heil. Das Paradigma ermöglicht aber die Korrelation von Erinnerung und Erwartung nicht aufgrund anthropologischer Grundgegebenheiten, sondern aufgrund der Beziehung zwischen Jahweh und seinem Volk, bei der beide Seiten im Verlaufe der Geschichte sich wiederholende Beispiele gesetzt haben” (Liwak, 1987, 326). “Es hat die Kontinuität eines unverbrüchlichen Lebensbundes ... Darum kann Hosea es mit der Liebesgeschichte eines Mannes mit einem Mädchen vergleichen (2,4-22) oder dem Ringen eines Vaters mit seinem schwer erziehbaren Sohn (11:1ff.; Cf. Is. 1:2f.)” (Wolff, 1973a, 295). Because of the loyalty of his acts to himself and his people, the succession of acts displays recognisably consistent lines that expand into the future. “Die Kontinuität der Geschichte wird erst voll verständlich wenn ... eine Analogie zu den Anfängen der Geschichte Israels in den Vordergrund tritt ... Dieses hier und oft in der Prophetie zu beachtende spezifisch analogische Verhältnis, das Gerichtskontinuität voraussetzt und darum Steigerung oder Vollendung jeweils eigentümlicher und wesentlicher (typischer) Geschichtsfakten zeigt, nennen wir Typologie” (Wolff, 1973a, 297). On typology see nn. 213 and 653. 895 In that regard Hananiah (who faithfully adopted the customary tradition) and Jeremiah (who dares to diverge from current traditions: Schmidt W.H., 1997, 68; this is based on the conviction about YHWH’S freedom to act at any time) differ. This discontinuity in tradition can run from dissimilar to conflicting explanations of older traditions not only among the prophets but also within the statements by one prophet (Zimmerli, 1982, 87, 105-107). A familiar example is the contrast between the Jacob tradition and the Moses tradition in Hos. 12-13 (Diedrich, 1977; De Pury, 1992, 12; McKenzie, 1986; Good, 1966). “...die Kontinuität ist sehr relativ: Wohl hat Jahwe die Geschichte Israels gewirkt, aber daß diese Geschichte gerade so und nicht anders verlief, ist nicht begründet in einem Plan Jahwes, den er von Urzeit an Schritt für Schritt verwirklicht hatte ... JHWH leitet wohl die Geschichte, aber nicht weil er die Ereignisse prädeterminiert” (Schoors, 1998, 204). “Michée discerne dans sa venue la liberté de Yahweh. Yahweh ne peut être domestiqué par un savoir orienté vers le passé, non plus qu’il ne peut être lié à une pieuse idée de l’existence comme s’il était un élément prévisible” (Zimmerli, 1982, 83). “Und wenn sie in die Geschichte zurückblicken, tun sie das nicht, um die Geltung der heilsgeschichtlichen Traditionen zu bekräftigen und auszulegen und also das Selbstverständnis der Hörer zu bestätigen, sondern um die Schuldverfallenheit aufzuzeigen und so ihre Botschaft vom Gericht zu verantworten. Aus Am. 2,9 in seinem Kontext lernen wir z.B., daß der Prophet

380

unbeknown to his people. The prophets now intended to maintain and explain this dialogue between Israel and YHWH. Thanks to the growing insight and reversal that this brought about among the people, deliverance was still possible without the announced calamity896. Expressions such as new exodus, new covenant and new Davidic king897, new Torah and esp. nicht unbedingt an der Geltung der Landgabe festhält. Er verneint die traditionelle Auffassung, wonach JHWH für immer auf der Seite Israels zu stehen hat. In 9,7 behauptet er die Gleichrangigkeit Israels mit anderen Völkern vor JHWH” (Schoors, 1998, 204). “Donc, dans un ouvrage comme celui-ci, consacré à la tradition, on pourrait refermer le couvercle sur les prophètes préexiliques avec le verdict: ‘Vieilles traditions - Inapplicable!’ “ (Zimmerli, 1982, 80). — “Cette ‘venue’ dont ils doivent parler est cependant l’inattendu; ce qui va à l’encontre de toute la tradition familière ... le Seigneur qui s’approche librement de son peuple et qui est connu sous le nom de Yahweh, pèse sur les prophètes au point de faire de ces éléments (les éléments antérieurs présents dans la tradition, L.Z.) le véhicule de nouvelles proclamations relatives à ce même Seigneur” (Zimmerli, 1982, 83-84). “Das vom Propheten bezeichnete geschichtliche Ende führt zu einem dem geschichtlichen Anfang entsprechenden Neubeginn. Es ist wörtlich ein zweites Wort... Zu dem gleichartigen Tritt aber hier ein Neues: keine äußere Gesetzesbelehrung muß mehr erfolgen, vielmehr wird jeder in der neuen, intensiven Verbundenheit des Volkes mit seinem Gott den Willen seines Gottes erkennen ... So tritt zu dem gleichsinnigen Kern des alten und neuen Bundes im Neuen ein Koeffizient hinzu, der Steigerung und Vollendung bedeutet” (Wolff, 1973a, 296; Barthel, 1997, 475). 896 “Im Wort ist dem Propheten Geschichte anvertraut. Nach Amos gibt es keine Zukunft, die nicht vorweg im prophetischen Wort erscheint ... Da die Zukunft zunächst im Geschichtsereignis des prophetischen Wortes erscheint, wird Geschichte hier als Gespräch Jahwes mit Israel verstanden ... Er (der Mensch, L.Z.) ist sicher nicht Gegenspieler Gottes oder gar eigentliches Subjekt der Geschichte, er ist aber auch nicht einfach Objekt, sondern er wird als Gesprächspartner des Geschichte wirkenden Gottes verstanden” (Wolff, 1973a, 291-292). Dt.-Dtr continued to develop this notion of Israel’s prophetic responsibility (Gen. 18:16-19) in bringing about deliverance in their historiography and the fulfilment criteria (Schmidt W.H., 1965, 187). The question is how to reconcile this responsibility with YHWH’S freedom and faithfulness to himself in his actions. “Das prophetische Wort ist hier nicht in erster Linie auf seine Geschichtswerdung aus, sondern Geschichtsinstrument, das die Umstellung der Hörer und somit die Nichterfüllung des Angedrohten bewirken will. Es zeigt in letzter Deutlichkeit den Gesprächscharakter der Geschichte, damit zugleich aber ihre bewegte Finalität” (Wolff, 1973a, 293). “Parler d’un désastre national en termes de jugement divin est un commentaire d’une situation contemporaine et appelle à la réforme; cela permet aussi à ceux qui reçoivent la prophétie comme authentique de faire face au désastre quand il se produit” (Ackroyd, 1977a, 228). 897 Zimmerli, 1982, 108. For a survey of the literature on the new covenant see Herrmann S., 1990, 156-162; Bogaert, 1997, 84-87; Pinçon, 2000; Linnington, 2002; idem, 2003; Hahn, 2005, 270. Is. 7:17; 9:6; Jer. 21:11-22; 30:8-9; 33:15,19-20 speak of the new Davidic kings. Again we see how the prophets from Judah corrected the biased understanding of the David and Zion traditions. “In solcher Rückschau erscheint Jesaja die Davidszeit als die Blütezeit in der Geschichte Israels. Wenn er gelegentlich die Davidtradition erwähnt, und

381

new Zion were used in connection with this deliverance. The reused terminology and its content, however new it may have been, show that the prophets were unable to explain their new message without the older traditions. However superseded these might have become as salvation history evolved, they were and remained indispensable for explaining and understanding the new view of the future. These are elements of faith that continued to constitute the foundation on which YHWH’S coming would build898.

7.3.4.3 Conclusions After having pursued the traces of the legal and historical traditions in classical prophecy, we must again situate the detailed study in the whole of which they are parts:899 the central tradition as the classical prophets

nicht die Exodustradition, so tut er dies um seiner Hörer willen, denen als Bewohner von Jerusalem die Zeit Davids naturgemäß näher liegt als der Exodus” (Vollmer, 1971, 191). But their correction did not diminish the tradition (according to Vollmer, 1971, 187), just as the preceding prophets in Israel did not diminish tradition. The most they did was correct its orientation. This means that these traditions were much older than the period in which they were committed to writing (Laato, 1996, 394). 898 For another view see J. Vollmer and Schoors (1998, 205) who believe they must put “der einzige Weg zum Leben das Vertrauen auf Jahwe ist” in the place of faith in tradition. Zimmerli (1982, 107) also seemed to stress the new element in the prophetic message at the expense of tradition when he wrote, “Les anciennes traditions n’ont rien ... à faire valoir en propre. La ‘tradition’ au sens salutaire du mot, éclate et devient une carapace vide, de simples souvenirs historiques qui servent à la proclamation d’une parole de Dieu complètement différente”. In this way, tradition as fact of faith as the prophets experienced it risks being lost. “Zwar wäre es verkehrt, wollte man nicht den Schritt tun von der Aussage, daß die Propheten auf den Erwählungstraditionen fußten, zu der, daß sie an die Erwählung Israels glauben” (Rohland, 1979, 420). The fact that the pre-exilic prophets still consider the Davidic monarchy a permanent fact of faith can be deduced from the observation that they do not argue for the suspension of this institution despite their occasionally severe criticism of it. “Die Propheten verstehen ihre Verkündigung als die Proklamation des göttlichen Rechts über das Königtum. In diesem Rechtes ist ihr Auftrag begründet; kraft dieses Rechtes ergeht ihre Anklage und ihr Urteil, wird die Restitution verkündet” (Seybold, 1972, 174). The prophets never see the kings’ failure as a threat to what YHWH originally promised Israel via the House of David. This promise was irrevocable. But this does not contradict the destruction of the individual kings because of their behaviour. 899 This avoids the accusation of atomism, to which modern exegesis seems frequently susceptible. “We cannot proceed with a study of the use of tradition in the prophets on the assumption that each tradition was a closely defined and well-known entity” (Clements,

382

addressed it. Thanks to the detailed study and taking into account the differences among the prophets, we can now state that the classical prophets in no way rejected the tradition they encountered. Rather, they accepted it at the very least as a fact that had to serve as a starting point for their campaign and that they incorporated as element in their prophetic message. With this as positive starting point for their preaching, their message can correctly be called oracles of deliverance900. This prevailing tradition of deliverance had to be corrected, however, to the extent that the prophets believed it was being incorrectly interpreted in Israel as YHWH’S unconditional promise of deliverance to Israel. The prophets do not contradict this promise of deliverance as such. They want to preserve it as positive value, but beyond that they want to apply their new insights so that it will grow into a still unknown dimension901. They had to make Israel see the obstacles to this right away: its enormous failure that YHWH saw as a unilateral breach in their relationship. This had first to be remedied; the debt had to be paid so that YHWH could again welcome his people exclusively. This would allow YHWH to lead Israel into a promising future consistent with past and present. The innovative contribution of longestablished tradition lay more in the development of these new perspectives for the future, which only the surprising and nimble YHWH could bring about, than in the nonetheless revolutionary insight in Israel’s

1975, 89). That is the result of Israel’s small size which left too little room for groups and tendencies to develop in total isolation from prophecy. 900 “Die drei Propheten (Hosea, Amos, Jesaja, L.Z.) haben auf eigene Weise Vergangenheit ihrer Verkündigung integriert und dienstbar gemacht” (Vollmer, 1971, 205). Amos was eclectic in his treatment of historical traditions (Vollmer, 1971, 48) while Hosea clearly demonstrated a broad view of Israel’s history. — The prophets respected traditions, just as the cult and the prophecy as institutions did, on the condition that they were not applied in a manner contrary to the insights that they received from YHWH. Vollmer (1971, 43-54), by contrast, believes that Amos started from the proclamation of doom on Israel’s definitive end to proceed to contradict the customary historical traditions. But this alleged gainsaying applied only to the biased way in which his contemporaries interpreted deliverance. Hence the rightful place of this deliverance beside doom in prophetic writings. 901 This is by no means a break or discontinuity with tradition (Neef, 1987, 251-252), rather a discontinuity subsequent to a prior starting point of continuity. The two aspects appear also to show the functional canon process (Sanders, 1976). — The term new is appropriate here. With this new fervour or the adaptation of traditional material to prophecy, the prophets evoked once again the peoples’ urge to freedom that had been the foundation of Yahwism since the Exodus tradition (Albertz, 1992, 259).

383

moral and religious responsibility902. The cult seems to have served903 as an important bridge for the prophets in adopting the Torah tradition and developing a corrected and enriched version of this tradition. The charismatic inspiration that lay at the basis of the prophets’ preaching reached them mainly because YHWH’s relation to his people which was only experienced fully in the national community’s participation in the prevailing cult904. As soon as the prophets wanted to spread their typical 902

“Bei dieser Schuldaufdeckung ist es interessant zu sehen, wie er mit Hilfe der Heilstraditionen die Schuld Israels präzisiert” (Neef, 1987, 255). — The tendency to exclusivity (even in the BoC) and in this way also strict monotheism came to the fore as a result of the strong emphasis on YHWH’S holiness and his all-dominant and demanding relationship with Israel. How this gradually came about in Ancient Israel is still moot in most OT theologies (Dietrich, 1996b, 273-279). This context again shows parallelism with the BoC’s theology. The classical prophets allow current expectations for the future in Israel to rise to true eschatology and apocalyptic. “In Israel dagegen ist sie (die Propheteninstitution, L.Z.) ... die Trägerin einiger der bedeutungsvollsten Einschläge in die religiöse und moralische Entwicklung geworden” (Mowinckel, 1979, 183). 903 It is impossible to use prophetic writings that reflect only partially the prophets’ own Sitz-im-Leben and ipsissima verba to investigate how they tangibly inherited the Torah tradition from their ancestors (7.3.4.1.) and to what extent they were influenced by cultic psalms (Johnson, 1979, 63). A reconstruction of this type is not needed here. It is sufficient to presume the certainty that the traditions that the prophets used later in their preaching were encountered in the cult that served as locus of tradition for all of Israel. Only there were themes raised such as the special relationship between YHWH and Israel as community. That was also the place where priests and prophets kept the dialogue between the two parties was going. The whole tradition – including its casuistic, apodictic, historical, ethical and didactic aspects – was engaged in this dialogue. Since the BoC, all those aspects were combined in the Torah tradition. The dialogue between prophecy and Torah – which reflected the practical relationship between the spokespersons of Torah and prophecy – is one of the important layers in the canon process (Clements, 1977, 42). — Even when the prophets participated actively in the cult, it was never their objective, but as with writing only a means to carry out their prophetic task. It gave them an opportunity to correct established traditions practiced in the cult with their new vision obtained from their direct contact with YHWH and also to combine them dynamically (dynamic of creativity: Hanson, 1977, 121) with other elements (“Le grand creuset ... cette soudure entre traditions”: Kapelrud, 1978, 131-132) into a thoroughly renovating tradition that again found its way to the community through the cult. Tradition used this cultic channel not only for religious purposes to ensure the deliverance of the whole community; it also played a social role. In this way it contributed to shaping the community (Koch, 1978, 71). In this, the prophetic personality – thanks to its resonance – is the creative force, not the cult, which only provided the means, the platform, and thus did not in fact create the tradition. 904 The comprehensive nature of the community cult that the prophets used in announcing disaster for the entire people did not deny that the liturgy in the cultic sanctuaries, as in the past, responded to the needs of the individuals (3.2.2). The relationship between the individual and the community holds a prominent place in the canonical process.

384

message– after their personal confrontation with popular tradition in the cult – they took as starting point the language and mental legacy905 of the national cult that they had assimilated from youth. The prophets’ vehement criticism of the cult from the very start of their preaching906 showed how firmly anchored the cult was in the lives and thinking of society in Israel and Judah907. The BoC also witnessed to the cult’s firm grasp on the population of Israel. All this ensured that the cult could not be ignored. The prophets showed in many ways how tradition received via cult and psalms shaped their thinking and actions. It is striking that as time passed and reflection in prophecy took clearer shape, it eagerly accepted the abundant resources that the cult offered908. To the same degree, the 905

This cultic starting point is evinced in expressions such as ‫( אלה הצבאות יהוה זכרו‬Hos. 12:6; Diedrich, 1977, 507-508). The psalms and purported prophetic liturgies also contain many remains of the pre-exilic cult from Israel and Judah with its national sanctuary the temple of Jerusalem, to which the prophets appeal during their appearances (Murray R., 1982). The cult was not limited to the strictly religious domain but also addressed sociolegal material as is evinced by the regulations that the priests preached when entering the sanctuary (Kaiser, 19845, 68-69). In this way the prophets’ proclamation of social justice in was enlisted in part in the services of the cult (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 90; Carroll, 1979, 54; Kapelrud, 1978, 115-116; Jeremias, 1970, 128-175). This last has led many scholars to situate unreservedly in the cult each use by the prophets of legal terminology. 906 Am. 4:4; 4:12; Hos. 6:12. 907 The Jerusalem temple, as national sanctuary, was the home of a comprehensive liturgy as the royal and enthronement psalms (Kapelrud, 1978, 125-129; Seybold, 1972, 165-166 n. 6) as well as all other psalms (Coggins, 1982, 81-93) attest. The prophets acquired and updated this tradition of the Davidic kingship via the liturgy (Bright, 1977, 49-77, 94-110). They spoke of an interrupted or a new covenant, but never of a retraction of what YHWH had promised. 908 Carroll, 1979, 63. “Die Propheten leben in einer Umwelt, in welcher der Kult zum Alltag gehört. Gleichgültig wie man im einzelnen ihr Verhältnis zum Kult auffaßt: Ihre Verkündigung ist vielfältig auf den Kult bezogen: Ihre Sprache von der Sprache des Kults mitgeprägt, und ihre Wirksamkeit kann sich nur in Verbindung mit dem Kult entfalten” (Scharbert, 1969, 76). “Dans l’ancien Israël, et c’est là un fait décisif, l’individu n’a pas d’abord et avant tout d’existence en tant que phénomène isolé. Il appartient à une famille, à une tribu, à un peuple, et à l’alliance avec Yahweh, le Dieu d’Israël. Il est habitué à ce que son rapport avec Dieu passe par le culte officiel, et réellement il ne s’agit pas d’une ‘coutume’ antique: c’est comme cela. Le culte occupait donc une place essentielle dans l’existence du peuple d’Israël” (Kapelrud, 1978, 112-113). The purported prophetic liturgies usually reused liturgical elements borrowed from the cult in new situations (Scharbert, 1969, 66). The poems in the prophetic writings by and large indicated a point of contact with the cult. In some ways, they voiced the prophets’ own most original inspiration (according to Jeremiah’s confessions; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 157), which testified, in ad hoc sayings, to both their cultic and their oral formulation (Jeremias, 1970, 134-137). Of course, in antiquity poetry was always thought to come from divine inspiration. “Der Nabi ist

385

classical prophets assumed the shape of true cultic prophets909. Those who inherited the prophetic legacy and tried to use it in the changing political circumstances during and after the exile showed in the redaction of the prophetic books that the cult was more than ever the bridge that it had become before and in the period of the classical prophets. Finally, as this study of the place and meaning of tradition in preexilic classical prophecy approaches its close we must turn to the important place that the historical traditions hold in this matter. While the BoC’s use of these historical considerations was limited910, it grew with time in the classical prophecy as the need arose to legitimate911 the prophetic message. Since for the same reasons – namely the need to render immer zugleich Dichter” (Mowinckel, 1979, 207). The psalms thus often assumed the shape of a prophetic liturgy (see Ps. 81: Johnson, 1979, 5-18). In this way, the psalmist can act as prophetic spokesperson for both YHWH and the people. “Der spätere praktische Gebrauch kann den Ursprung nicht herabwürdigen, im Gegenteil. Der erhabene Ursprung rechtfertigt den späteren praktischen Gebrauch” (Mowinckel, 1979, 186). That was particularly the case when the prophetic poetry contained promises of deliverance (Kapelrud, 1978, 121; Scharbert, 1969, 66; Carroll, 1979, 63). “Die Tatsache der Beeinflussung über so weite Abstände hinweg und in solcher Konstanz läßt darauf schließen, daß das Continuum außerhalb der prophetischen Verkündigung im kultischen Bereich zu suchen ist” (Seybold, 1972, 166). “Hier zeigt sich daß der andere Ursprung des prophetischen Brauchs der Zitationen das liturgisch-kultische Leben der Gemeinde ist” (Wolff, 1973b, 88). The poetic style in which the prophetic oracles were often stated prepared the way for cultic use (Mowinckel, 1979, 186). The extent to which this merging of prophecy and cult took place at the expense of free inspiration is uncertain (Mowinckel, 1979, 181-186). 909 Murray R., 1982, 200-202; Coggins, 1982. Officially the classical prophets were admitted to the cult only at a late date and then only when they spoke prophecies of deliverance (Kapelrud, 1978, 121-122). Yet it is plausible that the prophetic writings began to operate in the cult no later than the 6th century BCE (Collins, 1993, 19). “The liturgical character of these texts indicates that the prophetic books of which they are part were read as part of the temple liturgy. The affinities of these texts with the various Psalms ... and the references to the prophetical function of the second temple ... demonstrate the potential use of prophetic texts in a liturgical setting” (Sweeney, 1996, 17). 910 The many similarities that the materials used in the BoC – and by the prophets – display point at least to their proximity if not to the precedence of the BoC before prophecy. 911 The need can grow into an urgent necessity. The prophet’s invocation of history began early. “Mit der Geschichte hatte es die Prophetie zwar von ihren Anfängen an zu tun” (Schmidt W.H., 1979, 33). “In Hosea for the first time, we find the outline of the Hexateuch narrative, if in fragmentary and rudimentary form” (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 103). “So will Hosea erreichen, daß seine Hörer nicht auf sein Wort hin, sondern aus eigener Einsicht zu der er sie führen will, handeln” (Diedrich, 1977, 505). After the exile, the awareness that listeners’ response held the key to the future pervaded the warning tone with which Dtr used the prophetic tradition to prevent the loss of deliverance (Rofé, 1988b, 104-105).

386

account and to persuade the community – prophecy sought closer affiliation with the cult, historical frameworks were also in greater evidence there. This surging reflection supported by historical data was oriented toward the current situation in which the Israelite community was entangled912. The intention was to experience this situation meaningfully as a community that was uniquely and inseparably linked to the living and coming YHWH. The gravity of this situation required a proportionately credible argument based on past experience that stood surety for hope in the near future. Since the fulfilment of what was taught was held out in advance as a means to verify the soundness of the prophetic message, it may be assumed that the prophets remained faithful to history insofar as it was in their power to do so. That does not mean that they reflect past historical reality with exactitude913. The gravity of their service to YHWH and his people doubtless drove them to approach historical reality intentionally insofar as their situation allowed. It can be postulated that for these prophets it was ethically unacceptable to offer their people on behalf of YHWH a message based on historically untenable arguments. They had no wish to endanger the authenticity of their message, just as the redactors of the major canon collections had no wish to do so. This led them to a specific historiography that while not satisfying the exigencies of modern historiography can still not be called pure fiction as that word is now understood. Here, again, researchers must shake free of modern Western views if they are to approach the biblical writers914. 912

Kaiser, 19845, 68-69. “Auch die Geschichte ihres Volkes kennen sie als Heils- oder Unheilsgeschichte wahrscheinlich hauptsächlich aus dem Kult” (Scharbert, 1969, 76). “In Jahwe, dem Gott Israels, liegt es begründet, daß die kräftigen Beziehungen der Propheten zu Tradition und Kultus das prophetische verbum concretissimum aktueller Weisung nicht verhindern, sondern unterstützen ...” (Neef, 1987, 254). 913 These historical errors could simply be attributable to the traditions that the prophets inherited from the cult. 914 “...l’historiographie est toujours idéologique, mais l’idéologie reste toujours à son tour ancrée dans l’histoire” (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 118). “...diese Erzählung ... daß Gott die Verheißung über menschliches Versagen wunderbar hinüber rettet war für die Gemeinde eine eminent geschichtliche” (Schart, 1998b n. 47). The enlistment of their own historiography may not cause the biblical authors’ integrity to be doubted. “...it is naive to suppose that the Deuteronomists would have manipulate Israel’s history to such an extent that it would have become irrecognizable to their own contemporaries” (De Moor-van Rooy, 2000, IX). That is why studies on the understanding of history in the prophetic writings such as those on Hosea (Bons, 2004), Jeremiah (Liwak, 1987) or Isaiah (Barthel, 1997) are so welcome.

387

7.3.5 The Prophetic Traditions versus the Deuteronomistic Opus 7.3.5.1 The Issue Even after situating pre-classical prophecy (7.3.2.) and pre-exilic written prophecy in the history of tradition (7.3.3.-7.3.4.) the knotty issue of the exact influence of pre-exilic classical prophecy on the Dtr opus must still be demarcated. The cause can be sought in the way in which these prophetic activities were embodied in written traditions. The final biblical text, which unavoidably must be used again here as starting point for studying the prophetic influence, can only offer a view of the reception of the prophetic writings in the shape they took after others revised them. The Dtr were the chief, but not the only, revisers915. Amid these often thorough revisions it is no easy task to map out the prophets original contribution as well as its effect on the Dtr. Since the later revisions to the text appear in the foreground and thus attract the most attention916, they impair sight of 915

In the past Dtr’s role was the focus of attention. Now it is realised that Dtr was not the only one that worked on the prophetic traditions. In Jeremiah and within the Dtr history (Stipp, 1987, 479; Römer, 1999, 194) more revisions have been discovered after or beside the Dtr (Thiel, 1981, 116-122; Carroll, 1986, 42, 78). “...besides the Dtr and the dtr school, there is another school at work in the prose texts in Jeremiah” (Eynikel, 1996, 197). In the literature there is also attention for the stage between the presence of the prophets and the Dtr revision Römer-De Pury, 1996; 61-62; Schmidt W.H., 1965, 169; Clements, 1977, 46, 49-50; Liwak, 1987, 308-309). 916 It has already been established that the priority between Dtr and the prophets is a thorny issue in the literature. Nevertheless, in what follows we will try to define contours of the relationship between the two. — By and large there is the temptation to correlate the content of the biblical traditions completely to the time they were committed to writing (Halpern, 2000, 545-546). “Es ist richtig zu verstehen, daß das Universum der Autoren allein aufgrund ihrer eigenen Situation und ihrer eigenen Zeit geschaffen worden ist. Die wirkliche Vergangenheit war nur von Bedeutung, sofern sie geeignet war, das Schicksal der Zeitgenossen der Autoren aufzuhellen” (Lemche, 1994, 67). This viewpoint – inspired by Noth as exclusively interpreted by Carroll and the revisionists with regard to the time before the commitment to writing – is labelled dogmatic scepticism (Clements, 1995, 446) or hyper-positivist. Moreover, this commitment to writing at the time of the events offers (as primary source) no guarantee of historical objectivity (Brettler, 1995, 139 n. 22; Albertz, 2003, 303-320). — With regard to the prophetic writings it has been observed that increasing doubt is cast on the possibility of detecting the prophet’s ipsissima verba. In the study of the prophetic writings attention is also shifting more toward the later stages of tradition under the impact of redaction history, and this at the expense of the older stages, particularly the prophets that in some cases disappear completely from sight. “The author must be abandoned ... Jeremiah studies would certainly benefit greatly from the abandonment of the search for either ‘the historical Jeremiah’ or ‘the author of the book of

388

the prophet’s putatively original contribution that served as its foundation. Moreover, the traditions of the prophets and their revisers were not static; rather they were forces that impacted upon one another. They did not encounter one another just once, but repeatedly and in many ways. On both sides this involved factors that did not leave unmoved the social and political intricacies of a two-hundred-year period. This continually prompted the parties in their confrontation917 so that the outcome of this confrontation changed. Stimuli from the social and political system could also move the interlocutors. This could cause various types of tension within the groups concerned, which inevitably resulted in a more complex picture of the meeting between prophets and the Dtr opus918. If current Jeremiah’” (Carroll, 1998, 74). ‘Jeremiah does not exist outside the pages of the book, and he cannot be submitted to dissection by historical analysis” (Collins, 1993, 174). 917 “...il semble certain que les prophètes exercent une influence considérable sur les différents domaines de la vie sociale et morale, surtout quand on tient compte d’une action à long terme” (Epzstein, 1983, 169). It is thus not simply a matter of one party espousing the other (Zobel K., 1992, 6). We already discussed how the prophets took advantage of events and the Dtr current’s involvement in social and political events had been mentioned repeatedly (6.6.5.). ‘Closely related’ (Clements, 1975, 51; Schoors, 1998, 197; Vollmer, 1971, 124). As long-running trend, the Dtr current was, of course, set up to undertake a protracted confrontation with other intellectual currents. Prophecy – as a whole and in specific cases such as Isaiah – can be seen as a long-running intellectual current that could undergo a protracted dialogue with Dt.-Dtr and thus could engage in cross-fertilisation. “Damit aber ist eine zeitliche (und im eng gewordenen Juda auch räumliche) ParallelEntwicklung naheliegend: die der Jesaja-Schule und die des Deuteronomismus. Daß die den Jahwismus aufs äußerste herausfordernde Zeit Manasses, also Judas unter assyrischer Oberhoheit, ähnliche oder zumindest vergleichbare Einstellungen und Haltungen hervorrief, müßte niemanden verwundern. Gleichwohl entwickelten sich beide literarische Werke, das Prophetenbuch und das Gesetzbuch, sehr verschieden - vielleicht hier und da nicht unberührt, aber wesentlich unvermischt” (Perlitt, 1989, 148). — This can be considered an open debate or dialogue between all parties (Scharbert, 1969, 70), one that is reciprocal not unilateral (Clements, 1995, 447) and that benefited greatly from the small size of Israel at the time, which encouraged creation of an idiom. The cross-fertilisation of the intellectual current is a typically sociological event (Long, 1977) that cannot be reduced to the unfurling of power. Much depended on its being accepted by the public and the interlocutor at the time of the confrontation. That is why Dtr invested heavily in persuasion. The experience of reciprocal impact between prophets and Dt. must also be placed in a broader context. Their confrontation was only one part of this. The influence of wisdom on Dt. has already been mentioned (6.4.4.). With prophecy, it was responsible for the humanitarian measures for which Dt. became known (Epzstein, 1983, 182-183). 918 The D-current, as we noted, came in many hues. Duhm spoke of an ‘unbeaufsichtigtem Wald’ (Rüterswörden, 1991, 329). This stratification within Dt. (Preuss, 1982, 33-63) came to light when Dt., the Dtr history (which is also layered since it arose in various stages and displays “no single, consistent and encompassing deuteronomic theology” [Ben Zvi, 1999,

389

literature is unable to present a clear picture of the Dtr-Dt. in the pre-exilic period or even its possible presence in the period919, it is clear that studying the influence of the prophets on the Dtr-Dt during the pre-exilic period is a risky enterprise. The only hope of success depends on starting from the certainty that the fact – i.e. the influence of pre-exilic classical prophets on the Dtr-Dt. – is as firm as a rock.920 The task now consists in delineating 255])) and the Dtr revision are compared as supplement to the prophetic writings, esp. the Jeremiah tradition (Ben Zvi, 1999, 259 n. 76; Auld, 1999, 117-118; Knauf, 1996, 413-414, 419 n. 4; Seidel B., 1995, 164-165). These revisions display important differences when compared to the Dtr history (Carroll, 1986, 68-69; Seeligmann, 1978, 282-283; Römer, 1996, 425-426; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 55, 65). A varied diversity was also noted within the written prophetic tradition (Herrmann S., 1990, 200). Literary analysis and esp. redaction criticism seem to have met their limits (Person, 2002, 9, 21 25). The image tentatively sketched of the way in which Dtr treated traditional material (6.6.2-6.6.3) will need to be refined later. 919 Few changes will be made in the literature to the image sketched (Römer-De Pury, 1996) although we will show later that this is needed. There is now the tendency – still in function of the general trend to late dating – to stress the later additions to the Dtr history even up to the Persian period. Würthwein took this to extremes (Smelik, 1992a, 95-96). — It is an alarming sign that Smend’s proponents do not even take the Cross version’s arguments into account (Schniedewind, 1996, 25; Eynikel, 1996, 22; A.D.M. Mayes is an exception: O’Brien, 1989a, 20-21). “La possibilité d’une date préexilique pour certains textes ayant une allure dtr n’est même pas envisagée .... On constate actuellement chez les tenants du modèle smendien ainsi que chez les ‘neo-nothiens’ (Hoffmann, Van Seters, ...) une certaine réticence à envisager (hormis pour le Dt) la possibilité d’une importante activité littéraire dtr à l’époque de Josias” (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 56, 79). 920 The general consensus is that all of OT historiography and the Pentateuch underwent extensive prophetic influence (Auerbach, 1953; Schmidt W.H., 1989; idem, 1965; Zimmerli, 1977; Schmid, 1976, 19-43). No one in Israel totally escaped this prophetic influence, not even the king. A current like Dt.-Dtr, which aimed at the broadest possible basis, could not ignore prophecy. In addition, the Dtr’s history and use of prophetic narrative material point to the prophets as Dtr’s ultimate starting point and source of inspiration. These were too proximate historically to be mentioned without consequences (within “kommunikativen Gedächtnis von biblisch drei bis vier Generationen”: Braulik, 1985a, 9 n. 2; this historical proximity already cited by Paton: Houtman, 1980, 167-168, applies to Jeremiah in particular: Rofé, 1988b, 118-122; contrary to what is often posited). “Was historical awareness of events that took place more than a century earlier indeed so slight that their correctness was accepted unquestioningly?” (Renkema, 1991, 59). This applies all the most when an experience such as the cult in Bethel is invoked for assigning a late date to Dtr (according to Blenkinsopp, 1999, 107). “Der Abstand zwischen der Zeit Josias und der Zeit der dtr Schule ist nun noch nicht so groß, als daß man berechtigt vermuten könnte, die gesamte Szenerie wie Handlung seien voll erfunden” (Preuss, 1982, 9). The Elohist current may have served as a bridge here (Gnuse, 2000, 205). — Many authors (following Noth and Jepsen: Dietrich, 1990, 7) thought this prophetic influence occurred along literary channels. In their opinion, the prophetic writings were certainly

390

the course of this confrontation between prophet and Dtr opus921 and its permanent repercussion on the religious tradition of Yahwism. That is why the traces of this confrontation are pursued in Deuteronomy (7.3.5.2.), in the Dtr history (7.3.5.3.) and in the writings of the pre-exilic prophets (7.3.5.4.)922. The separate treatment of the three collections will keep in mind that they are all part of a single confrontation between prophecy and the single Dtr current. This will help avoid the familiar complaint that there is a tendency to lose sight of the unity of the biblical text.

7.3.5.2 Proto-Deuteronomy Deuteronomy

versus

the

Deuteronomists’

The pre-exilic prophets are possible sources of influence on Dt. because it would be difficult to restrict its origin fully to the exilic and post-exilic periods923. Dt. must have had an oral and written history before then. Its taking shape at the time of Dt.-Dtr. Hos. 8:12 seems to confirm this (Crüsemann, 1988, 39). Many also accept that still other prophetic literary traditions, including prophetic legends (Lohfink, 1991c, 216), could have existed and that Dt.-Dtr could have used them either in the pre-exilic period (Eynikel, 1996, 26-28 n. 95-97; O’Brien, 1989b, 288-292; Lubsczyk, 1990, 163-165) or later (Dietrich, 1972, 62; Auld, 1983, 14-16). In short, many authors believe that an embryonic proto-Dt. existed by the time Josiah took the throne. Indeed the BoC, which was related to Dt.-Dtr, probably also existed at that time. Either way, all this is less important from the perspective of the historical canon as long as the fact of the prophetic influence is certain. 921 The problematic nature of ascertaining which has priority has been noted. The prophets may have influenced the formation of the Torah and in this sense historically preceded the final form of the Torah. This cannot be said of all prophets (according to Auld, 1983, 20), nor can it be posited that because the prophets exerted influenced they have canonical precedence above the Torah. Each has made its own contribution to the canon which they comprise together. 922 In addition to the ipsissima verba, this also takes into account the traditions that can invoke the prophets’ authentic preaching. “Solange ein Wort aus der Zeit Jeremias heraus zu verstehen ist, kann es auch ‘Jeremianisch’ genannt werden” (Liwak, 1987, 309). The first collectors of the prophets’ ipsissima verba that first preceded the Dtr as protagonists (Liwak, 1987, 308-309); they are difficult to identify and can certainly not be isolated from the prophetic tradition. Kaiser’s method is at odds with this: “...dem Propheten grundsätzlich jedes Wort abzusprechen, daß auch aus einer anderen Zeit erklärt werden kann” (Perlitt, 1989, 134). This academic, dogmatic agnosticism is unproductive and should be supplemented with a historical study of the materials from the preceding period (Laato, 1996, 7-9). 923 Dammen, 1996, esp. 388-392; Veijola, 2004, esp. 2-6. As with the study of the prophets, the present literature tends to stress the Dtr’s later stages. Some even think that these extend to the Persian period (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 120 n. 509; Vermeylen, 2000, 657-672, 689).

391

many layers and pre-exilic language is spiced with Assyrian expressions and concurrent terminology924. Yet the Dt.’s content, more than its formal 924

Some evidence is detected in Dt. of the oral style already noted in research on the BoC. Klostermann (Preuss, 1982, 33) and Cassuto (Rofé, 1988a, 265-268; Amsler, 1985b) had already noted this element which we mentioned in our first discussion of Dt.-Dtr (6.8.A.; 7.1.1.-7.1.2.). “Am wahrscheinlichsten ist die Annahme, daß im Deuteronomium aus einer lebendigen mündlichen Tradition geschöpft worden ist” (Zobel K., 1992, 217). — DutcherWalls (2002, 602 n. 1) provides a survey of the current literature on this subject. Pre-Dtr and even proto-Dtr texts (Holladay W.L., 2004) are also accepted for Dtr. As criteria for distinguishing the proto-Dtr from the later Dt.-Dtr, we can mention the number change, the comparison with the BoC, the orientation toward cult centralisation, the residue of older legal forms and external indications such as can be found in the Assyrian archives. We believe that all these criteria should be used, contrary to Kratz (2000, 122), who only wanted to use the first three mentioned. — On the layers in Dtr see Preuss, 1982, 45-74; Lohfink, 1992, 43-51; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 91-92; Boecker, 1976, 156). Even Otto E. (1999, 232 n. 156) must regularly admit the existence of pre-Dtr data. “Manches in dem Entwurf mag sich schon während der Königzeit in Juda ausgebahnt haben” (Lohfink, 1990d, 314). “Das Dtn läßt jedenfalls stark sein literarisches (!) Wachsen in Form von Ergänzungen und Überarbeitungen erkennen” (Preuss, 1982, 123). Steuernagel distinguished no fewer that seven stages in the revision (Preuss, 1982, 34). An important indication for these layers and the gradual historical growth are the successive introduction and the alteration between 2nd pers. sing. and pl. (Lubsczyk, 1990, 161-163; Minette de Tillesse, 2000). This last argument may only be used conditionally and certainly not mechanically (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 89-91). The consequence of the identification of the historical growth of Dt. is that a synchronic study is insufficient and despite its disputed reconstruction in the literature, it cannot be ignored completely (Veijola, 1996, 224). — This historical growth is not limited to proto-Dt.; rather it extends throughout all elements of Dt. “However, what is likely to be misleading in drawing the conclusion that the law book was the original Deuteronomy and the Introduction and Epilogue are simply expansions of it, is that it allows too little room for the fact that the law section in 12.126.15 has also undergone expansions. We have already much of the point that this has certainly taken place in the case of the Introduction and Epilogue (sic). Nevertheless we have noted the primary point that it is in the law code section of the book that the earliest parts are be found” (Clements, 1993², 71). Here again the literature does not tend to study the oldest remains of this growth within Dt., although there is room for this study (RömerDe Pury, 1996, 91). Kratz (2000) is an exception to this. He sees in proto-Dt. gradual literary connections with the Hexateuch and even the Enneateuch (Gen.–2 Kgs; Aurelius, 2003; Otto, E. 2005). — The study of this growth is instructive primarily regarding the evolution of the law. It offers a chance to study the transition from the individual legal norms (contrary to the collections that had already been formed, the literature easily accepts these as pre-Dtr: Römer-De Pury, 1996, 92; Römer, 2005, 67-106) and their operation on the greater collections and the ‫ספר התורה‬. Secondly, tracing the older elements of Dt. offers an opportunity to follow the evolution within Dt.-Dtr in the introductions and framework of the materials along with prophecy (Otto E., 2000). According to Perlitt (1989, 133), Is. 30:15 can be invoked as clear example of prophetic influence on Dt. 1:26 by Isaiah personally, thus in the pre-exilic period, and this via the expression ‫ולא אביתם‬. — Similarly,

392

elements, demonstrate pre-exilic origin. The legal material in Dt. 12-26 belongs to the core and centre of what is usually considered Dt.’s oldest pre-exilic stage or proto-Dt. This legal corpus, like the BoC, has both apodictic and casuistic elements, on the understanding that both elements are intermixed at the expense of the casuistic form925. The provisions that it the formally expressed, typological tendency in the early Dt. introduction (Dt. 1-3) can be linked not only to an older historical source (Lohfink, 1997) but equally to the view of history held by the classical prophets. Since – more so than the BoC – Dt.-Dtr introductions and framework provided different arguments according to altered circumstances and their public’s situation, traces were left of the theological reasoning that Dt.-Dtr followed. — The influence on Dt.-Dtr during and after the exile was presented as fact in 6.4.3. Now we will specify that this influence had already started before the exile. A strong argument for this is the form of the Mosaic speeches in Dt., which appear to be older that those in the prophetic books. The form of the latter evinces closer relationship to the poetic and wisdom literature (Rabin, 1982). — The copious use of Assyrian terminology and devices (Otto E., 1999, 366) cannot be denied (Preuss, 1982, 69-71; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 92-93). Here again the BoC was already highly dependent on what was available among the surrounding peoples. The Assyrian influence on Judah (which was the strongest argument for the preexilic dating of Dt.: Römer-De Pury, 1996, 92-93) was considerable, particularly during Manasseh’s reign (Jagersma, 1990a3, 232-233). In that regard, one can speak of a culture shock (Römer-De Pury, 1996, ibid.). This need not necessarily lead to the conclusion that all of Dt. was written in the form of an Assyrian treaty or was part of an Assyrian redaction that extended from Dt.-2 Kgs (according to Auld, 1999, 121). It should be stated precisely that acknowledging that Assyrian terminology in Dt. is pre-exilic does not exclude Dtr’s still using it in the exilic and post-exilic periods. But restricting this usage to this period without recognising a reason for this in the Assyrian period is an example of biased thinking. In this presupposition, Dt. would no longer be an Antwort auf diese Herausforderung (Otto E., 1999, 366) to the Assyrian crisis. Since the time of Otto E.’s 1999 study, it is no longer possible to invoke the lack of opportunity for comparison with the surrounding peoples (Preuss, 1982, 70). This study confirms completely the mentioned formal agreements with Dt. Moreover, Dt. appears to assume the idea that the Yahwist tradition exceeds Assyria in that it is linked with the BoC which dates from before the rise of Assyria (Otto E., 1999, 365). In this way Israel in its Yahwism proved even before the catastrophe of the exile that it was a people of remembrance (Otto E., 1999, 377). During and after the exile Dtr only had to up-date by calling on the traditions it held before the catastrophe. 925 Kratz, 2000, 127-138. Theologically and because of its concentric situation, the legal code is the centre of Dt. “Le livre entier est ainsi orienté à la Loi” (Vermeylen, 1997, 45). — Although the outward shape may not be the sole norm for evaluation, the shift to the combined form in Dt. is indicative. Taken with the vast expansion of the reasoning to include paraenesis and even preaching (such as in the shift from the 3rd to the 2nd pers. as direct address; this increases the pressure of the canonising authority, this time directly on the reader/listener and through this person on the entire people [McConville, 2002] as this was customary in poetry and prophecy [de Regt, 2000]), it gives Dt.’s legal codes its own character which is primarily attributable to the Dtr editor’s extensive reworking (Preuss,

393

contains on the cult, family law, martial law and judicial, royal, priestly and prophetic offices each show many traces of growth that appear to have their roots in daily life during the monarchy, including that of the Kingdom of Israel926. 1982, 123-132). Given its need to persuade, it wanted to move its exilic public first and foremost to an intelligently accepted code of behaviour. It led the Dtr to arrange the inherited materials that they used in their argumentation according to their main concern (by alternating between the 3rd and 2nd pers. address: Houtman, 1980, 176-177) and to provide it historical additions that served as a theological framework (Houtman, 2004). The detection of the original grouped and individual legal material (Seitz considers this attainable: Preuss, 1982, 131) is important. It not only permits the recognition of the original casuistic trait – theological studies give too little attention to this or reduce it to vague ideal, e.g. the notion of covenant is reduced to that of loyalty [Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 166-171], or to a metaphor for marriage – and the prophetic contribution, it also sharpens the focus on Dtr’s own role in their reception. 926 The cultic material is not limited to Dt. 12-18. It is found throughout the legal section where it is closely linked with the other themes (Rüterswörden l1994, 314-316 calls this a Verknüpfungstechnik or linking device). “The cult has a central place in religion and in the dtr history” (Eynikel, 1996, 3). “...the book of Deuteronomy presents what is undoubtedly the most fully reasoned and consistently explained theology of worship in the Old Testament” (Clements, 1993², 60). In this way the cult is linked to social legislation (e.g. Dt. 15:19-22: Preuss, 1982, 134) and to administration of justice (e.g. in 17:9 the Levitical priests play a role in the high court). Cult and social life had much in common: both were subject to community spirit. That is why the cult is the point where P and D intersect. — The cult’s links to other themes can raise problems (Dt. 12 with 16:21 - 17:1: Rüterswörden, 1994, 325). The distinct cultic arrangements, such as those relating to the cultic feasts (Dt. 16) seem to be closely related to the precepts that contain the ‫תועב‬ (abomination formula) or the ‫( בערת‬removal of evil by capital punishment) and that are usually intended to preserve purity in the sanctuary or country or to combat idolatry (Preuss, 1982, 108-119; this brings to light the need to purify the cult of permanently present syncretism [Houtman, 1980, 170-171; Smith M.S., 1971]). These are all ritual themes that P, more than others, developed later, but that the Dtr redactors heeded more so than the social and humanitarian measures that they developed from the BoC (Otto E., 1991b, 296-298). — Most attention goes to the numerous passages (Preuss, 1982, 109, 116118) that illustrate Dtr’s familiar pursuit of one, single sanctuary or cult centralisation (‘Basic deuteronomic ideology’: Anbar, 1985, 304). Through the place Dtr assigned them (Lohfink, 1991i, 168 calls this Frontstellung), the Dtr wanted to give the entire legal code in Dt. 12-26 a cultic orientation similar to that in the BoC (Lohfink, 1991i, ibid; Anbar, 1985, 306) and even to reinforce this by including the BoC’s altar code in Ex. 20:24-25 (Otto E., 1999, 341-351). Comparison of the two altar codes shows how far the two differ. The main difference is the multiplicity of sanctuaries in the BoC, while Dt., as we know, introduced unity (Heger, 1999). This was again done under the influence of the Dtr redactor’s theological – and this time more pronounced – socio-cultic concern as has been frequently noted. The religious shape of the purification and centralisation of the cult were primarily seen as a socio-political undertaking. — The current study’s interest, like that of the BoC, is in the elements that date from the pre-Dtr. period, the existence of which even

394 the reserved Preuss had to acknowledge after much pondering. “Fragt man nach Resultaten bisheriger Forschung, so dürften ... vor allem die Untersuchungen von Merendino, Nebeling und besonders Seitz als erstes erwiesen haben, daß im Dtn. vordtn Gut verarbeitet ist. Dieses Gut lag sowohl in Form von älteren Einzeltexten wie in der von Textgruppen oder Sammlungen vor ... Es läßt sich relativ oft dem Dtn. vorgegebenes Gut erkennen, aber dieses fügt sich nur schwer zu ebenso klar erkennbaren vordtn Sammlungen zusammen, sondern diese Sammlungen sind oft schon mehr dtn als vordtn. ... Dtn. 12 ist dtn/dtr Programm, und nur einige der übrigen Texte aus der Gruppe der Zentralisationsgesetze gehen auf älteres Gut zurück, das sich meist auch noch in ihnen nachweisen läßt” (Preuss, 1982, 115-116, 122, 133). The fact that in its efforts to have only one sanctuary, Dt. consciously avoided naming it, whereas it did mention Ebal and Gerizim elsewhere seems to indicate the great age of the tradition and its origin in the Kingdom of Israel (Boecker, 1976, 155; Houtman, 1980, 179). The great age of the cult centralisation tradition on which Dt. seems to have relied increases the chances that it was influenced by prophets such as Hosea, who are known for their sharp criticism of cultic practices at the time, although not of the cult or sanctuaries themselves. — The legal character of Dt. based on contemporary judicial practice has been discussed repeatedly: Weinfeld, 1985, 77-78; Otto E., 1991b, 292-294. Practical experience in family relations is evident from the phrasing of Dt. 22:1321 (Locher, 1985a) and of the family laws in Dt. generally (Rofé, 1987). — The martial law in Dt. 20:5-8 reach back to a very old custom used in Ugarit as early as the second millennium BCE (Fohrer, 1989, 51). — The precepts on the ‫( שפטים‬judges) and ‫שטרים‬ (supervisors) found in Dt. 16:18-20 and 17:8-13 introduce a larger unit (Dt. 16:18-18:22) entirely given to public officials. Again this study is not concerned with this undeniable Dtr unit (according to Lohfink, 1990d), which is increasingly being recognised as exilic (Rüterswörden, 1994), but to the pre-history of the multi-layered, single law (Lohfink, 1990d, 311; Krinetzki, 1994, 204-235), esp. in its pre-exilic state (Rüterswörden, 1987, 94111). This does not deny that the precepts governing the ‫ שפטים‬show that Dtr redactor’s exilic interest came to dominate the ‫שפטים‬, including an historical backward glance at the start of the Dtr history, esp. in Judges. Yet the text, as it is now found in Dt. is not completely applicable to the figures in Jg. as Dietrich (1996a, 301-303) and Rüterswörden (1994, 316-318) have had to admit. The ‫ שפטים‬in Dt. have no royal power like the figures in the Jg. and unlike the latter they had, according to proto-Dt., only local communities and not all the people of Israel under their care (Rüterswörden, 1987, 94-111). They appear to be well-to-do citizens that own property and exercise authority over an extended family. They are also not the sole bearers of the title as were those in Jg., but are now plural and work collegially. Further, in the time of the Judges, there was no high court as in the Dtr Dt. 17:8-13. Moreover, according to Dt. 17, Israel – the people not the political government (in the exilic period the political government, i.e. the monarchy, no longer functioned) – had to provide these judges while the Judges were moved by the Spirit and chosen by YHWH (Rüterswörden, 1994, 317 n. 19). — All this shows sufficiently that the provisions in protoDt., now revised by the Dtr had a more than historical interest in this matter and, unlike the prophets, did not limit their criticism to the way the judges performed their duties. They wanted to use prior experiences to provide a practical, legal definition of the office adapted to the circumstances (Zobel K., 1992, 165-166). To understand the sense and purpose of this, it seems necessary once again to call upon the practical experience gained in judicial practice at the gates in pre-exilic times – the same seen in the BoC – and to apply it to these texts in Dt. These experiences – which were gained in practical social life in Israel and on

395 which the laws in Dt. relied – can be used to fill the various gaps that textual research leaves behind. Further, they are also found in the completed legal system – consisting of the ancient system of local elders and a series of appointed judges – directed locally from the central authority that was mentioned in Dt. 1:9-17 and attributed to Moses and retrojected into his era (Houtman, 2001). — But they referred above all to experience of judicial practice that confronted the classical pre-exilic prophets and Dt.-Dtr, an experience that led to their influencing one another. In this way the prophets’ criticism of the government (7.3.3, 7.3.4.1.) was embodied in the legalistic corpus Dt. 12-26 (Zobel K., 1992, 155-157; Schmidt W.H., 1997, 35). Many authors believe they can see influence of the prophetic criticism reflected in the practical measures against bribery in Dt. 16:19 (Rüterswörden, 1994, 318 n. 23; Zobel K., 1992, 168-173, 177-178). In addition, many authors believe that Chr. can be used to situate the appointment of local judges in Dt. 16:18 in the reign of King Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. 17:7-9; 19:5-11; the judges did not operate professionally even through the time of the BoC: Weisman, 1995, 417-420). This source quite probably contains a historical core (Zobel K., 1992, 153; Crüsemann, 1988, 35-41; Niehr, 1987, 91-94; Krinetzki, 1994, 208-214.) For another view see Veijola (1996, 197-198) who assumed that Dtr depicted judicial practice in the post-exilic period in Dt. 1:9-18. The appointment of local judges was certainly adapted to the situation in the late monarchy (Dietrich, 1996a, 301-303; Rofé, 2001) and corresponded to the deficiencies in the legal system of which the prophets were so critical: Am. 5:10; Is. 3:14-15; Mic. 2:1-4 (Koch, 1980, 17). Zwickel (1999, 365-377) believed he could situate similar prophetic texts in Hezekiah’s reign. This Judean king had to cope with problems caused by immigration after the fall of Israel. This specific prophetic criticism of the state of the legal system at the time was part of a much broader criticism of the cult that instigated the extensive reform under Josiah of the cult and the administration of justice. This reform maintained the distinction between profane legal precepts and those on the cult (2 Chr. 19:11; Crüsemann, 1988, 36). The linking of the cultic and legal reforms was a consequence of the gaps in the administration of justice left by cultic centralisation; lay officers replaced the local cultic centres (Niehr, 1987, 87, 94101; Römer, 2005,58-61). When the prophets’ stance on the legal reforms are compared to that of Dt., the following can be noted: — In Dt.-Dtr, the appointment is a matter for the people (Dt. 1:15; Krinetzki, 1994, 215), while in the prophets YHWH appoints the judges or acts as judge (Is. 1:26; 16:5; 28:6). Proto-Dt. wanted to use practical laws to govern the people (Zobel K., 1992, 167) and used compliance with these measures a condition for remaining in the land (Zobel K., 1992, 168; the gift of the land is mentioned specifically Krinetzki, 1994, 210). Proto-Dt. and the prophets used the same history to underpin their views. Both thought that injustice threatened the people’s existence as history showed. — The prophets take aim at all levels of government (Am. 5:12; Mic. 3:11; Is. 1:23; 5:23), but the king remains an indirect target. Proto-Dt. transformed the obloquy into positive commandments and focused them on one category, the judges. It was not addressed to a broad public. The prophets, by contrast, directed their charges at all layers of the population in YHWH’S name to preserve the special relationship with him (Zobel K., 1992, 188-191). — The law of the king that the exilic Dtr redactor developed assigned more duties than rights to the monarchy (“von Rechten ... nicht das mindeste erfahren”: Krinetzki, 1994, 246) but did not abolish the monarchy, a solution for which some prophets argued (according to Hos. 1:4-9). For another view see Fenton (2001, 136). This law of the king did reduce the monarch’s role to a subservient executor of the written Torah (note the emphasis on the body of law given him by the Levitical priests – this presupposed and

396 confirmed its custody in the temple) and did not mention his legal powers as were customary among the surrounding peoples (Levinson, 2001). The concern is that with this measure the king served as an instrument that allowed YHWH, who had chosen him, to rule and that the king thus placed himself in service of the people that insisted on his appointment. This significant role for the popular will is thought to be based on tradition from the Kingdom of Israel (Krinetzki, 1994, 237) but seems much more to reflect Dtr’s input. The latter is known for its concern for the lot of the people as body. How the idea of Israel as elected people could decline, via OT scholars like Hempel, into support for National Socialism in Germany is explained in Weber, 2000. The law of the king provided a utopian image of the monarchy. It was constructed of the theological notion of a land given by YHWH (Krinetzki, 1994, 235-236) and the bitter experience of the kings’ past failures. Yet this law of the king seems to be intended as a practical measure (Rüterswörden, 1994, 319) and can only be understood in its socio-political context (Dutcher-Walls, 2002) – which, like all utopian measures in Dt. (Houtman, 1980), can be situated both during and before the exile – and not solely as criterion for condemning the kings and setting up a new programme for the post-exilic period when constructing the Dtr history (Vermeylen, 1997, 60-63). This function doubtless also plays a role in the final wording of this law of the king. However, that grew gradually (García López, 1985, 282), although authors do not agree on how that came about. While one ascribed this text solely to Dtr – Dietrich (1996a, 314-323) distinguished a post-exilic stage from an exilic stage – others distinguished a pre-exilic (Levinson, 2001, thinks that this law of the king dates from before the Dtr and that in their narrative in 2 Kgs 22-23 they return to the king rights that had be taken from him in Dt.’s law of the king) and even proto-Dtr elements (according to García López, 1985, 293-295; Crüsemann, 1992, 274; Krinetzki, 1994, 235-246). — Under these circumstances it again seems impossible to derive a proper understanding from the text alone. We must turn again to the historical context. The oldest royal history with its emphasis on Solomon is insufficient. The pre-exilic prophets often seemed to invoke a more proximate context, esp. foreign, most notably Egyptian, treaties (Is. 20:1-6; 28:16; 30:15 [Perlitt, 1989, 134]; 31:1-3; Hos. 7:11-16; Jer. 2:18-19). This can explain Dt. 7:2-9 and esp. Dt. 17:16 (“You shall never return that way again”) This phrase points in express terms (Zobel K., 1992, 147; Lohfink, 1991g) to prior legal practice possibly introduced under the prophets’ influence during Josiah’s reform (Hos. 12:2). “Mais Dt. 17:14ss. se comprendrait mal s’il n’était précédé d’une pratique. L’écho de cette pratique est conservée en partie dans Osée ... De même que ces textes, Dt. 17,14-20 reflète une expérience particulière du peuple et du roi, sans que pour cela elle ne se réduise exclusivement à un seul moment historique. Dans un cas comme dans l’autre, l’auteur des textes protodeutéronomiques s’élève au-dessus des cas particuliers ... En ne précisant pas la situation dans laquelle se trouvent le peuple et le roi, il est sous-entendu que le prédicateur donne à ses exhortations pressantes un caractère général, qu’elles sont applicables non seulement à un roi mais à plusieurs” (García López, 1985, 291-292). Here we see again the familiar generalisation as a universal negative image of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible (Smelik, 1991a, 36) without, however, losing total contact with specific facts and experiences (dehistoricising). — The prophets also strongly disapproved of other types of behaviour (Is. 2:7-9; Mic. 5:9-14; Rüterswörden, 1994, 322-323). The prophetic disapproval has left visible traces on other practical measures mentioned in Dt. — First is the prohibition against horses. This had its origin in the prophetic disapproval of the kings’ military campaigns. Hence the explicit prohibition in Dt. against using horses. This was an

397 expression of hubris and the cause of YHWH’S rejection. “Es ist also in Israel, geradezu ein Glaubenssatz, daß man sich nicht auf Kriegswagen verlassen soll” (Krinetzki, 1994, 238). — In addition to the historical traditions found in 1 Kgs 1:1-13, the prohibition against polygamy could be rooted in the negative view that the prophets held of women (Is. 3:164:1; 32:9-14; Hos. 2:4-17; Am. 4:1-3). However, Dt. did not simply adopt this negative view, but defended the rights of women (Dt. 21:10-14; 22:13-30) and wanted to prevent the king from turning away from YHWH (Dt. 17:17), in whose service he stands. — Dt. adopted the prophets’ reservations regarding an excess of money, gold and silver without rejecting these values as such. Moreover, they no longer connected this to the Baal cult like Hosea did (Hos. 2:10; 8:4). The time-bound character is eliminated in the way the prohibition is worded. At the same time, there is a risk that the prophetic experience will be dismantled (Zobel K., 1992, 141-143). — The prohibition against appointing a foreigner king is the result of the kings being subject to the Torah. Only Israelites can be subject to the Torah. The measure is thus not addressed to foreign peoples (Krinetzki, 1994, 237). — Finally, the admonition to remain modest (Dt. 17:20) is based on Hos. 13:6 (Zobel K., 1992, 147-149). — Dt. is the first to give much attention to the Levites. This is not limited to what is said in Dt. 18:1-8 about their statutes as one kind of public official. It speaks elsewhere (Dt. 12:12,19; 14:27-28; 16:11; 27:14) of the Levites who seem to be gaining headway in public life, esp. in the cult and Israel’s legal system (Krinetzki, 1994, 215-222). This is not so surprising given the cult’s large role in Dt.’s legislation. It is now significant that according to Dt. 17:18 the Levites hold the written Torah to which all in Israel including the king are now subject. According to Dt. 31:10-13 they must read it aloud at fixed times, such as Sukkoth. This is consistent with the teaching task that had long been assigned to the priests (Braulik, 1985a, 11-24). According to Dt. 17:11 (Lohfink, 1990d, 319) and Dt. 21:5 (Lohfink, 1995d, 227), the Levites seem to continue in the sanctuaries the jurisdictional role that the priests had traditionally filled in the administration of justice. In this way, the Levites show how they have grown with regard to the office of priest. This issue remains moot in the literature (Houtman, 1980, 175-176, 187-189; Dammen, 1996). The centralisation of the cult, probably during Josiah’s reign, must have been a critical moment for them. It must have threatened their material existence – always an important issue for priests. It was with good reason that Dt. 18:1-8 went into detail on the division of the material advantages of the sacrificial cult. This was again a traditional area for the priests. The opportunity that Dt. 18:6-7 provided for the Levites located outside the city to operate in the central sanctuary is striking. This measure seems absent from 2 Kgs 23, another Dtr text. It arouses the suspicion that the urban-rural divide played a role in the D-P relationship. Dt.-Dtr, inspired by Amos and Micah (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 170 n. 19) clearly took the side of the rural population (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 144). This was part of its humanistic tendency. The D-P relationship is clearly hidden behind these texts, just as there was possibly some connection with the struggle among priests of various ranks within Israel (Houtman, 1980, 187-189). For Preuss (1982, 137) only Dt. 18:1,3-4 was eligible to be considered parts of the pre-Dtr texts. Yet the broader historical context with the eventful pre-exilic period under kings Hezekiah and Josiah is tangible (Krinetzki, 1994, 246-254). — Dt. 18:9-22 can be divided into a negative part vv. 9-14 and a positive part vv. 15-22. Schmidt W.H. (1997, 56) called this Zweiteilung. Blenkinsopp (1977, 41-44) saw the whole as positive and dating from the exilic period. Yet he did find a negative judgment in Dt. 13:2-6, which he traces back to Josiah’s day. For another view see Köckert, 2000, 83-85, who situates this text in the post-exilic period on the basis of the prohibition against

398 worshipping other gods, which presupposes Dt. 13:2-6. During the exile, the Dtr redactor (Zobel K., 1992, 204; Köckert, 2000, 85-100 defends Dt.’s overall dependence on Jeremiah) juxtaposed these parts that fit, as it were, in the whole redactional design relating to offices (Dt. 16:18-18:22). But before the Dtr redactor could turn to this, the elements used in the redactional design had already had their own history in one or more of the previous Dt. versions. This is sufficiently evident from further study of Dt. 18:19-22. In addition to the negative and positive element, this passage also contains an older element that addresses the issue of the mantic practices of the native population that Israel encountered upon entering Canaan and that exerted its influence upon Israel in the time of the former prophets. — Krinetzki (1994, 254) situates the oldest part of Dt. 18:9-22 in the time of the Judges. The early origin is confirmed by the old layer in vv. 10 and 12a (Preuss, 1982, 138). The list of mantic practices there is the longest in the Bible and is derived from old traditions found in Ex. 22:17 and Is. 8:19 (Schmidt W.H., 1997, 57 n. 9-10). These presuppose the prior prohibitions (Rüterswörden, 1994, 320) that applied absolutely (Krinetzki, 1994, 259) but which were not heeded (2 Kgs 17:8-13) and which had to be adjusted to the threat from surrounding kingdoms, esp. Assyria. The transition from one situation to the other can be seen in the inconsistencies between Dt. 18:10 (“There shall not be found among you”) and Dt. 18:14 (“For these nations, which you are about to dispossess”). The final result of this correlation with current events is Dt. 18:15-22. Dtr were clearly under the sway of the prophets, e.g. in fulfilment theme (Dt. 18:21-22; Jer. 2728; we will return to this shortly) when they made the final changes to this passage to incorporate it in their history. The extent to which the law – this is often seen as a Dtr promise (Preuss, 1982, 138), but proved to have a fundamentally juridical scope (Rüterswörden, 1994, 328) – and history run parallel to one another has been studied (Rüterswörden, 1994, 319-322). — Consideration of the entire redactional design also stressed the Dtr’s theological vision (“konzeptionelle Geschlossenheit der Ämtergesetze”: Rüterswörden, 1994, 315) of the prophecy. “Die Installation des Prophetentums durch Jahwe selbst ... verleiht dem Amt die größte Dignität ... Das Achtergewicht liegt dadurch auf dem Prophetentum” (Rüterswörden, 1994, 319). This throws light on its retrojection to Horeb, which makes prophecy “somit das älteste und daher grundlegende Amt des gesamten Verfassungsentwurf” (Schmidt W.H., 1997, 56 n. 8). This leaves but a short step to allowing prophets to share in Moses’ office (For another view see Blenkinsopp, 1977, 39-46; Zobel K., 1992, 198-199), but with full safeguarding of God’s free intervention so that the human input retains the same balance (Zobel K., 1992, 200). This depiction of the prophet as participant in Moses’ office is only proper in the Dtr history (2 Kgs 17:13) and is thus a step too far in Dt. 18:16 (Lohfink, 1990d, 320-321). — All this draws attention to Dtr’s evolution as current so that it is given full attention once more in Dt. 18:9-22. The introduction of fulfilment as criterion for prophetic authenticity in the Dtr version, confirms the connection to Jeremiah noted earlier (Preuss, 1982, 38). Dt.-Dtr proved to be confronted with Jeremiah in more than one way (Schmidt W.H., 1997, 61-68; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 3539). The institutionalisation of the prophetic office that Dtr pursued had begun much earlier. “Eine Auffassung die ihnen schon vorgegeben war ... Auch scheint in der vordeuteronomistischen Jeremia-Überlieferung die Prophetie eine gesellschaftliche Institution zu sein wiewohl noch kein Amt einer Verfasserkonzeption” (Rüterswörden, 1991, 330). This reference to prophecy’s community character calls to mind its role in YHWH’S relationship to his people. Because of close contacts in this matter, priesthood and prophecy tended to merge. This convergence can be ascertained from their appearance

399

Like the BoC, to which Dt. is closely related, the legal material in Dt. is by no means a non-committal mental exercise927. 0riginal individual together in Jeremiah in a passages that “ ... gehören zum ältesten Bestand des Jeremiabuches und gehen wahrscheinlich auf den Propheten selbst zurück. Es läßt sich ein Bild von den sich herausbildenden Institution der Prophetie zeichnen. Die Jeremianische Umschreibung der prophetischen Funktion ... bot der nachfolgenden deuteronomistischen Redaktion den Ansatzpunkt ihre eigene Konzeption ... nachzutragen” (Rüterswörden, 1991, 331; Zobel K., 1992, 200). — Dtr’s dependence on the preceding prophetic tradition is not restricted to this one element concerning the instituting of prophecy. A comparison of Am. 2:11, Dt. 8:18, Jer. 29:15 and Hos. 12:14 shows how Dt. draws from a tradition parallel to that of the prophets’ (common idiom) according to which YHWH initiated the Exodus event to guarantee prophetic efficacy after Moses. But in Dt. the close connection between Moses and the Exodus event disappeared– at least in the central legal code (Moses is all the more emphatically present in the framework: Clements, 1993², 33). There, YHWH alone is responsible for the Exodus (Watts, 1998, 418-426, a redactional-rhetorical study, refers to the difference in level between Moses and YHWH in Ex.-Num. and Dt.). He alone is the fundament of Moses’ authority (Dozeman, 2000b). Further, Hos. 6:5 and 12:11 indicate that Dt. continued to develop the notion of prophetic succession, launched in essence by Hosea, but it did so at the expense of the prophet’s animated portrayal and input (Zobel K., 1992, 210-215). — This influencing, particularly from the prophetic tradition, should be situated in the broader memorial culture in which Dtr is rooted (Braulik, 1985a, 11-26; only Davies P.R., 2002, 45, thought that the illiterate population of Israel was totally unfamiliar with these traditions) and which is reflected in Dt. 18:9. It is based on the pre-exilic period. This memorial culture extends to the legalistic tradition and this in the strictest sense. It is substantively expressed in individual legal rules applicable in the cult. The personal intervention of the prophet in current events (Lohfink, 1990d, 316, 321) fit in well with that of the priest (still visible in Dt. 17:13). This broad background from which Dtr seems to have delved Dt. 18: 9-22 explains why Dtr’s own input has more in mind than just their history. Here as elsewhere in the redactional design they picked up on tradition that determined life in Yahwist Israel at that time. That is why it is impossible to finish with Dtr’s intervention in Dt. by focussing on the option in the Dtr history (Rüterswörden, 1994, 324-327). It leaves numerous unanswered questions. The Dtr history is even insufficient to explain the historical introduction found in the legalistic sections of Dt. (Rüterswörden, 1994, 324). — Authors referring to its being rooted in the monarchical period include García López, 1985, 292; Lubsczyk, 1990, 162; Clements, 1993², 79-83; Weinfeld, 1985. Literary arguments for this are the frequent invocation of the BoC and significant representation of themes (including paraenesis) known in the Kingdom of Israel in the work of Hosea and others. The attribution of the religious traditions to Moses is the most important symptom of this. It dominated Dt. to a great degree. Conversely, the Zion and the Davidic dynasty themes, typical of Judah, are practically absent in Dt. while abundantly present in primarily pro-monarchy sections of DtrH. 927 7.2.2.; Preuss, 1982, 104-108. This copious use of the BoC shows Dt.’s intention to remain faithful to the value of the older legal tradition and the awareness of how necessary Dt. considered it to update and supplement legislation in such fields as family law (Otto, 2003, 25-31). There Hosea relied on old adoption law and contemporary marriage law (Weinfeld, 1985, 77-78) and Israel’s relationship to YHWH. But these modifications and

400

legal rules were adapted expanded in a new and growing whole based on their application and with a view to permanent or new deficiencies in Israel’s socio-political system928. Since the pre-exilic prophets wanted to additions do not detract from the legal principle. One may not misjudge the fictive device that Dtr applies, such as Moses’ speech and the staging of the discovery of the law book during Josiah’s reign. These may not cause us to doubt “the book’s clear intention to present its reader genuine information about the Mosaic faith and morality, and this needs to be upheld as something quite separate from the more narrowly critical judgment about the precise period when this was couched in its extant literary form” (Clements, 1993², 69). McBride (1987, 232-232) refers to the effectiveness of the legislation. “It was certainly based upon a confidence in the efficacy of a written code of law” (Clements, 1993², 66). “Dtn. 4,1-40, ist also nicht als ganzes Paränese ... Der Text als ganzer ist die höchst freilich sprachliche Konstituierung einer Situation der Gesetzpromulgation” (Braulik, 2002, 259). Their practical character is confirmed by the introductory framework (Clements, 1993², 38), primarily in the Shema (Dt. 6:4) that is unequivocally invoked YHWH’S absolute authority (Dt. 7:8), by the many blessings and curses and by the archaeological discoveries (Tigay, 1995). It is irresponsible to appeal to the utopian character of the legal measures contained in Dt. only to ban them to the exilic and post-exilic periods, certainly when this utopian character is measured against modern, Western models (according to Perlitt, 1994, 189197). In fact, all measures at that time were unenforceable and to a certain degree idealistic and thus utopian. They always intended to link the people’s experience to lessons learned in the past (Bord, 2001, 106). This utopian character is rather an argument for than against an early date for the legal measures. Like utopian prophecy, it had to be reformed later (Laato, 1996, 5). The same applies to an appeal to the paraenesis in Dt. (Veijola, 2004, 288) as irreconcilable with the authoritarian and compulsory character of the law (according to Vermeylen, 1997, 46-52, who believed that the paraenetic bent pointed to a new view of the law caused by the abolition of independence during the exile; he incorrectly thought that the authority of a law was dependent on its enforceability; in antiquity and certainly in Israel, a law’s authority depended more on its motivation and grounding in absolute authority [Long, 1977]). Dt. and the BoC have in common that they faced the task of revising and supplementing current judicial practice with what had developed in the meantime. Furthermore, Dt. like the BoC is eclectic and displays many differences despite its best efforts to achieve unity. 928 Here we can speak of the later operation of Dt.-Dtr (Lubsczyk, 1990, 170-176). ‫ החקים והמשפטים‬in Dt. 11:32 and 12:1 bespeak the individual origin of the judicial decisions in separate cases (Lohfink, 1991b) before and during Dtr’s shaping of Dt. (and not only from the time after Dt.; the link with Dt. cannot be denied, however late one may date the judicial practice: Veijola, 1996, 223). There were generalised in Dt., updated (“to meet the exigencies of later situations”: Clements, 1977, 49; “to serve concrete necessities”: Heger, 1999, 315) and theologically incorporated in Dt.-Dtr’s growing view YHWH’S relationship to Israel. We already discussed how this direction was followed in the treatment of public offices. The amount of attention given to family matters is striking here. Dt.-Dtr took over the practical experiences in family matters, esp. adoption and fidelity, that Hosea transposed in his historical situation (“ancré dans l’histoire”: Römer-De Pury, 1996, 118) to YHWH’S relationship to Israel, but then with a permanent and timeless meaning (Zobel K., 1992, 41-49, 80-84). Here we should recall the practical legal rules on the emancipation of

401

intervene with their preaching in the same current events, this became the scene929 in which they came in contact with the Dt.-Dtr as well as their base of operations for influencing the Dt.-Dtr and its gradual extension. This collective involvement in current events must have reached its apex during Josiah’s reform. That is why it receives so much attention in literary-critical literature treating the familiar text in 2 Kgs 22-23, although there is still not even a minimal consensus930. Rather than being compelled slaves already present in the BoC (Ex. 21:2-11). Although honoured more in the breach, they were expected to produce a practical effect and thus were included in Dt. 15:12-18. Nevertheless, they are part of the theological framework of the body of legal measures that illustrate the practical scope of the theological perspective. 929 “...it was these events which provided a series of catalysts, relating prophecies firmly to political realities and giving to them a basis of fulfilment “ (Clements, 1977, 50). The extent to which the prophets were oriented toward current events has already been discussed. This concern for current events is, of course, interpretive (“Der gebrochene Geschichtsbezug des Prophetenwortes”: Barthel, 1997, 455-466) but can help attempts at dating their writings and the prophetic biographies, since they specify unique historical facts. Dt.-Dtr is no less concerned with current events and thus entered historical terrain shared with the prophets. “...it consisted of a sense of common destiny given through a shared racial inheritance and belief in a shared historical reality” (Clements, 1993², 86). Dt.-Dtr worked more cautiously than the prophets and with greater theological reflection. “Das Volk ist auch über seine Geschichte hin durch die übergreifende Anrede des Dtn.s (‘heute’) und die weitere und neue Aktualität der Taten Jahwes (‘wie es bis heute der Fall ist’) zu einer (idealen?) Einheit der Generationen zusammengeschlossen” (Preuss, 1982, 184; here the prophetic influence is perceptible). That is why Dt.-Dtr used the fulfilment criterion to shift prophecy further back into the past. Yet, that the question of political independence of Israel was never a problem in Dt. shows that its interest in historical reality can be situated in the pre-exilic period (Koch, 1980, 11-12). 930 “We have good reason to believe that the basic stock of Deuteronomy was made public for the first time as a part of Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs 22:8-23:25) and was written sometime within the century preceding its publications” (Patrick, 1995, 435). Gieselmann (1994) and Lohfink (1985) refer to the lack of unanimity. “Dieser Dissens ist in der Sache begründet, denn im Deuteronomium sind tatsächlich alte und junge Elemente in einem oft schwer entwirrbaren Gemenge vereinigt” (Lubsczyk, 1990, 162). This disunity in the literature, a frequent occurrence on OT studies – there is even dissent when it comes to the BoC – need not lead to a total elimination of the narrative penned in 2 Kgs 22-23. Even if it is accepted that the last Dtr redactor included this event because of his own interest, it is reasonable to continue considering a minimal core (for Lohfink, 1991c, 225 this is probably a brief history and for Schaper, 2006, 18 this is an Annalendocument) as historical (Eynikel, 1996, 351-355; Veijola, 2004, 270 n. 873; for another view see Würthwein, 1994, 204). This concerns the centralisation and purification of the cult, both of which fit perfectly with the kings’ policy. Arguments for this are Dtr’s historical proximity to the events ( “Gestalten wie der Priester Hilkia oder die Prophetin Hulda können in solchen Zusammenhängen schwerlich als rein literarische Figuren betrachtet werden, die dazu benutzt wurden, einer fiktiven Darstellung historisches Kolorit zu verleihen”: Herrmann S., 1990, 12), the official

402

to adopt a biased position, it seems desirable when studying prophecy to turn to the method of tradition history and the primary sources such as archaeology931. Given the insufficiency of this method evident from the past, appeal to it must be made cautiously and only as complement to literary-critical analysis932. By way of exception, this study also assumes several historical facts that, thanks to the certainty with which archaeology has established them, can shed some light on the canonising profiling of the texts in general Dtr literature and Dt. as well as on the canonising effect of the lengthy dialogue between the prophets and the Dtr environment to which they belonged933. style (King Josiah’s name is not mentioned, only ‘the king”: Lubsczyk, 1990, 160-161) and the observed differences between Dt. and Dtr on the centralisation of the cult (Dt. 18:6-8 regarding 2 Kgs 22:20). That Huldah’s prophecy on Josiah’s glorious future was preserved, despite the latter’s ignominious end, is an argument for the historicity of the prophecy (Koch, 1980, 20; For another view see Würthwein, 1994a, 195-199). “Wäre alles Berichtete deuteronomistisch, hätte man wohl auch dieses noch ‘stimmend’ gemacht” (Preuss, 1982, 9). “If it were pre-exilic, the exilic redactor would have altered it” (Eynikel, 1996, 23). 931 “Problematisch wird dieser wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisweg dann, wenn die sich an der Ausgangshypothese anschließende Detailanalyse nicht mehr unvoreingenommen geschieht” (Gieselmann, 1994, 225). The distinction between primary and secondary sources (Schoors, 1998, 132) is not based on their historical reliability but on their temporal proximity to the event (Uehlinger, 1995, 59-61). This temporal proximity does not automatically ensure them of historical reliability. Secondary sources can supersede them in this (Provan, 1995, 597). 932 We must take into account the justifiable criticism of this (Liwak, 1987, 303 n. 1), specifically to find evidence in the material for its date (Houtman, 1980, 248-252). For instance, there can be no question of a general reconstruction of historical events relating to Josiah and his period. “Es ist zu fragen, ob nicht komplementär auch der umgekehrte Vorgang bedacht werden muß, sozusagen eine methodisch reflektierte Exegese der ‘Geschichte’, bei der aufgrund ergänzender schriftlicher und archäologischer Zeugnisse der Weg vom Geschehen zum Text beschrieben wird” (Liwak, 1987, 4). In any event, a dilemma between these methods is fundamentally flawed. Support is intentionally sought from Cross’ method and reasoning, without excluding Smend’s (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 5658). Nor is data external to the text ignored. For another view see Kratz-Spieckermann, 2000, 7, who wishes to restrict study to text-immanent data because of an insufficiency of external material. 933 It is a question of facts that are ascertained with great certainty and that are free of every hypothetical presupposition. “Scholars must realize what the facts ... are. Different hypotheses ... can be based on these facts. The facts and hypotheses must be separated from another as clearly as possible” (Laato, 1996, 61). “Each of these events provided a point of focus for political changes and threats which extended over a lengthy period, so that the activities of prophets and individual sayings range over a wide span of time” (Clements, 1977, 50). “Wir können historische Informationen, die uns innerhalb der deuteronomistischen Literatur erhalten sind, zur punktuellen Erhellung einzelner

403

A. The fall of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE had consequences for the Kingdom of Judah and its religious evolution934. It is an established fact that after the destruction of Samaria a large part of the population from Israel fled to neighbouring Judah. Since this kingdom also came under threat from Assyria and could not offer sufficient security, particularly for the more rural areas, the fleeing population sought protection in the cities, preferably Jerusalem935. There, the crowded mass had to see to their survival as best they could. This made sharing worldly goods unavoidable. The specifically religious traditions and past of both sides, including local cult, became common property along this channel. Even before this, there had been a degree of parallelism936. Yet the differences could not be religionsgeschichtlich wichtiger Ereignisse auswerten” (Lohfink, 1991c, 210). The canon process is rooted in these historical facts. “Historically speaking, therefore, the process of canonization, or shaping of the significant traditions, should be viewed as rooted in de very events … It is in such events that the reforging of traditions takes place” (Sanders, 1972, 7, 30). 934 The new political developments, still closely entwined with religious life, promoted the evolution of Yahwism. “Politischer Einfluß ist in der damalige Zeit von auch religiösem nur schwer zu trennen. Die sog. Reformen der Judäischen Könige Hiskia und Josia ... sind auch und vielleicht vornehmlich im politischen Kontext zu sehen, d.h. als Bestrebungen, Assyrische Oberheit bei beginnendem Verfall Assurs abzuwerfen und damit und dabei dann auch den Jahwekultus wieder rein von Fremdeinflüssen zu etablieren” (Preuss, 1982, 15; for another view see: Würthwein, 1994, 214). In this way the stricter YHWH alone current (Smith M.S., 1971, esp. 51-81; Lang, 1981, 47-83; Veijola, 2000, 91 n.107; this YHWH alone current emerged mainly in the regional Yahwist sanctuaries) used Yahwism and monotheism exclusively to stimulate the craving for unity so that they could resist the common enemy, syncretism. The Dtr generally played on unity. One way was by stressing the sense of unity in the cult. They promoted the general acceptance of the religious traditions of the unified Israel under the heading of the one YHWH (6.6.2). 935 Herrmann S., 1990, 3. The archaeological indications for the growth of the population in that period are numerous (Schoors, 1998, 70-82; Zwickel, 1999, 356-363; Weinfeld, 1985, 89-90; Heger, 1999, 297 n. 43; Jeremias, 1996a, 124; idem, 1997, 38 n. 17; JamiesonDrake, 1999, esp. 138-139, relied on these archaeological indications to posit that only from that time, i.e. the 8th century BCE, was there certainty that the state Judah existed). The Shiloh tunnel that Hezekiah ordered built can serve as indirect evidence for the increase in the population (Jagersma, 1990a3, 230). For another view see: P.R. Davies whom the revisionist historians do not follow. Further there are indications that Jerusalem’s central and strengthened position exerted military and cultural influence, primarily on the smaller cities (Niehr, 1995, 46). This points to the growing centralisation that proceeded from Jerusalem. 936 “The irresistible force of the neo-Assyrian empire which made itself in the SyroPalestine area … shattered Israel and decimated Judah. It was a trauma for Israel and a nightmare for Judah and caused them to close ranks. But in another way, Israel was

404

ignored. The prophets and the Dtr authors of Dt. tried to turn this fusion process to the good, but with visibly varying success. The prophets who had appeared in Judah after 722 BCE had no personal difficulty in adopting the message of their colleagues Hosea and Amos937. The Elohist traditions are to have helped the Dtr in this. Furthermore, when this prophetic legacy from Israel was transferred everything needed was done to adapt it to the specific situation in Judah938. Despite the fact that the events surrounding the fall of Israel fulfilled the prophetic predictions, the prophets again encountered resistance and a weak reception. It was assimilated to Judah but Judah accommodated to Israel” (Sanders, 1972, 28-30). This is the only explanation for the actual centralisation (concentration), that the Dtr explained with the religious notion of election (Keller, 1996, 29 n. 137-34 n. 159). The theologically responsible centralisation of the cult obviously went in tandem with an assimilation of all parallel traditions. Zobel H.J., 1993, 77-95. The early interaction between Hosea’ prophetic traditions from Israel and Amos’ from Judah can serve as a model (Jeremias, 1996a, 52-54). The transfer of traditions can no longer be denied. Only the way and intensity with which the reciprocal influencing took place can give rise to different ways of thinking (Preuss, 1982, 30-31; Clements, 1993², 79-83). — The populations of Israel and Judah shared a sense of community. To a certain degree, the single identity of YHWH and his people Israel buttressed this. 937 Despite all the revisions that they have undergone during their long history, the prophetic writings have each retained their own character. This stems from the prophet’s personality. In addition, the prophetic writings display a broad common tradition that was enhanced by the Dtr revision (6.4.3.; Clements, 1977), but which cannot be exclusively attributed to Dtr interference. For instance, the theme of YHWH’S continuing love even after judgment and punishment, which is usually recognised as exilic-Dtr, can be situated after 722 BCE in the population banned from the Kingdom of Israel. If it needed anything it was a hopeful perspective. They were now bound to Judah’s lot. In such a situation it was important for the prophets to point out the hope that the Davidic house offered (Clements, 1977, 51). 938 Gnuse, 2000; Emmerson, 1984; Schmidt W.H., 1965; Coote, 1981, 46-109. “extremely ... centred upon Judah” (Clements, 1977, 46, 50). “...the four eighth-century prophets (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah), whose oracles were especially important for Jerusalem a century after Samaria had fallen. The later prophets, strongly influenced by the earlier ones, make frequent comparison between the two kingdoms using Israel (the northern kingdom) as an object lesson from which the southern sister could learn” (Freedman, 1987a, 37). The extent to which the prophets wished to turn the material cohabitation into a spiritual unity of the single Israel (Jeremias, 1999, 21-23; Zobel H.J., 1993, 77-95) can be seen in the wording in Is. 11:13 (Weinfeld, 1985, 90) and Mic. 5:1-5 (Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 121-122, 143-146). But the prophets did not offer sufficiently feasible propositions. The Dtr redactors were apparently able to spread the idea of the single Israel so dear to Micah (Cook, 1999, 200 n. 12). In this sense, the Dtr probably set an example that the Elohist redactors followed. They, too, expressed their criticism of the cultic past after the fall of Samaria and Bethel (Gnuse, 2000, 209).

405

unavoidable that the message of doom developed in Israel was pushed somewhat to the background when it was transferred. The public in Judah whom the prophets now addressed looked for a more reassuring and hopeful message. They preferred the local traditions that predicted a glorious future for Jerusalem and Zion and city of David above the more dismal and demanding traditions from Israel that tried awkwardly to gain hold. That Jerusalem was spared when Samaria fell in 722 and again survived in triumph later when Sennacherib besieged it in 701 BCE contributed to this939. 939

“A heavy price was apparently paid in terms of adaptability and survivability” (Jamieson-Drake, 1991, 147). Normally it can be expected that as a result of the fall of Samaria – as predicted by Amos and Hosea and now epitomised and suitably expressed by their exiled co-religionists from Israel – the prophetic message of doom would make an impression on the population of Judah. But this population seemed to focus more on Jerusalem’s having been spared. This is to have reinforced the idea that YHWH granted Judah and Jerusalem unlimited protection. “Und als schließlich nach dem Ende des Reiches Israel im Jahr 722 v. Chr. Jerusalem mit seinem Tempel wiederum länger bestehenblieb ... war bald völlig klar, daß nun nur noch eben dieses Jerusalem der einzige legitime Ort der Jahweverehrung sein konnte” (Preuss, 1982, 16). — All by all, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah give proportionally more place to oracle of deliverance. It cannot be ruled out that these oracles of deliverance were composed in the exilic and post-exilic period. But a rupture (Clements, 1977, 51) between the period after 722 and after 587 BCE should be avoided. The mentality of the two periods is consistent. It is known how much the late Dtr borrowed from the prophecies of deliverance and how the prophets increasingly gained the exclusive image of preachers of doom. Dtr did this to cope better with the task they faced, i.e. to move the exilic population to repentance (Seeligmann, 1978, 266). “Eine Heilshoffnung nach Reichsuntergang und Deportation muß nicht erst nach 579 v. Chr., sondern kann schon nach 722 entstanden sein” (Scharbert, 1969, 67). The prophets’ less severe stance toward affairs in Judah can be measured against the positive statements about the monarchy. We had already noted that the king was admonished only indirectly via his representatives. Upon closer examination, it appears that despite their negative experiences with kings, Isaiah and even Jeremiah do not go as far in their criticism as Amos and certainly Hosea do. They did not argue for the end of the monarchy. They foresaw a role for the Davidic house. They appeared to have been aware that the cooperation of the political leadership was indispensable for the success of their prophetic message; so much so that the prophets were prepared to enter the service of the king if this could not be avoided. — Despite this mitigated attitude, the prophets of Judah preferred to preach doom and issue warnings. Think of the warnings against ‘returning to Egypt’ and the related exhortations to repent found in Hos. 5:15; 6:1; 10:11-13; 14:2-10; Am. 5:4-6; Is. 9:12; 31:1 (Zobel K., 1992, 88-107; Weinfeld, 1985, 87). These may not be reserved exclusively to the exilic period (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 49). “Daß diese Sicht ihre Vorläufer hatte, konnte jüngst Jeremias (Amos 3-6, 137) zeigen: “Die Sicht der klassischen Propheten als Mahner und Warner setzt keineswegs abrupt mit dem deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk ein, sondern hat ihre deutlich erkennbaren Wurzeln bei den Prophetenschülern, wenngleich sie weit

406

Unlike the prophets, the Dtr authors of Dt. seemed better at coping with the adverse circumstances under which the two separate kingdoms were joined. This can be deduced from their revision of proto-Dt., if indeed this can be identified. Without denying the prophetic message and esp. the tradition from the Kingdom of Israel, they used systematisation and reinterpretation940 to present this didactically to the people. They behutsamer von Rettung und Leben sprachen als die jüngsten deuteronomistischen Interpreten” (Zobel K., 1992, 220 n. 10). — The destruction of the snake Nehushtan, the symbol of the Mosaic tradition, during Hezekiah’s reign demonstrates the weakness of the Mosaic tradition in Judah at that time (Lemche, 1988, 166; according to Swanson, 2002 this was only a political manoeuvre). Under such circumstances, the confluence of the traditions of Israel and Judah could not rise equally (For another view see: Lubsczyk, 1990, 177). — Certainly after the event in 701 BCE in which Jerusalem miraculously escaped destruction, the city of David appealed to the imagination of religious circles. It was as if it were more certain than ever that YHWH would never ever allow the city of David to fall into foreign hands. “It is true, it was not ideology alone that brought the revolutionary change ... The Hezekian reform was born out of dire circumstances of the time of Sinnacherib’s expedition against Judah, when only Jerusalem was left free. It was therefore easy to proclaim Jerusalem as the only legitimate place of worship. However, the Northern opposition to multiply sacrifices could well have served as the ideological support of the decree of centralization. One must add that the fact that Jerusalem was saved by miracle from Sinnacherib’s assault, added a glorious dimension to the decree of centralization” (Weinfeld, 1985, 86). 940 In coping with political developments, the prophets of Israel expanded the Yahwist movement esp. its ideological aspects. The main themes and largely renewed traditions (7.3.4.2.) were resumed. YHWH’S love for and election of Israel and their bond, in particular, were pushed forward (Zobel K., 1992, 8-27; Zobel H.J., 1985). “...diesen soeben vorgeführten zentralen Themen sind nicht erst vom Dtn erschaffen. Von Erwählung und Bund ist längst in den alttestamentlichen Quellen die Rede. Wir stoßen bereits bei Amos und Hosea auf die kritische Infragestellung derartiger israelitischer Glaubensvorstellungen. Nicht die einzelnen Begriffe, auch wenn sie theologisch bis ins letzte hinein ausgeformt sind, erscheinen im Dtr als das theologische Neue. Denn sie werden als solche von der Tradition bereitgestellt” (Zobel H.J., 1985, 20-21). — This gave Dt.-Dtr much theological material that they would not fail to include in their restoration movement. However, more than the prophets of Juda, the Dt.-Dtr gave precedence to the traditions transferred from the Kingdom of Israel to that of Judah. For this Dt.-Dtr had to run against the dominant current in Judah. It is appropriate here to refer to the links between Dt. and the oldest traditions regarding Shechem, Moab and Gerizim and to the statements found in Hos. 4:13; 10:1-5; 12:4-6; 13:2-5; 14:4; Am. 2:10; 4:4-5; 5:26; 8:11-13; 9:10 (Lubsczyk, 1990, 166-168; Weinfeld, 1985, 83-87). Dt.-Dtr’s alignment with Israel’s traditions is most strongly felt in the increased importance of Moses, which is evinced in the fictive Mosaic speech that encompasses all of Dt. It set the tone for this total attribution to Moses. Contrary to the prophetic books, the BoC and the Decalogue, which are presented as a divine oracles, this depiction in which Moses is presented as the spokesman for the Torah and YHWH is to have belonged to proto-Dt. The transition from divine oracle to Mosaic speech came into its own

407 in Dt.’s framework text as part of the growing historicisation/humanisation sparked by Dtr. In this way the increased importance of Moses would have been the creation of the Dtr authors Dt. (Preuss, 1982, 99-100). This increased importance of Moses – as Dt.-Dtr developed rhetorically (Watts, 1998, 418-426), – was decisive for later tradition. It became the basis for Dtr’s idea of the charismatic prophetic institute and its canonisation (Zobel K., 1992, 221-222). It shows the theological innovation of the designers of Dt. and their movement toward canonisation.— The designers of Dtr pursued a BoC-like, but more extensive, systematisation (Zenger, 19983, 84-85) using clearer theological terminology (‘theologische Mentalität’: Zobel K., 1992, 221; ‘theologische Begrifflichkeit’: Crüsemann, 2001, 112) and in doing so became more attuned to current events and the need for selfpreservation. “Die Theologisierung alter Rechtssätze ist ein wesentliches Charakteristikum des Deuteronomiums” (Boecker, 1976, 159). Like all sweeping statements, this systematisation could not help but be at the expense of the prophets’ individual experience and personal profile. “Zusammenfassung ist nicht zu bestreiten. Aber das hat nun doch dazu geführt daß ... das prophetische Bildwort der Liebe in theologischer Sprache seine faszinierende Kraft weithin hat eingebüßt” (Zobel H.J., 1985, 24). This is perceptible in the prophets’ use of the 2nd pers. sing. in contrast to the many passages in Dt. that usually in the 3rd pers. esp. when dealing with legal precepts (Koch, 1980, 19; Zobel K., 1992, 77, 81). A disadvantage to this generalisation is the dehistoricising to which we already referred. Although this generalisation is, at the same time, a first step toward canonising prophecy. Writing played an important role in this (Clements, 1977, 43-44), without necessarily asserting that Dt. put writing in the place of tine-honoured tradition. Finally, canonisation gave prophecy additional authority. This was urgently needed given the limited success of the prophets’ performance (Wilson, 1980, 224-225). — Dt.-Dtr wanted to remain loyal to prophecy and thus became prophetic, but did so (as we said) in its own way. This is also the context for Dtr’s silence about the prophets in their historical work. It is an expression of Dt.-Dtr’s distance from contemporary prophecy, insofar as their own prophetic vision required this (Blenkinsopp, 2000, 24-26). “This is not to minimize the high probability that ... Deuteronomy gave new emphasis to features which had not previously been emphasised to the same degree” (Clements, 1993², 70). Their own input is only gradually unfolded in a lengthy process of reflection within the Dtr current at a rhythm with which the Dtr canon arose. The Dtr-Dt. designers’ input was thus significant. Indeed, it was dependent on the fundamental prophetic given – (addition, not hidden: Clements, 1977; literary dependence cannot be proven here [Lubsczyk, 1990, 166-167] requiring us to fall back on the notion of idiom [Zobel K., 1992, 217; “a shared theological approach: Ben Zvi, 1999, 254; the artful prose that H. Weippert thought widespread at the time: Römer, 1999, 190] in oral tradition, an idea confirmed by the paraenetic elements possibly of Levitical origin) – but it developed it in a praiseworthy manner. They cannot be reduced to epigones who consciously contributed to the downfall of prophecy as Wellhausen had thought (Koch, 1980, 10). It is impossible to treat extensively the theological contribution of Dt.-Dtr’s designers here. — The occasion may arise to go into greater detail. In their realism, Dt.’s redactor’s realised that the people had to be convinced (‘Art of persuasion’ [Trible, 1994, 41-48] is part of Dtr rhetoric) to achieve intelligent obedience. We already mentioned how writing (6.8.A.; Dt., in particular, marked the step toward ‘a book-oriented spirituality’: Clements, 1993², 11), pedagogy, paraenesis, wisdom (6.4.4.) and history were used for this. This wise, practical argumentation is apparent in the judicial system presented in Dt. 1:9-18 (Houtman, 2001, 64-65). “Das Dtn. betrachtet sich selbst als ‘Lehrbuch’ ...” (Zenger, 19983,

408

notably managed to unfold their ideas in practical reform programmes which they had begun to implement941. They did this by maintaining more 86). “The catechetic creed, apart from its legal systematization of the theology of the covenant, exemplifies yet another aspect of the Deuteronomic systematics: it presents theology in easily memorised short formulas. The aim of this technique is ... to make these manifold traditions clear, brilliant and convincing” (Braulik, 1999, 22). That is why Dt. fit so well in the whole of the known Dtr history (we return to this in 7.3.5.5) that will mainly serve the late Dtr’s attempt to explain the catastrophic exile. The Dt.-Dtr greatly expanded reasoning in the individual laws (“Begründungen”: Liwak, 1987, 309) with historical arguments beyond what is found in the BoC (Preuss, 1982, 20, 128, 205, 241; Kratz, 2000, 114-120). 941 Dietrich, 1994, 15. Even though Dt.-Dtr’s theological/ideological accomplishments are considerable, they are still greater in the area of structuring and institutionalising. “‘Meditation’ on the Mosaic law surpassed mere didactics, to create a whole new reality. It rigs the first institutional scaffolding of the social reform with which Josiah would attempt to salvage the identity of Israel as Yahweh’s people” (Braulik, 1999, 22). The use of writing and scribes is to be situated in this perspective. After the abolition of the institutions like monarchy and the cult during the exile, writing became particularly important (Römer, 2000, 183). Furthermore, it has already been noted that right from the start Dt.-Dtr wanted to design a religious-juridical constitution that would do more than determine Israel’s identity (Clements, 1993², 85; McBride, 1987 correctly noted that even Flavius Josephus saw Dt. as a legal instrument comparable to a modern constitution), it would also help to preserve it (‘Identitätswahrung’: Hardmeier, 1983, 134). This is probably the greatest difference between Dt.-Dtr and the prophets. The latter were perhaps more original and theologically profound, but they produce little if any practical results. Dt.-Dtr, by contrast, were capable and politically skilled enough to fill the people’s need for legal certainty and were thus able to increase their control over the population. “This is the source of power that is fundamentally involved in canon formation: the need and the wish of people to belong to a collectivity and to live with some peace of mind. Without these two aspects living is ultimately impossible ... the way in which this need is fulfilled is subject to manipulation and conception. There are many candidates for this, and the final outcome is the result of an often grim struggle between all kinds of politicians, theologians, demagogues, and shamans, who pretend to be able to solve the problem of anomy ...” (ter Borg, 1998, 418). — The political events of 722 BCE resulted in circumstances conducive to a reform process. Nevertheless, the Dt.-Dtr designers remained dependent on Hezekiah’s options, which were rather restricted at that time. This was due to the unstable state of the Kingdom of Judah up to Josiah’s reign. The kings could only pursue a vacillating and fluctuating policy. Assyria’s vassals they owed this power tribute (Jagersma, 1990a3, 231) and had to live under hindersome occupation (Heger, 1999, 298). For instance, in a strictly religious sphere Hezekiah got no further than destroying Nehushtan. This dependence on Assyria found particular expression in Manasseh’s policy. It led to concessions in cultic matters. Under Manasseh, the syncretism that had long given rise to vehement disputes could reappear yet again despite the current that prepared the revision of proto-Dt. Later, under Hezekiah, this unstable state underwent a Dtr-inspired recovery of lost ground. What happened during Josiah’s reign had its roots in Hezekiah’s. Yet it seems certain that Dt.Dtr’s reform policy had started to take shape under Hezekiah, without the centralisation of

409

positive contacts with political leaders and the public than the prophets did942. By handily anticipating the sociological shifts from Israel to Judah and from rural areas to the cities, they managed to assume a central and all-encompassing position before the people and to explain to them meaningfully and in a Yahwist spirit the centralisation and reform of the cult and judicial system in terms of the one Israel’s contemporary situation943. the cult having been fully achieved (Milgrom, 2000, 68-71). This reform movement needed a long run-up before Dt.-Dtr could get started with the purification and centralisation of the cult. Ideologically and practically, it was a long-term operation that was ultimately never completed. 942 Although Dt.-Dtr certainly did not have the same objective as the political policy, they knew more from their position about how to put pressure on political processes than the prophets did. Their attempt to grasp power upon Josiah’s appointment was no surprise. They proved to be familiar with the policy channels; this also explains their use of writing as vehicle. It gave them the opportunity to rationalise theologically the politically inspired centralisation of the cult under Hezekiah and Josiah (Niehr, 1995, 49 incorrectly wanted to reduce Josiah’s reform to a political act; but it is true that the centralisation and purification of the cult fit in well with all royal policy [Houtman, 1980, 191-192]). “The king’s political interest in centralizing the cult activities in Jerusalem to enhance its status and expand its economic advantages, was ingeniously presented to the people as a divine command; Jerusalem was the one and only locality chosen by the Deity for ‘the dwelling of His Name’ and the unique site for sacrificial worship ... I postulate that the scribes rationalized and justified the king’s intention ...” (Heger, 1999, 314-315). They realised early that the king and his government officials were important levers for achieving their ideas. As was customary at the time Dtr held the view that “all life was permeated by the religious” (Eynikel, 1996, 36 n. 11). — Since Dt.’s designer were aware that the public had to be convinced of the prophets message, they unavoidably attached great importance to human input and cooperation (Koch, 1980, 19) in achieving deliverance (it was never admitted that the people helped draft the laws as is historically ascertained contrary to all biblical representations; the Bible presents YHWH as the only lawgiver. Matters are different when it comes to responsibility for maintaining and applying the laws that YHWH has given. Here all the people are responsible: McBride, 1987, 242. Dt.-Dtr also invoked this). Hence their invariable use of pedagogy and paraenesis. These witnesses to their humanism (Epzstein, 1983) substantiated by the fictive style of Moses’ speech. Its delivery is more on a human level than the prophet’s divine oracles and theocentrism that did take human frailty into account but primarily in a negative sense when it came to a decision against YHWH’S deliverance (Vollmer, 1971, 188). 943 It was during this influx from the countryside to the cities, esp. Jerusalem that the designers of Dtr-Dt. – who like Amos and Micah undoubtedly had rural roots – had reason to support the Levites in their attempts to work in the Jerusalem temple. This marked an evolution in the ‫עםהארץ‬. Its interests lay henceforth with the central policy in Jerusalem (Jagersma, 1990a3, 205). — The D current’s pursuit of unity has already been highlighted (6.6.2.). While the BoC was primarily interested in the local population and its specific dispensation of justice, the designers of Dtr-Dt. were concerned with providing all the

410

B. A second historical fact repercussions of which on the growth of Dt. in dialogue with prophecy can be ascertained with certainty is the political renaissance in Judah that started under Hezekiah and reached its apex under Josiah. This nationalistic ebullience resulted more from a temporary weakening of Assyria's power than from a revival of the Kingdom of Judah and as an expansion of its power944. The degree to which Judah people in Israel and Judah with a constitution and accompanying structure such as administration of justice intended to promote the good of the community and not that of the king. The cult is a structure that contributed much to this. Starting from what had long been done for cultic community building in the Yahwist sanctuaries, Dt. 16 increased the rejoicing in the cultic event (Zenger, 19983, 87). This was to reach its apex in the one central sanctuary. In so doing, Dt. tried to attain the unity of Yahwist Israel along with the centralisation of the cult. It saw Israel as a whole and addressed it as such. Hence the frequent use of the 2nd pers. pl. Dt. displays striking differences from the BoC on this issue. “The collectivization of the law belongs to this rhetorical program” (Patrick, 1995, 436). The pedagogy and paraenesis mentioned earlier fit in with this. They are based on Dt.’s humanism. Above all, inspired by the prophets’ sense of being called by YHWH to work for his relation with Israel and their use of the term covenant to refer to this, Dt. borrowed the theological notion for the pervasive allegiance between YHWH and Israel. Dt. used this covenant theme and terminology frequently. In this way Dt. sought the support of the prophetic notion of the one Israel and the one YHWH and used it as basis for the centralisation of the cult. In his literary search for the gradual positioning of proto-Dt. in the Enneateuch (Gen.–2 Kgs). — Kratz (2000, 119) had to ascertain that it was accompanied by spiritual historicising and theologising in which the centralisation of the cult was an important socio-historical element (Rofé, 2003). In many ways, the political leader’s objectives differed from those of the designers of Dt. These designers tried to orient existing institutions in a religious direction and in this way to influence the entire population. In that regard, Kratz (2000, 138) recognised that Dt. put the vision of a united Israel-Judah first from the start, yet he still situated proto-Dt. and its centralisation of the cult early in the exilic period. “One might inquire into the possibility that the people have been assigned some new role or been institutionalized in some new way, and there are in fact indications that Deuteronomy was associated with institutional changes making for a more centralized cult and legal system” (Patrick, 1995, 433). 944 There is no certainty on the extent of Josiah’s reconquest of territory. It seems to have been less than had been supposed in the past. It reached a bit further than Bethel in the north (Lohfink, 1985; 182). Expansion to the west and south went further (Liwak, 1987, 104-105 n. 2, 135-136). Nevertheless, the destruction of Bethel was a major difference with Hezekiah’s period. This king may also have elicited optimism (Minette de Tillesse, 2000) but did not achieve as much as Josiah, who could claim this raid on Bethel. In times gone by, Jeroboam had furnished it as state property governed by the same idea that, according to tradition, prompted David to turn Jerusalem into a religious centre. Josiah thus managed to make Jerusalem once again the centre of religious Yahwism (Heger, 1999, 297-299, 312314). The Dt.-Dtr’s overall depiction of the conquest of the land and Nahum’s and Zephaniah’s anti-Assyrian prophecies (Dietrich, 1994a, 466-488) is also thought to have

411

misjudged the course of action and let King Josiah's image go to its head would soon become apparent from his unrealistic behaviour during the conflict between Assyria and the rising star Babylon. He overreached himself945. The king thought he could play a decisive role on a high political level and could prevent Pharaoh Neco of Egypt, who was coming to aid Assyria, from passing through. According to 2 Chr. 35:20-27 (2 Kgs remains silent on this) Josiah died in the battle that followed. This was a severe blow for Judah and the end of its renaissance. A short time earlier, a wave of nationalism had aroused Judah946. Traces of this can be found in arisen in the context of the conquest of Bethel and the attendant propaganda (Lohfink, 1991h, 132-137; Dietrich, 1994a, 466-488; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 147-148, 171-172; Seybold, 1991, 13-16). For minimalists, the whole positive representation is an exilic Dtr’s fictive representation of Josiah’s policies (Uehlinger, 1995, 81 n. 114). 945 Jagersma, 1990a3, 235. In this period, Egypt was not interested in occupying the Promised Land. It was satisfied with safeguarding its commercial interests (Miller M.J.Hayes J.M., 1986, 391, 397). Presumably the importance of the southern trade route played a large role for both parties (Halpern, 2000, 557). 946 Over the long term, religious Israel kept seeking intensely for the meaning of the sad fate of a pious and right-minded king like Josiah. This is one of the many examples of the dynamic within the canon process (Dalamarter, 2004) where several interpretations impact on one another. — New nationalism (Weinfeld, 1985, 89-93; Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 146 n. 22) is found in Dt. within two views already mentioned: “Israel, the elected nation amid the peoples”, found in notion ‫( חרם‬Dt. 11:24-25; 13:16; 20:1-20; these ideas were brought to the point of obliterating the foreign peoples) and in the ‫ ברית‬formula. According to some authors, these ideas are the consequence of the impression that Assyria, Egypt and, later, Babylon left with their imperious mentality and their oppression of subjugated peoples (Lenchak, 1993, 29-30). This is to have inspired political Judah, and Dt.-Dtr along with it, to a countermeasure consisting of a parallel self-affirmation (others like Niehr, 1995, 39 did not consider profound Assyrian influence on Judah’s Yahwism realistic). This is thought to be evident from Assyrian terminology taken over from Assyrian or other treaties and used to develop the notions of covenant (Zenger, 19983, 85; Römer, 2005, 74-81; Veijola, 1996, 242-276 and other authors thought this covenant theology took shape in Dt. only during the exile). All this was concerned with “...die Übertragung einer Leitkategorie des herrschenden assyrischen Bewußtseins mitsamt ihren sprachlichen und rituellen Ausdrucksformen. Gerade hier wurde der konkurrierenden Weltsicht ihr Mark entzogen und in der eigenen, verblaßten Volkserinnerung Lebenskraft eingeflößt ... Doch zugleich war dieser nur möglich weil er, in einem Zusammenfließen von Rinnsalen israelitischer Traditionen mit den Wassern assyrischen Weltverständnisses, sehr genau in die Erwartungswelt der Menschen Jerusalems und Judas im 18. Jahre des Königs Joschija inheinpaßte” (Lohfink, 1991c, 226-227). Hence the superior attitude that allowed Dt. 16:19 to promise glorification above all nations on earth, or even world domination (Dt. 28:1). In its environment, Israel was considered a sage nation (Dt. 4:6-7; 6.6.4) with a law as no other (Dt. 15:6; 6.4.4). Urged on by this national awareness, Dt. 1-3 started the conquest of the country, elsewhere seen as starting at the Jordan Josh. 3:10; 5:1), now shifted to the

412

the prophetic books947 and in Dt. To operate, the prophets and Dt.'s authors had to take into account the wellbeing of the people. Josiah's policies met nearly all prophetic expectations, so that Josiah was exempt from all prophetic criticism948. The Dtr designers of Dt. offered a modality to support Josiah's reform theologically and practically and thus to proffer the observance of the law as precondition for deliverance, i.e. staying in the land949. Arnon, with as consequence that Transjordan is accounted part of the land (Dt. 2:24) contrary to Num. 34:1-13. Dt. 1:7; 11:24 also reverts back to the border of the single Davidic kingdom (Gen. 15:18). Dt.-Dtr was so enthusiastic for Josiah that it became tempted to postdiction (Freedman, 1987a, 33). — It would be better to situate the optimistic reports in Dt. about David (i.e. updated via Josiah) and the monarchy as institution in the time of the exile (McKenzie, 1991, 133-134). Disputes that argue from tendency for late dating are hermeneutically inspired (Becking, 2001, 83-85) and as such are worth considering, but in the context of canon study cannot be considered as carrying weight. They could lead to many positionings (‘one of the many’, ‘black-box’: Gunn, 2001, 186). The certainty emanating from historical reality is the main point. They served as basis for the permanent applicability of the divine word. According to Dross, the Dtr history, running from David to Josiah, is to have been written in this context (Clements, 1977, 50-51; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 47-49, 56-58). Conversely, the literature considers the contradictory statements on the monarchy throughout Dt.-Dtr as the weak points in Noth’s single vision (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 40). All this again exposes the theological-philosophical bias in historiography. “Ein geschichtliches Ereignis kann nicht nur Grund für ein späteres Geschehen angeben, es kann auch zu einem Modellfall für andere gegenwärtige oder noch zukünftige Situationen werden” (Barthel, 1997, 462). 947 It became the impetus to a heavy emphasis on and extension of the message of deliverance (not its origin) and the book of Isaiah (Barthel, 1997, 6-10). 948 Jeremiah says of Josiah that he did justice (Jer. 22:15-16). According to tradition, Josiah was compared with Moses and not just David (‘David redivivus’: Spieckermann, 1982, 46). Hos. 12:14 was thought to be the instigator of this. 949 It was a unique reform that may not be regarded “according to our contemporary understanding of ‘cause and effect’ and to impute to the various biblical authors certain motives based on our current comprehension of human thought and actions. In particular, the concept of ‘reform’ is itself a modern one” (Heger, 1999, 265, L.Z.). The prophets and Dt.-Dtr’s authors both ensured that the new regulations were explained. “The scribes presented the theological justification for the exceptional and anomalous new regulation” (Heger, 1999, 314). — Dt.’s designers were more skilful than the prophets in using the wave of optimism and nationalism that swept Judah during Josiah’s reign. They gave Dt. the air of a restoration document (Ben Zvi, 1999, 238 n. 14). Yet they, like the prophets, want to make people realise the gravity of the continuing threat. Dt. thus faithfully adopted the prophetic notion of repentance and the warning against returning to Egypt (Weinfeld, 1985, 87-89). Dt. essentially retained the prophets’ preaching of doom, but transferred it to warnings against the loss of the land; it wanted to protect the people through the observance of the law (‘Gebotseinschärfung’: Zobel K., 1992, 218) on which it insisted in paraenetic addresses in a formal outline, a procedure that had long served as argument against a late

413 dating of Dtr (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 41-42). This last is also an argument for the distinctive character of Dt. as separate book (Houtman, 1980, 166). — As we noted, motivation for Israel’s love of YHWH (‫ )חסד‬is not the love of YHWH for Israel – this is the inexplicable cause of Israel’s election – but the many practical deeds (such as the exodus) that YHWH performed for the benefit of Israel in the past (‫ ;דעת אלהים‬Holt, 1995, esp. 140146), and on which Israel may continue to rely in the future, certainly if it observes YHWH’S Torah. Instead of the prophets’ rejection of the material advantages that Israel accepted from the Baals, Dt. has YHWH promise these gifts on the condition that Israel observes YHWH’S law (Zobel K., 1992, 76-77; this would, in any case, receive additional stress in the later phase of the post-exilic period; the gift of the law would thus become the focal point as evidence of the election [Schmidt L., 2001, 2]). The purpose is evident: First to get Israel to comply wholeheartedly with the conditions for averting disaster (6.4.4) which ensure continued occupancy of the land. By translating the incitement for Israel to love originally preached by the prophets, esp. Hosea, into observance of the law, Dt. again shows its prophetic-reflective operation (“Leitmotiv ... eine genuin deuteronomistische Schöpfung”: Zobel K., 1992, 75-76). “Ein umfassendes, alles wesentliche Glaubensaussagen Israels integrierendes Ganzes ist somit durch die ‘Liebestheologie’ des Dtn. geschaffen worden. Sie ... entspringt der Reflexion über die Tradition” (Zobel H.J., 1985, 23). Nevertheless, this systematisation has its drawbacks. It cannot be implemented without impoverishing restrictions on direct experience. “Das prophetische Bildwort der Liebe hat in theologischer Sprache seine faszinierende Kraft weithin eingebüßt” (Zobel H.J., 1985, 24). Moreover, although YHWH’S love did not deprive it of freedom – because Israel’s upholding the law is not the fundament of YHWH’S love – it was to a certain extent within reach (Zobel K., 1992, 75-87). Dt. follows the same anticipative reasoning in its fulfilment criterion for true prophecy. Dt.-Dtr’s designers did not stop with paraenetic exhortations to observe the law. With their sense of realism, they ensured that observance of the law also took shape in an extensive package of precepts contained in the familiar legal code in Dt. 12-26. It envisaged incorporating the prophets’ high-minded criticism of the cult and social life and presenting it to the public as an attainable life project and a way to organise public life in Israel. YHWH’S Torah had to be observed everywhere and always. This means that the laws contained cultic and social measures that regulated the central event in Jerusalem and rural life. The laws on local judges and the court in the capital can serve as example (Dt. 16:1820; 18:8-13; Krinetzki, 1994, 225). We already discussed how cult and social legislation went hand in hand. In this; the cultic material was well separated from the non-cultic, nevertheless it did not descend to profanation as did the surrounding world (in the sense of pan-sacrality, not removal from divine reality). Dt. raised sacralisation to a concept for the country that was, or should have been, holy in its entirety despite the fact that the same Dt. centralised the cult in a single sanctuary. Despite its humanism and the increased importance of Moses, Dt. remained no less theocentric and charismatic. Secularisation can thus not be attributed to Dt. (Lohfink, 1995d). “In the formation of the deuteronomic canon ... we see that the canon ... which is being formed is firmly charged with charisma. The charisma of Moses, of contemporary prophets like Huldah, and of the place where the text of Deuteronomy has been found. In later editions of the canon we see that the heritage of the prophetic charisma is safeguarded. There are, of course, traces of a power struggle in the text, but in the end, the text itself is charismatic” (ter Borg, 1998, 418-419). — The fact of the proclamation of Dt.’s programme of laws occurred with the consent of the administration and court during Josiah’s reign is confirmed by the historical core of the

414

C. A third historical fact that deeply influenced Dt. in its dialogue with prophecy is the brief but important period950 after Josiah's death and the start of the exile in 587 BCE. More so than under Hezekiah, this was a faltering period and for political Judah it was a direct route to ruin951. The Dt. restoration's Dtr proponents became defensive and divided952. They lost their hold over the political system that was the indispensable lever for continuing or even preserving the reform programme based on Dt. Above all, lack of results brought the notion of deliverance through observance of the law into discredit. More than ever, social life was subjected to lawlessness953. Only the centralisation of the cult was preserved, to the narrative in 2 Kgs 22:11; 23:1-3 (Becking, 1997). It is a more plausible positioning than in the exilic or post-exilic period as the Smend school suggested (this is a weak point in their hypothesis: Eynikel, 1996, 27, 30). “Mag man die Reform Josias als punktuelles historisches Ereignis immer wieder in Frage stellen, die Durchsetzung des Deuteronomiums hat in Josianischer Zeit tatsächlich ihren geschichtlichen Ort, auch wenn vielleicht erst später dieses Gesetz Maßstab der eigenen Existenzbewältigung in Juda wurde” (Herrmann S., 1990, 200-201). 950 “...einen tiefen Einschnitt ...” (Albertz, 1992, 361). “...die religiöse Irritation ... kaum zu überschätzen” (Albertz, 1992, ibid). This weakness is shared by the Smend and Cross schools: each wanted to put Dt.-Dtr either during Josiah’s reign or in the exilic period. They tend to ignore the brief but important transition period after Josiah but before 587 BCE. 951 Essentially, Judah fell back upon its own weak position (For another view see: Niehr, 1995, 49-54, who saw in this reversion evidence for there never having been any attempts at reform during Josiah’s reign). It was buffeted about first by Egypt and then by the Babylonian overlords. Each came and appointed as vassal that member of the royal family that promised to be most compliant. The book of Jeremiah depicts the difficulty that the vassals in Judah had in holding out against the pressure that the various internal parties exerted. Even when the king had made promises to the prophet he could not keep them as the incident with the manumission of slaves (Jer. 34:8-11) shows. 952 Seeligmann, 1978, 258-270; Albertz, 1992, 363-364; idem, 2003, 270-276; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 87 n. 352; Römer, 1996, 425-426; Hardmeier, 1991. For another view see: Dietrich, 2000, 51-53; Smelik, 1992a, 127-128. A certain diversity in Dt.-Dtr’s stance toward prophecy amid the chaotic situation in Judah shortly before the exile is plausible. The well-known Shaphan family active under Josiah (2 Kgs 22:3,8,10,12,14) seems to have gone along with the Babylonian overlords in the hope of taking the place of the Davidic house as leader of Judah (Lohfink, 1991a, 71-80). The critical remarks in Jer. 2:8 and 8:8-9 can also be situated in this context. Still following this reasoning, it would have been primarily for this that Jeremiah argued for authentic Yahwism and that he was left out of the DtrH completely. Certain critical comments in Jeremiah seem to confirm the existence of Dt. in the pre-exilic period (Veijola, 1996, 235). 953 Immediately after Josiah’s death, the same ‫ עםהארץ‬that had previously intervened to lift Josiah to the throne tried to appoint his successor. Pharaoh Neco decided otherwise. He even called upon Jehoiachim, another of Josiah’s sons, who was older but whom the

415

satisfaction of the priests who clung all the more firmly to the Davidic Zion myth954. Under these circumstances, prophecy, esp. Jeremiah and later Ezekiel, received new opportunities for the classical prophecy of doom955. Before 587, the prophets performed most of their symbolic actions to press home their message of doom956. How far the supporters of proto-Dt. were then separated from classical prophecy can be seen in the book of Jeremiah. While a core still reflects Jeremiah's original preaching, the exilic DtrH appears to follow a more deliverance-oriented line that withheld or kept silent about Jeremiah's prophecy957. This opens a discussion of DtrH that will now be the focus of attention. ‫ עםהארץ‬passed over in favour of Jehoahaz (Albertz, 1992, 361; this author later explained the appointment of Jehoiachim exclusively from religious motives: Albertz, 2003, 204). This shows clearly how the ‫ עםהארץ‬were shunted aside in the new political system. Undoubtedly Neco’s purpose was to neutralise Israel’s nationalistic course. Several authors saw in Egypt’s intervention confirmation for their view that Josiah had already acted as Egypt’s vassal as he shook free of Assyria (Uehlinger, 1995, 77 n. 99; Niehr, 1995, 42 n. 54). — After Josiah nothing more is heard about the reforms (Jagersma, 1990a3, 237). Jeremiah pointed out to the king the compliance with the manumission of the slaves according to the law (Jer. 34:8-11). The king succumbed to pressure from his court and rejected in a shameful manner (Albertz, 1992, 366). Habakkuk’s prophecy can be situated in this context under King Jehoiachim. Amid the ordeal and oppression by the unjust (many saw here the Jehoiachim’s supporters), the prophet issues a call to trust in YHWH’S intervention on behalf of his people (Van der Woude, 1978, 9-13). 954 The Babylonians’ temporary withdrawal led the nationalistic current to associate this event with that in 701 BCE. They believed that YHWH would again protect Jerusalem (Albertz, 1992, 371). Supported by the Babylonian-oriented, they were diametrically opposed to Jeremiah’s prophecy of doom. The two conflicting tendencies would have their views articulated in Zedekiah’s day. Their repercussion is found in Jer. 26 and 2 Kgs 18-20. The postponement of the social question would be raised here again because of the exilic Dtr’s interest in the cult (Hardmeier, 1991; Dietrich, 1972, 104, 109, 139). 955 Since the prophets never gave up prophesying doom (according to H. Barth, the wave of nationalism under Josiah would precipitate the Assyrian redaction of the book of Isaiah: Ackroyd, 1978, 18) it was not so difficult highlight this most original theme in their preaching. We can situate Zephaniah’s preaching of doom and its Day of the Lord theme (Vlaardingenbroek, 1993, 35-43) in this period, rather than early in Josiah’s reign. It is more difficult to place the theme of hope in the House of David, which the Israelite exiles had developed. “Yet, as we now know, such hopes proved abortive, in the form in which they had originally been nurtured” (Clements, 1977, 51). 956 Friebel, 1999, 79-369. Doubtless the prophets were encouraged in this by the fulfilment of Nahum’s prophecies thanks to the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE. 957 In the extensive debate on the composition and authenticity of the book of Jeremiah, a small part (Jer. 2-6; Liwak, 1987, 312) is considered original (coming from the prophet or traceable directly back to him: Thiel, 1973, 40 n. 36; for another view see Carroll 1998, 74). This even applies to the poetic elements that are most qualified for this authenticity. Yet

416

7.3.5.3 Prophecy versus the Deuteronomistic History 7.3.5.3.1 The Issue After investigating Dt. and its relation to prophecy, we must now examine the Dtr history (DtrH) as an entity with its own historical character958. This some thought Jeremiah’s original legacy could also be found in the prose texts. “The deuteronomic prose sermons in Jeremiah were not simply created ex nihilo, but often reflect a reworking of authentic Jeremianic logia” (Day, 1988, 51). The anticipation of what would come and the backward glance to the past can be used as distinguishing criteria for making the present acceptable. “Während das dtr.-Geschichtswerk zurückblickt, schaut Jer. 2-6 in wesentliche Texte voraus” (Liwak, 1987, 312). Once part of Jeremiah was considered authentic, it became possible to see the prophet’s inclusion of proto-Dt. in Jer. 11:1-7: Lubsczyk, 1990, 173-174). — According to Hardmeier (1991, 184-187), it would be going too far to see a contradiction of Jeremiah’s prophecy of doom (Smelik, 1992a, 127-128; Römer, 1996, 427-435). Jeremiah’s and Dtr’s contrasting views on situating future deliverance (Jerusalem or the diaspora) or on other ideological contrasts are more likely (Römer, 1996, 436-438). 958 Whether or not it was so from the start, Dt. and DtrH were assembled in the final text and, in this way, became so intertwined that it is now impossible to separate them without violating them. “Hier greifen die Untersuchung des Dtr und des DtrG ineinander” (Zenger, 19983, 80). “L’existence d’un lien - de quelque nature qu’il soit - entre le Deutéronome et les livres qui le suivent nous semble donc difficilement contestable” (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 86). “It is undoubtedly in the first of these two literary collections (the Former Prophets, L.Z.) that the influence of the book of Deuteronomy is most prominent” (Clements, 1993², 98). That is why Dt. – as core of the Dtr canon with the Torah as guideline (Braulik, 2004, 115) – remains the main criterion for identifying the paraenetic D style (Thiel, 1991, 155). In terms of content, Dt.’s nomistic and centralising tendencies (Römer, 2000a; idem. 2005, 56-61) are used as criterion for the other writings that make up the DtrH. — This indissoluble unity of the writings in DtrH, including Dt. was discussed in 7.3.5.2. Here again we will see how involved Dt. was in DtrH as entity. Yet even within DtrH, Dt. has its own character, task and vocabulary (Houtman, 1980, 166; Collins, 1993, 127). This is evident from its paraenetic style. The different positioning of the Levitical priests in Dt. 18:6-8 and 2 Kgs 23:8-9 is striking, as is the differing view of the period before Josiah (Houtman, 1980, 191-192). — In addition to the many agreements there thus appear to be differences between Dt. and the rest of DtrH, which justifies the separate term Deuteronomic versus Deuteronomistic (Crenshaw, 1999, 146) esp. with regard to the preexilic proto-Dt. This characteristic of Dt. continued to create problems for those like Von Rad who could not abandon the idea of a Hexateuch (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 25; Otto E., 2000, returns to this notion). After Hölscher (Houtman, 1980, 167-168) Würthwein even goes so far as to speak of DtrH as if Dt. were not a part of it (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 52-53, 112-113). Yet it is sufficiently clear the whole DtrH takes Dt. into account, esp. the legal code in Dt. 12-25 (O’Brien, 1989b, 56-58). Under these circumstances, its positioning before Josh.-2 Kgs is secondary. Dt.’s nomism is present throughout Josh.–2 Kgs.

417

special attention for the Dtr history as historiographic unit is pressing. After all, although the single narrative (Dt.-2 Kgs) posited since Noth's day is disputed in the literature, it remains accepted that the writings that traditionally considered part of the Dtr history together show some characteristics of the familiar Dtr style959. This indicates that these writings were revised by the Dtr current from a single perspective and as such were considered a single consecutive historical work (DtrH). But it must be recognised that this Dtr input in Dt.–2 Kgs differed from book to book within the Dtr history960. Since Noth launched the idea and now more than ever, the diversity of materials within DtrH has given rise to questions regarding the cohesion within DtrH. Many believed they saw within the presence of this diversity of materials within DtrH confirmation for the layers within the Dtr current. This led them to distinguish various Dtr tendencies within DtrH, including a nomistic (DtrN) and prophetic (DtrP) redactor next to the normal redactor (DtrG). Since then, there is an inclination to identify more tendencies within the one DtrH961. 959

Römer-De Pury, 1996, 71-120; Auld, 1999, 118-123. ‘Sisyphus-Syndrom’ (Dietrich, 2000, 47). “State of flux” (Person, 2002, 1). ‘Paradigmenkrise’ (Thiel, 1991, 154; on the origin of this concept see Kuhn, 1962, X 43-51). Linville’s position (1998, esp. 61-62) is striking. He respected the Dtr style as conventional, but did not conclude that there was a Deuteronomistic DtrH. “Die Diskussion darüber ist noch nicht zu Ende gekommen und wird vermutlich auch nie ein Ende finden” (Hermann S., 1990, 102 n. 194). 960 6.3. Beside the common Dtr characteristics, there are differences in the elements that make up DtrH. Attention has been drawn to this repeatedly by Kuener (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 23) and Westermann (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 43-45). These differences are the result of interventions and additions after the Dtr period. Dtr also seems to have used different and adjusted sources for each book. Prophetic sources for DtrH were not restricted to the classical prophets; they also included pre-classical and non-classical prophecy. They used a common prophetic tradition or idiom from which the various prophetic tendencies drew. Beside the differentiated Dtr input in each book within the DtrH, there is also the composition of each book as it now is in the final text (Westermann, 1994). This is the result of post-Dtr operations. 961 Römer-De Pury, 1996, 52-53, 80-86; Hardmeier, 1991, 172 n. 5; Knoppers, 2001. “...the conspicuous presence of deuteronomistic phraseology in Joshua-Kings ... links together the books ...In fact, the entire deuteronomistic history hypothesis is based on that sense of strong coherence” (Ben Zvi, 1999, 258). “That the books Joshua-2 Kings owe their existing shape to Deuteronomistic editing, so that it is proper to describe them as forming a Deuteronomistic History, has now become part of the received wisdom of Hebrew scholarship, and detailed support need not to be offered” (Coggins, 1999, 29). “Le risque de cette nouvelle tendance, c’est que les couches dtr commencent à se multiplier ... Cette tendance n’est pas sans rappeler l’exacerbation de la critique littéraire qui s’était produite dans les études du Pentateuque trois quarts de siècle plus tôt et qui avait également eu pour corollaire la multiplication des sources et des sigles” (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 55-56). This

418

In these circumstances, it cannot safely be assumed that DtrH as a whole was composed by the same author as Noth had assumed962. Yet it cannot be denied that Dt.–2 Kgs contains a common trace with Dtr hallmark. The Dtr unity of Dt.–2 Kgs963 requires examination of the degree to which it could relate to possible prophetic influence on the Dtr current. Indeed, from the perspective of the history of the canon, it is important to examine the extent to which the Dtr current tried to achieve theological, systematising and structural effects in its reworking of the unit Dt.–2 Kgs and the extent to which prophecy's inspiring dynamic was used in this964.

7.3.5.3.2 ¨Prophet-like Sources in the Deuteronomistic History To register prophecy's possible influence on DtrH, we must first identify the prophetic sources from among all the others965 that the Dtr used in reworking Dt.-2 Kgs. Some authors did think they could identify pre-Dtr fear has been borne out. Eynikel still thought there were three redactors working in three stages (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 84 n. 339). Spieckermann expands this to six stages and Würthwein to an extreme number (Würthwein, 1994; Thiel, 1991, 154). That path grows farther and farther away from Noth’s fundamental option for the unity of DtrH. 962 Although enough authors such as Polzin, Hoffman, Van Seters, Knoppers, Peckham en McKenzie tend toward Noth’s view and stress the unity of DtrH, most see different redactions within it. Others even conclude that there is no unified DtrH opus. Among them: Knauf, 1996, Westermann, 1994, Rösel, 2000. 963 The discovery in the past of the common D characteristics within Dt.-2 Kgs led to the recognition of the Dtr composition and redaction within this historiographic whole (RömerDe Pury, 1996, 18-28). 964 Ewald and Jepsen stressed the prophetic character of what would later be called DtrH (Dietrich, 1972, 7-8, 9; idem, 2000, 49-55; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 21, 38). Campbell, O’Brien, Dietrich and Thiel now study the prophetic influence. These authors apply a nearly exclusive literary analytical method and approach this prophetic influence mainly from a redaction critical perspective. This narrows the prophetic factor to its textual input. Yet prophecy cannot be reduced to its written deposit. It is broader than its classic shape (7.3.2). It is even firmly interwoven with and related to the prophecy found among the surrounding peoples. We will have to take prophecy’s broad context into account. 965 7.1.1. On the concept source model (Quellenmodel) see Schart, 1998, 31-34. “...the unified narrative (DtrH, L.Z.) cannot be divorced from its complex origins” (Collins, 1993, 132). DtrH provokes this repeatedly (Person, 2002, 25). It refers to annals (Hardmeier, 1990b) a book of houses (Auld, 2000, 19), the lists as found in Josh. and Jg. (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 96-102), a book of deliverers (Retterbuch: Römer-De Pury, 1996, 98-99), songs like the song of Deborah (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 100-101) and the historiographic collections about David and Solomon (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 106-110). This is another occasion when Dtr may have used a selection principle.

419

documents in the final text that Dtr included in DtrH. Apparently the Dtr not only considered these older documents suitable for inclusion in their DtrH, they also felt so attracted by their prophetic inspiration that these texts were left largely unchanged in DtrH and – still according to these authors – can be recognisably, if only approximately, reconstructed. Campbell and O'Brien drew attention to a prophetic record running from 1 Sam. 1 to 2 Kgs 10:28, later enlarged with two documents spread over 2 Kgs 10:29 to 2 Kgs 17:23 and from 2 Kgs 12 to 2 Kgs 19966. This substantial block is to have been under construction since the 9th century BCE and, as mentioned, was later expanded piece by piece. Birch, Mommer and Dietrich967 identified only a few elements of this old, prophetically inspired narrative. The last situated it later, in the 7th century BCE, but still in the pre-exilic period, so that the Dtr, whom he believed worked exclusively during the exile, were able to include the prophetic material in their work. Auld accepted the existence of a prophetic text on the two YHWH-David houses968. This text treats the prophets as key actors in historical events. It is to have given rise to Dt.–Kgs, Chr. and a series of other prophetic narratives. However, most authors believed that the Dtr included but few prophetic sayings969 in their history and did so fairly late. They referred to the many shorter stories in DtrH, mainly distributed over Sam–Kgs, where a prophet is the protagonist. These prophetic legends970 include the Elijah

966

Campbell, 1986, 17-123. He reasoned from patterns (Campbell, 1986, 144-151; O’Brien, 1989b, 14-15, 101-226, 134-135, 174-180) identified by H. Weippert (O’Brien, 1989b, 268 n. 142). Earlier, B.C. Birch, K. McCarter, G. Garbini and S.L. McKenzie spoke of extensive prophetic pre-Dtr texts in 1 Sam.–2 Kgs (O’Brien, 1989b, 13-14). 967 Römer-de Pury, 1996, 104 n. 417; Van Seters, 1983, 253; Dietrich, 2000, 55-58. He got indirect support from Mildenberger, McCarter and McKenzie. Vermeylen (2000a, 544-545, 623-624) did recognise many historiographic documents from pre-Dtr periods in DtrH but thought them only profane propaganda and not prophetic. He reasoned from the retribution principle found in them. 968 Auld, 1999, 124-126. 969 Würthwein (Thiel, 1991, 153-154); McKenzie (Römer-De Pury), 1996, 113; Smelik, 1986, 114; Van Seters, 2000; Auld, 1984; Vermeylen, 2000a, 656-690; Dietrich, 1972, 64109; Thiel, 1991, 162; Hardmeier, 1991, 172 n. 2, 181-184. The late dating of these prophetic texts does not imply that they are inauthentic or not of prophetic origin. If they were passed down in documentary form, they would have had a degree of stability that would have allowed their transmission to withstand the ravages of time. 970 Römer-De Pury, 1996, 112-113.

420

and Elisha series found mainly in Kgs, but with parallels in Jer. and Is.971 Some authors thought they were related to similar episodes in the Tetrateuch972. There is a trend toward dating them later, even in the Persian period. Should this prove correct, they would no longer be eligible for discussion here973. Time will tell. Since most authors currently situate these narratives no later than the exilic period and consider their tenor undeniably prophetic, we cannot ignore them.

7.3.5.3.3 The Prophetic Sources in the Deuteronomistic History: Positive Balance in the Literature At first sight, the literature on the DtrH's prophetic sources seems confusing. The findings on the sources' setting and dating diverge widely. Yet indirectly they confirm astonishingly well the observations made in our study of prophecy974. First, they confirmed the dating of the prophetic sources over a period extending from the 9th century BCE to the exile and, later, that prophecy was active in Israel in various forms from ancient times through classical prophecy975. We can conclude from this that it had been available for dialogue with the similarly lengthy Dtr current. This involved exchange and fluctuating impact within an undetermined time perimeter976. Secondly, the diversity of the prophetic sources shows that prophecy was a very complex current displaying many facets only a selection of 971

Smelik, 1981; idem, 1986; idem, 1997; Hardmeier, 1990a; idem, 1991; Person, 1997. These closely interrelated prophetic narratives show the need to keep the relationship between prophecy and Dtr in a broad perspective. 972 Rofé, 1988b, 135-136; Blenkinsopp, 1999. 973 Hardmeier, 1990a, 3 n. 9-12; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 113 n. 488; idem., 2005, 165-183. Building on Noth, authors have found a growing number of late additions to DtrH from the Persian period and later (O’Brien, 1989b, 272-287). The study of possible later editorial work with retroactive force on DtrH has the drawback of working against the flow of the canonical current (McKenzie, 1999, 264). 974 7.3.1-7.3.4 975 Nevertheless, the new clues for prophetic activity do not permit a reconstruction of the complex history of prophecy in Israel. This is not necessary for studying the canonical process. However, these findings do permit ordering prophecy among the religious currents with prolonged influence. 976 This is usually the case for intellectual currents (Fohrer, 1989, 117; Ackroyd, 1991, 360361). The confrontation of Dtr and prophecy should not be restricted to the large DtrH unit (Dt.–Jg.) (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 48). The broader prospect of Dtr’s work on the prophetic writings beckons.

421

which are found in DtrH. Especially in the period shortly before and at the start of the exile, prophecy seems to have been very controversial, eliciting divergent responses, not least of all because of its mysterious character. This could have been one cause of the silence about the prophets in DtrH977. This did not hinder prophecy in religious Israel from assuming early a position of authority that could not be ignored. This striking third observation based on the discovery of the way in which the Dtr current used its prophetic sources in DtrH will be explained below.

7.3.5.3.4 The Prophetic Sources in the Deuteronomistic History: Critical Comments In the search for prophetic sources in DtrH, not all that glitters is gold. Beside positive prospects, it also produces several critical comments. First, the number of documents considered prophetic is limited. When compared with DtrH’s solid image, the scattering of prophetic remnants seems minuscule. With their modest number, they appear unable to claim a meaningful role within the unified DtrH. This impression is strengthened when the prophetic input is concentrated in a separate prophetic tendency (DtrP) within DtrH as the Göttingen school tends to place it978. The objective of this endeavour is to highlight the prophetic input in DtrH, although it has the disadvantage that it draws undesired attention on the precarious position of the prophetic tendency within DtrH. Prophecy has to be squeezed in between other tendencies such as the nomistic and the historiographic, which tower above the prophetic tendency979. Apart from that, the study of the prophetic input in DtrH is carried along the calamitous path leading to the so denigrated fragmentation by classical literary criticism. After all, linking the study of the prophetic sources in DtrH with its further disentwining980 not only threatens the DtrH's unity, it 977

Hardmeier, 1991, 172-173; Römer, 1999, 195-199. Römer-De Pury, 1996, 50-54. Kratz, 2000, 155-218 saw DtrH arising from preaching the law. 979 Dietrich, 2000, 48-49. 980 This disentwining is one consequence of Dtr’s work being thought present in many writings or pan-deuteronomism. It is this tendency to see deuteronomism in nearly all biblical writings (Crenshaw, 1999) that leads to a less than sharply defined D style (Wilson R.R., 1999, 67-82) and to a sub-Dtr understanding of history. Thiel is correctly accused of this lack of a precise criterion for the D style (Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 26; Zenger, 20066, 140). This gives those who wish to preserve the fundamental option for the unity of 978

422

also reduces the prophetic input to a peripheral phenomenon within DtrH that in its turn becomes difficult to situate within the whole of prophecy in Israel. Prophecy has already been seen to be complex and, like DtrH, to be in greater need than ever of a clear positioning within the literary and socio-political frameworks within which it is presumed to have operated981. The resulting chaotic fragmentation is not the only danger to threaten study of the individual prophetic sources in DtrH. This study is also perceivably encumbered by the overwhelming attention that DtrH commands in OT studies982. As consequence, research on the prophetic sources within DtrH is driven less by interest in prophecy than by interest in DtrH. Evidence for this is plain to see. It is no coincidence that the documents extracted from the depths of DtrH are almost exclusively found in Sam.–Kgs and thus parallels almost exactly the evidence for the Dtr current in those books983. This parallelism goes so far that the identification and dating of the prophetic sources in DtrH agree seamlessly with these authors' specific view of the whole of the DtrH984. This brings to light that DtrH as Noth launched it an opportunity to take the initiative to create a more surveyable reading of the DtrH unit – by using renewed synchronic methods such as the study of narrative literature – and to stress the lines of its composition. This endeavour would come as a relief when compared to the chaos that the classical methods usually produce. “Die Ausblendung der diachronen Dimension der Texte birgt auch hermeneutische Probleme ... Die vermeintliche Überwindung der Aporien der Literarkritik führt nämlich am Ende in ein neues Dilemma, das seinen Grund vor allem in einer unscharfen Verwendung der Kategorie des Sinnes hat” (Barthel, 1997, 16). This quandary pertains to the polarity between the original author’s meaning and that of the later redactor. Yet it would seem premature at this point in the diachronic study to switch to DtrH’s final stage. Diachronicity must produce clarity at this stage of the study. The growth that DtrH underwent must explain how sources, redaction and composition came to form the present unity. Moreover, this is the prerequisite for the social-political clarification of the texts (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 120). Hardmeier (1990a, 13) is thus incorrect in positing that the study of the sources can be abandoned. Much to the contrary they must be examined as they appear: as a fact that does not offer complete illumination but that cannot be ignored. 981 Blenkinsopp, 1977, 40; Ackroyd, 1978, 21. When examining DtrH as a comprehensive whole in the broader context of the D current, it remains needful to take into account the material in Gen.–Num. that comprises the Dtr. single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) (6.1-6.3; Römer, 2000). The positioning in the socio-political framework is the deficiency in a study like Kratz’ (2000) that is restricted to a literary examination of the positioning of Dt. within the Hexateuch-Enneateuch. 982 “The thesis of a Deuteronomistic historical work reigns supreme” (Auld, 1995, 170). As admission from an opponent of this statement this is suggestive. 983 6.3.; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 47. 984 Römer-De Pury, 1996, 75-76, 113.

423

these authors tend not to examine prophecy as such but to study it insofar as it is a product of the Dtr redactors and even then only in terms of the view these authors hold of DtrH985. This customary, biased approach to prophecy as manifested in DtrH give pause for thought. Once again the question of hermeneutics arises – that of the researcher and that of the writings studied – here the prophetic documents in DtrH986. Do these latter not have the right to be evaluated as 985

As older factor in a younger DtrH, prophecy risks being lost to view. As lower layer (hypertext vs. hypotext: Lange, 2002, 3) prophecy disappears beneath Dtr. “Denn über Reinterpretationen läßt sich das Frühere stets und mit Leichtigkeit im Späteren aufheben” (Hardmeier, 1990a, 3 n. 9). —The global vision from which these authors start appears equally determinative for their work when they differ strongly. “Diese beide extrem gegensätzlichen Äußerungen verweisen darauf, wie stark eine methodische Gesamtkonzeption auf die Wertung der Einzeltexte einwirkt und wie unabdinglich wichtig daher ist, Kriterien dafür zu entwickeln und zu benennen, was man als dtr. beurteilt und was nicht” (Thiel, 1991, 149). In this way it becomes clear for the first time how determining an over-all starting point (5.3.1.; Barthel, 1997, 10) can affect research. It must be sufficiently confirmed by the text and thus text-compliant (textgemäß) and must form a counter-weight against inordinately subjective input. Further, we again encounter the need for objective criteria for identifying the D style (Hardmeier, 1991, 172 n. 5). There seems to be a great need on a content-compliant definition (‘sachgemäßeren Begriff’; Thiel, 1991, 155). We must always start from the Dt. and Dtr canon (Wilson R.R., 1999, 78-82; Auld, 1999, 122-123; Person, 1993, 168-175; hence the original notion expressed in the terms deuteronomism and Dtr). The resulting D style consists of known formal characteristics (Crenshaw, 1999, 148 n. 12 casts doubt on the criterion of phraseological similarity; yet its existence is discernible, although it must be explained as the stable influence of a long-term and authoritative tradition [Laato, 1996, 16]) as well as typical theological concepts that can, if desired, be used as separate criterion (O’Brien, 1989b, 47). However, the search for a D style becomes questionable if scholars believe they can demonstrate that this D style was distorted in later times (O’Brien, 1989b, 47, 120-128) and even imitated (Thiel, 1991, 152; Blenkinsopp, 1999, 86; Ben Zvi, 1999, 243 n. 31). This broadens the perspective on D style to such an extent that the abjured pan-deuteronomism results (Schaering-McKenzie, 1999) while nothing further is accomplished than attempts at proof (Probebeweisen: Thiel, 1991, ibid). 986 5.1.3. In the case of the prophetic writings contained in DtrH, a distinction must be made between the authors of the prophetic texts and the Dtr redactor(s) who edited them (Schniedewind, 1996, 26). As to the first we can tentatively agree with Sanders. “According to Sanders, ancient Israelite prophecy is best understood in the interaction of three major factors: ancient traditions (texts), situations (contexts), and hermeneutics. He states that texts are ‘the common authoritative traditions employed and brought forward (re-presented) by the prophet to bear upon the situation to which he or she spoke in antiquity’ (p. 21). Contexts are ‘the historical, cultural, social, political, economic, national, and international situations to which the prophets applied the texts’ (p. 21). Hermeneutics is ‘the ancient theological mode, as well as literary technique, by which that application was made by the prophet, true or false, that is, how he read his texts and contexts and how he related them

424

they operated, regardless of how the Dtr redactors presented and placed them in DtrH? If they are considered pre-Dtr, they represent a separate phase in tradition history that, like all stages, deserves no less historical and theological explanation than does the final text – and this preferably before the interaction987 with the Dtr redaction is examined. In examining this interaction, the work of the Dtr redaction should be set off from that of the prophetic authors. Moreover, the notion redaction should receive special attention when applied to DtrH. How does it differ from possible Dtr authorship and what identifies the respective interventions? On this point scholars tend to remain vague or try to leave the impression they are dealing with unambiguous concepts988. In effect, these terms appear to be (p. 22)” (Sweeney, 1988, 187 n. 1). We already referred to the importance of the prophets’ understanding of history (Seeligmann, 1978, 254-270). 987 By applying the idea of stages to the prophetic texts and the DtrH redactors, it can be posited that “There are two basic theological or hermeneutical modes which ancient biblical thinkers employed: the constitutive and the prophetic ... The constitutive mode is essentially ‘supportive’ reading of the situation and tradition (according to de priests). The prophetic mode is a challenging reading of the situation and tradition” (Sweeney, 1988, 187-188 n. 1). The prophets (7.3.4) way operating (challenging, opposition literature, radicalising), with Dt.-Dtr in their wake, has already been discussed (7.2.2; 7.3.5.2). The final text is too easily given precedence over the preceding stages. — The interaction proceeds as an interchange that should be examined as objectively as possible. Hardmeier was a forerunner in this. “Diese neue Forschungsrichtung ist für die Bibelwissenschaften besonders attraktiv (this includes the emphasis on the narrative as composition and storytelling). Denn sie ist ‘based on an interaction-oriented, discourse-linguistic approach’ und legt den Schwerpunkt des Interesses ‘not only in the narrative as a finished product but above all in narration as an interactive process’” (Hardmeier, 1990a, 6). Hardmeier focused his attention on “die Textorientiertheit diese Ansatzes neben seiner Kommunikationsorientiertheit” (Hardmeier, 1990a, 7), so that the interactive communication was approached only from the prophetic text and no longer from the dynamic current from which the prophetic text arose and where it found its fervour that allowed it, during this communication, to influence Dtr. The scholar needs a text-compliant approach is required to get a clear picture of this dynamic communication; as Hardmeier correctly noted, a mechanical application of previously defined criteria does not suffice. “Es ist das Defizit der quellentheoretischen und der neoliterarkritischen Betrachtungsweise, das ihnen ein mechanistisches, additiv-/subtraktives Verständnis von der Produktion und der Verarbeitung von Texten in je neuen Kommunikationszusammenhängen zugrunde liegt” (Hardmeier, 1990, 17). 988 “The question becomes how these earlier sources were transmitted. Were they fragmentary or joined into a composition? The difference between the authorial use of sources and the redactional use of sources is one of degree” (Schniedewind, 1996, 26). Kugler (1999, 129) believed he could attribute to the redactors the quality of contradicting the sources and thus distinguish them from possible influencing by the prophetic documents. But a redaction can also be in continuity with the edited or revised text (Cook, 1999, 224-228). Ben Zvi (1999, 235-239) correctly warned against presumptions regarding

425

handled with temerity, esp. when various tendencies within DtrH are treated on the same level as redactions so that the problem of methodology again arises989. The examination of the particular role of the Dtr redactors within DtrH certainly needs correction when it comes to using textual criticism990.

7.3.5.3.5 The Concept of History as Medium when Confronting Prophecy with the Deuteronomistic History After the preceding, it is certain that – to the extent that they are accessible outside DtrH – the prophetic sources offer a starting point for registering the points where prophecy and the Dtr current intersect and influence one the notion of redaction. Essentially, any commitment to writing is unavoidably an interpretation (Laato, 1995, 53). In this regard it becomes apparent how in redaction criticism the redactor is thought to stress only one theme (Laato, 1996, 14-15) in one or other layer and that this not coincidentally happens to be the one that interests the researcher. Perhaps this is the reason why the Smend school identifies so many Dtr redactions. The same bias threatens when there is a sharp definition in scope of the terms author (Sheppard, 2000, 383), redactor, writer, publisher (according to: Collins, 1993, 32) and compiler (according to: Clements, 1996, 217) or between redactor and writer (according to: Van Seters, 1999, 161; Person, 2002, 8). “The strict line that is often drawn demarcating scribe from redactor is very difficult to maintain” (Person, 1993, 147). Confrontation of these concepts with the reality of the prophetic writings gives no satisfaction as is apparent from the contrasting view of redaction and its relationship to the composition of the final shape (Werlitz, 1999, 7-14). One possible solution is to examine the method of the text’s designer (Werlitz, 1999, 10). This solution is only tentative. It remains necessary to define terms. “Damit zeigt sich wie wenig die Begrifflichkeiten innerhalb der Exegese geklärt sind, und wie nötig eine solche Begriffsklärung ist” (Werlitz, 1999, 13). 989 “The significant variety between and even within the three schools of thought suggests that the study of the redaction of DtrH and the book of Kings is at a methodological standstill. The variety among the proponents of both the dual - and trito-redaction schools especially suggests methodological problem. These studies, it seems, suffer from the objective criteria to distinguish between different Deuteronomic redactors who use similar language for the expression of similar themes” (Person, 1997, 4). Once again we must warn against the researcher’s inordinately projecting his/her own view on the biblical texts as Noth did Römer-De Pury, 1996, 36). This warning also applies to authors who want to stress the inventiveness of the narrators of the prophetic stories (Renkema, 1991, 59). 990 “Perhaps this standstill can be overcome, at least to some extent, with the aid of text criticism” (Person, 1997, 4). Unfortunately, it must be noted that too little endeavour is made when it comes to text criticism (3.3.1), certainly when it is a question of considering the possible priority of the LXX over the MT (Person, 1997, 4-5; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 75-76).

426

another in DtrH, on the condition that the constraints noted are taken into account991. Before we can look more closely at these reciprocal contacts between prophecy and the Dtr current via the prophetic sources in DtrH, we must first examine the striking fact that the two can only meet in DtrH when both being involved in historical events. Prophecy and the Dtr current did not passively undergo Israel’s history; they responded to it actively and interjected their views into public life. Typical of the prophets is the speed with which they respond to current events. They strike while the iron is hot. Only exceptionally did the reach back to the distant past when this serves to give more profound legitimacy to their public appearance992. They usually do this with brief allusions to familiar facts that require little explanation. The Dtr current used history differently. Its attitude is more aloof, speculative and more accurately attuned to social and political reality. It assimilated all of Dt. into a broad view of history. The Dtr current’s objective was to gain maximum benefit from the argument from history especially in DtrH and preferably in a nomistic sense. It used extensive resources such as writing and authorised workers such as scribes whose professional skills the Dtr current could call upon, unlike the prophets. One result is that all of Israel’s experiences from Moses to the exile can be used from a clearly defined perspective which is regularly inserted in the sources borrowed. Either as commentary or direct address it is ascribed to specific historical figures who speak on behalf of the Dtr current993. All this makes clear that prophecy and the Dtr current use this medium, as is the case in all history994, to present their own view of the events. Although this technique is widespread, it deserves special attention

991

7.3.5.3.4. Legitimation. “...as the prophets acquired influential priorities in political affairs, writers of history fell under their influence and created a new literary genre, which until the advent of Christianity was uniquely Israelite-prophetic historiography” (Rofé, 1988b, 78-79). But even then it was the prophets’ authority that inspired the authors of the stories about the prophets. That is why the prophet and his words played a leading role in them. 993 We have already encountered the increased importance of Moses. 994 That explains the saying historia magistra vitae (Cicero, De oratore, II, IX, 36; Hardmeier, 1991, 178). The authors of the prophetic narratives needed an interpretation of history (creativity). “The realities of man and his emotions are the author’s concern” (Rofé, 1988, 48). It is commonly recognised that narrative is a suitable method for instructing the public, esp. the less educated. Dtr applied both. See the section on didactics (6.6.4) and its popular orientation. 992

427

here. It explains DtrH’s special character995 as holistic historiographic project. It also explains why the argument from history occurs regularly in prophetic writings. And above all, it explains why the Dtr current used popular prophetic narrative material996 in DtrH to enlist the services of prophecy in its broadly conceived project. Via DtrH, the perspectives of prophecy and Dtr current could be brought into dialogue on a common plane997 of interpreted history as found in prophetic historiography. The modalities and results of this now have to be examined as they were ultimately recorded and transmitted in the tradition of the Former and Later Prophets.

7.3.5.3.6 The Prophetic Influence on the Deuteronomistic History via Autonomous Sources Before examining prophecy’s own input at its meeting with the Dtr current in DtrH, it is necessary first to distinguish between what prophecy brings directly and autonomously from its own tradition and that part of this prophetic input that the Dtr current has assimilated during this meeting. This last can only rise tot the surface after an analysis of Dtr’s own texts with which the prophetic input has become interwoven as a consequence of the way the Dtr current worked. 995

Prophecy and Dtr share a markedly religious, non-profane notion of history that differs considerably from modern historiography with which it is incorrectly compared (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 82-83). 996 Ultimately, the notion of inspiration arose from the close tie between prophecy and history. — DtrH is one, single aetiology recounting the cause of Israel’s experiences in its catastrophic history. Catastrophes usually provoked the revision of history according to new experiences and insights derived from the circumstances. “The character of the deuteronomic history is different since it is determined by an etiological imperative – the need to explain the catastrophes of 721 and 587 and in so doing give an answer to the problem of theodicy which they raised. This called for a forceful reinterpretation of Israel’s history in which prophecy played a crucial role” (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 40). — Yet history, particularly the prophetic narratives, were only one element of the whole theological scheme that was more nomistic as is evident from the pride of place given to Dt. in DtrH’s programme (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 46). This was a long-term programme. “...ce n’est donc pas l’événement isolé, ou l’épisode qui intéresse les maîtres d’œuvre de HD ... ce qui l’intéresse, c’est ce que, dans notre siècle, Fernand Braudel a appelé la longue durée, les évolutions durables” (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 116). Braudel’s notion of long duration is often cited (Niehr, 1995, 37 n. 24; Uehlinger, 1995, 61-63). It proved useful for observing the long-term patterns within the genesis of the canon and the currents that affected it. 997 Utzschneider, 2002.

428

There is sufficient reason to distinguish these two paths along which prophecy could enter the Dtr thinking998. The specific character of each of them determined the way in which and the intensity with which prophecy could exert its influence in DtrH. The second path – the one under the control and supervision of the Dtr current – interwove the thinking of prophecy and the Dtr current so much that separating the two, esp. in the final text, is an extremely difficult task that some consider impossible999. In that case, the Dtr current rises at least formally to the surface as spokesperson for the symbiosis, and as such draws attention, while prophecy, although fully active, tends to recede1000. Study will have to determine whether the Dtr current was theologically active at that time and thus dominated prophecy. In anticipation of that examination, we offer the following observations on the first path, i.e. DtrH’s own sources of prophetic origin. As to prophetic contribution to DtrH via its own sources we note that however different the prophetic influences may have been and however distributed over time, even in some cases after the Dtr current, all have at least in common that they can articulate authentically their prophetic ideas in DtrH, at least insofar as the Dtr current has not intervened in their specifically prophetic terrain1001. The fact that the Dtr current considered it 998

“...it is difficult to maintain a clear distinction between source and redaction ... Distinction between source and redaction is hampered” (O’Brien, 1989, 161, 237). However, experience teaches that the Dtr come more to the fore where they render global considerations, e.g. regarding a particular period or era such as the monarchy in Israel; this is less the case when recounting episodes. There they tend to stay closer to the sources (Halpern, 1988, 31-32). 999 E. Nielsen and H. Hoffman consider this distinction impossible (Thiel, 1991, 149). “...da wird die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische und die prophetische Denk- und Sprachwelt zusammengeführt” (Dietrich, 2000, 51). This author saw only a formal difference and little in content between the integrated prophetic and Dtr texts (Dietrich, 2000, 54). He did, however, see a connection between Dtr and a segment of prophecy in Israel that, as we know, is a comprehensive and complex matter. 1000 It is a matter of the contrast between hypertext and hypotext (Lange, 2002, 3). “The act of writing a book, therefore unavoidably obscures the outline of the sources used in its production” (Collins, 1993, 24). But it is also true that “Each piece of material used had a prehistory of its own ... it has inevitably left ‘foot-prints’ which can never be entirely erased” (Collins, 1993, 20). 1001 Noth drew attention to how faithful Dtr seems to have remained to his sources in large parts of DtrH (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 34). Dtr’s adherence to the sources is not so surprising. It was normal at that time. This has come to be recognised by authors like Auld, 2000, 19. “...beiden Quellen möglich treu bewahren” (Dietrich, 2000, 62). As the occasion arises, all scholars must observe how discretely Dtr is present in many parts of DtrH

429

necessary to use the prophetic texts selectively beside many other sources, to take them, probably grouped, from tradition and to situate them often adjacent to disparate and even conflicting versions in the whole of DtrH is significant. The Dtr current’s conservative way of dealing with prophetic sources accredits them with an authority that, upon closer inspection, relies on YHWH’S absolute authority voiced in the prophetic sources1002. It is not (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 104). “...with a minimum of revision” (O’Brien, 1989, 225). According to Noth, Dtr restricts itself to ‘punktuelle Eingriffe’ in the Elijah legends (1 Kgs 17-19), a view shared by G. Henschel (Thiel, 1991, 148-149, 153). “...an wenigen Stellen erweitert” (Dietrich, 2000, 63). 1002 Noth took pre-Dtr cohesion of these texts duly into account (Thiel, 1991, 149). For another view see: Dietrich, 2000, 54-56. Yet this author assumed the existence of collected prophetic opposition literature during Manasseh’s reign. Obviously, a collection of this type implies a later reflection on the original prophetic words (Barthel, 1997, 457-458). “...wieder hat DtrP getreulich beide Varianten nebeneinander stehen lassen” (Dietrich, 2000, 63). Unrestrained juxtaposition of contradistinct texts is all the more striking where one may have expected Dtr commentary or revision as in 2 Kgs 1 (Thiel, 1991, 156-157). Perhaps as in modern music, the disharmony may be intended to draw attention to the whole symphony (Valiquette, 1999, 49). 7.2.2. “Thus, to some extent, the perspectives of the earlier material resisted the reconceptualization of their role in the redactional additions” (according to D.M. Carr, cited in Barthel, 1997, 17 n. 51). This resistance to reconceptualisation does not mean that the Dtr redactor inserted the original texts verbatim (Laato, 1996, 14-15). “DTR was able to use the record’s portrayal of prophetic authority to validate the interpretation of the monarchy according to the deuteronomic program laid down by Moses” (O’Brien, 1989b, 104). It has been established that Dtr demonstrates a fundamental faith in the fulfilment of the divine word spoken to the prophets in history as developed in DtrH. “Wichtiger jedoch als redaktionskritische Schichtungshypothesen ist die grundlegende Tatsache, daß die Dimension des Prophetischen in die dtr Geschichtsschreibung Eingang gefunden hat” (Dietrich, 2000, 50). The way in which this is developed by Dtr will be made more explicit in 7.3.5.3.7. For the moment it is important to realise that if DtrH demonstrated this faith in the divine word as transmitted by the prophets it is because Dtr usually first appropriated it from the prophetic traditions (for another view see: Carroll, 1986, 77-79, who thought that the word theology should be ascribed exclusively to the Dtr redaction) meaning not just from the prophetic narratives but also from the prophets’ statements. Cases occur where the Dtr redaction’s editorial work cannot be denied (Halpern, 1988, 253-254). But they remain relatively exceptional and can be explained by Dtr’s awareness of its own prophetic task. “The idea that the word of God is fulfilled trough the course of historical events was not new in Israel. It was rooted deeply in the mantic character of early prophecy. It became a standard for historical appraisal ... a historiographical criterion” (Rofé, 1988b, 87). 2 Kgs 1:2-17 makes this apparent: “Die Prophetenerzählung ist also in ihren beiden Schichten vor-dtr und zeigt nicht die Spur eines dtr-Eingriffs ... Die Überlieferung hat also auf den Rahmen eingewirkt, während sich die Redaktion eines Eingriffs in das vorgegebene Material enthielt” (Thiel, 1991, 157). The final sentence of this narrative is very important. “Die Prophetengeschichte schloß mit der Feststellung: ‘Da starb er (Ahasja) gemäß dem Wort Jahwes, das Elia gesprochen hatte’

430

without reason that they ultimately refer to the prophets’ wondrous deeds and preaching as men of God1003. We may readily accept that the prophetic legends are based on a modicum of historical fact, however much they may have been modified later at various stages to suit the needs of historical circumstances1004. It is definitely for this reason that the Dtr current resorted to these prophetic traditions. They were an indispensable starting point for the historical elements in DtrH because they wanted to stress YHWH’S authority, which is the leitmotiv in many of the apparently chaotic events discussed in this long narrative1005. (17a). Der Satz konstatiert das Eintreffen des im Jahwewort ... Angekündigten. Derartige Erfüllungsvermerke sind innerhalb des DtrG besonders den Kön-Büchern häufig und drücken das dtr. Theologoumenon von der Übereinstimmung von Gotteswort und Geschichte aus: was Jahwe durch seine Propheten ankündigt, das geschieht auch” (Thiel, 1991, ibid). This is also the case in 1 Kgs 17:16b. Here and elsewhere, such as 2 Kgs 4:44, 7:16 a messenger formula (Botenformel) precedes the event. “Die Wiederaufnahme des Spruchinhaltes und der Erfüllungshinweis sind organisch in den Schluß der jeweiligen Geschichte integriert, ja sie bilden ihn überhaupt” (Thiel, 1991, 158-159). Again 1 Kgs 21:23 asserts the fulfilment of a prophetic prediction. “...jedenfalls war es des Deuteronomisten vorgegeben” (Thiel, 1991, 162). 1 Kgs 17-19 is probably the strongest indication for influence on Dtr by theology and the divine message from prophetic traditions (Fohrer advocates this as pre-exilic: Thiel, 1991, 151). “Die Komposition von XVII 1,2-7, 8-16, 18:1 abff. ist vor-dtr-Ursprungs. Die Wort-Theologie, die sich in der Wortereignisformel und im Erfüllungsvermerk 16b ausdrückt, war den Deuteronomisten wie wir es schon bei 1 Kön. 21:17 und 2 Kön. 1:17aa annahmen - vorgegeben. Sie haben sie nur ausgebaut und zum Prinzip ihrer Geschichtsschreibung gemacht; sie haben sie aber nicht erst selbst geschaffen” (Thiel, 1991, 169). 1003 Again we see how Dtr is indebted to the form and content of the prophetic tradition. “From the point of view of the dynamics of the narrative, the miracle is a demonstration of power intended first of all for the benefit of Elisha himself ... It is also for the benefit of the sons of the prophets who witness the miracle and are convinced that Elijah’s spirit now rests on Elisha” (Collins, 1993, 137). The oral form of the original prophetic preaching can be sufficiently detected in the present Dtr texts, albeit with difficulty (Rofé, 1988b, 51). The ecstatic elements that Dtr borrowed also point to the ancient origin of these pre-Dtr sources (Thiel, 1991, 171; Kratz, 2000, 174, generally admitted their pre-Dtr origin and situated them in a broader association with the entire Enneateuch). The content of the older prophetic narratives, whether or not Dtr used them for DtrH, show the extent to which the preaching of prophets like Micah and Isaiah had advanced (Hardmeier, 1991, 181-187; Dietrich, 1972, 39-40). 1004 Rofé, 1988b, esp. 13-54. 1005 This view of authority is based on the prophets who were convinced that they imbued their prophetic statements with vitality when they referred to YHWH’S action in current events. “Denn die geschichtliche Wirklichkeit kommt im Prophetenwort nicht um ihrer selbst willen zur Sprache, sondern als der Ort, an dem Israel aktuell seinem Gott begegnet. In dieses Geschehen, weiß sich der Prophet selbst eingespannt: Es proklamiert nicht allein

431

Translated into canonical terms, this means that the Dtr current’s canonising aspiration needed the Yahwist authoritative foundation present in the prophetic tradition in addition to its own formalising and institutionalising measures1006. Each prophetic narrative and word, however it may have been marked over time by Dtr editing, referred unmistakably to the prophetic meeting with the divine that formed its core1007. No tradition or redactor can do without this mysterious meeting with YHWH, at most it can timidly develop a new and continuing reflection on the narrative material for later generations. However distorted the history of the prophets may be presented in the prophetic legends, the dynamic starting point whose foundation is laid in the experience of YHWH remains irrevocably authentic1008. Even the most literarily talented and inventive Dtr and other redactors felt required to follow the lead YHWH started with the prophets

Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte, seine Verkündigung im Wort und Zeichen ist selbst eine Manifestation dieses Handelns. Diese Überzeugung ist die grundlegende Voraussetzung, mit der die Autorität und Vitalität des Prophetenwortes steht und fällt” (Barthel, 1997, 463). Because YHWH’S acting in history is not restricted to any single event, the prophets used typology to situate it in a broader context. The roots of Dtr’s schematic elucidation of history lay with the prophets. They are the motor of Dtr’s selection (Halpern, 1988, 228235) via ‘Aktualisierung und Weiterinterpretation’ (Barthel, 1997, 464). This elucidation of history operated as “eine historischen-unterscheidende Lesart” (Barthel, 1997, 466). 1006 6.8.; Vermeylen, 2000b; idem, 2001; Römer, 2000, 185-187. “...how the prophet thought of God’s nature inevitably served to shape his understanding of the divine intention” (Clements, 1996, 206). 1007 “Elijah, whose very word was law... The matter is out of his hands - greater powers alone will decide it” (Rofé, 1988b, 47-48). This numinous aspect of a fundamental prophetic experience of God is the oldest core of all prophetic legends, however much they may have been modified and expanded in the many later stages of their long tradition (Rofé, 1988b, 7-51). Dating of these prophetic legends has little value from a canonical perspective. The emphasis is primarily on their function, even when they would have been composed entirely by Dtr (Smelik, 1986, 70-93) or date from after Dtr. In any case, they are grounded in the secured authority of prophecy. The prophet’s message as the people experienced it in the actions of popular prophets (Houtman, 1980, 179) became the beginning of the theologically based, historical tradition of the prophet’s in Israel. 1008 “...als einer dynamischer Potenz, fast hypostatisch gedacht” (Seeligmann, 1978, 255). It is approached as reality that achieved dynamically in history (Seeligmann, 1978, 256; Zimmerli, 1978). The generalisation of prophetic experience in its later written and oral transmission does not deprive it of its dynamic foundation. “Aber in ihrem Anspruch auf Allgemeingültigkeit hatte auch solche Anklage ihren Ausweis nur in der Vollmacht des Propheten” (Hermisson, 1998, 2).

432

7.3.5.3.7 The Prophetic Influence on the Deuteronomistic History via Texts with a Deuteronomistic Hallmark After analysis of the original prophetic texts that the Dtr current recorded nearly unchanged throughout DtrH, it is now time to focus on Dtr’s own texts. Since these are thought to come formally from Dtr, we may expect the input to conform to the substance of the Dtr current’s mental legacy. Yet this does not mean that the Dtr current suddenly, for the first time, started to speak alone and with one voice, so that this could be equated with its creativity. As yet, even here the Dtr current used prophetic texts that had been in circulation but were no longer known, and as with the other Dtr texts of prophetic genre, they did this without changing them much. If, after a confrontation with the same texts, a symbiosis was reached, the Dtr current could express its opinion in many gradations. To be certain of detecting the Dtr current’s own input, it will be necessary to compare it at least with what is known with certainty about the prophetic mental legacy and its operation1009. As with many aspects of OT research, studies on the relation between prophecy and Dtr current in DtrH produce divergent findings. Subject to severe reservations, the following major lines can be observed in the way in which the Dtr current handled its confrontation with the 1009

As is known, prophecy changed perceptibly over time, had many tendencies and built an evolving mental legacy (Rofé, 1988b, 182). Dtr’s peak intervention would have been in projecting proclamation of deliverance from the exilic period to Isaiah’s preaching around 701 BCE (Barthel, 1977, 8-10). If anything, the proclamation of deliverance should be placed in Josiah’s time. When discussing Dtr’s intervention, scholars usually refer to the fulfilment scheme. That is only one of the schemes used in DtrH. Dtr did not invent the fulfilment scheme since it was already present in the stories it borrowed, albeit in a fluid form. Dtr perfected it (Seeligmann, 1978, 259-264; Rofé, 1988b, 103; Dietrich, 1972, 109; Weippert H., 1991, 117-119). “Die genaue und ausdrücklich konstatierte Entsprechung von Weissagung und Erfüllung war, oder wurde, bestimmend für sein eignes theologisches Denken” (Dietrich, 2000, 60). This further expansion and perfectioning of the fulfilment scheme is to have been prompted by situational interest and the desire to maintain archives: the desire to record later what had been predicted (Kratz, 1997, 17-18). To work appropriately and ensure certainty, the Dtr’s intervention has to be identified, preferably from its broad use of the fulfilment scheme (Thiel, 1991, 157, 164) in composition and redaction (Thiel, 1991, 168, 171). “Die Deuteronomisten arbeiteten in der Regel als Redaktoren. Sie kannten die vorgegebenen Überlieferungsmaterialen und schlossen sich auch sprachlich nicht selten an die älteren Texte an. Man muß also damit rechnen, daß sie in ihren Bildungen Formulierungen an dem Kontext aufgriffen. Entsprechend sollte man genau prüfen, ob nicht schon manches, was man gern ‘deuteronomistisch’ nennen mochte, einer vor-Dtr Überlieferungsphase entstammt” (Thiel, 1991, 155).

433

prophets. As we have seen, prophecy is not the only, or even the main, factor in the Dtr current’s historical programme. Its main concern is the nomistic Dt., that the Dtr current framed with an elaborate historical justification. Prophecy enters history through the prophets and their actions to the extent that they explain YHWH’S Torah, as present in Dt., and contribute to its attainment1010. Prophecy had to share this role with other institutions such as monarchy and cult. DtrH was a long-term project for the Dtr current; it had at least two stages that were particularly suited to it and obviously reflective and retrospective1011. Whereas prophets articulated YHWH’S word in current and impending events with a predominantly ominous and admonishing language, the Dtr current looked far back to the time of the Kingdom of Israel to outline YHWH’S acts in history1012 in 1010

This practical attainment of the Torah in prophecy was decisive for Dtr. Hence that for Dtr only true, i.e. fulfilled prophecy is authoritative and may be the object of further explanation and interpretation. Tradent prophecy thus commenced with Dtr (Lange, 2002, 316-318). G.J. Sheppard launched this notion (Lange, 2002, 2002, 37-38). 1011 “mehrstufigen Prozeß” (Thiel, 1991, 159). As in all intellectual currents, Dtr cannot be situated within defined time limits. This is still truer for currents within a small country like Israel. The review of prophecy as given situated in the past is part of the general backward glance on the past history of YHWH’S relation to Israel. 1012 The difference between Josiah’s centralisation of the cult and Jeroboam’s sin – seen as countering the centralisation – is elaborated historically (Houtman, 1980, 191-192). This version is thought to have arisen shortly after the fall of Israel (Rofé, 1988b, 97, 101). — The fulfilment scheme is not the only one that the Dtr used. In treating the prophets they set out to organise them (Dietrich, 2000, 54). This gave a new way of viewing the notion of prophetic succession. That the list of prophets from the former Kingdom of Israel is longer than that from Judah is striking (Rofé, 1988b, 102). In assigning the prophets a sequence and using similar terminology or patterns (Seeligmann, 1977, 269) to describe and generalise them, Dtr clearly intended to evaluate them as a group as it did the kings. It could then define the essence of the prophetic office and to focus on continuity amid the changing circumstances and thus to institutionalise prophecy. One constant here is the prophet’s appearance as YHWH’S servant and spokesperson before the political system (Seeligmann, 1978, 264-266; Dietrich, 2000, 49, 54; O’Brien, 1989b, 109, 120). There is a transition from the prophet-king relationship to a prophet-people relationship (Seeligmann, 1978, 266; Blenkinsopp, 1977, 27 n. 16; Collins, 1993, 22-23). This shows Dtr’s concern for the wellbeing of the whole community (Valiquette, 1999). That is why there are so many meetings with the prophet-judge Samuel in 1 Sam. 8-12 (O’Brien, 1989b, 120) and why the introduction of Dt. 12:9-18 stresses the people’s agreement (Veijola, 1996, 199) and why paraenesis is a type of dialogue. “Legitimationsakte an denen das Volk maßgebend beteiligt ist und die es zugleich mit seinem Gott fest verbinden wollen, beschreibt der Deuteronomist mehrfach als Bundesschließungen” (Herrmann S., 1990, 12). This is also why there is a preference for prophetic narratives that met the with people’s approval (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 27 n. 16). — There are advantages and disadvantages to working with outlines that include refined composition techniques (Collins, 1993, 21-23).

434

patterns more recognisable to its public. Prophecy and with it all of history became the teacher of the present while still belonging to the past. It appears as if a new prophecy continuing the past would not be needed for the future. The prophecy of the past was sufficient so that the end of prophecy is automatically anticipated. It also seems as if history and YHWH’S acts in it were so clear for the Dtr current that they held no further secrets1013. On this point the Dtr current differs manifestly from prophecy that is always struck with the mystery of YHWH who can even accomplish his reliable promise in an unsuspected way. This shows again how the Dtr current differs from prophecy theologically as well as formally and that it follows its own path as true prophecy1014. It is amazing to see how The mechanical treatment of the prophets restrains them (Dietrich, 1972, 108-109), although the distinctiveness of the individual prophets is not lost. This is another instance of dehistoricising. 1013 Blenkinsopp, 1984a, 190. Dtr prepared the end of classical prophecy by placing it fully in the past and making future prophecy superfluous (Blenkinsopp, 1977, 39) via interpretation of the text (tradent prophecy). Hence its interest for Jeremiah as last ‘prophet like Moses’. His purpose is to describe and safeguard the prophets’ shared authority. This has a dehistoricising effect as does every canonising endeavour. Finally, it ends in the commitment of traditions to writing without eliminating historical traces of the genesis of the canon. This explains the growing number of allusions to recording during Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 22-23) and in Jeremiah’s day (Jer. 36): Römer, 1996, 440-441. Ezekiel’s eating the scroll (Ez. 2-3) is also noteworthy. We can see from these images how earlier classical prophecy was felt to be permanently topical. This cut short he rise of newer, contemporary prophecy (Lange, 2002, 317-318). — While the prophets, oriented as they were toward prophecy of doom, saw Israel’s end as unavoidable because it did not repent and only YHWH’S freedom offered opportunities for deliverance, Dtr approached the problem from the perspective of the freedom of human behaviour and its potential for failure as well as repentance. Hence the conditional nature Dtr legislation and the prospect of both punishment and retaliation (Rofé, 1988b, 79; Seeligmann, 1978, 255, 266-267) incorporated in prophetic preaching and promise, giving it a fatalistic undertone (‘Unausweichliches’ ‘Schicksalhaftes’: Seeligmann, 1978, 269). This lacks any type of summons to repent similar to what was originally present in prophecy (Seeligmann, 1978, 268). Again Dtr’s editing was not fortuitous in all respects. The disadvantages had to be accepted along with the benefits such as a being better attuned to the practical needs of the time (Seeligmann, 1978, 268). 1014 Seeligmann, 1978, 267. “...denn eine solche Neukonzeption findet ihre Grenze an der semantischen Heterogenität des vorgegebenen Materials, dessen Autorität den Prozeß der Neuinterpretation überhaupt erst in Gang gesetzt hat, sie bleibt daher in Hinsicht auf dessen ursprünglichen Sinn notwendig selektiv und partiell” (Barthel, 1997, 17). Comparison with the prophetic writings shows this clearly.”...Teils nicht übernommen ... Die Differenz tritt noch deutlicher heraus wenn man bedenkt, wie unbekümmert die klassischen Propheten in ihren Scheltworten ... Mißstände anprangern ... DtrP dagegen beschränkt sich konsequent ... wesentlicher Elemente entleert werden” (Dietrich, 1972, 104).

435

prophecy was treated respectfully and was invoked as an authority; how its texts were usually used as foundations, but how nevertheless they were included in DtrH as an instrument to serve its ends1015. In this regard, the findings on DtrH are consistent with those for Dt.1016 Given its background, prophecy is propelled1017 in a canonical direction in DtrH (including Dt.). 1015

Dtr was so convinced that it worked in the spirit of the prophets that it believed it could compose prophetic statements (Dietrich, 2000, 53) or revise them in their own way (‘relectures’: Day, 1988, 51-52). “...Dtr’s positive attitude to the monarchy is inaugurated by Yahweh through the agency of his prophet, and under the authority of his prophet” (O’Brien, 1989b, 109). Wherever Dtr concurred fully with the prophets, it integrated their ideas without criticism (Williamson, 1988, 35). Like the prophets it assumed YHWH as the foundation of all authority. This would make authority a dynamic factor in the canon process. — Rofé (1988b, 97, 101) points to the use of earlier texts. “Solche gedankliche Anknüpfung ... war damals nicht völlig neu ... ohne die ganzen entsprechenden Urteile der klassischen Prophetie nicht denkbar; aber diese Urteile waren stets nur konkret, situationsgebunden, und bei DtrG werden sie nur summiert und implizit in der Tendenz seiner Darstellung spürbar; erst DtrP vereinzelt und expliziert sie weiter - freilich auf seine Weise” (Dietrich, 1972, 62, 109). “...he did not bother to adapt them to his needs” (Rofé, 1988b, 102). “Ebenfalls recht häufig, nämlich bei den meisten Erfüllungsvermerken ... fügte RedP den in älteren Texten berichteten Geschichtsereignissen neue hinzu, um sie so auf die Prophetenworte, die seiner Meinung nach durch sie erfüllt wurden, zuzuschneiden” (Dietrich, 1972, 63). Yet here again the modifications respected the authority of the original texts. “Rewritten scriptural compositions do not seem to have been composed to replace the authoritative sources which they rework” (Brooke, 2002, 33). 1016 7.3.5.2. Once again Dtr is prophetic in its own way. It had its own theodicy (Seeligmann, 1978, 268) in which it placed deeper theological accents and developed particular themes such as suffering (Thiel, 1991, 152). 1017 Again we see how historical reality regularly rose to the surface in DtrH (Rofé, 1988b, 103). This is the case for the series of prophetic appearances in Israel and Judah and in the comparison of Josiah’s centralisation of the cult to Jeroboam’s practices (Dietrich, 2000, 57-58, 62). The image of prophecy that this produces certainly reflects Dtr’s twist, specifically in terms of the prophets selected (Carroll, 1981, 26) and the presentation of their appearances as more successful than they were (Carroll, 1979, 74). That is why this representation of the prophet does not permit a reconstruction of original prophecy, and certainly not the prophet’s ipsissima verba. Nevertheless, these are so intertwined with the whole historical background – Dtr is still near historical events – that they cannot be written off as totally a-historical. They do provide historical elements, including prophetic experience, on the conditions that all data are weighed carefully. The historical view of prophecy extended beyond the prophets (Thiel, 1991, 150-159, 162, 167) to ancient ecstatic prophecy. — As in Dt., Dtr gave in DtrH many stimuli for canonising the institution of prophecy. The generalising and schematising presentation is a prominent element. Yet we may not isolate this formal aspect (2.2.A.; ‘the outside fore’: McKenzie, 1999, 267; ‘Oberflächenstrukturen’: Barthel, 1997, 29) from the intentional aspect (2.2.B.) as it would risk a mechanical treatment of these formal criteria. Nor may we isolate them from canonising via Dtr’s theological options (Dietrich, 2000, 54) in which their view of

436

This will result in the canonisation of the Later Prophets in the prophetic codex alongside the previously canonised Former Prophets.

7.3.5.4 The Deuteronomistic Current vs. the Prophetic Writings 7.3.5.4.1 The Issue It is impossible to limit the study of how the Dtr and classical prophetic currents influenced one another before and around the start of the exile to Dt. and DtrH. The confrontation between the two also occurred elsewhere including in the writings ascribed to the classical prophets1018. There, esp. in Jer., there are general traces of Dtr editing. These are experienced differently from those in DtrH1019. Within the domain of the prophetic writings, this Dtr presence is described as differentiated in terms of intensity and presence1020. We will have to examine first how recent literature treats the relationship between the Dtr and prophetic currents as found in the prophetic writings. The following survey seeks to discern the major lines in the examination of this issue and to make clear how they can be situated1021 in the perspective of the history of the canon, which is the present study’s constant and primary objective.

YHWH’S relation to Israel and their emphasis on the role of the community (2.2.C., 5.1.3.C.) hold a special place. 1018 The classical prophets and their writings have been discussed repeatedly, esp. in 6.4.3 and 7.3.3-7.3.4.3. There the focus was on the prophetic traditions to the extent that they related to the original prophets and thus manifested their input and charisma. When and how they were transferred to the extant texts was not treated there. That aspect will be the focus here. Some overlap is unavoidable. The prophets’ input and transmission to later times are closely interwoven so that some even think that they cannot or can scarcely be separated (according to: Berkeland en Nyberg: Thiel, 1973, 14-16). 1019 7.3.5.3; Collins, 1993, 25-26; Kügel, 1999, 144; Labahn, 1999, 80-81. 1020 Schaering-McKenzie, 1999; Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 205. “Durchlaufende Linien lassen sich dabei kaum beobachten. Im Gegenteil, es hat den Anschein, als ob hier wie auch auf den anderen Gebieten des Alten Testaments die Forschung stärker als je zuvor auseinanderstrebt” (Thiel, 1981, 116). 1021 “Forschungstendenzen weisen im Idealfall dem Forscher einen Weg: Sie zeigen ihm, in welchen Richtung er weiter suchen soll. Manchmal aber stellen sich desorientierende Trendschwankungen ein ... Dann gibt es, Voraussetzungen und Hintergründe der Trendbildung und Trendschwankung mitzubedenken, um die Orientierung zu behalten. In diesem Sinne soll versucht werden, gewissermaßen die Topographie zu rekonstruieren, in der sich Laufrouten der Forschung hin- und herbewegen” (Stolz, 1994, 33).

437

7.3.5.4.2 The Relation between Written Prophecy Deuteronomistic Redaction in Current Literature1022

and

First we must recall how important it is for a historical study of the canon’s genesis to draw on a broad range of detailed studies on Dtr and on its editing of the prophetic writings. Even though these studies were often not written with the canon in mind, they still provide much useful and even indispensable information for the canon process. In that regard they are helpful and their work need not be repeated. It is sufficient to compare their findings and weigh them from a canonical perspective. Once again the objective of the following survey is to stress those places where the literature reveals the confrontation between the prophetic undercurrent and the generally accepted Dtr redactional input in the prophetic writings. After presenting this survey we will attempt to integrate the findings in the process of the canon’s genesis as it has become manifest in this study. Here too we will apply the same method used above when studying the prophets, i.e. we investigated first the classical prophets’ position with respect to other pre-Dtr traditions then their influence on Dt. and Dtr. The detailed studies raised few difficulties when it came to placing them in the whole genesis of the canon. Since they seldom discussed the canon directly, it was sufficient to bring to the fore this aspect that usually remained outside their focus of interest. Yet on occasion, some creativity was needed to situate these publications in the desired canonical perspective. Now that we are about to study the confrontation between the original prophetic traditions and their possibly Dtr redactions as ascertained from extant prophetic books, the canonical situation is considerably more delicate. Redaction critical studies now consulted because they treat the confrontation between prophecy and the Dtr and other redactions tend to comment more on the canonical aspect of the material studied. The reason is obvious. Redaction criticism works with the traditions’ written stage. This draws us automatically toward its final shape which has historically and unanimously been called canonical1023. This explains the spontaneous canonical reflex that arises among authors 1022

Providing a survey of the literature on Isaiah alone is a problem (Barthel, 1997, 11). That is why we draw on Sweeney, 1988; Herrmann S., 1990; Römer, 1996; Coggins, 1999, Wilson R.R., 1999. For the literature on Jeremiah we draw on Holladay W.L., 2004. 1023 “...one could speak of a ‘core canon’ emerging in this period under deuteronomistic auspices” (Collins, 1993, 232).

438

of redaction critical texts. Even when they do not specifically allude to this, the canonical problem is always, if implicitly, present in their work1024. Canonical hermeneutics will thus surface regularly in the following survey of the main lines in the literature. This will require greater attention than in the previous study. Obviously, these will require commentary and, occasionally, correction when situating the data provided in the detailed studies in their proper place in the overall picture of the historical canon process.

7.3.5.4.3 The Prophets and Deuteronomistic Redactors Called in Question The overwhelming attention that Dtr is generally given in the literature is not limited to Dt. and DtrH. It extends to many other biblical books1025, although the prophets are most suitable for studying putative Dtr editing. It is notable that in addition to scepticism about the feasibility of discovering the prophets’ ipsissima verba1026 the literature now displays more doubt 1024

“Questions of intertextuality as well of canon formation all begin to intrude heavily into the study of prophetic writings ... It spills over into a larger quest concerning an understanding of what took place between the prophet’s own spoken messages and the written preservation of the words” (Clements, 1996, 10). 1025 The spread of Dtr research to other books has led to pan-deuteronomism. 1026 Consistent with the reservations regarding the prophets, the reconstruction of their ipsissima verba is considered more dubious than ever in that a series of authors believe they can find no tangible indications of the historical prophets’ existence and input. “Genau genommen hat sich in den alttestamentlichen Prophetenbüchern kein einziges originales, mündliches Prophetenwort erhalten” (Kratz, 1997, 17). “We have no direct access to those original vocal utterances. The spoken word leaves no trace ... Whatever the historical Amos for example once was or might have been is insignificant” (Collins, 1993, 26, 126). Carroll is probably the most radical. “Thus, using a willing suspension in ‘the historical Jeremiah’, he (Carroll, L.Z.) ... cannot see sound or secure reasons for arguing from the text directly to the real figure behind that text” (Carroll, 1991, 229). These authors consider their conviction confirmed by others’ failure to provide sufficient evidence of original prophetic input in the present text. “McKane does not offer any account of the circumstances under which the original deposit of the words of Jeremiah was developed” (Carroll, 1991, 232). Moreover, they also point out that no evidence for the historical prophets can be found outside the biblical text. “...Jeremiah does not exist outside the pages of the book and he cannot be submitted to dissection by historical crisis” (Collins, 1993, 174). “It must be kept firmly in mind that actually we know nothing about the formation of Jeremiah from outside the book itself. We therefore have neither factual nor corroborative evidence which could be used to sustain or to criticize whatever account we may produce or favour of the book’s formation” (Carroll, 1991, 223-224). This is a consistent application of R. Barthes’ death of

439

than formerly on the ability to identify Dtr editing such as was traditionally identified in Dt. and DtrH. It is now considered more varied in intensity and bearing as well of a later date and more creative1027. The stringency of the author notion (Dohmen, 2004, 187). These authors conclude from this alleged observation that they can ignore further study of the prophets’ existence and input. “Auf der anderen Seite verzichtet etwa ein kritischer Exeget wie R.P. Carroll programmatisch auf jede Rekonstruktion der mündlichen Verkündigung” (Jeremias, 1999, 25 n. 8). As we will see this systematic refraining from investigating the prophets’ existence and legacy has major consequences. Yet despite this practical rejection of any further attempt at examination, these authors claim that they to not reject the real, historical prophets. “While not explicitly denying the existence of a real, historical Jeremiah ...” (Carroll, 1991, 229). At the same time, they adhere firmly to the real transfer of prophetic preaching to the written tradition deposited in the prophetic books. “Extra verbum prophetae nulla salus ...” (Jeremias, 1996a, 14). Whether these authors can reconcile these statements despite their evinced reserves regarding the historical prophets and the feasibility of recuperating their original words in the extant texts (an ‘impassable tradition gap’: Barstad, 1993, 43), will have to be established by examining their studies. 1027 Porter (1989) draws attention to the chance of other redactions of the prophetic books before, beside and probably used by Dtr. He notes that Dtr no longer refers to the notion of the ‘prophet like Moses’. Lalleman-de Winkel (2000) thinks the same. Because Dtr does not seem to be the only redaction in the prophetic books, it is placed here in the broader framework of the various redactional adaptations that the prophetic books underwent. — After having abandoned any study of the original input from the prophets based on the extant texts, there remains for these authors only the study of the prophetic tradition from the time it was committed to writing. This automatically leads to an emphasis on the tradition’s later stages, and thus succumbs to the general trend in OT studies toward late dating (Provan, 1995, 586). “If ... we accept that the pre-book phase was characterized by ... anonymity and fluidity, then we inevitably shift the focus of attention from the prophets in their time to the composition of the book in later times” (Collins, 1993, 126). — Shifting the prophetic traditions to later times in the form that it has adopted in the extant text offers an opportunity to ascribe a more creative role to the Dtr redaction (Wilson, 1999, 75), at least insofar as it is still accepted. The redactor does more than just passively and faithfully record like a tape (Jeremias, 1997, 20-21) what the prophetic figure preached. “The redaction’s hermeneutical perspective is dominant ... the redaction makes the final decisions” (Sweeney, 1988, 6-7). This automatically eliminates the role of the prophet’s disciple. The prophet’s role becomes purely editorial. “The figure of Jeremiah may only be an editorial link between different elements in the tradition” (Carroll, 1986, 58). This is a symptom of modern ahistoricism (Barstad, 1993, 46). — Under such circumstances, some who wish to focus on the value of creative redactional input see an opportunity to promote the Dtr redactors to creators of the prophetic tradition and even to prophets (Carroll, 1988; Lemche, 1992). In this spirit, Kratz and others viewed the preaching of doom as a creation of the later redactional activity that was retrospectively ascribed to the prophets (Kratz, 1987, 20; Barthel, 1997, 8-9). Now, however we see the whole prophetic tradition being ascribed to nameless designers instead to the prophets who are its nominal authors. “...he (Carroll, L.Z.) attempts to read the text as if that character were the product of the tradition itself rather than the creator of the book” (Carroll, 1991, 229). Beside Dtr, other possibly

440

non-Dtr redactional interventions or additions may be assigned the same creative role. Thiel and others appear to be unstinting in their detection of Dtr additions in Jer. (McKane, 1981, 228). “Noch stärker als bei Nicholson tritt bei ihm (Carroll, L.Z.) persönliche Autorschaft in den Hintergrund, und die redaktionelle Arbeit wird fast zum selbständigen Träger der Botschaft” (Herrmann S., 1990, 106). Others, like Collins and Schart acknowledge some, albeit limited, input from the prophets in the extant text. But even in their writings the primary emphasis proved to be on redactional creativity. “Das Interesse richtet sich im Gegenteil heute eher auf die sekundären Zusätze und späteren Textschichten” (Kratz, 1997, 14). “Eine Rekonstruktion der mündlichen Verkündigung der Propheten, unter deren Namen die Schriften überliefert sind ist nicht intendiert. Im Gegenteil, die vorliegende Studie legt das Hauptgewicht auf die sekundären Passagen und würdigt deren Rolle für die Weitergabe und das Neuverständnis der prophetischen Botschaft” (Schart, 1998, 22-24). “Redaction criticism tries to deal with the authentic and the inauthentic together, without blurring uncritically the difference between them ... Communities may produce traditions but books are produced by individuals working out of the tradition” (Collins, 1993, 15, 28). — The more that the redactors of prior traditions are attributed with a creative role the freer some authors think they may work with it. The redactors’ freedom can be suggested indirectly by presupposing direct composition as a single unit without raising the question of the original material or provenance (Smelik, 1991a, 10). “The writers of the prophetical books were entirely free to select, arrange and adopt the traditional material” (Collins, 1993, 29). The assertion that the redactors were totally free in the way they treated their original data is at odds with the findings of other authors who did not consider the redactors ‘freelance writers’ (Clements, 1995, 447). Schart thought that in the Book of the Twelve Prophets “...die Redaktoren in den Textbestand der Einzellogien oft nicht oder nur sehr subtil eingegriffen hatten” (Schart, 1998, 22). This applies all the more to pre-existing, smaller collections that preceded the prophetic corpus (Schart, 1998, 307-308). Thiel takes a firm position on the Dtr redaction of Jer. “Für die Achtung, die der letzte Prophet des vorexilischen Juda bei den exilischen Deuteronomisten genoß, zeigt die große Kenntnis die D von seinen Überlieferungen hatte ... daß die Redaktion die prophetischen Traditionen ... mit großer Treue und mit möglichster Vollständigkeit aufbewahrt und fixiert hat” (Thiel, 103-104). The same correction must be made when it is a matter of registering additions. “Auch im Blick auf die späteren Erweiterungen ist zu beachten, daß der Eindruck innerer Uneinheitlichkeit, den diese Texte häufig erwecken, nicht zugleich im Sinne der herkömmlichen Literarkritik interpretiert werden muß. Er kann seinen Grund auch darin haben, daß die Redaktoren ganz bewußt mit vorgegebenem Material gearbeitet haben, in ihrer Gestaltungsfreiheit also von vornherhein sehr viel stärker eingeschränkt waren als ein frei über sein Material verfügender Autor” (Barthel, 1997, 28). Finally, these last findings agree more with what was customary in the Middle East and what was ascertained elsewhere in this study when first discussing the BoC (7.2.1), the prophetic writings (7.3.4) and in particular DtrH (7.3.5.3.6-7.3.5.3.7). On those occasions it was also established that the tradents not only preserved older material as archaeological remains but let it play its own role in a living tradition. This is noteworthy particularly regarding preaching of doom preserved and thus in force even in times of when hope and deliverance were proclaimed. In this sense the creative role that these authors ascribe to redactors far exceeds the traditional, supplementary role formerly ascribed to the Dtr redactors.

441

recognised minimalist authors1028 is also striking. But they are not always consistent. On one side, invoking a lack of consensus, they subject the prophets’ and Dtr redactions’ input to hypercritical analysis, reducing them to factors of late date or little meaning even though they are clearly present in the texts1029. On the other, the same authors open the door to a variety of 1028

Minimalists, including Carroll, openly invoke the docta ignorantia (Carroll, 1991, 232) because of unreliable biblical historiography (3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.4). It only leads them to dogmatic scepticism. According to this principle, fiction cannot be distinguished from reality in biblical writings. “The extent to which real and imagery can be separated in the Bible is beyond our knowledge because we lack the precise data which would establish such modern distinction” (Carroll, 1986, 45). “I hope to avoid the ever present danger of reconstructing hypothetical earlier stages which may never have existed” (Chapman, 2000, 112). 1029 The search for greater certainty is justified after the survey of what has had to be corrected in biblical historiography (3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.4). But it shows that revisionist historians are inconsistent. They impose demands on research on the period before the exile that they do not impose on research on the more recent period to which they automatically and incorrectly attribute greater credit. “Central to this is the emphatic, but unequal insistence of revisionist historiography on proof” (Barr, 2000, 101). This is to apply a double standard when it comes to verification. — Carroll (1991, 224-226) correctly criticises the unreliability of the traditional prophetic biographies such as are found in Holliday (Holladay, 1985; idem, 1986). “All these descriptions and evaluations are fruit of reading the book of Jeremiah as a combination of autobiography and historical narrative sanctioned by more than two millennia of such a reading” (Carroll, 1986, 56). The biographical information on the prophets should preferably be handled in accordance with each prophet’s own character (Blenkinsopp, 2000). It can only be evaluated historically when there is external corroboration. This seems to be the case for Jeremiah and the Chronicles of Babylon (Herrmann S., 1990, 18-27). However, the search for greater certainty may not exceed the capabilities of biblical research by expecting too much when it comes to verifiability. Absolute certainty is never achieved. It should be recognised that the study of the historical prophets is indecisive. Nevertheless, it is not meaningless (Laato, 1996, 6). — The Dtr presence in certain prophetic books, esp. Jeremiah and more recently Isaiah (Wilson R.R., 1999, 75; Labahn, 1999) is generally recognised (Wilson R.R., 1999; McKenzie, 1999; Ben Zvi, 1998; Crenshaw, 1999; Kugler, 1999; Stipp, 1995 is an exception) even by Carroll. “...heavily influenced by deuteronomistic ideology” (Sweeney, 1988, 186). “There can be little doubt that the book of Jeremiah shares certain linguistic features in common with the deuteronomistic corpus ... The extent of that influence is much debated among scholars, but the fact of it seems difficult to deny” (Carroll, 1986, 41, 66). Carroll considered this Dtr redaction more limited than Thiel did, and also saw it followed by a series of later additions that he thought only distantly influenced by Dtr (Carroll, 1986, 42, 48). “One of the golden rules that emerges in the process is that a redactional study of the prophetical books cannot be carried on without constant reference to the literary procedures of the Deuteronomistic historians” (Collins, 1993, 8). — As noted, it is surprising to see that despite the reservations regarding traces left by the prophets in the extant text and their subordination to the redactional stages, no minimalist authors openly

442

possible Dtr redaction that they seem easily able to situate historically in the complex genesis of this biblical literature1030. This dissimilar stated that they reject prophetic input from the historical prophets. However, in practice they seemed seldom to take it into account. They tended to focus the literary growth. “The historical ‘placing’ of the prophets does have its value ... When it comes to dealing with the literary phenomena of the prophetical books ... they ... tend to overlook the nature of the books as literature, treating them primarily as sources of information and thereby missing the whole point” (Collins, 1993, 14). Notably the Dtr redaction in the stage of the prophetic writings is threatened because of its contestation of the D style elsewhere. The notion of a Dtr movement in the strict sense was gradually being abandoned (Lohfink, 1995c, Labahn, 1999, 81-82; Ben Zvi, 1996, 134-135; idem, 1999, 258-261). A Dtr current – based primarily on a common idiom, working over a long period, occasionally growing into a movement and training scribes (Veijola, 2000, 192-240) – did seem to be accepted (Wilson R.R., 1999, 81-82). However, the broader the understanding of the D style (‘a climate of thought’, ‘a kind of language’: Coggins, 1999, 32) the more diluted it became as criterion; the result is pan-deuteronomism (Wilson R.R., 1999; Person, 2002, 13-16). “When all of this research is taken together, the picture begins to blur considerably ... In short, if the pandeuteronomists are correct in their arguments, then they are suggesting something more pervasive and complex” (Wilson R.R., 1999, 81-82). But this is no reason to disregard the ascertained shared literary, Dtr involvement in the prophetic texts. “Aber sie haben dabei das deuteronomistische Problem zugedeckt, wie man einen Mantel auf’s Feuer wirft, um es zu löschen. Darunter aber schwelt es unaufhörbar weiter” (Herrmann S., 1990, 127-128). Thiel is still highly regarded for his studies on the Dtr redaction of Jeremiah. McKane’s (1981) is not completely out of place. — Carroll, 1986, 49; Schart, 1998, 8-30; Clements, 1996, 1-19; Barthel, 1997, 2-24 argue for a late date. Werner’s proposal of a pre-exilic Dtr redaction is an exception (Barthel, 1997, 11 n. 32). For Carroll and others “das ipsissimum verbum ist nicht die conditio sine qua non” (Herrmann S., 1990, 173). It is “...a poor witness to the life and the times of the prophetic Jeremiah” (Carroll, 1991, 228). It is difficult to combine this perspective with continued recognition of the historical prophets as these authors present it. “Die Frage nach dem historischen Jeremia ... darf nicht zur ‘quantité négligeable’ werden” (Herrmann S., 1990, 176). The same situation arises for the Dtr redaction. Although many authors interpreted a real Dtr redaction loosely (Wilson R.R., 1999; McKenzie, 1999; Ben Zvi, 1998; Crenshaw, 1999), they still did not tend to abandon this rather traditionally accepted aspect of prophetic literature. 1030 The numerous successive redaction or revisions meticulously distinguished in Jeremiah (contrary to the ‘hundred hands’ model [Bosshard-Nepustil, 1997, 13] and McKane’s ‘rolling corpus’) can be found in Carroll (1986, 41-42, 78; idem, 1991, 227) and Hermisson (1998). Vermeylen saw no fewer than seven redactions in Isaiah (Vermeylen, 1977). Sweeney (1988, 186-196) saw a series of redactions in Is. 1-4 alone. Loretz goes furthest in this fragmentation. “So erkennt Loretz innerhalb von Is. 1,1-2,5 einige Dutzend verschiedenen Zusätze, postuliert eine Reihe von Textausfällen und -änderungen und rechnet überdies damit daß Bruchstücke aus der in nachexilischer Zeit ‘umlaufenden’ Literatur in den Redaktionsprozeß eingegangen sind. Die literarkritische Zersplitterung des vorliegenden Textes erreicht hier ein kaum noch zu überbietendes Niveau” (Barthel, 1997, 12). — This fragmentation in many redactional measures is due to the application of reader response criticism in which “eine prinzipiell unabschließbare Pluralität von Sinnentwürfen”

443

application of research criteria in several redaction critical studies gives the impression that in giving little room for the original prophetic input while admitting broad redactional editing, these authors are prompted more by their hermeneutical convictions than by the texts. It leaves the impression that they are intentionally reversing the scale of values1031. The shift of the prophetic tradition to a later date is only an extreme example of this. It is essentially a reversal of the assessment of the transmitted prophetic tradition, which tends to overestimate the commitment to writing and equate it with its genesis as literature. This appears to be the connecting factor with canonical criticism that usually puts the primary focus on the canonical shape of the last stages of the canon’s genesis1032. is applied and the feasibility of “Rekonstruktion … verschiedener Redaktionsschichten” is overestimated (Barthel, 1997, 20, 24). — In other ways, too, these authors occasionally show how much more leniently they apply norms to their own territory in comparison to the shunned terrain of the prophets’ ipsissima verba (‘arbitrary’, selective’: Barstad, 1993, 44). They easily go so far as to place the prophetic narrative material in DtrH on the same level as the more sporadic material in the prophetic books (according to: Collins, 1993, 125-153; Ben Zvi, 1998). 1031 Any similarity to this shows the privileged way in which the revisionist historians subordinate the OT as historical source to other external sources. These too must be evaluated to determine their value as primary or secondary (Hartenstein, 2003, 5). — It appears that scholars’ general hermeneutical conviction always plays a major role in their research, but this is too seldom made sufficiently explicit, to its own disadvantage. Yet it can sporadically occur that a general hermeneutical conviction is disclosed. “The hermeneutical values behind the commentary determine to some extent Carroll’s reading of the text but most of those values have themselves been determined by reading Jeremiah in the first place. Hence the hermeneutical circle informs the commentary in a fundamental way” (Carroll, 1991, 229). “Seine (Childs, L.Z.) grundlegenden methodologischen und hermeneutischen Vorstöße gehören heute zum Konsens” (Schart, 1998, 24). “Die ältere ... Literarkritik wird sozusagen auf den Köpf oder ... von Köpf auf die Füße gestellt” (Barthel, 1997, 15). “Auch wenn die Suche nach einem Jes. Grundbestand unter dieser Voraussetzung (‘Annahme einer dtr. inspirierten Redaktion mit einer sehr viel tieferen Reduktion des Jes. Grundbestandes’, L.Z.) nicht obsolet wird ... haben sich die Vorzeichen gänzlich umgekehrt: Unter Begründungszwang steht nicht mehr die Spätdatierung. Sondern gerade umgekehrt der Versuch, bestimmte Einzelworte auf den Propheten zurückzuführen” (Barthel, 1997, 10). Placing the burden of proof solely on the authentic prophetic legacy ultimately leads to its absolute and total repudiation. That is why L. Schmidt demands that the reverse be done and that the inauthenticity be proven because it has been established that the prophetic tradition is usually based on the prophets’ preaching. Barring exceptions, proving the authenticity is not possible, but the contrary can be when needed (Werlitz, 1999, 96-97). 1032 We already warned against the danger of scriptocentrism. The overview of the literature shows that many redaction-historical scholars are unable to refrain from

444 succumbing to this scriptocentrism. They do this by exaggerating the value of the commitment to writing (Davies P.R., 2002, is the exception: “writing down folk tales, legends, or myths does not help preserve them”). This was noted during the initial study of the prophetic writings, which focussed on the appearance of the prophets (7.3.1-7.3.4). There, only the first steps of this exaggeration could only be recognised. These can now be examined further with the findings in the literature to understand the reasons, explained or otherwise, that the authors could invoke to justify the putative added value of committing the prophetic tradition to writing. These usually involve the practical use of commitment to writing for transmitting the prophetic traditions. “Im Unterschied dazu galt es in der vorexilischen Epoche als selbstverständlich, daß eine räumliche Kluft dadurch überbrückt wurde, daß der eine Partner, der Prophet, sich auf den Weg zu dem anderen, dem König, machte und seine Botschaft mündlich vortrug” (Talmon, 1987, 67). This recourse to writing, conceivably at the prophets’ instigation, permitted the prophetic tradition and possibly information on the prophets to be preserved and passed down to us. “...allein in ihr konnte es bewahrt werden, ohne seinen Sinn zu verlieren” (Willi-Plein, 1999, 38). “Der entscheidende Grund liegt darin, daß im wesentlichen nur das Wort der Unheilspropheten eine eigene schriftliche Tradition begründet hat, die ihren Anfang im Überlieferungswillen der Propheten selbst und in ihren Jüngerkreise fand” (Jeremias, 1970, 199). This created the singular mechanism of the living prophetic tradition, which is known only in Israel (Kratz, 1997, 17). — But matters do not stop with the correct appreciation of writing as instrument for transferring prophetic preaching. The overstatement just got in its stride where it presented commitment of the prophetic tradition to writing as a factor working against preservation of the prophets’ original preaching because of tendency to dehistoricise and reduce to essentials. “It also tends to homogenize discrete levels of tradition within a collection by harmonizing contrary and contradictory elements” (Carroll, 1986, 35). “Most of it was composed for purposes unrelated to the use to which it was eventually put” (Collins, 1993, 24). “Ja es scheint gerade so zu sein, daß die Spuren der ursprünglichen Intention und Rezeption der Prophetenworte im Verlauf der Tradierung und Redaktion bewußt verwischt werden, damit diese ihr Sinnpotential auch für zukünftige Leser und neue Situationen entfalten können” (Barthel, 1997, 16). Partly because of the unavoidable need to select from the prophets’ original statements when committing them to writing, these authors drew attention to the way this diminished the prophetic tradition. It also drew attention to the way the redactors’ role began to take shape just as commitment to writing started, something they considered a gain. “Der Übergang vom Wort zur Schrift ... gibt ihm einen zeitübergreifenden Sinn” (Kratz, 1997, 22). When taken to extremes, this emphasis on redactors’ creativity can lead to the view that the redactors created the prophets (Overholt, 1995, 357-359, 365-374). “As prophecies continued to be read in the light of contemporary events so all kinds of devices came to be employed to give them a more contemporary relevance. Included among such devices was a growing need to concentrate upon the more timeless aspects of religious life and spiritual duties” (Clements, 1996, 211). These strengths were translated into added theological appreciation for the prophetic tradition as long as it was still in the oral stage. “Die Unterscheidung von mündlicher und schriftlicher Prophetie betrifft nicht nur die Überlieferungsgestalt, sondern auch den Gehalt” (Kratz, 1997, 18-19). “The transition from pre-book phase to prophetical book was a significant step involving major changes not only in the material, but also in the function it was asked to perform” (Collins, 1993, 28). This creates a sense of discontinuity (Dohmen, 2004, 179) so that text and reader are severed from the original speaker. The

445

7.3.5.4.4 Dimensions of Redactional Work1033 on the Prophetic Books Most authors1034 tried to do justice in a balanced way to the original input from the prophets and to the praiseworthy, creative work of the redactors editing the prophetic texts, each according to their own character1035. However, as perception of the prophets’ own input receded because of the result is the extreme position that commitment to writing was the only (Dohmen, 2004, 178) way to preserve biblical tradition. This leans toward scriptocentrism. The danger of “magischen Verständnis des geschriebenen Wortes” (Hardmeier, 1983, 11) arose and this from theological zeal on behalf of the Word. “Der Text wird wieder beim Wort genommen” (Kratz, 1997, 10). Refraining from studying the historical prophets was thought to be a means to safeguard the added theological value. Yet this has the disadvantage of ignoring the situation that was most suitable for understanding the original message, i.e. the time it was spoken. It also removes any opportunity to apprehend the code (‘gemeinsamen Code’: Schart, 1998, 21) that the prophets used in their performance. This issue will have to be investigated further, mainly during the following canonical evaluation (7.3.5.4.6). — The stress will be put on the place in literature rather than its place in life (Sweeney, 1996, 12). “The literature created the identity Israel” (Davies P.R., 1992, 154). “Denn sie (sekundäre Zusätze und spätere Textschichten, L.Z.) und nicht das gemeine Prophetenwort prägen die literarische Gestalt der überlieferten Bücher” (Kratz, 1997, 15). It is conspicuous how Carroll and others invoke the limited potential for using writing in Israel to justify a late date for the book of Jeremiah (Carroll, 1993, 28). In this and many other ways, the more original data in the lower layers of the text can be used or abused to devaluate them to a less favourable position. This is what Chapman does when he lets the prophecy in front of the text weigh more than the prophetic traditions and activities at the basis behind the text (Chapman, 2001, 188-190). Conrad (2003) even reduces the prophetic writings to a document of a purely historical nature, divesting it of its theological meaning. — As always, scholars’ general hermeneutics influence their detailed studies (Barthel, 1997, 23). Only sporadically are they open about this, according to Schart (1988, 22-24), Childs’ follower. Not everyone who agrees with Childs’ hypothesis as applied to prophecy (Childs, 1995, 13, 19) concurs with his strict application of his canonical shape (according to Kratz, 1997, 11) or applies this view with great subtlety (Barthel, 1997, 15 n. 47, 21 n. 66). 1033 Redactional activity is understood broadly here. It refers to all changes with written repercussions to the prophetic tradition after its oral stage. This runs from the first commitment to writing to the attainment of the final text, including the collators’ own material. 1034 Carroll realised that he adopted an atypical standpoint. He saw himself “as a writer on Jeremiah who might be described as being at the opposite end of the spectrum to Holladay” (Carroll, 1991, 224). He admits that his commentary on Jeremiah “often reads the text in a singularly different way from the standard commentaries and implicitly questions many of the assumptions and conclusions of ‘normative’ scholarship” (Carroll, 1991, 230). 1035 Ackroyd, 1978; Barthel, 1997; Sweeney, 1988; idem, 1996.

446

inability to reconstruct their ipsissima verba, many authors succumbed to the attraction of redactional research and drifted with the redaction-critical current that dominated the literature in recent decades. But it, too, had its difficulties and encountered many hindrances on its own terrain. Notably, despite the latitude that the text offers, it was unable to reconstruct its complex development or explain the origin of its heterogeneous composition. As literary-critical study advanced, the materials in the prophetic writings offered such a differentiated scene that the conviction grew that after these writings underwent a complicated genesis the result had no clear single vision1036. This disenchantment could not possibly satisfy scholars; It spurred them to turn away from the growing chaos to which literary-critical study of the original text led and to search for a broader perspective on the whole of the prophetic writings and if possible of the entire prophetic corpus. This investigation into the lines along which the prophetic writings were composed1037 has proven more fruitful when compared with classical 1036

Van der Woude expressed his scepticism regarding the reconstruction of the original materials (Porter, 1989, 70) similar to how the minimalists expressed theirs regarding the ipsissima verba. — The literary-historical techniques used have undeniably become more meticulous and specialised. More than previously, they lead to a diversification and distinction among the texts to be studied, here and elsewhere in biblical study. Literary historical criticism had focussed on this distinction from its early days, and the distinctions only increase (Werlitz, 1997, 94-96). The meaning of tendency criticism and statistical linguistics (McKane, 1981, 221-222) was questioned (Barthel, 1997, 11) and their encouragement of fragmentation raised. “We are dealing with a complex process” (Collins, 1993, 16). Yet this author ventured a clear-cut scheme with three stages in which he inserted the course of the entire tradition (Collins, 1993, 24-25). Once again, it is astonishing how the problem of the genesis as literature is so underestimated when compared with that of the oral tradition. — Duhm had already noted the jumbled impression (Römer, 1999, 190). “To the modern reader the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel are virtually incomprehensible as books ... often the material lacks apparent order or arrangement” (Carroll, 1986, 38). “That there is more of accident, arbitrariness and fortuitous twists and turns in the growth of the book than has been generally allowed; that the processes are dark and in a measure irrecoverable, and that we should not readily assume them to possess such rationality that will yield to a systematic elucidation” (McKane, 1981, 226). This author thinks that there can be no question of a concept of a corpus (McKane, 1981, ibid.). 1037 “Closer examination, however, shows that this was not often, or even normally, the case and that intricate structures were planned and imposed upon the small units of material ... The only effective response to such a puzzle is to search out diligently how the prophetic literature was actually compiled and what aims and intentions have contributed to give it its final form” (Clements, 1996, 12, 204). — As elsewhere, the lines of composition receive attention in research into the redactional input in the prophetic writings. But this is

447

literary criticism. However, the results differ from book to book and can only be summarised briefly here for, in sequence, Jeremiah, Isaiah and the Minor Prophets also called the Book of the Twelve Prophets. The search for a unifying structure in the book of Jeremiah brought McKane to his notion of rolling corpus. This refers to a continuous but unsystematic addition of tradition to an originally small core retraceable to the prophets until the present form was reached1038. Carroll, by contrast took recourse in the many varying needs of the exilic community to explain why there is so much evidence of the different uses in the present book of Jeremiah1039. The efforts to reach greater insight in the whole of the book of Jeremiah via more stringent literary study were not useless, but could not uncover enough shared structural elements1040. Too much of Jeremiah’s original preaching faded from view in the study. Yet it is indispensable because it is clearly present. Weippert gave too much credit to Jeremiah’s original input because she was dissatisfied with this situation. Despite her refined, methodical approach, she too failed to reach impossible without confronting the enigmatic relationship to diachronic study, even within the domain of literary study of the text. Werlitz gave uncommonly much attention to this in his study on Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah. Ultimately he concluded that diachronic and synchronic avenues could work well together in prophetic texts even though it may prove necessary to give precedence temporarily to one or the other at the start. “Ein Gegensatz von Diachronie und Synchronie ergibt sich nur darin, wenn man unter synchroner Exegese Auslegung der Endgestalt ohne Berücksichtigung der Vorgeschichte eines Textes, unter diachroner Exegese aber vor allem literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse versteht. Da es sich bei den Begriffen synchron und diachron um Relationsbegriffe handelt, ist letztlich für ihre inhaltliche Füllung das jeweilige Bezugswort entscheidend” (Werlitz, 1999, 13). 1038 Carroll, 1991, 226-232; Overholt, 1995, 358. Carroll correctly reproved McKane for too readily abandoning his option to remain faithful to the historical Jeremiah (McKane, 1981, 237) in exchange for a study of the later stages of tradition. McKane apparently could not accept the Dtr redaction as it is widely presented and esp. as Thiel defends it. 1039 Carroll, 1991, 229-233. 1040 The data that they provide on the changing circumstances and needs within the faith community, which clearly encourage new applications of the prophetic legacy, are accepted and draw attention to the community (Carroll does useful work in this field). “...there is no very clear structure at all to the grouping of prophecies in Jeremiah 1-25” (Clements, 1993, 94). This author found the desired unified vision thanks to the Dtr introduction and ending in Jer. 1-25 (Clements, 1993, 95-96). “The unified vision only becomes apparent when we step back and take a broader, more impressionistic view. A prophetical book can have a disjointed, almost random, appearance, and yet it still makes a single impact because of its inner coherence” (Collins, 1993, 29-30). Along this avenue, Clements and Carroll found four thematically circumscribed blocks in Jeremiah despite its chaotic appearance (Clements, 1993, 93-108; Carroll, 1986, 36).

448

a result that contributed satisfactorily to an acceptable explanation of Jeremiah as comprehensive whole. Apparently a more balanced approach to all elements in the text is needed; this requires a polyvalent and flexible methodology1041. The literature on Isaiah reached greater and better results when it came to presenting the major lines of this long text’s composition. Since the time of Von Rad and Fohrer, much progress has been made in pinpointing the redactional process in Isaiah that shaped the material into a single whole1042. Yet even this more successful avenue of research has limitations when it comes to the successive redactional stages that produced the final form. It is the individual texts (Einzeltexte) containing the prophet’s ipsissima verba that have suffered under the restrictions on research1043. They hold a proportionately inferior place amid the capacious 1041

Jeremiah’s use of the artificial prose that H. Weippert considers the idiom of the time was not applauded (McKane, 1981, 224; Carroll, 1986, 42-43). “Kompositionsgeschichte und Literarkritik/Redaktionsgeschichte werden folglich nicht als Gegensätze begriffen, sondern als komplementäre Zugänge zum Text, die wechselseitig aufeinander verweisen. Im einzelnen empfehlt sich dabei eine flexible Gewichtung der beiden Ansätze: Da wo die diachron ausgerichtete Analyse mit besonderen Unsicherheiten belastet ist, muß der vorliegende Text die eigentliche Grundlage der Auslegung bilden, da wo eine Unterscheidung verschiedener Entstehungsstadien stärkere Plausibilität hat, die einzelnen Stufen” (Barthel, 1997, 26). 1042 Following the example of Von Rad and Fohrer, studies by Ackroyd, Vermeylen, Barth, Barthel, Clements, Childs, Rendtorff and Werlitz gave a prominent place to the single redaction of Isaiah (Sweeney, 1988, 5; Barthel, 1997, 18-24). Sweeney could also state confidently that “Prophetic books are simply not haphazard or incoherent collections of prophetic oracles as Gunkel conceived them; rather they are well planned compositions with specific aims” (Sweeney, 1996, 17). 1043 Becker, 1997. We already mentioned the seven redactions that Vermeylen believed he could detect in Isaiah. Sweeney also found numerous redactions in his study of the evolution of the unified composition of Is. 1-12. But he had to admit defeat before the nearly impenetrable manner of this text’s genesis and he demonstrated once again the general tenor of research on the growth of the Isaiah corpus. “While the final form of the book Isaiah displays unity of purpose and setting, the same cannot be said for the process of the formation of the book” (Sweeney, 1988, 186). The overall hermeneutic that gives precedence to redaction history proves disadvantageous to the individual texts. The number of ipsissima verba has thus declined since Fohrer’s day. Kaiser took the lead. “Den endgültigen Bruch mit der traditionellen Auffassung markiert der 1981 in neuer Bearbeitung erschienene Kommentar O. Kaisers zu Is. 1-12. Bei Kaiser verband sich die Annahme einer dtr. inspirierten Redaktion mit einer sehr viel tiefer greifenden Reduktion des Jes. Grundbestandes” (Barthel, 1997, 9). Like Carroll on Jeremiah, Kaiser clearly fell victim to his overall hermeneutic. “Kaisers Unternehmen ist ein gutes Beispiel für den hermeneutischen Zirkel von Gesamtkonzeption und Einzelbeobachtung, in dem sich die

449

prophetic tradition. Nevertheless, this does not work to the advantage of the ongoing study of the diachronic development of Isaiah. Rather, it appears as if the more recent literature on Isaiah took this too little into account. It is amazing that more stringent criteria are applied in research on the individual texts and ipsissima verba than on the later work of the redactors1044. Exegese unvermeidlich bewegt: Die neue Gesamtkonzeption ergibt sich zwar aus dem kumulativen Effekt vieler Einzelbeobachtungen und -hypothesen, aber sie wird im folgenden selbst zu einer Voraussetzung, die exegetische Einzelbeobachtungen in hohem Masse bestimmt ... Insbesondere das Modell durchgängiger Redaktionsschichten übt einen Plausibilisierungsdruck durchaus, der dazu drängt, nun auch weitere, weniger eng mit dem Kernbestand einer Schicht verbundenen Texte in das einmal entwickelte Modell einzugliedern, womit aber umgekehrt die Abgrenzung der Textschicht im ganzen unschärfer wird. Zugleich fördert ein solches Modell die Tendenz zu einer primär redaktions- und kanongeschichtlich motivierten Literarkritik, bei der das Bestreben, die ‘Lücken’ einer einmal postulierten Redaktionsschicht durch Zuschreibung weiterer Textpassagen aufzufüllen, die Neigung zur literarkritischen Destruktion einzelner Texte stärkt” (Barthel, 1997, 10, 23). — Ackroyd made an honourable attempt to find confirmation for Isaiah’s status in Is. 1-12. He understood that the prophetic status remained the foundation for further interpretations of original prophetic legacy and of the unifying ties that later redactors developed for the entire tradition. Kaiser, rather than Ackroyd, shattered this balance between the two growth poles in Isaiah to promote redactional mechanisms. Matters have not improved since Kaiser. For Sweeney, Is. 1-39, which is usually considered the most original section originating from Isaiah’s own words, is only a sub-unit, a preface. “...The redaction’s hermeneutical perspective is dominant ... it makes the final decisions concerning inclusion, exclusion, editing, placement, expansion and excision” (Sweeney, 1988, 7). “In dieser Hinsicht scheint mir der radikale Neuansatz Kaisers in manchem überzeugender als spätere, teilweise recht gequälte Versuche, dem vermeintlich dtr. Charakter des Buches auf redaktionskritischem Wege mit der Annahme eines rudimentären Grundbestandes von Jesajaworten zu versöhnen ohne dabei ein wirklich plausibles Modell der Überlieferung dieses Grundbestandes vorweisen zu können” (Barthel, 1997, 10). 1044 Obviously we must take seriously the flaws in recent diachronic research on the redactional stages. It is not possible to escape the difficulty of including the ipsissima verba in the investigation. After all, they are a help, not a hindrance, and even the permanent foundation of the entire Isaian tradition. “Rechnet man nämlich – im Unterschied zu Kaiser – überhaupt mit einem nennenswerten Grundbestand Jes. Überlieferung, dann entsteht ein Rahmen, in den sich sprachlich und sachlich verwandte Texte einordnen lassen. Umgekehrt ist zu fragen ob eine solche Zuordnung überhaupt noch möglich und sinnvoll ist, wenn der Bestand an Referenztexten auf ein Minimum geschrumpft ist. Von entscheidender Bedeutung bleibt in jedem Fall die Auseinandersetzung um bestimmte Fundamentsteine, die das ganze Gebäude tragen, wie es gerade die Denkschrift in Jes. 6-8 und die in Jes. 28 ff. versammelten Prophetenworte sind” (Barthel, 1997, 10). Barthel wrote his book (1997) with this intention. — We have already mentioned the imbalance in the use of criteria. “Man ist überrascht, wie oft in der neueren Jesajaliteratur vom ‘Willen des Textes’, vom

450

Perhaps the most successful studies of the last decades treating the unifying lines and composition of the prophetic writings were carried out on the Minor Prophets also called the Book of the Twelve Prophets1045. Much evidence was gathered to show that various layers of these twelve books, like those in Isaiah, were intertextually integrated with one another and with other collections. They were increasingly interwoven over a series of stages1046 until they became collections either of each of the Major ‘Selbstverständnis der Quellen’ und ähnlichem die Rede ist. Jenseits des legitimen metonymen Sprachgebrauchs verrät diese begriffliche Unschärfe wohl auch ein ungeklärtes hermeneutisches Problem” (Barthel, 1997, 17 n. 51). Deficiencies in the current literature are made evident less by the lack of precision in the structural, literary and historical situation of certain individual texts such as the prophets’ ipsissima verba than by forgetting their value and meaning because written composition, revisions and unifying lines have absorbed all these studies’ interest. Vermeylen, for instance, introduced the idea of revisions that were so comprehensive that they operate as texts written by the redactors. This underscored the redactors’ creative role. According to this view, they literally placed their stamp on tradition (Barthel, 1997, 8-9). 1045 Barton, 1999, 37-38 n. 2-4. For an overview of the literature on this subject see Schart, 1997, 6-21; Nogalski, 1993, 3-12; Redditt, 2001. The parallelism and even reciprocal involvement of Isaiah and the Minor Prophets has become accepted since Steck (1991). He treated in detail the last stages of the interweaving of Isaiah and the Minor Prophets. Collins (1993, 59-84) and Bosshard-Nepustil (1997) have followed the interweaving in the exilic period basically by identifying two redactions situated at the start and end of the exile according to their allusions to Assyrian and Babylonian overlords. According to these authors, the gradual evolution ran in waves and crisis situations that were processed in a single history based on analogies (Bosshard-Nepustil, 1997, 446-448). 1046 Wolfe was the first to launch the notion that the Minor Prophets arose from combinations. This idea found general acceptance as did that of the importance of the sequence of the writings in the collections (Schart, 1998, 1-3, 21; Nogalski, 1993, 12-13; Porter, 1989, 69, did not think that the collections had to be considered redactions). Authors are far from unanimous about the number of collections and combination in the prophetic writings before their ultimate integration in the prophetic corpus and about when the combinations were made. Jeremias (1996a, 52-53) thought that Hosea and Amos were linked early, certainly before the exile. Römer (1997, 197) thought that Jeremiah also belonged to the first combination. Collins (1993, 62), by contrast, saw a pre-exilic combination including Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah and Obadiah but excluding Jeremiah. Nogalski (1993, 18) saw the Book of the Twelve Prophets arising from two preceding and separate combination, one compiled by the Dtr containing Amos, Hosea, Micah and Zephaniah and a non-Dtr combination containing Haggai and Zechariah. Schart (1998) supported the first view. Freedman, Gottwald and Blenkinsopp defended other views of possible early groupings (Cook, 1999, 216-217). — Perhaps these studies’ greatest strength is in abandoning the notion that the prophetic writings were only brought together piecemeal. It is now accepted that the integration came about by redactions that reworked the various books separately and according to their own lights. The authors suggested the single vision – later confirmed in the prophetic corpus – to the public from the start. From

451

Prophets or of the Twelve Minor Prophets; ultimately they would be grouped together as the Later Prophets, corresponding to the earlier category, the Former Prophets. Despite the apparently successful research in the Minor Prophets, we note a few shadowy elements. The intertextual and thematic connections used as proof of the common layers and combinations among the groups of writings are so detailed that instead of providing a clear perception of the genesis of the prophetic corpus, they complicated it1047. Moreover, they leave the impression that they want to organise the genesis of the prophetic corpus artificially according to a preconceived vision of the whole. This is apparent from the ever-earlier situating of the types of combinations among the minor collections and the meticulousness with which the connecting layers are placed in their historical context1048. this perspective they stressed the shared themes (Collins, 2001; House and Collins concentrate on this: Schart, 1998, 10-13) and noted the clearly distinguishable cross references (Blenkinsopp and Weimar study this: Nogalski, 1993, 8-9) so that the public has begun to read the various books intertextually as a single corpus (Ben Zvi, 1996c, 149-156). — Within this consensus opinions differ when it comes to describing and dating the layers. Steck (1991, 25-106) discovered three extensions in Isaiah and three in the Minor Prophets, the latter being a Malachi Zechariah extension and two precursors. Schart (1998, 306) detected six phases in the redaction of the Minor Prophets. After the abovementioned double exilic redaction, Bosshard-Nepustil (1997, 415-432) saw three later redactions/reworkings and two earlier growth phases. Jeremias (1996, 34-54) focussed mainly on this early period. “There are marked similarities and connections, at times amounting to explicit cross references, between the various prophetic books... The growth of a kind of corpus of authoritative prophetic literature would appear therefore to have been taken place alongside, and in conjunction with, the shaping of the individual prophetic books” (Clements, 1996, 212). 1047 The Day of YHWH (Redditt, 2001, 63) can be mentioned as thematic connection. “Indeed, there is a certain irony in the fact that hand in hand with ... interest in the growth of the book ... as a whole goes a strong advocacy of the redactional fragmentation” (Barthel, 1997, 23 n. 79). We encounter here the same fragmentation that historical/literary criticism produced elsewhere, with as result obfuscation rather than elucidation of the text studied. 1048 Paas, 2004, 3-7. This is a relapse in the repression or neglect of the older and smaller elements swayed by the authors’ bias toward the Minor Prophets and the whole prophetic corpus. They regard the prophetic books from the perspective of the entirety rather than from their elements. They ignore that other elements indicate that these writings have an individual character and thus that each can be read meaningfully on its own (Paas, 2004, 6 n. 25). This is a warning not to be too rapid to detect canonical intention in formal articulations. In addition to their shared prophetic tradition, they each have unique characteristics. “As a group ... the idea that it is a prophetical book in his own right” (Collins, 1993, 7, 59). This is the starting point. “Die zwölf drückt Ganzheit aus ... so kann

452

7.3.5.4.5 Interaction between Redactional and Prophetic Input

es doch kaum mehr einem Zweifel unterliegen, daß das Zwölfprophetenbuch eine bewußt gestaltete redaktionelle Großeinheit darstellt” (Schart, 1998, 6, 20). This overall unity is to have been the intention during the writings’ genesis (Ben Zvi, 1996b). Hence that the authors do not tolerate the books’ being studied individually within the larger whole in which they are now situated in the final text. This appears to them as an attack on the work done by the redactor of the prophetic books that they want to upgrade. “Fragmentation of the Twelve is a mistake, just as the fragmentation of Isaiah is a mistake” (Collins, 1993, 60). “Jedoch beziehen die Tradenten und zwar offensichtlich schon seit der spätvorexilischen Zeit, die Verkündigung beider Propheten aufeinander. Sie verbieten ihren Lesern damit die theologische Isolierung eines der beiden Propheten” (Jeremias, 1996a, 52). Another relentless echo: “Jeder Ausleger, der sich durch das Gestrüpp der Überlieferung zurücktastet zum verkündigten Propheten, muß damit wissen, daß er gegen die Intention des Tradenten handelt” (Jeremias, 1996a, 156). These statements should thus be understood as a strong plea for redactional work and not as a failure to appreciate the uniqueness of each prophetic book. “Each piece of material used had a prehistory of its own ... it has inevitably left ‘foot-prints’ which can never be entirely erased” (Collins, 1993, 20). “...the individuality and creativity of each of the great prophets needs to be set in context” (Clements, 1996, 4). “...dazu haben die Prophetenbücher z.T. ein recht ausgeprägtes Eigenleben” (Bosshard-Nepustil, 1997, 445). “This position is also consistent with the presence of textually inscribed markers that request the intended readership of each of the 12 prophetic books that were later included in the Twelve to understand each prophetic character and each prophetic book as clearly distinct from the others” (Ben Zvi, 1999, 259). Redditt (2001, 72) shared this view. — Contrary to Steck and Nogalski, Schart, Jeremias, Bosshard-Nepustil tended to study the older stages of the integration of the prophetic books far into the pre-exilic period, not because they were interested in the older materials, but to show how early this integration took on an intended and well-considered shape (Schart, 1998, 18). In this way they stressed once again the importance of the later stages and the redactors’ work. However, it is strange that the disputed written culture in ancient Israel is suddenly no longer a problem. — Once again the astonishing ease with which authors who are elsewhere so critical of literary-critical study of older material can now so meticulously describe the genesis of the Minor Prophets and the prophetic corpus in so many redactional stages complete with historical context is simply astounding. Particular mention should be given to Steck, 1991, Nogalski, 1993, Collins, 1993, and Schart, 1998. It is too good to be true ... as they should be aware. Sometimes we hear desperate whispers such as: “...kann es sich nun um einen der Diskussion präsentierten Versuch handeln, der noch weiterer Einzelanalyse und Synthese bedarf” (Steck, 1991, 32). “Da dies ihr aber bloß skizzenhaft und in Andeutungen geschehen kann, sind die folgenden Überlieferungen unter einem gewissen Vorbehalt zu sehen ... Auch wenn der Rekonstruktion der spezifischen Fortschreibungsvorgänge zweifellos Grenzen gesetzt sind ... In dieser Arbeit mußte nicht zuletzt wegen ihres in der Forschung noch vergleichsweise wenig untersuchten Gegenstandes und ihrer relativ breiten Textbasis vieles unbestimmt oder offen bleiben” (Bosshard-Nepustil, 1998, 160, 466). “Much work remains to be done on the redactional history of the Twelve ...” (Collins, 1993, 64).

453

The stress that the literature places on the prophetic writings’ place in the text and its genesis as literature results, as we said, in an under-exposure of the role of the prophets’ oral preaching. The identification of the prophets’ ipsissima verba is too rapidly abandoned as unfeasible. The result is that the confrontation between prophecy and the Dtr and other redactions is inadequate as was the case with the study of Dt. and DtrH. This time the prophetic input is either approached in a broader sense from the perspective of the Dtr redaction(s) or is banished to the background as a consequence of an exclusively literary-redactional treatment. Scholars think they can rely on the literary shape in the final text. The redactors’ work is indeed reflected proportionately more than the prophets’ ipsissima verba and oral preaching. However, it is questionable whether the redactors similarly insinuate that the ipsissima verba should be banned to the background so that their own input would draw all attention. The present study has shown that strict and mechanical pursuit of the formal lines set down in the text does not necessarily lead to their most plausible explanation1049. It is thus by no means out of place to examine closely the 1049

Giving precedence provisionally the final text as starting point can be justified by the overall composition and larger collections to move from there to the smaller units and facts that are less visible upon first contact with the final text and, obviously, less accessible for study. This is the method customarily applied to Isaiah (Werlitz, 1999, 2). But this is a question of method. The methodological option to reverse the path, i.e. to start from the smallest unit can be defended as coinciding more with the most natural, historical course of tradition and rightly has its proponents. They usually give their observations a title such as “Vom Propheten zum Prophetenbuch” (Barthel, 1987, 2; Lange, 2002; Zimmerli, 1979). “Entwürfe, die eher der herkömmlichen Redaktionskritik verpflichtet sind, nehmen ihren Ausgangspunkt bei den ältesten Überlieferungsbestandteilen und versuchen die Abfolge der verschiedenen Bearbeitungen und Redaktionsschichten zu rekonstruieren; die Endgestalt repräsentiert dabei lediglich die letzte in der Reihe der Redaktionen und Relectures”. Andere setzen dagegen bewußt mit einer synchronen Lektüre des Buches in seiner gegebenen Gestalt ein und gehen von da aus schrittweise zu älteren Vorstufen zurück” (Barthel, 1997, 21). Choosing between the two is a matter of plausibility (Werlitz, 1999, 359). — A choice for the first may not ignore material dependence on the written form in which the prophetic tradition is now presented. “In general, the identification of prior material is based on the detection of inconsistencies in the literary form, thematic concerns, or conceptual outlook of the prophetic book. Such questions do not negate the validity of attempts to reconstruct the compositional history of a text, however, for ample evidence exists for the presence of earlier text forms throughout the prophetic literature” (Sweeney, 1996, 13). However, the use of the written form as starting point may not be explained as a bias toward redactional activity and its dating (as often happens in the case of the Decalogue embodied in more recent and larger collections). The final text does not permit this. “But the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible does not distinguish between the original words of the prophets and the writings of the later redactors and tradents”

454

arguments invoked in the literature for focussing chiefly if not solely on the final text for studying the redactors’ work. One of the first arguments invoked depends on the immense difference with the preceding oral preaching that arises from the many benefits that the use of writing had for the prophetic tradition1050. The added value provided by writing should be fully recognised, but not attributed solely to the redactors. Even if the prophets seldom if ever turned to writing, it is certain that they were among the first to reflect on their message, as the final text adequately demonstrates. This shows that the prophets and their redactors, each according to their abilities, are consistent when it comes to reflecting on the prophetic message. Both serve the same message albeit at different stages in which reflection can differ according to the circumstances; the two remain complementary1051. (Sweeney, 1996, 11). “Yet it was this very sense of uniqueness (of the prophet, L.Z.) that was inseparable from the claim to his inspiration: since this cannot have been simply a matter of the formulas and stylistic idioms that he employed. It must have been occasioned by issues of genuine substance” (Clements, 1996, 14). To appreciate the transcendent impact of the biblical texts one must look further than the formal in which they are stated. 1050 “Die Differenz von Verkündigung und Schrift” (Barthel, 456-459). Attention is rightly drawn to the major practical advantages that using writing brought to the prophetic tradition. “The point is that we must make a clear distinction between the prophets themselves and the books named after them” (Collins, 1993, 8). “...we maintain that prophecy, too, as a widespread and popular feature of religious activity, was profoundly influenced and changed by its preservation in written form” (Clements, 1996, 206). It should, however, be noted that emphasising the contrast between oral and written tradition moves in a dialectical direction (3.1.8). This raises the danger that elements, like the simultaneity in the formation of tradition formation and the canon process, that draw attention to their complementarity will be lost from view. “...it is crucial to move beyond what may be recoverable in the way of motives and view the text as it now exists” (Chapman, 2001, 103). 1051 Theological reflection (as distinct from the charismatic experience and direct contact with YHWH, Werlitz, 1999, 98) started with the prophets, although it came to maturity only after the prophetic texts were committed to writing and after their collection in codices and larger collections (Clements, 1996, 206). Jeremiah is most noted for personal reflection (Herrmann S., 1990, XII). — As with the reworking of the legal codes, prophetic reflection was sparked in times of crisis that placed the prophets and all they had at risk. “Oral and written transmission took place side by side” (Clements, 1996, 221). “...a thread of continuity between the original prophets and their later redactors” (Sweeney, 1996, 18). The prophets stand – or are placed by tradition – in a series of like-minded people that preceded them. Continuity is not limited to interdependence. It is no less present when it comes to the overall central tradition that precedes them. “He (the prophet, L.Z.) was himself the product of a long tradition, not simply of prophets like himself, but of a whole history of piety, worship and political expectation with which he necessarily was engaged

455

The redactors have the advantage of being the youngest which puts them in a position to look back upon the past and give their reflection greater perspective scope. Yet they openly acknowledge that they could not work without adapting the message to current events using the input from the original prophets1052. Even though they did not appeal formally to the in a kind of dialogue” (Clements, 1996, 3). The traditions from which the prophets drew were much older and came from older prophecy (7.3.2) and from the central tradition. The redactors were also dependent on earlier tradition (Bultmann, 2001, 88) as were the Dtr, who also wanted to be prophetic in their own way. — Within prophecy, the main message is YHWH’S action in Israel’s history (7.3.4.3; 7.3.5.3.5). “...the simple belief that it is God who is causing certain events to take place. It is when such beliefs are pressed to question how and why such events have happened, and what their outcome will be, that the foundations of a prophetic theology are laid” (Clements, 1996, X). This applies to prophets as well as their redactors who also participated in prophetic authority. The message, YHWH’S action in Israel’s history and its reception and the prophet’s and redactors’ reflection occurs in stages that each have their own value deserving of respect. “Er muß innerhalb der biblischen Rezeptionsgeschichte zwischen dem ursprünglich intendierten und dem rezipierten Sinn eines Textes unterscheiden ... Der Nötigung zu solcher Unterscheidung entgeht man nicht dadurch, daß man den Endredaktor zu einem idealzeitlosen Gesamtautor bzw. -leser erhebt oder, den Text’, die ‘Endgestalt’ oder das ‘Prophetenbuch’ stillschweigend personalisiert und mit intentionalen Qualitäten ausstattet, so richtig es ist daß wir den Autoren und Redaktoren und dem von ihnen intendierten oder rezipierten Sinn immer nur im Text begegnen” (Barthel, 1997, 17). For another view see: “Der Text will nämlich keineswegs Stadien einer sich verdichtenden Erkenntnis vermitteln, sondern retrospektiv einen Erkenntnisweg bezeugen wie er unumkehrbar für den Propheten war” (Jeremias, 1997, 30). “Clearly there is a need for recognizing that the relationship which existed between the prophet and the editors, and which led to determined efforts to record a prophet’s actual words, was a more genuinely reciprocal one than this” (Clements, 1996, 224). “Das Verhältnis ist dabei nicht im Sinne eines Entweder-Oder, sondern einer Skala mehr oder weniger großer Übereinstimmung und Differenz zu bestimmen” (Barthel, 1997, 27). While the prophets could not have reached us without subsequent literary history or not to the degree that is the case, it is clear that without the sustaining support of the original prophetic preaching the redactors would have no foundation for their own prophetic work. 1052 Like the prophets, the redactors came to reflection in times of crisis that touched them less personally but were more spread over time as the redactional insertions show. While this increases their opportunity to reflect, it also makes them difficult to date, all the more because they to merge into one another. All this explains their different character and effect. While the prophets focussed primarily on the message, esp. its urgent and challenging character rather than for the transformation, in transmitting it, the redactors stressed continuity (what Van Seters, 1983, 3 called Ordnungsdenken) and the communicative aspect. Dtr did more or less the same thing in the unified narrative. These interventions were drastic and creative. “...long after the lifetimes ... presented as part of the message of the original prophet” (Sweeney, 1996, 12). “...die Dynamik und Vitalität des Prophetenwortes, die den vielfältigen Prozeß seiner Aktualisierung und Widerinterpretation

456

authority of the historical prophets in compliance with modern historical or biographical norms – this seems not to have been their conscious priority, which does not mean that they have no interest at all in presenting their historical context – they still divulge their starting point and foundation1053. in Gang gesetzt hat” (Barthel, 1997, 463-464). “...der eigentliche Wurzelgrund ... nämlich die Botschaft Jeremias selbst als stimulierender Faktor des ganzen redaktionsgeschichtlichen Prozesses ... die das Ganze erst in Bewegung setzte” (Herrmann S., 1990, 1-10). 1053 That each prophetic book refers to a historical figure has a meaning sustained by the uniqueness of each within the stringently enforced schematisation and the stress on the common character of the prophetic tradition. There were reasons for this switch from anonymity to a more explicit type of pseudepigraphy. The awareness that legitimate prophecy was time-bound and had ceased obliged the redactors to switch to pseudepigraphy (Stemberger, 1997, 656). In addition, the redactors inspire respect for the uniqueness of each of the prophets in their own traditions by preserving the enduring differences (Lalleman-De Winkel, 2000, 83). “...it was important to retain some recognizable portrait of the prophet himself, together with a record of his actual words so far as this was possible and to relate this words to the events which formed the sequel of the situation to which the prophet had originally spoken” (Clements, 1995, 448). The individuality remained important even when fictive prophets like Malachi (Blenkinsopp, 2000, 17; Carroll, 1988) were created to suit an occasion. If they did not use their own name, it was “simply for the own convenience” (Clements, 1995, 447). Be this as it may, the redactors’ silence regarding their own identity and work is striking. It reaches an apex in the prophetic collections known as Deutero-Isaiah and Deutero-Zechariah. This is a conscious attitude in which the redactors’ own additions are have been made so smoothly that they can no longer be separated from the work of the original prophets in the final text. “In general, the identification of prior material is based on the detection of inconsistencies in the literary form, thematic concerns, or conceptual outlook of the prophetic book ... But this does not account for the redactor who does his or her work so well that such inconsistencies are no longer evident, nor does it account for the redactor whose viewpoint or literary techniques are in fundamental agreement with those of the earlier form of the text” (Sweeney, 1996, 13). Again, this shows how the redactors like the prophets are dependent on prior traditions; Childs (1995b, 520), by contrast, interpreted this silence as an emphasis on the canonical text at the expense of its development. His student Chapman extends this idea by considering the redactors’ concealing their identity as self-subsumption. The redactor set aside his own self-interest for the higher theological objective of the canon’s formation (Chapman, 2001, 99-104). This is acceptable on the condition that the canon’s formation is not understood only theologically, but as inseparably entwined with its socio-political context. In the formation of the canon, letter and spirit are always interwoven. — Although not strictly historical, these biblical texts involve a relationship with reality; historical background need not be excluded a priori. “In some cases the prophetic narratives are autobiographical in form, which suggests that the actual writing of prophetical literature began with the prophets themselves” (Sweeney, 1996, 18). However, the focus here is on a broken relationship with historical reality due in part to the restrictions imposed by the growth in tradition and in part on faithfulness to the message that transcends daily events. “...daß die Doppelseitigkeit des Prophetenwortes, das sich auf Geschichte bezieht, seinen

457

They endorse this in practice with the all-by-all faithful and guarded manner in which they handle their prophetic sources, as is generally the case with biblical writings. Moreover, they only situate their own future as a prolongation of what preceded, again without following strict chronological and thematic lines1054. ursprünglichen Geschichtsbezug aber gleichzeitig überschreitet, ihren eigentlichen Grund in der Sache hat” (Barthel, 1997, 463). Loyalty to the transcendent nature of the message does not permit precise historiography. “Trifft es zu, daß das geschichtsbezogene Prophetenwort zum einem durch den Prozeß seiner Überlieferung und Verschriftung, zum anderen auf Grund seiner sprachlichen Gestalt und seines Gegenstandes die Grenzen einzelner Ereignisse und Situationen überschreitet, dann liegt darin umgekehrt eine Grenze der Möglichkeiten historischer Einordnung und literarkritischer Analyse der überlieferten Texte... Damit stellt sich der Prophet zunächst außerhalb des Kontinuums der Tradition und der Gottes- und Welterfahrung der Gemeinschaft” (Barthel, 1997, 464, 466). — Without being totally historical in the strict sense, the context of the prophecy contained in the prophetic books is without doubt phenomenologically historical (Barstad, 1993, 52-53). This was also the case for Dtr. — The dynamics of the prophetic tradition finds its origin in the prophets and their experience of YHWH’S action. In that capacity it participates in the dynamics that the entire Yahwist tradition evinces (Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 158). It spreads to the redactional insertions in the prophetic tradition that in this way also becomes prophecy. “The words and actions of the original prophets initiated the composition of the prophetic literature, the writings of the later editors and tradents completed it. Obviously, they saw something of value in the words of the original prophets that prompted them to understand these words as an address to them and to their own situations” (Sweeney, 1996, 12). This common participation in the prophetic dynamics is also expressed in the dynamics of the prophetic narratives and biographies. “From the point of view of the dynamics of the narrative, the miracle is a demonstration of power ... it is in these stories that the process of image making, is at its most powerful” (Collins, 1993, 137, 153). “The texts cited (alluded to) are the generating force behind the elaboration of narrative or other types of textual expansion” (Sanders, 2001, 17). These dynamics can also be observed in the redactors’ explanation of the prophetic message, which is clearly of a later date. Yet the messages of doom and deliverance are inseparable because they are grounded in the same message. 1054 “Early Judaism was in constant dialogue with its past and for the most part resignified or reconceptualized its past in doing so” (Sanders, 2001, 18). We have already noted the inability to date correctly the many redactional additions and to place them logically or thematically. “As all critical examination of the overall structure of the major prophetic collections has demonstrated, neither chronology nor thematic connectedness can provide a total and inclusive explanation for the way in which the separate prophecies have been brought together.. At best they serve as only a partial basis for unravelling the reasons for the complex structure of the books” (Clements, 1996, 211). — All this is the result of the unique character of prophetic and biblical historiography. It is attuned primarily to the essence of the message and only secondarily to its contingent appearance, its historical context. This shows the weakness that afflicts every historical examination of biblical material. Strict historical reconstruction is impossible. This thus applies more generally and not only to the prophets’ material and the redactors who continued the prophets’ prophetic

458

The hints that the final text unmistakably gives do not allow viewing the redactors’ additions to the prophets’ legacy as untrustworthy or negative. The redactors displayed too much respect for what preceded and for what enabled their work to be done. If their additions turn to an abstraction of the historicity of the original data1055, we must seek another explanation than abbreviation or disaffectation from the prophetic legacy. This is spurious and must be deceptive appearance. It would seem more plausible here to presume that the redactors were confronted with the unceasing and ubiquitous phenomenon that occurs whenever traditions continue to grow. It imposes the need for selection1056 and restriction of material from the past. For the redactors of the prophetic books, this was the prerequisite for being able to apply their reflection to the most essential elements of the prophetic tradition. In this regard, the important element of YHWH’S authoritative speaking and acting in Israel’s history takes precedence. The redactors’ focus on the message, i.e. the distillation of a broader supply of information and retention from the original historical context only what serves its explicit and efficient presentation in new circumstances1057 is not a violation of the prophetic legacy. What at first office in their own way. Nevertheless, insofar as it is possible, a diachronic study is useful and even necessary. “Da sich dabei aber zugleich Hinweise auf Brücken im Gefüge der Endgestalt ergeben, ist der Anschluß einer diachronen Analyse nicht nur gerechtfertigt, sondern zwingend gefordert ... Das heißt zunächst: Er muß sein eigenes Verständnis der Endgestalt durch eine Rekonstruktion der damals intendierten Leserperspektive(n) kontrollieren” (Barthel, 1997, 17, 26). Even without being able to reconstruct historical evolution fully it may be expected that a diachronic study can be at least partly successful since biblical authors, and certainly the authors of the prophetic books, had historical reality in mind without being historiographical in the modern sense. 1055 Universalising the prophetic experience does not despoil it of its dynamic. 1056 In this case, it is clear that the pressure from the growth in traditional material imposes the need for selection, but its execution is conscious and not without reflection (For another view see: Talmon, 1987, 72). This last is important for the hypothesis that the canon process was a conscious pursuit from an early stage. 1057 “To be sure something is lost in the process of what we call conservation, but that something is like … that sedimentation of reverence through the ages, which has made many early Byzantine icons too opaque for ongoing piety, but has at the same time preserved them for contemporary conservationists to expose their original glories” (Auld, 1988, 249). This author used various images to explain how the prophetic legacy’s tradition was both a relative loss and the rescue and enrichment of its essence. “But it is inherent in the creation of texts that the borderlines between the past en the present become blurred by a process of tradition and continuous change of meaning in the road from person to personage, from author to reader” (Dijkstra, 2001, 111). The modification to conform to ever new circumstances and needs explains the redactors’ many interventions and their

459

sight appears to be a loss and devaluation caused by abbreviation and simplification of the material is actually its consolidation with a view to applying it to a new situation, which amounts to an upward revaluation of its unique function1058 as foundation of the entire prophetic tradition. As foundation it supports and maintains the entire superstructure of the long and comprehensive prophetic tradition. Moreover, it can offer living tradition continual inspiration from within1059. All things considered, the final text offers much more than redactional diligence as the literature seems to suggest. Its hermeneutical bias can be the only reason for its closing its eyes to the many hints in the final texts that show that the prophetic tradition involves much more than the redactors’ work. This diligence is entirely and interactively entwined in the prophets’ dynamic witness. Both parties focussed on the message. That both interactively served the message in their own way from their differing perspectives is not totally due to commitment to writing1060 even though creative input (‘creative originator’: Clements, 1996, 219-229) and even their adding content (‘additional material and supplementation’: Clements, 1995, 447-452). 1058 “In such a context the uniqueness and individuality of the prophet was of the very essence of this charismatical authority to which the editors needed to appeal. At the same time it was clear to these editors that the actual import of the prophet’s words would be lost if their implications were not spelled out with great clarity to those who held the prophet in high regard as the spokesman of God” (Clements, 1995, 448). Here Childs is inescapably incorrect when he ascribes to the later redactional reworkings of the canonical prophetic texts a diminution the theology of the original prophetic input (Childs, 1995b, 519). In doing this, he creates a tension (dialectical theology) between two contributing conditional components that each lie on the same line when it comes to the prophetic task and support and complement one another 1059 “It points to the fact that the prophetic message was not read exclusively as an archival chronicle of past prophetic speeches delivered to an earlier Israelite or Judean community. Rather, the prophetic literature was preserved, transmitted, supplemented, and reformulated because later writers and communities believed that it addressed them and their situations respectively” (Sweeney, 1996, 12). 1060 The distinction correctly made between oral prophetic preaching and its written redactions (Jeremias, 1996a, 52) may not lose sight of how they work closely and, like the prophetic traditions, refer to one another interactively. “It is necessary to distinguish between earlier and later material within the prophetic literature in order to understand the interaction between the prophetic message and the communities that accepted it” (Sweeney, 1996, 11-12). “Die enge Verflechtung dtr. und Jer. Elemente verdient, als wesentliches Faktum festgehalten zu werden” (Thiel, 1973, 40). “I prefer to describe the relationship between the deuteronomistic history and Jeremiah (and any other prophetic books redacted by the deuteronomistic school) as complementary” (Person, 2002, 13). — Many concepts were used to describe the individual way redactors used their sources and more are being tested (Schart, 1988, 24-25, n. 81-84). Clement’s (1995, 428) term routinization may well

460

this plays an important role in the difference between oral prophetic preaching and its subsequent written history Rather, the prophets and redactors explained and interpreted individual facets of this message and its dynamic unfolding for their intended public, which led to the difference between the two types of tradition. Yet this is no reason to denigrate or subordinate one tradition or the other. They are complementary and in that sense irreplaceable and not interchangeable1061. Yet this does not mean that do justice to the interactive relationship. The main idea in the literature is that the redactors adopted an interpreting and explaining stance mid-way between preservation and creativity. When compared to the original, the new element in the redactor’s work consists mainly in interpretation and altered presentation more suited to the new circumstances, and this without relinquishing the essence. Think of the gospel verse that speaks of the “householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt. 13:52). If this old leads to new routinization it is not only or primarily because of the continually new circumstances (which are just the occasion) but to the apparently inexhaustive content of the original. This shows once again how prophets and redactors impact positively upon one another and are each indispensably dependent on one another. “Authentication rests then neither in the reconstruction of the original moment nor in the claim for the particular validity of a subsequent moment of reinterpretation. It rests rather in the continuing process by which prophetic word and receptive hearing interact” (Ackroyd, 1978, 47). — The message has priority in the prophets’ and redactors’ canonising thinking. Hence the secondary focus on its historical context. “Der Primat des Sachaspekts erklärt vielleicht am besten, warum wir häufig in nur geringem Maß über den historischen Ort von Literaturwerken der Bibel informiert sind” (Schart, 1998, 23). — The essential difference between input from prophets and from redactors is the characteristic manner in which each served the message rather than in their frequency and material presence in the writings. — There are many similarities with the interaction between DtrH’s redactors and their prophetic sources. Without denying that the difference in frequency in using writing brought about a substantial evolution in the transition from oral to written prophetic tradition, we should note once again that both were used beside and for one another. This is also sufficiently apparent from the way in which the prophetic traditions maintained contact with one another. “Die sprachliche und sachliche Berührung von Prophetenbüchern bzw. Texten untereinander. Es versteht sich von selbst, das solche Kontakte grundsätzlich im schriftlichen wie im mündlichen Stadium der Überlieferung denkbar sind” (Jeremias, 1999, 32). 1061 For another view see: Lange (2002, 318) who spoke of the “charakteristische Dualität von prophetischer Verkündigung und ihrer Tradierung”. This seems to indicate a vestige of dialectical theology (3.1.8). It also explains why this author proclaimed the end of classical prophecy via its appropriation by tradent prophecy. He believed he found evidence for this in the analysis of the later redactional stages. Yet these are the stages that continually rely on original kerygmatic prophecy thus demonstrating its irreplaceable and permanent meaning. “Not transferable to others” (Clements, 1995, 447). For another view see: “In fact, oral prophecy appears to be in the process of being replaced by a kind of textual prophecy” (Chapman, 2001, 201). The redactor clearly did not intend for his own input to replace the prophets. The tendency to universalise and select has a supplementary and not

461

research must run totally parallel to the way in which the information is presented in the final text1062. Focussing temporarily on either the ipsissima disaffecting import. The implicit element in appealing to the authority of the prophets’ legacy shows that the redactor saw the prophet as permanent foundation of his own prophetic task. — That the redactor could use writing in his task more than previously is an important factor that influenced the evolution of the prophetic legacy and permitted its safe transmission. However, this factor is situated on a purely instrumental level and does not affect the essence and theological meaning of prophetic activity exercised by prophet and redactor. This is evident from the level on which reflection took place. “...von einem Wandel im Verständnis des Prophetenamtes, dem ein Wandel vom Gottesbild entspricht” (Jeremias, 1997, 33). As long as the added value of each input rests in its contribution to the message for which both work, this need not be at the expense of the uniqueness that marks each. So the problem of equivalence (Schart, 1998, 24) or content (Kratz, 1997, 18-19) does not arise. “Mit der Möglichkeit von Differenzen innerhalb der Einheit prophetischer Verkündigung ist insoweit zu rechnen, als sie sich als Momente einer sachlich und sprachlich konsistenten theologischen Konzeption begreifen lassen” (Barthel, 1997, 27). That the redactors – despite their preference and attention for shared elements in the prophetic tradition (Jeremias, 1997, 38) – continue to assign a place to the original, challenging prophetic input in the final text often right beside their own input as in DtrH shows that they bore in mind the irreplaceability of this original input. Contrary to modern authors, the redactors did not consider it a hindrance (Clements, 1996, 203) in exercising their own prophetic task, but rather respected their unique character. “Das Prophetenwort bleibt auch als Text eines Prophetenbuches an seiner Ursprungsituation rückgebunden. Alle - notwendigen - Aktualisierungen des Prophetenwortes im Zuge seiner Verschriftung und alle - ebenfalls notwendigen - Einbindungen des prophetischen Einzelwortes in ein systematisches ganzes prophetischer Verkündigung lösen das prophetische Wort auch als Text nicht aus seiner Ursprungsituation. Die Suche nach der Ursprungsituation ist deshalb nicht nur ein Akt historischer Neugier, sondern ist von der Eigenart der Prophetentexte aufgenötigt” (Jeremias, 1999, 25-26). Hence, it is necessary to stress appropriately the irreplaceable character of each element, the more so because the interweaving and interaction between the various elements can be so intense that the Dtr redaction and the original prophetic input, for instance, are difficult to separate. This is particularly the case in Micah (Cook, 1999, 228) and Hosea (Wilson R.R., 1997, 73). 1062 Differences between the two approaches are not limited to methodology. It is useful and even necessary to examine separately the components from the prophetic tradition, e.g. ipsissima verba and the redactional input. Their individuality should be made fully manifest. As with every detailed study, it is useful on the condition that it is temporary and targets the whole of which the element is a part. “Impliziert die literarisch fixierte Gestalt ... indem der ursprüngliche Geschichtsbezug vom Bezug auf den literarischen Kontext überlagert wird, dann wird der Versuch, einzelne Einheiten vor dem Hintergrund ihrer ursprünglichen Entstehungssituation zu interpretieren, zwar nicht obsolet, er bedarf aber der Ergänzung durch eine Lektüre, die sich an der Funktion der Texte im wachsenden Kontext des Prophetenbuches orientiert. In diesem Sinne ist das Anliegen der an kompositorischen Zusammenhängen und der werdenden kanonischen Gestalt des Prophetenbuches orientierten Auslegung aufzunehmen. Insofern aber umgekehrt die Spuren historischer Differenz auch in der literarischen Komposition bis hin zur Endgestalt des Buches

462

verba in the individual texts or units and their diachronic evolution or else on a synchronic view of the global structures that the redactors developed is legitimate if the individual explanation does not become a demarcation1063. This would sever what the compiler of the final text closely and inseparably united in an intensive and permanently interactive event involving prophetic preaching and its later written history and numerous other factors such as historical and social context1064. erkennbar bleiben ... bleibt die am historischen Ort der Einzelworte orientierte Lesart ein notwendiges Korrektiv gegenüber einer Interpretation, die den differenzierten Geschichtsbezug der Worte gänzlich zugunsten einer synchronen Lektüre der Endgestalt aufhebt” (Barthel, 1997, 459). This responds to the concerns of some redaction critics. They believed they had to formally forbid the separate study of the elements to safeguard the place of the small elements in the larger whole of the prophetic corpus. Because of the acknowledged disregard for the prophets’ tradition customary in redaction criticism, the need is perhaps greater to warn it against adopting a biased and exclusive approach toward the redactional stages without sufficient attention for the other elements of the prophetic tradition. 1063 The described interactive relationship between oral prophetic preaching and its redactional commitment to writing in later tradition is a delicate, easily lost balance. The justifiable distinction between the two poles quickly degenerates into a separation or demarcation (‘Kluft’: Schart, 1998, 22 n. 77). This is certainly the case with Carroll. Of his own accord he said, “Carroll’s approach stresses the difference” (Carroll, 1991, 231). A few years earlier he wrote, “With the additions of editorial elements ... the oral origins of the materials ... are transformed and the fully edited work becomes something quite different from its beginnings in the spoken word” (Carroll, 1986, 49). Carroll clearly showed that he thought this a dilemma in which he decidedly choose for the redactional tradition. Again we encounter dualism/dialectics that characterise Barthian theology. This dualism must definitely be rejected because the difference between oral and written prophetic traditions may not be seen as a dichotomy (Barthel, 1997, 456-459). “...We must insist that there is no clear line of demarcation between the work of an editor and the work of a prophet, since the former, too, can fulfil a truly prophetic function in the way in which earlier prophecies are handled” (Clements, 1996, 205). “Das Verhältnis ist dabei nicht im Sinne eines EntwederOder, sondern einer Skala mehr oder weniger großer Übereinstimmung und Differenz zu bestimmen” (Barthel, 1997, 27). 1064 For prophets and redactors, historiography and the understanding of history are important hermeneutical factors in the formation of prophetic texts (Sweeney, 1988, 187 n. 1). They should be followed up along with other factors that exercise influence. An example is the changing needs of the community (Sweeney, 1988, 198) that could play a permanent role in the rise and evolution of the prophetic tradition. “Im Weltbild des Propheten selbst sind die verschiedenen Voraussetzungen aber zweifellos nicht zu trennen. Die prophetische Deutung von Geschichte darf deshalb keinesfalls als ein Vorgang verstanden werden, der sekundär zu einer empirischen Wahrnehmung der Ereignisse hinzukäme. Tradition, Gotteserfahrung und Gegenwartsanalyse bilden zusammen die Perspektive, unter der Jesaja die politische Wirklichkeit wahrnimmt” (Barthel, 1997, 468).

463

7.3.5.4.6 Canonical Evaluation The results in the literature on the relationship between the prophets’ and redactions’ inputs – mainly Dtr in the classical prophets, should now be more expressly1065 evaluated within the global process of the canon’s genesis. This evaluation follows the three main lines that we used in constructing the definition of the canon and in the blueprint for the canon process.

A. The Formal Shape Thanks to redaction-critical literature, insight in the genesis and shaping of the prophetic writings has increased considerably1066 and has contributed to the identification of the formal lines present in the prophetic books. This produced a clearer picture of what Dtr and other redactors created in the transmitted prophetic literature. This was done predominantly in continuity with what Dtr had done in Dt. and DtrH1067, albeit in a context different 1065

In broaching the relationship between the Dtr redactors and the prophets in the prophetic books (7.3.5.4.2-7.3.5.4.3) we provided a survey of the literature and drew attention to how the canon issue was raised only sporadically and in passing with regard to the prophetic books even though it was permanently aware of this. The canonical issue is automatically a part of scholars’ overall hermeneutic, which determined their methodological approach in their detailed studies. Depending on the author(s), the concern for the canon becomes manifest in the tendency to exaggerate the value of writing and the later stages in the prophetic tradition (esp. the final shape) and in the dissimilar use of critical norms in research (7.3.5.4.3). Each time it was necessary to provide an initial answer from a canonical perspective to the tendentious attitude toward what is found in the final text. We now return to this to evaluate fully the results in the literature on the prophetic books from a canonical perspective. This evaluation applies only to the prophetic books. A broader evaluation from a canonical perspective treating the entire role of prophecy in the Dtr work (7.3) will be provided separately later (7.3.6). 1066 “It may be claimed that this process of book formation is part of the process of canon formation of the Old Testament” (Clements, 1996, 10). Most progress was achieved in the Book of the Twelve Prophets and the whole prophetic corpus. In addition, research on Isaiah advanced and deepened insight in the unified composition of this work. Conversely, commentators and studies on the formation and composition of Jeremiah encountered problems. Progress is found mainly in the later stages of the writings’ genesis, both individually and in their joint development and growth into a unified prophetic corpus (Sweeney, 1988; idem, 1996; Barthel, 1997). 1067 Beside the individual character that each prophetic book displays because of the input presented as separate, named prophets, there seem to be different levels of redactional development within the Dtr tendency.

464

from the prophetic books or combinations of them. In addition to the use of writing1068, the redactors’ stylising1069 and selecting synthesising/schematising work continued and perfected the techniques that Dtr used in Dt. and DtrH. From this we can deduce that these redactors intended to pass on the original message more clearly, explicitly and effectively to their contemporaries. They seemed to take definite account of their public’s needs and concerns. This unique situation of the new audience, particularly their predominantly exilic situation, taken with1070 the attachment to earlier authoritative traditions oriented and provided perspective for redactional activity, overall and in the individual books. This redactional input seems to have had an effect. The redactors’ public appears to have been attracted by attempts to provide an updated prophetic legacy. This can be deduced from the way modified and completed prophetic texts were included in living tradition. It also explains 1068

The redactors went further than using the scope that the transition from oral to written tradition provided. They invoke the development of the entire book. “Rather, an entire prophetic book is presented to the form critic in its totality, and it is in the form of the prophetic book that the prophetic message lays a claim to religious authority and interpretation” (Sweeney, 1996, 11). This is a consequence of the consistent reflection on its place in the literature (Sweeney, 1996, 12). The redactors’ option for a literary whole explains their drawing on the many literary techniques that serve to structure the writings and stress their unity. This should always be taken seriously, even when temporarily studying elements of the whole or possible oral remnants. 1069 Among the stylistic devices used are visions, symbolic acts, legends (Sweeney, 1996, 16), patterns, biographies and direct speech (Sweeney, 1996, 22-30; Schoors, 1998, 108116, 130-135; Westermann, 1960; Neumann, 1979, 44-51). “In dieser Perspektive wird die Exegese eo ipso zur Theologie und kann Theologie nur als Exegese sein. Sowohl der explizite resp. implizite Anspruch biblischer Autoren und Texte als auch das jeweilige Gewicht ihrer theologischen Themen, Positionen und Wirkungen zu bedenken sowohl die traditionsgeschichtlichen Netze die sie knüpfen, als auch die Wirkung die sie beabsichtigt resp. gehabt haben” (Söding, 2005, 14). 1070 There is more than the interaction between the redactors’ input and the prior prophetic and central traditions on which they built (7.3.5.4.5). There is also the external influence from the political, social and religious context. “Diese freilich gravierenden Unterschiede zur überlieferten Botschaft Jeremias beruhen nicht nur auf einem der prophetischen Inspiration letzten Endes inkomparablen Denken der systematisierenden theologischen Reflexion der dtr. Kreise, sondern auch auf einem Gegenüber der Zeitverhältnissen Jeremias stark veränderten Situation” (Thiel, 1981, 106). From a canonical perspective, it is very important to observe this combined action. Distinguishing the various elements in the combined action that constitutes the canonical process is one question. The objective here is to relate all of them to one another and note their evolution (Ch. 5 esp. 5.3.1).

465

their reuse by new readers and redactors1071. Yet despite synthesising and generalising redactional transformations that it underwent at each stage, tradition remains largely unimpaired. The redactors that worked on it in this long and continual process of transmission are visibly vigilant to safeguard the character of each level. In this way they showed that each stage had a reason and was irreplaceable1072. The way the original traditional material contained in earlier layers was used was not the only restriction that redactors’ imposed on their work. They did not give free rein to their own creativity. This can be seen from the traces they left in the text to shape it into a unity1073. The literature 1071

Reuse explains the many levels or stages through which the prophetic tradition seems to have passed. But more than ever changing context led to this reuse. The users/readers also played a lesser role. They, too, changes over time and were new for each level (Beuken, 2002; Talstra, 2002). “Neither prophetic books nor other biblical books were written to read only once. These texts were read, re-read, learned, meditated upon, or further redacted within the community” (Ben Zvi, 1996, 132). This observation clearly shows the need for a tradition-historical method. “Denn erst diese ermöglicht es das aktuelle Prophetenwort in seinen expliziten Voraussetzungen zu verstehen, indem sie die Aura des in der Formulierung unausgeführt Mitschwingenden freilegt” (Barthel, 1997, 472). This method has the advantage of being able to distinguish between the genesis of the tradition and its commitment to writing. This is important in the unsettled question of dating and situating the traditions. 1072 “Thus to some extent, the perspectives of the earlier material resisted the reconceptualization of their role in the redactional additions” (according to Carr, quoted in Barthel, 1997, 17 n. 50). The irreplaceability of each stage also applies where later stages reuse and reinterpret the preceding. This last and newest stage remains unique and partial with regard to the preceding, even when it encompasses the last stage in the final composition of the whole. “Er muß innerhalb der biblischen Rezeptionsgeschichte zwischen dem ursprünglich intendierten und dem rezipierten Sinn eines Textes unterscheiden. Letzteres gilt auch dann, wenn sich nachweisen läßt, daß die (End) Redaktion ältere Vorstufen im Rahmen einer umfassenden Gesamtkonzeption neu interpretiert hat; denn eine solche Neukonzeption findet ihre Grenze an der semantischen Heterogenität des vorgegebenen Materials, ... sie bleibt daher in Hinsicht auf dessen ursprünglichen Sinn notwendig selektiv und partiell” (Barthel, 1997, 17). 1073 In the Book of the Twelve Prophets the markers that delineate the composition as a single unit do not seem to be as visible and are only detected via the impact on the public for whom the writings were intended (Ben Zvi, 1996a). “Die Endredaktion hat deshalb häufig eher den Charakter der Sammlung; sie bildet in ihrer kommunikativen Funktion eine Einheit, nicht jedoch als kohärenter Text” (Schart, 1998, 30). Because they are incomplete and weak, these redactional markers may not be able to offer a complete interpretation of the canonical unit. As we noted, these redactional markers are not intended to replace all that preceded them. Assuming automatically that they have great theological import because they are more recent (according to Chapman, 2001, 113) and numerous is an unacceptable, Hegelian postulate. Time may be beneficial for reflection, but not absolutely.

466

has correctly displayed this specific contribution from the redactors to the prophetic tradition. However, these authors go too far when they interpret the redactors’ unifying lines as signposts all pointing unambiguously toward a unified text. The many opinions found in the literature provide sufficient evidence. The redactors were convinced that the material in the prophetic tradition represented a fundamental unity1074. They only attempted to gain partial recognition for the substance of this unity on the basis of their time-bound vision without seeking to speak the definitive word on the matter. They leave room for other insights and gave impulses without seeking to push the issue1075. This has its benefits. They kept tradition alive and mobile. They were too creative to deny others this creativity. If they did impose restrictions, it is from sheer necessity and “Gleichwohl wird man kaum bestreiten können, daß viele sehr späte Redaktoren gar nicht mehr das Interesse hatten, die ihnen vorliegenden Texte massiv umzugestalten … Auf diese Weise verdanken sich manche Strukturen, die den Endtext prägen, doch einer früheren Epoche des literargeschichtlichen Prozesses” (Schart, 1998, 28). Recall also what happens in general culture: The epigones usually did not surpass their illustrious predecessors, despite their later appearance. The rule prevails “A disciple is not above his teacher” (Mt. 10:24). 1074 In retrospect, the basis for unity of all events seems to lie in that one message, the action of YHWH in Israel’s history. Not just the prophets, also their later redactors felt consciously or unconsciously that this message was the common denominator in the prophetic tradition. “It is rather precisely the element of connectedness between the prophets, and the conviction that they were all referring to a single theme of Israel’s destruction and renewal, which has facilitated the ascription to each of them of the message of hope” (Clements, 1977, 48-49). “There is little doubt that it was the exilic assessment of these separate collections as being prophetic that led to the idea that they belonged together and therefore could be combined into a single book” (Collins, 1993, 61). This common experience lay at the foundation of the standardisation of true prophecy as expressed in the Dtr opus (Clements, 1977). Those who inserted the unifying ties only had to give shape to the fundamental unity already present. 1075 The redactors are aware that their own input, like that of previous stages, is unique and imperfect, even though they had a better view of prior tradition and their work more comprehensive because of its being later. Many authors thus have reservations regarding the final shape as Childs advocates it. The priority that the final text receives in methodical research may not be extended without reservation to the evaluation of its theological content. For another view see: Schart, 1998, 28. Certainly, the autonomous historical and theological depth that the final text borrowed from the preceding stages may not be neglected (Schart, 1998, 26). “Die kanonische Endgestalt kann man nur synchron verstehen, wenn sie zugleich die Erstgestalt ist ... also als ‘vorgabenloses’ auf eine leere Rolle konzipiertes und also vollkommen frei verfaßtes Werk gelten kann” (Werlitz, 1999, 6). The redactors certainly do not omit the previous stages of the tradition. They prefer to revalue them upward.

467

only to create new opportunities for present and future from the abundance of older material1076. All by all, the redactors appear to have pursued and achieved an admirable balance1077 in the interaction between their input and the prophetic and other original and prior traditions. It is a model that many redaction critics would do well to follow today1078. The means that the redactors use in their delicate work is as unpretentious as it is ingenious. They give to each, its own. To the prophetic legacy it assigns unicity as source and foundation. However, when it draws from this to continue building on tradition, they have a realistic eye for their public and its situation. They built a bridge between prophets and public and recorded it in writing; once established this link can be reused when appropriate1079.

B. The Canonical Intention The canon process as found in the prophetic books cannot be reduced to its formal shape however important this may be1080. This form is the material 1076

The redactors keep close tabs on the prophets and where needed integrate older traditions in their new zeal (7.3.4). They thus show that they are the prophets’ true disciples, i.e. that they are their prolongation and thus share in the prophetic task. 1077 Schematisation of such elements as true prophecy that remained flexible toward prophecy within a canon-oriented tradition is characteristic of this balance (Clements, 1996, 213). 1078 The biased evaluation resulting in inappropriate neglect of the original prophetic tradition is a deficiency too often met in redaction-critical literature. 1079 “Insofern aber das Prophetenwort vom Handeln Jahwes in der Geschichte sprechen will, kann es nicht auf eine einmalige Situation begrenzt bleiben ... Paradigmatische Funktion hat die konkrete geschichtliche Situation nicht nur für andere Ereignisse, sondern für das Handeln Gottes an Israel und der Welt selbst” (Barthel, 1997, 463). 1080 This is the logical consequence of the priority given to the message. This priority of the message lies at the basis of the biblical author’s use of fiction. This formal shape of the canon process is only its outside force (McKenzie, 1999, 267) based on a shared message. Confining oneself to this gravely fails to do justice to the canon process. Many redactioncritical studies succumb to this failure because they overestimate the importance of the written form and the study of the redactor’s literary devices. They often go no further than this valuable but purely external shape adopted by the canon process. “It is this canonical form of prophecy which brings together the various sayings and messages of individual prophets and co-ordinates them in a unified message” (Clements, 1977, 44). These authors remained on the surface of the canon process, giving no or insufficient attention to its core even though the surface invited them to do so with outer structures intended to serve as medium for the canon concept being developed. “Nicht nur manche der älteren literar- und redaktionskritischen Analysen, sondern auch viele neuere, vornehmlich an Beziehungen

468

shell of the actual canonising endeavour, i.e. the canon concept, that gradually took shape here amid the accumulating tradition within prophecy. The literary devices are fully correlated with what the designers had in mind: the hermeneutic with which the prophets, with the redactors in their wake, attempted from the perspective of existence to give a religious response according to their own views that agreed with a dynamic that stuck them deeply while exceeding them1081. This dynamic und Strukturen auf synchroner Ebene interessierte Untersuchungen tendieren dazu, in der Beschreibung von Oberflächenstrukturen steckenzubleiben. Damit verbunden ist die Gefahr einer methodischen Objektivierung und theologischen Entleerung der Texte, die deren Eigenart als Zeugnis des Glaubens, Hoffens und Leidens lebendiger Menschen kaum gerecht wird” (Barthel, 1997, 28-29). 1081 Hermeneutics played a prominent role with the designers of the biblical, esp. prophetic texts as it did with researchers. This is evident from their view of history. “...how the prophet thought of God’s nature inevitably served to shape his understanding of the divine intention” (Clements, 1996, 206). This runs parallel with what took place in the broader field of canon study. “… deshalb muß der Primat des Geschehens vor dem Text und der Person vor der Sache schrifthermeneutisch zum Vorschein kommen” (Söding, 2005, 109). — Contingency with the transcendent scope (although “Gott macht sich greifbar in bezug auf konkrete Menschen in kontingenten Situationen” [Dietrich, 1995, 30]) that marks human existence imposes restrictions on the redactors’ task and on that of all involved in articulating the prophetic message and committing it to writing. The reason for the restriction that was noted when discussing the final shape is its material form and its relation to the time-bound context (see below sub C) of the literary shape which applies to all biblical writings not just the prophetic. The implicit expression of transcendence in contingency is a general cultural trait according to Lightstone (1988, 475). Obviously, this restriction means that the written shape of the prophetic tradition is not an exact counterpart of the inherent canon concept that the designers of the canonical prophetical tradition wished to use. That is why this study invokes a type of deconstructive reading (Gunn, 2000, 240-248) – not to be confused with the deconstructive reading applied by post-modern revisionists, who recognised no meaning at all in the original text (Dever, 2001, 255 n. 24) – that assumes no absolute and unanimous, rather even a contrary (Barr, 2000, 142, 169) meaning can be ascribed to the texts in the prophetic books on the basis of the formal shape specific to the final text (Dijkstra, 2001, 111; Parker, 1996, 103). Its socio-political context should be detected and its main factors determined. See below sub C. — What found its way into the final canonical text is only a selection of Israel’s religious tradition and literature. Dtr and others selected in the name of Yahwism as it had grown in the biblical texts into an orthodox-canonical line. In looking back at its genesis and growth from the perspective of the final text, one should give preference from a sense of history to respecting its development. This evolves from amorphous to more clearly defined religious convictions. An aerial perspective of the traditions (7.3.4.1) on which the prophets and Dtr are dependent showed how different and shifting were the religious views of those who articulated them. The definition and integration of the different traditions being developed seems to have been the same canonical pursuit that became manifest in the application of the selection procedure. In this sense, Dtr, in particular, spurred on in a canonical direction

469

overpowered them. Given their intermediary position between the message and their public, the means they had available proved insufficient when compared to its surpassing character because of their being time-bound (Blenkinsopp, 2000). We should recall that Dtr was not yet concerned with orthodoxy but with its pursuit. The same is true for the redaction of the prophetic books (Blenkinsopp, 2000, 25-26). “The canonical intent lies in the message” (Clements, 1977, 48-49). “...daß die sprachliche Form dem Prophetenwort nicht äußerlich ist sondern unlöslich mit seiner Intention verknüpft ist” (Barthel, 1996, 461). “The task of understanding the process by which prophetic writings of the Old Testament were formed, is consequently a profound theological one ... In a very real measure, therefore, a genuine prophetic theology only became possible once prophecy had acquired written fixation” (Clements, 1996, 13, 206). The canonical intent is embedded in the general theological reflection. This function consists in orienting theological reflection in the hermeneutically desirable canonical – here mainly Dtr – direction. That religious/canonical intent determines the formal shape because this is used in symbiosis with the redactors’ canonical hermeneutic. This is even more the case for the later additions distinguishable in the text. “The addition gives further direction to that which is there, and cannot be properly understood independently of this” ... In such fashion we can at least come to understand the value and meaning of the way in which destructive patterns have been imposed upon the prophetic collections of the canon” (Clements, 1977, 48-49). “...es ist theologische Reflexion, die unter prophetische Autorität gestellt ist” (Herrmann S., 1990, 77). The prophet, whether or not artificially portrayed by the redactors, seems indispensable even central in the canonical shaping of the prophetic tradition. They are not only the spokespersons of YHWH, the highest religious authority; their personal involvement in YHWH’S relation with Israel is also part of the prophetic message. “The invisibility of the prophet functions as an assertion of the authority and irresistibility of the prophetic word” (Bultmann, 2002, 90). “In dieses Geschehen, weiß sich der Prophet selbst eingespannt: Es proklamiert nicht allein Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte, seine Verkündigung im Wort und Zeichen ist selbst eine Manifestation dieses Handelns. Diese Überzeugung ist die grundlegende Voraussetzung, mit der die Autorität und Vitalität des Prophetenwortes steht und fällt” (Barthel, 1997, 463). The prophet’s personal experience and his hermeneutic appear to be couched in the prophetic message and to be a sign of its authenticity. Placing a clear dividing line between the prophet and the prophetic message (Bultmann, 2001, 90; ‘authoritative spokesman’: Ackroyd, 1978, 34) would be to sow the seeds of a duality that the prophetic books do not seem to contain; it is something that would have to be imposed rather than something that can be deduced. “The canonical interest lies in the message, not in the witness to the prophetic personalities as such even though this cannot remain altogether hidden” (Clements, 1977, 49). — Transcendence seems to have been determined more by surpassing historical reality in the context of which (see sub C) the prophets obtained their prophetic experience (Ackroyd, 1978, 46). In articulating it they felt obliged to step back, at least partially, from their immediate historical context (Barthel, 1997, 456-459). In this way they, like the redactors, adopt a fractured stance to historical reality: On one side they maintain a minimal bond to the original facts. On the other, the transcendent nature of the message brings them to witness to its surpassing character via metaphorical language (Barthel, 1997, 460-461). One result is that the public perceived the prophets as men of God, mysterious and incomprehensible charismatic figures.

470

and contingent. Hence the repeated new reflection that developed in the renovation and updating frequently observed in the prophetic books and corpus1082. The prophets’ and redactors’ constant efforts to interpret the transcendent event that they face in a shape oriented toward canonisation shows one clear constant despite the confused manner in which this takes place. The canon-theological reflection’s primary emphasis is always on the one unchanging YHWH. He is commonly and consistently recognised as the one that takes the initiative in the prophet’s message, i.e. the relationship between YHWH and his people Israel1083. The redactors and even more the prophets leave no doubt. However concerned they are with, and think about, the lot of their compatriots and world events, YHWH is always the one that weighs heaviest in the theological reflection. This becomes particularly clear where their compatriots fail and human considerations predominate, as when the false prophets go their own way. The prophetic books always give YHWH credit, however incomprehensibly and surprisingly he may act and however united they may feel with their compatriots. For them it is a wrenching choice for YHWH in which they are deeply torn. Yet they keep repeating that all deliverance and authority is anchored in YHWH. That there is no doubt that all authority rests with YHWH is a clearly articulated constant in all prophetic books. All traditions, everything and everyone must give way before him1084. The 1082

Theological reflection can be distinguished from prophetic experience gained intuitively in direct contact with YHWH. Because reflection required time and played a larger role in later tradition and thus was aimed at the longer term, this reflection was primarily, but not exclusively, the redactors’ terrain. The continually changing historical context and accompanying reflection is one but not the primary reason for the many revisions. The transcendent character of prophetic experience induces further exploration and reflection. 1083 “It is precisely because the two essential preconditions for the constructing of such a theological understanding of God were present in ancient Israel that this process of ‘theologizing’ on the basis of prophetic utterances became so important. These were that all the prophecies so brought together should be regarded as emanating from the same deity” (Clements, 1996, 206). It must be stressed that YHWH and the transcendent are experienced only via the prophets and only via them can the prophetic dynamic be channelled to the public. This explains the prophet’s uniqueness. — This divine initiative fits theologically in the natural line of history’s evolution. It argues for methodical research running from the more original data in tradition to the later and final text. 1084 This becomes clear mainly while considering the way in which traditions were confronted, where needed, by the prophets’ own experience (7.3.4). The prophets’ experiences are part of the message. As such they have an enduring meaning even for the

471

canonical shape (see A) in the prophetic writings fully reflects the designers’ efforts to conform to YHWH’S authority and actions. Beyond this express preference for the priority of YHWH and his action, the prophetic texts that have been left us thanks to the joint efforts between prophets and redactors leave open surprisingly many avenues of understanding. Upon closer inspection, the final text, as it now presents the prophetic tradition, is so heterogeneously composed that it is impossible to use it absolutely and simply. This is caused first by the freedom that YHWH seems to have in his actions. The prophets are most aware of this because they want to maintain the closest feeling with YHWH and what stirs him. Alternatively, there are many changing circumstances and external factors that co-determine how YHWH and his actions through the prophets/spokespersons are experienced and understood. Given YHWH’S constant and invulnerable exercise of authority to which Israel adheres only to a limited extent and with varying result as was apparent from the sequence of many different receptions (see its reception history), the series of redactors sought the most suitable means to move contingent and wavering Israel to respond as to the one and ever faithful YHWH1085. They gradually linked together the many different answers and reflections that religious Israel shaped primarily under the prophets’ impulse. They did so to such an extent that those who took all of them seriously had the best future and thus must not be forgotten. Here we encounter the resilience of the memorial culture with which the canon attempts to comply and to which it attempts to give shape. “Mit dem Kanon steht die Wahrheit des Evangeliums zur Debatte, die Normativität des Ursprungs, die Unüberholbarkeit des Anfangs, der alles zu bestimmen beansprucht, und die Notwendigkeit fortwährender Erinnerung an ein vergangenes Geschehen und Zeugnis” (Söding, 2001, 1). That is why the redactors revert so intensively to the prophets and their original words. They are the bedrock of the commemoration. In no case may they be forgotten. The enthusiasm to keep the memory of the prophets alive, the prophetic pathos (Söding, 2001, 17) that reflects on the redactors and their writings led to the notion of inspiration and the ensuing canonisation. “Die kanonische Funktion der Prophetie ist weit älter als der faktische Übergang der Prophetie in kanonische Dignität” (Jeremias, 2006, 14).This canonising/restricting intent is particularly tangible in the redactors’ work. In their method, which each time must be assessed as it appears, they were only free when it came to presenting and explaining the prophetic legacy and not when it came to creating it. 1085 Despite the wealth of heterogeneous material that the redactors brought together and regarding which they gave some freedom of use and interpretation, one theological line, that of YHWH’S authority, circumscribes the area within which this freedom can be exercised. In this sense, one cannot continue to speak canonically of a rolling corpus as McKane does or of a pure crystallisation process as Talmon does (1987). There is more here than simply a process of accumulation. The redactors guided it and kept it under control with a partial if not full objective in mind.

472

chance to respond suitably to YHWH’S actions in their own, new situations. This means that none of the stages in the relationship between YHWH and Israel may be ignored. Equally, none may be presented as possessing the sole truth1086. It is only when all the stages have been viewed and weighed together that the final text is used as the redactors desired. All this means that neither the prophets nor the redactor’s offered a ready-made answer; rather, they saw it as their task and responsibility to seek the most appropriate answer and thus to see their the creative task continued instead of being satisfied with a fixated final text simply and solely as we have it1087. 1086

The redactors’ awareness that they did not have the last word but had to leave room for reflection is clearly present, as is usually the case with Dtr. Ackroyd, 1978, 47. “Das gilt im übrigen auch in kanonischer Perspektive. Die Unheilsprophetie Jesajas wird von den Heilsaussagen im weiteren Verlauf des Buches nicht einfach überholt, sie behält als Gotteswort an Jesaja vielmehr ein eigenes Gewicht und eine eigene Autorität, die sie für neue Aktualisierung offenhält” (Barthel, 1997, 473). This means that the redactors could invoke the authority of a prophet like Jeremiah for their own objective, one no longer the same as Jeremiah’s (Liwak, 1987, 311). “Each stage of the book, whether that of the prophet or one of the redactions, grapples with circumstances unique to its own time. Yet each considered the past traditions as authoritative and interpreted the past tradition and contemporary events in relation to the hermeneutic which was appropriate to the needs of the time” (Sweeney, 1988, 200-201). The way this authority, despite its transmission in a simplified context and in various stages, still remains inviolate is transcended by the firm conviction that the original authority remains assailable (Ackroyd, 1978, 46). It is also false that as the historical context is transcended, the older stages are made obsolete by the new that follow and that the theological quality of the redactional input reaches its apex as Childs believed (Barthel, 1997, 24). We have already noted our reservations against the way Childs and others view the final shape. 1087 Taking inspiration from R.C. van Leeuwen, Schart (1998, 13-14, 312-314) launched the notion of the canon as creative task. According to this view, the redactors consciously linked divergent and even contradictory ideas and writings and usually stimulated thought with only a suggested compromise. Once again the rule prevails that the redactors were too creative to deny others this creativity. Chapman supported the notion of creativity that the canon inspired. Alluding to the conflicting versions that the redactors linked together, this author writes, “These power groups in turn, are reconstructed from the very contrastive features of the canon that ... were presented or even designed by the canon’s tradents to promote reflection within a common range of alternatives, rather than simply to record their disagreements or impasses” (Chapman, 2001, 98). However, this author erroneously thought that he had to choose on behalf of the canonical tendency for a unity in the tradition that preferably remedied the contradictions. “...yet the biblical tradition has left these tensions obscure and refrains from investing them with any independent theological significance. Instead, the tradition has moved in the opposite direction finding unity for institution and charisma, theocracy and eschatology, in Israel’s witness to God” (Chapman, 2001, 130). This author thus eliminated the value of the tension between the various

473

All things considered, the interactive cooperation between prophet and redactors seems to be supported by the canonising intention to present to following generations an updated and explained version of the authentic and direct experience with YHWH as gradually encountered in Israel’s history. This increases the awareness and observation that the credibility of the prophets’ authentic witness grows to the extent that it can rest on a past that is confirmed by demonstrable facts1088. Current or kerygmatic prophecy, by contrast, looses credit visibly. It is eclipsed by explicative redactional prophecy. In time it will even cease invoking current prophecy to let its own creativity delve exclusively in established classical prophecy1089. This explains somewhat its unflinching faithfulness to the original prophetic witness despite its fading historical context. When possible this is compensated with the resourcefulness and refined devices that the redactors could use to keep the original prophetic witness aflame in new situations. In recent decades, the redactors’ contribution to the development of the canonical prophetic tradition has been correctly acknowledged as veritable participation in prophetic activity. The redactors did not restrict their work to recording and transmitting the prophetic message. Unlike the tendencies in the biblical traditions, while the canonising redactors intended it to be a stimulus for the dynamic creativity of living tradition. 1088 The original prophet’s personal experience, assumed and shaped by his followers, determined the extent to which attribution to one or other prophet is justified. The group of the prophet’s loyal kindred spirits explains the unique character of the tradition around a given prophet. — The search for a safe criterion for true prophecy was thought to be found in the fulfilment of prophecy, esp. from the time of the Dtr. Hence the value and meaning of the fulfilled prophecy model. 1089 The reasons for the cessation or disappearance of classical prophecy are sought in various quarters. Following Cross (Petersen, 1977, 6), Sweeney (1996, 15) and J. Blenkinsopp (Lange, 2002, 37) see the origin in the disappearance of the monarchy in Judah. Blenkinsopp (1977, 124-148) suggested that this was the transformation (Plöger speaks of ‘Untertauchung’: Petersen, 1977, 6) of classical prophecy. Be that as it may, the fact remains that classical prophecy ceased. The cause for this has been sought in the essence of classical prophecy. J.L. Crenshaw spoke of an aporia (Lange, 2002, 37). A more positive opinion is that its orientation to the future and openness to fulfilment makes it demand the fulfilment that it already sets in motion (Lange, 2002, 2, 317-318). Classical prophecy thus opens the door to apocalyptics. In that case, we encounter a new confirmation and explanation of why prophetic preaching harmoniously switched to interpretative-redactional prophecy, both of which impacted on one another (7.3.5.4.5). At the same time, classical prophecy displays the irreplaceability of its kerygmatic component which lays at the basis of its origin. This is how accepted classical prophecy arose: It was an established value that only obtained recognition gradually and arduously.

474

man with one talent of which we read in the gospel, they did not burry the valuable prophetic legacy entrusted to them in a secure literary form intended only to conserve it. They used the prophetic mental legacy, reflected on and interpreted1090 it and thus enriched it enormously. Nevertheless, when the canonical balance is drawn, it must be recognised that the redactors’ contribution was primarily and even pre-eminently inspired by the spirit of the constitutive order1091. It is to their merit that they were able to balance their own institution evenly with the prophets’ challenging and supportive1092 spirit, to which they, like the Dtr, intentionally remained faithful. The balance in the development of the canon concept contrasts with its external appearance. The weight and share of the literary shape cause the balance to tip toward the redactors. This ascendancy increases as the redactors are compelled to prune material in existing body of tradition to incorporate it suitably in their redactional work. This causes a shift in material from original prophetic preaching to written tradition at each stage and revision1093. However, the literary evolution does not give an accurate picture of what is happening in the development of the canon. 1090

“Not least, however, it must be noted that the literary function of prophecies has undoubtedly provided a fundamental datum for the formulation of new prophecies” (Clements, 1996, 205). “However, it is abundantly clear, as a number of fresh critical studies have noted, that the literary form of prophecy in the Old Testament establishes not simply a medium of preservation, but also a medium of interpretation” (Clements, 1996, 203-204). 1091 Sweeney, 1988, 187-188 n. 1. This continuity does not imply that the redactors let their work be governed by the notion of the writings as whole. In this regard, scholars too anachronistically label the concept a book. McKenzie, 1999, 267; Ben Zvi, 1998; Römer, 2000a; Religion of the book: Clements, 1977, 47; A book-oriented spirituality: Clements, 1993², ‘Buchzusammenhangschaffende Konzeption’: Werlitz, 1999, 1. “Le monde est fait pour aboutir à un livre”, according to St. Mallarmé, quoted in Sonnet, 2002, 524. This runs the risk of overzealously retrojecting the notion of ‘book’ into the past (Niditch, 1996, 116), of thinking too scripto-centrically and of switching too rapidly to the canon as final phase. “Revelation now exists in a book. As an addition (Fortschreibung) to entire Torah, Dt. 34:10-12, represents the birth of the idea of the biblical canon”, according to Dohmen and Oeming as cited by Chapman who agrees (Chapman, 2001, 129-130). The living tradition and its canonising tendency is reduced at one go to a propagandising canonical slogan. This is rightly disputed (Loader, 2002a). 1092 The redactors kept a balance between challenging, creative organisation and maintaining continuity. The dynamic of the prophetic tradition and all Yahwism finds expression here. 1093 Porter (1989, 69) thinks the revisions need not be included in the study of redactional work.

475

Because the redactional work, despite its material expansion, is no less dependent on the foundation of its inspiration, i.e. the original prophetic preaching, this latter remains the primary focus in matters regarding authority for the expanding written tradition1094. However, the latter cannot sidestep permanently the material restrictions to which original oral preaching fell prey in earlier stages. After all, the written tradition is irrevocably subject to the law of contingency, as is apparent from the survey of the literature. How that affects the written tradition during the concentration in a single prophetic corpus must still be examined. Unfortunately, that issue falls outside the scope of the present canon historical study, which has already gone somewhat beyond its original intent – the study of the Dtr single narrative and its origin – in tracing the Dtr redaction right through to the prophetic writing.

C. The Community’s Role Beside YHWH, the Israelite community also had a part in the message1095 that the prophetic tradition attempted to serve with its canonical work (see B) and its corresponding formal development (see A). The Israelite community is even a partner is this message which consisted of a historically localised relationship between it and YHWH. Given its involvement in the relationship, it is to be expected that the prophetic tradition would be given a treatment commensurate with its role as partner. That is not the case. In the emerging theology outlined in B, YHWH’S authority dominated the relationship while Israel’s place was that of the defaulting partner subservient to this authority. But Israel is portrayed quite differently in the formal development (A). When this formal development was examined, we noted frequently that given the historical context the Israelite community’s input was significantly more obtrusive than the image in the emerging theology of an Israel totally dependent on YHWH’S mercy may suggest. As socio-political reality1096 and on that 1094

The redactors’ dependence on original prophetic preaching is confirmed by the dependence of the Dtr redactors in DtrH on preceding redactional work (Porter, 1989). 1095 Based on prophecy and memorial culture, Dt. 6:4 (the Shema) tried to set forth a theology of the relationship (Beziehungstheologie) between YHWH and Israel in a code of behaviour (Hardmeier, 2000). 1096 The theological concept focuses on the transcendent aspect of the canon’s genesis and, obviously, gave less attention to its socio-historical context. Conversely, the formal shape of the prophetic writings is more intertwined with the contingency of the canon process and

476

account an important factor in the canon process, Israel was discussed, at least tangentially, when these were studied. That is why we noted that this aspect of the emerging canonical prophetic corpus needed to be studied separately. The time for this has now come. First we should note how the prophetic writings are much more suitable than others in the OT for depicting the historical background of the Israelite community and its religious relation to YHWH. Like most other OT writings, they are may not be viewed exclusively as literary creations. They must be ascribed to the whole community. In that capacity, it is a community culture that inevitably bore the stamp of the sociopolitical context in which it arose1097. The prophetic writings are more reflects more extensively its socio-political background. “...The subject of prophecy and society may be regarded as an important aspect of the hermeneutical enterprise in biblical studies” (Carroll, 19934, 203). Carroll used this in his study of prophecy, esp. Jeremiah and Isaiah, when he applied the theory of cognitive dissonance (Carroll, 1995). Others (Kselman, 1995, 12) also find this theory intriguing. — We have repeatedly noted how prophecy is attuned to Israel’s historical reality. 1097 “It is certainly arguable that literature (whether all or some) bears the stamp of society as a whole” (Davies P.R., 19934, 28). This author correctly warns against a sociological simplification of the Israelite community of the type that brought several authors to equate the theological representation in the writings with sociological reality. “The theologoumenon ‘Israel’ very often becomes a historical entity whose beliefs and practices correspond to the writings of the few literati in their midst” (Davies P.R., ibid). In this regard, the hermeneutic, here applied to sociology, is once again insufficiently explicit. “Within the last decades or so there have appeared numerous studies which directly or indirectly relate to the sociological study of the Old Testament and ancient Israel. In most cases these are studies of the social history of Israel and have little in the way of explicit sociological theory. In all cases they do, however, suppose so a theory” (Mayes, 19943, 52). “If one assumes that the human reality of power and authority makes texts possible, then the human realities that give rise to the several biblical texts should also be taken in account” (Snyman, 2000, 279). For another view see: “The word is now context free” (Carroll, 19934, 208). Admittedly, it is only an elite minority in modest Israel (Davies P.R., 1992, 92), that had the opportunity to use writing and take advantage of a literate culture (Collins, 1993, 24). Nevertheless, its use was fully in service of the community, since at that time the individual was submerged in a dominant experience of community. To the extent that they derive from the original persons, the prophets’ most individually formulated confessions, such as those of Jeremiah and in the songs of the servant of YHWH in Deutero-Isaiah (Is. 42:1-7; 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13; 53:12), can be understood as mainly aimed at the Israelite Yahwist community, which they are intended to serve. “Deshalb war damals ein auf das Volksganze bezogenes theologisches Denken und Reden - etwa der Propheten - eo ipso ein politisches und jedes politische Denken und Handeln war selbstredend eingebunden in eine kultische Praxis und getragen von theologischer Reflexion” (Hardmeier, 1983, 121). The concept openness applicable to legal procedure, the cult and literature was thus an important element for detecting the socio-political

477

transparent in this matter because they, more than other OT writings, intimate by whom and under what circumstances they were envisioned. They are the only writings in which the designers go so far in identifying themselves that they allow their work and input to be categorised within a tradition built up around one well-defined person1098. As always in theologically focussed OT historiography, the prophet’s historical profile behind which the prophetic authors are concealed is not the extraordinary element. Nevertheless, it is sociologically important that the designers of the prophetic writings felt in many ways personally involved – via the prophets behind whom they stand – in the dialogue1099 with the Israelite community, its institutions and the many-layered population that it seems to contain. This is always a human dialogue and thus left many more context in which the prophets arose and to which they unavoidably refer. The prophets’/spokespersons’ critical utterances are more revealing of the community’s crisis than of their own personal situation (Overholt, 1996, 439-440); this is further evidence of the community’s priority in the biblical tradition which was “...stamped with the hallmark of experiential testing in the life of the community to which they belong” (Ackroyd, 1978, 48). In this sense, these individually composed texts are an expression of what lived in the community and in that capacity they can be viewed as speaking for the whole community. For another view see Whitelam (1995, 157-158) who thought that these writings, unlike archaeological artefacts, only represented their designers’ views. 1098 This obviously applies proportionally less to the deutero-prophetic authors such as Deutero-Isaiah. “...the exilic and post-exilic periods spelled the end of individually authored and titled prophetic literature. Those for whom the words of the classical prophets were authoritative did not rise up as identifiable individuals” (Petersen, 1977, 15). 1099 The prophets’ disputes with their colleagues, officials or the people entered into in YHWH’S name (7.3.3.1-7.3.3.2), whether or not in the cult, like their prayers to YHWH on behalf of the people, are a reflection of an intense human dialogue however theologically coloured they may be. The oral origin of the prophetic tradition guaranteed this (Parker K.I., 1996; Willis, 1995; Houston, 1995). Seen from this perspective, this was indeed an inter-personal event in which the prophets, facing the overwhelming power of society, tried to carry on by using their own distinctive input in an acceptable fashion. True and false prophets faced the same task and offered the people different solutions that determined the further acceptance or rejection of themselves and their message. The difference between true and false prophets came down to one being considered orthodox and hence canonised and the other not. In this sense we could say of the community produced the prophetic codex (Sweeney, 1995, 12) or that there was “a concept of society as a pre-existent reality which in time of stress and rapid change produces prophets” (Mayes, 19943, 57). At the same time we must note that the final prophetic text that the community accepted as canonised recognised that the prophets’ binding authority was not of its doing but was something that it had to accept. “Die Individualität des Propheten unterliegt den Anfechtungen, die aus der Ungewißheit der Zeit erwachsen; er stimmt sich mit schwacher Kraft gegen sie ... Anderseits jedoch trägt die Interpretation des Propheten ... in wesentlichen Passagen das normative Element an ihn heran” (Hermann S., 1990, 202).

478

sociological traces1100 than contacts with YHWH, of which the authorredactor also spoke. This notwithstanding, YHWH is theologically the dominant partner in his relationship with Israel. But as with all prophecy, classical prophecy’s relation to the community and its representatives appears to be socio-politically conditioned to the extent that its character and operation depend on the community. This resulted in the varied appearance of the prophetic writings1101. Even though the prophetic texts provide suitable material for sociological study, the modalities are still restricted1102. This is not only due to the extant OT texts being all more or less dominated by Yahwist theology to which sociology, like historiography is secondary and subservient. There is also the fact that sociological data in the texts usually only reflect the authors’/redactors’ situation rather than that of the times or the persons about which they speak1103. All this means that the sociological study of the prophetic texts must be satisfied with the scarce data that is implicit or mixed1104 in and outside the texts with other material in the 1100

The prophets’ proportionally greater involvement as human person with the lot of their people came from their being rooted in the community; this gave them a sense of empathy that was not limited to words but led to consistent solidarity. Jeremiah’s continuing to serve the oppressed people of Jerusalem after its fall is paradigmatic. This solidarity is manifest in many forms that shape prophetic appearance amid the population. Petersen (1981) and Wilson (R.R., 1980) studied the influence of the community on the prophets’ rise and work (Mayes, 19943, 57). 1101 This socio-political slant also applies to older prophecy in Israel (7.3.2). Given that, there is reason to suggest that Israelite classical prophecy emerges and ceases with the monarchy. However, this view focuses the classical prophets’ emergence and work on an important, institutional element within Israelite society that, seen sociologically, has more facets that just this monarchy. Petersen and Wilson noted this (Overholt, 1988). The prophets served the community above all and not their literary work. — The many reworkings and changes to suit new circumstances are a clear sign of this polyvalence. 1102 Carroll, 19934. By and large, authors consider it difficult to detect the prophets’ social context. 1103 Davies P.R., 19934. Yet this is not always so. “II Zach. does not deal explicitly with his own time” (Person, 1993, 146). 1104 Carroll (19934, 204-209) stressed the paucity of data and their historical unreliability, although he did use them in his own work for his own purposes. This is another case of inconsistency. Nevertheless, he could not deny the correctness of a sociological study of the prophetic writing’s data even though he minimised their sociological value. (The author thus narrowed this value judgment even though he was open to a sociological study of exilic and later periods.) “There is of course a social dimension to this kind of interpretation and it is becoming widely recognised in modern literary theory that all literature and its interpretation involve political and social activities” (Carroll, 19934, 209). This reservation

479

formal shape in which the prophetic writings have been penned. However, this does not excuse scholars from carrying out a difficult study of the real but often hidden sociological elements in the prophetic writings1105. Because they, like the theological reflections are part of the canonical final text, we are required to integrate them in an evaluation of the canonical effort as it has been intentionally expressed in the prophetic writings. Because the canonical movement usually undervalued the canonical texts’ sociological context, the faith community’s share in the genesis of the canon is profiled poorly if at all in studies on the canon, with as result an unbalanced view of the canon. Where possible this defect is remedied somewhat here with a proportionally deeper treatment of the sociological context in which the canonical formation of the prophetic codex occurred, at least in as far as the strictly classical prophets are concerned1106. The starting point for the present sociological examination is the prophetic writings contained in the final text as terminus of prophets’ evolution toward canonical recognition as religiously authoritative tradition. From a sociological perspective, this authoritative tradition is a process that took place exclusively within a historically determined community usually called Israel in the prophetic and other OT writings. Even if this term is theologically laden, it is certain that the texts containing the term Israel also have a sociological entity in mind. As such, is particularly applicable to archaeological and comparative data, which must be handled cautiously (Long, 1977; Overholt, 1985; idem, 1996; Lightstone, 1988, Mayes, 1994; Frick, 1996; Hallo, 1991). If they are capable at all of being considered products/artefacts and hence witnesses to the entire society (according to Whitelam, 1995, 159), there is the contrary notion that they are silent witnesses when compared to texts, without which we know nothing about the users of these artefacts (Miller, 1991, 97; idem, 1999, 367). — A. Lange (2002, 3) distinguished the underlying (hypo) text from the later (hyper) text. P.R. Davies admits that in theory the different materials and aspects entwined in the texts should not be pulled apart, although in practice he does tend to do this and is by his own admission faulted for oversimplification. He also admits that his “simplification is quite deliberate” (Davies P.R., 1994, 30). But he applies this only to the pre-exilic period. At least for the pre-exilic period (Davies P.R., 1992, 75-93), he refuses the sociological data that are contained if only indirectly and implicitly in the prophetic texts (Carter, 1996, 4). On the relation of artefacts to biblical texts see Shaper, 2006, 181-188. 1105 For another view see Carroll (19934, 209). On the relationship between artefacts and biblical texts see Schaper, 2006, 181-188. 1106 Davies P.R., 1998, 41; Childs, 1983², 83, 106. We should recall here that in the literature classical prophecy is described as running from Samuel to Ezekiel. With deuteroprophecy, Ezekiel is less evident in these considerations than are the other major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. These latter, with the other classical prophets are more directly the object of this study which took the Dtr single narrative as its starting point.

480

it has much in common with the sociological entities in other population groups1107. A characteristic of this Israel is that tradition, accepted as being of divine origin, arose after a minority gained a laborious victory over majority resistance1108. This is remarkable when we appreciate that the 1107

The prophetic tradition takes this contingent aspect of its design into account. It is brought to do so by the prophets’ special attention for current events. — The theological notion of belonging to a single people called Israel expressed in the biblical tradition of the amphictyony of twelve tribes (Coggins, 19934, 164-165) and related to the history of the liberation from Egypt (Dietrich, 1995, 18) is ultimately based on the acceptance of a body of rules for living and faith in the one, unchanging YHWH, God of Israel. The historical origin of this notion is said to be situated in the time-honoured adhesion to family and tribal community. This conviction was not threatened by the division into two states in the preexilic period (Talmon, 1987, 592). After the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, a notion of unity in the form of a single Davidic monarchy was transferred to the kingdom of Judah as heir and representative of the whole Israelite community. This was sparked by the Dtr current, co-stimulated by Josiah’s centralisation of the cult. During and after the exile, the Jews in and beyond Judah retained the notion of a single Israel with Jerusalem as reference point. Even though the theological notion of the single Israel exceeded historical reality, it was a sociological reality to a certain extent, however much it may be noted now that this biblical Israel differed greatly from the ancient historical Israel (Davies P.R., 1992; idem, 2001, 211; Gottwald, 1993, 182-185). — Collective sociological phenomena are the basis for the comparative studies referred to above. 1108 A modified version of R.R. Wilson’s view (1995, 339-340) is applicable here. “The central intermediary may be freed out of his position to the periphery, while the peripheral intermediary may enlarge his support group to the point that it becomes the majority in society” (Mayes, 19943, 57). Lange, 2002, 31-32. For another view see Carroll, 19934, 216218. Wilson R.R. (1995, 339-340) separates central prophecy from peripheral prophecy solely on the basis of the social backers. The strength of this social support is certainly an important element indicating its influence and pre-conditional status for general recognition of its authority and canonisation. However, this is far from being the only condition for canonisation. Canonisation requires more than having the support of a majority within the community. Equally necessary is that the support of this majority is attained for the contours of the religious tradition as ultimately described at the canonisation. The conspicuous element is that classical prophecy with its opposition literature (Hardmeier, 1993) managed to achieve a situation in which the minority view that it represented overcame the religious tradition that had long been at Israel’s core (7.3.4) and began to set the tone for life in that religious society. “Was wir hier miterleben, ist eine religionsinterne Grenzziehung, die als Abgrenzung nach außen interpretiert wird” (Weippert H., 1997, 22). Classical prophets and their supporters did not move from the periphery to the centre as R.R. Wilson hinted. Rather the opposite. The central tradition shifted to the periphery, and a majority in Israel came to accept this interpretation of it. Essentially this is a matter of Israel’s ever-present choice between true and false prophecy. — Classical prophecy’s own view of this tradition became apparent in the performance of Hosea and Amos (7.3.3.2) in which Israel first became dependent on a specific interpretation of the central religious tradition. But this revolutionary twist had already started with Elijah’s and Elisha’s actions

481

canonisation of authoritative literature like the prophetic corpus – even when this is only part of Israel’s canonised literature – contributes to the identity of the whole population group. Noteworthy in Israel’s case is that a small community1109 was able to acquire an identity and record it in literature throughout the process of its sociological development and that it directed this process internally despite the fact that it was repeatedly subjected to external political domination by a rapid succession of empires1110. If we regard the genesis of the long prophetic corpus1111 from the perspective of the final text, two events stand out. The fall of Israel in 722 BCE and the collapse of Judah in 597 BC provided the decisive turning points in the emergence of the classical prophetic tradition as representative of the whole prophetic tradition1112. These dates and events introduced turning points in the evolution in which a type of prophecy that previously only a minority of the Yahwist current had accepted, could now push ahead to acceptance by the majority. After these events, it was thus against the house of Omri (Nicholson, 1995, 345-348). The major lines of the evolution of this Yahwist current often referred to as the Yahweh-alone party, is nearly impossible to reconstruct (Nicholson, 1995, 349-353). What preceded this prophetic Yahweh-alone party is also a matter of guesswork. It is not clear whether or not this was a revival of a previous consensus now overcome by practice. 1109 “...the religion of early Israel is rather the expression (albeit a very important one) of a particular cultural identity rather than its sole foundation” (Frick, 1996, 450). What Hardmeier (1983, 131) called the “Findung und Wahrung der Identität” are difficult to distinguish, let alone separate. — The identity of the entire population is important here. That is why it is insufficient for a minority to assent via acceptance of a few prophets. For another view see Overholt, 1996, 242. Canonisation is only valid when the whole community participates. The preservation of the writings is also insufficient for canonisation. They must acquire a binding character. — Because of the Israelite community’s small size, it is not unusual for it to have a common idiom. 1110 The events surrounding Josiah’s painful downfall confronted the people of Judah with the hard reality that it was only a pawn in the international scene. 1111 In essence, prophecy, like the Dtr current, was long and is impossible to date with precision. When we look back from the final text to earlier periods within the long prophetic tradition, we do not go back to the earliest times as Weber did (Mayes, 19943, 4346). These are still under discussion. The end of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE and the subsequent period offer greater purchase. 1112 The emergence of this evolution in no way implies a prophetic rupture with tradition. Rather, they accelerated its evolution along a path that lay open. It is characteristic of sociohistorical study that it explores the modalities of this social behaviour and determines not only the extent, but the manner and reason why a particular option was chosen or rejected in a series of events that extended beyond individual input (Whitelam, 1995, 160).

482

able to lay the foundation for its authoritative position1113 ultimately rewarded with canonisation of what is now generally called classical prophecy. From a sociological and even logical perspective, matters could have been otherwise and a different type of prophecy, perhaps that of Hananiah could have been canonised. That Yahwist Israel decided otherwise and accepted the demanding classical prophets was largely due to these events and other supporting factors that slowly but surely turned the debate that had been running against classical prophecy in the Yahwist community. These two catastrophes were pivotal events in Israel’s religious life because they offered classical prophecy an opportunity to confront people and leaders with their responsibility for the downfall that the prophets of doom had predicted1114. Despite these circumstances, this had the advantage that upon their acceptance of responsibility and repentance, it offered a perspective of improvement and restoration on the condition that behaviour truly changed in the direction that the prophets had long required. In retrospect, the primary lever in this repentance was doubtless the physical experience of the catastrophe resulting from the people’s own failure. This experience was all the heavier because the prophets had warned against it just before it happened1115 but the people 1113

The establishment and confirmation of prophecy’s authoritative position is a persistent theme in the development of prophetic writing and ultimately determines all of it. “Zur Debatte steht zugleich die Autorität jenes Propheten, dessen Verkündigung den Prozeß immer neuer Aneignung und Interpretation in Gang gesetzt hat, an dessen Ende das nach ihm benannte Prophetenbuch steht” (Barthel, 1997, 24). 1114 The prophetic debate was not limited to direct contact between the parties/opponents (7.3.3.1-7.3.3.2). The debates took place in public, like all else in the community at that time. The prophets’ future-oriented appearance was known everywhere. This is the consensus in the literature (Carroll, 19934, 215). 1115 “Parler d’un désastre national en termes de jugement divin est un commentaire d’une situation contemporaine et appelle à la réforme; cela permet aussi à ceux qui reçoivent la prophétie comme authentique de faire face au désastre quand il se produit” (Ackroyd, 1977a, 228). Deliverance and doom are thus announced together. The Dtr stressed the conditional character of the deliverance, doubtless inspired by the prophets. — It cannot be stressed enough that religious life in Israel is singularly practical (this is in keeping with Sanders’ canonical criticism that puts the functionality of canon research first and foremost above its structure [Sanders, 1972, XX]) because it treats emergencies and vital questions (struggle for life; warlike situation: Barstad, 1993, 53) and does not focus on literary or cultural artefacts. Authors too easily reduce OT literature to a carrier of theological ideas. “Mary Douglas has pointed to a cultural bias among modern scholars of religion; a bias which predisposes scholars to look to ideas as the explanation for religious phenomena, themselves largely reduced to ideas. That is, the history of religions remains to a great extent the history of theological ideas. The relationship of ideas to socio-cultural factors,

483

did not listen. The obdurate Israelite population had to admit this, at least that part of it that could see what was happening. The Yahwist part of the population, driven by an urgent need and hope for the preservation of Israel, gave heed to the prophets. It certainly had to overcome disinclination, given the exigencies of repentance1116. It had to tip the while admitted, receives less attention” (Lightstone, 1988, 2-3). Consider here the general practical slant of OT literature. “Außerdem ist zu bedenken, daß es sich in der erhaltenen israelitischen Literatur nicht um Kunstwerke handelt, die um ihrer selbst willen geschaffen worden sind ... In allen Literaturarten spiegelt sich in jeweils eigener Weise wider, daß ihr Inhalt mit dem menschlichen Dasein aufs engste verknüpft ist, und eine umfassende Regelung des Lebens aufgrund des göttlichen Willens ermöglichen und gewährleisten soll” (Fohrer, 1989, 18). Canonical evaluation is thus not a matter of disavowing the value of the literary shape (A) or of the theology with canonical intention (B). Only the difference between its genesis as literature and the force that it manipulates during the formation of Israel’s identity (Coggins, 1999, 34-35) is stressed. In short, we aim at the acknowledgement of the political and social context. Since this has undeniably left its mark on the literary and theological elements in the final text, the prophetic texts must be read as testimonies to faith amid a deep-seated existential emergency (‘aus ... einer existentiellen Krise’, according to Talmon, 1987, 74, who has in mind the crisis at the end of the second temple period; recall in this regard the aphorism of canonical criticism as Sanders worded it, “Canonical criticism … begins with the existential and essential observation …” [Sanders, 1972, XIX]) concerned with the fight for the people’s survival (a frequently occurring phenomenon: Overholt, 1995, 361). Israel’s longstanding urge for freedom (Dietrich, 1995, 19) doubtless also played a role. In intensifying monotheism, the prophets could promote YHWH to liberator. He showed the enemies his hand (Is. 5:26-30; 7:20) and dominated universal history and nature. “...the very nature of prophecy indicates that its concerns were far too urgent and existential for such a careful literary proceeding to have been their aim” (Clements, 1995, 446). Carroll creditably tried to clarify this (at least insofar as it concerns the exilic and post-exilic periods) with his theory of cognitive dissonance. “...the genuineness of the prophet’s warnings and threats would be unassailable” (Clements, 1996, 210). 1116 Testimonies to the people’s aversion to the prophets’ demanding message are too copious and unanimous to restrict them to literary evidence or to fear that this is an illegitimate transfer of meaning (Carroll, 19934, 206-207). “This is in fact such a widely attested theme in the OT and so widely observed in field studies of religious specialists that one cannot doubt that it must have belonged to the real situations in which Israel’s prophets sought to support their claims of authority” (Long, 1977, 6). It is true that more general aspects of the confrontations with prophets are presented, that they undeniably display an anthological nature (Carroll, ibid.) and that usually they cannot be reconstructed in their original historical context. But their reference to an existentially experienced and protracted problematical relation between the prophets and their public is beyond dispute. Even should Jeremiah not have authored his confessions, they still unmistakably witness to a strong personal involvement(for another view see Carroll, 19934, 212). “Some believe that this is not a genuine dialogue, but arises from Jeremiah’s imagination. However, the sudden change of speakers and the liveliness of word exchange suggest at least a literary

484

balance in the Yahwist community toward classical prophecy as it has now taken shape in the prophetic corpus. In the transition to classical prophecy, the consenting Yahwists were aided and supported by several external factors1117 that reinforced their difficult choice. There were miraculous events, such as an earthquake in Amos’ day and Josiah’s and Hananiah’s premature deaths1118. They pressed home the prophets’ heavily criticised stance. These and other miracles played a primary role in burnishing the image of the charismatic prophets1119 and in legitimating the transcendent presentation of the kind of oral interaction which actually occurred during Jeremiah’s career” (Willis, 1995, 215). “It is sure by no accident that the struggles of Jeremiah are preserved and so fully by the Dtr-edition” (Long, 1995, 327). “Wesentlich ist die Einsicht, daß diese Texte Jeremias prophetische Existenz zum Thema haben. Dann aber sprechen nach meiner Einsicht die besseren Gründe für Originalität” (Hermisson, 1998, 1). Given these circumstances, it is not true that “the treatment of the text as text escapes from the problematics of reconstructing the background to the text in order to do social analysis of the historical reality imagined to be behind the text” (Carroll, 19943, 209). When Carroll makes this statement, he precluded studying the pre-exilic sociological evolutions in the prophetic texts. That runs counter to the position taken in this study. As with all relics of the biblical traditions, those in the prophetic texts only operate when they are put back in the tensions and expectations found in the Israelite and all other communities. The data in the prophetic texts are “styled as a model for the faithful community” (Bultmann, 2001, 85). “Conformity with the community’s perception of religious decorum was also necessary for authority to be actualized” (Long, 1977, 18). This calls to mind the dynamic that marked Yahwism and esp. prophecy. 1117 Overholt, 1995, 363. The crisis periods that the Israelite community underwent should not be restricted to the two peaks at 722 and 587 BCE. They intermittently underwent many other vicissitudes that constituted a permanent threat to the small Israelite population. 1118 Am. 1:1; Dijkstra, 2001, 111, 128. Jeremias (2003, 38) also mentions the typical reference to historical facts in Is., Ez. and Zach. that, like Dtr (6.6.5) focuses on the historical contingency of prophecy. “And what could be more damaging to the systems about Yahweh’s election and protection of his people Israel than the death of good king Josiah and the first Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem (597 B.C.E.) and exiling of its inhabitants?” (Overholt, 1996, 440). 1119 However much these miracle stories and legends may have been embroidered and remodelled, it is difficult to deny them all contact with reality. The prophets’ experience of God appears to be their ultimate foundation. “Implicitly what is assumed as normal is that the claim of divine commission will be reinforced by an event or events as proof. ... recognition freely given and guaranteed by accepted proof is decisive for the authority of charismatic individual” (Long, 1977, 13-15). This sociological phenomenon occurs frequently in the religious world. “...marvellous acts, including instances of fulfilled prophecy, may also play a role ... such seemingly supernatural occurrences help to confirm the authority of the prophet. They are accounted for in the model under the rubric explications of confirmation” (Overholt, 1996, 242). Yet this confirmation from the listeners, so necessary for the exercise of the prophets’ authority, does not mean that this

485

character of their message. The redactors who, like the Dtr, had chosen for classical prophecy did not let slip the opportunity to use drawn out stories and legends to reach the goal they set with their support for classical prophecy. They carried these facts as building stones in their literary argument of which the theme of the fulfilment1120 of prophetic predictions was an essential premise. This and other ways of working show that the representatives of the prophetic tradition did not look on passively when successive major catastrophes befell Israel and Judah. Notably the way in which they used the accompanying wondrous events and circumstances and did not hesitate to use them for their purpose in embellished legends shows how they had to take into account their public’s receptivity1121. Neither the divine character of their message, of which they felt assured, nor the historical facts, however catastrophic and impressive, were sufficient in their view to turn their public1122 to Israel’s deliverance with which they were so concerned. The theologically so clearly described divine authority that was the source of their authority. That remained based on the divine character of their message. “The hearers do not by their act of attributing authority to a prophet confer his power on him, since from one point of view, the claim to supernatural designation means that he already has or is perceived to have these powers. What they do, in effect, is confirm him in his role” (Overholt, 1996, 442). 1120 “This perspective, of course, derives in part from the OT itself, which seems concerned to vindicate certain prophets at the expense of others” (Long, 1977, 3). “Written prophecy could become a literature of legitimization affecting the political and religious shape of a community in a very different way from that in which the original spoken words of the prophet had done” (Clements, 1995, 445). — The purposes of the redactors and the prophets successors should not be used against the original prophets. It has already been stressed how when they follow their own strategy both are extensions of one another when it comes to the content and essence of the prophetic message. — The argument of the fulfilment of history grew to become a plan and became an important tenet of the canonising tendency. “Die Katastrophe Jerusalems und das Babylonische Exil wurden als Erfüllung ihrer Worte gedeutet und diese Worte damit in einen kanonischen Rang erhoben.” (Jeremias, 2006, 9). 1121 “Authority is real in societal terms only in the interaction between the prophet and his public. It is essential to ask about acceptance about granting legitimacy” (Long, 1977, 4). 1122 Section B above addressed the divine and absolute character of the prophetic message. “The attribution of legitimacy means that authority is at least distinct in principle, if not always in practice, from coercion and force on the one hand, and leadership, persuasion, influence on the other. Indeed, it may be based upon the most diverse motives for compliance” (Long, 1977, 4). This was the reason why the Dtr, who consistently modelled themselves on the prophets, preferred to use persuasion. They are known for their paraenetic style.

486

they extended to their public did not relieve them from exercising it in a manner suitable to their contemporaries. The exceptional, superhuman nature of the message, more than other circumstances obliged the prophets to adapt the exercise of authority to the situation and people involved in it. Given that under these circumstances the prophetic message aroused resistance from the start, the need to legitimate the prophetic activity was felt early1123. According to the extant texts, the original prophets faced this problem at the time of their labour. As charismatic figures they tended to confront their public directly and even to bark out hard truths in no uncertain terms. They scarcely gave a thought to their public’s receptivity. If indeed they did give a thought to this, there was little time and few resources for assessing their hearers’ potential for perception1124. Yet they seem to have been sufficiently pertinent in that they did not restrict themselves to faithfully imparting their exalted message1125. According to the current text, they immediately added that this message did not originate with them1126 however much they may agree with it. In this way they parried in advance all personal responsibility for the resistance that the demanding message unavoidably elicited and stressed their solidarity with their compatriots. The reference to their ordinary status and lowly birth has 1123

According to: D.N. Freedman (Lange, 2002, 30), the decisive characteristic of a true prophet can be recognised in his attempt “… to make real to his listeners the experience and message of God”. From this vantage point, the Dtr are the truest prophets because of their effectiveness. “Thus authority is fundamentally a social reality, having to do with social relationships that are more or less fixed, depending on the circumstances” (Long, 1977, 4). — The prophetic message’s transcendent character became a demanding and challenging character that became one of the elements that sparked its dynamic. “The claim to special position rests entirely upon the prior claim of transcendent commission. And the social realization of that claim depends upon the acceptance by others” (Long, 1977, 7-8). “...it is noteworthy that Weber discerned an element of tension between the religious meaning of what a prophet declared and the empirical experience of what actually happened to the groups the prophet addressed” (Clements, 1995, 448). “...it was a question of contested authority, when truth was rather more difficult to possess than to claim” (Long, 1977, 6). 1124 The original prophets had already performed a rudimentary reflection. “How scripture is perceived ... depends upon the various groups’ structural patterns of perceiving the world ... As their social experience and location change, so too does the character of their (exoteric) literature” (Lightstone, 1988, 9, 18). It remains to be noted here that the great differences within the Israelite community impeded the receptivity of the prophets’ public. 1125 Among the results of faithfulness to the transcendent message was a not directly intended estrangement from historical reality. 1126 Jer. 26:12,15; Am. 7:15; Mic. 3:8.

487

the same purpose1127. This goes further than captatio benevolentiae or capturing the audience’s good will.. This approach to their audience allowed the prophets to deliver the transcendent message on the people’s level without altering its essence. It also gave them an opportunity to gauge the public’s response and even, where needed, to present the people’s remarks to their divine taskmaster by way of intercession. All this demonstrates not only a minimum of empathy from the prophets for their audience’s concerns, it also witnesses to their desire from the very start to sustain their contemporaries’ dialogue with YHWH1128 regardless of how difficult circumstances may become. They seemed to be aware that this was the only way to give their message a chance and to bring their task to a successful conclusion. In this regard, their high-principled, ethical lives were an additional advocate for the authenticity of their message. Their sense of responsibility 1127

“Kein Spur von Selbstsicherheit”, according to: H.W. Wolff (Lange, 2002, 2). “But there is more than religious claim here. Jeremiah also asserts that he is innocent in the matter which so angered his opponents, not because he denies doing what they charge, but because he disclaims ultimate responsibility for his action (26:15)” (Long, 1977, 6). Am. 7:14-15 has good reason to mention the prophet’s rural origin. 1128 “...these reactions are both inevitable and of critical importance. For the prophet seeks to move his audience to action and his hearers may be said to attribute authority to him insofar as they acknowledge and are prepared to act upon the truth of his formulation. In their response the hearers in effect judge the cultural competence of the prophet deciding whether or not his message makes sense in the context of their cultural and religious traditions and is relevant to the current socio-political situation. As Peter Worsley put it, ‘charisma is thus a function of recognition’. The prophet without honour cannot be a charismatic prophet” (Overholt, 1996, 428). “But whether individuals accept, reject or are indifferent to it, they will react to the prophet in some fashion, and it is this feedback and the prophet’s response to it that defines the dynamic interrelationship between actors that is central to the model. Similarly, the prophet will assess his own message against his perception of the events going on around him and the feedback he gets from his audience. Since in his understanding the message is not strictly his own but is revealed him by the god, we also need to assume the possibility of feedback from the prophet to god and an eventual new revelation either confirming or altering the original message” (Overholt, 1996, 428). This notion of feedback said to be present as a time of reflection in all dialogues (Kselman, 1985, 126) shows the extent to which this author derives his inspiration from Weber’s conflict model. The notion of challenge originates with the Weber tendency that wants to highlight the free input from persons and groups as opposed to Durkheim who sees the community’s social influence as something more uniform and materialistic. — Despite the antagonism and repudiation within the community, the prophets kept working; seeking new types of dialogue and contact and managing to gain respect and press ahead to some degree. This was not a foregone conclusion for an individual in the community-dominated society of the time.

488

for their task and their effort to gain purchase with their public is apparent in many other ways1129 they attempted to enter their public’s way of living and thinking. Despite the revolutionary scope of their message, the prophets’ concern to respect tradition where possible and use it as staging camp for their performance is striking. This becomes abundantly clear when studying their complex handling of the central traditions. It is not by chance that the prophets became known for the performance-related manner in which they formulated their message. Once again, this was not prompted by their sense for art and culture. The purposiveness of their task took precedence. While the poetic design with its metaphorical images could give maximum expression to the exalted 1129

“In traditional societies, legitimacy, and therefore authority, is evaluated on the basis of behaviour” (Long, 1977, 11). “He was himself the product of a long tradition, not simply of prophets like himself, but of a whole history of piety, worship and political expectation with which he necessarily was engaged in a kind of dialogue” (Clements, 1996, 3). Wondrous deeds or miracles were added to this high-principled life. They became linked to their status as charismatic figure. Even their clothing could become an expression of this status. Unlike the high-principled moral lives, miracles were not automatically beneficial to the prophets’ task. Miracles only helped when they were piously linked to the prophetic message (Stacey, 1995). This was the case for the redactors who tried to use these legends/stories in their prophetic task. — Prophecy in Israel is too complex to be circumscribed in a perspicuous definition (Carroll, 19934, 209-215). One approaches it most closely by studying the patterns formed by the many different roles allocated to its representatives. “Role theory is not just a description of various social activities; it supplies a social anthropology. Men play dramatic parts in the great play of society and the individual is the masks that he must wear to do so. The self is not simply a given entity but a process continuously created and recreated in each social situation that one enters” (Mayes, 19943, 57). The community’s influence is thus exaggerated at the individual’s expense. It would be better to maintain a middle course between the two sociological factors explained respectively by Weber and Durkheim (Mayes, 19943, 39-43; Carter, 1996, 9-10, 12-13). Where the first stressed the person’s and institution’s input in the social system, the latter highlighted the influence of a more cumulative source. This has consequences for the sociological approach to religion. Weber tended to use a conflict model, Durkheim an organic model with more mechanical and functional factors (Mayes, 1996, 39-41; Carter, 1996, 6). Prophecy played a major role in both sociological approaches (5.7.5). This sociological aspect was too often ignored in OT studies in favour of a theological approach to the substance of the prophetic message (Overholt, 1996, 424-427). This message contained continuity and discontinuity to guarantee its reception and efficiency. “The people choose their prophets, that is they attribute authority to them, because they perceive in their proclamation continuity with the cultural traditions sufficient to make what they say intelligible and at the same time innovations sufficient to offer the possibility of a new interpretation that will bring order out of chaos” (Overholt, 1996, 441442).

489

scope of the message1130, it was also the style most like to to find favour with the public when first spoken and later. The same concern for efficiency drove them to use writing at the first sign of resistance with a view to the future and the time-independent character of the message. The prophets’ successors, esp. the redactors, were much better off when it came to finding a way to exercise authority that was suitable to the times and fulfilled the need for legitimation. They were given much more time to think about how to get a broad public to accept a difficult message. Since they normally worked at a later date, certainly after the prophets, they had the advantage of using the reflection sparked by the major catastrophes and subsequent events in the battered Israelite community. They usually had less need for prophecies of doom than their predecessors did. Without eliminating these from their vocabulary, they were able to use promises of deliverance as the consequences of the catastrophic situation calmed. These had previously been drowned out1131 by the loud wailing and sharp admonitions of the prophets of doom. Of course, the redactors worked at their desks and not eye-to-eye with their public. They did not have immediate contact with the opposition. At a reasonably safe distance and after some time, they were in very different and essentially better circumstances to get an overall view of the situation and to provide a religious explanation in permanent dialogue with their evolving public1132. 1130

The surrounding peoples also linked poetry and divine inspiration closely. The preservation of prophecies of doom in times in which they was no longer directly applicable is a powerful argument for their authenticity and refutes the suggestion that they were merely the product of later redactors. “So, for example, the reasons why prophecies threatening doom and judgment are so often brought to a conclusion by words of hope – a phenomenon that affects all of the collections to varying degrees – can scarcely be resolved by looking for independent explanations in each separate case. The fact that this recurs with sufficient frequency to manifest itself as a pattern suggests that it is the same basic needs that have prompted this redactional activity throughout the prophetic corpus ... in consequence, the pattern of bringing even the most fearful of warnings and threats to a helpful conclusion by words of reassurance and hope would appear to reflect the theological and literary needs of the prophetic redactors rather than a startling ambivalence in what an individual prophet proclaimed in the face of the various crises which his hearers confronted” (Clements, 1996, 212, 214). — In fact, prophecies of doom – that were no less directed at deliverance than were the prophet’s warnings and denunciations, albeit in the background – also contained the promise of salvation All this shows that it is correct to postulate that prophecies of deliverance and doom are inseparable. 1132 The redactors were not well placed to spread the prophetic message. The political situation and the prophets’ contradictory explanations and interpretations of tradition were not conducive to public harmony. This need not be to prophecy’s disadvantage. “Tradition of conflict may have reinforced the social and political position of the editors as well” 1131

490 (Long, 1995, 328). That is why the redactors work at harmonising (Clements, 1996, 210211) the writings in which they include numerous collective patterns (Clements, 1977). Instead of letting intuition and impulsiveness lead like the prophets did, the redactors turned to reflection and deliberation. This use of reason can be noted even in the poetical parts of the prophetic writings (Carroll, 1995, 387; Overholt, 1995, 364). The successors had an even greater need for this deliberation when they thought that some prophecies had not been fulfilled. This experience had a contrary effect to that of fulfilment. This deliberation is particularly perceptible in the reasoned development of legends and call narratives that they, like the prophets, needed for their legitimation. Hence their appeal to the authority of the original prophets. “They are interested in defending their own legitimacy by appealing to the authority of the original master” (Sweeney, 1996, 20). From a canonical perspective, the visionary autobiographical report (Selbstbericht) operated from the start as kernel of written prophecy (Willi-Plein, 1999, 50). The redactors constructed the call narratives on the basis of this insight and placed them paradigmatically at the start of the book. “...written prophecy, based upon a preserved collection of a prophet’s spoken words, could be used to legitimate changes in cultic and political institutions. Such a written prophetic testimony could appeal to the prophet’s words as divine authorization for political changes, which had been made inevitable by events, or to bolster the claims of particular religious groups over against those of rival groups” (Clements, 1995, 445). — In their way of thinking, the redactors used styling and clever revisions to adapt the content of the original prophetic message to their public’s new circumstances. All this suits the explicative and creating interpreting function that the redactors assumed as their part of the prophetic office. “Weber described this process as one of routinization in which the implications of what the prophet had said were adapted and interpreted in more precise and concrete terms and in relation to organized religious life” (Clements, 1996, 225). Since this is a dialogue via the written text, we can apply the corresponding literary theory (Schart, 1998, 18-19). The literary dialogue is not restricted to passing on information. It influences the reader and often moves him to action. That is why the speak-act theory is applied in exegesis. — The adaptations of the prophetic message to new circumstances were geared to new readers (Ben Zvi, 1996b, 134 called them re-readers) with new need for the prophetic writings to satisfy. “...daß dieses Wort auf Leser trifft, die von andersartigen Lebensumstände hin übersetzen und aktualisieren müssen” (Jeremias, 1999, 22). This makes one wonder who these readers were. They are important because from a sociological perspective they helped shape the revisions and thus conditioned the prophetic exercise of authority. Carroll ant Deist even speak of the readers as those “who make canons” (Carroll, 2001, 95-96). Before examining the role of these readers in the context of the canon process, we will regard them as readers of prophetic writings. “To a significant level it does matter greatly to us who the readers of the prophetic writings may have been and in what fashion their needs and hopes have shaped the literature that they have passed down to us” (Clements, 1996, 17). This author seems too eager to drop the question after saying that little is known about these readers (Clements, 1993, 93). Nevertheless, the redactors’ sophisticated techniques (among which is rhetoric) show that the authors/scribes were an elite group in a culturally underdeveloped country. Dtr also appears to have been from elite descent. This is the argument revisionists like P.R. Davies uses to nominate elite scribes as designers of the ancient Israelite history in the biblical writings (Barr, 2000, 94-101, 150). How these elite groups could use refined writings to reach readers in an environment in which few were literate (Ben Zvi, 1996b, 134-135) remains enigmatic. Canonical criticism and its kindred spirits give only vague

491

Writing was not the only tool available for this, even though writing underwent an upsurge thanks to the exile and the elimination of the monarchy and temple. Writing gave the redactors greater access to the cult than was available to the prophets, at least insofar as it was not disrupted at that time by acts of war or interrupted by the destruction of Jerusalem. Gradually, beside and beyond the restored temple, the synagogue1133 descriptions of these elite scribes leaving the impression that the redactors addressed their writings to an equally elite public, just as the prophets did when necessary. “The matter of trained readers has a bearing on another issue, that of the social location of those for whom these books were written. Written texts were produced and copied for people who could read for themselves, and to others. The more sophisticated the text is, the more narrow the social location of a/the public that the writers had in mind when they wrote these books. It seems obvious that prophetic books directly address and are the product of a highly educated group” (Ben Zvi, 1996b, 133-134). Some, like P.R. Davies went so far as to ascribe the biblical texts to elite groups that emerged as winners from conflict situations within the Israelite community. The redactors are thought to have used their texts to disseminate the ideology of these groups. Consistent with Durkheim’s social theories on society’s overwhelming influence on the individual, Ben Zvi was convinced he could describe the readers of prophetic books as a dominant social force (Ben Zvi, 1996a, 266). The compilation of the Book of the Twelve Prophets is to have occurred in this way (Ben Zvi, 1996c, 149-156). Carroll’s (1995) cognitive dissonance theory leads in the same direction. Such authors applied reader-response criticism. — It is arguable that the community exerted its power in the way it received and processed the prophetic texts in and beyond the cult. This means that in addition to elite influence, influence from within and below was also exerted on the genesis of the biblical texts. This in an intensive type of text reception with canonisation as crown. “Das denkbar intensivste Beispiel der Textrezeption durch eine Interpretationsgemeinschaft ist die Kanonisierung” (Söding, 2003, LIX). This was a body of thought that arose in a broad consensus (Barr, 2000, 135) and that a broad public, theoretically the entire community, accepted as orthodox. After all, canonisation made clear that the community accepted this authoritative text and linked its own existence and essence with it in perpetuity. Obviously this was undertaken only after long and rigorous reflection within the community. The gravitation from false to true prophecy was thus primarily a pensive contribution to the inclusion of the prophetic and later writings in the Israelite canon process. 1133 The prophets had reasonably sought permanent contact with the cultic centres. They realised that that was the preferred site for dialogue between YHWH and his people in community. The cult was an important instrument for supporting the customary Israelite memorial culture. The prophets wanted to influence the people no less that the civic rulers did (the Josian centralisation of the cult had long borne its mark), but they wanted to do so from their own prophetic view that steered toward a dialogue between YHWH and his people in a manner that they thought best. This differed manifestly from the official line that the priests and prophets of deliverance advocated. This was also the case for Dtr. This brought the prophets to see the permanent and unsurpassable value of the cultic centres, despite their criticism of the generally sorry state of affairs there. That is why it is not inconceivable that the reports of their performance in the cult could be historically

492

became the platform where the writings offered religious support to the people.

7.3.5.4.7 Summary and Conclusion A survey of the literature (7.3.5.4.2-7.3.5.4.3) showed that most authors conclude that the presence and role of the Dtr current in the prophetic books is limited and uneven. The Dtr’s specific input is found almost exclusively in Jeremiah and then differently from that in DtrH. That this Dtr input in the prophetic writings is so difficult to identify is primarily due to its being embedded with and between many other redactional elements. These were inserted later or even simultaneously. The confluence of many materials in a single text impedes sight of the Dtr’s and prophets’ presence. This lot is shared by original data elsewhere in the OT writings. They are overlooked and are difficult to recognise. The findings in the literature of the past decades on the Dtr presence in the prophetic writings thus appear to be rather sobering in that the literature cannot meet what was expected of it. But there is a ray of hope. The discovery of an extensive and varied redactional network in the prophetic writings (7.3.5.4.4) posed a new challenge to the literature. authentic. Some prophets may justifiably be considered cultic prophets. There is no doubt that contacts between prophecy and cult increased gradually. This can be construed from numerous hints in the prophetic books, such as the many prophetic liturgies and psalms. The Yahwist current’s more general acceptance of the classical prophets unquestionably facilitated the redactors’ introduction of prophetic texts in the cult. The extant texts contain many hints about this as well. “...an authority within a community where the recital or proclamation of these words took place. The regular interruption of the units ... indicates the liturgical or recitative function which the tradition developed at some stage in its transmission” (Carroll, 1986, 48). — Via the cult-stimulated memorial culture, the whole Israelite community exercised influence on what was accepted into the canon, as authoritative prophetic literature. The forces that brought about the process of canonising the prophetic books are more important than the literary performances. Long before their conversion to literature and use in the cult, they were actively present and in many ways set the terms for the permanent, tense dialogue between the various Yahwist layers of the population. — Certainly in the post-exilic period, the Dtr helped record and preserve the prophetic writings in the newly restored temple institution and helped ensure that these texts were integrated in the temple cult. “This possible role of the Deuteronomistic School in the re-establishment of the Jerusalem temple cult parallels that of other scribal groups elsewhere in the Persian empire – that is, they were responsible for the preservation and transmission of the religious texts associated with the temple cult” (Person, 1993, 147). — Römer (2000a) and those partial to the notion of the canon as book tend to find anachronistic confirmation of the rise of the synagogue in the exilic Dtr redaction of DtrH.

493

Authors hoped that by studying the paths that the redactions followed they could uncover how and with what insight each prophetic writing was constructed, element by element, into a single book, but also how they came to be incorporated in the prophetic corpus. The redaction critics were not disappointed; rather than just a blurry sketch, they could now provide many contours of the ingenious structure that undergirded each prophetic text and the entire prophetic corpus and allowed it to function as a meaningful whole. This recent redaction criticism also has a downside. In their enthusiasm, redaction critics had overestimated the role of the redactional stages while neglecting and undervaluing the input from the original prophets. In some cases, this resulted in concealment or even open detachment from these hindersome prophets, reducing the prophetic tradition to what literary theory could detect of redactional element in the text. The implicit hermeneutical conviction that the canon process, insofar as detectable in the prophetic writings, was limited to the last redactional stages usually lay at the basis of this practice. Studying the earlier stages was as good as superfluous and useless since they produced few if any insights to explain the final text as handed down. These scholars were reinforced in this conviction by a major tendency within canonical criticism1134 to which they in turn offered their support. Clearly the present study advocates a different opinion. It’s view is that the final text does not permit later redactional work to be stressed at the expense of the older stages and the more original data. To do so would be to misinterpret the redactional work that was intentionally consistent with what preceded and that saw its task as a creative continuation of it. The final text has openly and repeatedly stated its indebtedness to the original prophetic preaching as its authoritative foundation. This brought the redactors to provide their own input interactively with what preceded 1134

Although Childs rejects the term canonical criticism, he is widely known for his decisive influence on the canonical movements, esp. when it comes to emphasising the final shape of the OT texts. The final shape undeniably does have its special value for orienting and closing the canon process. The error lies in turning this important step in the canonical process into an absolute. In this conviction Childs notes, “The significance of the final form of the biblical literature is that it alone bears witness to the full history of revelation” (Childs, 1995b, 514-515). Many correctly objected to this. Turning the final form into an absolute is unavoidably done at the expense of the preceding stages, as if these did not also contribute their irreplaceable and permanent input to the canonical texts. Childs’ assertion that studying the preceding stages automatically leads to decanonisation (2.3.3.; Childs, 1995b, 521) is unforgivable.

494

and to include it in the dynamic development of the prophetic tradition in a spirit of respect for the prophets’ legacy. This correction based on the final text to the findings in the literature has unavoidable consequences for the evaluation of the canonical process (7.3.5.4.6). The links between the prophetic writings should be stressed in reconsidering the various components in their canonical process. Neither their shape nor the canonical intention nor the Israelite community’s influence works alone in the canonical process. Their work is a collective effort. They each correlate their own input with that of the others and create a situation in which each can operate. Without the shape that the text has taken on, neither the Yahwist dialogue within Israel, nor the theological explanation given by the prophets can be uttered in a manner that contributes to growth of the canon. Conversely, the shape is only the instrument, the record of what the prophets offered posterity theologically as the result of the Yahwist dialogue in Israel. However, in listening to this theological narration one should also register the sociological event within the Israelite Yahwist faith community1135. This is the absolute condition for a realistic estimate of the theological elucidation of the canon process. Lastly, neither prophetic spokespersons nor sociological forces held a monopoly on the shape of the canonical text. The interactive input1136 of 1135

Contrary to the canonical criticism that Sanders defended, Childs’ version trembled before the social powers that co-determined the formation of the canon. He saw the canon becoming something material. He thought he had to respond on behalf of its theological calibre. He put this first with as result that he tended to undervalue the historical social context of the canon’s formation. One of his students, S.B. Chapman, tried to modify this by forging links with H. Bloom, N. Freye and C. Altieri (Chapman, 2001, 87-106). His theological grammar is literarily inspired and still dominated by the theological canon. He is thus still caught up in theological dialectic’s dualism. This dialectic is most bluntly expressed where Chapman considers it necessary to oppose historical contingency to the theological values in God’s constancy (Chapman, 2001, 284). Under these circumstances it is only reasonable that the historical context and social reality must give way before the theological canon. In this spirit Childs notes, “It is precisely for this reason that the reconstruction of social groups behind such theologies, which is argued, must have been opposed to each other because of the differences preserved in the text, tends to misconstrue the force and function of the canon” (Chapman, ibid). 1136 This interaction of a series of factors is a salient feature of the canon process. “Der Prozeß verlief nach dem Munster ‘challenge and ‘response’” (Talmon, 1987, 51). These are two main factors within the socio-historical domain. Yet they do not exercise a determinative influence on the theological content of the canon process as some postulate (Talmon, 1987, 52, 59). Should that happen, the meeting of these two factors would eclipse the theological calibre that was simultaneously at work as third factor within the canon process, while in reality all these factors worked in a symbiosis that kept the canon process

495

each placed different accents on the traditional material entrusted to the formal shape as symbiosis supervised by the representatives of the prophetic office. All this shows that each of the three elements (the shape in which it appears, the theological intention of the incipient canon and its sociological context) determined the incipient canon process. They can be distinguished but neither may nor can be separated without detriment to perception of the canon process. A detailed examination of the canon process in the emergence of the prophetic writings provides a view analogous to cross-section of a living tree. A glance at the cross-section is sufficient to show how consistently the tree needs bark, phloem and sap to exist. Similarly, the presence of the formal, theological and social ingredients is the condition for attaining the level of the canon process. However, setting the living canon process in motion requires more than the presence of the required elements. Just as the tree can only flourish when the sap, phloem and bark work together to support it, the joint effort of the formal theological and sociological elements is needed to set the canon process in motion and ensure its growth1137. alive. We see that some, like Talmon, not only wished to reduce the canon process or at least its older stages to a socio-historical process as Sandmel and P.R. Davies envisaged (Talmon, 1987, 53), they also wanted to reduce this socio-historical process to a nameless communal factor that totally dominated personal freedom in accordance with Durkheim’s model. These authors reasoned from the fact that no individual forums (Talmon [1987, 6972] spoke of Behörden or Gremien) analogous to synods and councils in post-biblical times can be found in Israel to take responsibility for the course that determined the canon process. The absence of demonstrable evidence of such responsible institutions does not, however, mean that they did not exist. It is difficult to accept that primitive Israelite society had no religious authority parallel to the socio-political authority. There was at least a basic religious order albeit one that differs from that with which we are familiar. Here again we meet the caveat against modern thinking. — Finally, we should note that sociology should not be too firmly connected to religion. “Religion is of course socially limited, but it is not so directly socially limited that nothing happens in religion except for social advantage” (Barr, 2000, 96). 1137 This explains both the mutual bonds and the difference in essence and function of the three elements in the canon process, at least insofar as applied to the prophetic writings. It is a question of distinction and connection that Chapman (2000, 170) raised without reaching a balanced solution. When it comes to maintaining a balance in which the elements that comprise and sustain the canon process according to their input and function, he failed. The social context, i.e. the community’s dialogical input is the chief victim of his dualistic/dialectic stance. “The dilemma ... is that the role the human being plays in the reading process as well as in the originality of the Bible is obscured by the insistence on the objectivistic presence of a text speaking about God as if God himself were speaking. The

496

7.4 The Historical Sources of the Dtr Single Narrative 7.4.1 Starting Point Our first exploration of the single narrative (Ch. 6) showed the need for a further study of the sources that the now somewhat identifiable Dtr used to compose the single narrative. The need to study these sources arose when determining the state of the canon process as it was ascertained in the first discussion of it (6.8). We saw there how far this canon process had progressed. It became clear that this process had been under development long before it came fully to the surface in the Dtr single narrative. This observation led us to suspect that the Dtr’s sources might point out the way that the canon process had already followed. We tested this hypothesis by analysing the legal and prophetic traditions (7.2-7.3). This was lengthy and time-consuming but warranted as the conclusions (Ch. 9) on the canon process that preceded the Dtr single narrative (before 560 BCE) will show. These conclusions will rely primarily on the findings of our study of the pre-Dtr legal and prophetic traditions. But for the sake of completeness1138 we should say a few words about the Dtr’s sources. We must certainly include the historical and wisdom traditions among these. The historical sources will be treated first (7.4). That, despite the immense attention given to historiography in the literature1139, this can be treated only briefly here is due only to the restriction of space that this study must unavoidably respect and not to a failure to appreciate the historical genre in the entire OT tradition or that of the Dtr current.

dilemma ... is that the denial of the socio-historical context underlying the biblical texts meant to enforce the text as a standard independent of the human being, blatantly betrayed itself when it came to light that they were very selective in their use of the biblical text” (Snyman, 2000, 302). 1138 The present study has clearly opted for a global (5.3.1), i.e. the fullest possible examination of the canon process, at least on the level of the preferred terrain of the oldest and even very first stages that the canon process seems to have undergone. 1139 Carroll (1977, 88 n. 13) surveyed the (then) recent publications on historiography. Many more studies have appeared since; see Römer, 2005, 36-37.

497

7.4.2 The Narrative1140 Character of the Dtr Single Narrative Before examining the narrative sources in the Dtr single narrative and their role in the canon process we must first define historiography. What does it mean to say that the Dtr single narrative is a work of historiography? This question is not easy to answer. It is difficult to find in the literature a viable definition of historiography, let alone biblical historiography. This shows clearly how this point in the perception of history and historiography deeply divides authors’ hermeneutical positions when they evaluate the narrative biblical traditions. The following will give due attention this fundamental hermeneutical issue, which we regularly encountered when examining the legal and prophetic sources of the Dtr single narrative1141. Pending this, we can start tentatively for convenience sake with the practice generally applied in the literature. This consists in simply accepting as historiographic the biblical texts that belong to the narrative genre. This is, of course, an extremely broad and vague definition. Nearly 1140

The term narrative refers to the historical genre. It says nothing about historical reliability only about historical appearance. 1141 On the relationship between legal and narrative texts see Markl, 2005. — In a definition adapted from Huizinga (Lawson-Younger, 1999, 306 n. 12), Van Seters (1983, 16) limited study of the use of history in ancient Israel to the intellectual representation of its national history. In practice, this mainly involves the meaning and literary analysis of the texts that arose in this context. Halpern (1988, esp. 1-33) by contrast, stressed the intention of the authors of OT historiography which he believed was principally aimed at the historical facticity of the event discussed. This author thought that deviations and shortcomings did not contradict this pursuit of historical exactitude, but were due to deficiencies and drawbacks in the materials available at the time. Brettler (1995, 8-19) and Edelman (2000) took a position diametrically opposed to Halpern’s and agreed by and large with Van Seters who stressed the ideological content in Israelite historiography that resulted from its orientation toward the needs and interests of the Israelite public at the time the texts were written. In this view, the public (the readers) rather than the author determined the ideological tendency of the narrative texts. Deist and Carroll (Carroll, 2001, 95-96) concurred. The question remains whether the authors’ own contribution, their intentions, can be ignored. Grabbe (2001, esp. 157-161) adopted a realistic stance in this search for a definition (Dever, 1996, 38-39) based on the D. Edelman’s considerations. He focussed on the critical content of historiography and used the critical examination of the facts as broad criterion for the definition (Dever, 1996, 38-39). There is a parallelism between Greek and OT historiography. Both take steps early, although in later times these were not consistently positive. — The overall hermeneutical views of historiography held by scholars and biblical authors determined their work (Grabbe, 2001, 156; Miller R.D., 2006). The context of historiographical research is regularly linked to post-modernism (3.2.1-3.2.2; Barr, 2000; Grabbe, 2001, 18 n. 3, 20; Carroll, 1998a, 64; Barstad, 1997, 40).

498

the entire Dtr opus, even the entire OT can be assigned to this genre. Yet the definition is useful despite its breadth. While it permits the burdensome hermeneutical discussion on biblical historiography to be left tentatively in abeyance, it opens the way to an immediate overall impression of what really matters, i.e. the texts and traditions1142 that are presupposed to belong to the single narrative and that the Dtr may have used as sources because of their narrative character. If one starts, as the present study does, from the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) as collected by the Dtr at a specific time (most authors place this around the exile), one finds this text being used, as its name indicates, as a single history. Only the paraenetic and reasoning legal codes and sporadically occurring wisdom texts such as the song of Moses are an exception. Conversely, the prophetic texts such as legends and biographical notes already detected within the Dtr single narrative can also be classified as narratives as previous research has shown1143. Moreover, the first discussion of the single narrative demonstrated that legal and other 1142

The narrative genre includes many types of texts from myth and legend to annals and novellas. In attempting to approach historiography purely as narrative form, Van Seters (1983, 220-227) noted how easily he slipped into questions tangential to the narrative such as the nature of historical works and the view of history that lie at their basis. They are so intertwined that it is nearly impossible to examine each separately. — Dtr viewed the entire ‫ ספר תורה‬as a history and sometimes called it such. The Dtr surveyed the entire course of Israelite history – Josh.–2 Kgs covered approx. 700 years of what is known of Israelite history (Barstad, 2001, 54). They resumed the versions from the earliest patriarchs and completed them with what followed up to their own day. They are clearly convinced that the historical relationship with YHWH was of primordial importance for the existence and identity of Israel (and played a major role today in the work of some Jewish authors who take exception to new twists in the devaluation of the ancient Israel of biblical history, see Lemche, 1996b, 10, 20, 28; Dever, 1996, 44). That is why this historical fact is the starting point of their whole work. Insofar as it is present, they use the historical motivation in a very didactic and aetiological manner. Whatever Dtr’s view may have been, the historical dimension was extremely important for them so that as we noted above (6.6.5) their work showed a high degree of historical contingency. Rendtorff (2000, 197) cited Von Rad as saying “Das Alte Testament ist ein Geschichtsbuch”. “The broad range of uses for the term ‘history’, and the ease at which it is qualified and combined with other terms ... suggests that it is a useful, general label and should not be unduly restricted” (Linville, 1998, 77). It is not purely a matter of texts but of oral and written historical traditions as we noted in our first discussion of the Dtr single narrative. 1143 Of course, this applies to the prophetic legends that manifestly belong to the historical genre but were overshadowed by purely historical traditions. As for the written prophetic traditions, we should recall the prophets’ biographical material was usually found in the heading where it gave the whole a historical form.

499

non-historical texts appear to be redactional insertions1144. In adding these texts the redactors evinced their belief that these texts received their most appropriate canonical interpretation when their tone and orientation was derived from the surrounding narrative material. Yet the integrated elements did not necessarily lose their own character and function1145.

7.4.3 The Identification of the Dtr Single Narrative’s Sources. It is not sufficient merely to point out the historical character of the Dtr single narrative, however impressive it may be. The task at hand is to identify and categorise the sources that, according to the literature, were used in this single narrative1146. After all, even authors focussing most strongly on the creative role of the compilers of the single narrative must acknowledge that this historical opus would never have been assembled were it not for the availability of ready-made material. The very appearance of its exceptional length led authors to conclude that the Dtr used historiographical models of respectable scope1147 in their task. This is consistent with the conservative way in which the Dtr, according to the single narrative hypothesis, treated the traditional authoritative Torah story 1144

According to Kratz (2000, 101, 154-155) it is an established fact that the legal codes were inserted in the historical traditions at a later date. He based this exclusively on literary evidence. Yet there is no certainty that the legal codes and their content are of later origin than the supposedly older Israelite historical traditions. It has long been uncertain which came first religious or socio-political tradition. Moreover, there seems to be interaction between legal material and narrative genre. Many legal situations not covered in the legal texts can be recounted in stories. Conversely, the legal texts explain much data found in historiography (Barmash, 2004). 1145 All types of biblical material and each stage in their integration in the larger canonical whole have a specific character and function with potentially permanent value. This does, however, presuppose that the material’s own character and the stages in which it was integrated in the canonical text are sufficiently evident to be detected. 1146 Only those researchers who stress the unity of DtrH even more strongly than Noth did tended to explain inconsistencies by excluding, reducing or restricting the use of oral and written sources to later additions to DtrH (Kratz, 2000, 159, 191, 218). Noth had done likewise. 1147 Lemche, 2000, 137; Van Seters, 1983, 302-303; Brettler, 1995, 62; Niehr, 1997, 160; Wesselius, 1999, 47-48, 59. Authors like W. Beyerlin, W. Richter, H. Weippert and A. Lemaire thought of larger historiographical works that Dtr could have used alongside many others prophetic and other sources (Halpern, 1988, 114 n. 19). Traditionally, the succession narrative and David stories are candidates, albeit that there is no consensus on their demarcation and dating (De Pury-Römer, 2000).

500

(Gen.–Num.) and the legal and prophetic traditions in their opus1148. Smaller and larger narrative units that the Dtr are thought to have borrowed can even be detected in the part that they adapted and composed (Dt.–2 Kgs). Scholars usually restrict these sources to smaller elements now found scattered throughout the larger narrative1149. Contrary to the general certainty on the compilers’ use of sources for the single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs), the literature is uncertain about the identity of these sources. But they must be identified to distinguish their appearance and function from the composition/redaction that integrates them in the rest of the single narrative1150. This uncertainty in the literature 1148

Halpern, 1988, 203; Blenkinsopp, 1969. The Dtr remained faithful to the tradition that the biblical writers and the surrounding peoples followed. “...there must have been social pressures to refrain from modifying the texts, and one can well imagine that the preservation of master copies of these books in or near the temple would serve this purpose” (Wesselius, 1999, 59). Even revisionist authors (Lemche, 2000, 129) feel obliged to accept written as well as oral sources for Gen.–Num. and to join the consensus that has long existed in this matter. The consensus is largely based on the revised version of Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis. Certainly, it is striking that the literature now shows even revisionist authors using classical historical criticism’s traditional JEPD sigla. Earlier, the present author predicted this exceeding loyalty to the legacy of the documentary hypothesis (Zaman, 1984, V 213). Several well-known scholars, even Van Seters, seem to have borrowed more from the documentary hypothesis than is at first apparent (Kaiser, 2000, 290, 304 n. 131). The relative stability in the literature on the reception of the results of the documentary hypothesis is apparent from a comparison of Smend’s earlier work (1978, 82-109) with more recent surveys by Kratz (2000) and Kaiser (2000). This will be assumed in the following literary considerations. — Revisionist authors’ traditional stance extended to their using classical biblical criticism and accepting what is known as the Annales School (Lemche, 1997a, 132-133; Barstad, 1997, 49-52). In this regard they are more positivist and analytical than they realise in their frequent use of new paradigms in OT research, while they merely shift the whole OT tradition to a later time without essentially changing biblical research (Barstad, 2001, 47). 1149 The presence of smaller elements within the larger whole raises the question of how they relate to one another in date and function. Since a synchronic study is insufficient, we will also need a diachronic examination. 1150 Kratz wrote that to distinguish tradition from redaction/composition judiciously, the sources from tradition must “nur insoweit als Vorlagen gelten können, als sie von anderen unberührt und für sich lebensfähig sind” (Kratz, 2000, 307). This view agrees with that posited when treating Dtr’s independent prophetic sources (7.3.5.3.6). We saw there that this ideal of source autonomy in Dtr was not fully achieved. The same is to be expected of the historical sources. All by all, as we penetrate to the oldest layers of DtrH, it becomes more difficult to distinguish the original narrative units used in the composition from the redactional work. That is why Wellhausen was tempted to let the two coincide, at least in Gen. For Ex.–Josh., by contrast, he posited more frequent differences from what he considered continuous sources (Kratz, 2000, 304-306).

501

regarding the distinction and evaluation of the historical sources and the redactional components applies to Gen.–Num and to Dt.–2 Kgs although the general opinion is that the Dtr were less drastic in their reworking of the first. This led logically to a difference in the assessment of the Pentateuch-Hexateuch and Dt.–2 Kgs. In Wellhausen’s day, this distinction worked to the advantage of the sources, certainly in the Hexateuch or Tetrateuch, conversely since Noth’s day the tide changed to favour the composition of the longer DtrH. Since then the literature has smoothed away this difference to the advantage of the composition in the Hexateuch and in the entire single narrative or Enneateuch1151. This evolution was once again grounded in the justifiable criticism of the documentary hypothesis that did not spare the relation of sources to composition in Gen.–2 Kgs. Above all, scholars no longer felt called to trace the origin of the sources like Noth did. After Noth, many authors considered this task too risky and impracticable. The oral tradition was a victim of this timorousness1152. Scholars clung all the more tightly to literary analysis in the hope of attaining the certainty regarding the sources that they so ardently desired. To remedy the confusion that had arisen, they had to follow Noth’s example and reduce the numerous sources that had multiplied since Wellhausen. This was tantamount to an overall reduction in the share of literary sources1153. To the same degree, textual research focused on redaction history, which automatically resulted in a more elaborate emphasis on composition. This was not limited to Dt.–2 Kgs. The Yahwist and Dtr text elements in Gen.–Num. were treated

1151

Kratz, 2000, 249-252, 307-313; Braulik, 2004. Van Seters can serve as example. He radically rejected all attempts to identify the older oral tradition as basis for Israelite historiography (Van Seters, 1983, 220-227). 1153 Long before authors like J. Van Seters, H.H. Schmid and esp. R. Rendtorff thoroughly critiqued the prevailing documentary hypothesis and put it definitively on the defensive, the many adjustments and the growth in the number of sources postulated hindered clarification of the evolution and irregularities in the text (Zaman, 1984, II, 1-7). Noth’s measures, including a strict return to J, E and P and his restriction of sources to the Tetrateuch could not calm the criticism. The accepted documentary working hypothesis had become too complicated and above all no longer offered a solution to the relation between the Tetrateuch and Dtr, as Noth noted in the literature (Kratz, 2000, 226-230, 305-306). This reduction took the shape of an elimination of uncontrolled source diversification or a cutback in the pericopes assigned to the sources (Kratz, 2000, 250, 306). There is no doubt that from then on the entire study was dominated by literary analysis. 1152

502

similarly1154. The relationship between the Yahwist and Dtr literary works in purport and late origin was stressed at the expense of the older tradition1155. Later insertion supplanted sources as explanation of the many incongruities noted since the dawn of modern Pentateuch research1156.

7.4.4 The Historical Sources’ Function in the Dtr Single Narrative Amid the cacophony and the apparent disorientation in the literature regarding the identification of the historical sources in DtrH, these sources nevertheless appear to be part of the permanent data that literary analysis will not allow to be ignored. The uncertainty about their identification1157 1154

It was mainly Van Seters who equated the wording of the Pentateuch and the Dtr opus. In doing this he followed Mowinckel’s example (Van Seters, 1983, 232-234). 1155 H.H. Schmid (1976), his student M. Rose and H. Vorländer were the first to draw attention to the similarity between J and D. J. Van Seters (1975) argued mainly for placing them in the late exilic or post-exilic period and assigning them an exclusively literary effect (Zaman, 1984, VI, 4). Other, if not most, authors gradually came to accept this view as part of the trend toward a later dating of the OT traditions. Most proponents of this view are revisionists. 1156 Houtman, 1980, 31-71. It is striking how these expansions that Wellhausen and esp. Noth (Halpern, 1988, 111) used only to a limited degree and only as a last resort (Kaiser, 2000, 291, 300, 305-306; Van Seters, 1983, 359-362; Kratz, 2000, 306; Römer-De Pury, 1996, 52, 56 n. 210, 58) came to be extensively discussed (Römer-De Pury, 1996, 83, 100, 102, 108, 113; Linville, 1998, 58-61). The Elijah and Elisha legends are usually mentioned in this regard (Kaiser, 2000, 300) probably because they fit remarkably well in the late dating of OT traditions. — We should note that Smend’s Göttingen School regards the DtrH redactors in the same way as it does Noth’s additions, with the difference that unlike Noth the Göttingen school puts the additions in the same class as DtrH (Halpern, 1988, 111). 1157 Halpern, 1988, 109. Rendtorff (2000, 206) held the view that Pentateuch research had fallen victim of disorientation while Carroll (1998a, 70) found the situation hopeless (“there is no route ...”). Kaiser (2000, 315), by contrast, noted that amid the many diverging views “there are only three or four explanatory models with a serious claim for attention”. Halpern, (1988, 115) even discovered “a harmony of models” because “at the basic level there is no dispute!” This author is correct to state that the many different lines of reasoning are complementary and that none of them can be ignored. — Beside the additions which are increasingly being situated at a later date and are not the subject of this study because of their starting point (i.e. Dtr, see 6.1), sources of whatever type and the Dtr redactor are considered established elements. See 7.4.4 and 7.4.5. The exact role of the redactor in contrast to the historiographer or publisher often remains vague here, as elsewhere in the literature. “What is a redaction? This is the oldest, and least conspicuous issue in biblical research ... But underlying different activities are subsumed under the rubric of redaction” (Halpern, 1988, 116). — The uncertain identification became sufficiently obvious in the previous section (7.4.3). As always in biblical research, this uncertainty must be allayed

503

does not lessen their presence in DtrH. Ignoring them or denying their operation in the larger whole of the Dtr opus is not a sign of loyalty to the text. They are unequivocally marked by the context in which they arose. Their origin was usually the family or regional environment1158. The new perspective, when redactors at different stages inserted them chronologically and thematically in a broader Israelite framework, did not necessarily replace the old. The redactors have left too many signs of their insofar as possible, although it can never be fully excluded. Since absolute certainty is impossible to achieve, we can only hope for hypothetical certainty. “...history, ultimately, is susceptible to evidence, but not to proof ... The standards are those of evidence and argument, not Euclidean proof” (Halpern, 1988, 13). A minimalist position on this matter is to take into account only the writings as of Qumran (according to Carroll 2001, 92-93). For Carroll the attempt to attain historical certainty is the equivalent of reinventing the wheel. 1158 The sources in Gen.–Num. are thus the subject of a rather broad consensus in the literature. However, the sources in Dt.–2 Kgs are more difficult to demarcate literarily so that this can be accomplished only in exceptional cases (Halpern, 1988, 76-99; Brettler, 1995, 62, 71). Yet even here it is usually accepted that there are many, smaller sources (Halpern, 1988, 181-200; Kratz, 2000, 157-218; Barstad, 2001, 74 n. 58). Even Van Seters (1983, 270) wrote literally of sources, albeit restrictively. “The (Dtr, L.Z.) seems to have used more performed traditions” (Van Seters, 1983, 270). “Even the most negative reconstructions allow that the historian did work with some sources” (Halpern, 1988, 116). This is a reasonable position. That these sources cannot be accurately reconstructed may not lead to their being eliminated from the study. Brettler (1995, 12) leaned this way. — That difficulty of studying historical sources is no excuse for ignoring them just to avoid the difficulty. Yet that is what Brettler did. It is revealing to note that he does not treat the typology as critically (Brettler, 1995, 60-61). Despite the difficulties with the study of typology, he saw no objection in using it in his plea on behalf of the historian’s ideological mindset. — Many types of individual narratives operate as minuscule elements in the single narrative because of the many events and facts, such as deeds of heroism, retained in popular memory (Kratz, 2000, 158). Of course, their theme is not Israelite or Judean national history. There is no agreement on whether they existed as independent historiography. Campbell (2002) ascribed a special function to them as reported story to help the storyteller. This stresses the role of oral tradition. Van Seters (1983, 346, 358), by contrast, tended to deny them this life of their own, barring a few exceptions such as Jg. 216. This author, too, seems not to be very consistent (the revisionists are regularly reproved for such inconsistency, see Hallo, 1999, 82-89; Lemche, 2000b, 174 n. 27). Elsewhere he even demanded proof that the individual stories operated separately. If they did not, he worked as if they did not exist (Van Seters, 1983, 249). Günkel and Gressmann, by contrast, considered these legends and popular tales to be very important precursors of the later major historical writings. Many, like Von Rad and Mowinckel supported all or part of this view. Van Seters criticised this attitude and, based on comparison with the surrounding peoples, thought it impossible that major Israelite historical works could have grown from these individual stories (Van Seters, 1983, 209-237). Obviously, he thought that historiography had a national dimension and operated as “a form of tradition encompassing the people as a whole” (Van Seters, 1983, 355).

504

sense of tradition and respect for the character of their sources for this to have been the case. In addition to adopting their style and phrasing1159 despite the generalisation in the still recognisably autonomous sources, they also opted to retain the contradictions among the sources rather than to harmonise them forcibly at the expense of the message.1160. 1159

For another view, see: Van Seters (1983, 212-213) who did accept that there were many types of stories with different purposes, but who thought they existed side-by-side and did not influence one another (Van Seters, 1983, 292-306). For this author, the major historical works replaced the smaller narrative texts when they were integrated in the larger whole (Van Seters, 1983, 212, 360). This unbalanced and dualistic position seems to be an offshoot of dialectical theology. The imbalance in Van Seters’ position is apparent from his omitting from his exclusively national historiography the complexity of Israelite structures as reflected in the BoC. The individual, family (Dt. 6:21; Brettler, 1995, 141), tribe and clan each had their own needs and continued to exist even after historiography started working on a national level (Westermann, 1999, 221-225). The permanent operation of the individual stories compensated adequately for this (Hallo, 1999, 94-97). “Biblical texts, like many writings, are not typically composed for a single purpose ... The story survived because in antiquity it had a purpose” (Brettler, 1995, 89-90, 112, 119, 132). One of the stories’ important objectives is focus attention on the role of the audience. Habermas put it forcefully, “We are formed by stories and metaphors, not rules” (cited in Brown, 1996, 17, 2. 82). The individual books took shape because national historiography could not possibly prove sufficient for this purpose under all circumstances. Van Seters did not know what to do with them (Van Seters, 1983, 359). Moreover, the use of confessions such as the minor historical creed and the multifunctional term Israel (Ahlström, 1986, 101-118) show that briefer versions of larger texts were used at a later date. — As was stressed elsewhere (Lemche, 2001, 202 n. 6, 203-204), Dtr consistently treated tradition with respect as was the practice among the surrounding peoples (Barstad, 2001, 74-75). Yet this ordering in Israel coincided with creativity and a degree of discontinuity (Ackroyd, 1982; idem, 1987; Crenshaw, 1982; Collins, 1999, 164-167). Van Seters only wished to take the Dtr redactors’ discontinuity with their sources into account. He thought the redactors-compilers arranged this intentionally. He spoke of an anti-legitimation story creating numerous tensions (Van Seters, 1983, 268-269). This is difficult to reconcile with his view that elsewhere the same redactors wanted to produce a homogeneous literary masterpiece (Van Seters, 1983, 278). This lack logic. “Narrative relating history” would then “be self contradictory” (Becking, 1998, 54). If it is ascertained that the redactors created an ingenious composition, the irregularities and contradictions left in the text would be due to their faithfulness to the different sources that they wished to use (Blum, 2000, 13). That is why “...in the presentation of individual episodes, the relationship to sources is closest” (Halpern, 1988, 488, 32). — Noth had long since noted Dtr’s faithfulness to their sources. The often literally borrowing their style and phrasing (Halpern, 1988, 32, 116) is typical of this, making Dtr’s own style no watertight criterion for authentication. 1160 The irregularities, and even contradictions, in the Pentateuch that had once been an argument in favour of sources or additions still require a reasonable literary answer. In some cases, it is still acceptable to ascribe these irregularities to later additions or other deficiencies explained by material misfortunes encountered in the long course of

505

7.4.5 The Interactive Function of the Redactional Composition of the Deuteronomistic Single Narrative Not all authors give the DtrH’s sources the credit that they had held in the literature in the past. As this decreased, credit given the Dtr composition/redaction increased proportionally. Its compiling and integrating work was subjected quite correctly to literary study more than transmission. In no case does it seem logical to attribute these deficiencies to the redactors. This cannot be reconciled with the generalising, ordering and supervisory role assigned to them. The only option remaining is that the irregularities and contradictions are primarily due to the redactors’ use of different traditions. “Da die Endredaktion den Wortlaut des überlieferten Quellenmaterials weitgehend erhalten wollte, blieben trotz bewußter Gestaltung des überkommenen Textmaterials durch die Endredaktion viele Spannungen im Text bestehen. Das Interesse, das alte Erzählmaterial zu erhalten, überlagerte das Interesse, einen neuen, möglichst kohärenten Text zu erstellen. Daher nimmt die Endredaktion größere Spannungen im Kauf als etwa der Jehowist” (Schart, 1998, 250). Because of their respect for the traditions, the redactors only partially harmonised them and only when they considered this responsible. “Why did the redactor create the problem? If he meant to reverse the intention of the source, why did he not carry the enterprise through by rewriting the offensive passage in its entirety?... The author(s) ... were alive to contradictions, to what they wrote, and to the text they transmitted. Wherever possible, therefore, problems must be explained as conflicts from the sources” (Halpern, 1988, 112, 183). Conversely, as Halpern (1988, 30) notes, Hoffmann and Van Seters chose for the Dtr redactors’ full autonomy. These authors reduce Dtr’s sources, which they occasionally recognise, to nothing. After all, speaking of sources that are not allowed to have any effect on Dtr, that are quarantined from Dtr, is contradictory in the sense that it is no longer meaningful to speak of a source made arid. Whatever their metaphorical meaning as permanently welling spring (Becking, 1997, 69) the sources are meaningful for Dtr in a literal sense. “Der biblische Endtext verdankt sich einem vitalen und produktiven Prozeß, im Verlauf dessen die überkommenen Erzählungen über Gottes Handeln an Israel immer wieder neu durchdacht und verändert wurden. Die in Erzählungen verdichteten Erfahrungen vergangener Generationen fungierten als Deuteschlüssel für neue geschichtliche Erfahrungen. Deshalb wurden sie überliefert” (Schart, 1998, 242). — The Dtr redactors’ intention proves to be important for evaluating how they used their sources. For another view see: Brettler (1995, 12) who is diametrically opposed to Halpern. Unless there are contraindications, one should assume the Dtr redactors’ good faith toward the message (Schart, 1998, 23; Barstad, 1997, 45; Wesselius, 1995, 48) for which they try to provide a historical foundation by using their sources (Halpern 1988, 139 called this the Dtr redactors’ antiquarian interest; it is less antiquarian than contemporary Greek historiography and even Babylonian chronicles; yet according to Grabbe, 2001, their credibility is not at issue). For another view see: Lemche, 2001, 201; Carroll, 2001, 105, 107. Historical faithfulness to the message can coincide with ideological motivation and concern for the times. “The dialectic of ideological motivation and historical interest is always intricate” (Halpern, 1988, 138). This matter is complicated and merits further consideration. We will return to this in section 7.4.5.

506

it had been in the past. Esp. the Dtr redactors’ interpretative input is correctly stressed as is necessary in every historiographical study worth the name1161. It has become a custom for authors to speak of the Dtr redactors’ ideology rather than their theology. This trend can result in misunderstanding1162. It is worrying that some thought it necessary to focus on the Dtr redactors’ praiseworthy input to such an extent that their composition and devices take on the allure of something unaided1163. In 1161

Immediately after presenting the starting point of this study (6.1), we described the Dtr redactors general integrating, compiling and chronologically ordering work (6.2). The authors supporting our position on the Dtr single narrative have treated this subject sufficiently. We need only explain those places in the literature where the interactive aspect of their work has not been given the attention it deserves. The undervaluation of the Dtr redactors’ interactive function in the literature does it an injustice. The continuation that the Dtr added to the older stories is an illustration (Houtman, 2004). — We have already stressed the importance of interpretation may be in exegesis when treating hermeneutics (5.1.1-5.1.2). To summarise: every subject, whether biblical writer or exegete, inevitably becomes personally involved when interpreting the biblical text because of his/her preformed inherent understanding, be it conscious or unconscious. Becoming aware of this is to the subject’s advantage in that it allows decisions to be reviewed and, when needed, corrected. In historiography, the historians’ keeping interpretation under control becomes all the more important because their task is to correlate observed events and facts meaningfully so they can be seen as an explainable whole (Halpern, 1988, 6-7; Edelman, 1991, 15; Barstad, 1997, 54-55 n. 47; Mink, cited in Deist, 1993, 391 calls this a configurable whole). The literature has correctly stressed this particular aspect of the Dtr’s role (Lemche, 2001, 203, calls this a mental matrix; Mink cited in Deist, 1993, 391, a synoptic judgment). “There is no history that is not a human creation ... their (historians, L.Z.) interests constitute history” (Knauf, 1991, 28, 37). This long-known insight is now being applied to historiography. 1162 Ideology has become a key word (Lemche, 2000b, 166) in fields broader than exegesis. Ideology criticism now seems indispensable (Dever, 1996, 38; Lemche, 1997b, 12; Carroll, 1998a, 79 n. 35; Grabbe, 1998, 14 n. 8). Ideology determines the stance adopted in all prominent matters and thus also in exegesis. Because interpretation plays major role in historiography, it has always been so that historians’ ideology can seriously affect their historiographical work even to the extent that their political preference can exert an influence (Pasto, 1997; Lemche, 1997a; Gunn, 2001, 193). Lemche (2000b) and Thompson (1999, XI-XVI) seemed to underestimate this in their account of the way in which they reached their typically revisionist position. They thought that ideology only began to take affect in the later years as a result of their opponents’ ideologically inspired responses. — Barr (2000) is not the only one to criticise the anomalies to which the use of the term ideology can lead in biblical historiography. Brettler (1995, 12-13) noted that “there is no accepted definition of ideology” so that the term is ambiguous and, moreover, “has become highly ideological”. 1163 The shift in focus becomes unmanageable when attention is given only to the Dtr redactors’ interpretive role and posits this as the only factor that carried weight in their history and thus ignores other possible factors and makes the sources inconsequential.

507

good faith, these authors’ thought they benefited the redactors by viewing the narrator and the many different elements present in the single narrative as the Dtr redactors’ competitors, and for that reason banned them to the background1164. This was done in conjunction with the increasing doubt “They were also able to create history almost from scratch” (Lemche, 2001a, 201). “Another system ... is to divert the attention from the source material as the object of the study to the instrument used in analyzing the source material. In our case the instrument will always be the scholar who is studying the source material” (Lemche, 1996, 276). “History is not even in the sources ... for we alone are responsible for the kind of history that we construct ... People are seldom aware of what they are doing when they make history, but they make it all by themselves” (Knauf, 1991, 27, 64). Relying on Huizinga, Brettler asserted that “History is almost entirely lacking in that element of play which underlies literature from beginning to end” (Brettler, 1995, 11). In his further expostulation of Dtr and its redactors’ work, this author typifies what M.D. Herr called “the rabbi’s complete disregard for actual events in the past ... there was no question more meaningless or boring ... than the purpose and usefulness of an exact description of what actually transpired” (Brettler, 1995, 2). The argument of this and other authors (Bultmann; Carroll, 1981, 5-30; idem, 1986, 63) inevitably (Smelik, 1987, 10) has a dogmatic hermeneutical background (Barr, 2000, 1-2) similar to that in the issue of the historical Jesus (Mouson, 1968; Van den Berghe, 1968). That falls outside the scope of the present study. 1164 Gunkel, Gressmann and Noth appreciated the narrator’s storytelling as found in the many simple narratives. “The first eleven chapters of Genesis are an example of easily recognizable simple narratives rewritten and combined into a longer but unified narrative” (Davies P.R., 2002, 45). Their narrative style is discernible from that of the Dtr redactors. Many authors believe that they predate the Dtr single narrative (Fritz, 1996, 196-202). The smaller simple narratives are to have grown into longer historical works like DtrH. Van Seters (1983, 212-213) categorically rejected this idea. Yet he did accept that the simple narratives operated in many narrative forms with varying purposes side-by-side with the Dtr single narrative. The simultaneous existence of larger and smaller narrative forms, indeed, poses no problem since there were many different groups in Israel (Albertz, 2001, 34). It is more difficult to maintain that these different groups operated simultaneously but in isolation from one another as Van Seters argued. Because Israel was so small and had a dominant culture (Barstad, 2001, 73) this socio-cultural isolation was unlikely. Moreover, the heterogeneous and diachronic origin of the Dtr single narrative is indisputably evident from its polyvalent (Becking, 2001, 81) character, despite its being a strongly unified composition. “My argument is that these texts (and especially when read in the context of a larger primary story) including much law ... should be recognized as radically multivalent” (Gunn, 2001, 193; Thompson, 1991, 75). The smaller stories’ style and function (Thompson, 1991, 75 called this their distinctive character) is maintained to a certain degree within the Dtr single narrative. This is done at the expense of the work of the Dtr redactors whose skills and task lie elsewhere. For another view see: “A complex narrative as a whole is not dependent upon, and in many ways is obstructed by the atomization and independent interpretation of units in their hypothetical original context” (Linville, 1998, 46). The redactors were the first to recognise and respect the distinctiveness of the smaller units. Focussing solely on the Dtr redactors’ own input misjudges their ability to assess the value of the smaller units on the basis of their storytelling and to choose them, because the

508 experience (Blum, 2000, 10-11 n. 30-31) they recounted, for inclusion in their larger work where the stories took on a new function. This draws the daily needs of the average Israelite as reflected in the legends into the single narrative along with those of the nation, with which the Dtr redactor was more concerned. “Allein die Tatsache, daß einzelne Erzählungen in eine narrative Abfolge gebracht werden, leitet den Leser an, diese als Episoden eines langfristigen Geschehens zu lesen. Auf diese Weise werden die späteren Erzählungen im Licht der Ersteren gelesen und bekommen sie einen neuen Sinnhorizont” (Schart, 1998, 35). It is wrong to play off one against the other as Gunkel did with his reservations against the Dtr redactors’ theologising (Van Seters, 1983, 214) or as Van Seters did with his disregard for the smaller narrative units. The distinctive nature of each must be recognised (Blum, 2000, 12; for another view see Van Seters, 1983, 23, who thought that the one eliminates the other). Lindijer (2003, 52-57) and Boeve (1994), by contrast, appreciated the postmodern preference for small narratives and could reconcile them with the meaning of the larger narrative. It is, in any case, an imitation of the Dtr redactors’ appreciation for the narrator’s local colouring. This calls a halt to the generalisation that some authors thought they had to apply to the Dtr redactors’ composing (Deist, 1999, 374-379). — Beside disfavouring the narrator, the literature underestimated the many smaller units in the larger narrative because they were not drafted in a customary narrative form. These include notes (Fritz, 1996, 195-196), annals, chronicles and royal lists that – because their genres do not comply with the his understanding of the historical genre (Barstad, 1997, 45) – Van Seters treated demeaningly and systematically rejected because he thought that they should not be taken into account in the genesis and evolution of national historiographies as compiled by Dtr and Herodotus. — The way Brettler and Knauf discriminated against the sources became apparent when they found it difficult to circumvent the presence of the sources. They interpreted the Dtr redactors’ treatment of the sources as a radical revision, an interjection of “contemporary notions into older sources”, as a dramatic transformation, as an invention or even as a direct attack (Brettler, 1995, 64, 69, 79, 88-89, 91, 134). Conversely, the redactors were praised because they did not follow the sources obsequiously (Brettler, 1995, 70). Shortly thereafter, this author admitted that in Dt. 2:26-3:7 the Dtr was heavily dependent on sources. Brettler then even introduced the “tell idea” to suggested that the redactors could have preserved contradictory versions. It is not surprising that he had to admit in the end that “The evidence is not always univocal” (Brettler, 1995, 71, 112-113, 144). — Knauf remained more consistent. “Historians are requested to master their sources ... not to be their slaves ... It is the historian and not the sources that are to be held responsible for any shortcomings that may produced in the process of constructing history” (Knauf, 1991, 53, 64). This is a statement that is difficult to reconcile with the Dtr redactors’ established compositional skill. One can only adopt this position when one views historical research a priori as “a struggle against the perspective imposed by the sources” (according to P. Veyne, cited in Whitelam, 2000, 381). — The systematic disfavouring of possible sources and the many scholars involved in this only becomes clear when one keeps careful track of the authors and their comments on subsequent episodes in the single narrative. For example, contrary to Eissfeldt and other authors, Van Seters says of 1 Sam. 10:19-27, “There is no reason here to speak of any source division, nor is there any evidence that an old tradition lies behind the account as its stands” (Van Seters, 1983, 252). His conclusion is obvious: everything comes from the Dtr redactors alone, which brings them to the inconsistencies that we have noted. The same happened to Brettler when he reached the following conclusion to the Ehud story (Jg. 3:12-

509

cast on the single narrative’s historicity1165. The concept fiction and questionable comparative studies1166 played a key role in this. Ignoring or 30), “Thus, much of the story might be an invented tradition, set in the past, which was composed for political purposes ... Its author did not intent to write a straightforward representation of historical events” (Brettler, 1995). This last sentence is at odds with Brettler’s conviction that it is difficult to identify the author’s intention (Brettler, 1995, 11). When it comes to attributing Jg. 3:12-30 to the Dtr-redactors, defining their intention is suddenly no longer so difficult. This is another case of inconsistent application of criteria. — The origin of this detached attitude toward empirical knowledge can be sought in the postmodern spirit (Dever, 2001, 251; Chapman, 2006, 10-11). 1165 The issues surrounding Dtr’s historicity have been treated repeatedly in this study either directly (6.6.5, 7.1.3-7.1.4) or indirectly. Their discussion must be seen in the light of the many papers published over the last decade (Grabbe, 1997b, 1998b, 2001; PhilipsLong, 1999b), including those from the European Seminar on Historical Methodology as applied to Israel (1996) and must be supplemented and completed here. The Dtr’s and the OT’s historicity, esp. those texts looking back at times long past, is being called into increasing doubt in the literature (Barstad, 2001, 48). These reservations subside as the text approaches contemporary events. “History is not about the past but about the present” (Davies P.R., 1997b, 113). The reasoning of De Wette, Wellhausen and Noth is applied more dogmatically than previously so that only literary products that arose in the historical periods they treated are considered primary sources and this on the condition that they have external confirmation (Niehr, 1997, 161; Davies P.R., 1997, 106-107; Carroll, 2001, 100102; Thompson, 1998, 101; the revisionists are no more consistent in applying this principle than they were in applying others: Miller P.D. Jr., 1991, 99-100; Schaper, 2006, 14-15). “It is an established fact that a literary product must be considered a reflection of its age of origin ... This is absolutely commonplace ...” (Lemche, 2001b, 295). It opens the door to intensifying the Dtr redactors’ creative and interpretative input, certainly where they treat facts that occurred before their exilic and post-exilic periods (Becking, 2001, 82) and to discrediting proportionately the value of the facts on which they rely. Without wanting to deny the Dtr redactors’ ideology, which pervades and even sustains the entire historical opus (Barstad, 2001, 81), we must wonder whether the reasoning and principles described treat them in a responsibly text-compliant manner. Although fewer in number, later biblical texts also refer to factually accurate (Grabbe, 2001, 331; Foré, 1994) historical facts (Barstad, 2001, 83). Conversely, experience teaches that external confirmation is also subject to the question of historicity (Barstad, 1998, 160; Thompson, 1998, 109; Grabbe, 1998, 85; Becking, 2001, 84). Automatically assuming that external data is by definition historical and OT data universally doubtful testifies to unjustifiable bibliophobia (Barstad, 1988), which leads to the inconsistent application of criteria depending on the period of, or treated by, the biblical texts. Not one of the biblical periods is problem-free, not even the exilic and post-exilic periods (Grabbe, 1988b, 80) to which the revisionists tend to refer and which they incorrectly use as black box (Brettler, 1998, 26; Lemche, 2001a, 216) to confirm their views. — The time seems to have come for exegetes to reassess historiography and the hermeneutics and method they apply (Barstad, 1997, 47; Henige, 2003; Provan, 1995; idem, 2000; idem, 2003, Schaper, 2006, 5-12). Building on the basic principles, discussed in Part I, regarding the option for creativity and the subject’s ultimate power of decision (5.1.1-5.1.2), we can now state that the Dtr historiographers’ input

510 consists in not simply repeating facts from the past but rather in interpreting them so that they form a comprehensible and acceptable historical whole. In this sense they created a grammar of events and opened horizons of understanding (Deist, 1999, 381-385). This operation was so thorough (Becking, 1998 called it a re-enactment) that it is impossible to reconstruct the facts that operate on different levels (Thompson, 1991, 14) by trying to separate them from the redactors’ ideological input (Becking, 1998, 52). Yet the Dtr redactors, like all historiographers, may claim that their work expounds historical truth (Lawson Younger, 1999, 326), although, of course, it is an interpretation of this truth as is every text (“there is no objective history ... no neutral history: Davies P.R., 1997b, 111, 113) or testimony from a contemporary witness to the facts (Becking, 1998, 52-53; Lawson-Younger, 1999, 311-321). Yet this is not a denial of the facts as if they would contradict this (Becking, 1998, 54). On the contrary, by interpreting facts, with which they are permanently in meticulous dialogue (Deist, 1999, 357; Miller Jr. P.D., 1999, 360) – they are closer to the facts than is usually realised (Hermann, 1999, 355) and cannot operate without facts; there is an inseparable bond between them (Maier, 1999, 204) – they manage to unfold their content in a deeper way than they could have been experienced at the time they took place. Just as a painting is viewed better from a distance, the Dtr redactors, like all historiographers, could delve the deeper meaning of Israel’s past and explain it to their contemporaries (Lawson-Young, 1999, 321-322; Philips-Long, 1999, 243-244). Under such circumstances, it is understandable that the Dtr redactors are more concerned with portraying what had not been understood or had been left unconnected in the past than with an exact and elaborate description of the bare facts from the past (Ranke’s ‘how things were’ what can never be known: Lawson-Younger, 1999, 312-316). They focussed mainly on what they considered their task, namely divulging the essence and deeper meaning of Israel’s history. That does not mean that the facts are not important for them. They do have an antiquarian interest (Halpern, 1988; for another view see Thompson, 1991, 76-82). They trust the facts as tradition and the sources provide them. “What really happened is the assumed standard by which it operates” (Barr, 1980, 41). They did not query critically as contemporaries did; they did not consciously contradict (despite their dehistorising); and they did not expand it with fabrications just to impose their view. Starting from the sources, they do try to bring forward the hidden unifying ties and to substantiate them with their skills, shaping them into a lucid and responsible whole, but always without consciously bending the truth handed down to them. The result is that their narrative, due to external circumstances, by no means describes historical events as they are to have happened, but rather divulges their deeper essence in a comprehensible and coherent literary form. “Something can be true without being historically true; contrariwise, being historically true, can also be banal” (Grabbe, 2000, 118). The added value in the Dtr redactors’ work lies certainly in their theological explanation without necessarily being of no value as a source for historical research. Historical fact and theological explanation are intermixed (Carroll, 1997, 90) making them difficult if not impossible to separate. Even more, one cannot shunt aside the Dtr’s product in the inevitable search for the history of ancient Israel (Grabbe, 1997, 35; Becking, 2001, 84). The way that minimalists as Lemche (1996b) and Fritz (1996) designed their histories of Israel showed this. The Dtr’s opus even deserves the benefit of the doubt as long as it is not contradicted by external evidence (Barstad, 1998, 126-127), on the condition that it is subjected to the same criteria in the same way as all other historical sources (Brettler, 1995, 40; Grabbe, 1997).

511 1166

The concept fiction, which also pops up in this study, has several meanings (PhilipsLong, 1999) and should thus be explained here. A distinction should be made between the literary form of a fictional text and its fictive content (Barstad, 1997, 42). “Form, of itself, is not a sufficient criterion by which to differentiate history from fiction. Nor is [it]... evidently the case … that narrative coherence is inevitably [a] falsification of a past truly given to us only in the form of separate, isolate incidents” (Provan, 1995, 597 n. 56). The DtrH’s form as literary work has the same characteristics of any literary narrative and thus cannot be distinguished as either true or fictional. That is why the fictional shape requires examination to determine the extent to which the form corresponds to the content. “ Fiction has to do with the question how far away from reality a text stands” (Becking, 1998, 54). If one believes that the content of the Dtr narrative is fiction, completely invented, then one abandons the consensus in the literature that characterises it as history-like in the words of J. Frei (Lawson-Younger, 1999, 319). This recognised that the text contains or can contain historical elements that are mixed with elements that are not historical so that they cannot be considered purely historical but rather as a mixture (Carroll, 1997, 90; Collins, 1999, 150-152) in between historical and not historical. This a-historical tendency does not prevent the Dtr from showing commitment (Lawson-Younger, 1999, 316-320) in treating historical truth, yet they are not guided exclusively by their imagination and inventiveness. This demonstrates their faithfulness to their historical task and the truth to which they adhere in performing it. “Wer nach der Wurzeln des ‘fair-play’ fragt, dürfte am biblischen Ethos wohl nicht vorbeigehen” (Söding, 2005, 33). To assess the mentality of the Dtr redactors, their work must be situated in the broad context (overall time: Philips-Long, 1999, 238) in which they operate. The literature tends too lightly “...diesen elementaren Zusammenhang übersprungen und das Modell autonomer Kunst auf die biblischen Texte projizieren” (Blum, 2000, 17). Apart from that, in the broader context of antiquity, an intentional fiction such as pseudepigraphy was not usually accepted (Verhoef, 2001, Pokorny, 1997; for another view see Clarke, 2002, 449-457). — We have already mentioned the modalities and limitations of the comparative methods. In the context of biblical historiography, they are used to make comparisons either with Greek (Wesselius, 1999; Van Seters, 1983: Lemche, 2001a) or Middle-Eastern historiography (Hallo, 1999). Authors try to use genre (Smelik, 1987, 11-14; Barstad, 1997, 75) to highlight many similarities and a recognisable pattern to which the Dtr redactors could have been open. The danger of this method is that scholars exaggerate agreements (entirely: Van Seters, 1983, 235) and seek to discover general laws that could lead to a reduction of historical reality (Deist, 1999, 377-380; Edelman, 1991, 17-21, warns against historians’ adopting social sciences) by imposing model formulas (Whitelam, 1995, 151-153) or macro theories (Lemche, 1996). On the basis of this notion of genre (which he considered the key; according to Provan [1995, 596-597] Smelik (1992a] likewise referred solely to this literary genre), Van Seters (1983, 292-302, 354) believed he could ignore the many narrative forms such as annals, chronicles and royal lists when they did not correspond to the historical genre. Thompson (2000) applied this procedure to monumental inscriptions like the Mesha stela. Others did this on more content-related grounds (contaminated: Carroll, 1997, 101102; non-utilitarian: Thompson, 1991, 79) such as the reproach of pursuing propaganda or political objectives (Vermeylen, 2000a, 500, 515, 545, 623, 625, 656). In this way, the comparative method can be used to support determinist (inevitable reductionist tendency: Deist, 1993, 393) views (at least relating to the decisive influence of readers [Lemche,

512

belittling elements that are unquestionably present in the Dtr single narrative does not bring the expected clarity to the role of the Dtr redactors. Some literary support may be present for the story created around the Dtr redactors1167. This hypothesis is a total failure and even sounds tendentious and biased in the broader context of Israel and the message1168 that the Dtr redactors take into account and for which they 2001a, 208; Carroll, 2000], tradents [Thompson, 1993, 83] or the redactors-authors [Whitelam, 1995, 157-169]). Moreover, a series of similarities is not sufficient for proceeding to intertextuality (Lemche, 2000a, 128). Ultimately, what the text says is decisive. Possible discrepancies and differences should not be side-stepped (Barstad, 2001, 51; Lemche, 2001a, 208; Wesselius, 1999, does not even address this discontinuity) nor should we hesitate to apply a contrastive approach (Hallo, 1999, 78; Blum, 2000, 11 called this a Gegenüberstellung). In this way, what is characteristic of Dtr (Brettler, 1995, 137) and of OT historiography should come to the fore, something that occurs too little. This singularity is clearly present in the selective way in which Dtr adopted legislations used by surrounding peoples. 1167 “The irony here is that the revisionists, despite their heavy stress on ideology, minimize the innovative ideology of the original biblical historians, denying to them any truly creative role in the way they shaped their history of ancient Israel” (Dever, 2001, 277). The focus here should be on the original narrator. Once again, the literary analysis of Dtr historiography is unable to provide conclusions consistent with historical evidence (Carroll, 1998a, 70). In attempting to reach these conclusions literarily, one risks becoming a quibbler (Halpern, 1988, 17, 25). One can also be enticed to use literary evidence to imagine what the author thought beyond what is stated in the text. There is abundant evidence that Van Seters (1983) gave such precedence to his comparison with Herodotus and Greek historiography in his literary analysis that all efforts are directed solely toward this bias. This author did the same when explaining Dtr in 2 Kgs 22-23. First he stated the ideological theory, only then providing the textual analysis to support the theory (Davies P.R., 1998, 96-99). — The literary analysis is affected by more than its technical deficiencies. It cannot possibly compensate for the reality of the context. “Es gilt jedoch zu beachten, daß die Bedeutung eines Textes nicht allein durch seine Semantik und Syntax konstituiert wird, sondern ebenso durch seine Textprogrammatik ... Die Entstehung großer Geschichtsüberlieferungen ... zunächst in ihrem jeweiligen literaturgeschichtlichen Kontext zu erklären” (Blum, 2000, 12). There is no doubt that it is wrong to treat a text outside its context. “The text never obtains autonomy, but remains part of the discourses of the context with which our narrative integrates it” (Deist, 1993, 394 n. 4). 1168 It is striking how Van Seters and others approach Dtr historiography solely as an intellectual story (Lemche, 2001a, 126; Thompson, 1991, 85). These authors add new restrictions to those of the genre and the national intent. This seems to be a consequence of the emphatic scriptocentric starting point aloof from oral tradition and the written sources whose influence these authors saw as completely dominated by the ideology of the redactors and their period (Lemche, 2001a). These authors constricted the texts to a much too narrow context (Thompson, 1991) and lost sight of the fact that more was involved than the text-immanent activity of a literary expert with a far-reaching theological view of the Israelite national system with which he sought to make an impression (Lemche, 2001a,

513 203). Rather, it centred on “ein weiteres Kontinuum der Volksgeschichte ... Es kommt hier auf etwas anderes an, nämlich daß in Israel offenbar Grundkomponenten mündlichtraditionaler Erzählkommunikation in die schriftliche Überlieferung herübergerettet wurden” (Blum, 2000, 12-13). We are dealing here with a dialogical relationship in which the response is reciprocal, conscious, with conviction, different (“a genre … need not be tied exclusively to a single setting”: Long, 1976, 192) and with a practical purpose. “Jede sprachliche Äußerung eine bewußte Handlung sei” (Schart, 1988, 19 n. 22). Recall the zeal with which the Dtr used the paraenetic style. The narrator did no less. They used their stories to convey to their hearers an understanding of the truth (Becking, 1998, 40) and its practical effects. Schart (1988, 19) called this a Kommunikationsmodell. “Social life is itself storied ... narrative is an ontological condition of social life” (Linville, 1998, 81). This is what Blum (2000, 10) called a textprogrammatischen Konstellation the typically Israelite efficiency which was so different from what was customary in Greek tradition (Blum, 2000, 10-11) and which shows once more the difference between the two cultures. That is why it was given such a large place in Israelite cult, with which the Dtr single narrative seems so related (Brettler, 1995, 139; Van Seters, 1981, 317, 350). Dtr is clearly inspired by the centralisation of the cult pursued since Josiah’s reign. Via the cult, the Dtr single narrative had contact with the memorial culture (Maier, 1999, 202) long rooted in Israel. It was inspired by this and at the same time it led back to this source with an elaborate confession propelled by a tradition broader than strict literary historiography. More was involved than addressing an individual reader or listener (according to Beuken, 2002 and Talstra, 2002). A whole structured community in evolution was at issue. “Something more than word of mouth is needed if memory is to become a basis component of social consciousness and identity ... Even in more literate societies ... social memory is shaped, sustained and transmitted to a great extent by non-edified practices including rituals of re-enactment, commemorative ceremonies, bodily gestures and the like” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 77-78). This memorial culture instigated action. “The past recalled impels to action in the present” (Blenkinsopp, ibid.). “Above all, the Deuteronomistic history is a book about a people and their God in their land ... given to them by their God” (Barstad, 2001, 55). “That which forms these three components of Israel’s history into a coherent history in three phases is the action of God on Israel’s behalf and the response of Israel to this divine action” (Westermann, 1999, 223). Since the Dtr redactors’ full attention went to this message, they lost themselves in composing their work, to which they were faithful and completely devoted. This also explains the anonymity that they, contrary to Greek historiographers (this may be the chief contrast with Israelite historiography [Niditch, 1996, 116] and even with the classical prophets), carefully took into account rather than ascribing their work to a specific entity as spokesperson of divine inspiration (Blum, 2000, 13 n. 40). Although in dialogue and interactively mediating between the two poles of the message – YHWH and Israel–, the Dtr redactors like the prophets identified with Israel of which they are a part and with which they are more involved. If they moved beyond themselves in their work, they lost themselves first in Israel with which they identify and of which they tell the story. “Es besteht hier eine Unmittelbarkeit von Erzähler und Rezipient gegenüber dem Erzählten und seinem Geltungsanspruch, wie wir sie am ehesten noch kennen, wenn jemand etwas von sich selbst erzählt” (Blum, 2000, 10). This permitted the Dtr redactors to demarcate Israel’s identity (Van Seters, 1983, 320, 359; Linville, 1998, 83-90) more clearly in their narrative because its contours were inspired by their own experience, ideology and interpretation in imitation of the traditional Passover ritual. “The individual participant is also invited to

514

work while remaining anonymously in the background. Besides events, the Dtr redactors include the entire historical process1169 that took place in their own day and in the distant past. The future of the message required them to take all this into account.

internalize the collectively experienced past ... construct a past by a selective incorporation of memories in which their own self-understanding could be patterned” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 79-80). This obviously presupposed that “none of this would have happened if the event itself had not been remembered” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 82). We thus automatically observe that “the weight of evidence is therefore against an invented tradition in this instance and favourable to the view that what happened in the past, disaster period was a process of selection, incorporation and adaptation drawing on a common memory bank” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 81). The view held by Van Seters and the revisionists that the Dtr redactors invented ancient Israel using their contemporary experience seems difficult to defend. 1169 The dialectic stance of many authors (dichotomy: Whitelam, 1995, 150-161) prevented them from taking into account all the elements that the Dtr redactors confronted and, furthermore, hindered them from placing these in a proper relationship. Contrasts such as pre-exilic vs post exilic, historical vs biblical Israel (Davies P.R., 1992), old vs new Israel (Lemche, 2001a, 281), diaspora community vs that of Jerusalem were used too often and too exclusively (Carroll, 1998a, 67). The notion of a paradigm shift (Deist, 1989; Schart, 1998, 16; Whitelam, 1995, 149; the task ahead: Linville, 1998, 108; radical questioning ... former generations: Mayes, 2000, XV) and purported sectarian bias are introduced under pressure from postmodernism’s hypercritical attitude (Thiemann, 1987, 26). All this puts continuity with older tradition at risk (Thompson, 1998, 107, 110; Grun, 2001, 193-198: for another view see Van Seters, 1981, 212). “The past furnishes a common ground for contemporary debit” (Halpern, 1988, 139). For another view see: “The metaphor of Israel’s origins out of the desert of the exile finds its creative centre in the origin of the creation itself” (Thompson, 1998, 117). The durability of tradition in the Middle East should not be underestimated. This can be observed in the economic administration and legislation on which the BoC and Dtr (7.2.2) rely as a result of similarity in culture and probable borrowing (Barstad, 2001, 59, 75 n. 60). This involves more than separate elements and events that the Dtr redactor interwove and forged into a single whole. As with every historiographical work, this entailed a creative process (Collins, 1999; Deist, 1999, 385) that had had earlier oral stages (Dever, 2001, 279), but which was invoked to receive the deeper meaning and value (the why rather than the what, Becking, 1998, 40 n. 1) with a view to the future. “Historical occurrence is bi-polar: it comes to pass in events and in fixed processes, which are given in human phenomena” (Westermann, 1999, 22). No barriers can be delineated in this historical process. “On the level of process, there is no boundary between history, prehistory and national history” (Knauf, 1991, 45). The memorial culture customary in the cult came to the aid of this historical integration of religious and profane reality. “To speak of God remembering is a way of building a bridge between the past and the present” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 79). The religious narratives are a part of this.

515

7.4.6 Canonical Evaluation Our observations on the handling of the historiographical aspect of the Dtr single narrative in the literature can now be more explicitly evaluated with regard to the canonical process through which it passed. As with previous evaluations of this type, we again use the main lines of the definition of canon provided at the start of this study.

A. The Formal Shape The Dtr single narrative’s entire shape is dominated by the practical concern for Israel’s survival. All material of whatever type, without exception, and all smaller narrative elements have been fit into the continuous and dominant narrative account1170. This was done visibly in a sequence of different redactional stages that cannot be reconstructed but that are marked by the now characteristic Dtr style. Despite a single Dtr shape that attempted to transform earlier heterogeneous materials into one continuous and homogeneous literary whole, the Dtr designers seem to have consciously reconciled themselves to permanent irregularities and duplications and elements that diverge from the narrative line. In not keeping strictly to the narrative line, they incorporated a secondary difference in the narrative and non-narrative elements long part of the single project, opening the door for the later additions to and even divisions of DtrH. The most drastic of these was the division into the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. The further subdivision into separate 1170

The Dtr redactors developed the formal shape, with its proportionally skilful literary composition not second to that of the BoC on which it relies and by which it is inspired (7.2.2), into an ideal instrument to serve Israel’s message and tradition in a manner consistent with the memorial culture and liturgy of its own and former periods. “The role of memory was therefore essential for survival” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 809). This refers to the Dtr’s hermeneutic of the downfall of Israel. However stylistically admirable, the Dtr’s literary historical achievement did not intend to give an exact description of the past (did not intend to report how things actually were). They only include facts in their work when these serve what they consider their most important task, explaining the meaning of Israel’s past in the light of their message. “For it was only by incorporating the meaning of the disaster that a new commonwealth could be born” (Blenkinsopp, 1997, 79). — We should distinguish the integration of the smaller narrative elements in the larger single narrative from the addition of primarily legal material. Dtr’s input in Gen.–Num. differs from that in Dt.–2 Kgs. It was fundamental in Dt.–2 Kgs; but, imitating and continuing prior treatment of the narrative and legal material in Gen.–Num., it confined its input to sporadic allenveloping redactional activity.

516

writings or books definitively sealed and legitimated the diversified vision of DtrH’s operation1171. That is why the form of the Dtr single narrative can only be analysed in a simultaneously synchronic and diachronic study.

B. The Content-specific Orientation More so than during our initial study of the Dtr single narrative1172, the narrative shape shows us the direction in which the Dtr redactors sought to orient Yahwist traditions when they gradually integrated these with their own input during the canon process. The narrative introduction to Dt.1173 is an example. It included the entire exodus narrative constitutive for Israel’s coming into existence, but radically corrected and extended it to the time of the downfall and exile1174. Theologising and teaching by prophetic and 1171

The literary distinction between the Hexateuch and DtrH, including disagreement about Tetrateuch vs Hexateuch, continues to sow discord in the literature. — Sanders (1972, 130) has referred to the importance of this distinction for the canonical evaluation of the relationship between the two. Despite their separation, they are fundamentally one story, i.e. a confessional history (Soggin, 1999, 218) in narrative form. The story does not end near or with Dt. The two parts are and remain one unit despite the division between them. Given the confessional history, the material length is irrelevant. The tenor for the whole of Gen.–2 Kgs is the same as for the briefest expression of it in 1 Sam. 12:8 (Sanders, 1972, 9, 15-16, 24). 1172 After a more thorough study of the Dtr redactors’ interactive role (7.4.5), it was possible to examine the canonising intentions to be found in the way in which the Dtr designers of the single narrative treated tradition first as a unity (6.6.1-6.6.2), then heterogeneously (6.6.3), dynamically yet conservatively (6.6.4), as conditioned by history (6.6.5) and clearly with authority (6.6.7), and to do so esp. in the way these canonical intentions found expression in the historiographical development of the single narrative. 1173 We refer to Dt. 1-11 that, in addition to including the Jehovistic exodus narrative (JE according to Kratz, 2000, 240-252, 308-313) in Dt. 1-3, contains various exhortations regarding laws that were included in proto-Dt. (Dt. 12-26). 1174 Without going into detail, it is clear from Dt. 1-3 that the Dtr redactors had three purely historiographical intentions. First, they wanted to remain fundamentally faithful to the several versions of the traditional Torah story that had circulated in Israel (Sanders, 1972, 1-20). With their own little historical creed, which seems to be an abbreviated version of the larger traditional Torah story, the Dtr redactors indicated that they built not only upon the narrative shape of what is basically historiography intended as a confession, but upon its use in the community’s cult. Despite the dominant trend to theologise narrative material to make the single narrative suitable for confessional use, events and sources of tradition remain the undeniable foundation of the Dtr redactors’ work. They are so convinced of their truth that they no longer considered it necessary to examine their reality critically or to give a full description. But this did not prevent the Dtr redactors from including them in their work (Brettler, 1995, 138) and relying on them. Even when their sources differed from or

517

even more nomistic hermeneutics increasing came to shape the narrative thread that originally played a primordial role as vehicle for the Torah1175. As we can see once again, the Dtr redactors sought to strengthen Israel’s

contradicted one another, the Dtr’s confidence in them remained unshaken; they simply reproduced the differences. On occasion they also believe they must strengthen the version that presented their interpretation of the entire story line most meaningfully to their public. As Duque (1997, 46) noted, “Die Wahrheit der Aussage wird gerade an ihrer Sachangemessenheit entschieden”. They performed their task as historiographers excellently. They incorporated and presented the events – and these are exceptionally numerous, running from creation to the downfall of Israel as independent state – in a single, easy-to-understand whole. The Dtr redactors attained their second objective – adapting historical tradition in a faithful but creative and dynamic manner – to the extent that they devised their own historiographically inspired single narrative that on many points was original and diverged from previous versions. The third and final prong of their task was the one possibly undertaken first chronologically. It was to supplement the Torah narrative that they had received by adding information on the periods running from the entrance into the promised land to the exile. This was the starting point for the problem of survival in which they, and Israel, were entangled and to which they sought to respond with a long, ideological narrative. In brief, the Dtr redactors demonstrated that in interweaving tradition’s continuity with its discontinuity in their work (conjoining continuity with strange twists and turns seems to have been a standard aspect of the canon process [Collins; 1999, 166-167; cycles of growth and decline: Westermann, 1999, 221]), they could continue the ongoing canon process and provide it essentially with a definitive and irreversible foundation. 1175 “Even the canon exists in a variety of historically conditioned forms” (Collins, 1999, 169). Dtr showed even in their inclusion of the BoC (7.2.2) that they adopted the Torah texts and concept only to adapt them and make them more nomistic. The Dtr redactors expanded it to cover all aspects of life because they were driven by, and in their turn intensified, the dynamism of Yahwism. On a historiographical plane, they integrated existing legends and larger narrative series in their still larger single narrative. However, it is clear that they augmented the already expanding theologising of history at the expense of its narrative quality (Van Seters, 1983, 214) but without eradicating the narrative material’s own theological shape. “Diese Theologie gewinnt ihre eigene Gestalt gerade in der Gestaltung der Narration” (Duque, 1997, 38). Its uniqueness is irreplaceable. “Wovon man nicht theoretisch sprechen kann, muß man erzählen” (Duque, 1997, 39). All this shows that narrative theology was late in articulating the Dtr’s narrative practice (Schoenborn, 1992; Duque, 1997). Prophetic inspiration (7.3) guided the Dtr redactors in this, but they were inspired even more by their concern to present the law (nomism) as exemplary means of deliverance. These stories are particularly suited to stimulating what was originally intended to be a lesson for life contained in a story. This is history as magistra vitae; the intention being to have rules for life accepted as authoritative more from a sense of understanding than for the facts recounted. Traces of this are found in the old narratives passed around in Israel (Jackson, 2000).

518

unity1176 by merging many smaller narrative elements. They concentrated on Israel’s and Judah’s rich tradition, harmoniously interweaving Moses and David as central figures1177. They increased the authority of dispersed and independent traditions as they consolidated their strength1178. By stressing Moses’ role as extended in the prophets and men of God, the Dtr redactors expanded the inherited concept of Torah to cover all the domains of Israelite life and were able to present on a human level the divine authority on which the Torah had long been placed1179. Yet the Dtr redactors did not appropriate prophetic speech1180, although they thought they had the right to interpret the prophets according to their own 1176

6.6.2. The Josian centralisation of the cult, stimulated by Dtr, is clearly related to the pursuit of unity in the shared culture. In their historiographical work the Dtr redactors integrated profane reality with its rational causality (Halpern, 1988, 228-235) along with openness to the freedom for human (shortcomings were not ignored according to Soggin, 1999, 217) and divine activity (even the chance, unexplainable incident had a place as opening to the transcendent according to Maier, 1999, 199). “... ist sie (a canon concept and a canon process that takes transcendence and dogma into account i.e. the issue of dogma and exegesis [4.3-4.4.], L.Z.) ... die Voraussetzung dafür, Wahrheit und Freiheit überhaupt als Schwestern im Geiste denken zu können?” (Söding, 2003, LXI). In short, all of historicity (Westermann, 1999, 229, 231) is approached impartially. They offer no support for the issue of the separation between general and religious history (which according to Barr 1981, 10-11 Von Rad found difficult to handle). 1177 The Dtr redactors’ selective use of tradition and facts (Deist, 1993, 392) stimulated the unified culture and its attendant idioms already imposed by Israel’s small size. A single narrative such like the Dtr’s fit in this context. 1178 We already noted that the authority of the Dtr single narrative could be judged from its operation in later Israel. We can now note the further element that the many additions to the Dtr single narrative can be seen as responses to its authority (Van Seters, 1983, 361). This is a symptom of the running dialogue in Israel, not an attack on tradition. 1179 Think of the attribution to Moses observed earlier. The Dtr redactors’ assigning the prophets a major role in their history can be explained by the importance they attached to prophecy as they saw it. We explained this extensively when treating the prophetic input in the Dtr opus (7.3). — The Dtr used attribution to the Moses tradition to channel the Yahwist dynamic to the public in a didactic and reflective manner. In section 7.5 we will briefly review the part that human wisdom played in this (6.4.4; there is a close connection between historiography and wisdom according to Westermann 1999, 227-228; it served as challenging and corrective factor according to Collins, 1999, 168). 1180 For the Dtr redactors, the Torah tradition rested on divine authority, but they did not place it on the same level as Moses and the prophets (as they put it: “the LORD said”). That explains their anonymous appearance, which also contributed to shaping their pursuit of unity. “Es wäre auch nicht angemessen, in den Prozeß der literarischen Traditionsbildung das Konzept der göttlichen Autorschaft zu projizieren (für die Finesse des größten Teils der Erzähltexte ist dies noch nicht vorauszusetzen), auch nicht in der ‘kanongeschichtlichen’ Version, mit der B.S.” (Blum, 2000, 13 n. 40).

519

hermeneutic when they felt this was needed. This did not diminish their awareness of the gravity of drawing Israel’s attention to the constitutive saving relationship with YHWH in its struggle for existence, and in this way to guide Israel to the beneficial future. The gravity of this intention can be judged from the emphasis on the meaning of the constitutive Israel epic, from the highly visible increase in laws and esp. from the cogent homiletic tone that the Dtr redactors adopted wherever possible1181. The truth that they believed events required them to place metaphorically and in narrative before their compatriots had to be acted upon and not merely understood1182.

C. The Historical Israelite Faith Community as Catalyst of its Authoritative Tradition However important it may have been for Dtr redactors to use their historical work to guide Israel’s evolution in the direction of what the Bible calls the Promised Land, a proper understanding of its own identity and future1183 was an absolute prerequisite. That is why the Dtr redactors 1181

This is the message at its most acute: Israel’s survival is at issue. The Dtr did not stop with endorsing (7.2) and manifestly revising (7.2.2) the BoC. Just as they extended the historical material, they also added new, adapted laws (Dt. 12-24 (7.3.5.2)) and explained them in the history that followed Dt. That is what made the nomistic tendency so evident. — Just as Dt. 1-3 is exemplary for Dtr’s (re)orientation or historical tradition, their homiletic introduction in Dt. 4-11 is exemplary for the entire homiletic tendency in the Dtr opus known for its practical paraenetic style. 1182 Recall history as magistra vitae and the practical orientation of Dtr’s paraenesis which was consistent with Israel’s generally practical tradition. 1183 The account in Dt. 34 of Moses’ death as he gazed toward the Promised Land, like the introduction in Dt. 1-11, is paradigmatic for the entire Dtr opus. All that Moses had said and done to and for Israel on YHWH’s behalf, in short the received and renewed Torah vision, was concerned with the single objective of entering the land. — The importance of the canon process for the evolution of Israel’s awareness of its identity became clear during our first study of the single narrative and even more so when we examined the prophetic writings and their reworking by the Dtr current. Now that Dtr could speak in the single narrative, esp. DtrH, we find a more intensive profiling of Israel in Dtr’s extensive interpretive explanation of Israel’s history. In their zeal, the Dtr’s let their explanation be governed by more than their own insight and the needs of their public. They also consciously followed Israel’s familiar traditions. Invalidating these to replace them with a totally new identity (according to Thompson, 1998, 107) cannot be reconciled with their loyalty to the truth about Israel. There can be evidence contradicting this interpretation, and this should certainly be taken seriously; but it should not be given a biased a priori explanation as proof for the Dtr’s radical intervention with the intention of giving Israel an

520

concentrated mainly on drumming into Israel the truth about itself and thus on revealing to Israel the identity that marked it as different from other peoples1184. The mechanism for this (presenting to the people the interpretation of their history that the Dtr considered truest and that gave the people greatest insight in itself and its essence) was not original as the study of other cultures shows1185. The Dtr historiographer followed the classical canonical path of collective historical thinking as orientational1186 identity that differed completely from tradition and thus disavowed its past. Yet Dtr did intend to goad Israel and its kings into a totally different and more law-abiding behaviour than they had displayed in the past. Dtr understood this as a return to the true Israel that, seen historically, had failed badly but in essence was the Israel that YHWH had always called. At the very least, a link was forged between the past, present and future of the one historically conditioned Israel. 1184 Obviously this was not an abstract, exclusive, intellectual truth, but – as with the prophets – concerned the message and its truth as the Dtr presented it in Israel’s history. — With reference to the comparative method’s unavoidable emphasis on differences, recall the prominence of its demarcation of Israel as separate from foreign peoples in the first examination of the Dtr single narrative. The election motif was salient. According to Dtr and the prophets, this election did not arise from the fatal events during the downfall of Israel and Judah. At that time, there arose only the more intensive awareness to which Israel had long been called. From a historical perspective, Israel did not behave in accordance with this theological pattern. Yet the Dtr could not help but point out to present and future Israel the status as people of YHWH that it had held historically from time immemorial. 1185 In giving a canonical evaluation of the Dtr single narrative as historiography, we cannot avoid looking further than the achievements of the more recent hermeneutics. It is true that this study is of a hermeneutical canon process within the Israelite religious community. However, this is largely shared with every cultural community. Studies have shown that religious communities have much in common with canon formation in common culture. Shared elements include the formation of tradition, selection, concentration, demarcation, attribution of authority, passion for truth, all of which result in a body of tradition that the community wanted to preserve at all cast (Söding, 2001, 8). — Much of the Dtr redactors’ diligence, as observed in their treatment of the prophetic writings, returned more prominently in this common cultural canon pattern (7.3.5.4 esp. 7.3.5.4.4 and 7.3.5.4.5). 1186 This is the reason for using some types of tradition and not using others, or renewing them where possible so that they could be included permanently despite the growing volume. Dtr’s and Israel’s repeatedly observed faithfulness to older tradition was not accidental. It made an explicit statement regarding the permanent foundation on which they wish to build a renewed vision of the future. This was an irreversible decision (‘Unüberholbarkeit eines Anfangs’: Söding, 2001, 1) that had to be confirmed repeatedly, in the case of Dtr by the nearly total assimilation of the Torah story and legislation current before their time. At the same time, this decision meant that it will be necessary to keep alive the memory of this past foundation in the future, a duty clearly considered an authoritative obligation. The community’s continued existence was believed to depend on this reinvigorated recollection. The community kept itself alive by commemorating its past and its identity (the shaping of an identity took place in close contact with the evolution of

521

for every community that wanted to remain faithful to itself throughout its volatile history. It is characteristic of DtrH that it did not stop with applying the truth of its history to its own time. It applied it equally to universal history and beyond by making YHWH the determining factor, origin and mainspring of all events in accordance with a renewed and updated Yahwist tradition1187. It shared this with the older JE traditions, now accepted as authentic, and with classical prophecy. The Dtr were utterly original when they graphically presented Yahwist truth to Israel as never before and brought it to life with such authority amid Israel’s hardships right up to the present so that it automatically became evident which path lay open to Israel’s future1188. It is quite remarkable that, the community, but did not fully coincide with it). This remembrance was the norm of truth against which the community measured itself and without which it betrayed itself, i.e. failed to keep faith with the meaning of its story. This presupposed a decision that was not isolated but repeatedly renewed and repeatedly achieved, i.e. put into action under new circumstances. Continuity, with the possibility of developing the continuing line (this is the discontinuity), was the spur to reception history and the operation under changing circumstances that mark the canon process. This is a state of permanent interactivity (7.4.5) and dialogue between the free community and its tradition (observed after Dtr in text criticism), that Dtr at least stimulated if not inaugurated. That the Dtr redactors could have designed their own single narrative without using tradition and sources cannot be reconciled with the image that the canon process displayed here as it does in general culture (Barr, 2000, 87-88). 1187 The Torah tradition that the Dtr single narrative borrowed from Yahwism and carried forward is not the only one to appeal to divine authority and origin in its canon-mindedness (it is less intense than the prophets, but is historiographically broader and more broadly explained). It shared this with other similarly authoritative religious tradition in the Middle East. It only became specific in the elaboration of Yahwism (esp. noticeable in the Yahwist theologising of legislation current among surrounding peoples) in which Dtr and prophecy unmistakably gave an important impetus toward monotheism. We never cease to be amazed that, despite the diversity within Israel, Yahwism managed to group the many traditions that held sway within Israel under the heading and authority of one God, YHWH. There seems to have been a common ground that that united the various Israelite tribes (Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 81). 1188 We already mentioned that the Dtr opus increased the authority of the Yahwist canon process (6.7). Now we will see how this came about. After tracing how the Dtr went about their work esp. in the single narrative we should have a clearer insight in their exercise of authority following the example of, yet differing from, what appeared in the prophetic writings (7.3.5.4.6 esp. C). This study of the Dtr’s exercise of authority in the context of the growing canon process is all the more important now that modern society and postmodern theology are calling in question the canon’s authority, its binding character (Wiles, 1987). We already noted that the prophets generally failed when it came to the exercise of authority despite their attempts to take their public into account. The Dtr succeeded only because of a more suitable exercise of authority. Determining how this was possible

522

throughout this long history, the divine and the human1189 could and might remain themselves. Yet they relied on one another to proceed along the path delineated as canonically true, however much Israel may have diverged from it in the past. This did not diminish the authority and truth of the path designated correct. It just made turning once again to the true path1190 more necessary and cogent than ever. That explains the repeated deserves a more extensive study than we can provide here. But we can note that thanks to its relying heavily on literary narrative (7.3.5.3.5) in direct address (Houtman, 2004, 9, 13) and using a history-like single narrative, Dtr acquired extensive authority among the people at a time when this could still be achieved. After Dtr and without relying on the narrative historical character as the Dtr did, the faith communities seemed to have relied all too easily on their social position to invoke Scripture’s divine authority and to acquire their own authoritative position. When we take Dtr as an example of an adapted exercise of authority via historiography, we should remember that they did not represent all the canonical writings (Wiles, 1987, 46). Put differently: Scripture’s unity did not arise solely from its historical character. Scripture’s story extends beyond its historiography. This should be noted especially by those who wish to place all of OT literature because of its heavily historiographical orientation under the sway of a sub-Dtr historical interpretation. — Because of the many stages in its development, Israel’s continuity as people of YHWH came to enjoy its full scope despite its inconstancy and discontinuity. This anti-structure draws attention to the distinction from, or discontinuity with, the mythical world of the surrounding peoples. It is important to note that despite a past that was vast and held to be true, the future remained an open promise. “Scripture’s claim to truth comes not in the form of tyrannical dogmatic assertion but in the form of an invitation – or better, a promise” (Thiemann, 1987, 28). 1189 YHWH’s free role in the message was treated mysteriously (differently than in the prophetic writings) and implicitly but soundly. The opening to transcendence via the often fictive literary shape offered an opportunity to surpass the restrictions of reason without violating them. “Precisely in discovering the literary art of the biblical narrative the interpreter begins to approach the elusive goal of discerning rational controls for the interpretation of ancient texts” (Thiemann, 1987, 29). This method of presenting the transcendent not only had a liberating effect for Israel because it gave Israel a chance to surpass itself, it also had a liberating effect on YHWH, whose freedom to act was not diminished. “Consequently the God of Israel remains a hidden God who can never be fully or definitively known” (Collins, 1999, 166). — Since the narrative is not solely didactic, but also contains an invitation to surrendering action (Joubert, 2003, 53), Israel in all its human potential is called to account. “… it is a program of action for a specific society”, according to: Frye, cited in Chapman, 2000, 88. Above all, the rational had to discover the coherence of the story and assign proper weight to its transcendent scope so that it could then reflect upon it. “The stories do indeed call forth a remarkable act from the reader. Christians call it faith. But faith is neither blind nor irrational. It is an act of intellectual and personal commitment based upon a coherent reading of the biblical narratives” (Thiemann, 1987, 30). 1190 This realistic view of Israel and its wrongdoings is the mainspring of the Dtr single narrative seen as aetiology. — The Dtr single narrative’s authority, like the whole Dtr opus,

523

use of the commemoration of the events1191 that the Dtr redactors collected, selected and convincingly composed into an enlightening and admonishing magistra vitae for Israel more than any of their predecessors did. But despite this establishment of a canon guideline for Israel’s behaviour attuned solely for Yahwist truth, the Dtr redactors were still aware of Israel’s freedom to act and the uncertainty of the future. Furthermore, the Dtr redactors did not by any means exclude that insight in the canonical path could grow and that it could even require additional elaboration1192. Their familiarity with Israel’s hybrid composition including all the potential conflicts amid which the Dtr must mediate was too elaborate for this. Their community culture was much more realistic and richer than that in the prophetic writings1193 and could also be constitutive for Israel. That only the priest remains in the shadow was abundantly compensated by separate input from the priestly tradition.

was based on persuasion and conviction. The narrative shape and the content of the story in particular made it easier for Israel to accept its authority. “Its potential for a reception of the nature of biblical authority” (Wood, 1987, 13). The Dtr gave Israel an opportunity to reflect on new experiences and submit to the path they traced in the narrative thread taken up and extended in various stages. In this way, the Dtr single narrative attained its familiar operational level. “The readers are brought into the narratives; it becomes a context for reflection and action. … It is (or may be) authorized by the text, in so far as it is in keeping with the sense of the story” (Wood, 1987, 13). That is why it is so important that Israel turn to the events and the authentic explanation of them that the Dtr redactors penned in their text. “What is there to be learned, if there are no facts?” (Dever, 2001, 251). In this sense, occidentals can learn from non-western traditions that “submit to critical examination by the events instead of neutralising their power to create a disturbance”, according to postmodern philosopher Lyotard, cited in Lindijer, 2003, 54. Put differently: “The Other calls the Same [Levinas’ word for Self - tr.] in question”, according to Levinas (Lindijer, 2003, 63). 1191 “For if the truth by which we are to live is not authoritatively given in the past but continually to be discovered in the present, such a process of discovery is bound to involve experimentation with attendant error and conflict” (Wiles, 1987, 52). 1192 Israel’s freedom permitted different answers. As we said, the Dtr did not conceal Israel’s and its leaders’ shortcomings. “Meaning perhaps for the first time in narrative literature, was conceived as a process, requiring continual revision” (Thiemann, 1987, 29). 1193 In Dtr’s day, Israel certainly played a large but not exclusive role in this and coloured their work. The Dtr redactors certainly had no intention of give up continuity with historical Israel. They preserved this foundation and guideline for situating contemporary experience in the larger whole of their single narrative (for another view see Linville, 1998).

524

7.5 The Wisdom Sources of the Dtr Single Narrative 7.5.1 Identification of the Wisdom Sources in the Dtr Single Narrative After examining the single narrative’s legal (7.2), prophetic (7.3) and historical (7.4) sources with the intention of finding and evaluating its antecedents in the ongoing canon process, there remains only the wisdom elements that seem to have been used. At first sight their identification poses no major problems. Moreover, they do not appear to be numerous. We have already mentioned the songs of Miriam, Deborah and Moses. The blessings of Jacob and Moses and Balaam’s prophecies1194 can be considered wisdom texts on grounds of their hymn-like form. This also applies to Jotham’s fable, Samson’s riddle1195 and that of the Queen of Sheba. Finally, the composition of the story of Joseph is also usually thought to be a product of the sages1196. On content-related grounds, traces of wisdom are found in speculative passages and elements such as the creation narratives and the fall of Adam, and in Moses’ didactic speeches that the Dtr inserted in Dt.1197 This raises the question of what exactly can

1194

Ex. 15:1-20; Jg. 5:1-31; Dt. 32:1-43; Gen. 48:1-11; 49:28; Dt. 33:1-29; Num. 24:3-25. For another view see Weeks, 1999, 28-30. 1195 Jg. 9:7-15; 14:3-14. Gouder and Hermisson adopted totally opposite positions regarding the origin of the book of Proverbs. Gouder transformed them into popular wisdom, even when they mention the king or the court, while Hermisson attributed them solely to the court schools and the scribes (Westermann, 1991, 39). 1196 1 Kgs 10:1; Gen. 37:1-36; 39-50. Von Rad’s influence was tangible (Sheppard, 1980, 7-8). Crenshaw, 1999, 145. Crenshaw (1979), like Westermann (1990) and Sheppard (2000, 370-379) tried to use formal elements to define wisdom literature. This starting point did not prove satisfactory. Crenshaw confined himself to more professional written wisdom exercised in elite circles. “Schriftliche Entstehung für sie selbstverständlich” (Westermann, 1991, 36). This is evidence of his scriptocentrism. Yet he wrote elsewhere, “Wisdom phraseology by a prophet does not make him a sage” (Crenshaw, 1969, 134). Sheppard ‘2000, 380-398) sought an egress in the theological notion of Scripture, in which wisdom literature was only included because of its link with the historical Solomon. Westermann (1990) by contrast did take into account popular wisdom long practiced in Israel’s oral tradition. 1197 Gen. 1-2. “Critical research has discovered that a study of the biblical material according to the divisions of content provides a more useful avenue into the history and interpretation of the individual books” (Childs, 1983², 502).

525

be considered typical for wisdom literature1198. It will only be possible to identify more accurately the wisdom elements and their function in the single narrative after this question has been answered.

7.5.2 Wisdom in the Literature on the OT A glance in studies on the OT quickly shows that wisdom had long been neglected. A change came in the 1960s and 1970s. Yet wisdom remains discernibly burdened by the traditionally third-class status it seems to have been given since its placement in the Hebrew canon1199. Usually equated to the Chetubim, it seems to struggle in the literature with the diversity of its form and the loose collection in which it is developed in these writings1200. A more thorough study of the link between wisdom and its broader context in the OT and surrounding peoples1201 may be helpful. As was the case for historiography, comparative studies have produced much information on wisdom literature1202. Yet wisdom, like the rest of canon study, is not sufficiently able to assimilate consciously and equably the legacy of the past and the hardship it brought in the post-biblical period1203. Under such 1198

Crenshaw studied this question. He correctly warned against pan-sapientialism (Crenshaw, 1999, 145), parallel to the pan-deuteronomism referred to above. 1199 Sheppard (1980, 1-12) gave a reliable survey of the literature up to 1980. The extent to which wisdom is burdened by its past in the literature is evident from the difficulty encountered in integrating it in OT theology (Jeremias, 2003, 44, 49). “Modern critical scholarship has attributed little significance to the Hebrew canon’s division of a final section called the writings or Hagiographa (Ketubim)” (Childs, 1983², 501). “… neoorthodoxy was perplexed by this part of the Hebrew canon and came to reduce severely or even dismiss its authenticity” (Perdue, 2000, 205). A series of authors even objected to wisdom’s having a place in the canon (Westermann, 1991, 45-46; Murphy, 2000, 191 n. 2). Others had difficulty with wisdom texts like Canticles (according to Dell, 2000, 349). 1200 Westermann, 1990, 9-10; Weeks, 1999, 28-30; Brown, 1996, 1. “The third division of the Hebrew canon appears to be a catch-all which lacks coherence ... A brief glance at the great variation in the order of the books of the writings, indicates the degree of fluidity within the canonical division” (Childs, 1983², 501-502). A too strictly formal approach to wisdom in the OT runs the risk of overestimating its role in the canon when compared to the Torah and the Nebiim. Chapman (2003) is an example. All by all, the canonical value of the classical, form-based, threefold division of the Tanach is overestimated. 1201 Crenshaw, 1986², 391. The interactive role of wisdom within Israel and its Torah has been much discussed in the recent literature (Van Oorschot, 2003, 67-89). 1202 Westermann (1991, esp. 28-48) provided a survey of the many efforts undertaken since 1970 to compare Israel’s wisdom with that of the surrounding peoples. 1203 Recapitulated, this is a positive attempt at renascence regarding the consequence of the separation of Christian and Jewish faith communities and the split among Christian

526

conditions a manifest definition of wisdom in the OT, however necessary, is not a workable proposition1204. Meanwhile, we can draw a few tentative conclusions from the literature that can go some way toward portraying the role and function of wisdom in the OT and among the surrounding peoples so that the canonical evaluation of the wisdom elements to which the present study aspires can be brought to a conclusion. The literature shows above all that defining wisdom starting from the Chetubim has the same disadvantages as studying the canon process by starting with its final stage. Wisdom’s rise provides better insight in its essence than its endpoint does. Moreover, the many types of wisdom in the Chetubim can be explained better by its long history and internal

churches, mainly during the separation of East from West and later during the Reformation and subsequent Enlightenment. The renascence that took shape with Barth (3.1.8) was marked mainly by his dialectical dualism that sought to disassociate itself from the natural theology found in human wisdom and the wisdom literature. The canonical criticism exercised by Childs’ followers, as heir to this Barthian theology, displayed dualistic inclinations (Murphy, 2000, 195; Perdue, 2000). “The discussion is far from over” (Murphy, 2000, 192). Barr (1993) drew attention once again to this old sore. The way this bias against or resistance to natural theology and the undervaluation of wisdom and natural and profane fact still resonates (this again shows the deeply religious view of reality prevalent in the general culture of the time [Van Oorschot, 2003, 62]) demonstrates that eminent exegetes turned only latterly to wisdom in the OT. Examples are: McKane, 1965, 48-54, Von Rad, 1970, Rendtorff, 1976b, idem, 1977b, Blenkinsopp, 1983, Westermann, 1990 and Crenshaw, 1999, each of whom tries to make up for lost time in giving wisdom the place it deserves. It is standard to attribute to wisdom only what cannot be entrusted to the Torah or Nebiim. Conversely, this means that what is not God’s word is wisdom (Westermann, 1991, 90). Even in a positive approach to wisdom, Von Rad cannot resist giving salvation history priority over creation theology (Barr, 2000, 93-94). Nonetheless, it is an established fact that biblical texts often include creation themes directly in salvation history. This is the case in hymns, psalms (Kevers, 1991) and even prophets. The major P current is curiously open for the universal aspect of creation. The D current is more concerned with its own public, but does reach a human stance. “Parfois le Yahwism interprète même la création comme un acte rédempteur: l’ordre créé devient sa scène sur laquelle se déroule un drame humano-divin” (Crenshaw, 1982, 257). Creation theology’s relation to salvation history remained a much-debated subject in OT theologies (Dietrich, 1996b, 268-273). 1204 Crenshaw, 1969, esp. 130-135. A definition remains difficult (Sheppard, 1980, 3-5; Westermann, 1990, 9-10) because it would have to link together all the wisdom data in the OT (Westermann, 1991, 44), since it is presumed that all wisdom has a common origin. Wisdom’s enigmatic character (Crenshaw, 1985, 369; that it contains riddles brought enigmatic wisdom’s disclosing character to the fore; McKane, 1965, 94-101) obstructed the consensus among exegetes on its essence.

527

dynamic1205 than by its completion. Wisdom built the house it wanted and embellished it with the forms that best served it1206. In its own words, it was most at home in Jerusalem where it could best take root. Given its practical nature, certainly in Israel, wisdom sought to attain its goal and be fruitful in the manner it announced in public1207. Israel appreciated profound reflection and technical skill especially when they helped achieve 1205

“To read the evolutionary history from the final shape, then, is not the correct procedure” (Davies P.R., 1998, 90). For another view see Sheppard (2000) who questioned the continuity between the pre-biblical wisdom tradition and biblical wisdom. This would be to entrench oneself (Sheppard, 1980, 12-18) in the notion that the final stage could explain the role of wisdom in the OT and its traditions. “Methodisch folgt daraus, daß man die Nachgeschichte nicht ohne die Frühgeschichte verstehen kann” (Westermann, 1991, 28). This concerns more than viewing the content as if it were a static given. As current in tradition, wisdom participated in Yahwism’s dynamic and in the human philosophical focus (‘philosophischen Grundfunktion’: Westermann, 1991, 29) that together determine the canon process’ dynamic. — It is important to note the didactic role of Israelite wisdom. “Jede didaktische Funktion beim Sprichwort ist sekundär” (Westermann, 1990, 30). Israelite wisdom shared this didactic role with that of Egypt where it was called Maat (instruction) (Eynikel, 1991, 12). 1206 Prov. 9:1. This description of how wisdom built a house can include the inductive and deductive methods of human intellectual thought. A study of Proverbs makes this clear. Most older folk proverbs focused on given reality and took it as their starting point. Conversely, longer and usually more recent didactic proverbs started from abstract principles to fathom reality and its order (Westermann, 1991, 43-44). — The many forms in which wisdom appeared during its development (Westermann, 1990, 30) make it difficult to situate it under one heading. Popular and learned wisdom usually operated simultaneously in their various environments. They can be linked in the sense that they were aware of one another as is apparent from Job 1-2 where a folk tale passes seamlessly to become a discussion among the learned. The Joseph story and prehistory show that wisdom could also use narrative prose (Rendtorff, 1976b; idem, 1977b) with the familiar practical bent of Haggadah and its rhetoric (Joubert, 2003, 51-52). This demonstrates an interaction (2.3.5.4.5) between the Torah and wisdom. 1207 Sir. 24:9-12. According to this saying, wisdom’s house was situated amidst Israel. Whoever finds Wisdom, finds life (Prov. 8:35). “Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce” (Sir. 24:19). Wisdom, it is true, was built on intellectual insight, but no less on practical experience as that of the artisan (Eynikel, 1991, 11 refers to Ex. 31: 3-5 drawing particular attention to the term ‫ חכמה‬because it encompassed more than the term used by the surrounding peoples: Crenshaw, 1985, 369) and tried to respond suitably to reality of all types, including social reality (hence the link between wisdom and sociology: Weeks, 1999). It used numerous devices including aesthetics (Crenshaw, 1986², 374), poetical and hymnic genres and, like the scribes and narrators, composition. “Der Mensch ist in ihnen als Denkender und Handelnder verstanden … Als Denkender und als Handelnder ist er der mündige Mensch. … Nur Denken und Handeln zusammen (die Arbeit) machen das Menschenleben aus” (Westermann, 1990, 142).

528

wisdom’s goal which was to help the individual and the community1208 travel the path that, based on past experience and growing reflection, it considered salutary for them. In this regard, Israelite wisdom differed greatly from that of the surrounding peoples with whom it nevertheless had much in common and from whom it borrowed much, just as was the case for the legal codes, historiography and even general religiosity1209. The 1208

Studying wisdom in scholarly literature again expressly raised the issue of the link between the individual and the community (Van Oorschot, 2003, 60). In some ways the individual seemed to gain autonomy, but in others it seemed dependent on a sense of community and on the protection of the community’s authority. Wisdom revealed more strongly this interplay between person and community, which seemed always to have existed. “Indeed of all the books and genres of biblical literature, it is the wisdom corpus that most explicitly addresses the character and praxis of both the individual and the community” (Brown, 1996, 4). This was already apparent from its effort to provide arguments underpinning the laws in the BoC. “There is growing recognition that individual responsibility was basic to legal procedure from the earliest times” (Crenshaw, 1969, 132 n. 17). Wisdom was also apparent in the prophetic texts in the freedom with which the prophets noted their differences and in the outspokenness with which they acted and asserted themselves personally in their challenging task, just as one person in the book of Proverbs and Psalms creatively led and offered his thoughts to the community (Westermann, 1990, 10). For its part, the community offered its experience to the individual via the communal liturgy as guide in life and for problems. This interplay between person and community probably explains the alternating 1st pers. pl. in the Psalms (Childs, 1983², 519-520). Thanks to wisdom’s efforts, the interplay between person and community was structurally underpinned in the canon process and prepared the way for later canonisation. 1209 Crenshaw, 1993, 371; Roberts, 1986², 94; Ringgren, 1982; Westermann, 1983, 28-30. It should be noted that not all that is shared with the surrounding people is necessarily borrowed. Israel was able to develop its own wisdom products (Van Leeuwen C, 1963, 125-126; Ackroyd, 1979², 317). — Contacts and borrowings are striking in the Psalms. Since as latecomer (Van der Woude, 1986a, 19) Israel had not reached the cultural level needed for poetic psalmody, it had to resort to borrowings that could only be partially adapted (Van Leeuwen C., 1963, 121; Rendtorff, 1988³, 262; Kapelrud, 1982, 125-129; Ackroyd, 1982, esp. 238). Because of these borrowings from the surrounding peoples, wisdom’s international character became recognised in Israel, despite the reservations of some authors (according to Crenshaw, 1969, 131) and this esp. since the more recent archaeological discoveries (Westermann, 1990, 125-145; Crenshaw, 1969, 129 n. 31; Gammie, 1990). — Ethics was connected to the generally recognised link between wisdom and law without being absorbed into or coinciding with it. There was a requisite association in OT wisdom between ethics, intellect and the ethical good (Hardy, 1999, 232-233). — For the way in which Yahwism adopted from the surrounding peoples a modified form of the notion of God as king see Jeremias, 1987. As in Israel, religious and profane dimensions among the surrounding peoples coincided in the sense that profane reality was not withdrawn from the religious. Hence wisdom’s pan-sacrality (Buber’s term, see Von Rad, 1970, 42; Boström, 1990). But this did not make the profane sacred, it had to be sanctified in the cult. It is conspicuous that although wisdom texts are cited but seldom in

529

core of this communal wisdom was intellect, which is indispensable for all human interpretation, even when it came to making religiosity and myth human1210 and acceptable in a human system. In Israel this wisdom initially received only a small place in the prophetic traditions that stressed the mysterious aspect of Yahwism1211. On the other hand, wisdom’s role grew as its reflective contribution and didactic learning could be applied. This was obviously the case in later periods and in times of crisis1212, although it the cult, they are always cited positively (Crenshaw, 1985, 390). For another view see Davies P.R. (2002, 48) who thought that religiosity entered biblical tradition only gradually. 1210 The transcendent is assumed as the basis on which responsibility for maintaining the moral and social order rested (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 41-73). The principle of retribution was a common good among the surrounding peoples. 1211 These traditions had been accepted a priori and intuitively (what Barth called ‘Senkrecht von oben’, see Reventlow, 1982, 103). This is knowledge derived from experience learned in direct contact with YHWH. These experiences come to people perpendicularly or vertically and are heard (Hanegraaf, 1988, 47), as in the priestly Torah that stressed the stability and prophetic experience announced as coming directly from YHWH. 1212 This is the a posteriori starting point, where the person takes the initiative. Prior observation holds a prominent place. In this sense, it came more sideways (Hanegraaf, 1988, 47) or horizontally. It started from a human interest and need and aimed at turning reality to its purpose and at regulating it; this ended with a transfer of knowledge within family and social environments. That is why practical skills and craftsmanship play such as large role in wisdom, esp. in Israel (Eynikel, 1991, 11). We should also mention it’s share in economics and the institutional, political and judicial (Whybray, 1990) development of society. Albertz (1978, 92, 177) incorrectly thought that the Dtr slowed development of institutions that favoured personal religion. Before the exile the Dtr certainly made a conscious effort to adapt and reshape the institutions to fit within the centralisation of the cult. Later, during the exile, the concern seemed to be to reserve a place in the planned constitution for the dismantled institutions, including the monarchy, and to adapt them once again to new insights. They saw personal religion as a support, but not something that would lessen the share of the institutions. On the contrary, they saw this as an indispensable guarantee for Israel as community and through it a guarantee for the individual. — OT wisdom literature was traditionally classified in the Chetubim because wisdom is their primary characteristic. Another reason is that these Chetubim are known as the last to be canonised after the Torah and Nebiim. But it should be recognised that Psalms, Proverbs and the hymns (Goulder, 1990) demonstrate adequately that this material could be very old. If the Chetubim were a late candidate for canonisation, this was due more to their reflective character. This reflection obviously occurred later and needed time. — Conflict situations that arose in the wisdom texts as well as in prophecy (like the prophets, the sages were divided into true and false: Van Leeuwen R.C., 1990, 299-300) occasioned disputes and the attendant opposition literature (Crenshaw, 1982). As with that of prophecy, wisdom’s critical challenge (Van Oorschot, 2003, 65-67)) brought about a reworking in Dtr of tradition in many areas (Ernst, 1994; Zobel K., 1992, 154-155, 174-178; 6.6.4). Established

530

could never have been totally absent in Israelite law as universal human given, not even in the primitive period when there were as yet no wisdom schools or writing1213. That is why it is not surprising that wisdom elements are found here and there, hidden and sporadically, even in the oldest OT traditions where they prove to have been present always and everywhere from the very start1214. It can thus not be determined whether the strict values such as retribution were called into question. Job and Qoheleth are examples. A characteristic of this is scepticism (‘un enfant non désiré’: Crenshaw, 1979, 111; ‘königskritische Sprüche’: Westermann, 1991, 39), even toward wisdom (Crenshaw, 1969, 134). “Face to face with ultimate mystery, humanism acknowledges its own limits arising from finitude itself” (Crenshaw, 1985, 369). This intellectual resistance to what Yahwism had automatically accepted earlier gave Isaiah and Jeremiah the impression that human pride (sufficiency, ‘strong self-confidence’: Crenshaw, 1985, 373-389; their error was that the sages did not want to accept the prophet’s ‫[ דברים‬distinct from the ‫ עצה‬of advice of the sages]) created revolt. They wound up arguing with the sages who were its spokesmen (Barthel, 1997, 32, 470-477; McKane, 1965, 48-54; McKane incorrectly interpreted the wisdom’s scepticism as aimed at the intellectual and diplomatic reality whose services the sages really wanted to enlist). The antagonism between wisdom and Yahwism was overcome from the religious inspiration within Yahwism (Murphy, 1987, Phillips, 1982, 224; Davies W.D.-Finkelstein L, I, 1999). The result was a harmonious integration of wisdom within Yahwism (for another view see Crenshaw, 1982, 256 n. 15-17; idem, 1993, 373). 1213 OT scholars are divided in the discussion on the scribal schools and written culture in Israel and the speculations on the capacity of readers (Murphy, 2000, 192 n. 7; Van Oorschot, 2003, 61-62). Jamieson-Drake (1991) tried to buttress the late dating by disputably invoking archaeology that contradicted the literary evidence, without which archaeology remains silent. Dever (1996, 41) denied this resolutely. Iconography seems to support him (Van der Toorn, 1998, 19-21). 1214 “Dieser Hinweis auf die Grenzen des Menschen ist einer der Gründe dafür, daß die frühe Weisheit Israels im Kanon bewahrt wurde” (Westermann, 1990, 148). Just as it is preferable to speak of a wisdom dimension in the Psalms rather than wisdom psalms as a separate genre (according to J. Luyten cited in Kevers, 1991, 78), it is more text-compliant to recognise the ubiquitous presence of wisdom than to isolate it in traditional wisdom books and specific themes (‘Subjekte’, ‘Arten’, ‘Gegenstände’: Westermann, 1991, 30, 33). For another view see Sheppard, 1980, 12-18; Crenshaw, 1993, 164 n. 15-16. “Sie hat es immer mit allen Lebensbereichen zu tun, sie hat ihre Wurzele im Leben des Volkes” (Westermann, 1990, 140). — “Weisheit gab es, solange es Menschen gibt” (Westermann, 1990, 147). Philosophy has always existed everywhere (Frymer-Kensky, 1990). It was no different in Israel. “A shared approach to reality was the cultural property of all classes of Israelites” (Van Leeuwen R.C., 1990, 287). Blenkinsopp, 1983, 17-18. In its popular forms, wisdom was certainly present in the tribal period. All in all, we can accept that wisdom as exercised in elite circles – that it had always been exercised there and in contacts with surrounding peoples is evident from its presence in all OT books: Sanders, 2001, 20 – only gradually took broader root and at a late date. The link and evolution between simple popular forms of wisdom in Israel and the more clever professional forms is assessed

531

Yahwist or more profanely inspired wisdom traditions came first in Israel. We can only ascertain that they coalesce harmoniously up to the time of the crises that Israel encountered mainly in the downfall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is apparent that, prompted by classical prophets and Dtr, wisdom’s input was laboriously1215 integrated in orthodox Yahwism, becoming so theologised that even the sages became prophets and the Torah became wisdom in Israel. Thus it was that wisdom procured its canonical status via a decidedly singular application in Israel1216. varyingly. Assessments extend from a totally separate evolution (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 18; Von Rad, 1970, 24 n. 9, 42) to harmonious continuity (Whybray, 1982; for another view see: idem, 19934; Westermann, 1990, 11-13). Zimmerli (1976) also argued for this. Westermann (1990, 114-115) and Gottlieb (1990) pointed out that popular forms also appeared in later times in Qoheleth and Job. The source of these difference in views is usually the desire to identify the wisdom current using its own style and manner of expression and thus to segregate it into the categories priest-prophet-sage (Jer. 18:18; according to Crenshaw, 1969, 133, and Brekelmans, 1979, 36; Barrera, 2002, 143-144). This division dated from later times and referred incorrectly (Crenshaw, 1969, 142 n. 54) to a separate group of sages recognisable in some influential persons such as royal advisors and pre-exilic scribes (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 1-14). Others wanted to date the establishment of this separate category as late as possible, preferably after the exile (according to Brekelmans, 1979). The authors’ underlying theological views on the value and place of wisdom can determine where they situate the sages in the history of Israel’s tradition (Preuss, 1987; distinctive tradition: Crenshaw, 1986², 373) and the canon. That is why these authors can only find in the formal elements a satisfactory answer to the question of what exactly characterises wisdom. Whoever may be correct, the literature seems to agree (Van Leeuwen R.C., 1990, 301; Whybray, 1990, 138) that popular and elite wisdom (not the sages as persons, but their product) each contributed to Israel in its own way and that they did so at the same time. It is even argued that the two types of wisdom were inseparable (Lemaire, 1990; Fontaine, 1990). 1215 The sages acquired terminology from the prophets and Yahwism (McKane, 1965, 86130). This involved more than the use of words. 1216 Blenkinsopp, 1983, 140-150. Still under the influence of dialectical theology, some authors too lightly opposed Israelite wisdom to the Yahwist current. Preuss, for instance, still thought that there was no room for wisdom during Israel’s earliest days (Westermann, 1991, 32). These authors spoke in terms of tension (Crenshaw, 1969, 131; ‘le dilemme humain’: Crenshaw, 1982) and even subjugation (Crenshaw, 1982, 248) when these two currents met and merged; this term evoked objection because the idea of merging suggested that each had evolved separately and were even opposed to one another (Murphy, 2000, 193), which is difficult to maintain given the evolution that has been outlined. The gradual merging into a final synthesis was the pinnacle of an evolution for which there had been an opening from the start (Murphy, 2000, 198). Of course, it cannot be denied that the two currents differed and certainly must be distinguished from one another. Yahwism is a particular application of religiosity different from all others in the Middle East, although it had much in common with them. It had approximately the same relationship to wisdom. Israel borrowed much from prevailing wisdom, but also put it to its own use, as it did with

532

7.5.3 A Canonical Evaluation of Wisdom in the Dtr Single Narrative. Keeping in mind the evolution of wisdom in Israel and among surrounding peoples, we can look once again at the wisdom elements in Gen.–2 Kgs1217 to evaluate them in the light of the canon process of which they are a part. The few scattered and isolated elements identified as wisdom products seem unobtrusive yet are unmistakably related to the entire single narrative. They are visible expressions of a wisdom current more widespread in Israel that influenced the designers’ entire hermeneutic1218 and this in the broader context of the wisdom current as developed among the surrounding peoples. Seen against this background, the Dtr’s single legislation, historiography and prophecy (7.3.2) and even Yahwist religiosity. Each time there is more exchange than confrontation in the sense of a closed, head-on collision. In no case is one current subjugated to the other, rather there is a synthesis of the two. The antitheses between the wisdom current and authentic Yahwism that arose mainly as a result of the crisis in the exilic and post-exilic periods are a temporary activation of the normal challenge innate to all wisdom (see the disputes in Mesopotamia Eynikel, 1991, 23-25; the poems like Job that addressed problems and were widely distributed in the Middle East: Eynikel, 1991, 32-37) a task it shared with prophecy. This challenge as exercised by prophets and sages made corrections to traditions that Yahwism ultimately accepted (e.g. wisdom saw to a substantial modification of the retribution principle). At the same time, Yahwism absorbed into its mythical and transcendent mindset many content-specific questions for which it did not have a rational answer such as that about the suffering of the just. In doing so it was able to assimilate these questions and remarks without toning down the questions. Psalms – where wisdom questions could be discussed before YHWH without putting the relationship to YHWH at risk – show that this is an acknowledgement of human wisdom amid its religious position toward YHWH who retains all credit. This is a position of synthesis and exchange rather than of endless confrontations of which it can be said that one current defeats another. But this synthesis is unfinished and must be wrestled with in the future. It is a phase in the operation and reception history that the canon process foresaw and for which it prepared before its completion. 1217 Contrary to 6.4.4 where the wisdom function was primarily analysed in Dt., we now view it more in the entirety of Gen.–2 Kgs. 1218 This was wisdom as its dynamic developed and expanded outward as in instruction and ethics, this time seen in Gen.–2 Kgs. — It quickly became clear in this study that hermeneutics played an important role in canon study, not only that of the researchers but to no less a degree that of the biblical authors (prophets, Dt.) and among them esp. those, such as the redactors, who vitalised and oriented the canon process. As soon as the Dtr were advanced as designers of the single narrative, their hermeneutic became a prominent object of this study. Even then we noted how hermeneutics guided Dtr’s selection of traditional material. Now we will focus on the wisdom aspect within the Dtr’s broader hermeneutic.

533

narrative and even their entire opus seem to have operated at a stage in which the wisdom current, which had hitherto been unpretentious or latent within Yahwism, came to the fore1219. The Dtr precipitated a major change. Since prophecy was apparently unsuccessful in warding off the crisis in Yahwist Israel after the fall of the kingdom Israel, – in fact its poor communication only made matters worse – the Dtr felt required to call upon means thus far less customary in Yahwism1220. Thanks to the Dtr, the wisdom current was given a new opportunity to prove itself and to take a decisive step along the way toward integration in Yahwism. More than before, the Dtr cleared a path for deliberation and increased reflection. The result could be measured first by Yahwism’s major theological advance. Recall the refinement of the one YHWH’s authority in a universal1221 and monotheistic direction. This had inescapable results on the indissoluble ties between YHWH and Israel. The notion of covenant and Israel’s position as the elect vis-à-vis the surrounding peoples and the world was insistently emphasised. This striking advance in theologising Yahwism was indisputably due to the even-handed enlistment of intellect and reflection, wisdom’s quintessential instruments. But this was just the first part of the wisdom programme that the Dtr used to reach what had been a primarily mythical Yahwism. Consistent with the practical argumentation, the second part, that of the realistic development and didactic transfer of the adjusted theologising that the Dtr presented to their public primarily in the single narrative, had certainly become the strongest side of Dtr’s wisdom programme1222. Again, as with the theologising, the Dtr built upon 1219

For this we must return to the pre-written oral stage; something many authors are not prepared to do, especially when it comes to detecting the wisdom current. 1220 In both cult and prophecy, Yahwism gave precedence to the invocation of mythical elements. Think of the priests’ casting of the Urim and Thummim (Ex. 28:30) and the ecstatic and visionary aspects of prophecy. 1221 “Es sind Israels ureigene Traditionen gewesen, die es lehrten, den kosmischen Universalismus der Kulturlandreligionen im Sinne eines geschichtlichen Universalismus neu zu deuten” (Jeremias, 1987, 165). — Owing to a greater use of reflection, earlier, unconsciously present, elements were discovered in Yahwism in areas concerning YHWH’s absolutism and kingship. “Israel hat mit der ihm vorgegebenen Predikation Gottes als König, mit der es universalistisches Denken aufgriff, über Jahrhunderte hin gerungen, ihr immer wieder neue Inhalte entnommen” (Jeremias, 1987, 165). “... einen ‘common sense’ im Bereich menschlichen Handelns ... ‘La sagesse biblique semble se construire sur le terrain de la sagesse humaine commune’” (Westermann, 1990, 145). The increased importance Dtr gave to Moses and their pursuit of unity can be situated in this context. 1222 Think of ‫חכמה‬, a concept specific to Israel. This is not a theology that remained theoretical. It is expressed in the experience of people like Job and the suffering person in

534

what had largely grown within the Yahwist tradition. But they did so more intensely and in their own manner using the instruments that wisdom has given them. Their results were comparatively exceptional within the evolution of Yahwism. Legislation and historiography were expanded and provided with stronger argumentation and, above all, were intertwined and developed into a constitution that automatically spelled out Israel’s specific identity1223 with reference to the surrounding world. But the wise Dtr knew from experience that insight is not enough. The Dtr used the Moses speech and a series of paraenetic and homiletic exhortations and didactic devices1224 suited to Israel to encourage it as a pre-eminently responsible and wise people to behave in the manner and to follow the path that would bring it to its destination1225. With this very special application of wisdom to Israel’s inherited Torah, the Dtr publicised this as instruction1226 more than it had done before. They showed for the first time Psalms. Yahwist theology is there only implicitly. “… the real agony seems to be featured only in the wisdom literature and Psalms. I find this rather astonishing and yet to be expected if one does not relegate theology to abstraction but rather looks into the human heart as wisdom does” (Murphy, 2000, 199). 1223 The BoC (7.2.2) and other pre-existing legal elements (Soggin, 1975) were not merely reworked and expanded with nomistic material. The Dtr also enriched the rationale behind the individual laws using reasoning and experience. — Of course, biblical wisdom at first sight is unifying because of its universal character. “Weisheit ist etwas, was die Menschen eher verbindet als trennt ... ein Reden von Gott ... die Religionen nicht trennt, sondern verbindet” (Westermann, 1990, 9, 145). This tendency to interweave was present in the BoC even before Dtr. Biblical wisdom was able to undertake a middle discourse (Sheppard, 2000, 396) in its common ties with the surrounding world. 1224 Paraenetic exhortations, like the stories and the message they contain, are, as element of an adapted exercise of authority, attempts to move respect for Israel’s freedom in the desired direction. “The text’s authority lies not in its ability to coerce or compel but in its ability to persuade and convince the reader that the promise it presents is trustworthy” (Thiemann, 1987, 28). — When it comes to the devices used, we think first of the forms geared mainly at instructive communication. Yet the use of writing (6.8.A) and alignment with the cult may not be forgotten as part of Dtr’s arsenal of instruments to move the community in the desired direction. 1225 Even if not formally expressed, Dtr kept the conditional mode in mind. 1226 The broader and practical concept ‫ חכמה‬has been mentioned as specific characteristic. To it should be added its sacralising and esp. Yahwist theologising character. Israel’s position on wisdom ran parallel with its position on other subjects such as legislation (that it expanded legislation adapted, and further adaptable, to Israel was observable in the BoC). Dtr extended this trend in law by integrating and adapting the BoC, esp. by incorporating their own input, as well as in historiography and prophecy (to a certain extent the prophets were also rational thinkers according to Sweeney, 1996, 18; “… ancient intercultural wisdom opened tradition from within for the classical prophets”: Sanders, 2001, 26). It is

535

how in Israel the comprehensive concept Torah not only harmoniously included the nomistic and historiographical dimensions but also its own understanding of prophecy, that as wise reflection permeated all traditions and acted as the cement holding them together1227. This explains at once not impossible that the Dtr built on wisdom elements that they derived from prophecy (Boecker, 1981, 176-183; Jeremias, 1989, 82; Westermann, 1990, 118). — Dtr received the Torah as instruction, but used their own input to give it an even greater appearance of wisdom. 1227 The term Torah, like the term Pentateuch, can only refer to its nomistic content in a given context. In another context, the term can also refer exclusively to its historiographic aspect. It had long covered a multi-faceted and harmoniously composed content presented above all as a unity. “The issue is simply the inclusion of ancient (that is pre-exilic) wisdom within the religious worldview of the people who worshipped YHWH” (Murphy, 2000, 192). Wisdom even in the earliest periods operated in Israelite popular life however humbly because, being rooted in the intellect and thinking, it was a fundamental human fact and of course aimed at all that it confronted. That is why divine and human freedom and causality within the profane world were also approached rationally. It is hardly surprising that it is discovered to varying degrees in nearly the entire OT (Dell, 2000, 353) as natural theology (Barr, 1993). “Elemente weisheitlichen Denkens wurden von alle Schichten in Israel geteilt” (Westermann, 1991, 32). Rather it is remarkable that this observation was made so late and with such difficulty. Even Crenshaw, who slowed the expansion of wisdom, had to admit, “The effort to broaden the Israelite sapiential impact threatens to sweep a substantial portion of the Bible into its path ... At the same time, this desire to relate wisdom to other traditions in the Hebrew scriptures arises from a correct intuition: the sages did not operate in complete isolation” (Crenshaw, 1985, 371). The last sentence in this quotation supports the posited view that the ultimate unity of the OT sprang from Israel’s small size, which inescapably entailed contact between the diverse tendencies. — The universal presence of wisdom had a more pervasive and apparent breakthrough in the Dtr because it was oriented toward their hermeneutic which was aimed at unity. Since we first presented the general appearance of the Dtr opus as a unity and only secondarily as heterogeneous (6.6.2–6.6.3), we can expect Dtr to have used the wisdom instrument throughout the single narrative to attain the same ultimate goal of unity. Dtr more than their predecessors looked kindly on Wisdom, its reflection and devices because they saw in it an ideal instrument to rethink all the varying traditions within the prevailing Torah and to link them more closely. That explains why even in Dtr wisdom operated as an all-pervasive force that united all harmoniously (Hardy, 1999, 242-243). Only later, in the Wisdom of Solomon, was it expressly described in this manner (Wis. 7:22-27). Dtr achieved this tacitly through their personal reflections on the material from their sources (2 Kgs 17:2-23; 24:1-4; Van Seters, 1983, 315-321) that they recounted through their homiletic input and presented stylistically through the redactional string in their etiological narrative. It is hardly accidental that even though Dtr’s wisdom, like that of the entire OT is not so encyclopaedically oriented – contrary to that of the surrounding peoples (Crenshaw, 1986², 370; Frymer-Kensky, 1990, 286) – wisdom is present in all their thinking and in the way they use tradition. Because of this, wisdom is not restricted to those parts that are expressly recognised as wisdom products but is found throughout the opus. Dtr thus offered its public one ‫ ספר התורה‬and a single whole that they had transformed into an instrument of wisdom that would enable

536

why the role that the Dtr and the sages apportioned to wisdom was not restricted to those parts of the single narrative that clearly bore wisdom’s signature, but spread out over all the traditional material that they had structured. In thusly exhorting Israel to act as wise nation in accordance with this Torah, the Dtr brought the wholehearted acceptance of the Torah – controlled by the priests and prophets in Dtr’s day – a step closer1228. Israel to evolve into a wise nation in the sight of the peoples (Dt. 4:6-8). In this passage, Dtr certainly meant that they consciously composed this ‫ ספר התורה‬as a single unit according to a pattern that the surrounding peoples recognised as a wisdom document so that it could bear comparison with other similar documents. — If we observe that prophecy prophetised the entire Pentateuch and, depending on the case, its entirety became a historically or nomistically oriented, it can also be said that Dtr sapientialised their entire single narrative (Chapman, 2000, 288; for another view: idem, 2003, 135-136 n. 45, in his second text, this author subordinated the wisdom writings to the Torah and Nebiim rather than seeing them as a transforming factor). Moreover, we may deduce from the fact that the entire Torah is called either history or law that the traditions are so harmoniously incorporated in the Torah that they have become related and when identified cannot be played off against one another. Their dependence on one another apparently arose from the circles of priests, prophets or sages where they were produced. On closer examination these circles do not appear to be strictly separated and their categories display a fluid character. Every priest is basically a prophet and vice versa. The same applies to the sages. Every prophet and priest that performs his task studiously is also a sage. Only in later times could the sage be distinguished from the other categories. The individual and the community were marked by this same fluid relationship (Albertz, 1978, 12, 164), certainly in Israel because of its small size. It was the reason why the Dtr’s ranks included such heterogeneous groups. They also included scribes working in the royal court and elsewhere (Weinfeld, 1972; idem, 1985; Crenshaw, 1999, 146-147). Assigning them the job of adding the finishing touches to the entire canon process, as Davies, P.R. did (he thought they did this in the Persian-Greek period), simply because of their presence in Dtr’s ranks is difficult to accept. Albertz (1978, 169-190) saw Dtr as a pioneer of personal freedom at the expense of the popular communal religion and its institutions. This, too, goes too far. There is no doubt that Dtr valued of personal responsibility and the wellbeing of the family. Hence their famous persuasion, paraenetic style and high esteem for the prophets. Yet their first objective was the deliverance of Israel as community. That is why their invocation of Israel’s history and institutions was so important. Dtr saw them as the community’s safety net for the individual, not the reverse. Dtr also gave the community precedence in nomistic areas. Only a community could approve universally valid legislation. The family could only recommend and encourage as Albertz (1978, 146) frankly acknowledged. 1228 Dt. 4:6-8. Yahwist theologising of wisdom in the post-exilic period coincided with their actually taking the place of the prophets. For instance, they adopted their manner of speaking (Blenkinsopp, 1983, 137-138, 141-142). And this refers to more than just vocabulary (McKane, 1965, 86-130). Dtr appears to be just an intermediary stage in this evolution (Frymer-Kensky, 1990, 280-286; McCarter, P.K., 1990). Their distinct view of prophecy did not yet amount to their putting themselves in the place of prophecy by adopting its prophetic speech as the later sages did, but they did create an opening in that

537

This will result in full canonical status for the Chetubim in the wake of the Torah and the Nebiim. Nevertheless, this late recognition ultimately confirmed that the ‫ חכמה‬was truly the first-born of creation and that it lay the foundation of the Torah1229.

direction when they consigned these prophets to the distant past. Dtr did not reach direct reflection on the notion of inspiration. The retribution principle is insufficiently revised (Crenshaw, 1982, 260; “… exacerbé par la théologie deutéronomiste de la rétribution”: Crenshaw, 1982, 260). Dtr’s refined view of YHWH’s absoluteness had not yet become true monotheism. They still leave room for a mythical YHWH and his freedom. This is also preserved in later Yahwist wisdom in the theme of the hidden God. Perdue, 2000, 218-222. Dtr hinted that their product would have to be reworked and perfected. 1229 Prov. 8:22-31; Sir. 24:8-12,23. Crenshaw (1986², 373) saw the characteristic feature of Israel’s wisdom in the constraints on human sufficiency set by theology that derived from divine theophany. This, too, is a consequence of a dialectical approach.

538

Chapter 8

Conclusions

As our study of the genesis advanced, the need to draw tentative conclusions from our findings grew. This was the case at the end of our study of the state of the canon process around 560-521 BCE (6.8), of the basic material in the BoC (7.2.1.1) and its redaction (7.2.2.1), of overall pre-exilic prophecy (7.3.3.3) and its relationship to prior Yahwist traditions in Israel (7.3.4). After the detailed study of the relationship between prophecy and the Dtr redactors, a new expanded evaluation of the canon was needed (7.3.5.4.6). Finally, the studies on the Dtr single narrative’s historical and wisdom sources each ended with a similar canonical evaluation (7.4.6; 7.5.3). Now is time to look back at all the work done. The following sections summarise the conclusions drawn from the findings in parts I and II. Each conclusion is explained briefly with references to the main evidence for it.

1. No Community, No Canon The biblical canon appears to have much in common with similar collections in other socio-cultural entities. This similarity is perhaps most evident when the biblical canon list is placed beside the lists of classical literature compiled in antiquity in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the GreekLatin cultural sphere1230. In each case, a series of writings bearing a special quality were set aside from others that either did not possess this quality or did so insufficiently. As a result of that difference, the selected writings were treated in a manner that accorded with their environment’s recognition of their quality. Part of this treatment was to include them in a library1231 where they were gathered and even ordered by rank and possibly by their purpose. This last was certainly the case for the biblical writings. 1230

Davies P.R., 2002, 37-38; Löhr, 2003. “Die Entstehung eines Lesekanons aus einer Lesegemeinschaft bzw. einer Lesegemeinschaft aus einem Lesekanon ist ein durchaus vergleichbarer, also einsehbarer Vorgang, zu dessen Erklärung man weder auf übernatürliche Ursachen rekurrieren muß noch auf ein explizit theologisches Vokabular angewiesen ist” (Schröder-Field, 2003, 204). 1231 Davies P.R., 2002, 41-42.

539

As biblia or library they were gathered not so much for their cultural level but for their specifically religious purport within the Bible-oriented faith community and were treated and preserved in a manner that differed from other literature. This task has been zealously pursued from the very dawn of biblical literature1232. Whether the similarity between the canon of classical literature and the biblical canon is merely a matter of chance or whether it is the result of contacts in which the one influenced the other is a question for competent scholars in the fields of comparative and literary sciences. It is certain that the biblical canon inherited its name from the broader cultural world. Furthermore, we should note that present canonical criticism does more than demonstrate much sympathy for certain types of modern literature and use it with good cause1233. For the rest, the biblical and broader fields of literature evolved more or less separately with the difference that general literature gave much more attention to the canon than the Bibleoriented faith communities did. One might even say general literature was subject to a canon syndrome. Even when literary and biblical canons are kept separate, a comparison shows that they have much more in common than just being literary libraries. If we were to regard the way in which each arose and evolved within its readership, we would note many parallels aside from the differences that appeared during the development, since no comparison is perfect. Again the competent human sciences, such as psychology and sociology, are most suited to have the last word on this matter. Yet we may presuppose that both cases underwent a formation in which a group of people exercised some kind of authority so that a given body of writings could persevere within a particular community and attain a special status meriting the treatment just described. This presupposes that, after the writings came into existence, one person or a group of influential persons were so supportive of the writings that they obtained general recognition in the community, with as result that these writings received special canonical treatment. It was doubtless also necessary for the broader community to cooperate in this canon process, albeit only minimally by agreeing. Both sides were primarily concerned with the community’s wellbeing. Even if this effort toward a literary canon started with one person,

1232 1233

2 Macc. 2:13-14. Childs, 1983², 39; Barton, 1994, 44.

540

as in the case of the reformers Luther, Calvin and Mohammed1234, it still came down to a group of like-minded persons demarcating one canon of writings that were intended to operate within their community. Yet, the community is indispensable and possibly decisive in this as Marcion1235 learned. The community rejected his personal, albeit carefully chosen and enthusiastically presented, canon. All this adequately shows that the whole community, elite and broad base, is needed for a literary canon to be accepted and for it to retain its place. Canonisation and decanonisation by far surpass the personal input of just one person, however influential. If one should be tempted to look down with pity on literary canons that in times gone by arose rapidly in a unified culture1236 only to disappear as quickly as circumstances changed, then think how ephemeral musical and style canons are today. What was universally accepted yesterday becomes totally passé today. This shows how today, no less than in times past, certain mechanisms within the community, such as musical and literary norms, create canons that determine the life and behaviour of population groups. It is high time that the present faith communities reflect on the role that the community1237 played in the past in the creation of the Bible canon. It is supposed to have demarcated this canon from other literature with care and to have given it a corresponding place it its life. Perhaps they will 1234

In the case of Mohammed, the individual’s initiative comes singularly to the fore. Nevertheless, his Koran (“… a record of divine revelation to an individual”: Sanders, 2001, 7) could be implemented efficiently as canon only because it was particularly suited to the Arabian and related population groups. 1235 “But leaders need followers as much as followers need leaders, and without continuing community support leaders have no effect in the canonical process” (Sanders; 2002, 253 n. 7). 1236 Barstad, 2001, 73; Lemche, 2001a. Literary canons, no less than that of the Bible, are marked by fluid boundaries (Chapman, 2000, 90) without this putting the notion of its closure in discredit. 1237 3.5.1. These mechanisms are now guided by other influential groups in the multicultural society; nevertheless, they influence a large part of the population. The present social context in which the bible is read is no exception. For another view see “But in a time of multiculturalism and a plurality of communities authoritarian monopolies can no longer impose their fiats on others not of their flock” (Carroll, 2000, 6). As illustration, reread sections 2.2.C, 4.2.2-4.2.3, 7.3.5.4.6.C and 7.4.6.C that explain the extensive influence of the confessional community on theological universities. Examination of the role of the faith community in the creation of the biblical canon is now more widespread. Church and canonical writings are treated together in that regard (Rahner, 2001). The legitimacy of a project seems to be heavily determined by the ideological views of the community in which it takes place (Coggins, 1993, 93).

541

become more aware of how this same canon becomes subject to decanonisation when they see that the broad mass looks indifferently upon it as sacred, unimpeachable and publicly recognised canon. For just as a canon can only arise in accordance with the law-like pattern of a living community, the canon can also be dissolved when it no longer enjoys the support of this community1238.

2. No Dogma, No Biblical Canon There is an advantage to juxtaposing the biblical canon with similar literary canons found among the surrounding peoples. It shows whether and to what extent they are related. For the biblical canon this has the advantage of demonstrating that it is natural and human and not otherworldly. It belongs to and is rooted in this world. It can be read as any other book. It is even a worldwide bestseller. The paper and writing, products of human hands and minds, show a worldly origin that it will never outgrow. Regardless of how exalted the considerations given to it may be and the transcendent spheres to which reading the Bible may give access, it always remains the human interlocutor with a human foundation that is always recognised as such, just as the child is recognised in the adult. Comparing the biblical canon with similar works produced by neighbouring peoples does more that recall its natural, human origin. Comparison with canons elsewhere in the world opens even greater opportunities to discover and assess the ways in which it differs from other canons. And these differences are far from negligible. To assert that a series of writings obviously written by human beings are divinely inspired is to make quite a claim. Maintaining that this book, collected over nearly a thousand years and committed to paper by a array of authors in a multiplicity of literary genres and styles portrays one and the same God and his actions in history is a bold assertion. Yet this striking conviction was the basis for compiling the biblical library and setting the standard or norm for its canon. All this reminds us how exceptional it is, given the background of the last two thousand years, that after the creation of all these writings and the split between the Christian and Jewish faith communities and the 1238

“Auslegungsgemeinschaft” (Hieke, 2003a, 73). “… the level of social control” (Ter Borg, 1998a, 411).

542

discord on so many topics, there was agreement regarding this one conviction that all the writings, included in varying number and sequence in the biblical canon, are the sole writings that the Judeo-Christian culture placed on a divine level and treated as Holy Scripture. The ease with which Jews and Christians could do this was due to the conviction about the divine character of the Scriptures having taken root in broad segments of their membership. These followers repeated what the biblical authors wrote about God’s words and deeds and assimilated their direct or indirect witness to God’s miraculous presence and made it their own1239. The single, mainly oral, culture in the religious environment and Yahwist Israel reinforced this. The immense change in religious climate since that time is immediately perceptible. Since the Enlightenment, the western world is much more critical; acceptance of a biblical canon as God’s word and dogmatically defined as infallible because it is divinely inspired is no longer something that happens automatically. Since the Renaissance the modern individuals have made themselves the focal point which, obviously, makes it more difficult to accept a higher authority, certainly when it comes directly down from an outside world. Many usually wellintentioned exegetes made numerous attempts to arrange a more welcoming reception among the general public for the religious canon that they so esteemed. The evaluation of the canon study in modern times has shown adequately how awkward and unproductive this attempt has been. The dogmatically defined canon remained poorly received in intellectual circles with as result that its study was hidden at the end of scholarly publications as Adam hid after his fall. Although this was very humiliating for what was still officially a holy canon, this was not that worst that could happen. Shunted aside and hidden from sight like a monument in storage, it waited and remained itself: a biblical canon temporarily in disfavour, but still the same that had been touted as the path God’s word had taken and that had received pride of place in public life. It stood on the sidelines, no longer in the place that had been assigned to it, but still untouched and intact. It had relinquished nothing of itself. It was sufficient to bring it 1239

No one had problems with statements such as: “The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Ps 23:1) or “Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fullness of joy” (Ps 16:11). It was part of the experience of the faith community of which one was a part. The Reformation would call this sense of the Scripture’s absolute religious authority the scripture principle. This automatic acceptance explains why the choice of a term for the canon was very late. The reality of the canon had been accepted long before the term was used. For another view see Ulrich, 2002, 23.

543

again to the fore and restore its honour to allow it to take up its earlier glorious role. Regrettably, many dedicated exegetes like Semler, Gabler and Spinoza began to adjust the biblical canon. They thought they would do well to provide it with rational arguments grounded on universal values and thus to present it as more acceptable for the right-minded critical intellect. Others, like De Wette en Troeltsch, tried in good faith, to view the Bible and its canon exclusively from the perspective of the history of religion and, analogous to what usually happens in the history of religion, to describe it as something purely historical to which no person would want or need to object. All by all, this and similar attempts to ensure the position of the Bible and its canon among intellectuals by facilitating access to it and rehabilitating it were carried out at the expense of the biblical canon’s essence, diminishing what made it exceptional and unique: its divine and thus dogmatically defined and supra-human character1240. By telling a story in which people try, like the builders of Babel1241, to reach heaven by their own efforts as has been done since the Renaissance instead of telling a biblical story attuned to God, such teachers have disoriented and repudiated the original meaning and purport of Bible and canon just to accommodate humanity. Essentially, it is like a story in which people who are left to their own devices err but luckily they discover that “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change”1242. The exceptional meaning of the Bible and the history of the canon lie in this “from above” and not only “from below”. This message is a blow to and runs against the grain of all 1240

“These new ways of reading such ancient documents became quite destructive of traditional dogmatic approaches to the Bible, undermining the historic attachment of dogmas to the reading of the Bible” (Carroll, 2000, 12). Initially, the reformers detached themselves from the biblical canon as dogmatically described in the church community’s tradition with the idea that their publicly recognised Scripture principle could replace it. This proved impossible. In time they were obliged to draft their own dogmatic description of the biblical canon. Pietism as well as orthodox Protestantism did this. Profound reflection on the fact of faith as contained in the biblical writings should normally lead to orthodoxy. Only the biblical writings’ dogmatic content permits those reflecting on them to become aware of their authority as norm of faith. Even today, the opinion lives that the canon can be denied all dogmatic scope and that it can be reduced to its literary appearance (one who does this is Hieke, 2003a, 65). 1241 Gen. 11:1-10. 1242 Jac 1:17.

544

people that are convinced of their own sufficiency. Certainly today, confronting people with a superior entity like Holy Scripture, with something before which they must submit, is not very agreeable. Such assertions earned Joseph his brothers’ longstanding displeasure1243. But when it proved later that Joseph had spoken true, his brothers had to admit defeat before this truth and their own well-being. That is why Semler, Gabler, Spinoza, De Wette, Troeltsch and so many others erred, despite their best intentions, in presenting the biblical canon as easily accessible. Even though the biblical narrative insistently claimed to be an authentic witness to what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob1244 revealed about humanity and its world, the same Bible is sent sprawling when for tactical reasons it is presumed to say things that weaken or cushion its original message. That is why the proponents of the biblical canon movement of the last decades are more than correct, at least on this one important point. In no case may the canon’s true biblical narrative be withheld from the general public. Instead of dispensing a diluted view, they should frankly and forcefully focus1245 on what is most important, the Bible as dogmatically defined fact. This is the primary criterion according to which the biblical writings were first collected, preserved and canonised. In this way the biblical canon movement and all its branches really says little that is new, although it claims to do so. Rather it returns to the original idea with which the history of the biblical canon started1246. It is to its merit that it had the courage to attempt to examine what had gone wrong in centuries of biblical study and to rectify this by unashamedly presenting the Bible and its canon as what it claims to be: a fact of revelation offered to humanity from on high as indispensable for revealing the truth about itself, the world and its future.

1243

Gen. 37:1-11. Mt. 22:32. 1245 This seems impossible without consistently presupposing that every study on the bible is prejudiced (Brett, 2000, 70-71) in favour of the dogmatic canon, on the condition that as with every prejudice one is fully aware of it and takes it into account. 1246 As we know, the biblical canon movement had numerous branches, those of Sanders and Childs representing the best known and most divergent (Barton, 1999, 39-43). Pending a possible revised version, the present study took the notion of canon, traditional from the earliest mainly pre-critical (Luz, 2003, 55) period, as its starting point. As this study adequately demonstrates, our notion of canon differs in many respects from what is usual in current canonical criticism (Poirier, 2005). 1244

545

3. No Formal Demarcation, No Dogmatic Canon In the meantime, the advocates of the biblical canon movement, convinced of the value of the dogmatic canon, have set to work. After several decennia, they can present an impressive record of publications, and they are even eagerly read1247. These are mainly studies in biblical theology that provide a literary explanation of the religious scope of the biblical text. This is what the broader audience seems to want after the secular and materialistic diet in the western, postmodern world. They also appreciate the canon-oriented authors’ presenting a religious-spiritual message as a reprieve, the more so because they were spared the usually complicated exegetical research that underpinned it all. Instead of that, they are told a lucid story embedded in an aesthetic composition. This spiritual nourishment seems to give existential vitality. Canon studies have more for the public than elevated and attractive content. The approach to the entire bible as interrelated whole also appeals to holistic urges. At the same time, these studies intend to use this consistent and unified explanation (supported by intertextual and thematic connections among the many biblical writings) to show what had long been described indirectly in dogmatics as Scripture’s divine inspiration. According to this view, all the texts are permeated by the same divine spirit that surpasses the many different biblical authors that wrote without connection to or even knowledge of one another. This suggests the transcendent character of this inspiration. An important advantage, at least for Christians, is the regained outlook of one Scripture, comprising Old and New Testaments, that continue and complete one another in the fervour of a single canon process. The loss of the single vision of the one canon of Old and New Testaments was one of the worst consequences of the rational and secular extension of biblical theology in the period after Gabler. Regaining this insight can now be seen as one of the canon-oriented movement’s most prestigious projects, although it should be recognised in all honesty that there is still a long way to go1248. 1247

The most recent bibliographical survey (McDonald-Sanders, 2002, 599-624) is impressive. But it is not so much the number of publications as “the great sea-change which has come over Old Testament study in our day, as a result of which the exegesis of whole books and even the Old Testament as a whole is now on the agenda in a way unthinkable in, say 1950s or 1960s” (Barton, 1999, 38) that is important. 1248 Barr, 1986, 493-496. The recent flourish of biblical theology, mainly in Europe (Barr, 1999, 2), reflects somewhat that of the canonical movement.

546

It would be surprising were the recent success of the canonical movement to fail to elicit some criticism. This criticism is primarily aimed at the biblical canon-oriented authors’ holistic narrative. Critics think that at first sight the canonical project is too good to be true. The content is so harmoniously arranged that there seems to be little to which to object. There is just the question whether this perfect and tasteful product is an authentic representation of what is in the Bible. Does it really correspond to what is spread throughout the Bible text’s various forms and expressions1249? Apprehension only truly raises its head when critics note that some texts are smoothed over or even sidestepped to give a presentable result far from all tiresome complications. With the same intention many biblical scholars working on the canon have spent a lot of time seeking a canon within the canon. This means no less than shunting aside the superfluous in the real canon to replace it with a new, briefer canon. Can this still be called respecting the canon when we know that the canon covers all the canonised Bible and not just a part of it1250? Another no less important point raised by criticism of the biblical canon scholars’ achievements relates to the canon’s growth and assignment to a historical context. However well disposed one may be toward the dogmatic canon and the divine inspiration in its texts, one cannot permit it to operate on this elevated level when one does not accept it as it is, with its past and its terrene shape. Only when this historical and material conditioning is loyally accepted can the biblical canon be introduced to the world and its people and can there be communication with it. It was difficult for proponents of the canonical movement to accept this completely; not because they did not see the need for it, but because 1249

The temptation for whole-Bible exegesis consists in disguising irregularities by harmonising them. “So-called conservatives especially insist that the entire Bible is totally harmonious” (Sanders, 2001, 9). The antitheses to which this study regularly refers appear to operate in the dialogue characteristic of the canon process (Sanders, 2001, 8). Venter (2002) draws attention to the period of the canon process, but only the part starting with the 2nd century BCE because of the discoveries in Qumran. 1250 Barton (1999, 36) expressed the biblical canon movement’s inconsistency with the entire biblical canon as follows: “… many feel the force of Childs’s argument that we should be much more interested than biblical criticism has traditionally been in the text as it lies before us, and want to ask about the relationship between different books within the canon of Scripture rather than acting as though the canon were essentially an irrelevance”. In short: The canonical movement invokes the canon when it is convenient, i.e. to apply it to biblical texts and their interconnection, but separately from what falls beyond this and without taking into account the canon as whole and as selection from among all that was available. In that sense, that canon suddenly becomes irrelevant in practice.

547

they tended to want to see the Bible’s and canon’s elevated message, the transcendent character rather than its terrene and historical shape. This happened to them because to some degree they still followed Barth1251 and his dialectic thinking with its tendency to counterpose the supernatural and the natural. The pre-1950 biblical theology movement, which followed in the steps of dialectical theology, suffered an early demise because it could not reconcile biblical theology and the dogmatically defined canon with the results of classical biblical criticism. The current canonical movement, launched mainly under the inspiration of Childs and Sanders, is only a renewed attempt to find an acceptable way to fill the gap between the dogmatically defined biblical canon and their view of the findings of biblical science1252. In their view, this solution consists in giving priority where needed to the dogmatically defined canon and in assigning literary critical research a subservient role to it rather than giving the latter influence over it. Nearly all canonical tendencies agree with this policy. This is evident from their shared reserved stance toward classical biblical criticism, in which they even agree with postmodernism when it leaves modernity1253 behind and leans toward methods that use literary study, linguistics and reader response. To be sure, the paths of the canonical tendencies diverge when they put this priority for the dogmatic canon over its material/historical shape into practice. As long as it is a question of keeping the biblical canon away from the influence of the post-biblical periods and early Catholicism, they all agree1254. They see this canon arising only during the biblical period, either – like Childs and his followers – as the final redactional shape that the biblical writings were given or – like Sanders and his followers – in the hermeneutics of successive influencing biblical traditions that adapted the canonical pattern to life1255. This brings these differently oriented canonical tendencies to a 1251

Scalise, 1994; Seckler, 2000, 31. Barton, 1999, 41-43. 1253 3.3.3.1. The dogmatic canon’s priority leads them to direct their literary-critical research – which they keep performing as consistently as possible – toward the rigid demands of the dogmatic canon, which results in a tailored, post-critical exegesis (3.3.3.5). Wiles, 1987; Sanders, 1995; Barr, 2000, 142-178. “… attack on the Enlightenment comes entirely from the postmodern side” (Barr, 2000, 55). 1254 Broadly speaking this is the issue of ecclesiastical tradition and its dogmatics. The late date at which the term canon began to be used for the canon shows that the canon is partly post-biblical (Ulrich, 2002, 23). There is evidence of this such as the independent operation of some books, even at the time that Judaism and Christianity split. 1255 Sanders, 1976a; idem, 1976b. 1252

548

dualistic disposition when it comes to the relationship that either way they think existed between the dogmatic canon and its literary-historical guise. If they are to allow the dogmatically defined canon to operate as it should whatever the cost and do justice to its sacred status, they believe they must shift the focus of literary-historical studies away from the past and the complicated historical development of biblical traditions1256 and onto the text and its operation in the final stage of the biblical period. This is fully legitimate in itself, but not insofar as this change of course wrongfully misrepresents the past and the reality of the material shape1257 of the biblical canon. In that case, this would be mainly at the expense of the indissoluble relationship that the dogmatically defined canon entered into with its terrene shape. Child’s branch reduced this delicate relationship by depriving the developmental stages of the biblical traditions of their true input. They may only ask about the canonical shape which they believed may represent the dogmatic canon. In their view, once the faith community had set the canonical shape , all input from this community ceased, leaving it with nothing more than a receptive role1258. This, too, is an artificial reduction of the dogmatic canon’s real historical path within the faith community. Sander’s followers were more realistic when it came to the genesis of the canon in the faith community. In studying the historical stages and the versions of the text that the canon passed through in its genesis, he was clearly aware of the important role that the faith community played in the production of the dogmatic canon. Yet he, too, reduced it, this time to the hermeneutical factor1259. By stressing or even 1256

Childs rebuked exaggerated attention for the past (Childs, 1983², 79), which he believed ran against the text and unavoidable resulted in the conflict model. 1257 Specifically, post-critical exegesis twists the text to produce dogmatic insights. 1258 This canonical shape thus becomes a canonical exegetical principle driven by a theological opinion (Barstad, 1984). This leads to the narrowed vision of community prevalent within nearly all canonical movements; it does not take into account the abovementioned pattern or regularity (Conclusion 1) that the community followed during the canon process, while the intention is to emphasise the role of the community in the genesis and operation of the canon (Carroll, 2000, 5). 1259 In his study on the Torah (Sanders, 1972) and especially in his text critical work (Sanders, 1977; idem, 1979; idem, 1987), this author drew attention to the dogmatic canon and its textual-historical genesis. Fishbane (1985) also did very creditable work, although he, like Childs before him, failed to take the historical community context sufficiently into account in this study (Brett, 2000, 67; Davies P.R., 2002, 52 n. 18). By tailoring hermeneutics to suit those of the dogmatic canon, the Amsterdam School overtaxed the models of human and esp. community hermeneutics (Conclusion 1) which the dogmatic canon did respect.

549

giving priority to the canon’s adaptability – even in the stricter sense of relevance – he automatically exposed its formally closed position to attack. Nevertheless, this closure is usually tacitly but no less categorically accepted as inherent to the essence of the dogmatic canon, not only as final result of a process, but as originally intended goal1260. It is the material product and a logical consequence of what the dogmatic canon already contained. Jewish and Christian faith communities have understood it in this sense. Their distinct canons and reception of the text with its differing scope do not give the impression of wanting to invoke as norm1261 their jointly supported notion on the dogmatically defined canon with closed facticity. The combination of one dogmatically defined, closed canon and its individual shapes kept raising questions and results on occasion in acute problems, especially among reformers1262 and weighed on ecumenical convergence. The notion of open canon is sometimes invoked to break the

1260

“A canon’s adaptability is its primary characteristic, stability its second” (Sanders, 2002, 260). Zenger (20066, 135) seems to agree with Sanders. F. Deist showed a similar tendency when he stressed the community’s hermeneutic role and tradition to the detriment of the fixed text (Venter, 1998a). The gradual progression to stability in all canon versions is universally acknowledged and is confirmed by distinguishing the stages into canon 1 and canon 2 as Sheppard and others did (McDonald-Sanders, 2002, 14-15 n. 41) and by studying the way various OT texts were cited in the still evolving NT (Sanders, 2001, 910). Adaptability, via hermeneutics and the history of interpretation, is not at variance with having an unchangeable text as fixed foundation. “Interest in limitation did not arise only at the end of the whole process” (Gamble, 2002, 273). 1261 We think here of the problem of the Masoretic text’s relationship to the Septuagint and Vulgate. The Hebraica veritas, usually the basic text in reform circles. Brett, (2000, 67) calls this Protestant prejudice) is also no longer taken for granted (Sundberg, 1966; Barton, 2000, 201-210; Seckler, 2000, 37-43; Venter, 1998a) and elicits comments from various quarters. Authors seem to consider it necessary to take all text versions into account. This evolution is evident in the integrative canon theory that discovered wealth in the pluralism of the canon (Seckler, 2000, 39-40). Being closed as norm is inherent to the canon term in its most original meaning. The closure principle was applied to the canon and mainly to the canon list (the principle does not depend on the practice but the practice on the principle; for another view see Seckler, 2000, 37-43) to enhance Scripture’s authority (McDonaldSanders, 2000, 11; this is still current practice: Ulrich, 2002, 28-29) although the term canon had been used long, regularly and equally for both. 1262 See 4.2.2-4.2.3. “Interest in limitation did not arise only at the end of the whole process” (Gamble, 2002, 273). Käsemann’s 1970 publication was one such crystallising moment in the German and NT context. When Käsemann first began editing his book, he mainly addressed the issue of the current closed canon as encumbrance for Christian unity and argued for a reduced canon within the canon.

550

stalemate, but without garnering much support1263. It is understood that accepting a canon considered literally open, like meddling with the canon as it has continued in history, is to send one of the dogmatically defined canon’s indispensable supports sprawling. Fumbling with supports of this type brings the relationship to the dogmatic canon out of balance, with the downfall of the canon as one possible consequence. After all, without a historically grown and formal canon, there is no dogmatically defined canon, but only a sublime idea loose from all reality, somewhat akin to the way God’s spirit hovered over the waters without touching humanity and its history. Under such circumstances, the dogmatically defined canon becomes a chimaera with which one surrenders, without to merciless scientific dogmatism1264 without offering justification.

4. Reorientation of Canon Study: A New Diagnosis The prologue to our study referred to the study’s intent to take current events as a guide in its work. The objective was to interlock with the most recent issues in the study of the Pentateuch and the revolutions in OT study that had been addressed in an earlier publication1265. Keeping this current interest of the OT issues in mind, we have followed the rise of canonical criticism since the early 1980s. In assessing the value of this new direction in OT study, we gave less attention to its success in Anglo-Saxon countries or the number of publications worldwide. Rather we looked at the hermeneutics used to discuss and treat the biblical canon. Put differently: It was rigorously examined in those places where it diagnosed the canon study that preceded it. In this diagnosis it starts from its own, now familiar objective, i.e. to give central place to the dogmatic canon and the associated biblical text. Insofar as the canonical biblical text had previously received too little attention in the literature or had been displaced by the massive focus on what lay behind the biblical text and on 1263

Speaking of an open canon becomes counterproductive and obscures the canon debate (Ulrich, 2002, 34). 1264 Gen.1:1. We can speak of Docetism in this regard. “Umgekehrt ist es die Aufgabe der Exegese, in den Diskurs der Philologen und Historiker die Theologie der interpretierten Schriften einzubringen; gelingt dies nicht, beherrschen die Dogmen der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaftlichkeit die Auslegung der biblische Texte” (Söding, 2003a, LXII). To prevent this, post-Enlightenment biblical scholars set to work on the literary-historical canon, albeit with fully expressing their best of intentions (Barton, 1999, 47-51). 1265 Zaman, 1984.

551

its historical and material development, canonical criticism’s diagnosis that this was a false development (Fehlentwicklung) was pertinent. It should be supported on this point now and in the future. Biblical studies should be directed at the theological meaning of the canonical text more than had previously been the case. Up to that point canonical criticism’s diagnosis should be taken seriously. The diagnosis of canonical criticism includes much more. Canonical criticism raised other issues besides underrating the dogmatically defined canon. It also expressed a frankly negative opinion of biblical study performed since the Enlightenment to the point that it saw this as a mythical enemy to be confronted head-on1266. Consistent with the imagery of contest, are the measures taken such as placing classical biblical criticism and exegesis under the guardianship of canon-oriented theology and appealing directly to biblical theology from the early Reformation and pre-critical periods1267. This part of the canonical criticism’s diagnosis has proved exaggerated on many points. The result is that the measures and methods used to achieve the objective, i.e. the revaluation of the dogmatic canon, are as disoriented as the diagnosis that inspired them. This risks producing a new undesirable development, this time in the opposite direction of the one at the time of the Enlightenment. Instead of gravitating toward an exaggeration of the material and historical canon it gravitates toward its disparagement for the sake of the dogmatic canon. In the long term this undesirable development will tacitly and inevitably lead to another serious shortcoming in canon study; it would be better to recognise this now before it takes on proportions greater than the detrimental effects produced after the Enlightenment.

1266

“… the villainous Enlightenment should be subjected to criteria of method” (Barr, 2000, 47-55; De Dijn, 2005). The Enlightenment was not canonical criticism’s only target. The exegetes of the time are also presented as culprits because of their style of biblical criticism (‘Hauptmissetäter’: Seckler, 2000, 44). They totally lost sight of the biblical texts’ sacred character. According to Abraham (1998, 1-26), after the Enlightenment, the canon’s religious and sacred character was replaced completely by the notion of rational authority. This diagnosis also needs tempering and correction (Barton, 1999, 39-42). Sanders has already proceeded to this: “… I firmly believe, the Enlightenment was a gift of God in due season” (Sanders, 2001, 85). 1267 Barton, 1999, 38, 43. “Whatever the case in the past of the subject, when one looks at the scholars who have used historical criticism in their work in this century, it is obvious that Enlightenment heritage has been a very small element in their thought, if it existed there at all” (Barr, 2000, 53).

552

Under these circumstances, it seemed most urgent for this study to posit a new diagnosis of past canon study more accurate than that made by canonical criticism. First, this correction entailed that it was not sufficient to treat the dogmatically defined canon the way it merited, as canonical criticism argued. Admittedly this was an absolute prerequisite for a true study of the canon worthy of the name, but it was not the only one. Consistent with the findings of our study, this revaluation of the dogmatic canon may not be made at the expense of its historical and formal shape; as we explained in Conclusion 3, it is impossible to study the dogmatic canon without taking into account its chosen material appearance. In this sense, at least, the so bedevilled modernist canon study did not err, but rather was pertinent and started a valid and much needed project. But our correction to the diagnosis reaches still further. The two absolute conditions for every canon study – the acknowledgement of the dogmatic canon and respect for his historical and formal shape – are not the only ones. The findings of this study must be supplemented by at least a third absolutely necessary condition. This is the role of the faith community in shaping the biblical canon and this during the biblical and post-biblical periods, as was mentioned in Conclusion 1. After all, the community’s share in the canon appears to have been so decisive that it, like the dogmatic and formal size, determined the essence of the event. This became sufficiently apparent after the examination of the entire past study of the canon from the oldest pre-canonical period to the present. Conclusion 1, which is based on the investigation of past canon study, means that without a community there is no canon. The scope of this conclusion implies that a study of the community is as much a part of the study of the canon as is that of the canon’s dogmatic and formal elements. These three elements should all, without exception, be included in the canon study consistently and proportionately according to their nature1268. 1268

Childs (1983², 59) saw early on that all essential elements in the canon process had been present from the very start of the process. This means that the early stage displayed the same qualities that later became more visibly present when the canon was closed and canonised. Although the dogmatic canon and its formal shape belong together as spirit and letter – or Scripture principle and canonisation to use the Reformation’s terminology – and supplement one another, they do not have the same nature and quality. They supplement one another and thus they should be treated in accordance with this specific character. The community’s role should be treated in its own way and as indispensable for the canon. It too operates in accordance with its own systematic pattern amid all that concerns the canon. Like the other of the canon’s elements, the community cannot be equated with another element.

553

The terms consistently and proportionately should be taken in the strict sense. It means that each is included in the definition of the canon with its own label and content. The intention of this inclusion is not to provide a description of the entire canon1269. The biblical canon increasingly appears to be such a comprehensive and complex reality that it exceeds these three indispensable elements – the dogmatic, formal and community dimensions – so that the totality of the canon to some extent surpasses these dimensions even after they have been thoroughly studied. However, because they each contribute to supporting the canon, they must all be included in the definition and study of the canon. Thus when it is said in the literature that canonical criticism with its specific focus on the dogmatic canon has expanded the object of canon study1270, this is a confusing assertion. It is correct only to the extent that, aided by circumstances, canonical criticism helped to bring one element of the canon, i.e. its dogmatic-theological aspect, to the fore more elaborately and with a new presentation. But we must also note that canonical criticism proportionately narrows attention for another important aspect, the canon’s formal side, by placing it under the guardianship of the dogmatic canon. This amounts to equating the canon with the dogmatic canon. In this way, other of the canon’s dimensions, such as the formal and community aspects, received so little attention that only a mutilated canon was presented to the public, while this is concealed by the so criticised confusing use of the term canon1271. 1269

Defining the totality of the canon remains an objective that cannot be achieved; therefore, it can only be interpreted as an overall description (5.3.1). 1270 Brett (1994, 285; idem, 2000, 63-65) uses the term extending. 1271 Constraining the work of literary criticism in the name of dogmatic theology is a serious violation of free research and puts the search for truth at risk. In doing so, biblical criticism leaves itself defenceless before secular science. “But biblical criticism dies at birth if it is told to find in the text only what will support the critic’s faith. In that sense its role is genuinely critical: to establish what is the case, precinding for the time being from the question of whether this is religiously edifying or not. And, unfortunately for the canonical approach, there comes a point where biblical critics cannot rest content with inhabiting the restricted world of biblical studies, but have necessarily to interfere in the activities of doctrinal and systematic theologians. This they have to do when such theologians make a use of biblical materials which the biblical critics believe the text cannot sustain … Error is never truly helpful: any scholar who believes that it is has given up his or her claim to be called a scholar” (Barton, 1999, 50). That is why dogmatic theology must take into account and comply with the unquestioned findings produced by biblical criticism on pain of loosing all credibility. Even Childs cannot avoid the confusing use of the term canon (Barr, 1983, 75-104).

554

A new diagnosis, more accurate than that of canonical criticism, is already needed when trying to give a minimal definition of the canon using the aforementioned three indispensable elements. A more accurate diagnosis is primarily needed when dissecting them and their operation. It quickly becomes apparent that canonical criticism consciously withheld the formal historical dimension of the canon from literary historical criticism. If it starts by renouncing the real canon like this, how much further astray will canonical criticism’s turbid diagnosis lead it when it comes to studying the less evident and more delicate tissue that links the most important elements in the canon? Think of the saying: if the green wood (the main elements) is handled this way, what will happen to the dead wood (the less visible elements)1272? There is thus reason enough to be concerned about the way canonical criticism underestimates the canon’s complexity, esp. the interconnections between the many elements from which it was compiled. It is well known that the relationship between the dogmatic canon and its formal historical shape had long been considered questionable. How can canonical criticism with its dualistic reflex to stress differences appreciate the scope of the correlation that appears to exist between the dogmatic theological canon and it historical formal shape1273? If its predecessor, the biblical theology movement, ran aground on this point, how can it reconcile the two poles when it presumes that the one has priority over the other and when it accepts inferences from only one direction? What can be expected when a third important factor, the community, is added to this impossible mission and allowed to play an important role in the canon? The present study believes it can reach a better result with its amended definition of the biblical canon and corrected diagnosis of the history of canon research1274. Without doubt it sought to apply its research method consistently to the findings produced during its extensive evaluation of past study of the canon. This shows sufficiently that after

1272

Lk. 23:31. See 4.3-4.4. The correlation applied from the start of the canon process, albeit less visibly and less intensely on the formal side. The canonical movement’s failure becomes perceptible in its models for an OT theology (Jeremias, 2003, 42). 1274 While a deficient definition or inadequate critical treatment of the material/historical canon unavoidably leads to a further departure from the thrust of the research, it is hoped that after correcting the definition and diagnosis the present study will have relatively better results in studying the canon (Seckler, 2000, 33, speaks of a ‘Differenzierungsvorschlag’). 1273

555

consciously determining its own inherent understanding1275 canon research must seek guidance from the canon’s versatility and complexity and for that reason must intend to approach this reality at least broadly. This means that it must at most examine all noteworthy facets and their interconnections and at least the canon’s three fundamental dimensions (dogmatic, formal and community) that buttress the canon. The broad scope of this task imposed a restriction to one stage of the canon’s genesis. Furthermore, the canon’s complexity required all research methods to be applied insofar as they were useful without excluding any of them a priori. If the initial stage of the canon process is taken as starting point, the diagnosis based on the evaluation of past canon study was decisive. It showed that this starting point alone has a chance to fill the blanks in canon research and satisfy current ecumenical needs.

5. No Literature on OT, No Canon Study A study of the canon is part of the much larger field of biblical studies as found in the literature. Our new study of the (here OT) canon must use materials offered by more general biblical science. These are provided in publications abundantly present on the world market. On the OT alone the production has become so immense that merely achieving an overall picture has become beyond human ability. That may well be the reason why most OT studies are restricted to one or other element or theme within the expansive terrain of the OT. This permits them to form a general picture of the literature on that detailed element that makes up the object of their study. A study of the canon does not have the same ability to restrict its domain. If it, like the present study, wishes to remain faithful to its definition of the canon and also treat at least the three key elements – the dogmatic and formal canons and the community – separately and conjointly, it has to have a grasp of the abundance of literature on the biblical traditions. This requires selection1276 from the available material as 1275

This confirms the general need for a multidisciplinary approach in canon research (Venter, 1998, 521-522). 1276 Like biblical historiography, the present study was obliged to select from among available material in telling its story of the Dtr canon process. This is “the historyconstituting act of selection and the explanation-injecting feature of narrative construction”, according to: Dray, cited in Deist, 1993, 392. “Nun ist das Ideal der Vollständigkeit … in der heutigen Forschungslage … kaum mehr von einem Einzelnen zu erreichen … Insofern erscheint mir der Anspruch enzyklopädischer Vollständigkeit … leicht auf Kosten der

556

the focus of study expands. Under such conditions, we could only retain publications that contributed to the debate on the canon at level of quality that could be tested within the scope of the study (5.3.1). This means that we used only studies and articles that could be considered to contain valuable arguments on the proposed canon concept (2.2) however specific or divergent their hypotheses might be. This explains the strange impression that the attentive reader doubtless has that any given author may be supported in one part of the discussion and contradicted in another. In short, the present study focussed fully on its object and method without committing itself to the hypothesis presented in any other study1277. It followed its own course taking all arguments into consideration without using any other study as standard guideline. The degree to which the present study differs from canonical criticism in its selection from available publications is clear from the latter’s notion of canon which is much narrower than that of the present study. The difference with other canonical studies is also evident from the way the present study responds to trends in the literature. Theoretically, canonical criticism and the present study intend to take the greatest possible account of the current state1278 of canon research. For canonical criticism this amounts to promoting the current operation of the canonical biblical text and its dogmatic and theological implications. The present study aims further and sees current discussion (Ch. 4) in a broader and more long-term perspective. It wants to see the canon operating among all its historical aspects and this in a faith community that is intensely involved with the historical canon from its inception to the present. As this approach becomes more complex, it became more demanding and selective in its treatment of time-bound trends that seemed to have but a fleeting influence in the literature. A first decisive tendency, mainly in the literature on the OT, is the paradigm shift1279 to occasional but regular (from a few decades to a century) questioning of everything, giving the impression that all that historischen Urteilskraft und damit der Fähigkeit zur Synthese zu gehen. Letztere setzt eine Auswahl der Quellen voraus … ohne eine solche Auswahl wäre das … nicht (mehr) zu leisten. Aber auf die Begründung der Auswahl kommt es an …” (Hartenstein, 2003, 26). 1277 Emmerson, 1984; Houtman, 1980, 241-242. ‘total impression: Rofé, 1988b, 183 n. 1. 1278 As explained in the prologue, clearly indicated the study’s direction. We have repeatedly explained how others, even in biblical times, sought connection with developing events. 1279 Sheppard, 2000, 390.

557

preceded was outdated and that everything had to be done anew1280. Here the literature on the OT follows the example of the rest of modern biblical criticism. When this occurred, the literature applied Descartes’ principle of universal doubt and called in question all that preceded1281. Universal doubt remains a valid principle in biblical criticism, but not in the sense that no useful work had been done in the preceding centuries. The present study, unlike post-critical criticism, does not seek to welcome all that is produced worldwide in biblical studies as long as it contradicts all that has been produced since the Enlightenment. This was specifically a question of shifting the goalposts for proof, as the revisionists1282 did in the historical field. The extraordinary demands made by minimalists, including many proponents of the canon-oriented movement, coincide with scriptocentrism1283 of the biblical traditions. Of course, such authors treated the written form in practice as well as in theory as the primary if not only criterion for the genesis of the canon and canonisation. The oral and older periods in the formation of the tradition are then presented as unreachable; and are simply ignored as if they had never existed and are of no value. This is an erroneous abridgment of the canon’s genesis to a few stages, or even to the very last stage1284. It is striking that those like the revisionists who do such admirable historical work are so eager to narrow and even halve their work terrain. By assigning a late date, they withdraw to the

1280

This applies primarily to the history of ancient Israel and the documentary hypothesis (Zaman, 1984), but actually all of OT scholarship moves in uncertainty. On closer examination it appears that this pessimistic vision was inflated and much more of earlier research has held out than is gladly admitted. Incidentally, there seems to be more unity among authors than is usually imagined. It is also not uncommon for an older view to reemerge in the guise of a new paradigm. An example of this is the series of authors returning to a strict view – even stricter than Noth’s – of the unity of the Dtr opus and this after Noth’s original idea had been critically investigated and amended. 1281 3.1.1. While modern biblical criticism considered all that preceded it as pre-critical and of little value, some in canonical criticism now wants to return to this pre-critical period. 1282 This group of authors is not uniform; its members take difference stances from case to case. Not all invoke dogmatic scepticism in the same way. 1283 This tendency to overvalue the written shape of the biblical traditions is called scriptocentrism. This tendency, too, contains gradations. Cf. Jeremias (1999) and Hardmeier (1983). 1284 Childs’ canonical shape is the primary defender of the last stage. Loader (2002b) demonstrated the fragility of this position. It fails to confront the unavoidable historical contingency of this final shape.

558

island of the Persian or even the Hellenistic period1285. It is ironic that they do this so that they can deliver a secure product while these periods possibly or probably contain less historical certainty than the previous stages1286. One might have expected, at least from the revisionists, that they would have applied the same standards of demonstrability to all stages of the historical canon process including their preferred Persian or Greek periods. Only then would their arguments sound credible. At the same time, it would also be evident that they would have to relinquish many of their concealed prejudices regarding the older stages1287. This does not mean that the input from revisionists and minimalists was of no value for the present study. The arguments of these authors on the later, esp. the post-exilic, stages of the canon process were usually valid. Lesser so were the parts of their studies on the canon process in the pre-exilic period, for the simple reason that after the collapse of the earlier hypotheses on ancient Israel, authors thought they could ignore these and the intervening stages, even including the exile and shift immediately to a later period. The present study could not concur with this demolition1288; it wanted to show that there are many reasons for studying the early stages of the canon process. Even without being reconstructing it in detail, there are sufficient indications to detect the key elements that supported the canon process even in its early stages. The present study treated somewhat differently the trend to use the reader-response method in OT research. Our study was open to its proponents’ new insights in hermeneutics. Reader impact on the transmission of biblical traditions can certainly not be underestimated when it comes to the history of the texts’ reception and operation. Readers were involved throughout its genesis in a manner worthy of study. According to the present study’s findings, the supporters of the canonical movement suddenly narrowed the focus the literature study too sharply 1285

The revisionists have recently debated this (Grabbe, 2001). Carroll’s view that only post-Qumran historiography offered any certainty is remarkable. 1286 Unequal and inconsistent application of criteria is a shortcoming regularly encountered among revisionists (Chapman, 2000, 79). 1287 An inherent understanding is unavoidable but not necessarily harmful. It only becomes harmful when it is unconsciously formulated so that it cannot be kept under control by confronting it and measuring it against questioning and contradictory reality. This seems to be the case with the revisionists. When they recount what stirs them in their work, the story does not fit the facts. Gottwald discerningly analysed their inherent understanding on the occasion of their ideologically tinted dispute about ancient Israel. 1288 This is the docta ignorantia.

559

and unilaterally to the redactors1289 or scribes allocating to them the largest part of the text and content, even though they were only the last in the line of those responsible for the canon process. This is understandable after a past in which the oldest stages had been favoured simply because they came first and this at the expense of the later stages that were ascribed supplementary, negligible input1290. The present study attempts to give due attention to all the stages and to recognise each according to its own time and meaning. It also considered it fitting to expand the reader-response method’s positive input beyond the readers to include their broader background, particularly their community in all its complexity1291. After all, this was one point where the canonical movement fell short with its scanty depiction of the faith community and its institutions. By contrast the reader-response method was given a clear path – albeit, unlike its use in canonical criticism, with some restrictions and reservations – to pursue its interpretation and invention as it does with every literary work1292 including the Bible. The events and historical facticity1293, i.e. tradition’s entire historical framework, are taken into account. The study made their important role visible by not ignoring the redactors. The redactors brought the reader into the sacred tradition that they reworked more or less creatively, but no less respectfully and faithfully1294, to reflect their people’s ordeals. Everyone, not just the elite, had respect for tradition. This concern for the people’s lot and survival had to be stressed regularly 1289

Their input came under discussion when redaction criticism was treated. A clearer picture of the redactors was given when treating redactional activity in the prophetic writings (7.3.5.4.4-7.3.5.4.5). 1290 In the past, a preference for the older, more original and authentic influenced many researchers. 1291 This thrust was permanently present. See in particular the explanation of the community’s role in the creation of the prophetic writings (7.3.5.4.6.C). It imposes needed restrictions on the abundance of interpretations given by individual readers (Reventlow, 2004, 957-958). 1292 This overrates the later stages, i.e. Judaism’s contribution to monotheism (Becker, 2005, 16); just as earlier the most original stages had been overrated. 1293 The importance of historical contingency was discussed with the general survey of the Dtr single narrative (6.6.5). It was treated in greater detail later. The gradually accepted dehistoricising and generalisation must be interpreted correctly, and certainly not as a betrayal of historical reality. The biblical writers and certainly Dtr were too loyal to their message to allow this. 1294 This was noted first in the initial survey of the Dtr single narrative (6.6.1-6.6.4). Later, the respect for tradition in Israel and among the surrounding peoples could not be stressed forcefully enough. Hence the importance of the memorial culture in Israel.

560

against the trend in the literature toward excessive individualisation and private use1295.

6. Deuteronomistic Current: an Arguable Hypothesis We had to search the stormy seas of OT scholarship to find a safe port from which this study could set sail. We found this in the hypothesis on the Dtr current. This too must defend itself against critical remarks hurled at it1296. It has done so successfully for quite some time and has a chance to become sustainable on the condition that the path to pan-deuteronomism is blocked by refraining from insisting on the term school or movement, by keeping the Dtr character as undiluted as possible1297 and by guaranteeing the fluidity of the term current within a given span of time and thematic variety. Having been prepared in the 20th century1298, the hypothesis that there is a Dtr current appears to have stood firm within these lines for the half century since Noth. Only the attention then given primarily to the Pentateuch hindered identifying these forerunners of the Dtr hypothesis. Meanwhile, after fifty years of ebb and flow since Noth, we may postulate that the literature generally accepts the existence of a Dtr opus, mainly within Gen.–2 Kgs, and that at least a large part of it was committed to writing during or shortly after the exile. This theory had a long history. We only adopted it and the arguments on its behalf that we found in the literature. Our study thus accepted by definition possible future shifts in 1295

One may wonder whether exegetes’ recent focus on elite readers might not be a projection of their own situation onto the biblical past and whether their appeal to the currency, relevancy and aesthetics of biblical literature may not be triggered by their personal questions rather than concern for discerning the real scope and meaning of the biblical texts. “If we can’t entertain them with relevance, then we do so with beauty or depth of meaning” (according to F. Van Segbroeck, cited in Talstra, 2002, 308). An up-todate survey of productive biblical theologians shows that they tend to start from their theological insights rather than the meaning found in the biblical texts (Cummins, 2004). The biblical literature is aimed above all at the community’s needs and only secondly at those of the individual. 1296 The Dtr hypothesis is marked by the Sisyphus syndrome (Dietrich, 2000, 47), is touched by the paradigm crisis (Thiel, 1991, 154) and is the object of a lively discussion (Vermeylen, 2000a, 652 n. 2). 1297 Lohfink, 1995c; Coggins, 1999, 33-35. The essential thing is to keep the form and content of the Dtr style as intact as possible. 1298 Römer-De Pury, 1996, 18-28 n. 80. The current discussion on the Dtr history can be transformed into “little more than refine the traditional debate”, according to: W.M. Schniedewind, cited in Person, 2002, 4.

561

the argumentation as well as the continued tenability of other hypotheses. It did not need to consider any further disputes as belonging directly to its field, knowing that it was covered by the long-term creditability of its Dtr premise1299. Under such conditions, it remained free to concentrate fully on its object, i.e. detecting canonising elements and the canonical process as they appear in the Dtr hypothesis.

7. The Dtr Single Narrative, Pioneer in the Canon Process The Dtr opus was chosen as starting point for more than just reasons of security. A more cogent reason was that it seemed to offer an ideal perspective on the canon process and this during its insufficiently studied initial stage. After all, we encounter the following strange situation in the literature. On one side, studies often link the Dtr to the genesis of the canon. A series of authors even call the Dtr the first canonists1300. Others consider their writings a first canon and think themselves able to reconstruct its composition rigorously1301. On the other, we must note that these assertions rest solely on one or other sub-aspect of the canon, mainly its formal side. Other, no less important aspects, such as the growing appeal to authoritative tradition and the way it developed in the faith community, were ignored. Nevertheless, the Dtr opus, with the Dtr single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs1302) at its core, offered a platform from which the earliest stage of the canon process could be studied more thoroughly that 1299

Römer, 2001, 197. This is a free choice from among other possibilities. Childs, (1983², 62-63) started his revised historical outline of the commencement of the Hebrew canon with Dt. and its discovery in 2 Kgs 22. In doing so, he takes into account the preceding Moses tradition, of which Dt is the continuation, but it is seen canonically as dependent on Dt. A series of authors formally stress (e.g. as a proto-canon or “un canon des Écritures avant la lettre”: Vermeylen, 2003, 216) Dtr’s canonical claim (Blum, 1990b, 340) so that its relative value with respect to the historical canon process disappears from sight and the canon is subjected to historical violence. Because of their invocation of the written shape, considered a prominent criterion for canonicity, the Dtr were given a canonical place of honour. The relative value of their input in the historical canon process was not taken into account. 1301 Freedman, 1987; Person, 1993, 168-175; Ben Zvi, 1998, 26-27; Chapman, 2000, 284285 n. 8; Vermeylen, 2003, 216-222; Barrera, 2002, 144-145. This statement presupposes a trend toward scriptocentrism in which writing is obviously the most important condition for the origin of the canon as book (Römer, 2000). 1302 According to many authors, Dt. and DtrH are the pivot of the Dtr opus without necessarily being a proto-canon. This view is founded on the literary/thematic deuteronomistic canon. 1300

562

than had been done in the past, and this from two different directions. From one direction, the canon’s evolution in the Dtr current is examined during one specific stage covering the exilic period and shortly thereafter. In places where the literature is as good as unanimous on the Dtr work, a cross-section of the whole canon process can be examined to determine the status of all its key elements at that one moment. For our study, this offers an opportunity to examine more closely than before a snapshot of the canon process at that one moment around the time of the exile. This would be a major step forward in comparison with what had been achieved in the past. Many facts about the cannon process that had been neglected could now emerge from the Dtr opus. Treating only one moment during the exile may well provide a faithful picture, but it would be unbalanced because it would give only a snapshot of one moment within one stage; That is what makes the second approach to the canon process, which facilitates the Dtr opus, so important. As current the Dtr opus, like the canon process, is dynamic. Obviously it is exceptionally well placed to provide insight in what this dynamic process underwent in a period for which it served as motor and spokesperson. A diachronic scrutiny of this dynamism using the opportunities that the Dtr opus offers for this was a greater challenge to the present study than was the synchronic approach. A diachronic approach would not only complement the synchronic study wonderfully, it would also provide access to the earlier stages of the canon process usually ignored in the past and taboo today1303. We were well aware that this was a difficult, nearly inexecutable, task under current a-historical circumstances. Nevertheless, given the importance for the faith communities, it was certainly worth an effort. That is why the Dtr opus and its single narrative (Gen.–2 Kgs) was examined without hesitation from a dual perspective, the first predominantly synchronic at the time of the exile, the second more diachronic in the stages preceding the exile.

1303

This is due to the failure of historical studies on ancient Israel as well as to the overall a-historical trend.

563

8. The Exile: a Time of Canonical Upsurge A Snapshot By way of reminder: a synchronic approach provides a snapshot impression. It records a static image of an event apart from all movement and evolution. This is a constriction but creates an opportunity for a more profound observation of what happened at that time and what stirred the portrayed subject or person. Because the image is static, its context can be more easily examined. Only that one activity. At that one moment.

A Detailed Study The Dtr’s activity displays many facets. Their canonical inclination was just one. It is merely one of the ways in which they approached traditions and life1304 in exilic Israel and tried to guide them in the direction of the deuteronomistic canon process. Our study had to draw forward a specific canonical orientation from the broad background that the OT writings offer as reflection of the Dtr’s activity. In short: the entire Dtr picture had to be examined meticulously to identify its canonical traits. Essentially, this focused on one detail1305 with immense impact selected from a comprehensive whole1306 with which it remained intensely attached and entwined while serving it as vitalising and structuring element. A delicate task.

A Broad Study In its turn, the Dtr’s canonical inclination also has various facets. As with all biblical research, it was impossible to reconstruct all of them. We used three key elements (canonical principle, faith community and formal shape) as standard to bring the essence of the canonical tendency most clearly to the fore. Despite the triplicate treatment, the present study believes it can present the following global picture of the canonical Dtr 1304

As mentioned repeatedly, religion in Israel coincided with all aspects of life as was the case among Israel’s neighbours. 1305 This detail is made up of the guiding themes that risk being unnoticed because they are subsumed in the whole they structure and fade into the background. 1306 This covers nearly half the Hebrew canon and sets the tone for its quality (6.8.A).

564

activity measured against these criteria, at least during the exile. As always in a snapshot, the accent – the struggle to survive during an emergency1307 – repeatedly colours and dominates the whole and its smallest details.

A. The Deuteronomistic Canonical principle The one YHWH as Highest Foundation of Authority Contrary to many in Israel who cast doubt on YHWH’s power and authority as a result of events concomitant upon the exile (i.e. the collapse of the kingdom of Judah and the loss of the temple and monarchy – two of Yahwism’s essential elements), the Dtr, following the classical prophets’ lead, relied on YHWH even more than before. They did not even have to create the absolute nature of this reliance, only to revert to it1308. Within Yahwism, and certainly among the prophetically oriented YHWH alone minority, the concept of YHWH's authority a constant fact that developed from below. The Dtr, keeping pace with the classical prophets, joined this movement. Stimulated by the exilic emergency, they defined the foundation of YHWH’s authority in a more explicitly monotheistic direction and used the concept of the one authoritative YHWH1309 as standard for their entire opus. All their writings sought but one goal: to get Israel to listen once more so that it could return united from the diaspora of exile to the promised land. This was a question of Israel’s survival1310. The 1307

This emergency, being an exceptional situation, must, of course, be distinguished from the normal state of affairs. 1308 The primary intention of this reversion was to get the people to endorse what was experienced as directly God-given to Israel. The Dtr already started to rely on what was the foundation of the later dogmatic canon. They did not create this foundation. They are only witnesses to it (Chapman, 2000, 283). Unlike the Koran which is a report of a divine revelation to one person, the Bible is a record of human answers to divine revelation (Sanders, 2001, 7). 1309 The history of religion has more recently approached the evolution toward monotheism more objectively and independently of biblical theology. It can be measured from the upsurge of the theme of YHWH’s jealousy, which is symptomatic of Yahwism’s notion of exclusivity. The numinous aspect, as exemplified in charismatic prophets, is the core of its view of authority. 1310 In the well known ‫( שמע ישראל‬Dt. 6:4) that serves as title for the entire Dtr opus, ‫אחד‬ ‫ יהוה ד‬in the first half places YHWH’s oneness as the spearhead. During the exile, there was a real chance that the people would be destroyed via assimilation, as the dispersion after the fall of Israel in 722 BCE showed. That is why the Dtr emphasised more strongly

565

concept of one, authoritative YHWH served as the dynamic canonical principle that inspired their work and determined its canonical intensity and contours1311.

The Second Torah The Dtr believed that throughout the OT tradition YHWH, unlike the God of the philosophers, was not abstract principle1312. As God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he was the one who remained close to his people in the Torah that he gave to Israel alone1313. When Israel neglecting it or did not remain sufficiently faithful to it, Israel strayed and was banished to a foreign country. A return to the Torah is thus a condition for deliverance and re-entry into the promised land. It signifies more than relearning the Torah. It must also be put into practice1314. Even more, the practice of this Torah must be expanded and up-dated. That is why, in the Dtr’s view, when Moses was in the fields of Moab before entering the promised land – once again Israel’s situation – he expanded and elucidate the Torah at YHWH’s request. The correlation with current events, this time in the second Torah1315 written by Moses, is the first guiding theme in which the Dtr put the canonical principle of the one YHWH into practice. It results in the many new legal provisions that comprise the one Torah as reflection of the one, sacred YHWH. It is remarkable how the canonical principle of the than ever before YHWH’s oneness (directed against the customary polytheism) and the unity of Israel. This is the two-fold goal in their pursuit of unity. 1311 The intensity of the Dtr’s canonical orientation is proportional to the general hermeneutic within which the canonical principle is incorporated. It is typical for the religious canon that the appeal to divine authority via the community, later articulated as divine inspiration, is absolutely binding for the believers and their community. As will be seen in section C. below, the formal shape is fully compatible with that of the canonical principle applied by the Dtr. It is its practical and stylistic implementation. 1312 That explains the aspired binding character of the legislations that tolerates no doubt. 1313 Dt. 4:7; 6:10; 30:11,14; Mt. 22:32. 1314 Dt. 1:5; “with all your heart and with all your soul” (Dt. 4:29). 1315 The emphasis on Moses role is an important shift in the Torah tradition that can be attributed to the Dtr. It is the Dtr’s comprehensive revision of the older Torah that led to the name Second Torah or Deuteronomy. We were able to observe the updating process when studying the Dtr’s revision of the BoC (7.2.2). We saw how this was one in a way that respected what had preceded, as was then customary. This shows the extent to which continuity was taken into account along side discontinuity. This resulted in a codification that concentrated laws that achieved essential progress without losing anything essential from established legislation and while preserving its unchanging validity.

566

one YHWH results in the notion of unity being given priority in the treatment of the Torah, without essentially slighting the variance in the legal stipulations it contains.

A Prophetic Torah When they increased the importance of Moses for the Torah as expression of the canonical principle, the Dtr, like the classical prophets, were consistent with the priests’ conservative bent. The Dtr’s activities were usually consistent with those of the classical prophets1316. However, they felt called to work in their own way1317. Wanting to promote rather than diverge from the Torah’s orthodoxy, the Dtr took up the prophets’ challenging role when they revised and updated the Torah. Like the prophets, they showed in their contemporary history1318 how YHWH was actively present in their time and how the Torah could and must be obeyed1319. The Dtr worked much more cautiously and purposively1320 when introducing historiographical and prophetic traits into the Torah than did the prophets, who found little success and even caused some confusion. When they provide their inventive input they still remain loyal

1316

Here is where the Dtr acquired their sense of continuity. In many ways the Dtr were considered the heirs to the classical prophets, esp. when treating orthodox Yahwism. Dtr and prophets share a common idiom. Their sustained dialogue with these prophets permeates their writings. This was studiously checked when examining the influence prophecy and the designers of Dt. (7.3.5.2), DtrH (7.3.5.3) and the Dtr redaction of the prophetic texts exerted on one another (7.3.5.4) (the Dtr also influenced the prophets). The most striking was the prophecy’s influence on the Dtr’s use of prophetic (7.3.5.3.2) and historical (7.4) sources. 1317 They are dynamic (6.6.4) and creative. 1318 To achieve this orthodoxy, the Dtr’s hermeneutic required them to select. A special application of this desire for orthodoxy was the search for a reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false prophecy; the Dtr developed the fulfilment criterion as system to this end. The prophets were not the only ones to exercise a challenging function. The prophets’ critical role in current events was specific to them. 1319 The entire DtrH was understood in this way. The point was to make Israel realise that the law has a place in life and should be applied. That is why the nomistic Dt. precedes DtrH. In this sense, DtrH is a nomistic narrative. 1320 The Dtr were even more practical than theological. They show this in their didactic disposition as well as in their nomism. Their historiography was both aetiology and magistra vitae that used instruction to urge a reasonable and obedient attitude toward the Torah.

567

to the message1321, which they support with paraenetic arguments. In addition to their concern for the renewed Torah, they use patterns to design for the prophets a status modelled on Moses as paragon in which they are all servants of the Torah, and thus all speak with the same voice however different and numerous they may be1322. So the second guiding theme that the Dtr applied in putting their canonical principle (the one YHWH) into practice is to use prophecy to situate and explain the Torah historically, maintaining once again a complete balance between continuity and discontinuity and respect for diversity, despite the evident priority given to unity.1323

A Sage Torah The Dtr’s pursuit of a renewed Torah, united in diversity, and the efforts to get the people to accept this led them to apply techniques to Yahwism that were unprecedented in ancient Israel1324. This will be discussed further 1321

Despite their occasionally drastic inventiveness, they never betray their loyalty to the message and its historicity (7.4.4) that they underpin in their own way. This is especially evident in their handling of sources and events. The Dtr’s general thematic elaboration in the development of their historical narrative does not contradict this. As with the codification of laws, this is a concentration of information with no essential loss of value, while updating and future applications profit. In short, historical contingency (6.6.5) has become an intrinsic part of the Dtr opus. 1322 6.4.3. Here Dtr could unleash their schematic devices all for the purpose of their pursuit of unity. That each of the prophetic writings has its own profile, whether or not derived from a real person, justifies the custom of ascribing them to an individual. 1323 Dtr thus showed that diversity is sufficiently guaranteed despite their pursuit of unity and the priority given to moulding a single whole (6.6.2) and that it does not impede the pursuit of canonicity. For another view see Boeve, 1998; Vos, 1998; Hettema, 1998, 392. The Dtr show that they are one current that produced one stylise canon-oriented opus despite their heterogeneous membership. Nevertheless, its content is extensive thanks to its dialogue with a very diversified community. 1324 Wisdom with its a posteriori starting point was not so well integrated in a Yahwism dominated by an priori mindset. Given the critical situation during the exile, the Dtr could put wisdom to good use in the intellectual reflection that the nomistic and prophetic/historical development of the Torah and even the one-YHWH canonical principle, required. Up to then, wisdom had only been invoked as aid within the family and daily life, mainly among less elite groups. Now its critical mentality was called upon to guide mythical Yahwism in the struggle for survival in which it was engaged. It was an unusual but prudent step for the Dtr, but inevitably it did not lead to the hoped-for results in all areas. At that time, wisdom was much less developed in Israel than among surrounding peoples. Yet the Dtr managed to use wisdom even to put quite plainly YHWH’s absoluteness

568

under Conclusion 8.C. Here it is time to mention the inspiration drawn from wisdom – still impelled by the canonical principle, the one YHWH – from which it derived these devices and from which they derive their dynamism. Up to that time, wisdom, as human intellectual skill, was only moderately present scattered mainly as popular Proverbs. This was more highly developed among surrounding peoples. The Dtr were compelled by the needfulness of the situation to give the YHWH’s Torah a human face within an Israel that had become sceptical and critical. They did not shy away from giving the wisdom in the Torah a level of freedom unprecedented in Israel, esp. in the notion of covenant. It was assigned the task of using practical reasoning in the Torah, giving it a sapiential impact1325. The Dtr may be rightly proud that by introducing wisdom – the third guiding theme of the one-YHWH canonical principle – they produced a Torah that they expected would astonish the surrounding people1326.

B. The Israelite Community The Covenant with the One YHWH The Dtr opus is full of Israel. Not because the people are mighty. Nor because their history is one to be proud of. Israel entered the picture only because of its relation to the one YHWH. Neither Israel nor YHWH stands

(the canonical principle), despite its humanistic proclivity. In this sense, continuity was maintained despite wisdom’s critical role. 1325 Chapman, 2000, 288. While wisdom’s critical character made it suitable for aiding prophets and Dtr with corrections inherent to the challenging role, it is striking that the Dtr assigned it such a large role in organising and attuning the various Torah traditions. In this sense, it helped ensure that the mythical and varied Torah could be presented as a single body of instruction. It managed this through the flexible mediatory activity that Dtr assigned to it. 1326 From the time Israel’s contact with world powers such as Assyria and Babylonia brought it onto the world stage and shamed its identity, Dtr undertook the task of providing Israel with a constitution based on its unique traditions as buttress for its national identity. This constitution, in its turn, was based on the canonical principle of the one, universal YHWH that created and controlled the world. With YHWH as foundation, Israel could respond to the most powerful peoples when it came to adeptness and culture, something they claim as their own. Moreover, wisdom offered Israel a modality to situate Torah rationally in history and in daily life even though it was a highly transcendent reality.

569

alone when it comes to the message1327 that the Dtr served. YHWH and Israel together made up the message. Driven by their canonical principle, the one YHWH, the Dtr focused intensely on the relationship that arose between YHWH1328 and Israel and the way it developed. That is why when the Dtr spoke of ‫ ספר התורה‬they could so easily shift to speaking of ‫ספר משה‬ and ‫ספר הברית‬. Basically they still delivered the same message, but each time from a different perspective and at a different moment in the relationship. In the case of ‫ספר הברית‬, they explained the way in which the Torah incited Israel as the one bound to YHWH. This is an extremely important theme for the Dtr; even if they did not invent it, they certainly developed its content-specific and formal aspects in depth. It thus became part of the standard, the canon, toward which their historiography and their entire opus was built.

The One, Chosen Israelite Community It is primarily with Israel as community that YHWH has entered into a covenant and with Israel alone1329. The Dtr’s canonical principle moves in the direction that YHWH set out. The Dtr aimed the practical development of the Torah and its prophetic explanation in Israel’s history1330 first of all 1327

The unique element here is the personal relation between YHWH and Israel. “Anders als in den anderen vorderorientalischen Religionen steht im Zentrum der Religion Israels ein personal strukturiertes Verhältnis Jahwes zu einer Grossgruppe” (Albertz, 2003, 368). 1328 In the Dtr’s view of orthodox Yahwism, YHWH takes the initiative for the relationship. All circumstances and modalities are abundantly clear in showing that it was a highly unequal relationship in which the primary emphasis was on YHWH. He initiated the love that blessed Israel allowing it to live as and remain the chosen people. 1329 The ‫ שמע ישראל‬clearly stresses the expression ‫יהוה אלהינו‬, YHWH our God (Dt. 6:4). The shared religiosity takes precedence as it did among the surrounding peoples. The tendency toward YHWH’s exclusivity automatically leads to the whole people’s exclusive link with this YHWH. In this regard, the use of ‫ כל‬is particularly suitable. It follows logically that the Dtr preferred to address the Israelite population group as a whole having a special character. This is what guided their canonising strategy. In doing this they imitated the Assyrian custom. The BoC also grew toward this view. 1330 In Dt. there are well-known forms of address alternating between the 2nd pers. sing. and pl. All findings in this regard show that decisions are based solely on formal shape do not suffice. Content-related conclusions must resolve them. The most reliable decision regarding the formal forms of address in Dtr, esp. in Dt., seems to be that it shows once again the tendency to appeal in the forms of address and rhetoric to YHWH’s absoluteness when exercising authority. Dtr is less concerned with personal than will public well-being. That is why they do not fully or even proportionally report on political and social events in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah or report on their decrees or provide a biography

570

at the community. This was the community YHWH chose and separated from the surrounding peoples; its appearance as one large united Israelite community reflected his oneness. This found its most exemplary expression in liturgical gatherings1331 in the one sanctuary as ‫קהל‬, of which the exiled Dtr could only dream and on which they built their resolute hope. The Dtr included institutions1332 such as kingship, courts, Levites, family and even the fate of the individual1333 in the law that served as constitution providing Israel with an identity, only insofar as they served this community. No one is forgotten. Each has a place in and is protected by the relationship with YHWH and his covenant. This is diversity within the unity. The stress is always on the latter. This allows the Dtr to bring together the various categories of Israel’s inhabitants in a dialogue where only the priestly tendency is absent1334. of the prophets. This latter results in the prophetic silence and the scarcity of data on the prophets. Everything that Dtr included in their history was intended for instruction. It is one aetiology of entire Israel recounting how YHWH gave the Torah to Israel and was still present with it and how Israel, in the person of whoever its leaders were, failed to respond appropriately. 1331 This election is highlighted as a consequence of the exclusive view of YHWH. YHWH’s uniqueness led to Israel’s uniqueness, because he preferred it. This places Israel in a distinctive situation among the nations. Dtr, in the footsteps of the great classical prophets and spurred on by Israel’s absorption in Judah, showed itself a promoter of the notion of a greater Israel, partly under the influence of surrounding Assyrian empire. Dtr frequently treated the cult as principal place where the faith community as ‫ קהל‬stood before YHWH as partner in the covenant (any doubts about Dtr’s cultic orientation seem to have disappeared from the literature; see Veijola, 2000, 27 n. 167), despite the absence of the temple during the exile, when the redaction examined in this study’s synchronic approach. The importance for the community and its relation to the one YHWH that Dtr assigned to the cult is evinced in their zeal for the centralisation and purification of the cult and in the discovery of the ‫ ספר הברית‬in the temple, the central cultic site. 1332 The institutionalisation – important in the canonical process because it determined group identity – is the typical field for the D current. 1333 “… the appeal (of Dt., L.Z.) is to every Israelite, to the individual … and sought to provoke the adherence of every group and every individual in Israel to that reform” (Lenchak, 1993, 27). This is tantamount to the concept Israel as whole also receiving a distributive meaning referring to each individual member (Lenchak, 1993, 86). In a more humane vein, Dtr adopted from the BoC (7.2.2) a social concern for the lot of such individuals as slaves, foreigners, widows, orphans and women (Dt. 21:10-14, 23:15-16, 24:6-22). Wisdom was not left behind when it came to combining the lot of the individual and that of the community. 1334 The absence of the P current in the Dtr opus does not mean that it did not exist or was missing during the first temple period. Its absence probably has to do with the dissolution of the temple during the exile (when the Dtr opus took shape) and its extensive agreements

571

YHWH’s Community on the Way to the Promised Land Israel’s covenant relationship is essentially its lifeline to YHWH. For those like the classical prophets and the Dtr who came to depend on YHWH under pressure of the exceptional circumstances1335, Israel’s precarious situation during the exile and the clearer view of his absoluteness and oneness also produced a deeper insight in the abyss in which Israel had leapt by not being faithful to YHWH and the Torah. They saw clearly that a renewed covenant with YHWH and a more perfect compliance1336 with its more tightly and unambiguously formulated provisions was the only condition for a return to the promised land. For the Dtr, the difficulty in getting the Israelites to accept and implement1337 this programme was as evident as was the guiding premise or canon in helping Israel in its time of need. They knew their people’s character and history too well for it to be with the larger D current. Given Israel’s small size, representatives of the D and P currents must have had contact, certainly after the restoration of the second temple (Venter, 2002, 474), despite the different accents that each of these placed on Jewish tradition. 1335 As small country, Yahwist Israel had many occasions to become aware that it needed powerful protection, unlike the larger Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian empires, who also appealed to their gods. The very smallest of its needs could threaten its existence. During the exile this was certainly a matter of life or death. Yet this circumstance led to the confirmation and deepening of Israel’s testimony that it saw and experienced YHWH in its history as the one who remained the creator and rescuer at all times, as was described in the Exodus narrative. Israel was best placed to witness to this (Chapman, 2000, 283) aided by its realistic view of its own insignificance and failure. However, this was only the incidental circumstance that put it on the right path in its religious experience. The essence of this religious experience was YHWH as transcendent fact. He was the foundation of the canonical principle and the dogmatic substrate with which the Dtr confronted Israel throughout their opus. This is the temporary shift from an ordinary state of destitution to an exceptional state of crisis particularly evident in the synchronic approach to the canonical result as recorded in the Dtr testimony. This is logical, given that conclusion 8 examines a snapshot view. 1336 This theme was present in the prophets, but the Dtr put it in more practical, nomistic terms. The idea of a new covenant was borrowed from the classical prophets and confirmed with solemn rituals in the Dtr opus (2 Kgs 23:1-3; Dt. 29:1-29). The ‫ שמע ישראל‬starts with the preamble and the enjoinder for Israel to hear. Action is an integral part of this. This truth should not only be understood, it should also be practised. This is further evidence of the practical attitude typical characteristic of religiosity in the OT and esp. the Dtr. “In contrast to Greek and Latin discourse, Hebrew rhetoric tends to avoid logical argumentation and aims to impress by its force and his concreteness” (Lenchak, 1993, 75). 1337 The Dtr duly take into account the people’s freedom to choose for or against YHWH (Dt. 11:20; 30). Dtr does not disguise the failure of people and leaders.

572

otherwise. That is why they sought a suitable authority on which to base the dialogue, instruction and insistent exhortations that they used to get their people to accept the obedient responsibility set out in the canon; this was to lead them away from dispersal and oppression to unity with YHWH and his one sanctuary1338. It is interesting to note that the elite Dtr, acting as interpreters of YHWH’s voice, encouraged the straying masses to join their minority and, if the history in the OT records of the reception and operation of their efforts is to be believed, that they did so by and large successfully.

C. The Formal Shape In Service of the Canonical Principle It has always and correctly been assumed that the Dtr opus had a strong canonical slant. Its outward shape and the use of writing has often been cited in evidence. Yet externals can deceive. Just as fine feathers do not always make fine birds, the formal shape of the Dtr opus is an outwardly perceptible performance that is indispensable as means for assessing its canonical standard1339 but it cannot be identified with this. The outward shape of the Dtr opus and its canonical standard do not coincide at all1340. In probing the outward appearance of the Dtr opus for its canonical content, we see that the content determined and vitalised the writing and the concomitant impressive package of literary devices, not the reverse. Just as the canonical principle (YHWH’s absolute authority, unity with Israel via the Torah and prophecy) shaped the Israelite faith community, it also gave meaning and purpose to the outward shape of the Dtr opus. Like the Torah, Nebiim, the covenant and even YHWH, it is not an independent reality, but is understood in terms of the canonical principle (YHWH, the God of Israel). This close linkage with the canonical principle is manifest 1338

The priority given to unity is striking. Brueggemann (2003) has recently studied the various stages of the Dtr current’s role as elite minority. 1339 This was the reason why our study chose to work in compliance with the text under all circumstances. 1340 Literary criticism’s inability to penetrate the reality that it tried to interpret (3.3.3.13.3.3.2) has been frequently encountered in this study The shortcomings inherent to the history of tradition are not the only cause of the many anomalies. Being fixated on the material, the outward shape can only provide an approximate interpretation of what the author wanted to say. Words are inadequate, as the saying goes.

573

in its shape1341. Even the Dtr worked anonymously1342 for their canonical principle (the one and absolute YHWH united with his people Israel). One Canonical Perspective on the Torah and Prophecy Obviously we have to use the writings as we have them when tracing the canonical line that the Dtr followed. They are distributed in different, now large, canonical sections: the Tetrateuch or Pentateuch, the Former Prophets and Later Prophets or the Book of the Twelve Prophets. Each of these now consisting of the series of books into which they had over time been divided. This division did not result from the perspective that the Dtr adopted in their work. They saw one Torah story1343 into which all the various and fragmented elements were interwoven harmoniously and with respect for their identity in service of one message. Even in their day the Dtr had to make many compromises and include many divergent elements and, sometimes, contradictory versions in their project because of their respect for the authority of these traditions1344. After them, the disharmony and fragmentation re-entered many of the writings. This too is a consequence of the mild tenor that the Dtr have given their opus. The 1341

The roles of the Torah and prophecy as foundation for the Israelite faith community were already explained (Conclusion 8.B). The focus on the one cause or message shows that the division into two collections of canonical material (Torah and Nebiim) and their further subdivision into books is only a secondary consequence of their material circumstances. On one side there was the traditional and fundamental one-Torah story. On the other, the prophetic accounts were collected within the framework of the one-Torah story. For the Dtr, there was only one message. That is the reason for their patterns and the depiction of one prophetic office used in the two materially different, but essentially related, literary traditions. Dtr continued the treatment of this one message, applying one perspective to the two literary traditions. Performance and efficiency are important motives underlying Dtr’s practical bent. For the Dtr, all standardised actions, like the institutions in Israel, are related to Israel’s role as YHWH’s partner. However skilful and literary their work may be, the Dtr’s main concern was not to produce a literary artefact. Effective service of the message, not any stylistic perfection it may have, was the Dtr’s the main objective. 1342 The anonymity with which the Dtr veil their identity and their treatment of the prophets (prophetic silence) is striking when compared to the prophets own style. Sheppard (2000, 383) also noted this. This is no accident, but is partially inspired by the Dtr’s focus on its message. Not only do they use all available means, they also subsume their own identity (Chapman, 2000, 97). 1343 This was the one basic story in Israel’s memorial culture, albeit available in different versions (Sanders, 1972, 1-30). 1344 7.2.1. Because of this respectful treatment of earlier tradition, the Dtr use it as foundation and starting point. This ensured continuity along side discontinuity.

574

humane undertone can be heard in the gentle exhortation to orthodoxy, the tolerant pursuit of constancy in text and tradition and in the awareness that subsequent times will still require many changes to the canon1345.

The Contribution of Reflection to the Outward Shape It is plain to see that the Dtr wisely thought about what they would do before they shaped their project and did all they could to employ the most suitable, efficient and refined devices. This reflection was not restricted to philosophy as intellectual creativity proceeding from autonomous human effort and limited to the Dtr’s benefit and concern. It was theological: surrender to what YHWH offered directly or in creation and events. That is why the sources1346 that witnessed to YHWH and his interaction with Israel and the world were so important. They were the Dtr’s starting point, the source from which they could enrich their inventive powers and experience. Even though it was long present, this was an inexhaustible mythical fact1347 that provided new insight for action with each rereading. The result of this reflection by people living in a state of emergency is a penetrating awareness of YHWH’s transcendence and presence in Israel and the world1348 with the ability to communicate its scope suitably to the population. 1345

As with the pursuit of the centralisation of the cult which was not achieved in their time, the awareness of being on the way to stability and constancy brought the Dtr to accept in advance the prospect of changes and additions as long as they did not alter the essence. It shows that despite Dtr’s being a milestone in the canon process, they represented only an intermediary stage or proto-canon. 1346 This was the assessment in all our studies of Dtr, i.e. their adoption of the BoC (7.2.2), their reliance on prophetic inspiration in Dt. (7.3.5.2), in DtrH (7.3.5.3.6-7.3.5.3.7) and in the prophetic writings (7.3.5.4.4-7.3.5.4.6) and their use of literary historiography (7.4.47.4.6) and wisdom (7.5.3). They always showed respect for prior tradition. 1347 Dtr could boast a long tradition in addition to contemporary feedback. Many authors who wish to limit experience to the writers’ own time underestimate this. As charismatic figures, the prophets were exemplary spokespersons of the experience of trans-human mythical reality. 1348 Dtr is most concerned with action. The Dtr’s reflection did not invent the transcendent fact. It merely gave them an opportunity to deepen and clarify this fact with theological reflection. Their creativity was restricted to what lay within their human scope, to reflection and to the available devices. It is obvious that when seen from this perspective, the full weight of canonical input cannot be placed on the scribes, however inventive they may have been. As contacts with the empires increased and knowledge of them grew, the Dtr had to confront their inherited image of YHWH with this new situation. Hence the

575

The Contribution of Stylistic Skills to the Outward Shape It is not enough to list the many stylistic skills and great expertise that the Dtr employed in designing the canonical shape they gave their opus. When taking a close look at their work at the time of the exile, the first thing to be done is to observe the specific canonical meaning and function of the stylistic devices applied throughout the material. Seen from this perspective, we notice above all that all the devices used in the Dtr opus – such as the use of themes, generalisation, dehistorising, ordering, schematising1349 and selection – all serve unity in the name of the canonical principle, the one YHWH. A secondary diversity of themes and material has been incorporated within this primary unity. Beside this main theme, in which unity with room for diversity is pursued, a second theme, concentration including inevitable delineation1350, appears from one synchronic angle. Driven by the emergency situation and their canonical principle, YHWH, the Dtr were compelled to use their devices and skills to testify more cogently to the scope of YHWH’s absoluteness regarding Israel and to the demands that this made on all aspects of life1351. It was inevitable that the Dtr had to use selection, importance of stories about creation, Adam’s fall and the patriarchs; there was good reason to cite their wise counsel (reflective input) regularly and even to view them as products of the sages. 1349 The increased importance of the Moses tradition is one of the many themes included. It is noteworthy that Sheppard (2000, 395) thought that the traditions were historicised at the time they were included. The appeal to scripture fits in well with this ordering. The centralisation of the cult was also a material shaping of this pursuit of order. The fulfilment scheme is one special type of scheme. 1350 In each outline, generalisation, ordering, systematisation and selection of and from the available traditions, there is no loss of original facts. Yet such actions are necessary to manage the growth of the tradition. This containment affects past and future traditions. The intention is to preserve a structured and harmonised version of the most valuable elements for the future. This delimitation benefits its quality as Scripture and its operation as dynamic basis of authority. This is typical for the canonical tendency, which also implies a focus on Scripture’s closed character. 1351 Inspired by the prophet’s example as were all biblical authors, the Dtr could only be creative within their own latitude. They could do no more than witness to the transcendent within Yahwism. Many authors who wish to stress the scribes’ meritorious work gave the impression that they wanted to promote them to the level of prophets or even architects of the transcendent (Chapman, 2000, 73-86). Since the laws were pressed into one whole as ‫ספר התורה‬, they covered all aspects of Israelite personal and public life. There were harbingers of this noticeable in the BoC.

576

generalisation and dehistorising to shift less suitable material to the periphery or even out of sight if they were to achieve this concentration on YHWH. This does not mean that these peripheral sources1352 and events were discarded waste. The essence of their meaning was transferred in the concentrated image in the Scripture where it more intensely, securely and permanently1353 portrays YHWH and his message.

9. Before the Exile: the Oldest Stages of the Canon Process A Necessary Study Although the synchronic study was productive, it was also incomplete. To the extent that the present study would elucidated only a snapshot of the canon process it would failed to reveal the dynamic that marked this process as it developed over time. Only a diachronic study can provide the information that the synchronic study lacked. A diachronic study is the film version of the snapshot. Instead of a photographic close-up, it captures the dynamism1354 of its development. Whereas Conclusion 8 provided an extensive and detailed view of the canon process’ content, the diachronic investigation studies the rhythm of its unfolding. This diachronic component was indispensable to a broad study of the canon process. The synchronic result required a follow-up. Yet respect for the content of the biblical text that the Dtr produced was decisive. From that perspective, the diachronic study was an obligation that could not be avoided.

1352

7.1.1-7.2.2; 7.3.5.3.2-7.3.5.3.4; 7.3.5.4.5-7.3.5.4.6; 7.4; 7.5 Achieving maximum safety for the Yahwist tradition during the exilic emergency was a priority for the Dtr, who followed the example of written prophecy and its pursuit of unity. This, rather than aesthetic potential, led them to turn to writing. The tide of scriptocentrism must be stemmed here. For Dtr and all other biblical authors, the message had priority over the manner of witnessing to this message. Scripture is the inspired and authoritative religious tradition on the way to canonisation. Awareness of the lasting value of the elements is the reason for the canon’s being closed as a matter of principle. The point is that unlike what had no lasting value, this material was to be applied to the future and hence needed to be preserved with the greatest possible security. Only explanation, commentary and exegesis can be added to this unchangeable part. 1354 Yahwism displays a dynamism that over the centuries left traces on the canon process. 1353

577

Obstacles to a Diachronic Study Was a diachronic study practicable? The soundness of the a-historical trend in OT studies had to be tested first to determine this. It proved possible to parry the minimalists’ theoretically justified but inflated1355 demand for certainty with an evidentiary method that was reasonably defensible for biblical material. A cautious application of tradition historical and form critical methods, in their turn, opened oral tradition to study which allowed unilateral scriptocentrism1356 to be avoided. The condensed treatment of tradition within its own 200-300-year scope1357, on which the revisionists insisted, could be bridged by maintaining several externally certain elements of information such as the dramatic turns for Israel and Judah in 722 and 587 BCE. The canon process had to have been ongoing before and after these dates for it to reach the level evinced in the synchronic study during the exile.

Exploring the Area of Inquiry The period before, not after, the exile was the area to be studied. This stretched mainly between 722 and 587 BCE, but also extended earlier, since Israel’s house of Omri left extra-biblical traces that cannot be ignored1358. As with all intellectual currents, demarcations cannot be taken strictly here. In this case, it is a process, guided and encouraged by a long-

1355

The total rejection of oral tradition as material for study even though recognising its existence also proved unreasonable. In the end, it is tantamount to not accepting the complexity of the tradition (7.1.2) in the OT texts and to bending the biblical text while claiming loyalty to it, all the while confronting it with requirements such as docta ignorantia and dogmatic scepticism. 1356 The final shape of the canon does not support this unilateral stance. “Der Kanon behielt allerdings die Mündlichkeit auf seine Weise bei, der nur anderes strukturiert war. Das Hören wurde nicht zugunsten des Lesers aufgegeben … Dem Hören kommt theologisch Priorität vor dem Leser zu” (Sauter, 2003, 249). 1357 This gives the impression that the Dtr opus, which had bee produced by a current over many years, comes from nowhere. 1358 External data (like the stela of King Mesa (approx. 845 BCE, see Smelik, 2006, 95-60), the king of Moab with whom the house of Omri fought) shows that the kingdom of Israel existed and that its relative power had grown since 1200 BCE (Smelik, 1985; BeckingDijkstra, 1998, 82). The oldest archaeological traces of Judah date from the 8th century BC.

578

running current (Dtr) that was also active for some time after the exile1359. Because this took place mainly in the same Dtr spirit, the study’s concern was to uncover the typical mechanisms that the Dtr built into the canon process even during and after the exile1360. That is why inquiries into the Dtr input during the earliest stages of the canon process automatically overflow into the redaction process that marks the Dtr opus and the prophetic books. Today, attention in the literature is correctly drawn to this1361. That the focus shifted away from the closure of the canon process and toward its origin and mechanisms was due to more than just the unavoidable restrictions on the present study. It was also the consequence of a conscious choice based on the particularity of the oldest stages. In principle, it is still aimed toward its closure and less toward its material production. This would take long to reach completion as recent studies on the history of the text and the canon have shown. The period appears to have been long. That permitted the canon process to be studied in several stages1362 as the Dtr current included and recorded it either directly in its opus or in the Prophetic Corpus. In addition to the advantage of being able to follow up the direct and indirect 1359

Barr, 1996, 112-115. An accurate dating of the stages and the corresponding redactions of the written traditions in the later periods after the exile are problematical and thus its value is lessened. “Whatever we may know about the closing of the canon … it takes our text-books hundred of pages to say how little we know when the process of canonization began” (according to M.L. Margolis, cited in Talmon, 1987, 66). No dating in this matter is without risk. “In Anbetracht dieser Umstände ist es ratsam, die Aufmerksamkeit mehr auf die geschichtlichen, gesellschaftlichen und religiösen Hintergründe des Kanonbildung und seines Abschlusses zu wenden als auf unbeweisbare Spekulationen über die genaue Datierung dieser Vorgänge” (Talmon, 1987, 72). A growing number of authors espouse the Dtr current’s later impact up to the closure of the Pentateuch and the Book of the Twelve Prophets. The additions to the Dtr opus draw attention here. All this is part of the general trend to late dating in the literature on the OT. 1360 It can be inferred from the influence that the Dtr opus seems to have had on the later evolution of the OT writings and their canonical process that this opus permanently affected this course of events. The way the Dtr’s contribution took shape is more easily visible in a diachronic study of their work. 1361 Redaction criticism has been booming for some time. For OT studies this appears most clearly in the Prophetic Books and DtrH. 1362 Nevertheless, like all the important elements that constitute the canon and its process, the stabilising factors aimed at the closure of the canon were included in this process (Childs, 1983², 59) but they only become visible when the canon took on its formal shape in the later stages. The canon is even a post-biblical task. The importance of the stages for the history of tradition and for situating the canon process has been amply explained.

579

developments of this process1363, there is the disadvantage that because of the speed of movement, the internal processes can no longer be monitored, leaving all the transitions from stage to stage to be analysed from a distance. This time precedence had to be given to the succession of influential forces and factors1364 that determined the canon process’ direction. These forces – subdivided into the categories law (A), prophetshistory (B) and wisdom (C) – are not the object of the study. Rather, the object is the information they provided about the motion and dynamic of the three main elements that determined the evolution of the canon process1365. These, as we know are the canonical intention, the role of the community and the formal shape.

A. The Legal Traditions in the Canon Concept before 587 BCE The Law Codes: The Oldest Witnesses to the Emerging Canonical Principle The Dtr appear not to have been the inventors of the canonical principle that they used in their redaction around 560-521 BCE. First and foremost they inherited this as an older operative basis of authority used in the codification of the BoC. In its turn, this codification was the end point of a development that had been going on for a long time as the casuistic formulas show. It is difficult to determine whether the Yahwist, apodictic ordinances referring to YHWH’s exclusivity were as old as the casuistic ordinances at the time they were combined. That they were invoked to strengthen the laws’ authority base gives the impression that like all other motivations in the legal texts of the time, they came later than the original occasion that led to the law. Knowing that the traditions centring on the prophets Elijah and Elisha, which go back to the reign of Omri in Israel, directly invoke YHWH’s authority – albeit on behalf of a minority of the population – gives some certainty that YHWH’s authority was increasingly 1363

The canon process does not follow a steadily progressive line. It twists and turns and even reverses. 1364 The themes treated here are: confrontation/conflict/challenging, interaction (7.3.5.4.5), reciprocal relationship (7.3.5.4.2), symbiosis and dialogue. 1365 In the diachronic approach, the movements within the course of tradition and their reciprocal influence served to draw attention to the path that the canonical process followed in tradition history just as the formal shape did in the synchronic approach, especially when explained on the basis of the canonical inspiration.

580

being used, mainly in cultic circles1366, as the basis for the aspired Yahwist society long before 722 BCE. Testimony in legalistic style to YHWH as lawgiver and king stemming from the monarchical period in Israel must be interpreted in this context. This makes the legal traditions the oldest witnesses to a much older Yahwist canonical principle.

The Law Codes: Witnesses to a Multi-stage Ethical Religious Dynamism The legislation in the OT underwent a long evolution, but the codes designated only the most important stages1367. The conclusion of Dt. around the time of the exile is only one milestone on the long path to the final stage in the Mishna and other rabbinical texts. That means that the time between the Israelite monarchy (i.e. before 722 BCE) and Dt. was a period of 300 to 400 years in which the community had to regulate its evolving society with suitably structuring legislation1368. This is an absolute certainty, even when few or no documents from the period have been preserved1369. The community existed, lived and regulated its society, perhaps orally and certainly publicly1370. Only two exceptional times in the interval 722-587 BCE sparked a more systematic codification in BoC and proto-Dt. These two then fused and became the build-up to the legislation 1366

That, in Israel more than Judah, the king is ignored in this appeal to YHWH’s authority in matters concerning society building is striking. Contrary to the situation among the surrounding peoples, YHWH, not the king, is the lawgiver. Israel appears to have had many cultic centres that evinced a Yahwist tendency against syncretism. They were certainly sites where religious experience was given a structured communal shape. 1367 The literature tends to view the various OT legal codes as in succession. The BoC is generally considered the oldest. Yet even the BoC does not escape the prevalent late dating; Van Seters and others situate its codification during the exile. They simply ignore the long evolution of the separate legal codes. 1368 Normally, legislation also provides insight in the current socio-political situation of a given society. The BoC provides a fairly clear picture of a predominantly segmentary and family-based society. 1369 We may not infer from the absence of direct written evidence that there was no public life or judicial practice. The developing reality in Israel attested to in the written traditions that have come down to us existed prior to the commitment of these traditions to writing. The commitment to writing did not alter the underlying reality. The reality may have entered a new stage with an improved shape, but it remained basically the same. 1370 The civil and cultic administration of justice took place in public. This served as public announcement and was more effective at that time than hanging up a notice that few could read.

581

in Dt. The fall of the kingdom of Israel, its consequences for the populations of Israel and Judah and the external pressure from Assyria and Babylon can be linked to these high points of regulatory activity. But these high points are more closely related to the normally and steadily evolving legal practice1371. As always and everywhere else, these expanded in Israel as they were confronted with daily needs arising from internal and external circumstances1372. Beside general religious human reflection, the Israelite community also had a Yahwist source of inspiration that it could use in imitation of the surrounding peoples to resolve internal problems and conflict in their own way. Moved by prophetic dynamism, it provided the expanding legislation1373 with an ethically religious orientation and depth that formed the basis for Israel’s identity as was made explicit in the Dtr constitution.

1371

Legislation, like society, is obviously always in a state of flux. As with many aspects of the faith community’s historical development, the many, now invisible, stages through which the regulation of daily life passed cannot be reconstructed. But the existence of mechanisms to update legislation will certainly have taken the same course in Israel as did legal systems in all other times. These mechanisms are reflected in the systems that the continuation and supplement models evinced in the written texts. It is even more difficult to accept attribution of all this to the scribes and their fictive retrospection than it is to accept attribution of historiography to them. Legislation does not leave much room for creative imagination. It is too dependent on the sociological situation to permit this. 1372 It is said that ‘necessity knows no law’. In reality, necessity requires measures that become laws when an emergency persists. Israel was in this way increasingly compelled to take suitable measures by external and internal issues such as the economic situation, slavery, lex talonis. 1373 The way Israel slowly but surely put its own stamp on casuistic laws governing internal matters is noteworthy. The general human reflection needed to develop legislation was already marked by religion even among the surrounding peoples. Starting from this more orthodox Yahwist current (there were several tendencies within Yahwism) YHWH as canonical principle could proceed in all matters from below and could lay claim to each person in the society. Classical prophets resonated forcefully in this Yahwist dynamic centre and also affected the long-term evolution of legislation. The prophets were not legalists, but they challenged the material evolution of the laws with the ethical and religious zeal that marks Yahwist legislation. The prophets showed in word and deed that this was not merely instruction but an obligatory action plan. That is why Israel’s prophecy was so marked by the living tradition that it created. The penetration of Yahwist dynamism throughout Israelite public life is visible even beyond the cult in the use of terminology and the historicising of traditions and legislation. In this context, everything became an epiphany of the transcendent Yahwist idea. “Die offene Flanke der Transzendenz” (Söding, 2005, 40).

582

The Expansion of Yahwist Legislation: An Eminent Matter for the Community A survey of the long development of the legal codes in Israel teaches that, unlike the code of Hammurabi and the codes of other neighbouring peoples, the Israelite codes were intended to provide the population with structures that satisfied needs when difficulty arose. They share their canonical or obligatory scope with all legislation intended for the preservation and development of society. This practical leaning is particularly evident in the (numerically decreasing) casuistic parts of each codex. They reflect Israel’s socio-political evolution1374 in the period 1000587 BCE. This extended from the more family-oriented and other interpersonal arrangements within a clan or tribe in a segmentary society to those of a broader monarchical society. It is characteristic of Israelite legislation that Yahwist-oriented layers of the population, not the central rulers or king, took the first steps toward expanding legislation governing the population’s socio-political situation. This differed sharply from the situation among the surrounding peoples. That is evident from the increase in Yahwist influence visible in the historical motivation given to the legal texts as well as in their specifically Yahwist, cultic1375 character. The Yahwist elements in the population instigated this Yahwist redirection of legal arrangements from below, often beyond or against the will of the central authority; the growing invocation of YHWH’s authority as lawgiver obliged the central authority to involve the population in the enforcement of legislation. The OT legal codes bear clear traces of this in the increase in apodictic laws1376, which came to outnumber the casuistic, and in the 1374

Obviously this is not accepted when the legal codes are considered merely the redactors’ creations reflecting nothing more than their own period. Van Seters is a known proponent of that view. 1375 Yahwism incorporates particularity throughout the legislation. 1376 Influence from above was greater in Israel than in Judah. All the attention for the human input in the establishment of Israelite legislation may not result in forgetting that the legislation was placed under the absolute authority of YHWH, the lawgiver and canonical principle of the entire endeavour. Given the uniform culture, the administration of justice was already a public, societal matter. First, the public was notified of the law during a public reading. Then, its enforcement could only be carried out with the cooperation of the public (in the case of the lex talonis). This was no less the case for the Yahwist precepts. The oral dialogue in which justice was administered in a civil case by mutual agreement is paradigmatic for all Israelite legislation. This was a collective project gradually achieved within the shifting balance of power (Talmon, 1987, 56-57). The many revisions that the

583

more zealous search for the underlying harmony between the various power factions within a small country like Israel1377. The Dtr reached a preliminary apex when they included this bipartite option in the legislation they recorded in Dt. On one side, they strongly affirmed YHWH’s authority as legislator and designer of Israel’s constitution at a time when the monarchy was a failing institution1378. On the other, they call upon the cooperation of all layers of Israelite population more than formerly to help achieve the daring Yahwist project, to demonstrate convincingly their identity and to take their proper place among the surrounding peoples1379. For either side, it is clear that the primary objective was the welfare of the community and only secondarily that of the individual within the community.

The Legal Traditions’ Formal Input in the Canon Process The legal codes’ commitment to writing, codification and inclusion in the Dtr single narrative that has reached us provide important clues for the state the canon process was in at that time. However, restricting their importance to this late stage would distort the clues provided in the shape Dtr opus and prophetic books underwent in later times (7.3.5) demonstrate the same dialogical development within Israelite society as was shown in the legal texts and their offshoots. The decrease in casuistic prescriptions has to do with the public’s increased familiarity with them (Talmon, 1987, 57). 1377 The succession of legal codes indirectly shows the many categories of persons and institutions active in Israel’s small community between 1000 and 587 BCE. Israel’s small size and relative powerlessness obliged it to undertake intense internal dialogue. 1378 Experience with many failing kings brought Dtr to a gradual separation from, but not to a complete rejection of, the monarchy as institution as represented by the law of the king in Dt. The varied perceptions of the monarchy within the Dtr current brings some authors to intensify the disagreements within the Dtr tendency to the point where they, like Van Seters, are even excluded from the Dtr (De Pury-Römer, 1989, 53-54, 105-108). 1379 This shows how the community dimension ultimately determined the place of the individual within the law. The more exceptional and exclusive Israel’s place was, the greater the danger for apostasy and syncretism within Israel and the greater the distance to the external world. Although the Dtr display a utopian predilection, we may not conclude that their project was not practical. Rather, driven by the Yahwist spirit, they set a new course toward the future; for the time being this future was unattainable, yet it was thought certain even when it should take an unplanned shape. They shifted the fulfilment of prophecy, the act of prophecy and all other elements in tradition (including the law) into the past to keep this picture of the future firmly attached to reality. Nonetheless, they continue to trust YHWH, who could work in unsuspected ways. This amounts to loyalty to a immutable fact (continuity) while leaving room for a discontinuity within this continuity.

584

given to the legal texts1380. Above all the individual stipulations brought together in the codes witness to a lengthy development prior to their collection. They show clearly that their older, popular and obviously oral origin must be taken into account1381. The development of these old rules did not result from scholarly activity, but were the local community’s answer to its own needs even in the slow transition from segmentary society to monarchy. It was a sociological sign of a community gaining structure. Israel, as small country, was obliged to borrow much of its legal material from its neighbours. This did not prevent Israel from maintaining and affirming its distinctive character. The codes’ Yahwist orientation provides the most conclusive evidence of this. They seem to have made their entry early on and to have permeated all legislation gradually under the influence of the Yahwist circles that had circumvented the central rulers. Commitment to writing, codification and collection of the lager codes in the Dtr single narrative without rescinding the prior evolution and meaning of the individual prescriptions was an important step forward in a canon process that had begun much earlier1382. The implications and meaning of this new stage in the canon process cannot be understood apart from its history. It is an important, but incomplete, enrichment. The BoC, proto-Dt. and Dt. are three successive stages, each of which appears to have its own value and meaning within one canon process. Without this the Dtr redactors would not have let each retain its own character while allowing them to influence and complement or even overlap one another. The literature tends to shift this three-stage evolution to a later, even postexilic, period. Yet it is difficult to ignore the pre-exilic experience that they 1380

We should be aware that the texts are often only the superstructure built on the overlooked substructure (7.3.5.4.7²). 1381 The popular and communal dimensions were expressed in public rule of law and cultic usage. 1382 Here as elsewhere (e.g. in prophecy) oral tradition should not be placed in dialectically contradiction with commitment of the legal texts to writing and with their codification. These are different stages of the same process or message. Each has its own character and role; the one does not abrogate or replace the other. They support one another, side by side, are complementary and in that sense cannot be replaced or interchanged. The substructure supports and inspires the superstructure. The superstructure extends and updates the substructure. There is no reason to subordinate the one to the other. “Verschränkung von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit” (Hübner, 2003, 10). Douglas-Klotz (1999) demonstrated this by linking classical Midrash based on oral tradition with the range of potential interpretations offered by postmodern hermeneutics of indeterminacy.

585

all evince. That their casuistic shape gradually decreased as the Yahwist apodictic shape expanded seems to indicate that the Dtr redactors no longer had a clear view of society to be built in the future1383. They could apparently only recommend to Israel a limited number of casuistic measures and institutions that had demonstrated their usefulness in the past. These served only as starting point for further elaboration of the codes within a broad ethical-apodictic framework used to express their strict Yahwist orientation1384. The development of additional practical measures would be the task of the many later generations and will ultimately produce the rabbinic writings.

B. Prophecy’s Input in the Canon Process up to Approx. 521 BCE Innovators and Driving Forces of a Canon-Oriented Yahwism In its lengthy and complex evolution, the many types of Israelite prophecy led the way in the emergent orthodoxy and canon-oriented Yahwism1385. Further, as it testifies, it sought its inspiration1386 in direct contacts with YHWH. On this basis the prophets all thought they were spokespersons of 1383

Dtr appears to be increasingly distrustful of the monarchy, but also seems to have had difficulty finding an alternative. Israel changed from a monarchy to a dispersed people. It was impossible to draft a constitution in that situation. The Dtr legislation often displayed a utopian character because Dtr, like the prophets, was too separated from reality to provide a clear and workable project. It remained a Yahwist blueprint with ethical/homiletic preaching. This does not mean that the intent of this legislation was not practical. 1384 Creativity was taken into account, but only within the boundaries of the canonical principle, YHWH. This is tantamount to a restricted discontinuity within an overarching continuity. The ethical/apodictic framework was orientational and obligatory. It was an application of the canonical principle YHWH. 1385 Prophecy was at work early in Israel, usually influenced by the surrounding peoples (7.3.2). Like the Dtr, prophecy did not appear from nowhere. It followed closely in the footsteps of the Torah tradition with which its challenging role kept it in tense dialogue (7.3.4). Not only is its relationship to the Torah tradition complex, its evolution in its own circles is equally intricate. Think of the uncertain relationship between true and false prophecy and the diverse relationships within classical prophecy. Orientation toward, or the intention to create, a canon (at YHWH’s initiative) is the first important element in the canon process because this initiates and maintains its movement. 1386 It is not surprising that later the notion of inspiration was associated first and foremost with prophecy because of the prophets’ prior inspiration (Talmon, 1987, 58). That is one reason why the theology of the divine message became strongly developed in the prophetic current.

586

YHWH and could even contradict the Torah traditions and the established social structures1387 when needed. The personally experienced relationship with YHWH aroused in the prophets an exceptional dynamism that resonated in their public appearances1388 in public events and later in a vibrant tradition unknown to the surrounding peoples1389. Because of the weight given to their charismatic starting point1390, their impact on the integration of the orthodox Yahwism they preached in society remained limited to the Dtr’s activity. They attained this mainly by adding what was missing to the written record of the prophets’ work and to their own prophetic opus. This was a more gradual and efficient transfer to a broader public of the renewing prophetic insights1391 on the relationship between 1387

7.3.4. The conservative priests were the spokespersons of the Torah traditions and the prophets’ counterparts. Amos’ experience in Bethel typifies this. The monarchy and the cult frequently crossed paths with the prophets. 1388 The prophets’ dynamic was more intense that that of the Dtr (the Dtr no longer used the 1st pers. sing). Dtr moved toward the canon process and canonisation because they were exemplary in the use of YHWH as canonical norm for their acting and thinking. In this way, they, too, participated in YHWH’s authority and exercised authority as charismatic figures. The prophets stood face to face with their public wherever it gathered and lived. They were in dialogue with everyone. 1389 Israelite prophecy had much in common with its counterpart in the surrounding world, with which it shared common roots. Yet, like the legal traditions, it moved in a characteristically Yahwist direction where it was marked by a lively and long-standing oral and written tradition. Written prophecy is no less prophetic than oral prophecy, but it has its own character and task. That the original prophets’ words and deeds persisted as dynamic object throughout the long tradition is striking. That is why later redactors invoke their inspiration, however much of their own prophetic input and creativity they may have contributed (without, of course, wanting to take the prophets’ place). They are extensions of one another. They are different stages of prophecy, each with its own purpose. 1390 The intensity of divine experience was much stronger than with Dtr as is evident from the impact of the holy on their way of living and thinking. 1391 7.3.5.4. Dtr remained dependent on prophecy’s dynamism. Dtr had its own prophetic views that they did not express outwardly or substitute for classical prophecy. The Dtr put their own distinctively prophetic views into practice in the place they assigned the prophetic texts in their opus (7.3.5.3.6-7.3.5.3.7) in giving the Torah a prophetic colour and in their redactional addition to the prophetic writings (7.3.5.4). Because of stamina derived from YHWH and oriented to current events, the prophetic interventions in the Torah tradition worked intermittently and briefly. Dtr provided the long-term persistence. The renewing and challenging insights (e.g. in ethics) are never fully exhausted, because they were based on the transcendent. They became material for new interpretation and updating. That is why the essence of prophecy never ends, even though it and the prophets were linked to a now closed historical period. That is the permanent discontinuity that gained acceptance as mechanism in the canon process and which Dtr formally shaped with the closure of the

587

YHWH and Israel. First they used preceding oral tradition to design an additional fixed written framework1392 within which the fertile tension between Torah and prophecy and between continuity and discontinuity within the Yahwist tradition could be preserved permanently for the future.

Prophecy’s Awkward Relationship with the Israelite Community The prophets’ public acts clearly showed that helping to build the Yahwist canon process in Israel is also to participate in building up the community and its structures and even to determine its identity. They showed this first by directing their Yahwist dynamic to the entire people1393 rather than restricting it to their own lives and thinking. Individual counselling was only marginal. It is hardly accidental that the prophets appear in public places where the population gathers and where its fate is determined. The cultic centres, where the people confessed and practised its faith in community, obviously became hubs of their activity. They served as model for the continuing problematic relationship between the prophets and the Israelite community. The Dtr and other redactors submitted the paths that the prophets followed to reach the people to a thorough revision and

canon in mind; among the ways they did so was by retrojecting prophecy and the entire Torah and Moses tradition into the past and by slowing the march of history. 1392 The oral tradition was both support and precondition for the rise and continuance of the literary tradition. “Ausschlaggebend war die ununterbrochene mündliche und/oder schriftliche Tradierung jener Schriften über Jahrhunderte hinweg in Kreisen und Gruppen, in denen sie besonderen Anklang fanden. Alle anderen literarischen Erzeugnisse … deren Weiterbestand nicht durch kontinuierliche Tradierung gesichert war, verschwanden im Laufe der Zeit” (Talmon, 1987, 56). The fixity and immutable character of the written tradition is an option for Dtr, but had not become absolute. Continuity, by contrast, is unfolding. 1393 Evidence of their addressing all of Israel is not limited to their public appearance without regard for the population’s diversity. It is mainly clear from the mindset with which it condemns the entire population as sinful (doomed). This comprehensive canonising vision is further apparent in the prophecies that condemn the whole people for obstinacy. Their conflict with the people reaches further than the contention with dissident intellectuals and their public that considered them to be anti-society. They held the people answerable before the canonising, or binding, implications for everyone within the whole. Even though they were not legalists, the prophets aimed at the same canonising effects as the designers of the Torah legislation when they tried to persuade Israel to accept the idea of covenant and its ethical and other obligations. The only difference was the way and intensity with which they went about their canonical task.

588

perfected them theologically and stylistically1394. With their additional efforts for canonical Yahwism they stressed that the canon process was impossible without the participation and cooperation of the entire community. Their efforts in the prophets’ wake as part of the faith community were not sufficient, even though their role in the community was far from negligible1395. The importance of the entire community’s cooperation for the success of the canon project became immediately apparent when the prophets saw the population refuse to cooperate. The canonical operation clearly stood or fell with the people’s consent. The prophets preferred to pay with their lives rather than accept the people’s rejection or obduracy1396 and thus abandon the canonical project. The Dtr and redactors of the prophetic writings are marked by the same community-oriented canonical disposition in the notably sustained efforts and the exceptional skilfulness with which they seek to salvage the canonical operation. They wanted to bring it to a favourable conclusion by using all possible means to acquire the greatest possible support base for 1394

After encountering resistance, some prophets even turned to writing to reach a broader public. Their search for legitimation and use of poetry and many other devices show that the prophets left no stone unturned in their effort to reach the broadest possible public. They did what they could to remain among the people, going where the people gathered to do their work, whatever fate may meet them. The Dtr redactors mainly converted the prophet’s disjointed and other-worldly activity, which only encouraged misunderstanding and incomprehension into a more uniform pattern and comprehensible transfer of the prophetic message (Hosea has already started on this with his notion of successio prophetica). Hence the importance of the interactive relation between the prophets and their redactors. The two appear complementary, irreplaceable and non-interchangeable. 1395 Since Carroll’s time, insight has grown on the difficult but creditworthy path that written prophecy traversed. This is very important for understanding the canon process – especially the complications it encountered and the time that it needed to get the hardly compliant Israelites to accept what the prophets had so smoothly programmed – that this has come to determine their identity. That provides a very realistic picture of the canon process and of its need, after its slow start, to provide fixed modalities to ensure its permanent evolution. Even if the scribes and redactors and the prophets that preceded them played an important role in the development of the canon process, they still needed the community’s cooperation. As elite they were an eminent part of the community but not to such an extent that they could take on the role of the whole community that was needed for canonisation. 1396 “Der Prozeß verlief nach dem Muster ‘challenge and response’“ (Talmon, 1987, 51). The idea of prophetic co-responsibility in achieving salvation (Gen. 18:16-19) is aimed at the cooperation of all Israelites, not just the prophets. The obstinacy theme becomes a constant as the prophets’ problematic relationship and disputes with their public reached a stalemate.

589

what they considered the required Yahwist hermeneutic and practice for the Israelite people.

The Formal Confirmation of Prophecy’s Dynamic Orientation toward the Canon Thanks to the prophecy committed to writing, its dynamic canon-oriented intention and its repercussions in the Israelite community have come down to us in an outwardly limited but sufficient way to give us an overall but essential picture its evolution during its oldest, pre-exilic stage. That is why the present study had to confront the dogma that wanted to concentrate fully and exclusively on the meaning and scope of the texts (such as the Dtr opus and the prophetic books) in the period when they were committed to writing with the evidence of earlier periods that these texts unmistakably contain. One of the starting points was that no one in the literature dared to ignore that the prophets’ preaching, which took place largely before the exile, lay at the basis of what is now present in the written tradition that has been handed down1397. Authors often consistently refuse to draw logical conclusions from this link between the prophets’ original preaching and its written deposit. According to the continuation and supplement models1398, the prophetic books seem to have come into being over a period of time, with some effort and over many stages during and after the exile. They and the mechanisms they developed point to a lengthy process of reflection that was not directed exclusively toward updating the written Torah traditions that Israel’s situation required. These mechanisms also showed how an oral, prophetically inspired tradition1399, 1397

No one denies the possible transmission of the prophets’ ipsissima verba. But the difficulty in recognising them and the rarity of their reconstruction is stressed. The prophets are treated similarly. No one doubts that they existed. But the biographical and historical reminiscences in the texts are considered unreliable. Given this, authors, often incorrectly, believed they were excused from further study of the matter. 1398 In biblical times, they were the run-up to a broader history of the reception and operation situated mainly in the post-biblical period. 1399 The Dtr’s second Torah marked an overall and thorough updating of the Torah and showed the Dtr’s willingness to accept later updates on the condition that they remained within the framework that they had outlined. Prophecy is never isolated. It was always in communication with the Torah tradition toward which it exercised its challenging role via the dialogue between Dtr and prophecy. This occurred mainly in oral discourse between the prophets and priests, the proponents of the established Torah. It thus makes little sense to stress that the Torah and Nebiim were committed to writing at different times. The

590

which long predated the exile, guided and stimulated the creation of these written prophetic traditions. That happened on the basis of profound experience with the events that took place within the Israelite faith community when the prophets abruptly unleashed their shocking preaching on the people. When these were updated during the various stages, the Dtr redactors did not omit frequent references to the prophets’ original dynamic preaching, from which they drew in their own prophetic work. The references to the prophets’ words and deeds – under the guise of residue from the original prophet’s preaching (placed in a now dim but real historical and sociological context1400) – provided later redactors with evidence for the credibility of their own witness to the origin of their prophetic inspiration. They showed clearly that in all their efforts to impose some uniformity on classical prophecy, they wanted the original diversity1401 to be canonised. Then, when they updated the material, they stressed their desire to maintain the continuity with the prophets’ insights regarding YHWH as highest authority and his affinity with Israel1402. This inveterate mechanism of their permanent reciprocal relationship is no longer influenced by the difference in the time of their codification. 1400 Studies have shown the rich diversity of forms of speech. Many think that poetry, frequent in the prophetic books, belongs to the oldest stage of prophetic activity. The importance of describing the prophets’ deeds is not restricted to the older prophets like Elijah and Elisha, who left no written texts but whose influence was felt as was that of many now unknown prophets. That explains the importance of prophetic legends. Symbolic actions continue to play an important role even in later classical prophecy. Whether or not they are a product of the redactors’ creativity, they rely essentially on prophecy: the practical witness to YHWH’s reliability and his message as basis of the prophets’ and their redactors’ authority. All by all, we can posit that whether or not they were transmitted in the original form, the prophets’ words can be found in the prophetic writings. Their deeds have been incorporated in the Dtr’s own opus, esp. in the context of a prophetic historiography. Dtr’s attempt to revise the prophetic writings may, perhaps, reveal the core of their prophetic silence. They must have considered the prophets’ words and deeds complementary. The prophetic writings indicate more than any other the broad sociological context of their genesis. 1401 Here they differ from the Dtr, who prefer to remain anonymous. Yet the Dtr respect the different mindsets of the individual prophets and retain their diversity within this unity. This is another important mechanism in the formation of the canon. 1402 Another important mechanism in the pursuit of the canon is the discontinuity within the continuity. It is a consequence of the canon process’ historical contingency (6.5.5). As historical event occurring amid a group of people, the canon is subjected to the general law of inevitable susceptibility to change in his development. “Man is a history making creature who can neither repeat the past nor leave it behind” (according to: W.H. Auden, cited in Deist, 1993, 384). The root of the link between continuity and discontinuity lies in the fact that people make history. Human action gives rise to and determines history. “The world of

591

implied a permanent and simultaneous interplay between the prophetic heritage and the Torah traditions to which the challenging role was grafted and with which they continued in ceaseless dialogue1403. This was definitively confirmed by the final redactors of Dt. and Malachi1404 and ultimately by the twofold and nearly simultaneous canonisation of the Torah and Nebiim.

C. Wisdom’s Role in the Oldest Stage of the Canon Process Wisdom as Servant and Nurturer of the Canonical Principle How Israel came to incorporate YHWH as canonical principle and guideline for thought and behaviour in its hermeneutic1405 is a matter of guesswork. As was the case with its origin, Israel left ill defined in its OT texts the time and manner in which it began to feel different from the surroundings peoples by being bound to one invisible God, YHWH. The oldest sources that allude to this are scattered and offer little by way of conclusive answer regarding the historical course of events. They all agree on one point: they are convinced that YHWH made himself known to them. He had to exercise his might on Israel’s behalf on many occasions1406. They insisted that YHWH overwhelmed them, overpowered them1407. They certainly did not invent him. At the same time that they stated this, they put into words what at first but few experienced but what later spread to, and became the conviction of, the broader community; they told of how civil society has certainly been made by men, and its principles are therefore to be found within the modifications of our own human mind” (according to: G. Vico, cited in Deist, 1993, 385). 1403 One result of this dialogue is the prophetic shading of the Torah traditions. The canon process as a whole can be seen as a dialogue within the community of Israel (Sanders, 2001). It is not surprising that some people consider biblical theology a dialogue (Claassens, 2003). 1404 Blenkinsopp (1977, 80-95) and Chapman (2000, 113-149) have drawn attention to this. 1405 Earlier in this study we saw that the biblical authors’ and biblical scholars’ hermeneutics played a decisive role in canon research. It is ultimately grounded in the free and conscious choice (2.2.B; Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 154) of the community and the individuals that comprise it. 1406 Ex. 15:6,12; Is. 5:26-30; 7-20. 1407 Jer. 20:7. The prophets’ call narratives are a reflection on YHWH’s acting in their lives and work but they are also a paradigm of the election of all Israel. This is evident in songs on the servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah.

592

this was shaped and moulded and spoken of at religious gatherings. Seen from this perspective, matters become clear. It was presumed that YHWH took the initiative as was described in the account of the events. After that, Israel’s cooperation was needed to give this a hermeneutical interpretation. Personal reflection and communal communication1408 was added to this later. This must have been the early start of wisdom’s Yahwist career. The different versions and aggregates in which this Yahwism circulated and took root confirm this. Yahwist wisdom proved indispensable for a religious reflection on the a priori fact (YHWH as dogmatic canonical principle). Of course, popular wisdom, widespread among surrounding peoples, long overshadowed it in primitive Israel. This could not continue. Emerging Yahwism would encounter a lack of theology and suitable instruction. Even though they were charismatic figures filled with a priori fact of YHWH, the classical prophets felt obligated to communicate their experiences to the public by reorienting received traditions. Mainly as the result of conflicts, the deposit of their preaching includes many wisdom elements1409. Wisdom’s input in Yahwism reached a provisional apex with the Dtr. Unlike the prophets, they did not speak of a personal experience of the absolutely sovereign canonical principle YHWH. They referred to him all the more in their extensive reflections on history. From this they identified a Torah that was frankly qualified as a product of wisdom unlike any other, even though it was presented as coming from YHWH. This shows clearly that this Torah (assured as originating from a transcendent YHWH) did not essentially arise from, but was assisted by, human hermeneutics and reflection. YHWH entered the world in his Torah only thanks to ancillary1410 Yahwist wisdom. Israel thus developed its own Yahwist interpretation that set it apart from the rest of its world. 1408

We believe that wisdom started to influence the hermeneutics of authoritative religious tradition in Israel at this early stage and thus agree with the statement that wisdom was a hermeneutical construct (Sheppard, 1980, 116-119). This means that wisdom definitely gave the Torah and prophets its own hermeneutical orientation. Religious communication took place in the permanent dialogue among the various layers of Israelite society long before the 2nd century BCE (Venter, 2002). The cult and the accepted traditions played a central role in the religious dialogue canonised in the Scriptures (Fischer, 2004, 803). 1409 “… das Problem der prophetische Konflikte des 7. Jh. v. Chr. im Kontext eines geistigen Durchbruch(s), der die Reflexionsfähigkeit im Hinblick auf das Selbstverständnis des Menschen und seines Verhältnisses zu Gott steigerte”, according to: S. Herrmann (Lange, 2002, 25). 1410 It was not subjugated to, rather it served, Torah instruction using its own talents and the prophets did using theirs. The prophets, too, had to rely on reason.

593

Wisdom in Service of the Ancient Israelite Yahwist Community While wisdom’s reflection could only work a posteriori on the hermeneutic Israel used to develop the canonical principle, it did get more direct opportunities when the community’s insight in this principle grew. This happened when this increasingly demanding canonical principle was introduced into the people’s lives. This inevitably led to problems1411, because this was an action plan with all of Israel as stake. All levels of society had to be oriented and structured in accordance with this specific Yahwist interpretation. More was needed to build society than the normal wisdom, laws and institutions that the surrounding peoples had. In Israel’s case, all this also had to fit within its typical Yahwist hermeneutic. This was much more ethically demanding because the exceptional hermeneutical view of YHWH was used as a yardstick. Moreover, in making the transition from a differentiated family and segmentary tribal society to a monarchy, ancient Israel had to lean heavily for support on the mythical inspiration that rose from a Yahwist minority while it was increasingly hard pressed by greater powers1412. Under these straitened circumstances, the Yahwist movement, imitating the prophets, could not afford to await better times but had to withdraw with its Yahwist canonical principle1413. Of course, these Yahwist insights were intended for the entire people. The driving forces of the orthodox Yahwist movement needed reflection and a sage approach to bring their demanding ideal to the elite and the establishment as well as to all of Israelite society where they sought to mobilise all layers for the Yahwist canonical principle. Just consider the thinking, practical meetings and sense of community1414 that 1411

The conquest of syncretism and the achievement of cultic centralisation alone were enterprises that could never be completed. Recent history of religion has used Israel’s syncretistic past to highlight this. 1412 The tribal chiefs appear to have still played an important role during the exile, in Ezekiel’s lifetime. The external threat should be evaluated in conjunction with its internal, syncretic effect and the risk it posed of religious disaffection. 1413 The classical prophets were obliged to withdraw to reflect among like-minded people for a while but only to seek a suitable means (such as the use of writing) to reach the entire people. The nature of their prophetic message (the Yahwist canonical principle aimed at all Israel) was at stake. That is why they felt obligated to view the entire population objectively. 1414 Wisdom served here as connective tissue or cement that united all layers of the population under Yahwism. This proved useful to the Dtr. It had a proper attitude toward

594

this required to present credibly the Torah canon (‫ )ספר התורה‬on YHWH’s behalf to the broad Israelite community and to get it accepted so that it would determine the people’s identity. The Dtr thoroughly revised the Torah canon and presented it with Moses’ mediation (‫ )ספר משה‬as a second canon complete with all its institutions and covenant laws (‫ )ספר הברית‬as an action plan to guide the entire life of the community and the individuals in it. None of this resulted from a sudden flash nor was it restricted to the exilic and post-exilic periods. Wisdom worked long and hard on this. It was able to demonstrate its socio-political sustainability by allowing an otherwise insignificant people to survive in a hostile world because of its loyalty to the Yahwist hermeneutic. Israel was thus able to sense the truth of the Dtr’s assertion that this wisdom was something that would astonish the world. With some tardiness, the wisdom in the Chetubim canonised and recognised as indispensably and inseparably linked with the Torah and Nebiim1415.

Yahwist Wisdom and its Role in Shaping the Canon Process Prior to the Exile As small country forced to focus almost permanently on primary needs of a household economy1416, ancient Israel was not in a sufficiently comfortable position to spend much time on a luxury occupation like culture. For such things, Israel was dependent on whatever meagre resources it could borrow from its neighbours. Under such conditions, giving shape to material culture was not the first thing that occurred to authority to achieve community-wide projects such as the centralisation and purification of the cult and persuading people to accept obediently what YHWH (the canonical principle) imposed on his people through the canon. 1415 As with the Torah and Nebiim, the later completion of the Chetubim should not be directly included when evaluating the canon. From the very start, wisdom’s purpose was to serve the Torah and Nebiim to which it joined its input consonantly and inseparably. 1416 There is much (such as the idea of God as lord of the mountain found in the Hosea tradition [Hartenstein, 2003, 7-10]) that shows that Israel, as a people at least part of which came from Egypt (Lemche, 1996b, 52-68; Becking-Dijkstra, 1998, 80-82; Brett, 2003), was compelled establish itself in the promised land as a means of survival. Studies show that this was an influx from less tillable areas to those more suitable for farming (Whitelam, 1986; idem, 194; Dever, 1987; Otto, 2003, 1-3; Gottwald, 1993, 171-177; idem, 1997, 1718; Finkelstein, 1995; Lemche, 1996b, 18-19). The claim that all of Israel came from Egypt seems to rest on Israel’s socio-economic and political circumstances in the past (Gottwald, 1997, 24-26).

595

those who began introducing image-free Yahwism1417 into Israel’s religious life. They would only reach that point after the Yahwist inspiration would move them to develop a culture because of the efficiency1418 to which this could lead was desirable or even necessary. Ultimately, after they became convinced of its importance for promoting the Yahwist cause, they still achieved relatively1419 remarkable, albeit late, results, mainly by committing their traditions to writing. These traditions were the result of the extensive and differentiated oral skills that time and practice had developed in popular culture1420. One example of this is the book of Proverbs1421. Another is the narrative art exercised in Israel. It shows how wise living, in family and local circles and later higher up, gradually took on a Yahwist orientation. This includes the popular customs that were raised to a Yahwist ethical level and given a fixed legal form in a shape borrowed from the surrounding peoples1422. The priests gradually gathered people’s primitive religious expressions, which could initially be expressed anywhere, into the numerous local cultic centres where they became instruction in the Torah and were cultivated as part of the 1417

Scholars today correctly cite the paucity of remains from the Davidic and Solomonic periods, and the rare indication of writing in ancient Israel (Davies P.R.-Fritz, 1996, 11-21). This does point to very late cultural development, certainly among the common people. However, this does not hinder accepting that a primitive people could have developed a view of life and could have shaped it using orthodox Yahwism as religious hermeneutic. However, signs of this would usually be revealed in oral tradition. There is a range of opinions on the origin of this aniconism (Hartenstein, 2003, 22). It seems to have arisen primarily in the later period (Van der Toorn, 1998, 19-25). 1418 Israelite wisdom’s practical orientation and that of the whole OT tradition was a decisive factor in shaping culture. 1419 This relative value is more frequently the result of a judicious application of the comparative method to historiography, wisdom and even the formation of the canon (Conclusions 1 and 2). 1420 Historiography contained many narrative forms with different functions that were not necessarily presented side-by-side. The same was true of wisdom. The different forms are what make it so difficult to define wisdom. The period was long enough for the canon process and its dynamic to develop. “We must also bear in mind that the ancient Hebrew culture, despite its literacy, was still fundamentally oral in many of its habits and attitudes. This residual orality affected rhetorical practices” (Lenchak, 1993, 75-76). 1421 Whether these proverbs were committed to writing during Hezekiah’s day, as 1 Sam. 10:25 suggests is uncertain. However, their content reaches far back into the life of the people. 1422 The redactors’ of the BoC (7.2.1.2) and Dt. (7.2.2-7.3.5.2) worked deliberately and prudently in selecting and shaping.

596

community’s culture1423. It is no wonder that the prophets soon bypassed the royal court and went straight to these centres to reach their public. That is when the need for efficiency gave writing its special role1424. The few remnants of prophetic preaching found in the scriptures witness to the varied spoken and poetic shape1425 used in this preaching. Later, when the Dtr turned to use prophetic Yahwism’s religious and cultural heritage, they faced a major task. In their pre-exilic work on their opus, they used prophetic inspiration and above all historical storytelling1426 to achieve their didactic goal, preserving the latter for posterity. They incorporated these into the Torah tradition they inherited and used it to draft their Torah constitution. Despite its utopian and time-bound character1427, it seems to have abiding meaning for Israel and all Bible-oriented communities. This efficiency in service of the Yahwist tradition, rather than its cultural level1428, was of decisive importance. In reviewing the shape that Yahwist wisdom gave to its authoritative religious traditions, we are struck by the degree to which it was governed by Yahwist hermeneutic. The entire outward shape was subordinated to this, drastically so1429 where necessary. This is the result of an attitude shared by many priests, prophets and redactors. They each contributed1430 to the progress of the canon process with YHWH’s authority as its principle.

1423

The memorial culture played an important role in this. Some classical prophets may have provided the first written version of their books. 1425 Being a late entrant to cultural activity, Israel was largely dependent on borrowings from its neighbours, as Psalms shows. 1426 History was seen mainly as a means to teach a way of living and to pass on wisdom. 1427 This utopian perspective prevented Dtr from developing a clear view of the future, but did not prevent them from being time-bound (6.6.5). 1428 This practical orientation directed the movement of the entire tradition in the direction of the canon. The growing canonical dimension, its mechanisms and its lines of force exemplify this purposefulness. The biblical writings’ main purpose is not to serve as artefacts nor is it even to act as carriers of theological ideas. “… ancient Israel did not cultivate aesthetics per se” (Trible, 1994, 26). 1429 Think of the prohibition against idols and the measures against syncretism and the resulting purification of Israel’s own literary heritage. Ultimately, this Yahwist hermeneutic proves to be the selection principle applied to the entire OT. The rather humble place give to the wisdom influence is not a proportionate measure of its service to the canonical process. 1430 “Die jüdische Bibel ist aus der ganzen Breite eines Volkslebens und in der ganzen breite einer Nationalliteratur erwachsen”, according to: F. Rozenzweig, cited in Talmon, 1987, 59. 1424

597 EPILOGUE

Now the two images of the canon process that have been produced using the synchronic (Conclusion 8) and diachronic (Conclusion 9) approaches should be merged to form a single whole. They are two pictures of one reality, the canon process. When taken together, the two perspectives cannot but present an overcrowded picture. Even apart, each had so much to offer. The overcrowded character of the resulting view of the canon event during the oldest period of the OT, obliges us to approach it canonically1431. This is tantamount to regarding it, as one would a painting, by viewing the exuberant supply of imagery from afar and reflecting on it to distil its essence. We can thus tentatively distinguish a few guiding themes within the profusion of images and draw them to the fore. The first guiding theme arose primarily from the movement of the canon process from the past to the future. Spurred by the Yahwist canonical principle, which kept the canon process in Israel going with its dynamism, the view of the past wasted away. It was reduced to the essential elements that arose from the events and sources. On the other hand, the running narrative proceeds at a slower pace as presage of its unavoidable closure. It’s design is to have each update of the canon, that each new interpretation of its Yahwist tradition required, take as its starting point the essence of the facts that had been given shape in the canon. This is the guiding theme of the canonical discontinuity in the continuity, both of which remain in a permanent state of tension. The second guiding theme is found in the breadth and depth of the canon process. It is the line drawn from the Yahwist mystery to the Israelite faith community. This divine mysterious initiative despite its diversity and surprising evolution was perceived as a whole and stable fact within this faith community. It descended onto the faith community as a penetrating summons to which it had to answer with all its being if it were to become what it was called to be. Because this constituted its entire existence and 1431

This is what Mink (see Deist, 1993, 391) calls a synoptic judgment. This implies that “The historian expresses his judgment in an ‘appropriate conception’ – that is by formulating a catch-phrase that may serve as a point of coherence among the facts ... The historian’s narrative thus constructs a logic for that particular situation and assigns appropriate functions to the facts” (Deist, 1993, ibid.).

598

identity, there also arose an intense and continuous tension between the numinous element YHWH and the Israelite faith community affiliated with him. The tension developed primarily via the Torah and prophecy, which had in their turn had existed in a tense relationship since the earliest days. In addition, the primary emphasis in the balance of power lay with YHWH, the foundation of all authority, while Israel tried to adopt an obedient and practical stance toward that urgent summons with the help of sage reflection on the Torah and prophecy within the cult and public institutions. This is provisionally the end of the story of the canon process in the oldest stage of the OT. Provisionally, because of course it is incomplete and the rest of the story remains to be told. Before starting on this, it is advisable to reflect on the question whether the story of the canon process, as described here, is satisfactory. As with every story, its power of persuasion must consist in the proper place of each of its elements and the role they play in proportion to their actual meanings so that the whole can be considered credible1432. It is for the reader to test this, no using only one or other passage, but the sum of the whole.

1432

“Because it is only the historical in its entirety that explicates and motivates the configurational coherence assigned to the facts … a historical treatise unlike a scientific article (but very much like a novel) has no ‘conclusion’ that may be detached from the narrative and published in the form of a generalization or a law. The narrative is the conclusion”. (Deist, 1993, 392). “Es geht darum, die Dinge aufgrund der im Text selbst geknüpften Fäden und der im Rezeptionsvorgang konstruierten Verbindungen so aufeinander zu beziehen, daß irgendwie alles mit allem zusammenhängt” (Schwienhorst-Schönberger, 2001, 73). Few are they who can assign all the details to their proper place in a large whole.

599

Bibliography

Only the works cited – as opposed to those consulted but not named – are mentioned in the notes either with an abbreviated title or with their year of publication. The following lists these authors alphabetically with fuller information on the titles. AALDERS G.J.D., ‘De hellenistische wereld’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. e.a. (eds.), Bijbels Handboek, II b, Kampen 1983, 90-116. AALDERS G.L., Oud-Testamentische Kanoniek, Kampen 1952. ABADIE Ph., Bible et Royauté (Cahiers Évangile, 83), Paris 1993. ABICHT L., ‘De dialoog tussen joodse en christelijke Vlamingen’, Kl 57 (1990), 6-14. ABRAHAM W.J., Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism, Oxford 1998. ACHENBACH R., ‘Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung’, ZAR 11 (2005), 122-154. ACHTEMEIER P., - The Inspiration of Scripture, Philadelphia 1980. - ‘An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts and the Early Church’, CBQ 48 (1986), 1-25. ACKROYD P.R., - Exile and Restoration, London 19763. - ‘Original Text and Canonical Text’, USQR 32 (1977), 166-173. - ‘Isaiah I-XII: Presentation of a prophet’, in: Emerton J.A. e.a. (eds.), Congress volume Göttingen 1977 (SVT, 29), Leiden 1978, 16-48. - Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible, Old Testament, 4), Oxford 19792. - ‘Continuité et Discontinuité, Réhabilitation et Validation’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 225-244. - Studies in the religious traditions of the Old Testament, London 1987. - The Chronicler in his Age (JSOT SS, 101), Sheffield 1991. ADAIR J.R., ‘Light from below: Canonical and Theological Implications of Textual Criticism’, OTE 11 (1998), 9-23. ADLER W., ‘The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 211-228. ADRIAANSE H.J., ‘Canonicity and the Problem of the Golden Mean’, in: van der Kooij A.Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 313-330. AHLSTRÖM G.W., Who were the Israelites?, Winona Lake 1986. AICHELE G., The Control of Biblical Meaning: Canon as Semiotic Mechanism, Harrisburg 2001. AKAO J.O., ‘In Search of the Origin of the Deuteronomistic Movement’, IBS 16 (1994), 174-189.

600 ALAND K., - ‘Das Problem des neutestamentlichen Kanons’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 134-158. - ‘Ein neuer Textus Receptus für das Griechische Neue Testament?’, NTS 28 (1982), 145146. ALBERIGO G., ‘Geschiedenis en Theologie: Een open uitdaging’, Conc 19 (1983), 90-97. ALBERTZ R., - Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon (Calwe Theologische Monographien, 9), Stuttgart 1978. - ‘Die Intentionen und die Träger des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks’, in: idemGolka F.-Kegler J. (eds.), Schöpfung und Befreiung: Für Claus Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1989, 37-53. - Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. 1: Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende der Königszeit Von Exil bis zu den Makkabäern (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament: Das Alte Testament Deutsch, 8, 1-2), Göttingen 1992. - ‘Religionsgeschichte Israels statt Theologie des Alten Testaments! Plädoyer für eine forschungs-geschichtliche Umorientierung’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Religionsgeschichte oder Theologie des Alten Testaments? (JbBTh, 10), Neunkirchen 1995, 3-44. - ‘Le milieu des Deutéronomistes’, in: Römer T.-De Pury A. (eds.), Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34), Genève 1996, 377-407. - ‘An end to the confusion? Why the Old Testament cannot be a Hellenistic book’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001, 30-46. - Geschichte und Theologie. Studien zur Exegese des Alten Testaments und zur Religionsgeschichte Israels (ZAWB, 326), Berlin 2003. AMIT Y., ‘Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19-21’, in: Reventlow H.G. e.a. (eds.), Politics and Theo-politics in the Bible and Post-biblical Literature (JSOT SS, 171), Sheffield 1994, 28-40. AMSLER S., - ‘Des visions de Zacharie à l’Apocalypse d’Esaïe 24-27’, in: Vermeylen J. (ed.), The Book of Isaiah. Le livre D’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures: Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1981, 263-273. - Les Actes des Prophètes (Essais Bibliques, 9), Genève 1985a. - ‘Loi orale et loi écrite dans le Deutéronome’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985b, 51-54. - ‘Les Documents de la Loi et la Formation du Pentateuque’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question: Les Origines et la Composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes, Genève 1989, 235-257. ANBAR M., ‘The Story about the Building of an Altar on Mount Ebal’: The History of its Composition and the Question of the Centralization of the Cult’, in: Lohfink N., (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 304-309. ANCION J., ‘Nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en sekten in Wallonië’, Kl 58 (1991), 42-45. ANDERSON B.W., ‘The Bible in a Postmodern Age’, HBT 20 (2000), 1-16. ANTHONY D., ‘De hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen en secularisatie-premisse’, Conc 19 (1983), 10-20.

601 APPEL N., Kanon und Kirche: Die Kanonkrise im heutigen Protestantismus als kontroverstheologisches Problem, Paderborn 1964. ARENS A., Die Psalmen im Gottesdienst des Alten Bundes: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Christlichen Psalmengesanges (Trierer Theologische Studien, 11), Trier 19882. ARNOLD C., Neuere Forschungen zur Modernismuskrise in der katholische Kirche’, TR 99, (2003), 91-104. ASHTON J., Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Oxford 1993. AUBERT J.M., ‘La théologie politique’, in: Mathon R. e.a. (eds.), Catholicisme hier, aujourd’hui, demain, T 11 (1988), 591-593. AUERBACH E., ‘Die große Überarbeitung der biblischen Bücher’, Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 (SVT, 1), Leiden 1953, 1-10. AULD A.G., - ‘Prophets through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses’, JSOT 27 (1983), 323. - ‘Prophets and Prophecy in Jeremiah and Kings’, ZAW 96 (1984), 66-82. - ‘Word of God and Words of Man: Prophets and Canon’, in: Eslinger L.-Taylor G. (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOT SS, 67), Sheffield 1988, 237-251. - ‘Can a Biblical Theology also be Academic or Ecumenical?’, in: Carroll E.P. (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson, Sheffield 1992, 13-27. - ‘Reading Joshua after Kings’, in: Davies J.-Harvey G.-Watson W. (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honor of J.F.A. Sawyer (JSOT SS, 195), Sheffield 1995, 167-181. - ‘The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?’, in Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 116-126. - ‘Prophets Shared - but Recycled’, in: Römer Th. (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leiden 2000, 19-28. AUNE D.E., - Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, Michigan 1983. - ‘On the Origins of the “Council of Javneh” Myth’, JBL 110 (1991), 491-493. AURELIUS E., - Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament, Stockholm 1988. - Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch (BZAW, 319), Berlin/New York 2003. AUSLOOS H., - Deuteronomistische elementen in Genesis-Numeri: Een onderzoek naar criteria voor identificatie op basis van een literaire analyse van de epiloog van het Verbondsboek (Exodus 23:20-33), Leuven 1996. - ‘Les Extrêmes se touchent: Proto-Deuteronomic and simili-Deuteronomistic Elements in Genesis-Numbers, in: Vervenne M.-Lust J. (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 341-366. - ‘The Risks of Rash Textual Criticism Illustrated on the basis of the Numeruswechsel in Exod. 23, 20-33, BN 96 (1999), 5-11. - ‘“Israel” of “Palestina”: What’s a name?’, VBS 32 (2001), 49-59. BAKER D.L., Two Testaments, one Bible: A Study of the theological relationship between the Old and New Testaments, Leicester 19912.

602 BAKKER L., ‘Het Oude Testament in de systematische Theologie: Een hoofdstuk theologie na Auschwitz’, TvT 24 (1984), 97-114. BAKKER N.T., ‘Dogmatiek en Exegese: Over de betekenis van Barth voor de exegese’, in: Deurloo K.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De Bijbel maakt School: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 92-117. BALANTINE S.E., ‘The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment’, JBL 103 (1984), 161173. BALDERMANN I., e.a. (eds.), - Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988. - Religionsgeschichte Israels oder Theologie des Alten Testaments? (JbBTh, 10), Neunkirchen 1995. BARMASH P., ‘The Narrative Quandary: Cases of Law in Literature’, VT 54 (2004), 1-28. BAR-ON S., ‘The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII, 14-19 and XXXIV, 8-26’, VT 48 (1998), 161-95. BARR J., - Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the two Testaments, London 1966. - The Bible in the Modern World, London 1972. - ‘Trends and Prospects in Biblical Theology’, JTS 75 (1974), 265-282. - ‘Semitic Philology and the Interpretation of the old Testament’, in: Anderson G.W., (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, Oxford 1979, 31-64. - ‘Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture’, JSOT 16 (1980a), 12-23. - ‘De fundamentalistische Schriftopvatting’, Conc 16 (1980b), 73-78. - The Scope and Authority of the Bible (Explorations in Theology, 7), Oxford 1980c. - Holy Scripture: Canon and Authority Criticism, Philadelphia, Westminster 1983. - Escaping from Fundamentalism, London 1984. - ‘Biblische Theologie’, EKL Band 1, 1986, 488-494. - ‘The Theological Case against Biblical Theology’, in: Tucker G.M.-Petersen D.L.-Wilson R.R. (eds.), Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation, Philadelphia 1988, 3-19. - ‘The Literal, the Allegorical and Modern Biblical Scholarship’, JSOT 44 (1989), 3-17. - ‘Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies: By Mark G. Brett’, JTS 43 (1992), 135-141. - Biblical Faith and Natural Theology, Oxford 1993. - ‘The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: a triangular relationship?’, in: De Moor J.C. (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate in Old Testament Exegesis, OTS 34 (1995), 1-14. - ‘Allegory and Historicism’, JSOT 69 (1996), 105-120. - The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective, London 1999. - History and ideology in the Old Testament: Biblical Studies at the end of a millennium, New York, 2000. BARRERA J.C.T, - The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, Leiden 1993. - ‘Origins of a Tripartite Old Testament Canon’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 128-145. BARRETT C.K., ‘The Centre of the New Testament and the Canon’, in: Luz U.-Weder H. (eds.), Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift für Edward Schweizer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Göttingen 1983, 5-21.

603 BARSTAD H.M., - ‘Le canon comme principe exégétique: Autour de la contribution de Brevard S. Childs à une ‘herméneutique’ de l’Ancien Testament’, STh 38 (1984), 77-91. - ‘No prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy’, JSOT 57 (1993), 39-60. - ‘History and the Hebrew Bible’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Can a “History of Israel” be written? (European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 1; JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997, 37-64. - ‘The Strange Fear of the Bible: Some Reflections on the “Bibliophobia” in Recent Ancient Israelite Historiography’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The “Exile” as History and Ideology (JSOT SS, 278), Sheffield 1998, 120-127. - ‘Comparare necesse est? Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy in a Comparative Perspective’, in: Nissinen M. (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical and Arabian Perspectives, Atlanta 2000, 3-11. - ‘Deuteronomists, Persians, Greeks, and the Dating of the Israelite Traditions’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001, 47-77. BARTHEL J., Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes. 6-8 und 2831 (FAT, 19), Tübingen 1997. BARTHÉLEMY D., - ‘Histoire du texte hébraïque de l’Ancien Testament’, in: Barthélemy D. (ed.), Études de l’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 21), Fribourg-Göttingen 1978a, 341-364. - ‘Origène et le texte de l’Ancien Testament’, in: idem (ed.), Études de l’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 21), Fribourg-Göttingen 1978b, 203-268. - ‘Problématique et tâche de la critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébraïque’, in: idem (ed.), Études de l’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 21), Fribourg-Göttingen 1978c, 365-381. - L’enchevêtrement de l’histoire textuelle, Fribourg 1984. BARTLETT D.L., The Shape of Scriptural Authority, Philadelphia 1983. BARTON J., - ‘“The Law and the Prophets”: Who are the Prophets?’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. (ed.), Prophets, Worship and Theodicy (OTS, 23), Leiden 1983, 1-14. - Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia 1984. - Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy after the Exile, Oxford 1988. - ‘Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation. Is There Any Common Ground?’, in: Porter S.E.-Joyce P.-Orton D.E. (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael Goulder, Leiden 1994, 3-15. - The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon, London, 1997. - ‘Canon as Old Testament Interpretation?’, in: Ball E. (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Ronald E. Clements (JSOTT SS, 300), Sheffield 1999, 37-52. - ‘Canons of the Old Testament’, in: Mayes A.D.M. (ed.), Text in Context, Oxford 2000, 200-222. - ‘Marcion Revisited’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 341-354. BARTON J.-WOLTER M. (eds.), Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (ZNWB, 118), Berlin-New York 2003. BARTON S.C. (ed.), Where Shall Wisdom be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World, Edinburgh, 1999.

604 BARTSCH H.W., ‘Ein neuer Textus Receptus für das Griechische Neue Testament?’, in: NTS 27 (1981), 585-592. BAUER U.F.W., All diese Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus Amsterdam expliziert an der Schilfmeererzählung in Exodus 13, 17-14, 31 (Europäische Hochschulschriften, 28, vol. 442), Frankfurt am Main 1991. BEAUCHAMP P., - ‘Exégèse de l’Ancien Testament’, RSR 67 (1979), 255-288. - ‘Bulletin d’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament’, RSR 70 (1982), 343-378. - L’un et l’autre Testament: Accomplir les Écritures, Paris 1990. - ‘Le Pentateuque et la lecture typologique’, in: Haudebert P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et Recherches, XIVème Congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers (1991) (Lectio Divina, 151), Paris 1992, 241-259. BECK H., Natürliche Theologie: Grundriß philosophischer Gotteserkenntnis, MünchenSalzburg 1986. BECKER U., Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT, 178), Göttingen 1997. - ‘Der Prophet als Fürbetter: Zum literarhistorischen Ort der Amos-Visionen, VT 51 (2001), 141-165. - ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesaja’, in: Fischer I., Schmid K., Williamson H.G.M. (eds.), Prophetie in Israel (Altes Testament und Moderne, 11), Münster – Hamburg – London 2003, 117-124. - ‘Von der Staatsreligion zum Modernismus: Ein Kapitel israelitische-jüdischer Religionsgeschichte’, ZThK 102 (2005), 1-16. BECKING B., - ‘Theologie na de ondergang: Enkele opmerkingen bij 2 Koningen 17’, Bijdr. 49 (1988), 150-174. - ‘Jehojachin’s Amnesty, Salvation for Israel? Notes on 2 Kings 25,27-30’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 283-293. - The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 2), Leiden 1992. - ‘From Apostasy to Destruction: A Jonanic View on the Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17,2123), in: Vervenne M.-Lust J. (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997a, 279-297. - ‘Inscribed Seals as Evidence for Biblical Israel? Jeremiah 40.7-41.15 par exemple’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Can a History of Israel be Written? (JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997b, 65-83. - ‘Ezra’s Re-enactment of the Exile’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The “Exile” as History and Ideology’ (JSOT SS, 278), Sheffield 1998, 40-61. - ‘The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Israel: Three Preliminary Statements’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period, Sheffield 2001, 78-90. BECKING B.-DIJKSTRA M. (eds.), Eén God alleen? Over monotheïsme in Oud-Israël en de verering van de godin Asjera, Kampen 1998. BECKWITH R.T., - The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism, London 1985.

605 - ‘Formation of the Hebrew Bible’, in: Mulder M.J. (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen/Maastricht - Philadelphia, 1988, 39-86. - ‘A Modern Theory of the Old Testament Canon’, VT 41 (1991), 385-395. BEDFORD P.R., ‘On Models and Texts: A Response to Blenkinsopp and Petersen’, in: Davies P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 154-162. BEEK M.A., - ‘Verzadigingspunten en onvoltooide lijnen in het onderzoek van de oudtestamentische literatuur’, Vox Theologica 38 (1968), 2-14. - ‘Vier leermeesters’, in: Deurloo K.A.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De Bijbel maakt School: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 76-88. BEENTJENS P., - ‘Pauselijke Bijbelcommissie doet van zich spreken!’, Collat 24 (1994), 401-409. - ‘De Interpretatie van de Bijbel in de Kerk’, Schrift 160 (aug. 1995), 99-102. BEER P., Kontextuelle Theologie: Überlegungen zu ihrer systematischen Grundlegung (Beitrage zur ökumenischen Theologie, 26; Münchener Universitätsschriften), Paderborn 1995. BEGG C.T., - ‘A Bible Mystery: The Absence of Jeremiah in the Deuteronomistic History’, IBS 7 (1985a), 139-159. - ‘The Destruction of the Calf (Ex. 32,20 / Deut 9,21)’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985b, 208-251. - ‘The Non-Mention of Amos, Hosea and Micha in the Deuteronomistic History’, BN 32 (1986), 41-53. BEKKER Y., Gesprekken met Frans Breukelman, ‘s Gravenhage 1989. BELLEFONTAINE E., ‘Customary Law and Chieftainship: Judicial Aspects of 2 Samuel 14, 4-21’, JSOT 38 (1987), 47-72. BENSCHER B., ‘Postmoderne: Praktisch Theologisch’, TRE 27, 1/2 (1996), 89-95. BEN VEDDER, ‘Kennistheoretische beschouwingen bij een Interpretatie van teksten in het perspectief van “Wirkungsgeschichtliche” Exegese’, Bijd. 1988, 3, 238-263. BEN ZVI E., - ‘Tracing Prophetic Literature in the Book of Kings: The Case of II Kings 15,37’, ZAW 90 (1978), 100-105. - ‘Prophets and Prophecy in the Compositional and Redactional Notes in I-II Kings’, ZAW 105 (1993), 331-351. - A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Obadiah (ZAWB, 242), Berlin 1996a. - ‘Studying Prophetic Texts against their Original Backgrounds: Pre-ordained Scripts and Alternative Horizons in Research’, in: Reid S.R. (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (JSOT SS, 229), Sheffield 1996b, 124-35. - ‘Twelve Prophetic Books or “The Twelve”: A Few Preliminary Considerations’, in: House P.-Watts J.W. (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (JSOT SS, 235), Sheffield 1996c, 125-156). - ‘Looking at the Primary (Hi)story and the Prophetic Books as Literary/Theological Units within the Frame of the Early Second Temple: Some Considerations’, JSOT 12 (1998), 26-43. - ‘A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among “The Twelve”? A Contribution from the Standpoint of the Books of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie

606 S.L. (eds.), The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 232-261. BERGER K., - Exegese und Philosophie (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 123/124), Stuttgart 1986. - ‘Exegesis and Systematic Theology: The Exegete’s Perspective’, Conc 30 (1994), 87-96. BERGERON R., ‘Naar een theologische interpretatie van de nieuwe religies’, Conc 19 (1983), 97-104. BERKOUWER G.C.-VAN DER WOUDE A.S., De Bijbel in het geding, Nijkerk 1968. BERKOUWER G.C.-BAKKER J.T.-MEULEMAN G.E., De herleving van de natuurlijke theologie, Kampen 1974. BERNHARDT R. ‘Aufbruch zu einer pluralistischen Theologie der Religionen’, ZThK 91 (1994), 231-246. BERQUIST J.L., ‘The Social Setting of Malachi’, BTB 19 (1989), 121-126. BERRIDGE J.M., ‘Jeremia und die Prophetie des Amos’, TL 35 (1979), 331-341. BEUKEN W.A.M., - Haggai - Zacharia 1-8 (SSN, 10), Assen 1967. - ‘De redactiekritische Methode’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. (ed.), Inleiding tot de Studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 173-187. - Jesaia III A (De Prediking van het Oude Testament), Nijkerk 1989. - ‘Het Oude Testament verwacht nieuwe lezers’, VBS 33 (2002), 63-69. BEUMER J., Bevrijdingstheologie: Vormen en variaties, Baarn 1990. BEYER H.W., ‘Kanoon’, TWNT 3, 1938, 600-606. BEYERLIN W. Reflexe der Amosvisionen im Jeremiabuch (OBO, 93), Göttingen 1989. BEZALEL-NARKISS Ph.D., ‘Bible, The Canon. Text and Editions’, EJ 4B (1971), 815969. BIRCH B.C., - ‘Tradition, Canon and Biblical Theology’, HBT 3 (1980), 113-125. - ‘Old Testament Theology: Its Task and Future’, HBT 6 (1984), 3-8. BLAU L.Ph.D., ‘The Bible Canon’. The Jewish Encyclopedia III, New York-London 1902, 140-150. BLENKINSOPP J., - Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish origins, Notre Dame 1977. - ‘Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple History’, in: Sanders E.P. (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self Definition 2, London 1981, 1-25. - Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism, Oxford 1983. - A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period, London 1984a. - ‘Old Testament Theology and the Jewish-Christian Connection’, JSOT 28 (1984b), 3-15. - ‘Second Isaiah. Prophet of Universalism’, JSOT 41 (1988), 83-103. - ‘A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period’, CBQ 52 (1990), 5-19. - ‘Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah’, in: Davies P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 22-53. - The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, New York-LondonToronto, 1992. - Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel, LouisvilleKentucky 1995. - ‘An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch’, ZAW 108 (1996), 495-518.

607 - ‘Memory, Tradition and the Construction of the Past in Ancient Israel’, BTB 27 (1997), 76-82. - ‘Deuteronomic Contribution to the Narrative in Genesis-Numbers: A Test Case’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 84-115. - ‘The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah’, in: Blum E. (ed.), Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 2000, 13-26. BLUM E., - Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, Neunkirchen 1984. - Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für R. Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1990a. - Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (ZAWB, 189), Berlin - New York 1990b. - ‘Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?’, Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 46-57. - ‘Ein Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung?’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen (OBO, 176), Freiburg 2000, 4-37. BODNER K., ‘Nathan: Prophet, Politician and Novelist?’, JSOT 95 (2001), 43-54. BOECKER H.J., - Recht und Gesetz im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, Neunkirchen 1976. - ‘Überlegungen zur Kultpolemik der vorexilischen Propheten’, in: Perlitt L.-Jeremias J. (eds), Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1981, 169-180. BOER R., ‘Introduction: On Re-reading “The Tribes of Yahweh”‘, in: idem (ed.), Tracking “The Tribes of Yahweh” (JSOT SS, 351), Sheffield 2002, 1-9. BOEVE L., ‘Theologie na het Cristelijke Grote Verhaal’, Bijdr.55 (1994), 269-295. - ‘In de ban van de Ring: De postmoderne religieuze verscheidenheid’, Str 63 (1996), 387396. - ‘Tradition, (de)Canonization, and the Challenge of Plurality’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 371-380. BOEVE L.- RIES J.C. The Presence of Transcendence (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia XLII), Leuven 2001. BOGAERT P.M., - ‘L’organisation des grands recueils prophétiques’, in: Vermeylen J. (ed.), The Book of Isaiah. Le livre d’Isaïe. Les oracles et leurs relectures: Unité et Complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 147-153. - ‘Loi(s) et alliance nouvelle dans les deux formes conservées du livre de Jérémie’, in: Focant C. (ed.), La loi dans l’un et l’autre testament (Lectio Divina, 168), Paris 1997, 8292. BOHREN R., ‘Biblische Theologie wider latenten Deismus’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirchen 1986, 163-181. BONNET-EYMARD H., ‘Interrogés par le Nouvel Age’, Et 378 (1993), 249-258. BONS E., ‘Geschichtskonzeptionen des Hoseabuches: Ein Vergleich von Masoretentext und Septuaginta’, BZ 48 (2004), 251-262. BONTE N., ‘De Pentateuch opnieuw bekeken: Een overzicht van de belangrijkste benaderingen’, Collat 26 (1996), 341-363.

608 BORD L.J., ‘La loi, le droit et la justice: Réflexions sur les droits cunéiformes et bibliques: A propos de deux livres récents’, Bibl. 82 (2001), 99-107. BORDREUIL P., ‘Mesha’, in: Daviau P.M.M.-Wevers J.W.-Weigl M. (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans III: Studies in Language and Literature in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT SS, 326), Sheffield 2001, 160-167. BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL E., Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1-39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersucherungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit (OBO, 154), Freiburg (Schweiz)-Göttingen 1997. BOSTRÖM L., The God of the Sages: the Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs, Stockholm 1990. BRADFORD E.H.-SCHNER G.P., ‘Postliberal Theology and Roman Catholic Theology’, RStR 21 (1995), 299-310. BRANDT P., Endgestalten des Kanons: Das Arrangement der Schriften in der jüdischen und der christlichen Bibel, Berlin-Wien 2001. BRATTINGA T., ‘Oecumene: stand van zaken: Verleden en heden, vooral in de relatie tot de katholieke kerk’, TvT 31 (1991), 65-84. BRAULIK G., - ‘Das Deuteronomium und die Geburt des Monotheïsmus’, in: Haag G. (ed.), Gott der Einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheïsmus in Israel (Quaestiones Disputatae, 104), Freiburg 1985a, 115-159. - ‘Die Abfolge der Gesetze in Deuteronomium 12-26 und der Dekalog’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985b, 252- 272. - ‘Die Freude des Festes: Das Kultverständnis des Deuteronomiums - die älteste biblische Festtheorie’, in: Braulik G. (ed.), Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsätsbände Altes Testament, 2), Stuttgart 1988a, 161-218. - ‘Leidensgedächtnisfeier und Freudefest: “Volksliturgie” nach dem deuteronomischen Festkalender (Dtn 16, 1-17)’, in: Braulik G. (ed.), Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsätsbände Altes Testament, 2), Stuttgart 1988b, 95-121. - ‘Weisheit, Gottesnähe und Gesetz: Zum Kerygma von Deuteronomium 4,5-8’, in: Braulik G. (ed.), Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsätsbände Altes Testament, 2), Stuttgart 1988c, 53-93. - ‘Das Deuteronomium und die Gedächtniskultur Israels’, in: idem-Gross W.-McEvenue S. (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel; F.S.N. Lohfink, Freiburg 1993, 9-31. - ‘Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Job, Sprichwörter, Rut: Zur Frage früher Kanonizität des Deuteronomiums’, in: Zenger E. (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders Biblische Studien, 10), Freiburg 1996, 61-138. - ‘Die Ablehnung der Göttin Aschera in Israel: War sie erst deuteronomistisch, diente sie der Unterdrückung der Frauen?, in: idem, Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 24), Stuttgart 1997a, 81-118. - ‘Die Völkervernichtung und die Rückkehr Israels im Verheißungsland: Hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Buch Deuteronomium’, in: Vervenne M.-Lust J. (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997b, 3-38. - ‘“Weisheit” im Buch Deuteronomium’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 24), Stuttgart 1997c, 225-265.

609 - ‘“Conservative Reform”: Deuteronomy from the Perspective of the Sociology of Knowledge’, OTE 12 (1999), 13-32. - ‘Deuteronomium 1-4 als Sprechakt’, Bibl. 83 (2002), 249-257. - ‘“Die Weisung und das Gebot” im Enneateuch’, in: Hossfeld F.L.-SchwienhorstSchönberger L. (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Erich Zenger (Herders Biblische Studien, 44), Freiburg-Basel-Wien-Barcelona-Rome-New York 2004, 115-140. BRAUN R., 1 Chronicles (Word Biblical Commentary, 14), Texas 1986. BREKELMANS C., ‘Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy’, in: Gilbert M. (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL, 51), Leuven 1979, 28-38. BRETT M.G., - Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies, Cambridge 1991. - ‘Against the Grain: Brevard Childs’ Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments’, ModT 10 (1994), 281-287. - ‘Canonical Criticism and Old Testament Theology’, in: Mayes A.D.M. (ed.), Text in Context, Oxford 2000, 61-85. - ‘Israel’s Indigenous Origins: Cultural Hybridity and the Formation of Israelite Ethnicity’, Bibl. Int. 11 (2003), 400-412. BRETTLER M.Z., - God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOT SS, 76), Sheffield 1989. - The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, London-New York 1995. BREUKELMAN F., - ‘Miskotte’s Inspiratie: Tenach en Dogmatiek’, in: Miskotte K.H. (ed.), De weg der verwachting, Baarn 1975, 34-50. - ‘Al deze woorden’ (Matth. 26, 1,2), in: Deurloo K.A.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De Bijbel maakt School: een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 42-50. BRIEND J., ‘Sabbat’, DBS 10, Paris 1985, col. 1132-1170. BRIGGS R.S., ‘The Uses of Speak-out Theory in Biblical Interpretation’, CR:BS 9 (2001), 229-276. BRIGHT J., Covenant and Promise: The Future in the Preaching of the Pre-exilic Prophets, London 1977. BRIN G., ‘The Development of Some Laws in the Book of the Covenant’, in: Reventlow H.G.-Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their influence (JSOT SS, 137), Sheffield 1994, 60-70. BROOKE G.J., ‘The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible’, in: Herbert E.D.-Tov E. (eds.), The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, London 2002, 31-40. BROWN D., ‘Postmoderne: Systematisch-Theologisch’, TRE 27, 1/2 (1996), 87-89. BROWN R.E., ‘Hermeneutics’, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, London 1968, 605-623. BROWN W.P., Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament, Michigan 1996. BRUCE F.F., - ‘Some thoughts on the Beginning of the New Testament Canon’, BJRL 65 (1983), 37-60. - The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove-Illinois, 1988. BRUEGGEMANN W., - The Creative Word: Canon as Model for Biblical Education, Philadelphia 1982. - ‘Futures in Old Testament Theology’, HBT 6 (1984), 1-11. - ‘A Shape for Old Testament Theology’, CBQ 47 (1985), 29-46, 395-415.

610 - ‘Prophetic Ministry: A Sustainable Alternative Community’, HBT 11 (1989), 1-33. - The Bible and the Postmodern Imagination: Texts under Negotiation, London 1993. - Deuteronomy, Nashville 2001. - ‘On Scroll Making in Ancient Jerusalem’, in: BTB 33 (2003), 5-11. BRYAN C., ‘The Preacher and the Critics: Thoughts on Historical Criticism’, ATR 74 (1992), 37-53. BRYNER E., ‘Ökumene in der Sachgasse’, in: TL 129 (2004), 707-724. BUCHOLZ J., Die Ältesten Israels im Deuteronomium, Göttingen 1988. BUDDE A., ‘Der Abschluß des Alttestamentlichen Kanons und seine Bedeutung für die kanonische Schriftauslegung’, BN 87 (1997), 39-55. BULTMANN C., ‘A Prophet in Desperation? The Confessions of Jeremiah’, in: De Moor J.C. (ed.), The Elusive Prophet (OTS, 45), Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001, 83-93. BURGGRAEVE R.-VELLE S., ‘Christendom en Postmoderniteit: Doemdenken, heil of bescheiden kansen?’, Collat 23 (1993), 5-35. BUSS M.J., ‘Logic and Israelite Law’, S 45 (1989), 49-65. CAMPBELL A.F., - Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-century Document (1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10), (CBQMS, 17), Washington 1986. - ‘The Reported Story: Midway between Oral Performance and Literary Art’, S 46 (1989), 77-85. - ‘Past History and Present Text: The Clash of Classical and Post-critical Approaches to Biblical Text’, ABR 39 (1991), 1-18. - ‘The Priestly Text: Redaction or Source?’, in: Braulik G.-Gross W.-McEvenue S. (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel für Norbert Lohfink s.j., Freiburg 1993, 32-47. - ‘The Storyteller’s Role: Reported Story and Biblical Text’, CBQ 64 (2002), 427-441. CAMPENHAUSEN R.C., De Goddelijke Bibliotheek: Encyclopedische wegwijzer bij de heilige Geschriften van de mensheid, Amsterdam 1991. CARMICHAEL C.M., - Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws, Ithaca-London 1985. - The Origins of Biblical Law: The Decalogue and the Book of Covenant, Ithaca 1992. CARR D.M., ‘Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tannakh and the Christian Bible’, in: Weis R.D.-Carr D.M. (ed.), A Gift in Due Session: Essays in Scripture and Community in Honour of James A. Sanders (JSOT SS 225), Sheffield 1996, 22-64. CARREIRA J.N., ‘Charisma und Institution: Zur Verfassung des Königtums in Israel und Juda’, in: Liwak R.-Wagner S. (ed.), Prophetic und Geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für Sigfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1991, 39-51. CARROLL R.P., - When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament, New York, 1979. - ‘Childs and Canon’, IBS (1980), 211-236. - ‘Canonical Criticism: A Recent Trend in Biblical Studies?’, ExpTim 92 (1980-81), 73-78. - From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, Crossroad - New York, 1981. - ‘Poets not Prophets. A Response to “Prophets through the Looking Glass”‘, JSOT 27 (1983), 25-31.

611 - The Book of Jeremiah: A Commentary, Philadelphia 1986. - ‘Inventing the Prophets’, IBS 10 (1988), 24-36. - ‘Textual Strategies and Ideology in the Second Temple Period’, in: Davies P.R., Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 108-124. - ‘Prophecy and Society’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel, Cambridge 19934, 203-225. - ‘So What do we Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets’, in: Eskenazi T.C.Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 34-51. - ‘Ancient Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 377-391. - ‘Madonna of Silences: Clio and the Bible’, in Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Can a History of Israel be Written? (JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997, 84-103. - ‘Exile! What exile? Deportation and the Discourses of Diaspora’, in Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The ‘Exile’ as History and Ideology’ (JSOTT SS, 278), Sheffield 1998a, 62-79. - ‘Intertextuality and the Book of Jeremiah’, in: Clines D.J.A.-Exum J.C. (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (JSOT SS, 143), Sheffield 1998b, 55-78. - ‘The Reader and the Text’, in: Mayes A.D.M. (ed.), Text in Context, Oxford 2000, 3-34. - ‘Jewgreek Greekjew’: The Hebrew Bible is all Greek to me’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001, 91-107. CARSON D.A. ‘Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture’, in: Carson D.A.Woodbridge J.D. (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, Leicester 1986, 5-48. CARTER C.E., - ‘The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distribution and Demography’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 106-145. - ‘A Discipline in Transition: The Contribution of the social Sciences to the Study of the Hebrew Bible’, in: idem-Meyers C.L. (eds.), Community, Identity and Ideology: Social Scientific Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 6), Winona Lake, Indiana 1996, 3-36. CAZELLES H., - ‘Droit public dans le Deutéronome’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 99-106. - ‘Le Pentateuque comme Torah’, in: Tardieu M. (ed.), Les règles de l’interprétation, Paris 1987, 35-68. - ‘Les milieux du Deutéronome’, in: McKay H.A.-Clines D.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 288-319. CHAMPION F., ‘La nébuleuse New Age’, Et 382 (1995), 233-242. CHAPMAN S.B., - The Law and the Prophets: A study in Old Testament canon formation (FAT, 27), Tübingen 2000. - ‘A Canonical Approach to the Old Testament Theology? Deuteronomy 34:10-12 and Malachi 3:22-24 as Programmatic Conclusions’, HBT 25 (2003), 121-145. CHARLESWORTH J.M., ‘Pseudepigrapha OT: Pseudonimity and Pseudepigraphy’, ABD vol. 5, 1992, 538-541.

612 CHARY T., Les prophètes et le Culte à partir de l’exil, Bibliothèque de Théologie, Série III, Théologie Biblique vol. 3, Paris 1955. CHATILLON J., ‘La Bible dans les écoles du XII siècle’, in: Riché P.-Lobrichon G. (eds.), Le Moyen Age et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps, 4), Paris 1984, 163-197. CHILDS B.S., - ‘Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary’, Int 18 (1964), 432-449. - Biblical Theology in Crisis, Philadelphia 1970. - Exodus: A Commentary, London 1974. - ‘The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the Old Testament’, Congress Volume, Göttingen 1977 (SVT, 29), Leiden 1978, 66-80. - ‘A Response’, HBT 2 (1980a), 199-211. - ‘Response to Reviewers of Introduction to the OT as Scripture’, JSOT 16 (1980b), 52-60. - ‘Some Reflections on the Search for a Biblical Theology’, HBT 4 (1982), 1-12. - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London 19832. - The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction, Philadelphia 1984. - Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, Philadelphia, 1986. - ‘Die theologische Bedeutung der Endform eines Textes’, ThQ 167 (1987), 242-251. - ‘Biblische Theologie und christlichen Kanon’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 13-28. - ‘Analysis of a Canonical Formula: “It shall be recorded for a future generation”’, in: Blum E. (ed.), Die hebräische Bibel und die zweifache Nachgzeschichte, Festschrift für R. Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1990a, 357-364. - ‘Critical Reflection on James Barr’s Understanding of the Literal and the Allegorical’, JSOT 46 (1990b), 3-9. - Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible, London 1992. - ‘Biblical Scholarship in the Seventeenth Century: A Study in Ecumenics’, in: Ballentine S.E., Barton J. (eds.), Language, Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr, Oxford 1994, 325-333. - ‘On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology’, in: Braaten C.E.-Jenson R.W. (eds.), Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, Michigan-Cambridge 1995a, 1-17. - ‘The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995b, 513-522. - ‘Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation’, ZAW 115 (2003), 173-184. CLAASSENS L.J.M., ‘Biblical Theology as Dialogue: Continuing the Conversation on Mikhaël Bakhten and Biblical Theology’, JBL 122 (2003), 127-144. CLARKE K.D., ‘The Problem of Pseudonimity in Biblical Literature and its Implications for Canon Formation’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 440-468. CLAVIER H., Les variétés de la pensée biblique et le problème de son unité: Esquisse d’une théologie de la Bible sur les textes originaux et dans leur contexte historique (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 43), Leiden 1976. CLEMENTS R.E., - Prophecy and Covenant, London 1965. - Prophecy and Tradition, Oxford 1975. - ‘Patterns in the Prophetic Canon’, in: Coats G.W.-Long B.O. (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament, Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977, 42-55.

613 - ‘The Ezekiel Tradition, Prophecy in Time of Crisis’, in: Coggins R. e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 119-136. - ‘Jeremiah 1-25 and the Deuteronomic History’, in: Auld A.G. (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (JSOT SS, 152), Sheffield 1993a, 94-113. - Deuteronomy, Sheffield 1993²b. - ‘Prophets, Editors, and Tradition’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5); Winona Lake 1995, 443-452. - Old Testament prophecy: From oracles to canon, Louisville, Kentucky 1996. CLINES D.J.A., - ‘Meta Commentating Amos’, in: McKay H.A.-Clines D.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 142-160. - ‘Haggai’s Temple, constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed’, in: Eskenazi T.C.Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 60-87. - Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOT SS, 205), Sheffield 1995. COATS G.W., - ‘The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32-34’, in: Coats G.W.-Long B.O. (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977, 91-109. - Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God, Sheffield 1988. COATS G.W.-LONG B.O., Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977. COGGINS R.J., - Samaritans and Jews, Oxford 1975. - ‘An Alternative Prophetic Tradition?’, in: Coggins R. e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 77-93. - ‘The Origins of the Jewish Diaspora’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934a, 163181. - True and False Prophecy’, in: McKay H.A., Clines D.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophet’s Visions and the Wisdom of Sages; Festschrift Whybray N. (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993b, 80-94. - ‘What Does “Deuteronomistic” Mean?’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 22-35. COHEN M., ‘II Sam. 24 ou l’histoire d’un décret royal avorté’, ZAW 113 (2001), 17-40. COLEMAN J.A., ‘De godsdienstige betekenis van nieuwe godsdienstige bewegingen’, Conc 19 (1983), 21-29. COLLINS J.J., ‘The “Historical Character” of the Old Testament in Recent Biblical Theology’, in: Philips Long V. (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999, 98-169. COLLINS R.F., ‘The Matrix of the NT Canon’, BTB 2 (1972), 51-59. COLLINS T., - The Mantle of Eliah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books (The Biblical Seminar, 20), Sheffield 1993.

614 - ‘Threading as a Stylistic Feature of Amos’, in: De Moor J.C. (ed.), The Elusive Prophet (OTS, 45), London-Boston-Köln 2001, 94-103. COMBLIN J., ‘De actuele discussie over het universele karakter van de Kerk van Christus’, Conc 16 (1980), 61-68. CONGAR Y., La tradition et les traditions, vol. 1-2, Paris 1960. CONRAD E.W., - ‘Heard but Not Seen: The Representation of ‘Books’ in the Old Testament’, JSOT 54 (1992), 45-59. - Reading the Latter Prophets. Towards a New Canonical Criticism, London-New York 2003. CONROY C., ‘Reflections on the Exegetical Task: Apropos of Recent Studies on 2 Kings 22-23’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 255268. COOGAN M.D., ‘Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections in the Religion of Israel’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 115-124. COOK S.L., ‘Micah’s Deuteronomistic Redaction and the Deuteronomistic Identity’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 216-231. COOTE R.B. Amos among the Prophets: Composition and Theology, Philadelphia 1981. COOTE R.B.-ORD D.R., The Bible’s First History, Philadelphia 1989. COOTE R.B.-WHITELAM K.W., The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective (The social World of Biblical Antiquity Series, 5), Sheffield 1987. CORTESE E., ‘Theories Concerning Dtr: A Possible Rapprochement’, in: Brekelmans C.Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers read at the 13th. IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989, Leuven 1990, 179-190. COUNCIL FOR CHURCH AND THEOLOGY, ‘Een geschil over de uitleg van het Oude Testament’, Kerk en Theologie 27 (1976), 89-101. COUTURIER G., ‘Quelques observations sur le BYTDWD de la stèle araméenne de Tel Dan’, in: Daviau P.M.M.-Wevers J.W.-Weigl M. (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT SS, 325), Sheffield 2001, 72-98. CRENSHAW J.L., - ‘Method in determining Wisdom Influence upon “Historical Literature”‘, JBL 88 (1969), 129-142. - Prophetic Conflict: Its effect upon Israelite religion (BZAW, 124), Berlin - New York, 1971. - ‘Questions, dictons et épreuves impossibles’, in : Gilbert M. (ed.), La sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL, 51), Leuven 1979, 96-111. - ‘Le dilemme humain et la littérature contestataire’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 245-269. - A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelic Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence, Philadelphia 1984. - ‘The Wisdom Literature’, in: Knight D.A.-Tucker G.M. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia 19862, 369-407. - ‘Wisdom Literature: Retrospect and Prospect’, in: McKay H.A.-Clines D.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 161-178.

615 - ‘The Deuteronomist and the Writings’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 145-158. CROSS F.M., - Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge 1973. - ‘A Report on the Samaria Papyri’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT, 40), Leiden 1988, 17-26. - ‘Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times’, in: Dexinger F.- Pummer R. (eds.), Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung, 604), Darmstadt 1992, 312-323 - From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, Baltimore-London 1998 CROWN A.D., The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989. CRÜSEMANN F., - Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum: Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen Israelitischen Staat, Neunkirchen 1978. - ‘Israel in der Perserzeit: Eine Skizze in Auseinandersetzung mit Max Weber’, in: Schluchter W. (ed.), Max Webers Sicht des antiken Judentums, Frankfurt 1985, 205-232. - ‘Das Portative Vaterland: Struktur und Genese des Alttestamentlichen Kanons’, in: Abeida-Assmann J., Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge der literarischen Kommunikation 2, München 1987, 63-79. - ‘Das Bundesbuch: Historischer Ort und Institutioneller Hintergrund’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT, 40), Leiden 1988, 27-41. - ‘Der Pentateuch als Torah’, EvTh 49 (1989a), 250-267. - ‘Le Pentateuque, une Tora: Prolégomènes à l’interprétation de sa forme finale’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 1989²b, 339-360. - Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, München 1992. - Elia - die Entdeckung der Einheit Gottes: Eine Lektüre der Erzählungen über Elia und seine Zeit (Kaiser Taschenbücher, 154), Gütersloh 1997. - ‘Freiheit durch Erzählen von Freiheit: zur Geschichte des Exodus-Motivs, EvTh 61 (2001), 102-118. CÜLLMANN O., ‘Die Tradition und die Festlegung des Kanons durch die Kirche des 2. Jahrhunderts’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 98-108. CUMMINS S.A., ‘The theological interpretation of Scripture: Recent contributions by Stephen E. Fowl, Christopher R. Seitz and Francis Watson’; CBR 2.2. (2004), 179-196. DAMMEN U., Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien (BBB, 110), Bodenheim 1996. DANIELS D.R., - ‘Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?’, ZAW 99 (1987), 339-360. - ‘Biblische Theologie in den USA: Ein Forschungs- und Tagungsbericht’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Altes Testament und Christliche Glaube (JbBTh, 6), Neunkirchen 1991, 299309. DANNEELS G., Christus of de waterman, Pastorale brief nr. 19, Mechelen 1990. DAVIDSON R., ‘Covenant Ideology in Ancient Israel’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 323-347.

616 DAVIES E.W., ‘Land: its Rights and Privileges’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 349-369. DAVIES M., ‘The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction by Brevard S. Childs’, JTS 37 (1986), 161-164. DAVIES P.R. - ‘Sociology and the Second Temple’, in: idem (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 11-19. - In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (JSOT SS, 148), Sheffield 1992. - ‘The Social World of Apocalyptic Writings’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 251-271. - ‘The Society of Biblical Israel’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 2233. - ‘Method and Madness: Some Remarks on Doing History with the Bible’, JBL 114 (1995), 699-705. - ‘Whose History? Whose Israel? Whose Bible?’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Can a History of Israel be Written? (JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997a, 104-122. - ‘“Ancient Israel” and History: A Response to Norman Whybray’, ExpTim 108 (1997b), 211-212. - Scribes and Schools, Louisville Kentucky 1998. - ‘The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective’, in: Ball E. (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Ronald E. Clements (JSOT SS, 300), Sheffield 1999, 36-52. - ‘Corrigenda’, CR:BS 8 (2000), 117-123. DAVIES P.R.-FRITZ V. (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT SS, 228), Sheffield 1996. DAVIES W.D.-FINKELSTEIN L., - The Cambridge History of Judaism 1: Introduction: The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984. - The Cambridge History of Judaism 2: The Hellenistic Age, Cambridge 1989. DAY J., - ‘Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm LXXVIII’, VT 36 (1986), 1-12. - ‘Prophecy’, in: Carson D.A.-Williamson H.G.M. (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge-New York-Melbourne 1988, 39-55. DE BAKKER B., ‘Had Jahwe een vrouwelijke partner?’, VBS 35 (2004), 1-10. DE BOER P.A.M., ‘Kingship in Ancient Israel’, in: Van Deun C. (ed.), Selected Studies in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS, 27), Leiden 1991, 1-17. DE CERTEAU M., - ‘Faire de l’histoire: Problèmes de méthodes et problèmes de sens’, RSR 58 (1970), 481520. - ‘La rupture instauratrice ou le christianisme dans la culture contemporaine’, Es 39 (1971), 1177-1214. DE DIJN H., ‘Afrekenen met “duistere Verlichting”‘, in: Tertio 6 (2005), 295, 8-9. DEIST F.E., - ‘The Prophets: Are We Heading for a Paradigm Switch?’, in: Fritz V. (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin - New York 1989, 1-18.

617 - ‘The Nature of Historical Understanding’, OTE 6 (1993), 384-398. - ‘The Dangers of Deuteronomy: A Page from the Reception History of the Book’, in: García-Martinez F. e.a. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 13-29. - ‘Contingency, Continuity and Integrity in Historical Understanding: An Old Testament Perspective’, in: Philips Long V. (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999, 373-390. DE JONG S., ‘Hizkia in Zedekia: Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18:17-19; 37; Jer. 36-37 tot Jes. 37:1-10’, ACEBT 5 (1984), 135-147. DEKKER W., DEN HERTOG G.C., DE REUS T. (eds.), Het tegoed van K.H. Miskotte, Zoetermeer 2006. DELAMARTER S., ‘The Death of Josiah in Scripture and Tradition: Wrestling with the Problem of Evil’, VT 54 (2004), 29-60. DE LA POTTERIE I., ‘La vérité de l’Écriture et l’herméneutique biblique’, RTL 18 (1987), 171-186. DELGADO M., ‘Europäische Theologie am Scheideweg’, SZ 212 (1994), 341-352. DELHEZ Ch., Nouvel Age et nouvelles Religiosités, Toulouse 1984. DELL K.J., ‘Wisdom in Israel’, in: Mayes A.D.M. (ed.), Text in Context, Oxford 2000, 348375. DEMBOWSKI H., ‘Natürliche Theologie - Theologie der Natur: Erwägungen in einem weiten Feld’, EvTh 45 (1985), 224-228. DE MOOR J.C. (ed.), - Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS, 34), Leiden 1975. - The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism 7² (BETL, 91), Leuven 1990. - ‘Poetic Fragments in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’, in: García-Martinez F. e.a. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT,53), Leiden 1994, 183-196. DE MOOR J.C.-VAN ROOY H. (eds.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44), Leiden-Boston-Köln 2000. DEMPSTER S., ‘From Many Texts to One: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible’, in: Daviau P.M.M.-Wevers J.W.-Weigl M. (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT SS, 324), Sheffield 2001, 19-56. DEMSKY A.-BAR ILAN M. ‘Writing in Ancient Israel and early Judaism’, in: Mulder M.J. (ed.), Mikra Text, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen/Maastricht - Philadelphia 1988, 1-38. DENAUX A., ‘Verzwegen Evangeliën? De waarde van de Apocriefe Evangeliën voor het onderzoek naar de historische Jezus’, VBS 29 (1988), 25-35. DE PURY A., - Promesse Divine et Légende Cultuelle dans le Cycle de Jacob: Genèse 28 et les Traditions Patriarcales, Paris 1975. - ‘Osée 12 et ses implications pour le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque’, in: Haudebert P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et Recherches, XIVème Congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers (1991) (Lectio Divina, 151), Paris 1992, 175-207. DE PURY A.-RÖMER T.C., ‘Le Pentateuque en Question: Position du problème et brève Histoire de la Recherche’, in: idem (ed.), Le Pentateuque en Question: Les Origines et la Composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes, Genève 1989, 9-80. DEQUEKER L., Tradition orale et écrite (Institutum Judaicum), Brussels 1975.

618 DE REGT L., ‘A Genre Feature in Biblical Prophecy and the Translator’, in: De Moor J.C.Van Rooy H. (eds.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44), Leiden-Boston-Köln 2000, 230-250. DE ROCHE M., ‘Yahweh’s Rib against Israel: A Reassessment of the so-called “Prophetic Lawsuit” in Pre-exilic Prophets’, JBL 102 (1983), 563-574. DEURLOO K.A., - ‘De tekst mag het zeggen (Genesis 4)’, in: Deurloo K.A.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De bijbel maakt School: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 30-40. - ‘Exegese naar Amsterdamse traditie’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 188-198. - ‘The One God and All Israel in Its Generations’, in: García-Martinez F. e.a. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Leiden 1994a, 31-46. - ‘The Scope of a Small Literary Unit in the Old Testament: Introduction to the Interpretation of Genesis 4’, in: Kessler M. (ed.), Voices of Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative (Society of Biblical Literature Studies), Atlanta 1994b, 37-52. DEURLOO K.A.-ZUURMOND R., De Bijbel maakt School: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 15-29. DE VAUX R., - Hoe het oude Israël leefde: De instellingen van het Oude Testament 1-2, RoermondMaaseik 1962. - Histoire Ancienne: Des origines à l’installation en Canaan, Paris 1971. DEVER W.G., - ‘The Contribution of Archeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite Religion’ in:, Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 209-247. - ‘Revisionist Israel Revisited: A Rejoinder to Niels Peter Lemche’, CR:BS 4 (1996), 35-50. - What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, Michigan-Cambridge 2001. DEXINGER F., - ‘Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example’, in: Sanders E.P.-Baumgarten A.I.-Mendelson (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-definition, vol. 2, London 1981, 88-114. - ‘Der Ursprung der Samaritaner im Spiegel der frühen Quellen’, in: idem-Pummer R. (eds.), Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung, 604), Darmstadt 1992, 67-140. DEXINGER F.-PUMMER R. (eds.), Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung, 604), Darmstadt 1992. DIEBNER B.J., - ‘Isaak und Abraham in der Alttestamentlichen Literatur außer Gen 12-50: Eine Sammlung literaturgeschichtlicher Beobachtungen nebst einigen überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Spekulationen’, DBAT 7 (1974), 38-50. - ‘Das Ende welcher ‘historisch-kritischen Methode’?’, DBAT 22 (1985a), 9-37. - ‘Erwägungen zum Prozeß der Sammlung des dritten Teils der antik-jüdischen (hebräischen) Bibel der Ketuvim’, DBAT 21 (1985b), 139-208. - ‘Zur Funktion der Kanonischen Textsammlung im Judentum der vor-christlichen Zeit: Gedanken zu einer Kanon-Hermeneutik’, DBAT 22 (1985c), 58-73. - ‘Wann sang Deborah ihr Lied? Überlegungen zu zwei der ältesten Texte des TNK (Re 4 und 5)’, ACEBT14 (1995), 106-130.

619 DIEDRICH F., Die Anspielungen auf die Jakob-Tradition in Hos. 12,1 - 13,3: Ein literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur Exegese früher Prophetentexte (FzB, 27), Würzburg 1977. DIEM H., ‘Das Problem des Schriftkanons’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 159-174. DIETRICH W., - Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 108), Göttingen 1972. - ‘Der Eine Gott als Symbol politischen Widerstands: Religion und Politik im Juda des 7. Jahrhunderts’, in: idem-Klopfenstein M.A. (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus (OBO, 139), Freiburg-Göttingen 1994a, 463-490. - ‘Über Werden und Wesen des biblischen Monotheismus: Religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Perspektiven’, in: idem, Klopfenstein M.A. (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWHVerehrung und biblischer Monotheismus (OBO, 139), Freiburg-Göttingen 1994b, 13-30. - ‘Histoire et Loi: Historiographie deutéronomiste et Loi deutéronomique à l’exemple du passage de l’époque des Juges à l’époque royale’, in: Römer T.C.-De Pury A. (eds.), Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34), Genève 1996a, 297-323. - ‘Wer Gott ist und was Er will. Neue Theologien des Alten Testaments’, Ev.Th. 56 (1996b), 258-285. - Die frühe Königszeit in Israel: 10. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie, 3), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1997. - ‘Prophetie im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk’, in Römer Th. (ed.), The future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leiden 2000, 47-65. DIETRICH W.-KLOPFENSTEIN M.A. (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus (OBO, 139), Freiburg-Göttingen 1994. DIJKSTRA M., ‘I am neither a prophet nor a prophet’s pupil: Amos 7:9-17 as the presentation of a prophet like Moses’, in: De Moor J.C. (ed.), The Elusive Prophet (OTS, 45), Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001, 105-128. DIRKSEN P.B., ‘Kronieken in de recente literatuur: Een overzicht van recente publikaties betreffende Kronieken’, NThT 47 (1993), 6-20. DISSE J., ‘Zeichenlesendes Verstehen: Zur frage der rationalen Begründbarkeit des christlichen Offenbarungsglauben’, TphilP 71 (1996), 1-11. DOHMEN C., - ‘Der Biblischen Kanon in der Diskussion’, TR 91 (1995a), 452-460. - ‘Probleme und Chancen Biblischer Theologie aus alttestamentlicher Sicht’, in: idemSöding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel -Zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie (UTB Uni-Taschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995b, 9-16. - ‘Wenn Texte Texte verändern’, in: Zenger E. (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders Biblische Studien, 10), Freiburg 1996, 35-60. - ‘Biblische Auslegung. Wie alte Texte neue Bedeutungen haben können’, in: Hossfeld F.L.-Schwienhorst-Schönberger L. (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Erich Zenger (Herders Biblische Studien, 44), Freiburg-Basel-Wien-Barcelona-Rome-New York 2004. DOHMEN C.-MUSSNER F., Nur die halbe Wahrheit? Für die Einheit der ganzen Bibel, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1993. DOHMEN C.-OEMING M., Biblischer Kanon warum und wozu? Eine Kanontheologie (Quaestiones Disputatae, 137), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1992.

620 DOHMEN C.-STEMBERGER G., Hermeneutik der jüdischen Bibel und des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1996. DOMERIS W.R., ‘When Metaphor Becomes Myth: A Socio-linguistic Reading of Jeremiah’, in: Diamond A.R.P.-O’Connor K.M.-Stulman L. (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah (JSOT SS, 260), Sheffield 1999, 244-262. DONNER H., - ‘Die soziale Botschaft der Propheten im Lichte der Gesellschaftsordnung in Israel’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 493-514. - Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Gründzugen 2: Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Grossen mit einen Ausblick auf die Geschichte des Judentums bis Bar Kochba (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, B 4/2), Göttingen 1986. DOUGLAS-KLOTZ N., ‘Midrash and Postmodern Inquiry: Suggestions Toward a Hermeneutics of Indeterminacy’, CR:BS 7 (1999), 181-193. DOZEMAN T.B., - ‘Hosea and the Wilderness Wandering Tradition’, in: McKenzie S.L.-Römer T.- Schmid H.H. (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible; Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ZAWB, 294), Berlin-New York 2000a, 5570. - ‘Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah’, JBL 119 (2000b), 21-45. DUCHET-SUCHAUX M.-LEFEVRE Y., ‘Les noms de la Bible’, in: Riché P.-Lobrichon G. (eds.), Le Moyen Age et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps, 4), Paris 1984, 13-23. DUHM B., - ‘Der Prophet’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 91-109. - ‘Aufbruch zu einer pluralistischen Theologie der Religionen’, ZThK 91 (1994), 231246.91-109. DUKE R.K., The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis (Bible and Literature, 25), Sheffield 1990. DULLES A., ‘Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views’, in: McKim D.K. (ed.), The Authority Word. Essays on the Nature of Scripture, San Francisco 1983, 239-261. DUNBAR D.G., ‘The Biblical Canon’, in: Carson D.A.-Woodbridge J.D. (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, Leicester 1986, 299-360, 424-446. DUNGAN D.L., ‘The New Testament Canon in Recent Study’, Int 29 (1975), 339-351. DUNN J.G.G., - ‘Levels of Canonical Authority’, HBT 4 (1982), 13-60. - ‘Das Problem “Biblische Theologie”‘ , in: Dohmen C.-Söding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel - zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie (UTB - Uni-Taschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995, 179-193. - ‘Has the Canon a Continuing Function?’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 558-579. DUPRÉ L., - ‘Ervaring en interpretatie: Een filosofische bezinning op de christologische studies van Edward Schillebeeckx’, TvT 22 (1982), 361-375. - ‘Overgang naar de moderniteit’, in: Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Brussels, 54 (1991), 43-53. - Passage to Modernity. An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature and Culture, London 1993.

621 - The Enlightenment and the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Culture, London 2004. DUQUE J., ‘Narrative Theology: Chancen und Grenzen: Im Anschluß an E. Jüngel, P. Ricoeur und G. Lafont’, TrPr72 (1997), 31-52. DUQUOC C., ‘Het christendom en de universaliteitsaanspraak’, Conc 16 (1980), 51-60. DUTCHER-WALLS P., - ‘The Social Location of the Deuteronomists: A Sociological Study of Factional Politics in Late Pre-exilic Judah’, JSOT 52 (1991), 77-94. - ‘The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in its Ancient Social Context’, JBL 121 (2002), 601-616. EBELING G., - ‘Was heißt “Biblische Theologie”?’, in: Ebeling G. (ed.), Wort und Glaube, Tübingen 1962, 69-89. - ‘“Sola Scriptura” und das Problem der Tradition’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 282-335. - ‘Schrift und Erfahrung als Quelle theologischer Aussagen’, ZThK 75 (1978), 99-116. EDELMAN D.V., - ‘Doing History in Biblical Studies’, in: idem (ed.), The Fabric of History; Text, Artefact and Israel’s Past (JSOT SS, 127), Sheffield 1991, 13-25. - ‘Clio’s Dilemma: The Changing Face of History-writing’, in: Lemaire A.-Sæbø M. (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo1998, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2000, 247-256. EHRLICH C.S., ‘The BYTDWD-inscription and Israelite Historiography: Taking Stock After Half a Decade of Research’, in: Daviau P.M.M.-Wevers J.W., Weigl M., (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans II: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT SS, 325), Sheffield 2001, 57-71. EICKER P., Offenbarung im jüdischen und christlichen Glaubensverständtnis, Freiburg 1981. ELDERENBOSCH P.A., Psalmen en hun liturgische achtergrond, Bonheiden 19782. ELLINGWORTH P., ‘Theological Reflections on the Textual Criticism of the Bible’, BT 46 (1995), 119-25. ELSINGER L., ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category’, VT 42, 1 (1992), 47-58. EMERTON J.A., ‘“Yahweh and His Asherah”: The Goddess of Her Symbol?’, VT 49 (1999), 314-338. EMMERSON G.I., ‘Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judaean perspective’ (JSOT SS, 28), Sheffield 1984. EPZSTEIN L., La Justice Sociale dans le Proche-Orient ancien et le peuple de la Bible, Paris 1983. ERMECKE G., ‘Die Katholische Theologie in der Krise’, MüTZ 32 (1981), 194-205. ERNST A.B., Weisheitliche Kultkritik: Zur Theologie und Ethik des Sprüchebuchs und der Prophetie des 8. Jahrhunderts, Neunkirchen 1994. ESKENAZI T.C., ‘Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9-10’, in: idem (ed.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 266285. EVANS C.A., ‘The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers’, in: McDonald L.M.Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 185-195.

622 EYNIKEL E., - ‘Prophecy and Fulfilment in the Deuteronomistic History (1 Kgs 13; 2 Kgs 23, 16-18)’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers read at the 13th. IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989, Leuven 1990, 227-237. - ‘De wijsheidsliteratuur van het oude Nabije Oosten’, in: idem, Wie wijsheid zoekt, vindt het leven: De wijsheidliteratuur van het Oude Testament, Leuven 1991, 11-46. - The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS, 23), Leiden 1996. FABRY H.J., - ‘Spuren der Pentateuchredaktors in Jos. 4,21 ff. Anmerkungen zur DeuteronomismusRezeption’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 351-356. - ‘Der Umgang mit der kanonisierten Tora in Qumran’, in: Zenger E. (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders Biblische Studien, 10), Freiburg 1996, 293-327. - ‘Der Text und seine Geschichte’, in: Zenger E. (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament, sechste Auflage, Stuttgart 2006, 36-59. FALK Z.W., ‘Religion and State in Ancient Israel’, in: Reventlow H.G. e.a. (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Post-biblical Literature (JSOT SS, 171), Sheffield 1994, 49-54. FARKASFALVY D.M., The Formation of the New Testament Canon: An Oecumenical Approach, New York-Toronto, 1983. FAUST A., ‘A Note on Hezekiah’s Tunnel and the Siloam Inscription’, JSOT 90 (2000), 311. FAZEKAS L., ‘Kanon im Kanon’, TZ 37 (1981), 19-34. FENTON T., ‘Israelite Prophecy: Characteristics of the First Protest Movement’, in: De Moor J.C. (ed.), The Elusive Prophet (OTS, 45), Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001, 129-141. FERET H.M., ‘De soevereiniteit van Gods Woord in de Kerk van vandaag’, Conc 17 (1981), 8-19. FERGUSON E., ‘Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance’, SP 17 (1982), 677-683. FEY R., Amos und Jesaja: Abhängigkeit und Eigenständigkeit des Jesaja (WMANT, 12), Neunkirchen 1963. FIDDES P.S., ‘The Canon as Space and Place’, in: Barton J.-Wolter M. (eds.), Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (ZNWB, 118), Berlin–New York, 127-149. FIEDLER P., ‘Stand und Perspektiven des christlichen-jüdischen Dialogs’, BiLi (1992), 143153. FINKELSTEIN I., - ‘The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel: The Environmental and Socio-economic Aspects’, JSOT 44 (1989), 43-74. - ‘The Great Transformation: The “Conquest” of the Highland Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States’, in: Levy T.E. (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London 1995, 369-398. FINSTERBUSCH K., ‘Das gesetzparänetische Schema im Deuteronomium: Überlegungen zu Definition und Funktion im Anschluß an N. Lohfink’, BN 103 (2000), 53-63. FIOLET M.A.M., Vreemde verleiding, Rotterdam 1968. FISCHER G., ‘Wege aus dem Nebel? Ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchkrise’, BN 99 (1999), 5-7. FISCHER H., - ‘Systematische Theologie’, in: Strecker G. (ed.), Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert (UniTaschenbücher, 1238), Tübingen 1983, 209-288.

623 - ‘Rezeption in ihrer Bedeutung für Leben und Lehre der Kirche: Vorläufige Erwägungen zu einem undeutlichen Begriff’, ZThK 87 (1990), 100-123. FISCHER I., ‘Über die Integration des „kanonisch” gewordenen Dialogs zwischen Gott und Mensch in die Weitergabe menschlicher Weisheit’, in: Witte M. (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag II (BZAW, 345/II), Berlin-New York 2004, 787-803. FISCHER J., - ‘Über die Beziehung von Glaube und Mythos: Gedanken im Anschluß an Kurt Hübners “Die Wahrheit des Mythos”’, ZTK 85 (1988), 303-328. - ‘Pluralismus, Wahrheit und die Krise der Dogmatik’, ZThK 91 (1994), 487-539. FISHBANE M., - ‘Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis’, JBL 99 (1980), 343-361. - ‘Torah et Tradition’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 285-311. - Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985. FITZPATRICK A. – McKINLEY, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law (JSOT SS, 287), Sheffield 1999. FLANAGAN J.W., - ‘Finding the Arrow of Time: Constructs of Ancient History and Religion’, CR:BS 3 (1995), 37-80. - ‘Chiefs in Israel’, in: Carter C.E.-Meyers C.L. (eds.), Community, Identity and Ideology: Social Scientific Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 6), Winona Lake 1996, 311-334. FLEISCHER G., Von Menschenverkäufern, Basankühen und Rechtsverkehrern: Die Sozialkritik des Amosbuches in historisch-kritischer, sozialgeschichtlicher und archäologischer Perspektive (Theologie Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 74), Bonn 1989. FOHRER G., - ‘Die Gattung der Berichte über die symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten’, ZAW 64 (1952), 101-120. - Die symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten, Zürich 1968². - Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Gütersloh 196911. - ‘Bemerkungen zum neueren Verständnis der Propheten’, in: Neumann P.H.A. ‘ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 475-492. - Vom Werden und Verstehen des Alten Testaments (Gütersloher Taschbüchern-Siebenstern, 1414), Gütersloh 1986. - Erzähler und Propheten im Alten Testament (UTB, 1547), Heidelberg-Wiesbaden, 1989. FONTAINE C.R., ‘The Sage in Family and Tribe’, in: Gammie J.G.-Perdue L.G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990, 155-164. FOWL S.E., ‘The Canonical Approach of Brevard Childs’, ExpTim 96 (1985), 173-175. FREEDMAN D.N., - ‘The Law and the Prophets’ (SVT, 9), Leiden 1963, 250-265. - ‘Son of Man: Can these Bones live?’ Int 29 (1975), 171-207. - ‘The Earliest Bible’, in: O’Connor M.-Freedman D.N. (eds.), Backgrounds for the Bible, Winona Lake 1987a, 29-37. - ‘Who is Like Thee Among the Gods? The Religion of Early Israel’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D.(ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987b, 315-335. - ‘The Nine Commandments: The Secret Progress of Israel’s Sins’, BR 5 (1989), 28-37.

624 FREEMAN H.E., An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets, Chicago 19736. FREI P.-KOCH K., Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO, 55), Freiburg Schweiz-Göttingen 1984. FRERICHS E.S., ‘The Torah Canon of Judaism and the Interpretation of Hebrew Scripture’, HBT 9 (1987), 13-25. FRETHEIM T.E., - ‘Jonah and Theodicy’, ZAW 90 (1978), 227-237. - ‘The Reclamation of Creation: Redemption and Law in Exodus’, Int 45 (1991), 354-365. FREY C., ‘The Biblical Tradition in the perspective of political Theology and political Ethics’, in: Reventlow H.G. e.a. eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature (JSOT SS, 171), Sheffield 1994, 55-65. FRICK F.S., ‘Religion and Socio-political Structure in Early Israel: An Ethno-archeological Approach’, in: Carter C.E.-Meyers C.L. (eds.), Community, Identity and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 6), Winona Lake 1996, 448-470. FRIEBEL K.G., Jeremia’s and Ezechiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Non verbal Communication (JSOT SS, 283), Sheffield 1999. FRIES H., ‘Kirche und Kanon: Perspektiven katholischer Theologie’, in: Pannenberg W.Schneider Th. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeugnis 1. Kanon-Schrift-Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7), Göttingen 1992, 289-314. FRITZ V., - ‘Amosbuch, Amosschule und historischer Amos’, in idem (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin-New York 1989, 29-43. - Die Entstehung Israels im 12. und 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie 2), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1996. FRYMER-KENSKY T., ‘The Sage in the Pentateuch: Soundings’ in: Gammie J.G.-Perdue L.G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990, 275-287. FÜGLISTER N., ‘B.S. Childs’, BZ 26 (1982), 281-282. FULLER R.M., ‘Early Catholicism: An Anglican Reaction to a German Debate’, in: Luz U.Weder H. (eds.), Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments. Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift für Edward Schweizer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Göttingen 1983, 34-41. GABEL H., ‘Inspiration’, LTK 5 (1996), 533-541. GAGEY H.J.-SOULETTE J.L., ‘La Théologie aux prises avec l’Historiographie’, RSR 83 (1995), 557-583. GAMBLE H.Y., - ‘Canon New Testament’, ABD 1 (1992), 852-861. - ‘The New Testament canon: Recent research and the status questionis’ in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 267-294. GAMMIE J.G., - Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, New York 1978. - ‘Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre’, S 50 (1990), 4177. GAMMIE J.G.-PERDUE L.G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, 1990. GANOCZY A., - ‘De Bijbelse grondslagen van de dogmatische redenering’, Conc 16 (1980), 79-85.

625 - ‘Die Bedeutung des christlichen Schöpfungsglauben für die Einheit der Menschheit’, in: Strolz W.-Waldenfels M. (eds.), Christliche Grundlagen des Dialogs mit den Weltreligionen (Quaestiones Disputatae, 98), 1983, 127-150. GARBINI G., - History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, London 1988. - ‘Hebrew Literature in the Persian Period’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 180-188. GARCÍA LÓPEZ F., ‘Le roi d’Israël: Deut. 17:14,20’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 277-297. GEFFRE C.-JOSSUA J.P., ‘Bijdrage tot een theologische interpretatie van het moderne levensgevoel. Ten geleide: De moderniteit in discussie’, Conc 30 (1992), 6-9. GELSTON A., ‘Universalism in Second Isaiah’, JTS 43 (1992), 377-398. GEOGHEGAN J.C., ‘Additioned Evidence for a Deuteronomistic Redaction of the “Tetrateuch”’, CBQ 67 (2005), 405-421. GEORGI D., ‘Die Aristoteles- und Theophrastausgabe des Andronikus von Rhodus: Ein Beitrag zur Kanonsproblematik’, in: Bartelmus e.a. (eds.), Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag (OBO, 126), Göttingen 1993, 45-78. GERHARDS M., - ‘Die Begnadigung Jojachims: Überlegungen zu 2.Kön 25,27-30’, BN 94 (1998), 52-67. - ‘Die beiden Erzählungen aus 2 Kön. 20 und 2 Kön. 20,18 als Ankündigung der Begnadigung Jojachims (2 Kön. 25,27-30)’, BN 98 (1999). GERSTENBERGER E.S., - Wesen und Herkunft der Sog: Apodiktischen Rechts im Alten Testament, Bonn 1961. - ‘The Lyrical Literature’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia 19862, 409-444. - ‘“Gemeindebildung” in Prophetenbüchern? Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zum Traditions- und Redaktionsprozeß prophetischer Schriften’, in: Fritz V. (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin-New York 1989, 44-58. GESE H., - Vom Sinai zum Zion, München 1974 - ‘Das Biblische Schriftsverständnis’, in: idem, Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge (Beiträge zur evangelische Theologie, 78), München 1977, 9-30. - ‘Tradition et Théologie Biblique’, in: Knight D. e.a. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 313-339. - ‘Der auszulegende Text’, ThQ 167 (1987), 252-265. - ‘Die dreifache Gestaltwerdung in Alten Testament’, in: idem (ed.), Alttestamentlichen Studien, Tübingen 1991, 1-28. GIBERT P., - ‘Vers une intelligence nouvelle du Pentateuque?’, RSR 80 (1992), 55-80. - ‘Entre l’idée de création et le récit biblique’, RSR 81 (1993), 519-538. - ‘Bulletin Exégèse de l’Ancien Testament’, RSR 83/3 (1995), 409-445. GIESELMANN B., ‘Die sogenannte josianische Reform in der gegenwärtigen Forschung’, ZAW (1994), 223-242. GIRARDI G., Kristenen voor het socialisme. Waarom? Waartoe?, Leuven 1977. GLOBE A., ‘The Literary Structure and Unity of the Song of Deborah’, JBL 93 (1994), 493512.

626 GLOEGE G., ‘Zur Geschichte der Schriftverständnisses’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 13-40. GLOER W.H., ‘Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Anatomy of an Issue’, BTB 11 (1981), 53-58. GNUSE R. K., - ‘Authority of the Scriptures: Quest for a Norm’, BTB 13 (1983), 59-66. - ‘Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel’s Vision of Social Reform’, BTB, 15 (1985a), 4348. - The Authority of the Bible: Theories of Inspiration, Revelation and the Canon of Scripture, New York 1985b. - ‘New Directions in Biblical Theology: The Impact of Contemporary Scholarship in the Hebrew Bible’, JAAR 62 (1994), 893-918. - ‘Redefining the Elohist’, JBL 119 (2000), 201-220. GOLDINGAY J., Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, Michigan 1987. GÖLL H.P., ‘Offenbarung in der Geschichte: Theologische Überlegungen zur sozialgeschichtlichen Exegese Gerhard Sauter zum 50. Geburtstag’, EvTh 45 (1985), 532545. GONÇALVES F.J., - ‘Histoire Deutéronomiste’, RB 96 (1981), 131-139. - ‘Les “prophètes écrivains” étaient-ils des ‫’?נביאי‬, in: Daviau P.M.M.-Wevers J.W.-Weigl M. (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT SS, 324), Sheffield 2001, 144-185. GOOD E.M., ‘Hosea and the Jacob Tradition’, VT 16 (1966), 137-151. GORDON R.P., ‘From Mari to Moses: Prophecy at Mari and in Ancient Israel’, in: McKay H.A.-Clines D.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 63-79. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN M.H., - ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth’, JBL 102 (1983), 365-399. - ‘The Development of the Hebrew Text of the Bible: Theories and Practice of Textual Criticism’, VT 42, (1992), 204-213. GOSSE B.A., - ‘Le Psaume 2 et l’usage rédactionnel des Oracles contre les Nations à l’époque postexilique’, BN 62 (1992), 18-24. - ‘Isa 59,21 et 2 Sam 23,1-7, l’opposition entre les lignées sacerdotales et royales à l’époque post-exilique’, BN 68 (1993a), 10-12. - ‘Le Psaume 83, Isaïe 62,6-7 et la tradition des Oracles contre les Nations des livres d’Isaïe et d’Ézéchiel BN 70 (1993b), 9-12. GOTTLIEB I.B., ‘Pirqe Abot and Biblical Wisdom’, VT 40 (1990), 152-164. GOTTWALD N.K., - ‘Social Matrix and Canonical Shape’, ThTo 42 (1985), 307-321. - ‘Recent Studies of the Social World of Premonarchic Israel’, CR:BS 1 (1993), 163-189. - ‘Ideology and Ideologies in Israelite Prophecy’, in: Reid S.B. (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honour of Gene M. Tucker (JSOT SS, 229), Sheffield 1996, 136149.

627 - ‘Triumphalist Versus Anti-triumphalist Versions of Early Israel: A Response to Articles by Lemche and Dever in volume 4 (1996)’, CR:BS 5 (1997), 15-42. - ‘Biblical Scholarship in Public Discourse’, Bibl. Int. 11 (2003), 555-565. GOULDER M., The Prayers of David (Psalm 51-72), Studies in the Psalter 2, Sheffield 1990. GOWAN D.E., Bridge Between the Testaments: A Reappraisal of Judaism from the Exile to the Birth of Christianity, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 1976. GRABBE L.L., - ‘The Jewish Theocracy from Cyrus to Titus: A Programmatic Essay’, JSOT 37 (1987), 117-124. - ‘Reconstructing History from the Book of Ezra’, in: Davies P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 98-107. - ‘Prophets, Priests, Diviners and Sages in Ancient Israel’, in: McKay H.A.-Clines J.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 43-62. - ‘What was Ezra’s Mission?’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 286299. - ‘Are Historians of Ancient Palestine Fellow Creatures – or Different Animals?’, in: idem (ed.), Can a “History of Israel” be Written? (JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997a, 19-36. - Can a “History of Israel” be Written? (JSOTT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997b. - Leading Captivity Captive: The ‘Exile’ as History and Ideology (JSOT SS, 278), Sheffield 1998a. - ‘“The Exile” under the Theodolite: Historiography as Triangulation’, in: idem (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The ‘Exile’ as History and Ideology (JSOT SS, 278), Sheffield 1998b, 80-91. - Did Moses speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001a. - ‘Hat die Bibel doch recht? A review of T.L. Thompson’s The Bible in History’, JSOT 14 (2000), 117-139, Sheffield 2001b. - ‘Who were the First Real Historians? On the Origins of Critical Historiography’, in: idem (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001c, 156-181. GRANT R.M., ‘Literary Criticism and the New Testament Canon’, JSNT 16 (1982), 24-44. GRANT R.M.-TRACY D., A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, Philadelphia 1984². GRÄSSER E., - ‘Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Biblischen Theologie’, ZThK 77 (1980), 200-221. - ‘Evangelisch-katholische Exegese? Eine Standortbestimmung’, ZTK 95 (1998), 185-196. GREENBERG M., - ‘More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law’, in: Japhet S. (ed.), Studies in Bible (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 31), Jerusalem 1986, 1-17. - ‘Biblical Attitudes toward Power: Ideal and Reality in Law and Prophets’, in: Firmage E.B. (ed.), Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Academic Perspectives, Winona Lake 1990a, 101-125. - ‘Three Conceptions of the Torah in Hebrew Scriptures’, in: Blum E. (ed.), Die Hebräische Bibel und die zweifache Nachgeschichte, Festschrift für R. Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1990b, 365-378.

628 GREENGUS S., ‘Some Issues Relating to the Comparability of Laws and the Coherence of the Legal Tradition’, in: Levinson B.M. (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 184), Sheffield 1994, 60-87. GREENSPAHN F.E., ‘Why Prophecy Ceased’, JBL 108 (1989), 37-49. GRELOT P., Combats pour la Bible en Église: Une brassée de souvenirs (L’histoire à vif), Paris 1994. GRENZ S.J., ‘The social God and the Relational Self: Toward a Theology of the Imago Dei in the Postmodern Context’, HBT 24 (2002), 33-57. GRESHAKE G., Gott in allen Dingen finden: Schöpfung und Gotteserfahrung, Freiburg 1986. GRIFFITHS J.G., ‘Egypt and the Rise of the Synagogue’, JTS 38 (1987), 1-15. GROH D.E., ‘Hans Von Campenhausen on Canon: Position and Problems’, Int 28 (1974), 331-343. GROLLENBERG L., ‘R. Rendtorff. Das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung’, TvT 24 (1984), 175. GROSS W., - ‘Einheit der Schrift?’, ThQ 170 (1990), 304-306. - ‘Prophet gegen Institution im altere Israel? Warnung vor vermeintlichen Gegensätzen’, ThQ 171 (1991), 15-30. GRUSON Ph., Bible et Royauté (Cahiers Évangile, 83), Paris 1993. GUEST P.D., ‘Can Judges Survive without Sources?: Challenging the Consensus’, JSOT 78 (1998), 43-61. GUNKEL H., ‘Die geheimen Erfahrungen der Propheten’, in: Neumann P.H.H. (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Henrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 109-143. GUNN D.M., - ‘Hebrew Narrative’, in: Mayes A.D.M. (ed.), Text in Context, Oxford 2000, 223-252. - ‘Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic period’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001, 182-299. GUNNEWEG A.H.J., - Mündliche und schriftliche Tradition der vorexilischen Prophetenbücher als Problem der neueren Prophetenforschung (FRLANT, 73), Göttingen 1959. - ‘Das Gesetz und die Propheten, Eine Auslegung von Ex 33, 7-11; Num 11,4 - 12,8; Dtn 31,14 f.; 34,10’, ZAW 90 (1978), 169-180. - ‘“Theologie” des Alten Testaments oder “Biblische Theologie”?, in: idem-Kaiser O. (eds.), Textgemäß: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979, 39-46. - ‘Altes Testament und existential Interpretation’, in: Jaspert B. (ed.), Rudolf Bultmann’s Werk und Wirkung, Darmstadt 1984. - ‘Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren Pentateuchforschung’, ThR 48 (1984), 227-253; 50 (1985a), 107-131. - Ezra (KAT, 19/1), Gütersloh 1985b. - ‘Die Prophetenlegende I Reg 13 - Mißdeutung, Umdeutung, Bedeutung’, in: Fritz V. (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin-New York 1989, 73-81.

629 HAACKER K., - ‘Die Fragestellung der Biblischen Theologie als exegetische Aufgabe’, in: idem e.a. (eds.), Biblische Theologie heute: Einführung-Beispiele-Kontroversen (Biblische Theologische Studien, 1), Neunkirchen 1977, 9-23. - ‘Existenz und Exegese’, in: Haacker K. (ed.), Biblische Theologie als engagierte Exegese: Theologische Grundfrage und thematische Studien, Wuppertal-Zürich 1993, 66-75. HAAG H., Gott der Einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheïsmus in Israel (Quaestiones Disputatae, 104), Freiburg 1985. HAERS J., ‘Het christelijk Godsgeloof in actuele holistische Stromingen’, Collat 26 (1996), 149-165. HÄGGLUND B., Geschichte der Theologie: Ein Abriß, München 1983. HAHN F., ‘Probleme historischer Kritik’, ZNW 63 (1972), 1-17. HAHN S., ‘Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (19942004)’, CBR 3.2 (2005), 263-292. HALBE J., - Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,10-26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken im Vordeuteronomischen Zeit (FRLANT, 114), Göttingen 1975. - ‘Gemeinschaft, die Welt unterbricht: Grundfragen und -Inhalte deuteronomischer Theologie und Überlieferungsbildung im Lichte der Ursprungsbedingungen alttestamentlichen Rechts’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 55-75. HALLIGAN J.M., ‘Nehemia 5: By Way of a Response to Hoglund and Smith’, in: Davies P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 146153. HALLO W.W., - ‘The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal’, in: Lawson Younger, Jr. K.-Hallo W.W.-Batto B.F. (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 11), Lewiston-Queenston-Lamfeter 1991, 1-20. - ‘Biblical History in its Near Eastern setting’, in: Philips Long V. (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999, 77-97. HALPERN B., - ‘Sectionalism and Schism’, JBL 93 (1974), 519-32. - The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History, San Francisco 1988. - ‘Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability’, in: idem-Holson D.W. (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124), Sheffield 1991, 1-107. - ‘The State of Israelite History’, in: Knoppers G.N.-McConville J.G. (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8, Winona Lake 2000, 540-565. HANEGRAAFF W.J., - Oecumenische inleiding in het Oude Testament (Met de Torah is het begonnen, I), Nijkerk 1988. - De voortgang van het Woord in Tenach en Septuagint (met de Torah is het begonnen II), Nijkerk 1989. - Rondom de mondelinge Traditie (Met de Torah is het begonnen, III), Nijkerk 1990.

630 HANSON P.D., - ‘The Theological Significance of Contradiction within the Book of the Covenant’, in: Coats G.W.-Long B.O. (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977, 110-131. - The Dawn of Apocalyptic, Philadelphia 19792. - The Diversity of Scripture (Overtures to Biblical Theology, 11), Cambridge 1982. - ‘The Future of Biblical Theology’, HBT 6 (1984), 13-24. - ‘Biblical Authority Reconsidered’, HBT 11 (1989), 57-79. - ‘1 Chronicles 15-16 and The Chronicler’s View on the Levites’, in: Fishbane M.-Tov E.Fields W.V. (eds.), “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemarayahu Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 69-77. - Das berufene Volk: Entstehen und Wachsen der Gemeinde in der Bibel, Neunkirchen 1993. HARAN M., - ‘From Early to Classical Prophecy: Continuity and Change’, VT 27 (1977), 385-397. - ‘On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT, 40), Leiden 1988, 81-95. - ‘Book Size and the Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch’, in: Blum E. (ed.), Die Hebräische Bibel und die zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1990, 165-176. HARDMEIER Chr., - ‘Verkündigung und Schrift bei Jesaja: Zur Entstehung der Schriftprophetie als Oppositionsliteratur im alten Israel’, Tgl 73 (1983), 119-134. - Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 15-20 und Jer 37-40, Berlin 1990a, 23-86. - ‘Umrisse eines vordeuteronomistischen Annalenwerks der Zidkijazeit’, VT 40 (1990b), 165-184. - ‘Die Propheten Micha und Jesaja im Spiegel von Jeremia XXVI und 2 Regum XVIII-XX; Zur Prophetie Rezeption in der nach-joschijanischen Zeit’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume, Leuven 1989, SV43 (1991), 172-189. - ‘Das Schema Israel in Dtn 6,4 im Rahmen der Beziehungstheologie der deuteronomistischen Tora’, in: Blum E. (ed.), Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 2000, 61-92. HARDY D.W., ‘The Grace of God and Earthly Wisdom’, in: Barton S.C. (ed.), Where Shall Wisdom be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World, Edinburgh 1999, 231-247. HARRELSON W., ‘La vie, la Foi et la Naissance de la Tradition’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Traditions et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 21-40. HARRINGTON D.J., ‘The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 196-210. HARTENSTEIN F., ‘Religionsgeschichte Israels – ein Überblick über die Forschung seit 1990’, VF 48 (2003), 2-28. HARTLICH C., ‘Is de historisch-kritische methode achterhaald?’, Conc 16 (1980), 7-12. HASEL G.F., - ‘A Decade of Old Testament Theology: Retrospect and Prospect’, ZAW 93 (1981), 165183. - ‘Biblical Theology: Then, Now and Tomorrow’, HBT 4 (1982), 61-93. - ‘Major Recent Issues in Old Testament Theology 1978-1983’, JSOT 31 (1985a), 31-53.

631 - New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, Michigan 1985²b. - Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, Michigan 1987³. HAUSMANN J., Israels Rest: Studien zum Selbstverständnis der nachexilischen Gemeinde (BWANT, 124), Stuttgart 1987. HAYES J.H.-PRUSSNER F., Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development, Atlanta 1985. HEGER P., - The Three Biblical Altar Laws: Developments in the Sacrificial Cult in Practice and Theology: Political and Economic Background (BZAW, 279), Berlin-New York 1999. - ‘Source of Law in the Biblical and Mesopotamian Law Codes’, in: Bibl. 86 (2005a), 324342. HENAU E., ‘Volksreligiositeit en christelijk geloof’, Conc 22 (1986), 64-71. HENDEL R.S., ‘Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus 24, 3-8’, ZAW 89 (1979), 366-390. HENGEL M., Judentum und Hellenismus (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT, 10), Tübingen 1973². HENIGE D., ‘Deciduous, Perennial or Evergreen? The Choices in the Debate over “Early Israel”‘, JSOT 27 (2003), 387-412. HENNE P., ‘La datation du canon de Muratori’, RB 100 (1993), 54-75. HENNINGS R., Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des AT und die Auslegung von Gal. 2,11-14 (VC 5,21), Leiden 1994. HENTSCHKE R., Die Stellung der vorexilischen Schriftpropheten zum Kultus (ZAWB, 75), Berlin 1957. HENRY M.L., Prophet und Tradition (ZAWB, 116), Berlin 1969. HERION G.A., ‘The Impact of Modern and Social Science Assumptions on the Reconstruction of Israelite History’, in: Carter C.E.-Meyers C.L. (eds.), Community, Identity and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 6), Winona Lake 1996, 230-257). HERMISSON H.J., - ‘Die “Koningspruch”-Sammlung im Jeremiabuch - von der Anfangs - zur Endgestalt’, in: Blum E. e.a. (eds.), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für R. Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1990, 277-299. - ‘Kriterien “wahrer” und “falscher” Prophetie im Alten Testament. Zur Auslegung von Jeremia 23,16-22 und Jeremia 28,8-9’, ZThK 92 (1995), 121-139. - Studien zu Prophetie und Weisheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze (FAT, 23), Tübingen 1998. HERMS E., - ‘Offenbarung. Theologiegeschichte und Dogmatik’, TRE 25 (1995), 109-210. - ‘Was haben wir an der Bibel? Versuch einer Theologie des christlichen Kanons’, in: Janowski B.-Welker M. (eds.), Biblische Hermeneutik (JbBTh, 12), Neunkirchen 1998, 99-152. HERRMANN S., Jeremia: Der Prophet und das Buch (Erträge der Forschung, 271), Darmstadt 1990. HERRMANN W., ‘Weisheit im Bundesbuch: Eine Miszelle zu Ex. 23,1-9’, in: Haumann J.Zobel H.J. (eds.), Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift für H.D. Preuss zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1992, 56-68. HETTEMA Th.L., ‘The Canon: Authority and Fascination’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 390-398.

632 HEYDE L., ‘Het vragen van de mens en Gods antwoord: Correlatie en openbaring bij Paul Tillich’, TvT 14 (1974), 151-192. HIEKE T., ‘Neue Horizonte. Biblische Auslegung als Weg zu ungewöhnlichen Perspektiven’, in: ZNT 6 (2003a), 65-76. - ‘Vom Verstehen biblischer Texte’, BN 119-120 (2003b), 71-89. - ‘Es verschlingt den Tod für immer (Jes. 25,8a). Eine unerfüllte Verheißung im Alten und Neuen Testament’, BZ 50 (2006), 31-50. HJELM I.-THOMPSON T.L., ‘The Victory Song of Mernepthah, Israel and the People of Palestine’, JSOT 27 (2002), 3-18. HOBBS T.R., ‘The Search for Prophetic Consciousness: Comments in Method’, BTB 15 (1985), 136-141. HOEDEMAKER B., ‘Dressuur van de religie: Fundamentalisme en secularisatie’, TvT 33 (1993), 27-43. HÖFFKEN P., ‘Anmerkungen zum Thema biblische Theologie’, in: Oeming M.-Graupner A. (eds.), Altes Testament und christliche Verkündigung: Festschrift für Antonius H.J. Gunneweg zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1987, 13-29. HOFFMAN Y., - ‘The Concept of “other Gods” in the Deuteronomistic Literature’, in: Reventlow H.G. e.a. (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Post-biblical Literature (JSOT SS, 171), Sheffield 1994, 66-84. - ‘The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem’, ZAW 111 (1999), 196-210. HOFFMANN T.A., - Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (AThANT, 66), Zürich 1980. - ‘Inspiration, Normativeness, Canonicity and the Unique Sacred Character of the Bible’, CBQ 44 (1982), 447-469. HOGLUND K., ‘The Achaemenid Context’, in: Davies P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 54-72. HOLLADAY, Jr. J.S. - ‘Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archeological Approach, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 249-299. - ‘The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron II A-B (ca. 1000-750 BCE), in: Levy T.E. (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London 1995, 368-374. HOLLADAY W.L., - ‘A Proposal for Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah of the Seven-Year Recitation of the Law in Deuteronomy (Deut. 31,10-13)’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 326-328. - Jeremia 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremia: Chapters 1-25, Philadelphia 1986. - ‘Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah and Proto-Deuteronomy’, CBQ 66 (2004), 55-77. HOLMAN J., - ‘Twintig jaar theologie van het Oude Testament’, in: Logister W. e.a., Twintig jaar ontwikkelingen in de Theologie: Tendensen en Perspectieven, Kampen 1987, 35-44. - ‘Het Oude Testament: te vatten in een “theologie”? Westermann’s “Hoofdlijnen” en het bed van Procrustes’, TvT 95 (1995), 217-236.

633 HOLT E.K., Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel’s History in the Book of Hosea (JSOT SS, 194), Sheffield 1995. HÖPFL H., ‘Canonicité’, DBS 1, Paris 1928, col. 1022-1045. HOPPE J.L., - ‘The Levitical Origins of Deuteronomy Reconsidered’, Biblical Research 29 (1983), 2736. - ‘Jerusalem in the Deuteronomistic History’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 107-110. HORN G., ‘Wahrheit und Historisierung in Semlers kritischer Theologie’, TL 116 (1991), 721-730. HORNIG G., ‘Textinterpretation und Hermeneutik des Einverständnisses: Kritische Anmerkungen zu den Theorien von Hans-Georg Gadamer und Peter Stuhlmacher’, in: Evang M. e.a. (eds.), Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift für E. Grässer (BZNW, 89), Berlin - New York 1997, 123-137. HOSSFELD F.L., - Der Dekalog: Seine Späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen, Göttingen 1982. - ‘Probleme einer ganzheitlichen Lektüre der Schrift’, ThQ 167 (1987), 266-277. - ‘Der Dekalog als Grundgesetz: Eine Problemanzeige’, in: Kratz R.G.-Spieckermann H. (eds.), Studien zum Deuteronomium: Festschrift zum 90.Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000, 45-59. - Wieviel Systematik erlaubt die Schrift? Auf der Suche nach einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie (Quaestiones Disputatae, 185), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 2001. HOUDIJK R., ‘De mens onttroond? Het postmoderne denken en de theologie’, TvT 30 (1990), 276-297. HOUSTON W., ‘What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing? Speech Acts and Prophetic Discourse in the Old Testament’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 133-153. HOUTMAN C., - Inleiding in de Pentateuch 1-2, Kampen 1980. - ‘Zwei Sichtweisen von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewohner Kanaans: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum Verhältnis von J und Dtr (G)’, in: Vervenne M.-Lust J. (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997, 213-231. - ‘Der “Tatian” des Pentateuch. Einheit und Kohärenz in Exodus 19-40’, ETL 76 (2000), 381-395. - ‘Autoritative Interpretation im Deuteronomium’, in: Dyck J.W. e.a. (eds.), Unless Someone Guides me ... Festschrift für Karel A. Deurloo (ACEBT, 112), Maastricht 2001, 57-65. - ‘Fortschreibung im Deuteronomium: Die Interpretation von Numeri 13 und 14 in Deuteronomium 1,19-2,1’, BZ 48 (2004), 1-18. HÜBNER H., - ‘Vetus Testamentum und Vetus Testamentum in Novo Receptum’, Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 147-162. - ‘Was ist Biblische Theologie?’, in: Dohmen C.-Söding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel - zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie (UTB -Uni-Taschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995, 209-223. - ‘Kanon – Geschichte – Gott’, ZNT 6 (2003), 3-17.

634 HUMAN D., ‘Aspects of Monotheism: A Continued Debate’, OTE 12/3 (1999), 491-505. HURVITZ A., - ‘Dating the Priestly Source in Light of The Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen’ (ZAWB, 100), Berlin 1988, 88-100. - ‘The Historical Quest for “Ancient Israel” and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations’, VT 47 (1997), 301-315. INSOLE L.J., ‘Against Radical Orthodoxy: The Dangers of Overcoming Political Liberalism’, Mod T 20 (2004), 213-241. JABORIAU F., ‘Sur le Concept de Révélation’, RThom 90 (1990), 533-569. JACKSON B.S., - ‘Some Literary Features of the Mishpatim’, in: Augustin M.-Schunck K.D. (eds.), Wunschet Jerusalem Frieden, Frankfurt 1988, 235-242. - ‘Legalism and Spirituality: Historical, Philosophical and Semiotic Notes on Legislators, Factors and Subjects’, in: Firmage E.B. (ed.), Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, Winona Lake 1990, 243-261. - ‘Ideas of Law and Legal Administration: a Semiotic Approach’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 185-202. - ‘Law, Wisdom and Narrative’, in: Brooke G.J.-Kaestli J.D. (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts (BETL, 149), Leuven 2000a, 31-51. - Studies in the Semiotic of Biblical Law (JSOT SS, 314), Sheffield 2000b. JACOB E., - ‘Principe canonique et formation de l’Ancien Testament’, Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT, 28), Leiden 1975, 101-122. - ‘Prophètes et Intercesseurs’, in: Carrez H. (ed.), De la Tôrah au Messie: Mélanges Henri Cazelles, Paris 1981, 205-217. - ‘L’Ancien Testament et la Théologie’, ZAWB 100 (1988), 268-278. JAGERSMA H., - Leviticus 19: Identiteit, Bevrijding, Gemeenschap (SSN, 14), Assen 1972. - Geschiedenis van Israel van Alexander de Grote tot Bar Kochba 2, Kampen 1985. - Geschiedenis van Israel in het Oudtestamentische tijdvak 1, Kampen 19902. - ‘Kanttekeningen bij het woord Tora’, in: idem, Tekst en Interpretatie: Studies over getallen, teksten, verhalen en geschiedenis in het Oude Testament, Nijkerk 1990b, 89-92. - ‘Noodzaak en betekenis van de ‘Geschiedenis van Israel’ als academisch vak’, in: idem (ed.), Tekst en Interpretatie: Studies over getallen, teksten, verhalen en geschiedenis in het Oude Testament, Nijkerk 1990c, 93-96. - ‘Het verhaal van de “Storm op Zee” in Mattheüs 8, 23-27: Een typerend voorbeeld van een “impliciete midrasj”’, in: Smelik K.A.D. (ed.), Met Dopers aan tafel: Bundel opgedragen aan Prof. dr. J.T. Nielsen ter gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als gewoon hoogleraar Nieuwtestamentische vakken aan de Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid te Brussel, Nijkerk 1992a, 77-84. - ‘Israel in de wereld van het Oude Nabije Oosten’, in: Jagersma H.-Vervenne M. (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992b, 183-189. - ‘Profetie en Profeten’, in: Jagersma H.-Vervenne H. (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992c, 196-205. JAGERSMA H.-VERVENNE M. (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992. JAMIESON-DRAKE D., David, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A SocioArcheological Approach (JSOT SS, 109: The Social World of Biblical Antiquities, 9), Sheffield 1991.

635 JANOWSKI B., ‘Der eine Gott der beiden Testamente: Grundfragen einer Biblischen Theologie’, ZTK 95 (1998), 1-36. JANSE W., ‘Canonisering en decanonisering van de confessie: de reformatie in Duitsland’, in: Jenner K.D.-Wiegers G.A. (eds.), Heilig Boek en religieus gezag (Leidse Studiën van de Godsdienst, 2), Kampen 1998, 231-245. JANZEN J.G., ‘The Canonical Context of Old Testament Introduction’, Int 34 (1980), 411414. JAPHET S., - ‘The Historical Reliability of Chronicles’, JSOT 33 (1985), 83-107. - ‘The Relationship between the Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light of Manumersion Laws’, in: Japhet S. (ed.), Studies in Bible (Scripta Hierosalomytama, 31), Jerusalem 1986. - The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Beiträge zur Erforschung des A.T. und des antiken Judentums, 9), Frankfurt 1989. - ‘The Israelite Legal and Social Reality’, in: Fishbane M.-Tov E.-Fields W.V. (eds.), “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 79-91. - ‘Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: Eskenazi T.C.Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 189-216. JENNER K.D.-WIEGERS G.A., - ‘De canon herzien? Canonieke Tradities tussen godsdienst-politieke en socio-culturele werkelijkheid’, in: idem (eds.), Heilig Boek en religieus gezag (Leidse Studiën van de Godsdienst, 2), Kampen 1998a, 304-308. - ‘Omtrent het ontstaan en functioneren van canons: de maatschappelijke relevantie van de godsdienstwetenschappen’, in: idem (eds.), Heilig Boek en religieus gezag (Leidse Studiën van de Godsdienst, 2), Kampen 1998b, 9-22. JEREMIAS J., - Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit (WMANT, 35), Neunkirchen 1970. - Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen: Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen (FRLANT, 141), Göttingen 1987. - ‘Völkerspruche und Visionsberichte im Amosbuch’, in: Fritz V., (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin-New York 1989, 82-97. - Hosea und Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheten (FAT, 13), Tübingen 1996a - ‘The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea’, in: Watts J.W.-House P.R. (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honour of John D.W. Watts (JSOT SS, 235), Sheffield 1996b, 171-186. - ‘Rezeptionsprozesse in der prophetischen Überlieferung am Beispiel der Visionsberichte des Amos’, in: Kratz R.G.-Krüger I., (eds), Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposium aus Anlaß des 60.Beburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck (OBO, 153), Freiburg (Schweiz)-Göttingen 1997, 29-44. - ‘Prophetenwort und Prophetenbuch: Zur Rekonstruktion mündlicher Verkündigung der Propheten’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Prophetie und Charisma (JbBTh, 14), Neunkirchen 1999, 19-35. - ‘Neuere Entwürfe zu einer “Theologie des Alten Testaments”‘, VF 48 (2003), 29-58. - Das Wesen der alttestamentliche Prophetie’, TL 131 (2006), 4-14.

636 JOHNSON A.R., The Cultic Prophet and Israel’s Psalmody, Cardiff 1979. JOHNSTONE W., - ‘Reactivating the Chronicles: Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus’, ZAW 99 (1987), 16-37. - ‘The “Ten Commandments”: Some Recent Interpretations’, ExpTim 100 (1989), 453-61. JONES G.H., ‘The Concept of Holy War’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 299321. JOUBERT L.K., ‘Narrative Aggada, the Church Fathers and Narrative Theology: The Transformative Power of Wisdom Inspired by Old Testament Narratives’, OTE 16 (2003), 47-57. JOYCE P., ‘First Among Equals? The Historical-Critical Approach in the Marketplace of Methods’, in: Porter S.E.-Joyce P.-Orton D.E. (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael Goulder, Leiden 1994, 17-27. KAESTLI J.D.-WERMELINGER O. (eds.), Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament, Genève 1984. KAISER O., - Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Gütersloh 19845a. - ‘Johann Salomo Semler als Bahnbrecher der moderne Bibelwissenschaft’, in: idem (ed.), Von der Gegenwartsbedeutung des Alten Testament (Gesammelte Studien), Göttingen 1984b, 79-94. - ‘Literarkritik und Tendenzkritik: Überlegungen zur Methode der Jesajaexegese’, in: Vermeylen J. (ed.), The Book of Isaiah: Le livre D’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures: Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 55-71. - ‘The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History’, in: Mayes A.D.M. (ed.), Text in Context, Oxford 2000, 289-322. KALIMI I., ‘Abfassungszeit der Chronik: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven’, ZAW 105 (1993), 223-233. KAMIN S., ‘The Theological Significance of the Hebraica Veritas in Jerome’s Thought’, in: Fishbane M.-Tov E.-Fields M.W. (eds.), “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 243253. KAMITSUKA D.G., ‘Salvation, Liberation and Christian Character Formation: Postliberal and Liberation Theologians in Dialogue’, ModT 13 (1997), 171-189. KAPELRUD A.S., ‘La Tradition et le Culte: Le Rôle du Culte dans la Formation et la Transmission de la Tradition’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1978, 111-134. KARTVEIT M., Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in 1 Chronik 1-9 (Coniectanea Biblica OT, 28), Stockholm 1989. KÄSEMANN E., - ‘Begründet der Neutestamentlichen Kanon die Einheit der Kirche?’, EvTh 11 (1951-52), 13-21. - Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970. - ‘Verscheidenheid en eenheid in het Nieuwe Testament’, Conc 20 (1984), 66-74. KASHER R., ‘The Sitz im Buch of the Story of Hizekiah’s Illness and Cure (II Reg. 20, 111; Isa 38, 1-22)’, ZAW 113 (2001), 41-55. KASPER W., ‘Das Verhältnis von Schrift und Tradition: Eine pneumatologische Perspektive’, in: Pannenberg W.- Schneider Th. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeugnis 1, KanonSchrift-Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7), Göttingen 1992, 335-370.

637 KATZ P., ‘The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria’, ZNW 49 (1956), 191217. KAUFMAN S.A., ‘Deuteronomium 15 and Recent Research on the Dating of P.’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 273- 276. KEALY S.P., - ‘The Canon: An African Contribution’, BTB 29 (1979), 13-26. - ‘Does the Canonical Order of the Bible Matter?’, Bto, 40 (2002), 44-48. KECK L.E., ‘The Premodern Bible in the Postmodern World’, Int 50 (1996), 130-141. KEDOURIE E., De joodse wereld: Openbaring, profetisme en geschiedenis, Antwerp 1979. KEEL O., ‘Religionsgeschichte Israels oder Theologie des Alten Testaments?’, in: Hossfeld F.L. (ed.), Wieviel Systematik erlaubt die Schrift? Auf der Suche nach einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie (Quaestiones Disputatae, 185), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 2001, 88-109. KEGLER J., ‘Prophetengestalten im Deuteronomischen Geschichtswerk und in den Chronikbüchern: Ein Beitrag zur kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Chronikbücher’, ZAW 105 (1993), 481-497. KELLER M., Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie (BBB, 105), Weinheim 1996. KENIS L., ‘Joden en christenen: Over de (on)mogelijkheid van de dialoog’, Kl 59 (1992), 42-43. KENYON K., De Bijbel en de nieuwste Archeologie, Maarssen 1980. KEPEL G., La Revanche de Dieu, Paris 1991. KEVERS P., ‘Wijsheidselementen in de Psalmen’, in: Eynikel E. (ed.), Wie wijsheid zoekt, vindt het leven: De wijsheidsliteratuur van het Oude Testament, Leuven 1991, 71-86. KILIAN R., - ‘Apodiktisches und kasuistisches Recht im Licht ägyptischer Analogien’, in: Werner W.Werlitz J. (eds.), Studien zu Alttestamentlichen Texten und Situationen (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 28), Stuttgart 1999a, 11-30. - ‘Das Humanum im ethischen Dekalog Israels’, in: Werner W.-Werlitz J. (eds.), Studien zu Alttestamentlichen Texten und Situationen (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 28), Stuttgart 1999b, 143-155. - ‘Gott in der Geschichte - Geschichte und Gottesbild: Überlegungen zu alttestamentlichen Gotteserfahrung’, in: Werner W.-Werlitz J. (eds.), Studien zu Alttestamentlichen Texten und Situationen (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 28), Stuttgart 1999c, 255-294. KIPPENBERG H.G., Religion und Klassenbildung im Antiken Judäa: Eine religionssoziologische Studie zum Verhältnis von Tradition und Gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung, Göttingen 1978. KITTEL B., ‘Brevard Childs’ Development of the Canonical Approach’, JSOT 16 (1980), 211. KIRCHNER D., ‘Gruppendynamische Untersuchung zu Struktur und Geschichte der Klage im Alten Testament’, TL 114 (1989), 785-796. KLEIN H., ‘Leben - neues Leben - Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments’, in: Merk O. (ed.), Schriftauslegung als theologische Aufklärung: Aspekte gegenwärtiger Fragestellungen in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft, Gütersloh 1984, 76-93. KLIJN A.F.J., ‘De Canon van het Nieuwe Testament’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. e.a. (eds.), Bijbels Handboek 3, Kampen 1987, 157-193.

638 KLINE M.G., The Structure of Biblical Authority, Grand Rapids 1972. KLINGHARDT, M. ‘Die Veröffentlichung der christlichen Bibel und der Kanon.’ ZNT 6 (2003), 59-64. KLOPFENSTEIN M., ‘Das Gesetz bei den Propheten’, in idem e.a. (eds.), Mitte der Schrift? Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch (Judaica et Christiana, 11), Bern 1987, 283-297. KLOSTERMANN F., ‘Zukunft und Ziel der ökumenischen Bewegung: Skeptische Überlegungen eines katholischen Theologen’, EvTh 41 (1981), 309-325. KNAUF E.A., - ‘From History to Interpretation’, in: Edelman D.V. (ed.), The Fabric of History; Text, Artefact and Israel’s Past (JSOT SS, 127), Sheffield 1991, 26-64. - ‘“L’historiographie deutéronomiste’ (DTRG) existe-t-elle?”’, in: Römer T.C.-De Pury A. (eds.), Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34), Genève 1996, 409-418. KNIBB M.A., ‘The Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses’, in: Coggins R. (ed.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 155-180. KNIERIM R.P., - ‘On the task of Old Testament Theology’, HBT 6 (1984), 91-128. - The Task of Old Testament Theology: Method and Cases, Michigan 1995. KNIGHT D.A., - ‘Canon and the History of Tradition: A Critique of Brevard S. Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture’, HBT 2 (1980), 127-149. - ‘La Révélation par la Tradition’, in: idem (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982a, 153-191. - Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1982b. - ‘Tradition et Théologie: Introduction’, in: idem (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982c, 11-19. - ‘The Pentateuch’, in: idem-Tucker G.M. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia 1985, 263-296. - ‘Whose Agony? Whose Ecstasy? The Politics of Deuteronomistic Law’, in: Penschansky D.-Redditt P.L., Shall Not the Judge of all the Earth do What is Right? Studies in the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, Winona Lake 2000, 97-112. KNOPPERS G.N., - ‘“Battling against Yahweh”: Israel’s War against Judah in 2 Chr. 13,2-20’, RB 100 (1993), 511-532. - ‘Jehosaphat’s Judiciary and “The Scroll of YHWH’s Torah”’, JBL 113 (1994), 1, 59-80. - ‘The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King’, ZAW 108 (1996), 329-346. - ‘The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel’, JBL 116 (1997), 19-44. - ‘Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings’, CBQ 63 (2001), 393-415. KOCH K., - ‘Die Rolle der hymnischen Abschnitte in der Komposition des Amos-Buches’, ZAW 86 (1974), 504-537. - Die Profeten 1: Assyrische Zeit (Urban-Taschenbücher, 280), Stuttgart-Berlin-KölnMainz 1978. - ‘Entstehung der sozialen Kritik bei den Profeten’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 565-593).

639 - Die Profeten 2: Babylonische-Persische Zeit (Urban-Taschenbücher, 281), StuttgartBerlin-Köln-Mainz 1980. - ‘Das Prophetenschweigen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks’, in: Jeremias J.Perlitt L. (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift H.W. Wolff, Neunkirchen 1981, 115-128. - ‘Rezeptionsgeschichte als notwendige Voraussetzung einer biblischen Theologie - oder: Protestantische Verlegenheit angesichts der Geschichtlichkeit des Kanons’, in: Schmid H.M.-Mehlhausen J. (eds.), Sola Scriptura: Das Reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt, Gütersloh 1988, 143-155. - ‘Der doppelte Ausgang des Alten Testaments in Judentum und Christentum’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Altes Testament und Christlichen Glaube (JbBTh, 6), Neunkirchen 1991, 215-242. KÖCKERT M., - ‘Das Gesetz und die Propheten in Amos 1-2’, in: Haussman J.-Zobel H.J. (eds.), Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift für H.D. Preuss zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1992, 145-154. - ‘Zum literargechichtlichen Ort des Prophetengesetzes Dtn 18 zwischen dem Jeremiabuch und Dtn 13’, in: Kratz R.G.-Spieckermann H. (eds.), Studien zum Deuteronomium: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000, 80100. KOEHL-KREBS H., ‘L’intertextualité comme méthode d’investigation du texte biblique’, BN 121 (2004), 61-76. KÖHLER J., ‘Macht Geschichte einen Sinn?’, ThQ 180 (2000), 272-288. KOOLE L.J., - ‘Die Bibel des Ben-Sira’, OTS 24 (1965), 374-396. - ‘Schriftgezag en Canon’, in: Berkouwer G.C.-Van Der Woude A.S. (eds.), De Bijbel in het geding, Nijkerk 1968, 84-98. - ‘Die Gestaltung des Alttestamentlichen Kanons: Vom Werden und Wesen des ATs’, GTT 77 (1977) Kampen, 224-238. - ‘Het Oude Testament als Heilige Schrift’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. e.a. (eds.), Bijbels Handboek 2b, Kampen 1983, 192-246. - Het beslissende Woord, Kampen 1985. - ‘De Canon van het Oude Testament’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 199-210. KÖRTNER U.H.J., ‘Theologie in dürftiger Zeit: Die Aufgabe der Theologie und das Problem einer biblischen Hermeneutik im gegenwärtigen Kontext von Kirche und Gesellschaft’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Biblische Hermeneutik (JbBTh, 12), Neunkirchen 1977, 153-179. KOWALSKI G.W., ‘Théologie de la Nature: Théologie de la Création’, RSR 72 (1982), 199218. KRAEMER D., ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JSOT 59 (1993), 73-92. KRAFT R.A., ‘The Codex and Canon Consciousness’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 229-233. KRATZ R.G., - ‘Die Redaktion der Prophetenbücher’, in: idem-Krüger T. (eds.), Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposion aus Anlaß des 60. Geburtstags von Odilon Hannes Steck (OBO, 153), Freiburg (Schweiz)-Göttingen 1997, 9-27.

640 - ‘Der literarische Ort des Deuteronomiums’, in: idem-Spieckermann H. (eds.), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000a, 101-120. - Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundriß der Bibelkritik (UTB, Uni-Taschenbücher, 2157), Göttingen 2000b. - ‘Das Neue in der Prophetie des Alten Testaments’, in: Fischer I, Schmid K., Williamson H.G.M. (eds.), Prophetie in Israel (Altes Testament und Moderne, 11), MünsterHamburg-London 2003, 1-22. KRATZ R.G.-SPIECKERMANN H., Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000. KRAUS G., Gotteserkenntnis ohne Offenbarung und Glaube? Natürliche Theologie als ökumenisches Problem (Konfessionskundliche und kontroverstheologische Studien, 50), Paderborn 1987. KRAUS H.J., - ‘Zur Geschichte des Überlieferungsbegriffs in der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft’, EvTh 16 (1956), 371-387. - Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre Geschichte und Problematik, Neunkirchen 19701. - ‘Probleme und Perspektiven biblischen Theologie’, in: Haacker K., e.a. (eds.), Biblische Theologie heute (Biblische Theologische Studien, 1), Neunkirchen 1977a, 97-124. - ‘Theologie als Traditionsbildung? zu Hartmut Gese “vom Sinai zum Zion”’, in: Haacker K. e.a. (eds.), Biblische Theologie heute (Biblische Theologische Studien, 1), Neunkirchen 1977b, 61-73. - Geschichte der historischen-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Neunkirchen 19823. - ‘Das Telos der Tora: Biblisch Theologische Meditationen’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 55-82. - ‘Gilgal: A Contribution to the History of Worship in Israel’, in: Knoppers G.N.McConville J.G. (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies in the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8), Winona Lake 2000, 163-178. KRAUTER S., ‘Brevard S. Childs’ Programm einer biblischen Theologie: Eine Untersuchung seiner systematischen-theologischen und methodologischen Fundamente’, ZThK 96 (1999), 22-48. KREMER Kl., Um die Möglichkeit oder Unmöglichkeit natürlicher Gotteserkenntnis heute, Leiden 1985. KREUZER S., Die Frühgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkündigung des Alten Testaments (BZAW, 178), Berlin - New York 1989. KRINETZKI G., Rechtsprechung und Amt im Deuteronomium: Zur Exegese der Gesetze Dtn 16, 18-20, 17, 8-18, 22, Frankfurt 1994. KRÖTKE W., ‘Der Glaube an Gott: Der neutestamentliche Kanon als Problem der Rede von Gott’, in: idem (ed.), Die Universalität des Offenbaren Gottes: Gesammelte Aufsätze, München 1985, 15-25. KRUGER H.A.J., ‘The Canon Critical Approach as a Means of Understanding the Old Testament’, OTE 7 (1994), 181-197. KSELMAN J.S., ‘The Social World of the Israelite Prophets: A Review Article’, RStR 11 (1985), 120-129. KUGLER R.A., ‘The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 127-143.

641 KUHN Th.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Chicago 1962. KUITERT H.M., Zeker Weten, Baarn 1995². KÜMMEL W.G., - ‘Die Entstehung des Kanons des Neuen Testaments’, in: Feine P.-Behm J. (eds.), Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg 197016, 349-375. - ‘Notwendigkeit und Grenze des Neutestamentlichen Kanons’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 62-97. - Dreißig Jahre Jesusforschung (1950-1980), (Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 60), KönigsteinBonn 1985. KÜNG H., - ‘Der Frühkatholizismus im NT als kontroverstheologisches Problem’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 175-204. - Kentering in de theologie: Naar een oecumenische theologie van de postmoderne tijd, Hilversum 1989. KÜNNETH W., ‘Kanon’, TRE 17 (1988), 562-570. KURT A., ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’, JSOT 25 (1983), 83-97. KYLE McCARTER, Jr. P. ‘Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 137-155. LAATO H., - ‘The Levitical Genealogies in 1 Chronicles 5-6 and the Formation of Levitical Ideology in Post-exilic Judah’, JSOT 62 (1994), 77-99. - History and Ideology in the Old Testamental Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of the Historical Prophets (Coniecta Biblica, OT-series, 41), Stockholm 1996. LABAHN A., ‘The Delay of Salvation within Deutero-Isaiah’, JSOT 1999, 71-84. LABUSCHAGNE C.J., - ‘Divine Speech in Deuteronomy’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 111-123. - ‘Neue Wege und Perspektiven in der Pentateuchforschung’, VT 38 (1986), 146-162. - Deuteronomium IA, Nijkerk 1987. LADD G.E., ‘The Search for Perspective’, Int 25 (1971), 41-62. LADRIÈRE J., ‘Théologie et modernité’, TL 27 (1996), 174-199. LAFONT G., Histoire Théologique de l’Église Catholique: Itinéraire et Formes de la Théologie, Paris 1994. LAFONT S., ‘Ancient Near Eastern Laws: Continuity and Pluralism’, in: Levinson B.M. (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOTT SS, 184), Sheffield 1994, 99-118. LALLEMAN-DE WINKEL H., Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition: An Examination of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (CBET, 26), Leuven, 2000. LANG B., - ‘Schule und Unterricht im Alten Israel’, in: Gilbert M. (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL, 51), Leuven 1979, 186-201. - Gott der Einzige: Die Geburt des biblischen Monotheismus, Kösel 1981. - ‘The “Writings”: A Hellenistic Literary Canon in the Hebrew Bible’, in: van der Kooij A.Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the

642 International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 41-65. LANGE A., - Von Prophetenwort zur prophetischen Tradition: Studien zur traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche inner prophetischer Konflikte in der Hebräischen Bibel (FAT, 34), Tübingen 2002. - ‘The Parabiblical Literature of the Qumran Library and the Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible’, in: Paul S.M., Kraft R.A., Schiffman L.H., Fields W.W. (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden-Boston 2003, 305-706. LAPOINTE R., ‘Tradition et langage: la Signification de l’expression orale’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1977, 135-151. LAURENTIN R., Comment réconcilier l’exégèse et la foi, Paris 1984. LAURIN R.B., ‘Tradition et Canon’, in: Knight D.A. e.a. (eds.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 271-284. LAWSON YOUNGER, Jr. K., ‘The Underpinnings’, in: Philips Long V. (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999, 304345. LEBRAM J.C.H., - ‘Aspekte der Alttestamentlichen Kanonbildung’, VT 18 (1968), 173-189. - ‘Die Traditionsgeschichte des Ezragestalt und die Frage nach dem historischen Ezra’, in: Sancisi H.-Weerdenburg (eds.), Achaemenid History: Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop, Leiden 1987, 103-138. LEE J.P., ‘Jamnia Revisited’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 146-162. LEEMANS E., ‘Theologie ook een wetenschap van de mens’, TvT 14 (1974), 377-384. LEENE H., ‘‫ רוח‬en ‫ ’שמועה‬in Jesaja 37,7: Een kwestie van verhaalhorizon’, ACEBT 4 (1983), 49-62. LEHMANN K., ‘Schriftverständnis aus katholischer Sicht: Thesen als Einleitung zum Gespräch’, in: Seitz M.- Lehmkühler K. (eds.), In der Wahrheit bleiben: DogmaSchriftauslegung-Kirche: Festschrift für Reinhard Slenczka zum 65. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1996, 107-110. LEIMAN S.Z., - The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Hamden 1976. - ‘Inspiration and Canonicity: Reflections on the Formation of the Biblical Canon’, in: Sanders E.P.- Baumgarten A.L.-Mendelson A. (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-definition 1, London 1981, 56-63. LEMAIRE A., - Les écoles et la formation de la bible dans l’Ancien Israël (OBO, 39), Göttingen 1981. - ‘Aux origines d’Israël: la montagne d’Éphraïm et le territoire de Manassé (XIII-XIe siècle av. J.C.)’, in: Laperrousaz E.M. (ed.), La protohistoire d’Israël: De l’Exode à la Monarchie, Paris 1990a, 183-298. - ‘Joas, roi d’Israël et la première rédaction du cycle d’Élisée’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers read at the XIIIth JSOT Congress Leuven 1989, Leuven 1990b, 245-254. - ‘The Sage in School and Temple’, in: Gammie J.G.-Perdue L.G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990c, 165-181.

643 - ‘Scribes’, DBS, 66-67 (1992), 253-266. - ‘Histoire et Administration de la Palestine à l’époque Perse’, in: Laperrousaz E.M.Lemaire A. (eds.), La Palestine à l’époque Perse, Paris 1994, 11-156. LEMCHE N.P., - Ancient Israel. A New History of Israelite Society, Sheffield 1988. - ‘The Development of the Israelite Religion in the Light of the Recent Studies on the Early History of Israel’, Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 97-115. - ‘The God of Hosea’, in: Ulrich E. e.a. (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (JSOT SS, 149), Sheffield 1992, 241-257. - ‘Kann von einer “Israelitischen Religion” noch weiterhin die Rede sein? Perspektiven eines Historikers’, in: Dietrich W.-Klopfenstein M.A. (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWHVerehrung und biblischer Monotheïsmus (OBO, 139), Freiburg-Göttingen 1994, 59-75. - Die Vorgeschichte Israels von den Anfängen bis zum Ausgang des 13. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie, 1), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1996a. - ‘Early Israel Revisited’, CR:BS 4 (1996b), 9-34. - ‘From Patronage Society to Patronage Society’, in: Davies P.R.-Fritz V. (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT SS, 228), Sheffield 1996c, 106-120. - ‘On the Use of “System Theory”, “Macro Theories” and “Evolutionistic Thinking” in Modern Old Testament Research and Biblical Archeology’, in: Carter C.E.-Meyers C.L. (eds.), Community, Identity and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 6), Winona Lake 1996d, 273-286. - ‘Clio is also Among the Muses’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Can a History of Israel be Written? (JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997a, 123-155. - ‘Response to William F. Dever, “Revisionist Israel Revisited”’, CR:BS 5 (1997b), 9-14. - ‘Good and Bad in History: The Greek Connection’, in: McKenzie S.L.-Römer Th.-Schmid H.H. (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible; Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ZAWB, 294), Berlin-New York 2000a, 127140. - ‘Ideology and the History of Ancient Israel’ JSOT 14 (2000b), 165-193. - How Does One Date an Expression of Mental History? The Old Testament and Hellenism’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001a, 200-214. - ‘The Old Testament - A Hellenistic Book?’, in Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT SS, 317), Sheffield 2001b, 287-318. - ‘“Because They Have Cast Away the Law of the Lord of the Hosts” – Or: “We and the Rest of the World”. The Authors Who “Wrote” the Old Testament’, JSOT 17 (2003), 268290. LEMKE W.E., ‘Revelation through History in Recent Biblical Theology’, Int 36 (1982), 3546. LENCHAK T.A., ‘“Choose Life!”. A Rhetorical-critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28, 69-30, 20’ (Analecta Biblica, 129), Rome 1993. LENGSFELD P., Mysterium Salutis: Dogmatiek in Heilshistorisch perspectief 2, Hilversum - Antwerp, 1967. LEONARD R.C., The Origin of Canonicity in the Old Testament, Boston 1972. LESSING E., - ‘Die Bedeutung der Heilsgeschichte in der ökumenischen Diskussion’, EvTh 44 (1984), 228-240.

644 - ‘Zum heutigen Verständnis von Schrift und Tradition in der evangelischen und katholischen Theologie’, in: Kertelge K. (ed.), Die Autorität der Schrift im ökumenischen Gespräch (Beiheft zur ökumenischen Rundschau, 50), Frankfurt 1985, 30-52. LEVENSON J.D., - ‘The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and Historical Criticism’, in: Freedman R.E. Williamson H.G.H. (eds.), The Future of Biblical Studies (Semeia Studies), Atlanta 1987, 19-59. - ‘Warum Juden sich nicht für biblische Theologie interessieren’, EvTh 51 (1991), 402-430. LEVIN C., Die Verheißung des Neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT, 137), Göttingen 1985. LEVINE N., ‘Twice as Much of Your Spirit: Pattern, Parallel and Paranomasia in the Miracles of Elijah and Elisha’, JSOT 85 (1999), 25-46. LEVINSON B.M., - ‘The Case of Revision and Interpolation within the Biblical Legal Corpora’, in: idem (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 184), Sheffield 1994a, 3795. - Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 181), Sheffield 1994b. - Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York-Oxford 1997. - ‘The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah’, VT 51 (2001), 511-534. LEVISON J.R., ‘Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of the Ecstatic Elders’, CBQ 65 (2003), 503-521. LIEU J.M., ‘Reading in Canon and Community: Deuteronomy 21.22-23, A Test Case for Dialogue’, in: Carroll R.M.D.-Clines D.J.A.-Davies P.R. (eds.), The Bible in Human Society (JSOT SS 200), Sheffield 1995, 317-334. LIGHTSTONE J.N., - Society, the Sacred and Scripture in Judaism: A Sociology of Knowledge (Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 3), Ontario 1988. - ‘The Rabbi’s Bible: The Canon of the Hebrew Bible and the Early Rabbinic Guild’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 163-184. LINDARS B., ‘Deborah’s Song: Women in the Old Testament’, BJRL 65 (1983), 158-175. LINDBECK G., ‘Heilige Schrift, Konsens und Gemeinschaft’, in: Ratzinger J. (ed.), Schriftauslegung im Widerstreit (Quaestiones Disputatae, 117), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1989, 45-80. LINDBLOM J., Prophecy in Israel, Oxford 19735. LINDEMANN A., ‘“Es steht geschrieben”: Überlegungen zur christlichen Hermeneutik der jüdischen Bibel’, Tgl 87 (1997), 39-54. LINDIJER C.H., Op verkenning in het postmoderne landschap, Zoetermeer 2003. LINK H.G., ‘Der Kanon in ökumenischer Sicht’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des Biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 83-96. LINNEMANN E., Wetenschap of vooroordeel? Het fiasco van de historisch-kritische bijbelweteschap, Kampen 1987. LINNINGTON S., - ‘The term ‫ ברית‬in the Old Testament. Part I: The Pentateuch’, OTE 15 (2002), 687-714. - ‘Part II: The Prophetic Literature’, OTE 16 (2003), 259-290. - ‘Part III: An Inquiry into the Meaning and Use of the Word in Joshua and Judges', OTE 18 (2005), 646-680. - ‘Part IV: An Inquiry into the Meaning and Use of the Word in the Books of Samuel and Kings’, OTE 19 (2006), 118-143.

645 LINVILLE J.R., Israel in the Book of the Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity (JSOT SS, 272), Sheffield 1998. LIPINSKI E., ‘Royal and State Scribes in Ancient Jerusalem’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT, 40), Leiden 1988, 157-164. LIPPERT P., ‘Aspekte der Säkularisierung: Eine bleibende pastorale und geistliche Herausforderung’, TGegw 30 (1987), 109-113; 165-170. LISS H., ‘Kanon und Fiktion. Zur literarischen Funktion biblischer Rechtstexte’, BN 121 (2004). LIWAK R., Der Prophet und die Geschichte: Eine literatur-historische Untersuchung zum Jeremiahbuch (BWANT, 121), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz 1987. LOADER J.A., - ‘De structuuranalytische methoden’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 128-142. - ‘Das Alte Testament – ein Geschichtsbuch?’, OTE 15 (2002a), 398-410. - ‘The Finality of the Old Testament “Final Text”’, OTE 15 (2002b), 739-753. LOBRICHON G., ‘Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible’, in: Riché P.-Lobrichon G. (eds.), Le Moyen Age et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps, 4), Paris 1984, 95-114. LOCHER C., - ‘Deuteronomium 22, 13-21: Vom Prozeßprotokoll zum kasuistischen Gesetz’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985a, 298-303. - ‘Deuteronomium 22,31-31: Vom Prozeßprotokoll zum kasuistischen Gesetz’, in: Lohfink N (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985b, 298-303. LOHFINK N., - Das Hauptgebot, Rome 1963. - ‘Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte’, Congress Volume Göttingen (SVT, 29), Leiden 1978, 204-205. - ‘Warum brauchen wir überhaupt Hypothesen für die Frühzeit Israels?’, BiKi 38 (1983), 47-50. - ‘Zur neueren Diskussion über 2 Kon. 22-23’, in: idem (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 24-48. - ‘Psalm 6: Beobachtungen beim Versuch ihn “kanonisch” auszulegen’, ThQ 167 (1987a), 277-288. 6. - ‘The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22-23 as a Source for the History of Israelite Religion’, in: Miller P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987b, 459-475. - ‘Das deuteronomistische Gesetz in der Endgestalt: Entwurf einer Gesellschaft ohne marginale Gruppen’, BN 51 (1990a), 25-40. - ‘Der Bundesschluß im Land Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28:69,32, 47’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomischen Literatur 1 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 8), Stuttgart 1990b, 53-82. - ‘Die Bundesurkunde des Königs Josias’, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 1 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 8), Stuttgart 1990c, 99-165. - ‘Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des Gotteswortes durch das Prinzip der Schriftlichkeit der Tora und durch das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nach den Ämtergesetzen des Buches Deuteronomium (Dt 16, 18-18, 22)’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur

646

-

-

-

deuteronomistischen Literatur 1 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 8), Stuttgart 1990d, 305-323. ‘Dt 26, 17-19 und die “Bundesformel”’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 1 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 8), Stuttgart 1990e, 211-261. ‘Gibt es eine deuteronomische Bearbeitung im Bundesbuch?’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers read at the XIIIth. IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989, Leuven 1990f, 91-113. ‘Verkündigung der Hauptgebots in Dtn 4, 1-40’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 1 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 8), Stuttgart 1990g, 167-191. ‘Zum “kleinen geschichtlichen Credo” Dtn 26, 5-9’, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 1 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 8), Stuttgart 1990h, 263-290. ‘Zur Dekalogfassung von Dt 5’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 1 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 8), Stuttgart 1990i, 193-209. ‘Die Gattung der “Historischen Kurzgeschichte” in den letzten Jahren von Juda und in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 12), Stuttgart 1991a, 55-86). ‘Die huqqîm ûmispatîm und ihre Neubegrenzung durch Dtn 12,1’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 12), Stuttgart 1991b, 229-256. ‘Die Kultreform Joschijas von Juda: 2 Kön. 22-23 als religionsgeschichtliche Quelle’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 12), Stuttgart 1991c, 209-227. Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas Römer (OBO, 111), Freiburg-Göttingen 1991d. ‘Dtn 12,1 und Gen 15,18: Das dem Samen Abrahams geschenkte Land als der Geltungsbereich der deuteronomischen Gesetze’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 12), Stuttgart 1991e, 257-285. ‘Gott im Buch Deuteronomium’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 12), Stuttgart 1991f, 25-53. ‘Hos. XI,5 als Bezugstext von Dtn. XVII,16’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 12), Stuttgart 1991g, 143-145. ‘Kerygmata des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 12), Stuttgart 1991h, 125-142. ‘Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Altes Testament, 12), Stuttgart 1991i, 147-177. ‘Zur neueren Diskussion über 2 Kon. 22-23’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 12), Stuttgart 1991j, 179-207.

647 - ‘Deutéronome et Pentateuque: État de la Recherche’, in: Haudebert P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et Recherches. XIVe Congrès de l’ACFEB. Angers 1991 (Lectio Divina, 151), Paris 1992, 35-64. - ‘Die Ältesten Israels und der Bund: Zum Zusammenhang von Dtn. 5,23; 26,17-19; 27,1. 9f. und 31,9’, BN 67 (1993), 26-42. - ‘Das Deuteronomium: Jahwehgesetz oder Mosegesetz?’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 20), Stuttgart 1995a, 157-165. - ‘Deuteronomium 6,24: ‫‘ לחיתנו‬für unseren Unterhalt aufzukommen’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 20), Stuttgart 1995b, 269-278 - ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 20), Stuttgart 1995c, 65-142. - ‘Opferzentralisation, Säkularisierungsthese und mimetische Theorie’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3 (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände, 20), Stuttgart 1995d, 219-260. - ‘Fortschreibung? Zur Technik von Rechtsrevisionen im deuteronomischen Bereich, erörtert an Deuteronomium 12, Ex. 21,2-11 und Dtn 15, 12-18’, in: Veijola T. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft, 62), Göttingen 1996, 127-171. - ‘Geschichtstypologisch orientierte Textstrukturen in den Büchern Deuteronomium und Josua’, in: Vervenne M.-Lust J (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997, 133-160. LÖHR H., ‘Der Kanon in der Bibliothek’, ZNT 6 (2003), 18-26. LOHSE B., ‘Die Entscheidung der Lutherischen Reformation: Über den Umfang des Alttestamentlichen Kanons’, in: Pannenberg W.-Schneider Th. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeignis 1. Kanon-Schrift-Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7), Göttingen 1992, 169-194. LONG B.O., - ‘Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and their Bearing on OT Criticism’, VT 26 (1976), 187-198. - ‘Prophetic Authority as Social Reality’, in: Coats G.W.-Long B.O. (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977, 3-20. - ‘Social Dimensions of Prophetic Conflict’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 308-331. LÖNNING I., Kanon in Kanon, München 1972. LORETZ O., Habiru-Hebräer: Eine Socio-linguistische Studie über die Herkunft des Gentiliziums ibri von Apellativum Habiru (BZAW, 160), Berlin-New York 1984. LOZA J., - ‘T.L. Thompson: The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel 1’, RB 96 (1989), 129-131. - ‘Le Pentateuque en question (Recensions)’, RB 97 (1990), 581-594. LUBSCZYK H., ‘Die Bundesurkunde: Ursprung und Wirkungsgeschichte des Deuteronomiums’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers read at the XIIIth JSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 161-177. LUST J., - ‘Inspiratie en Waarachtigheid van de Bijbel’, VBS 20 (1989), 27-33; 51-57.

648 - ‘Septuagint and Canon’, in: Auwers J-M.-De Jonghe H. (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003, 39-56. LUTTIKHUIZEN G.P., ‘De veelvormigheid van het vroegste christendom’, TvT 36 (1996), 331-347. LUZ U., - ‘Einheit und Vielfalt Neutestamentlicher Theologien’, in: idem-Weder H. (eds.), Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt Neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift für Edward Schweizer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, Göttingen 1983, 142-161. - ‘Kanonische Exegese und Hermeneutik der Wirkungsgeschichte’, in: Gerny H. (ed.), Die Würzel aller Theologie: Sentire cum ecclesia. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Urs von Arx, Bern 2003, 40-57. MACHOLZ G.C., - ‘Die Stellung des Königs in der Israelitischen Gerichtsverfassung’, ZAW 84 (1972a), 157182. - ‘Zur Geschichte der Justizorganisation in Juda’, ZAW 84 (1972b), 314-340. MAEYES A.D.M.-SALTERS R.B. (eds.), Covenant as Context. Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson, Oxford 2003. MAGONET J., ‘The Biblical Roots of Jewish Identity: Exploring the Relativity of Exegesis’, JSOT 54 (1992), 3-24. MAIER G., - Das Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode, Wuppertal 19784. - Biblische Hermeneutik, Wuppertal 1991². - ‘Truth and Reality in the Historical Understanding of the Old Testament’, in: Philips Long V. (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999, 192-206. MAIER J., - ‘Zur Frage der biblischen Kanons im Frühjudentum im licht der Qumranfunde’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 135-146. - ‘Tora und Schöpfung’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung (JbBTh, 5), Neunkirchen 1990a, 139-150. - Zwischen den Testamenten: Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (Die neue echter Bibel, 3), Würzburg 1990b. MALAMAT A., ‘The Secret Council and Prophetic Involvement in Mari and Israel’, in: Liwak R.-Wagner S. (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1991, 231236. MANENSCHIJN G., ‘Het individualisme voorbij’, in: Van den Braembussche A. (ed.), Voorbij het postmodernisme, Best 1996, 53-73. MANN TH.W., ‘Theological Reflections on the Denial of Moses’, JBL 98 (1979), 481-494. MARGAIN J., ‘Le Pentateuque Samaritain’, in: Haudebert P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et Recherches, XIVème Congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers (1991) (Lectio Divina, 151), Paris 1992, 231-240. MARINKOVIC P., ‘What does Zechariah 1-8 Tell Us about the Second Temple?’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 88-103. MARKIESCH Ch., ‘Hieronymus und die Hebraica Veritas’, in: Hengel M.-Schwerner A.M. (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (WUNT, 72), Tübingen 1994, 131-181.

649 MARKL D., ‘Narrative Rechtshermeneutik als methodische Herausforderung des Pentateuch’, ZAR 11 (2005), 107-121. MARSHALL J.W., Israel and the Book of the Covenant: An Anthropological Approach to Biblical Law (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation, 140), Atlanta 1993. MARTIN B., ‘The Wisdom of the Biblical Sciences: The Self, Society and Popular Culture in a Postmodern Age’, in: Barton S.C. (ed.), Where Shall Wisdom be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World, Edinburgh 1999, 218-229. MARTIN-ARCHARD R., ‘Récents travaux sur la loi du talion selon l’Ancien Testament’, RHPR 69 (1989), 173-188. MARUCCI C., ‘Il nuovo Testamento e la critica testuale’, CC 147 (1996), 263-277. MARX-RAINER B.-JACOBI M., ‘Gott und Natur in der Erfahrung des Menschen’, EvTh 45 (1985), 196-211. MARXSEN W., ‘Das Problem des Neutestamentlichen Kanons aus der Sicht des Exegeten’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 231-246. MARY A.-RICHARD ROUSE H., ‘La Concordance verbale des Écritures’, in: Riché P.Lobrichon G. (eds.), Le Moyen Age et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps, 4), Paris 1984, 115-122. MASON R.A., - ‘The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai’, VT 27 (1977), 413421. - Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile, Cambridge 1990. MATHIAS D., Die Geschichtstheologie des Geschichtssummarien in den Psalmen (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums, 35), Frankfurt-Bern 1993. MATTHEWS V.H., ‘The Anthropology of Slavery in the Covenant Code’, in: Levinson B.M. (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 184), Sheffield 1994, 119-159. MAYE J.L., ‘What is Written: A Response to Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture’, HBT 3 (1980), 151-163. MAYES A.D.H, - ‘Prophecy and Society in Israel’, in: McKay H.A.-Clines D.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 25-42. - ‘Sociology and the Old Testament’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel, Cambridge 1994³, 29-63. - Text in Context, Oxford 2000. McBRIDE, Jr. S. Dean, - ‘Policy of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy’, Int. 41 (1987), 239-246. - ‘Transcendent Authority: The Role of Moses in Old Testament Traditions’, Int 44 (1990), 229-239. McCARTER, Jr. P.K., ‘The Sage in the Deuteronomistic History’, in: Gammie J.G.-Perdue L.G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990, 289-293. McCARTHY D.J., - ‘Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father–Son Relationship between Yahweh and Israel’, CBQ 27 (1965), 144-147. - ‘Twenty-Five Years of Pentateuchal Study’, in: Collin J.-Crossan J.D. (eds.), The Biblical Heritage in Modern Catholic Scholarship, Washington 1986, 34-57.

650 McCONVILLE J.G., - Law and Theology in Deuteronomy (JSOT SS, 33), Sheffield 1985. - ‘Singular Address in the Deuteronomistic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration’, JSOT 97 (2002), 19-36. McDONALD L.M., ‘Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question’, in idem-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 416-439. McDONALD L.M.-SANDERS J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002. McDONALD N., Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ (FAT II,1), Tübingen 2003. McEVENUE S.E. ‘The Old Testament, Scripture or Theology?’, Int 35 (1981), 229-242. McKANE W., - Prophets and Wise Men (Studies in Biblical Theology, 44), London 1965. - ‘Relations between Poetry and Prose in the Book of Jeremiah III 6-11 and XII 14-17’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981, 220-227. McKENZIE S.L., - ‘The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XII, 4-5’, VT 36 (1986), 311-322. - ‘The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History’, (SVT, 42), Leiden 1991. - ‘Postscript: The Laws of Physics and Pan-deuteronomium’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism ((JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 262-271. McKIM D.K. (ed.), The Authority Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture, San Francisco 1983. MEIJERING E.P., “Sola Scriptura” und die historische Kritik’, in: Schmid H.H.-Mehlhausen J. (eds.), Sola Scriptura: Das reformatorische Schriftsprinzip in der Säkularen Welt, Gütersloh 1991, 44-60. MELUGIN R.F., - ‘Canon and Exegetical Method’, in: Tucker G.M. e.a. (eds.), Canon and Old Testament Interpretation, Philadelphia 1988, 48-61. - ‘Prophetic Books and the Problem of Historical Reconstruction’, in: Reid S.B. (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (JSOT SS, 229), Sheffield 1996, 63-78. MENDENHALL G.E., - Recht und Bund in Israel und im Alten vorderen Orient (Theologische Studien, 64), Zürich 1960. - ‘The Nature and Purpose of the Abraham Narratives’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross., Philadelphia 1987, 337-356. MERK O., - ‘Biblische Theologie: Neues Testament’, TRE 6 (1980), 455-477. - ‘Gesamtbiblische Theologie: Eine offene Diskussion’, in: Dohmen C.-Söding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie (UTB - UniTaschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995, 225-236. METTINGER T.N.D., ‘Intertextuality: Allusion and Vertical Context Systems in some Job Passages’, in: McKay H.-Clines D.J.A. (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 257-280. METZGER B.M., The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance, Oxford 1989³.

651 MEYERS C., ‘David as Temple Builder’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 357-376. MILDENBERGER F., - ‘System.-theol. Randbemerkungen zur Diskussion um eine Biblische Theologie’, in: idem-Track J. (eds.), Zugang zur Theologie. Festschrift Wilfried Joest, Göttingen 1979, 11-32. - ‘Biblische Theologie als kirchliche Schriftauslegung’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirchen 1986, 151-162. - ‘Biblische Theologie versus Dogmatik?’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Altes Testament und christlicher Glaube (JbBTh, 6), Neunkirchen 1991, 269-281. MILGROM J., - ‘Rationale for Cultic Law: the Case of Impurity’, S 45 (1989), 103-109. - Leviticus 1-16, New York 1991. - ‘Response to Rolf Rendtorff’, JSOT 60 (1993), 83-85. - ‘The Antiquity of the Priestly Source: A Reply to Joseph Blenkinsopp’, ZAW 111 (1999), 10-22. - ‘Does H Advocate the Centralization of Worship?’, JSOT 88 (2000), 59-76. - ‘Systemic Differences in the Priestly Corpus: A Response to Jonathan Klawans’, RB 112 (2005), 321-329. MILLER J.M., ‘Is it Possible to Write a History of Israel without Relying on the Hebrew Bible?’, in: Edelman D.V. (ed.), The fabric of History: Text, artefact and Israel’s past’ (JSOT SS, 127), Sheffield 1991, 93-102. MILLER J.M.-HAYES J.M., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Philadelphia 1986. MILLER, Jr. P.D. - ‘Israelite Religion’, in: Knight D.A.-Tucker G.M. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia 1985, 201-237. - ‘Der Kanon in der gegenwärtigen amerikanischen Diskussion’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 217-239. - ‘The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and its Law’, Int 43 (1989), 229-242. MILLER R.D., ‘Yahweh and His Clio. Critical Theory and the Historical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible’, CR:BS 4 (2006), 149-168. MINETTE DE TILLESSE G., - ‘Le crise du Pentateuque’, ZAW 111 (1999), 1-9. - ‘TU et VOUS dans le Deutéronome’, in: Kratz R.G.-Spieckermann H. (eds.), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000, 156-163. MOIR I.A. ‘Can We Risk Another ‘Textus Receptus’?’, JBL 100 (1981), 614-18. MOLTMANN J., - ‘Verschränkte Zeiten der Geschichte: Notwendige Differenzierungen und Begrenzungen des Geschichtsbegriffs’, EvTh 44 (1984), 213-227. - Gott in der Natur: Ökologische Schöpfungslehre, München 1985. - ‘De toekomst van de bevrijdingstheologie’, Str 63 (1996), 3-10. MOO J.D., ‘The Problem of Sensus Plenior’, in: Carson D.A.-Woodbridge J.D. (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, Michigan 1986, 179-211. MOORE B., The Scribal Contribution to Dt 4,1-40, University of Notre Dame 1976. MOR M., ‘The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonaean Period’, in: Crown A.D. (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen 1989, 1-18. MORAN W.L., ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy’, CBQ 24 (1963),77-87.

652 MORROW W., ‘A Generic Discrepancy in the Covenant Code’, in: Levinson B.M. (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 184), Sheffield 1994, 136151. MOSIS R., - Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburger Theologische Studien, 92), Freiburg 1973. - ‘Canonical Approach und Vielfalt des Kanon: Zu einer neuen Einleitung in das Alte Testament’, TTZ 106 (1997), 39-59. MOUSON J., ‘Het probleem van de historische Jezus’, in: Dondeyne A. e.a. (eds.), Grondvragen van de gelovige mens, Antwerp 1968, 119-151. MOWINCKEL S., - ‘Psalmen und Weisheit’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Zur neueren Psalmforschung, Darmstadt 1976, 341-366. - ‘Kult und Prophetie’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 181-219. MÜHLENBERG E., ‘Scriptura non est autentica sine authoritate ecclesiae (Joannes Ech): Vorstellungen von der Entstehung des Kanons in der Kontroverse um das reformatorische Schriftprinzip’, ZThK 97 (2000), 183-209. MULDER M.J., - ‘Geschiedenis en godsdienstgeschiedenis van Oud-Israël en het Oude Testament’, in: Van Der Woude A.S. (ed.), Inleiding tot de Studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 5268. - ‘De Hebreeuwse Bijbel als historische bron: tegenreferaat’, ACEBT 8 (1987), 23-27. - ‘The Transmission of the Biblical Text’, in: idem (ed.), Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and early Christianity, Assen/ Maastricht-Philadelphia 1988, 87-135. - De Rekabiten in Jeremia 35: Fictie, Secte of Stroming? Kampen 1990. MÜLLER H.P., ‘Theologie und Religionsgeschichte im Blick auf die Grenzen historischkritischen Textumgangs’, ZThK 94 (1997), 317-355. MÜLLER K., - Studien zur fruhjüdischen Apokalyptik, Stuttgart 1991. - ‘Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis von Tora und Halacha im Frühjudentum’, in: Zenger E. (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders Biblische Studien, 10), Freiburg 1996, 257-291. - ‘Das etwas andere Subjekt: Der blinde Fleck der Postmoderne’, ZKTh 120 (1998), 137163. MÜLLER P.G., ‘Destruktion des Kanons - Verlust der Mitte’, TR 73 (1977), 178-186. MURPHY R.E., - ‘The Old Testament as Scripture’, JSOT 45 (1980), 40-44. - ‘Religious Dimensions of Israelite Wisdom’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 449-458. - ‘Reflections in a Critical Biblical Theology’, in: Sun H.T.C. e.a. (eds.), Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honour of Rolf Knierim, Michigan-Cambridge 1997, 265274. - ‘Wisdom and Yahwism Revisited’, in: Penschansky D.-Redditt P.L. (eds.), Shall Not the Judge of all the Earth do What is Right? Studies in the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, Winona Lake 2001, 191-200.

653 MURRAY D.F., ‘Dynasty, People and the Future: The Message of Chronicles’, JSOT 58 (1993), 71-72. MURRAY R., ‘Prophecy and the Cult’, in: Coggins R. e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 200-216. NA’AMAN N., ‘The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source’, JSOT 82 (1999), 3-17. NATIONS A.L., ‘Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Crisis’, SJT 36 (1983), 59-71. NAUMANN Th., Hoseas Erben (BWANT, 131), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1991. NEEF H.D., Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Hosea (ZAWB, 169), Berlin 1987. NEGENMAN J., - ‘Het Interpreteren van profetische literatuur’, TvT 15 (1975), 117-140. - De Wording van het Woord: Over ontstaan en verstaan van de bijbel, Turnhout- Kampen 1986. NELSON R.D., ‘Herem and the Deuteronomistic Social Conscience’, in: Vervenne M.-Lust J. (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997, 39-54. NEUHAUS D.M., ‘L’idéologie Judéo-chrétienne et le dialogue Juifs-Chrétiens: Histoire et Théologie’, RSR 85 (1997), 249-276. NEUMANN P.H.A., ‘Prophetenforschung seit Heinrich Ewald’, in: idem (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutssprachigen Forschung seit Henrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 1-51. NEUNER P., Ökumenische Theologie: Die Suche nach der Einheit der christlichen Kirchen, Darmstadt 1997. NEUSNER J., - ‘Accommodating Mishnah to Scripture in Judaism: The Uneasy Unum and its Offspring’, in: O’Connor M.-Freedman D.N. (eds.), Backgrounds for the Bible, Winona Lake 1987, 41-54. - ‘The Absoluteness of Christianity and the Uniqueness of Judaism: Why Salvation is not of the Jews’, Int 43 (1989), 18-31. - Grondslagen van het Jodendom, Boxtel-Leuven 1990. NEUSNER J.-GREEN W.S., Writing with Scripture: The Authority and Uses of the Hebrew Bible in the Formative Judaism, Minneapolis 1989. NICHOLSON E.W., - God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford 1988. - ‘The Pentateuch in Recent Research: a Time for Caution’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 10-21. - ‘Prophecy and Covenant’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Studies, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 345-353. NIDITCH S., Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature, Louisville 1996. NIEHR H., - Rechtsprechung in Israel: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gerichtsorganisation im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1987. - ‘Die Reform des Joschija’, in: Gross W. (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 33-85. - ‘Some Aspects of Working with the Textual Sources’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Can a ‘History of Israel’ be Written? (JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997, 156-165.

654 NIELSEN K., ‘“From Oracles to Canon” – and the Role of Metaphor’, JSOT 17 (2003), 2233. NIEMANN H.M., Herrschaft, Königtum und Staat: Skizzen zur Soziokulturellen Entwicklung im monarchischen Israel (FAT, 6), Tübingen 1993. NINEHAM D., Use or Abuse of the Bible, London 1976. NISSEN J., ‘Scripture and Community in Dialogue: Hermeneutical Reflections on the Authority of the Bible’, in: Auwers J-M.-De Jonghe H. (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 168), Leuven 2003, 651-658. NISSINEN M., ‘Falsche Prophetie in Neuassyrischer und deuteronomistischer Darstellung’, in Veijola I. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (SESJ, 62), HelsinkiGöttingen 1996, 172-195. NOBILE M., ‘Les quatre Pâques dans le cadre de la rédaction finale de Gen.–2 Rois’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers read at the XIIIth. JSOT Congress Leuven 1989, Leuven 1990, 191-196. NOBLE P.R., - ‘The Sensus Literalis: Jowett, Childs and Barr’, JTS 44 (1993), 1-23. - The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs, Leiden-New York - Köln 1995. NODET E., - Essai sur les origines du Judaïsme: de Josué aux Pharisiens, Paris 1992. - ‘De l’Inspiration de l’Écriture’, RB 104 (1997), 237-274. NOGALSKI J., Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (ZAWB, 217), Berlin 1993. NOTH M., Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs, Stuttgart 1948. OBERFORCHER R., ‘Manfred Oeming: Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart’, ZKTh 1988, 68-73. O’BRIEN M.A., - ‘The ‘Deuteronomistic History’ as a Story of Israel’s Leaders’, ABR 37 (1989a), 14-34. - The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO, 92), Freiburg-Göttingen 1989b. - ‘The Book of Deuteronomy’, CR:BS 3 (1995), 95-128. O’CONNOR M., ‘How the Text is Heard: the Biblical Theology of Brevard Childs’, RStR 21 (1995), 91-96. ODEN, Jr. R.A., ‘The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 429-447. OEMING M., - ‘Kanonische Schriftauslegung: Vorzüge und Grenzen eines neuen Zugangs zur Bibel’, BiLi 39 (1966), 199-208. - ‘Bedeutung und Funktionen von “Fiktionen” in der alttestamentlichen Geschichtsschreibung’, EvTh 44 (1984), 254-266. - ‘Unitas Scripturae? Eine Problemskizze’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirchen 1986, 48-70. - ‘Gericht Gottes und Geschichte der Völker nach Zef . 3, 1-13: Exegetische und systematische Erwägungen zur Frage: In welchem Sinne ist der kanonische Endtext normativ?’, ThQ 167 (1987a), 289-300. - Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart: Das Verhältnis von AT und NT in der Hermeneutik in Diskussion seit Gerhard Von Rad, Stuttgart 1987²b. - ‘Text-Kontext-Kanon: Ein neuer Weg alttestamentlicher Theologie? Zu einem Buch von Brevard S. Childs’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 241-251.

655 - ‘Du sollst nichts hinzufügen und nichts wegnehmen (Dtn 13,1): Biblische Funktion und altorientalische Ursprünge der Kanonformel’, in: Dohmen L.-Oeming M. (eds.), Biblischer Kanon warum und wozu? Eine Kanontheologie (Quaestiones Disputatae, 137), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1992, 68-89. - ‘Biblische Theologie als Dauerreflexion im Raum des Kanons’, in: Dohmen C.-Söding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel - zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie (UTB - UniTaschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995. - Biblische Hermeneutik: Eine Einführung, Darmstadt 1998. OFFICE IN INTER-RELIGIOUS RELATIONS, Issues in Christian-Moslim relations: Ecumenical Considerations, Geneva 1993 OGDEN S.M., ‘The Authority of Scripture for Theology’, Int 30 (1976), 242-261. ÖKUMENISCHER ARBEITSKREIS EVANGELISCHER UND KATHOLISCHER THEOLOGEN ‘Kanon-Heilige Schrift-Tradition: Gemeinsame Erklärung’, in: Pannenberg W.-Schneider Th. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeugnis 1: Kanon-Schrift-Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7), Göttingen 1992, 371-397. OLIVIER P., ‘Le problème de Dieu’, RSR 67 (1979), 447-480. OOST R., Omstreden Bijbeluitleg, Kampen 1986. ORLINSKY H.M., ‘The Canonization of the Bible and the Exclusion of the Apocrypha’, in: idem (ed.), Essays in Biblical Culture and Bible Translation, New York 1974, 257-286. OSSWALD E., ‘Aspekte neuerer Prophetenforschung’, TL 109 (1984), 641-650. OSUMI Y., Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches: Exodus 20, 22b-23, 33 (OBO, 105), Göttingen 1991. OTTO E., - Jakob in Sichem (BWANT, 110), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz 1979. - Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des Antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des “Bundesbuches” Ex XX 22 - XXIII 13 (Studia Biblica, 3), Leiden 1988. - ‘Israels Wurzelen in Kanaan: Auf den Weg zu einer neuen Kultur- und Sozialgeschichte des antiken Israels, TR 85 (1989), 3-10. - ‘Die Bedeutung des altorientalischen Rechtsgeschichte für das Verständnis des Alten Testaments’, ZThK 88 (1991a), 139-168. - ‘Soziale Verantwortung und Reinheit des Landes: Zur Redaktion der kasuistischen Rechtssätze in Deuteronomium 19-25’, in: Liwak R.-Wagner S. (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart-Berlin 1991b, 290-306. - ‘‫ ’שבע‬in: TWAT 7, 1992, 1000-1027. - ‘Town and Countryside in Ancient Israelite law: Reception and redaction in cuneiform and Israelite law’, JSOT 57 (1993a), 3-22. - ‘Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium: Die deuteronomische Redaktion in Dtn 12-16’, in: Braulik G. e.a. (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink, Freiburg 1993b, 260-278. - ‘Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite law’, in: Levinson B.M. (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 184), Sheffield 1994a, 160-196. - ‘Vom Rechtsbruch zur Sünde: Priesterliche Interpretationen des Rechts’, JbBTh 9 (1994b), 25-52. - ‘Biblische Rechtsgeschichte: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung’, TR 91 (1995a), 284-292. - ‘Gesetzesfortschreibung und Pentateuchredaktion’, ZAW 107 (1995b), 373-392.

656 - Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (ZAWB, 284), Berlin-New York 1999. - Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, Tübingen 2000. - ‘Monotheismus im Deuteronomium’, ZAR, 9 (2003a), 251-257. - ‘Tendenzen der Geschichte des Rechts in der Hebräischen Bibel’, ZAR, 9 (2003b), 1-55. - ‘Recht und Ethos in der ost- und westmediterranen Antike. Entwurf eines Gesamtbildes’, in: Witte M. (red.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag I (BZAW 345/I), Berlin-New-York 2004, 91-109. - ‘Das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk im Enneateuch: Zu einem Buch von Erik Aurelius’, ZAR 11 (2005a), 323-345. - ‘Der Bund im Alten Testament. Eine Festschrift für E.W. Nicholson’, ZAR 11 (2005b), 361-369. - Der Zusammenhang von Herscherlegitimation und Rechtskodifizierung in altorientalischer Rechtsgeschichte’, ZAR 11 (2005c), 51-92. - ‘Fortschreibung und Redaktion’, ZAR 11 (2005d), 370-373. - ‘Sakralisierung des Rechts im Alten Testament?’, ZAR 11 (2005e), 351-360. OTTO S., ‘The Composition of the Elijah-Elisa Stories and the Deuteronomistic History’, JSOT 27 (2003), 487-508. OVERHOLT T.W., - ‘The End of Prophecy: No Players without a Program’, JSOT 42 (1988), 103-115. - ‘Prophecy in History: The Social Reality of Intermediation’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 354-376. - ‘Prophecy: The Problem of Cross-Cultural Comparison’, in: Carter C.E.-Meyers C.L. (eds.), Community, Identity and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 6), Winona Lake 1996, 423-447. PAAS S., ‘Bookend themes? Maleachi, Hosea en het “Boek van de Twaalf”’, NTrT 58 (2004), 1-17. PAGE R., Ambiguity and the Presence of God, London 1985. PANNENBERG W., - ‘Die Krise der Schriftprinzips’, in: idem (ed.), Grundfragen systematischer Theologie, Göttingen 1971, 11-21. - Offenbarung als Geschichte, Göttingen 19824. - ‘Zur Begründung der Lehre von der Schriftinspiration’, in: Seitz M.-Lehmkühler K. (eds.), In der Wahrheit bleiben: Dogma-Schriftauslegung-Kirche: Festschrift für Reinhard Slenczka zum 65. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1996, 156-159. PARKER K.I., - ‘Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1-11’, JSOT 53 (1992), 75-91. - ‘Speech, Writing and Power: Deconstructing the Biblical Canon’, JSOT 69 (1996), 91103. PARKER S.B., ‘Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions?’, VT 30 (2000), 357-378. PASTO J., ‘When the End is the beginning? Or When the Biblical Past is the Political Present’, JSOT 98 (1997), 157-202. PATTON C.L., ‘Pan-deuteronomism and the Book of Ezekiel’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOTT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 200-215.

657 PATRICK D., - ‘Studying Biblical Law as a Humanities’, S 45 (1989), 27-47. - ‘Who is the Evolutionist?’, in: Levinson B.M. (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 184), Sheffield 1994, 152-159. - ‘The Rhetoric of Collective Responsibility’, in: Wright D.-Freedman D.N.-Hurvitz A. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honour of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 222-436. PAUL A., - Le Fait Biblique (Lectio Divina, 100), Paris 1979. - ‘La Torah et le Canon chrétien: Deux Suppléances d’un manque politique’, RSR 71 (1983), 139-147. - L’inspiration et le Canon des Écritures: Histoire et Théologie (Cahiers Évangile, Nouvelle Série, 49), Paris 1984. - Le Judaïsme ancien et la Bible (Relais - études, 3), Paris 1987. - ‘Les diverses Dénominations de la Bible’, RSR 83 (1995), 373-402. PAUL S.M., Studies in the Book of Covenant in the Light of the Cuneiform and Biblical Law (SVT, 17), Leiden 1970. PAULSEN H., - ‘Sola Scriptura und das Kanonproblem’, in: Schmid H.H.-Mehlhausen J. (eds.), Sola Scriptura: Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der Säkularen Welt, Gütersloh 1991, 6178. - ‘Pseudepigraphen’, EKL. vol. 3, 1992, 1376-1383. PECKHAM B., ‘The Function of the Law in the Development of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions’, in: Halpern B.-Hobson D.W. (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124), Sheffield 1991, 108-146. PEDERSEN S., - ‘Die Kanonfrage als historisches und theologisches Problem’, STh 31 (1977), 83-136. - New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference 16-19 September 1992 (Novum Testamentum Supplements, 76), Leiden 1994. PELLETIER A.M., ‘La Bible comme mémoire culturelle: Un enseignement à inventer’, Et 374 (1991), 381-392. PERANI M., ‘Il processo de canonizzazione della Bibbia Ebraica. Nuove prospettive methodologice’, RiBi 48 (2000), 385-400. PERDUE L.G., - The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology, Minneapolis 1994. - ‘Revelation and the Problem of the Hidden God in Second Temple Wisdom Literature’, in: Penschansky D.-Redditt P.L. (eds.), Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth do What is Right? Studies in the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, Winona Lake 2001, 201-222. PERKINS P., ‘Gnosticum and the Christian Bible’, in McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 355-371. PERLITT L., - Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, Neunkirchen 1969. - ‘Deuteronomium 1-3 im Streit der Exegetischen Methoden’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 149-163. - ‘Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?’ (ZAWB, 100), Berlin 1988, 65-88. - ‘Jesaja und die Deuteronomisten’, in: Fritz V. (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser 65. Geburtstag, Berlin-New York 1989, 133-149.

658 - ‘Hebraïsmus - Deuteronomismus - Judaismus’, in: Braulik G. (ed.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel für N. Lohfink s.j., Freiburg im Breisgau-Basel-Wien 1993, 279-295. - ‘Der Staatsgedanke im Deuteronomium’, in: Ballentine S.E.-Barton J. (eds.), Language, Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr, Oxford 1994, 182-198. PERSON, Jr. R.F., - Second Zachariah and the Deuteronomistic School (JSOT SS, 167), Sheffield 1993. - The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions (ZAWB, 252), Berlin-New York 1997. - ‘The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer’, JBL 117 (1998), 601-609. - ‘A Rolling Corpus and Oral Tradition: A Not-so-literate Solution to a Highly Literate Problem’, in: Diamond A.R.P.-O’Connor K.M.-Stulman L. (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah JSOT SS, 260), Sheffield 1999, 263-271. - The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting and Literature, Atlanta 2002. PETERSEN D.L., - Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 23), Missoula-Montana 1977. - The Roles of Israel’s Prophets (JSOT SS, 17), Sheffield 1981. - ‘Israelite Prophecy: Change versus Continuity’, Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991a, 190-203. - ‘The Temple in Persian Period Prophetic Texts’, in: Davies P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991b, 125-144. PHILIPS LONG V., - ‘History and Fiction: What is History?’, in: idem (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999a, 232-254. - Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999b. PHILLIPS A., - ‘Prophecy and Law’, in: Coggins R. e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 217-232. - Essays on Biblical law (JSOT SS, 344), Sheffield 2002. PINÇON B., Du Nouveau dans l’Ancien. Essai sur la notion d’alliance nouvelle dans le livre de Jérémie et dans quelques relectures au cours de l’exil, Lyon 2000. PIPPIN T., ‘Ideology, Ideological Criticism and the Bible’, CR:BS 4 (1996), 51-78. PLATVOET J.G., ‘Van vóór tot voorbij de ene maatstaf over de canonieke fase in de algemene godsdienstgeschiedenis’, in: Jenner K.D.-Wiegers G.A. (eds.), Heilig Boek en religieus gezag (Leidse Studiën van de godsdienst, 2), Kampen 1998, 93-125. PLÖGER O., Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT, 2), Neunkirchen 1962. POIRIER J.C., ‘The Canonical Approach and the Idea of “Scripture”‘, in: Exp Tim 116 (2005), 365-370. POKORNY P., ‘Pseudepigraphie. I. Altes und Neues Testament’, TRE vol. 27, 1997, 645655. POLIAKOV L., ‘Un dialogue judéo-chrétien est-il possible?’ Et 383 (1995), 77-88. POLK D.P., ‘Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture’, HBT 3 (1980), 165-171. PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM ‘De interpretatie van de Bijbel in de kerk’, KD 22 (1994), 1-60.

659 PORTER J.R., - ‘The Origins of Prophecy in Israel’, in: Coggins R. e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 12-31. - ‘The Supposed Deuteronomic Redaction of the Prophets: Some Considerations’, in: Albertz R. (ed.), Schöpfung und Befreiung: Für Claus Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1989, 69-78. PREUSS H.D., - Deuteronomium (Erträge der Forschung, 164), Darmstadt 1982. - ‘Biblisch-theologische Erwägungen eines Alttestamentlers zum Problemkreis Ökologie’, TZ 39 (1983), 68-101. - Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur (Urban-Taschenbücher; 383), Stuttgart-Berlin 1987. - Theologie des Alten Testaments (Vol. 1), Stuttgart 1991/1992. PRIEST J.F., ‘Canon and Criticism: A Review Article’, JAAR 48 (1980), 259-271. PROVAN J.W., - ‘Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel’, JBL 114 (1995), 585-606. - ‘In the Stable with the Dwarves: Testimony, Faith and the History of Israel’, in: Lemaire A.-Sæbø M. (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (VTS, 80), Leiden 2000, 281-319. - ‘Pyrrhon, Pyrrhus and the Possibility of the Past: A Response to David Henige’, JSOT 27 (2003), 413-438. PUECH E., ‘Les Écoles dans l’Israël préexilique: Données épigraphiques’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT, 40), Leiden 1988, 189-203. PUMMER R., - ‘The Present State of Samaritan Studies I’, JSS 21 (1976), 39-61. - ‘The Present State of Samaritan Studies II’, JSS 22 (1977), 27-47. - ‘Einführung in den Stand der Samaritanerforschung’, in: idem-Dexinger F. (eds.), Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung, 604), Darmstadt 1992, 1-66. RABIN C., ‘Discourse Analysis and the Dating of Deuteronomy’, in: Emerton J.A.- Reif S.C., Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E.I.J. Rosenthal, Cambridge 1982, 171-177. RAEDTS P., ‘De Kerk als Natiestaat’, Str 64 (1997), 147-158. RAHNER K., - Evolutie in Kerk en Wereld (Pastorale cahiers 15: Continuïteit en verandering, 1), Hilversum-Antwerp 1964. - ‘Kanon’, LTK 5 (1970), 1277-1284. - ‘Kanonische und/oder kirchliche Schriftauslegung? Der Kanon und die Suche nach der Einheit’, ZKTh 123 (2001), 402-422. RÄISÄNEN H., - ‘Die Wirkungsgeschichte der Bibel: Eine Herausforderung für die exegetische Forschung, EvTh 52 (1992), 337-347. - ‘Die frühchristliche Gedankenwelt: Eine religionswissenschaftliche Alternative zur neutestamentlichen Theologie’, in: Dohmen C.-Söding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel - zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie UTB-Uni-Taschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995, 253-265. RATSCHOW C.H., - ‘Zur Frage der Begründung des neutestamentlichen Kanons aus der Sicht des Systematischen Theologen’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon:

660 Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 247257. RATZINGER J., Schriftauslegung im Widerstreit (Quaestiones Disputatae, 117), FreiburgBazel-Wien 1989. REARDON B.M.G., ‘Modernismus’, TRE 23 (1994), 129-138. REDDITT P.L., - ‘The Book of Malachi in Its social Setting’, CBQ 56 (1994), 240-255. - ‘Recent Research on the Book of the Twelve as One book’, CR:BS 9 (2001), 47-80. REEVES R.R., ‘What Do We Do Now? Approaching the Crossroads of New Testament Textual Criticism’, PRS 23 (1996), 61-73. REGEV E., ‘Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomic Static Holiness’, VT 51, 2001, 243-261. RENKEMA J., ‘Chr. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang, 1990’ (Book Review), GTT 1991, 57-59. RENDTORFF R., - ‘Die theologische Stellung der Schöpfungsglauben bei Deutrojesaja’, ZThK 51 (1954), 313. - ‘Mose als Religionsstifter?’ in: idem (ed.), Gesammelte Studien, München 1975, 121-152. - Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, Berlin-New York 1976a. - ‘Weisheit und Geschichte im Alten Testament: Zu einer offenen Frage im werk Gerhard Von Rads’ (Evang. Kommentare, 9), 1976b, 216-218. - ‘Approaches to Old Testament Theology’, in: Sun H.T.C. e.a. (eds.), Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honour of Rolf Knierim, Michigan-Cambridge 1977a, 13-26. - ‘Geschichtliches und weisheitliches Denken im Alten Testament’, in: Donner H. (ed.), Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift für W. Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1977b, 344-353. - ‘Zur Bedeutung des Kanons für eine Theologie des Alten Testaments’, in: Geyer H.G. e.a. (eds.), Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann? Aufsätze für H.J. Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1983, 3-11. - ‘Ezra und das ‘Gesetz’ ‘, ZAW 96 (1984a), 165-184. - ‘Jakob in Bethel: Beobachtungen zum Aufbau und zur Quellenfrage in Gen. 28, 10-22’, ZAW 94 (1984b), 511-523. - ‘The Future of Pentateuchal Criticism’, Henoch 6 (1984c), 1-15. - Das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung, Neunkirchen 19883. - ‘“Covenant” as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus’, JBL 108 (1989a), 385-393. - ‘L’histoire biblique des origines (Gen. 1-11) dans le contexte de la rédaction “sacerdotale” du Pentateuque’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 1989b, 83-94. - Kanon und Theologie: Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neunkirchen 1991. - ‘“Canonical Interpretation”: A New Approach to Biblical Texts’, Sth 48 (1994a), 3-14. - ‘Rezension Brevard S. Childs: Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible’ (JbBTh, 9), Neunkirchen 1994b, 359-369. - ‘Die Hermeneutik einer kanonischen Theologie des Alten Testaments: Prolegomena’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Religionsgeschichte oder Theologie des Alten Testaments?’ (JbBTh, 10), Neunkirchen 1995, 35-44. - ‘Directions in Pentateuchal Studies’, CR:BS 5 (1997), 43-65.

661 - ‘Wie sieht Israel seine Geschichte?’, in: McKenzie S.L.-Römer T.- Schmid H.H. (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible; Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ZAWB, 294), Berlin-New York 2000, 197-206. - Theologie des Alten Testaments: Eine kanonische Entwürf, Neunkirchen 1999-2001. RENDTORFF T., ‘Karl Barth und die Neuzeit: Fragen zur Barth-Forschung’, EvTh 46 (1986), 298-314. REUTER E., ‘“Nimm nichts davon weg und füge nichts hinzu”: Dtn 13,1, seine alttestamentlichen Parallelen und seine altorientalischen Vorbilder’, BN 47(1989), 107114. REVENTLOW H.G., - ‘Kultisches Recht im Alten Testament’, ZThK 60 (1963), 267-304. - ‘Der Konflikt zwischen Exegese und Dogmatik: Wilhelm Vischers Ringen um den “Christus im Alten Testament”’ in: Günneweg A.H.J.-Kaiser O. (eds.), Textgemäß: Aufsätze und Beitrage zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979, 110-122. - Hauptprobleme der Alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert (Erträge der Forschung, 173), Darmstadt 1982. - ‘Aus der Arbeit der Projektgruppe “Biblische Theologie” der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie’, ThZ 39 (1983a), 65-67. - Hauptprobleme der Biblischen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert (Erträge der Forschung, 203), Darmstadt 1983b. - ‘Die Arbeit der Projektgruppe ‘Biblische Theologie’ in den Jahren 1976-1981’, in Merk O. (ed.), Schriftauslegung als theologische Aufklärung: Aspekte gegenwärtiger Fragestellungen in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft, Gütersloh 1984, 94-102. - ‘Biblische Theologie auf historisch-kritische Grundlage: Zu einem neuen Buch von Manfred Oeming’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirchen 1986, 201-209. - ‘Streit der exegetischen Methoden? Eine hermeneutische Besinnung’, in: Witte M. (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag II (BZAW 345/II), Berlin-New York 2004, 943-961. RICHES J.K., A Century of New Testament Study, Trinity-Lutterworth 1993. RICHTER W., Die sogenannten vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte, Göttingen 1970. RICOEUR P., The Rule of Metaphor. Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, London 1978. RIDDERBOSH H.N., ‘Psalmen und Kult’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Zur Neueren Psalmforschung, Darmstadt 1976, 234-279. RINGGREN H., - ‘L’impact du Proche-Orient Ancien sur la Tradition Israélite’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982a, 41-57. - ‘Prophecy in the Ancient Near East’, in: Coggins R. e.a. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982b, 1-11. RITSCHL D., - ‘The Search for Implicit Axioms Behind Doctrinal Texts’, GREG 74 (1993), 207-221. - ‘Welchen Sinn hat die Suche nach Strukturen hinter Texten?’, in: Ballentine S.E.-Barton J., Language, Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr, Oxford 1994, 385-397. - ‘Bemerkungen zur Koagulation von “Stones” und zum Phänomen der Kanonisierung’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers

662 Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 381-390. ROBERTS J.J.M., - ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Environment’, in: Knight D.A.-Tucker G.M. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia 19862, 75-121. - ‘In Defense of the Monarchy: The Contribution of Israelite Kingship to Biblical Theology’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 377-396. - ‘Does God Lie? Divine Deceit as a Theological Problem in Israelite Prophetic Literature’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT, 40), Leiden 1988, 211220. ROBINSON J.A.T., Redating the New Testament, London 19768. ROFÉ A., - ‘The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Dt. 28,69-30,20): Historico-literary, Comparative, and Form Critical Considerations’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 310-320. - ‘Family and Sex laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of Covenant’, Henoch 9 (1987), 131139. - ‘The Arrangement of the laws in Deuteronomy’, ETL 64 (1988a), 265-267. - The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible: Their Literary Types and History, Jerusalem 1988b. - ‘Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History’, in: Knoppers G.N.-McConville J.G. (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies in the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8), Winona Lake 2000a, 462-474. - ‘The Reliability of the Sources about David’s Reign’, in: Blum E. (ed.), Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 2000b, 217-227. - ‘The Oganization of the Judiciary in Deuteronomy (Deut 16:18-20; 17:8-13; 19:15; 21:2223; 24:16; 25:1-3)’, in: Daviau P.M.M.-Wevers J.W.-Weigl M. (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT SS, 324), Sheffield 2001, 92-112. - Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, Edinburgh-New York 2002. - ‘The History of Israelitic Religion and the Biblical Text: Corrections Due to the Unification of Worship’, in: Paul S.M., Kraft R.A., Schiffman L.H., Fields W.W. (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden-Boston 2003, 759-793. ROHLAND E., ‘Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 420-437. ROLOFF J., ‘Stuhlmacher P.: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments I’, TLZ 119 (1994), 241-245. RÖMER T.C., Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und im der deuteronomistischen Tradition, Freiburg-Göttingen 1990. - ‘Le Deutéronome à la quête des origines’, in: Haudebert P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et Recherches. XIV Congrès de l’ACFB, Angers 1991 (Lectio Divina, 151), Paris 1992, 65-98.

663 - ‘Y a-t-il une rédaction deutéronomiste dans le livre de Jérémie?’, in: idem-De Pury A. (eds.), Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34), Genève 1996, 419-441. - ‘Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography, on “Book-Finding” and other Literary Strategies’, ZAW 109 (1997), 1-11. - ‘How did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Ideology’, in: Schaering L.S.McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pandeuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 189-199. - ‘Du temple au livre: L’idéologie de la centralisation dans l’historiographie deutéronomiste’, in: McKenzie S.L.-Römer T.- Schmid H.H. (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible; Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ZAWB, 294), Berlin-New York 2000a, 207-280. - ‘L’école deutéronomiste et la formation de la Bible Hébraïque’, in: idem (ed.), The Future of Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000b, 179-193. - The So-called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction, London-New York 2005. RÖMER T.C.-DE PURY A., ‘L’historiographie Deutéronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeux du débat’, in: idem (eds.), Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la Bible, 34), Genève 1996, 9-120. ROSE M., - Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (AThANT, 67), Zürich 1981. - ‘Empoigner le Pentateuque par sa fin! L’investiture de Josué et la mort de Moïse’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 1989², 129147. RÖSEL H.N., ‘Does a Comprehensive “Leitmotiv” exist in the Deuteronomistic History?’, in: Römer T.C. (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 195-211. ROWLAND C., ‘The “Interested” Interpreter’, in: Carroll R.M.D.-Clines D.J.A.-Davies P.R. (eds.), The Bible in Human Society (JSOT SS, 200), Sheffield 1995. RÜGER H.P., - ‘Das Werden des christlichen Alten Testaments’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Zum Problem des Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 175-189. - ‘Der Umfang des Alttestamentlichen Kanons in den verschiedenen kirchlichen Traditionen’ in: Meurer S. (ed.), Die Apokryphenfrage im ökumenischen Horizont, Stuttgart 1989, 137-145. RUSSEL D.S., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Patriarchs and Prophets in Early Judaism, Philadelphia 1987. RÜTERSWÖRDEN U., - Die Beamten der israelitischen Königszeit (BWANT, 117), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz 1985. - Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16,18-18,22 (BBB, 65), Frankfurt 1987. - ‘Es gibt keinen Exegeten in einem gesetzlosen Land (Prov. 29,18 LXX); Erwägungen zum Thema: Der Prophet und die Tora’, in: Liwak R.-Wagner S. (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1991, 326-347.

664 - ‘Der Verfassungsentwurf des Deuteronomiums in der neueren Diskussion’, in: Mommer P.-Thiel W. (eds.), Altes Testament: Forschung und Wirkung: F.S. H. Graf Reventlow, Frankfurt a.M. 1994, 313-328. SÆBØ M., - ‘Vom “Zusammen-Denken” zum Kanon: Aspekte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Endstadien des Alten Testaments’, in: Baldermann I. (ed.), Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1988, 115-133. - On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament (JSOT SS, 191), Sheffield 1998. - ‘“Ne bis in idem?” Theologische und kanonische Aspekte der Parallelität von deuteronomistischem und chronistichem Geschichtswerk’, in: Chapman St.-Helmer Chr.Landmeiser Chr. (eds.), Biblische theologische Studien, 4, Neunkirchen 2001, 27-51. - ‘Zur neueren Interpretationsgeschichte des Alten Testaments’, TL 130 (2005), 1033-1044. SAFFREY M.D., ‘Les débuts de la théologie comme science’, RSR 80 (1996), 201-220. SAFRAI S., Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels: Forschungen zum JudischChristichen Dialog, Neunkirchen 1981. SAINT-SERNIN B., ‘Les états du structuralisme’, Et 378 (1993), 487-495. SANCHEZ CARO J.M., ‘El Canon del Nuevo Testamento: Problemas y Planteamientos’, Salm 29 (1982), 309-339. SAND A., - ‘Die Diskrepanz zwischen historischer Zufälligkeit und normativem Charakter des Neutestamentlichen Kanons als hermeneutischer Problem’, MüTZ 24 (1973), 147-160. - ‘Kanon von den Anfängen bis zum Fragmentum Muratorianum’, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 1, 3a, 1, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1974, 1-90. SANDERS J.A., - Torah and Canon, Philadelphia 1972. - ‘Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon’, in: Cross F.M. (ed.), Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, Garden City 1976a, 531-560. - ‘Hermeneutics’, IDBs, Nashville 1976b, 402-407. - ‘Biblical Criticism and the Bible as Canon’, USQR 32 (1977), 157-165. - ‘Text and Canon: Concepts and Method’, JBL 98 (1979), 5-29. - Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism, Philadelphia 1984a. - ‘Canonical Criticism: an Introduction’, in: Kaestli J.D.-Wermelinger O. (eds.), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament: Sa formation et son histoire, Genève 1984b, 341-362. - From Sacred Story to Sacred Text, Philadelphia 1987. - ‘Canon Hebrew Bible’, ABD 1 (1992a), 837-852. - ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Studies’, in: Fishbane M.-Tov E.-Fields M.W. (eds.), Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and Ancient East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, Winona Lake, 1992b, 323-336. - ‘Scripture as Canon for Post-modern Times’, BTB 25 (1995), 56-63. - ‘The Task of Text Criticism’, in: Sun H.T.C. e.a. (eds.), Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honour of Rolf Knierim, Michigan-Cambridge 1997, 315-327. - ‘The Canon as Dialogue’, in: Flint P.W. (ed.), The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape and Interpretation (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature), Cambridge 2001, 7-26. - ‘The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process’, in: McDonald L.M.-idem (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 252-266. SANDMEL S., ‘The Haggada within Scripture’, JBL 80 (1961), 105-122.

665 SARNA N.M., - ‘Bible’, EJ 4 (1971), 832-836. - ‘Legal Terminology in Psalm 3,8’, in: Fishbane M.-Tov E.-Fields W.F. (eds.), “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 175-181. SARTORI L., ‘Wat is het criterium voor de “sensus fidelium”‘, Conc 17 (1981), 67-72. SAULNIER Chr., Bible et Royauté (Cahiers Évangile, 83), Paris 1993. SAUTER G., ‘Kanon und Kirche’, in: Barton J.-Wolter M. (eds.), Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (ZNWB, 118), Berlin – New York 2003, 239-260. SCALISE C.J., ‘Canonical Hermeneutics: Childs and Barth’, SJT 47 (1994), 61-88. SCHAERING L.S.-McKENZIE S.L., Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999. SCHÄFER P., ‘Die Sogenannte Synode von Jabne: Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabbinischen Judentums’, Jud 31 (1975), 45-64. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER C., - ‘Göttliche und menschliche Autorität im Deuteronomium’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIth. IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989, Leuven 1990, 125-142. - ‘Bedeutung und Funktion von Herem in biblisch-hebräischen Texten’, BZ 38 (1994), 270275. - Josia und Salomo: Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament (SVT, 58), Leiden 1995. - ‘JHWH, Israel und die Volker aus der Perspektive von Dtn 7’, BZ 40 (1996a), 194-218. - ‘Sociological and Biblical views of the Early State’, in: Davies P.R.-Fritz V. (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT SS, 228), Sheffield 1996b, 78-105. - ‘Zur Funktion der Soziologie im Studium des Alten Testaments’, in: Lemaire A.-Sæbø M. (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo 1998, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2000, 179-202. SCHAPER J., - ‘The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration’, VT 45 (1995), 528-539. - ‘Auf der Suche nach dem alten Israel?’, ZAW 118 (2006), Teil II, 1-21, 181-196. SCHARBERT J., - ‘Die prophetische Literatur: Der Stand der Forschung’, in: Cazelles H. (ed.), De Mari à Qumrân: L’Ancien Testament: Son Milieu: Ses Écrits: Ses Relectures juives: Hommage à Mgr. J. Coppens (BETL, 24), Paris 1969, 58-118. - ‘Berît im Pentateuch’, in: Carrez M. (ed.), De la Tôrah au Messie: Mélanges Henri Cazelles, Paris 1981, 163-169. - ‘Jahweh im frühisraelitischen recht’, in: Haag H. e.a. (eds.), Gott der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheïsmus in Israel (Quaestiones Disputatae, 104), Freiburg 1985, 160-183. - ‘Der “Geist” und die Schriftpropheten’, in: Mosis R. (ed.), Der Weg zum Menschen: Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1989, 82-97. SCHART A., - Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen Schrifthinübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse (ZAWB, 260), Berlin 1998a. - Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzahlungen (OBO, 98), Freiburg 1998b. SCHEFFCZYK L., ‘Prozeßtheismus und christlicher Gottesglaube’, MTZ 35 (1984), 81-104.

666 SCHENK W., ‘The Responsibility of Hermeneutics’ (Book review Lunden R. e.a.), TL 112 (1987), 455-456. SCHENKER A., - ‘Les sacrifices d’Alliance, Ex. XXIV,3-8, dans leur portée narrative et religieuse: Contribution à l’étude de la Berit dans l’Ancien Testament’, RB 101 (1994), 481-494. - ‘Die Freilassung der hebräischen Sklaven nach Dtn 15,12 und Jer. 34,8-22’, in: idem, Recht und Kult (OBO, 172), Freiburg-Göttingen 2000a, 150-157. - ‘Dynamique de dépassement dans la loi ancienne?’, in: idem (ed.), Recht und Kult (OBO, 172), Freiburg-Göttingen 2000b, 33-38. - ‘L’origine de l’idée d’une alliance entre Dieu et Israël dans l’Ancien Testament’, in idem (ed.), Recht und Kult (OBO, 172), Freiburg-Göttingen 2000c, 67-76. SCHERER A., ‘Vom Sinn prophetischer Gerichtsverkundigung bei Amos und Hosea’, Bibl 86 (2005), 1-19. SCHILLEBEECKX E., - ‘De toegang tot Jezus van Nazaret’, TvT 12 (1972a), 28-60. - Geloofsverstaan: Interpretatie en Kritiek, Bloemendaal 1972b. - Gerechtigheid en Liefde, Brugge 1977. SCHMID H.H., - ‘Schöpfung, Gerechtigkeit und Heil: Schöpfungstheologie als Gesamthorizont biblischer Theologie’, ZThK 70 (1973), 1-19. - Der sogenannte Jahwist, Zürich 1976. - ‘Unterwegs zu einer neuen Biblischen Theologie? Anfragen an die von H. Gese und P. Stuhlmacher vorgetragenen Entwürfe Biblischer Theologie’, in: Haacker K. e.a. (eds.), Biblische Theologie heute: Einführung-Beispiele-Kontroversen (Biblische Studien, 1), Neunkirchen 1977, 75-95. - ‘Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven für die Pentateuchforschung’ (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981, 375-394. - ‘Was heißt “Biblische Theologie?”‘, in: Geisser H.F.-Mostert W. (eds.), Wirkungen hermeneutischer Theologie: Ein Züricher Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstags Gerhard Ebelings, Zürich 1983, 35-50. - ‘Vers une théologie du Pentateuque’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Freiburg 1989², 361-389. SCHMID H.H.-MEHLHAUSEN J., Sola Scriptura: Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der Säkularen Welt, Gütersloh 1988-1991. SCHMIDT L., - ‘Hermeneutische und biblisch-theologische Fragen’, in: Boecker H. e.a. (eds.), Altes Testament (Neukirchener Arbeitsbücher), Neunkirchen 1983, 288-307. - ‘Israel und das Gesetz’, ZAW 113 (2001), 167-185. SCHMIDT W.H., - ‘Die deuteromistische Redaktion des Amosbuches’, ZAW 77 (1965), 168-193. - ‘Die prophetische “Grundgewißheit”’, in: Neumann P.H.A. (ed.), Das Prophetenverständnis in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit Heinrich Ewald (Wege der Forschung, 307), Darmstadt 1979, 537-564. - Exodus, Sinai und Mose: Erwägungen zu Ex 1-19 und 24, Darmstadt 1983a. - ‘Vielfalt und Einheit Alttestamentlichen Glaubens’, in: Geyer e.a. (eds.), Wenn nicht jetzt, wenn dann? Aufsätze für Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1983b, 13-22. - ‘Grenzen und Vorzüge historisch-kritischer Exegese: Eine kleine Verteidigungsrede’, EvTh 45 (1985), 469-481.

667 - ‘Die Frage nach der Einheit des Alten Testaments im Spannungsfeld von Religionsgeschichte und Theologie’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Der eine Gott der beiden Testamente (JbBTh, 2), Neunkirchen 1986, 33-57. - ‘Pentateuch und Prophetie: Eine Skizze zu Verschiedenartigkeit und Einheit Alttestamentlicher Theologie’, in: Fritz V. e.a. (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbüch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65 Geburtstag (ZAWB, 185), Berlin - New York 1989, 181-195. - ‘Elementare Erwägungen zur Quellenscheidung im Pentateuch’, Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991a, 22-45. - ‘“Prophetie und Wirklichkeit”: Ein Gespräch mit S. Herrmann’, in: Liwak R.-Wagner S. (eds.), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1991b, 348-363. - ‘Das Prophetengesetz Dtn 18,9-22 im Kontext erzählender Literatur’, in: Vervenne M.Lust J. (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997, 55-69. SCHMITT H.C., - Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen Nord-Israelitischen Prophetie, Gütersloh 1972. - ‘“Priesterliches” und “Prophetisches” Geschichtsverständnis in der Meerwundererzählung Ex. 13, 17-14, 31: Beobachtungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch’, in: Gunneweg A.H.J. (ed.), Textgemäß: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979, 139-155. - ‘Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geist der Prophetie’, VT 32, (1982), 170-189. - ‘Die Hintergrunde der “Neuesten Pentateuchkritik” und der literarische Befund der Josephgeschichte Gen. 37-50’, ZAW 97 (1985), 161-179. SCHNABEL E., ‘History, Theology and the Biblical Canon: An Introduction to Basic Issues’, Themelios 20 (1995), 16-24. SCHNACKENBURG N., ‘Neutestamentliche Theologie im Rahmen einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie’ (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirche 1986, 31-47. SCHNEEMELCHER W., ‘Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments und der christlichen Bibel’, TRE 6 (1980), 22-48. SCHNIEDEWIND W., ‘The Problem with Kings: Recent Study of the Deuteronomistic History’ (Book Review), RSR 22 (1996), 22-27. SCHOENBORN U., ‘Narrative Theologie’, EKL B.3 1992, 606-609. SCHOOF T.M., Aggiornamento, Baarn 1968. SCHOORS A., Die Königreiche Israel und Juda im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: die Assyrische Krise, Köln 1998. SCHOTTROFF W., ‘Zum alttestamentlichen Recht’, VF 22 (1977), 3-29. SCHRAGE W., ‘Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon im Kanon des Neuen Testaments in die neueren Diskussion’, in: Friedrich J. e.a. (eds.), Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen-Göttingen 1976, 415-442. SCHREURS N., - ‘Verdraagt geloven verheldering?’ TvT 20 (1980a), 229-252. - ‘Verheldering omtrent geloven’, TvT 20 (1980b), 61-85. SCHRÖDER-FIELD C., ‘Der Kanonbegriff in biblischer Theologie und evangelischer Dogmatik’, in: Barton J.-Wolter M., Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (ZNWB, 118), Berlin –New York 2003, 195-238. SCHROEDER C., ‘Macht und Gerechtigkeit: Ansätze des nordamerikanischen Forschungsprojekts “Bible and Theology” zur Neukonzeption einer Biblischen

668 Theologie’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Glaube und Öffentlichkeit (JbBTh, 11), 1996, 183-196. SCHULZ-RAUCH M., Hosea und Jeremia: Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Hoseabuches (Calwer Theologische Monographien; Reihe A, 16), Stuttgart 1996. SCHUMACHER J., Der Apostolische Abschluß der Offenbarung Gottes, Freiburg 1979. SCHUNK K.D., ‘Die Eschatologie der Propheten des Alten Testaments und ihre Wandlung in Exilisch-Nachexilischer Zeit’, in: Anderson G.W. e.a. (eds.), Studies on Prophecy (SVT, 16), Leiden 1974, 116-132. SCHÜSSLER W., ‘Theologie muß Angriff sein: Das Religions- und Theologieverständnis Paul Tillichs’, FrZ 34 (1987), 513-529. SCHÜSSLER-FIORENZA F., - In memory of Her, New York 1983. - ‘The Crisis of Scriptural Authority: Interpretation and Reception’, Int 44 (1990), 353-368. SCHWAGER R., ‘Theologie-Geschichte-Wissenschaft’, ZKTh 109 (1987), 257-275. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER L., - Das Bundesbuch (Ex. 20, 22-23, 33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188), Berlin-New York 1990. - ‛Gibt es eine sinnvolle Suche nach der Mitte des Alten Testaments?’, in: Hossfeld F.L. (ed.), Wieviel Systematik erlaubt die Schrift? Auf der Suche nach einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie (Quaestiones Disputatae, 185), Freiburg-Basel-Wien 2001, 48-87. SCOTT GREEN W., ‘Ancient Judaism: Contours and Complexity’, in: Ballentine S.E. e.a. (eds.), Language, Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr, Oxford 1994, 293-310. SECKLER M., ‘Über die Problematik des biblischen Kanons und die Bedeutung seiner Wiederentdeckung’, ThQ 180 (2000), 31-53. SEEBASS H., - ‘Biblische Theologie’, EvThB 27 (1982), 28-45. - ‘Ist biblische Theologie möglich?’, Jud 41 (1985), 194-206. - ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes: Zum Dialog mit Peter Stuhlmacher’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirchen 1986, 114-134. - ‘Blum E., Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch’, TR 88 (1992), 17-21. SEELIGMANN I.L., ‘Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung (mit einem Exkurs über das Buch Jeremia)’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (SVT, 29), Leiden 1978, 254-284. SEGAL J.B., ‘Popular Religion in Ancient Israel’, JJS 27 (1976), 1-22. SEIDEL B., ‘Ezechiel und die zu vermutenden Anfänge der Schriftreligion im Umkreis der unmittelbaren Vorexilszeit: Oder: Die Bitternis der Schriftrolle’, ZAW 107 (1995), 51-64. SEIDEL H.W., Die Erforschung des Alten Testaments in der Katholischen Kirche seit der Jahrhundertwende (Athenaeum Monograficis Theologie, Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 86), Frankfurt am Main 1993. SEIDL T., ‘Jeremias Tempelrede: Polemik gegen die joschijanische Reform?’, in: Gross W. (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 141178. SEITZ Chr.R., - ‘The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah’, ZAW 101 (1989), 3-27. - ‘Mose als Prophet: Redaktionsthemen und Gesamtstruktur des Jeremiabuches’, BZ 34 (1990), 234-245.

669 - ‘Prophecy and Tradition-History: The Achievement of Gerhard von Rad’ and beyond in: Fischer I, Schmid K., Williamson H.G.M. (eds.), Prophetie in Israel (Altes Testament und Moderne, 11), Münster, Hamburg, London 2003, 29-52. SESBOÜÉ B., - ‘Orientations actuelles du dialogue œcuménique’, Et 375 (1991), 671-681. - ‘La canonisation des Écritures et la reconnaissance de leur inspiration’, RSR 92 (2004), 13-44. SEYBOLD K., - Das davidische Königtum im Zeugnis der Propheten (FRLANT, 107), Göttingen 1972. - Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja (Züricher Bibelkommentare AT, 24,2), Zürich 1991. SHANKS H. e.a. (eds.), The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution, October 26, 1991, Washington 1992. SHAVER J.R., Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work: An Inquiry into the Chronicler’s References to Law, Festivals and Cultic Institutions in Relation tot Pentateuchal Legislation (BJS, 196), Atlanta 1989. SHEPPARD G.T., - Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (ZAWB 151), Berlin 1980. - ‘Canonization: Hearing the Voice of the Same God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions’, Int 16 (1982), 21-33. - ‘“Canon”, in: The Encyclopedia of Religion’, New York 1987, vol. 3, 62-69. - ‘Canonical Criticism’, ABD 1 (1992), 861-866. - ‘Biblical Wisdom Literature at the End of the Modern Age’, in: Lemaire A.-Sæbø M. (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo 1998, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2000, 369-398. SIGRIST Ch.-NEU R. (eds.), Die Entstehung des Königtums (Ethnologische Texte zum Alten Testament, 2), Neunkirchen 1977. SIMIAN-YOFRE H., ‘B.S. Childs’, Bibl 62 (1981), 422-428. SKA J.L., - ‘La nouvelle critique’, RSR 80 (1992a), 29-53. - ‘Récit et Récit Méta diégétique en Ex. 1-15: Remarques Critiques et Essai d’Interprétation de Ex.3,16-22’, in: Haudebert P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et Recherches. XIVe Congrès de l’ACFB, Angers 1991 (Lectio Divina, 151), Paris 1992b, 135-171. - ‘Le Pentateuque: état de la recherche à partir de quelques récentes ‘Introductions’”, Bibl 77 (1996), 245-265. SKARSAUNE A., ‘Kodeks og Kanon’, in: Tangberg A. (ed.), Studies in Honour of Prof. Dr. Theol. Magne Sæbø, Oslo 1994, 261-262. SMART J.D., The Past, Present and Future of Biblical Theology, Philadelphia 1979. SMELIK K.A.D., - Saul: De voorstelling van Israëls eerste koning in de Masoretische tekst van het Oude Testament, Amsterdam 1977. - ‘De Ark in het Filistijnse land’, ACEBT 1 (1980), 42-50. - ‘“Zegt toch tot Hizkia”: een voorbeeld van profetische geschiedschrijving’, ACEBT 2 (1981), 50. - Behouden Schrift: Historische documenten uit het oude Israël, Baarn 1984a. - ‘Een vuur gaat uit van Chesbon; Een onderzoek naar Numeri 20:14-21; 21:10-35 en parallelplaatsen’, ACEBT 5 (1984b), 61-109. - ‘Profetische reflectie op het verleden: Bijbelse verhalen tussen fictie en geschiedschrijving’, in: Deurloo K.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De Bijbel maakt School: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984c, 60-75.

670 - ‘De Dynastieën van Omri en Jehu: De compositie van het boek Koningen (1)’, ACEBT 6 (1985), 43-69. - ‘Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy, The Purpose of Isaiah 36 and 37’, OTS 24 (1986), 70-93. - ‘De Hebreeuwse Bijbel als historische bron’, ACEBT 8 (1987), 9-22. - ‘Vertellingen in de Hebreeuwse Bijbel: De benadering van het Bijbelse verhaal door Palache, Beek en diens leerlingen’ (ACEBT, 9), 1988, Kampen 1988, 8-21. - Het gezicht van de twee vijgenbomen: De plaats van hoofdstuk 24 binnen het boek Jeremia, Kampen 1991a. - ‘Het Scheiden der Wegen’, Schrift 134 (1991b), 43-48. - Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (OTS, 28), Leiden 1992a. - ‘De vroege Profeten’, in: Jagersma H.-Vervenne M. (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992b, 236-246. - ‘Text, Kanon und Tradition: Einige methodische Überlegungen’, in: Deurloo K.A. e.a. (eds.), Amsterdamse Cahiers voor exegese en Bijbelse theologie 11, Kampen 1992c, 7883. - ‘Correspondentie in Ballingschap’, ACEBT 14 (1995a), 74-89. - ‘Nieuwe ontwikkelingen rond de inscriptie uit Tel Dan’, ACEBT 14 (1995b), 131-141. - ‘Letters to the Exiles: Jeremiah 29 in Context’, JSOT 10 (1196), 282-295. - ‘Mijn knecht: Nebukadnessar in het boek Jeremia: Een provocatie aan de lezer’, ACEBT 16 (1997a), 44-59. - ‘The New Altar of King Ahaz (2 Kings 16): Deuteronomistic Re-interpretation of a Cult Reform’, in: Vervenne M.-Lust J. (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997b, 263-278. - ‘Een eigentijds Kader: Geschiedschrijving in het Oude Nabije Oosten’, Schrift 176 (1998a), 44-49. - ‘Geschiedschrijving als literair procédé’, Schrift 176 (1998b), 50-54. - ‘The Use and Misuse of the Bible as a Historical Source’, in: Dijk J.W.-Van Midden P.J.Spronk K.-Venema G.S. (eds.), The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible (ACEBT SS, 1), Maastricht 1999, 121-139. - Neem een boekrol en schrijf. Tekstvondsten uit het oude Israël, Zoetermeer 2006. SMELIK K.A.D.-VAN SOEST H.J., - ‘Openingsformules in het boek Koningen: De compositie van het boek Koningen (2)’, ACEBT 12 (1993), 62-86. - ‘Overlijdensteksten in het boek Koningen: De compositie van het boek Koningen (3)’, ACEBT 13 (1994), 56-71. - ‘Bronverwijzingen in het boek Koningen: De Compositie va het boek Koningen (4)’, ACEBT 15 (1996), 26-42. SMEND R., - Das Mosebild von Heinrich Ewald bis Martin Noth, Tübingen 1959. - Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1978. - Gesetz (Kohlhammer Taschenbücher. Biblische Konfrontationen, 1015), Stuttgart 1981. - ‘Tradition et Histoire: une relation complexe’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 59-78. - ‘Die Mitte des Alten Testaments’. Gesammelte Studien 1, München 1986, 40-84. - ‘Beziehungen zwischen alttestamentlicher und neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft’, ZTK 92 (1995), 1-12.

671 SMITH D.L., - ‘The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judean Society’, in: Davies P.R. (ed.), Second Temple Studies 1, Persian Period (JSOT SS, 117), Sheffield 1991, 7397. - ‘The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemia 13: A Study of the Sociology of Post-Exilic Judean Community’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 243265. SMITH D.M., ‘Why Approaching the New Testament as Canon Matters’, Int 40 (1986), 407-411. SMITH J.Z., ‘Canons, Catalogues and Classics’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 295-311. SMITH M.S., - Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old Testament, New York - London 1971. - ‘Jewish Religious Life in the Persian period’, in: Davies W.D.-Finkelstein L. (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism 1: Introduction: The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 219-278. - ‘The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations’, ZAW 104 (1992), 408-412. SNYMAN G., - ‘Intertextuality, Story and the Presence of Permanence of Canon’, OTE 8 (1995), 205-222. - ‘Texts are Fundamentally Facts of Power, not of Democratic Exchange’, in: De Moor J.C.-Van Rooy M. (eds.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44), Leiden 2000, 272-303. SÖDING T., - ‘Probleme und Chancen Biblischer Theologie aus neutestamentlicher Sicht’, in: Dohmen C.-Söding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel - zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie (UTB - Uni-Taschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995, 159-177. - ‘“Mitte der Schrift” - “Einheit der Schrift”: Grundsätzliche Erwägungen zur Schrifthermeneutik’, in: Pannenberg W.-Schneider Th. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeugnis III (Dialog der Kirchen, 10), Freiburg-Göttingen 1998, 43-82. - ‘Der Kanon des Alten und Neuen Testaments: Zur Frage nach seinem theologischen Anspruch’. Pro manuscripto: Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, Jubilee Meeting 2001. - ‘Der Kanon des Alten und Neuen Testaments: Zur Frage nach seinem theologischen Anspruch’, in: Auwers J-M.-De Jonghe H. (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003a, XLVII-LXXXVIII). - ‘Exegese und Theologie: Spannungen und Widersprüche, Kohärenzen und Konvergenzen aus katholischer Perspektive’, TR 99 (2003b), 4-20. - Einheit der Heiligen Schrift? Zur Theologie des biblischen Kanons, Freiburg im Breisgau 2005. SOGGIN J.A., - ‘Ancient Israelite Poetry and Ancient ‘Codes’ of Law, and the Sources ‘J’ and ‘E’ of the Pentateuch’, VTS 28 (1975), 185-195. - ‘Bemerkungen zum Deboralied, Richter Kap. 5: Versuch einer neuen Übersetzung und eines Vorstoßes in die älteste Geschichte Israels’, TL 106 (1981), 625-639. - ‘Probleme einer Vor- und Frühgeschichte Israels’, ZAW 100 (1988), 254-267.

672 - Einführung in die Geschichte Israels und Judas von den Ursprüngen bis zum Aufstand Bar Kochbas, Darmstadt 1991. - ‘History as Confession of Faith – History as Object of Scholarly Research’, in: Philips Long V. (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999, 208-219. SOLL W., ‘Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: the Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology’, CBQ 51 (1989), 209-231. SOMMER B.D., ‘Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger’, VT 46 (1996), 479-489. SONNET J.P., - ‘Le Deutéronome et la modernité du livre’, NRT 118 (1996), 481-496. - ‘Lorsque Moïse eut achevé d’écrire’ (Dt 31:24); Une “théorie narrative” de l’écriture dans le Pentateuque’, RSR 90 (2002), 509-524. SPARKS K.L., - ‘A Comparative Study of the Biblical Laws’, ZAW 110 (1998a), 594-600. - Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and their Expressions in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake 1998b. - ‘The Problem of Myth in Ancient Historiography’, in: McKenzie S.L.-Römer T.- Schmid H.H. (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible; Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ZAWB, 294), Berlin-New York 2000, 269281. SPERNA WEILAND J., Oriëntatie: Nieuwe Wegen in de Theologie, Baarn 19664. SPIECKERMANN H., - Juda unter Assur in den Sargoniedenzeit (FRLANT, 129), Göttingen 1982. - ‘Die Verbindlichkeit des Alten Testaments: Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen zu einem ungeliebten Thema’, in: Janowski B.-Welker M. (eds.), Biblische Hermeneutik (JbBTh, 12), Neunkirchen 1997, 25-51. SPINA F.A., ‘Eli’s Seat: The Transition from Priest to Prophet in 1 Samuel 1-4’, JSOT 62 (1994), 67-75. STACEY D.W., ‘The Function of Prophetic Drama’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 112-132. STECK O.H., - Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des Deuteronomischen Geschichtbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMAT, 23), Neunkirchen 1967. - ‘Das Problem Theologischer Strömungen in Nachexilischer Zeit’, EvTh 9 (1968), 445458. - ‘Zu Haggai 1,2-11’, ZAW 83 (1971), 355-379. - ‘Courants théologiques dans la tradition’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 193-224. - Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brüche Zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 121), Stuttgart 1985. - ‘Der Kanon des hebräischen Alten Testaments’, in: Rohls J.-Wenz G. (eds.), Vernunft des Glaubens. Wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen 1988, 231-252. - ‘Tritojesaja im Jesajabuch’, in: Vermeylen J. (ed.), The Book of Isaiah - Le livre D’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs re-lectures: Unité et Complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 361-406.

673 - Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons (Biblische-Theologische Studien, 17), Neunkirchen 1991. - ‘Der Kanon des hebräischen Alten Testaments: Historische materialen für eine ökumenische Perspektive’, in: Pannenberg W.-Schneider Th. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeugnis 1: Kanon-Schrift-Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7), Göttingen 1992, 11-33. STEINS G., - ‘Die Wiederentdeckung der Bibel als “Ein Buch”: Chancen eines neuen Zugangs zur Bibel’, BiLi 69 (1996a), 237-243. - ‘Torabindung und Kanonabschluß’, in: Zenger E. (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders Biblische Studien, 10), Freiburg 1996b, 213-256. - Die “Bindung Isaaks” im Kanon (Gen. 22): Grundlagen und Programm einer kanonischintertextuellen Lektüre (Herders Biblische Studien, 20), Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. - ‘Der Bibelkanon-Sammmlung, Text oder was sonst? Methodologische Probleme kanonischer Schriftauslegung’. Pro manuscripto: Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, Jubilee Meeting 2001. STEMBERGER G., - ‘Jabne und der Kanon’ (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1983, 164-174. - ‘Pseudepigraphie II. Judentum’, TRE vol. 27, 1997, 656-659. STENDAHL K., ‘Biblical Theology Contemporary’, IDB I (1962), 418-432. STENDEBACH F.J., Prophetie und Tempel: Haggai-Sacharja-Maleachi-Joel (Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar Altes Testament, 16), Stuttgart 1977. STENSTRUP K.G., ‘Scripture and Interpretative Method: Why Read Scripture as Canon?’, BTB 33 (2003), 158-166. STEUERNAGEL C., Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen 1912. STIPP H.-J., - Elischa - Propheten - Gottesmänner? (Münchener Universitätsschriften, Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 24), St. Ottilien 1987. - ‘Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen Veröffentlichungen’, BZ (1990), 16-37. - ‘Probleme des redaktionsgeschichtlichen Modells der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches’, in: Gross W. (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 225-262. STOCK A., ‘The Limits of Historical Exegesis’, BibTh 13 (1983), 28-31. STOELLGER Ph., ‘Deuteronomium 34 ohne Priesterschrift’, ZAW 105 (1993), 26-51. STOLZ F., ‘Der Monotheismus Israels im Kontext der altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte-Tendenzen neuerer Forschung’, in: Dietrich W.-Klopfenstein M.A. (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus (OBO, 139), Freiburg-Göttingen 1994, 33-50. STONE M.E., Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts, Philadelphia 1980. STRATHMANN H., ‘Die Krisis des Kanons der Kirche’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 41-61. STRAUSS H., - ‘Theologie des Alten Testaments als Bestandteil einer biblischen Theologie’, BN 24 (1984), 125-137. - ‘Das Priesterliche Zeugnis von Jahwe dem Schöpfer gegenüber der Eigenwertigkeit einer sogenannten Schöpfungswirklichkeit’, BN 33 (1986), 21-28. STRUBE C., ‘Postmoderne Philosophisch’, TRE 27 (1996), 82-87.

674 STUHLHOFER F., - ‘Der Ertrag von Bibelstellenregistern für die Kanongeschichte’, ZAW 100 (1988a), 244261. - Der Gebrauch der Bibel von Jesus bis Euseb: Eine statistische Untersuchung zur Kanongeschichte, Wuppertal 1988b. STUHLMACHER P., - ‘Zur Methoden und Sachproblematik einer interkonfessionellen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments’, EKK 5, Vorarbeiten 4 (1972), 11-55. - Schriftauslegung auf dem Wege zur Biblischen Theologie, Göttingen 1975. - ‘Zum Thema: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments’, in: Haacker K. e.a. (eds.), Biblische Theologie heute: Einführung-Beispiele-Kontroversen (Biblische Theologische Studien, 1), Neunkirchen 1976, 25-60. - ‘Nachkritische Schriftauslegung’, in: Janowski H.N.-Stammler E. (eds.), Was ist los mit der deutschen Theologie? Antworten auf eine Anfrage, Stuttgart-Berlin 1978, 59-65. - ‘Das Evangelium von der Versöhnung in Christus: Grundlinien und Grundprobleme einer biblischen Theologie des NT’, in: idem-Class H., Das Evangelium von der Versöhnung in Christus, Stuttgart 1979a, 13-54. - Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Towards a Hermeneutics of Consent, London 1979b. - Vom Verstehen das Neuen Testaments: Eine Hermeneutik (Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament, 6), Göttingen 1979. - ‘“... in verrosteten Angelen”’, ZThK 77 (1980), 222-238. - ‘Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie’, in: idem, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie, Göttingen 1981, 136-165. - ‘Biblische Theologie als Weg der Erkenntnis Gottes: Zum Buch von Horst Seebass: Der Gott der ganzen Bibel’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.): Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirchen 1986, 91-114. - Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments 1: Grundlegung von Jesus zu Paulus, Göttingen 1992. STUHMUELLER C., ‘Studying the Bible Canonically’, TBT 26 (1988), 5-18. SUGIMOTO T., ‘Chronicles as Independent Literature’, JSOT 55 (1992), 61-74. SUNDBERG, Jr. A.C., - The Old Testament of the Early Church, Cambridge-London 1964. - ‘The Protestant Old Testament Canon: Should it be Re-examined?’, CBQ 28 (1966), 194203. - ‘The “Old Testament”: a Christian Canon’, CBQ 30 (1968), 143-155. - ‘The Making of the New Testament Canon’, ICB 1971, 1217-1224. - ‘Canon Muratori’, HTR 66 (1973), 1-41. - ‘The Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration’, Int 29 (1975), 352-371. - ‘Canon of the New Testament’, IDB Suppl., Nashville 1976, 136-140. - ‘Re-examining the Formation of the Old Testament Canon’, Int 42 (1988), 78-82. SWANEPOEL M.G., ‘The Important Function of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament’, OTE 5 (1992), 375-388. SWANSON K.A., ‘A Reassessment of Hezekiah’s Reform in Light of Jar Handles and Iconographic Evidence’, CBQ 64 (2002), 460-469. SWEENEY M.A., - Isaiah 1-4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaian Tradition (ZAWB, 171), Berlin-New York 1988. - Isaiah 1-39 (FOTL, 16), Michigan-Cambridge 1996.

675 - ‘Tanakh versus Old Testament: Concerning the Foundation for a Jewish Theology of the Bible’, in: Sun H.T.C. (ed.), Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honour of Rolf Knierim, Michigan-Cambridge 1997, 353-372. SYKES J., ‘Narrative Accounts of Biblical Authority: The Need for a Doctrine of Revelation’, ModT 5 (1989), Oxford 327-342. TALMON S., - ‘Jüdische Sektenbildung in der Frühzeit der Periode des Zweiten Tempels’, in: Schluchter W. (ed.), Max Webers Sicht des antiken Judentums, Frankfurt 1985, 233-280. - ‘Heiliges Schrifttum und kanonische Bücher aus jüdischer Sicht: Überlegungen zur Ausbildung der Größe “Die Schrift” im Judentum’, in: Klopfenstein M. e.a. (eds.), Mitte der Schrift? Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch (Judaica et Christiana, 11), Bern 1987a, 4579. - ‘The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early second Temple Period’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D., e.a. (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Philadelphia 1987b, 587-616. TALSTRA E., - Het gebed van Salomo: Synchronie en diachronie in de kompositie van 1 Kon. 8, 14-61, Amsterdam 1987. - Oude en nieuwe lezers: Een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van het Oude Testament, Kampen 2002. TAPPY R.E., ‘Lineage and Law in Pre-exilic Israel’, RB 107 (2000), 175-204. TENGSTRÖM S., Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, 17), Gleerup 1982. TERBLANCHE M., ‘No Need for a Prophet like Jeremiah: The Absence of the Prophet Jeremiah in Kings’, in: De Moor J.C.-Van Rooy H. (eds.), Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS, 44), Leiden-Boston-Köln 2000, 306314. TER BORG M.B., - ‘Canon and Social Control’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998a, 411-423. - ‘De canon als machtsinstrument’, in: Jenner K.D.-Wiegers G.A. (eds.), Heilig Boek en religieus gezag (Leidse Studiën van de godsdienst, 2); Kampen 1998b, 69-79. TERRIEN S., ‘Biblical Theology: The Old Testament (1970-1984): A Decade and a Half of Spectacular Growth’, BTB 15 (1985), 127-135. TER SCHEGGET G.H., ‘Miskotte, inspirator, voortrekker’, in: Deurloo K.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De Bijbel maakt school: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 83-91. TEUGELS L., ‘Midrasj in, en, op de Bijbel? Kritische kanttekeningen bij het onkritische gebruik van een term’, NThT 49 (1995), 272-290. THEISSEN G., ‘Theologie und Religionswissenschaft . Gegenseitige Inspiration und Irritation zweier komplementärer Wissenschaften’, NThT 59 (2005), 124-141. THEOBALD C., ‘Le Canon des Écritures: L’enjeu d’un “Conflit des Facultés”’, in: Aletti J.N. e.a. (eds.), Le Canon des Ecritures: Études historiques, exégétiques et systématiques (Lectio Divina, 140), Paris 1990, 13-73. THEUNIS F.J., ‘Omtrent Kanon en Schrift’, Bijd 41 (1980), 64-87. THIEL W., - Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (WMANT, 41), Neunkirchen 1973.

676 - Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26-45 (WMANT, 52), Neunkirchen 1981. - ‘Die deuteronomistische Redaktionsarbeit in den Elia-Erzählungen’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Congress volume, Leuven 1989, SVT 43 (1991), 148-171. - ‘Gesellschaft und Religion: Zur neuen “Religionsgeschichte Israels” von Rainer Albertz’, TL 119 (1994) 4-14. THIEMANN E., ‘Radiance and Obscurity in Biblical Narrative’, in Green G. (ed.), Scriptural Authority and Narrative Interpretation: Festschrift H.W. Frei, Philadelphia 1987, 21-41. THILS G., ‘Le mouvement théologique au Xième Siècle’, RTL 25 (1994), 289-309. THISELTON A.C., New Horizons in Hermeneutics, London 1992. THOMPSON Th.L., - The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel 1: The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23, (JSOT SS, 55), Sheffield 1987. - ‘Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography’, in: Edelman, D.V. (ed.), The Fabric of History; Text, Artefact and Israel’s Past (JSOT SS, 127), Sheffield 1991, 65-92. - Early History of the Israelite people from the Written and Archeological Sources (Studies in the History of the Ancient East, 4), Leiden 1992. - ‘Defining History and Ethnicity in the South Levant’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Can a History of Israel be Written? (JSOT SS, 245), Sheffield 1997, 166-196. - ‘The Exile in History and Myth: A Response to Hans Barstad’, in: Grabbe L.L. (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: The ‘Exile’ as History and Ideology (JSOT SS, 278), Sheffield 1998, 101-118. - The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, London 1999. - ‘Problems of Genre and Historicity with Palestine’s Inscriptions’, in: Lemaire A.- Sæbø M. (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo 1998, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2000, 321-326. TIGAY J.M., ‘Some Archaeological Notes on Deuteronomy’, in: Wright D.P.-Freedman D.N.-Hurvitz A. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honour of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 373-380. TOINET G., ‘Permanence de la foi et exégèse historico-critique’, RThom 81 (1981), 381425; 82 (1982), 575-602. TOMSON P.J., ‘The New Testament Canon as the Embodiment of Evolving Christian Attitudes towards the Jews’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 107-131. TOURNAY R.J., Voir et entendre Dieu avec les Psaumes, ou la Liturgie du Second Temple à Jérusalem (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 24), Paris 1988. TOV E., - ‘The Original Shape of the Biblical text’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Held in Louvain, Belgium, Aug. 27 - Sept 1, 1989 (SVT, 53), Leuven 1991, 345-359. - Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis-Assen/Maastricht 2001². - ‘The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the Hebrew Bible: the Relevance of Canon’, in McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 234-251. TOWNER W.S., ‘The Renewed Authority of Old Testament Wisdom for Contemporary Faith’, in: Coats G.W.-Long O. (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977, 132-147.

677 TRACY D., On Naming the Present: God, Hermeneutics and Church, New York 1994. TREMBATH K.R., ‘Biblical Inspiration and the Believing Community: A New Look’, EvQu 58 (1986), 245-256. TRIBLE Ph. Rhetorical Criticism. Context, Method and the Book of Jonah, Minneapolis 1994. TRUBLET J., - ‘Constitution et Clôture du Canon Hébraïque’. Collectif, Le Canon des Ecritures: Études historiques et systématiques (Lectio Divina, 140), Paris 1990, 77-187. - ‘Le Corpus Sapientiel et le Psautier: approche informatique du lexique’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th congress of the international organization for the study of the Old Testament, held in Louvain, Belgium, Aug. 27 - Sept 1, 1989 (SVT, 53), Leuven 1991, 248-263. TUCKER G.M., - ‘Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon’, in: Coats G.W.-Long B.O. (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, Philadelphia 1977, 56-70. - ‘Prophecy and Prophetic Literature’, in: Knight D.A.-Tucker G.M. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia 1985, 326-368. - Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, Philadelphia-Augsburg 1988. TULL P.K., - ‘Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures’, CR:BS 8 (2000a), 59-90. - ‘The Rhetoric of Recollection’, in: Lemaire A.-Sæbø M. (eds.), Congress Volume Oslo 1998, Leiden-Boston Köln 2000b, 71-78. TURRO J.C.-BROWN R.E., ‘Canonicity’, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, London 1968, 515-534. UEHLINGER C., ‘Gab es eine joschijanische Kulturreform? Plädoyer für ein begründetes Minimum’, in: Gross W. (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 57-86. UFFENHEIMER B., Early Prophecy in Israel, Jerusalem 1999. ULLMANN W., ‘Ohlig, Karl Heinz: Die theologische Begründung des neutestamentlichen Kanons in der alten Kirche’, TL 102 (1977), 201-205. ULRICH E., - ‘The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible’, in: Fishbane M.-Tov E.-Fields W.F. (eds.), “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemarayahu Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 267-291. - ‘Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament’, in: Auwers J-M.-De Jonghe H. (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003, 57-80. - ‘The Notion Land Definition of Canon’, in: McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 21-25. - ‘The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT’, CBQ 65 (2003), 202-214. UNTERGASSMAIR F.G., - ‘Die Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament’, in: Urban H.J.-Wagner H. (eds.), Handbuch der Ökumenik, Paderborn 1985, 79-82. - ‘Bibelwissenschaft: Stand und Gegenwartsprobleme’, BiLi 69 (1996), 139-143.

678 UTZSCHNEIDER H., - ‘Das hermeneutische Problem der Uneindeutigkeit biblischer Texte, dargestellt an Text und Rezeption der Erzählung von Jakob am Jabbok (Gen. 32, 23-33)’, EvTh 48 (1988), 182-198. - Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der ‘Schriftprophetie’ auf Grund von Maleachi 1,6 – 2,9, Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York- Paris 1989. - ‘Die Schriftprophetie und die Frage nach dem Ende der Prophetie: Überlegungen anhand von Mal. 1,6-2,16’, ZAW 104 (1992), 377-394. - ‘Situatio und Scène: Überlegungen zum Verhältnis historischer und literarischer Deutung prophetischer Texte am Beispiel von Hos. 5,8-6,6’, ZAW 114 (2002), 80-105. VALIQUETTE H.P., ‘Exodus-Deuteronomy as Discourse: Models, Distancing, Provocation, Paraenesis’, JSOT 85 (1999), 47-70. VAN BAVEL T.J., ‘Hermeneutische knelpunten in een theologisch dispuut: Latente veronderstellingen in de stukken van de ‘zaak Schillebeeckx’ ‘, TvT 20 (1980), 340-360. VAN CANGH J.M., ‘Les Origines d’Israël et de la foi monothéiste: Apports de l’archéologie et de la critique littéraire’, RTL 22 (1991), 305-326, 457-487. VAN DAALEN A.G.-DEURLOO K.A., ‘Wordende en geworden geschriften’, in: Deurloo K.A.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De Bijbel maakt School: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 51-58. VAN DE BEEK A., - ‘Godsbeeld en Geschiedenis’, GTT 87 (1987), 67-83. - ‘Being Convinced: On the Foundations of the Christian Canon’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 331-349. VAN DEN BERG R., Op de grens van religie en geloof: Over ervaring en openbaring in deze tijd, Zoetermeer 1997. VAN DEN BERGHE E., ‘Vaticanum II’, Collat 25 (1995), 309-315. VAN DEN BERGHE P., - ‘Draagwijdte en zin van de Nieuwtestamentische Paasboodschap’, in: Mouson J.-Van den Berghe P.-Bulckens J., De verrezen Heer, Antwerp 1969a, 65-104. - Traditie en Schrift 1, Historisch beeld, Kasterlee 1969b. - ‘Pour un dialogue sur le fond des choses’, in: Lemaire J.-Thuilier B. (eds.), Chrétiens et Francs-maçons dialoguent (La Pensée et les hommes, 36, nouvelle série, 23), Bruxelles 1993, 43-47. VAN DEN BOSSCHE S., ‘De Verlichting doorgelicht’, in: Tertio 6 (2005) nr. 274, 14-15. VAN DEN HOOGEN T., ‘Schrift lezen: Omtrent het selectief omgaan met de Bijbel’, PT 13 (1986), 60-86. VAN DER HORST P.W., Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen 1994. VAN DER KOOIJ A., - ‘De canonvorming van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel, het Oude Testament’, NThT 1995, 42-65. - ‘The Canonization of Ancient books kept in the temple of Jerusalem’, in idem-Van der Toorn K (eds.), Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR) Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 1740. - ‘The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Before and After the Qumran Discoveries’, in: Herbert E.D.-Tov E. (eds.), The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, London 2002, 167-177.

679 - ‘Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: its Aim and Method’, in: Paul S.M., Kraft R.A., Schiffman L.H., Fields W.W. (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden-Boston 2003, 729-739. VAN DER KOOIJ A.- VAN DER TOORN K. (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR) Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998. VAN DER NOLLE H.C., ‘Bultmann’s Visie op Gods Openbaring in de Schepping’, TvT 17 (1977), 171-183. VAN DER TOORN K., ‘Currents in the Study of Israelite Religion’, CR:BS 6 (1998), 9-30. VAN DER VEKEN J., - ‘De hedendaagse Godsproblematiek: situatieschets en perspectief’, in: idem e.a. (eds.), Christendom en secularisatie, Antwerp 1970, 9-65. - ‘God iedere morgen weer nieuw: Het procesdenken van A.N. Whitehead en Ch. Hartshorne’, TvT 18 (1978), 361-389. VAN DER VEN J.A., ‘Religieuze variaties: Religie in een geseculariseerde en multiculturele samenleving’, TvT 31 (1991), 163-182. VAN DER WOUDE A.S., - Habakuk, Zefanja (De prediking van het Oude Testament), Nijkerk 1978. - ‘Seid nicht wie eure Väter! Bemerkungen zu Sacharia 1,5 und seinem Kontext’, in: Emerton J.A. (ed.), Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-fifth Birthday 6 September 1980, Berlin-New- York 1980, 163-173. - ‘Geschiedenis van Israël en zijn godsdienst vanaf de tijd van de Babylonische ballingschap tot de komst van Alexander de Grote’, in: idem e.a. (eds.), Bijbels Handboek 2a, Kampen 1982, 141-171. - ‘Geschiedenis en Godsdienst van het Palestijnse Jodendom vanaf Alexander de Grote tot aan de komst van de Romeinen’, in: idem e.a. (eds.), Bijbels Handboek 2b, Kampen 1983, 5-85. - ‘De Wordingsgeschiedenis van het Oude Testament’, in: idem (Red.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986a, 11-28. - Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986b. - Pluriformiteit en uniformiteit: Overwegingen betreffende de tekstoverlevering van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992. VAN DYK P.J., ‘The Function of So-called Etiological Elements in Narratives’, ZAW 102 (1990), 19-33. VAN GOUDOEVER J., ‘The Liturgical Significance of the Date in Dt 1,3’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 145-148. VAN HARSKAMP A., - ‘Boze droom van het christendom? Verkenningen rond het fundamentalisme als idee en verschijnsel’, TvT 33 (1993), 5-26. - ‘Religie in een tijd van individualisering: Is maatschappij- of ideologiekritiek in de theologie passé?’, TvT 37 (1997), 243-264. VAN IERSEL B., ‘Exegese, eergisteren, gisteren en morgen’, Conc 19 (1983), 98-103. VAN KNIPPENBERG T., ‘Communicatie met fundamentalisten’, TvT 33 (1993), 61-76. VAN LEEUWEN C., Bijbelse Encyclopedie met Handboek en Concordantie, Baarn 1963. VAN LEEUWEN J.H., ‘De canon van het Oude Testament’, in: Jagersma H.-Vervenne M. (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992, 53-64. VAN LEEUWEN R.C., ‘The Sage in the Prophetic Literature’, in: Gammie J.G.-Perdue L.G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990, 295-306.

680 VANONI G., ‘Anspielungen und Zitate innerhalb der hebräischen Bibel’, BBB 98 (1995), 383-397. VAN OORSCHOT J., - ‘Nachkultische Psalmen und spätbiblische Rollendichtung’, ZAW 106 (1994), 69-86. - ‘Weisheit in Israel und im frühen Judentum’, VF 48 (2003), 59-89. VAN OYEN G., ‘Jezus in veelvoud: Over de moeilijke maar noodzakelijke zoektocht naar de historische Jezus’, Collat 27 (1997), 115-141. VAN ROOY H.V., ‘Prophet and Society in the Persian Period according to Chronicles’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 1: Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 163-179. VAN SETERS J., Abraham in History and Tradition, London 1975. - In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, London 1983. - Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Zürich 1992. - ‘Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code and their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code’ (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 319-345. - ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch: The Case against It’, in: Vervenne M.Lust J. (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 123), Leuven 1997, 301-319. - ‘Is There Evidence of a Dtr Redaction in the Sinai Pericope (Exodus 19-24, 32-34)?’, in: Schaering L.S. (ed.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pandeuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 268. - ‘The Deuteronomistic History: Can it Avoid Death by Redaction?’, in: Römer T.C. (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 213-222. VAN WINKLE D.W., ‘I Kings III: True and False Prophecy’, VT 29 (1989), 31-43. VAN WOLDE E., ‘Van tekst via tekst naar betekenis: Intertekstualiteit en haar implicaties’, TvT 30 (1990), 333-361. VAWTER B.C.M., The Conscience of Israel: Pre-exilic Prophets and Prophecy, London 1973². VEIJOLA T., - Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismes und zum Schriftsgelehrtentum (Bwant, 149), Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln, 2000. - Das fünfte Buch Mose. Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1-16,17 (ATD 8,1), Göttingen 2004. VELTRI G., ‘Zur Traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung des Bewußtseins von einem Kanon: Die yavneh-Frage’, JSJ 21 (1990), 210-222 VENTER P.M., - ‘Kanon en teks bij Deist’, OTE 11 (1998a), 582-599. - ‘Wat beteken „kanon” vandaag?’, HTS 54 (1998b), 505-528. - ‘The Connection between Wisdom Literature, Apocalypsis and Canon’, OTE 15 (2002), 470-488. VERBURG J., Canon of Credo: Een kritisch onderzoek naar de bijbel op grond van zijn ontstaansgeschiedenis, Kampen, 1983. VERCRUYSSE J.E., - ‘Einheit der Christen in der Gemeinschaft der Kirchen’, GREG 66 (1985), 539-543. - ‘Drie in één? Katholieken, orthodoxen en protestanten: Enig in de éne oecumenische beweging?’, Collat 32 (2002), 165-186. VERGER J., ‘L’Exégèse de l’Université’, in: Riché P.-Lobrichon G. (eds.), Le Moyen Age et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps, 4), Paris 1984, 199-230. VERHAAR J., ‘Quel sens au postmodernisme?’ Et 380 (1994), 367-373.

681 VERHEYDEN J., ‘The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute’, in: Auwers J-M.-De Jonghe H. (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003, 487-556. VERHOEF E., ‘Pseudepigraphy and Canon’, BV 106 (2001), 90-98. VERMEYLEN J., - Du prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique - Isaïe I - XXXV, miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël 1-2, Paris 1977. - ‘Les sections narratives de Deut. 5-11 et leur relation à Ex. 19-34’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 174207. - Het geloof van Israël, Brugge 1989a. - ‘Les premières étapes littéraires de la formation du Pentateuque’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en Question (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 1989b, 149-197. - ‘L’unité du livre d’Isaïe’, in: idem (ed.), The Book of Isaiah, Le livre D’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et Complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989c, 11-53. - ‘Un programme pour la restauration d’Israël: Quelques aspects de la loi dans le Deutéronome’, in: Focant C. (ed.), La loi dans l’un et l’autre Testament (Lectio Divina, 168), Paris 1997, 45-80. - La loi du plus fort: Histoire de la rédaction des récits davidiques de Samuel 8 à 1 Rois 2 (BETL, 154), Louvain 2000a. - ‘L’école deutéronomiste aurait-elle imaginé un premier Canon des Ecritures?’, in: Römer T.C. (ed.), The Future of Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 47), Leuven 2000b, 223-240. - ‘Une étape majeure dans la formation du Canon des Ecritures: L’œuvre deutéronomiste’, in: Auwers J-M.-De Jonghe H. (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003, 213-226. VERVENNE M., - ‘Inleidingswetenschap’ of ‘Inleiding tot’? Over het statuut van de oudtestamentische inleiding. Unpublished lecture delivered before the Biblical Sciences Department of the University of Leuven in January 1988. - ‘The “P” Tradition in the Pentateuch : Document and/or Redaction? The “Sea Narrative” (Ex. 13,17-14,31) as a test Case’, in: Brekelmans C.-Lust J. (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth. IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 67-90. - ‘Literaire Kritiek’, in: Jagersma H.-Vervenne M. (eds.), Inleiding tot het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992a, 65-71. - ‘Redactiekritiek’, in: Jagersma H.-Vervenne M. (eds.), Inleiding tot het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992b, 99-106. - ‘Tekst en Teksten’, in: Jagersma H.-Vervenne M. (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992c, 25-39. - ‘Traditiekritiek’, in: Jagersma H.- Vervenne M. (eds.), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992d, 86-98. - ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements in Genesis to Numbers, in: García-Martinez F. e.a. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243-268. VINCENT M.A., ‘The Song of Deborah: A Structural and Literary Consideration’, JSOT 91 (2000), 61-82. VLAARDINGERBROEK J., Sefanja (Commentaar op het Oude Testament), Kampen 1993. VÖGTLE A., ‘Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft – Gegenwärtige Tendenzen und Probleme aus römisch-katholischer Sicht’, in: Merk O. (ed.), Schriftauslegung als Theologische

682 Aufklärung: Aspekte gegenwärtiger Fragestellungen in der Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Gütersloh 1984, 52-74. VOLLMER J., Geschichtliche Rückblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaia (ZAWB, 119), Berlin 1971. VON CAMPENHAUSEN H., - Die Entstehung der Christlichen Bibel, Tübingen 1968. - ‘Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments’, in: Käsemann E. (ed.), Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse gegenwärtiger Diskussion, Göttingen 1970, 109-123. VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN P., ‘Der Wille zur Erneuerung der christlichen-jüdischen Verhältnisses in seiner Bedeutung für biblische Exegese und Theologie’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Altes Testament und christlicher Glaube (JbBTh, 6), Neunkirchen 1991, 243267. VON RAD G., - ‘Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs’, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, München 1958, 11-16. - The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, London 1965. - Weisheit in Israel, Neunkirchen 1970. VÖRCKEL K., Chancen der natürlichen Theologie, Fernwald 1985. VORLÄNDER H., - Die Entstehungszeit der Jahwistischen Geschichtswerkes, Frankfurt 1978 (Europ. Hochschulschr. Reihe, 23, Bd. 109), 1978. - ‘Der Monotheismus Israels als Antwort auf die Krise des Exils’, in: Lang B. (ed.), Der Einzige Gott: Die Geburt des biblischen Monotheismus, München, 1981, 84-113. VOS H.M., - ‘De christelijke canon als keurslijf’, in: Jenner K.D.-Wiegers G.A. (eds.), Heilig Boek en religieus gezag (Leidse Studiën van de Godsdienst, 2), Kampen 1998a, 25-44. - ‘The Canon as a Straitjacket’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998b, 351-370. WAGNER A., ‘Die Stellung der Sprechakttheorie in Hebraistik und Exegese’, in: Lemaire A. (ed.), Congress volume Basel 2001 (SVT, 92), Leiden-Boston 2002, 55-83. WAGNER S., ‘Zur Frage nach der Möglichkeit einer Biblischen Theologie’, TL 113 (1988), 162-170. WAHL H.M., ‘Die Überschriften der Prophetenbücher: Anmerkungen zu Form, Redaktion und Bedeutung für die Datierung der Bücher’, ETL 71 (1994), 91-104. WALL R.W., ‘The Significance of a Canonical Perspective of the Church’s Scripture’, in: in McDonald L.M.-Sanders J.A. (eds.), The Canon Debate, Massachusetts 2002, 528-540. WAINWRIGHT G., ‘The New Testament as Canon’, SJT 28 (1975), 551-571. WALSCHAP G., Dossier Walschap, Antwerp 1966. WALTER P., ‘Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Kanonfrage’, in: Pannenberg W.-Schneider Th. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeugnis 1 -Kanon-Schrift-Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7), Freiburg im Breisgau 1992, 156-168. WANKE G., - ‘Prophecy and Psalms in the Persian period’, in: Davies W.D.-Finkelstein L. (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism 1: Introduction: The Persian Period, Cambridge 1984, 162-188.

683 - ‘Jeremias Ackerkauf: Heil im Gericht?’, in: Fritz V. (ed.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin-New York 1989, 265-276. WARD G., The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology, Massachusetts 2001. WARICHEZ J.-BROUNTS L., Geschiedenis der nieuwe tijden, Gent 1938. WARIN P., Le chemin de la théologie chez Wolfhart Pannenberg, Roma 1981. WASHINGTON H.C., ‘The Strange Woman of Proverbs 1-9 and post-exilic Judean Society’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. (eds.), Second Temple Studies 2, Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 217-242. WATTS J.W., - ‘Public Readings and Pentateuchal Law’, VT 45 (1995), 540-557. - ‘The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch’, JBL 117 (1998), 415-426. WEBER C., Altes Testament und völkische Frage: Der biblische Volksbegriff in der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft der nationalsozialistischen Zeit, dargestellt am Beispiel von Johannes Hempel (FAT, 28), Tübingen 2000. WEBSTER J., ‘“A Great and Meritorious Act of the Church”? The Dogmatic Location of the Canon’, in: Barton J.-Wolter M. (eds.), Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (ZNWB, 118), Berlin-New York 2003, 95-126. WEEKS S, ‘Wisdom in the Old testament’, in: Barton S.C. (ed.), Where Shall Wisdom be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World, Edinburgh 1999, 19-30. WEINFELD M., - Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972. - ‘The Origin of the Apodictic Law’, VT 23 (1973), 63-75. - ‘Old Testament: The Discipline and its Goals’ (SVT, 32) Leiden 1981, 423-434. - ‘The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents’, in: Lohfink N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 76-98. - ‘The Tribal League at Sinai’, in: Miller, Jr. P.D. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honour of F.M. Cross, Philadelphia 1987, 303-314. - Social Justice in Ancient Israel and the Ancient near East, Jerusalem, 1995. WEINRICH M., - ‘Grenzen der Erinnerung. Historischer Kritik und Dogmatik im Horizont Biblischer Theologie’, in: Geyer H. e.a. (eds.), Wenn nicht jetzt, wenn dann? Aufsätze für H.J. Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag, Neunkirchen 1983a, 327-338. - ‘Vom Charisma biblischer Provokationen: Systematische Theologie im Horizont Biblischer Theologie bei Hans-Joachim Kraus. Hans-Joachim Kraus zum 70. Geburtstag’ (JbBTh, 3), Neunkirchen 1983b, 253-265. WEIPPERT H., ‘Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheißung und Erfüllung im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk’, Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 116-131. WEIPPERT M., Jahwe und die anderen Götter (FAT, 18), Tübingen 1997. WEISSMAN Z., ‘The Place of the People in the Making of Law and Judgment’, in: Wright D.-Freedman D.N.-Hurvitz A. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honour of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 407-420. WELCH J.W., ‘Reflections on Postulates: Power and Ancient laws: A Response to Moshe Greenberg’, in: Firmage E.B.-Weiss B.G.-Welch J.W. (eds.), Religion and Law: Biblical, Judaic and Islamitic Perspectives, Winona Lake 1990, 113-125.

684 WELKER M., ‘“Einheit der Religionsgeschichte” und “Universales Selbstbewußtsein”: Zur gegenwärtigen Suche nach Leitbegriffen im Dialog zwischen Theologie und Religionswissenschaft’, EvTh 48 (1988), 3-18. WELLHAUSEN J., Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Edinburgh 1885; repr. as Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, New York 1957. WELTEN P., ‘Lade-Tempel-Jeruzalem: Zur Theologie der Chronikbücher’, in: Gunneweg A.H.J. (ed.), Textgemäß. Aufsätze und Beitrage zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979, 169-183. WENHAM G.J., - ‘Method in Pentateuchal Source Criticism’, VT 41 (1991), 85-109. - ‘The Priority of P’, VT 49 (1999), 240-258. WENZ G., ‘Die Kanonfrage als Problem ökumenischer Theologie’, in: Pannenberg W.Schneider I. (eds.), Verbindliches Zeugnis 1: Kanon-Schrift-Tradition (Dialog der Kirchen, 7), Göttingen 1992, 232-288. WERLITZ J., Redaktion und Komposition: Zur Rückfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40-55 (BBB, 122), Berlin 1999. WESSELIUS J.M., - ‘Herodotus, vader van de Bijbelse geschiedenis?’, ACEBT 14 (1995), 6-61. - ‘De eerste koningsinscriptie uit het oude Israël: Een nieuwe visie op de Tel-Daninscriptie’, NThT 53 (1999), 177-190. - ‘Discontinuity, Congruence and the Making of the Hebrew Bible’, JSOT 13 (1999), 24-77. WESTBROOK R., - Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, Paris 1988. - ‘What is the Covenant Code?’, in: Levinson B.M. (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOT SS, 181), Sheffield 1994, 15-36. WESTERMANN C., - Grundformen prophetischer Rede (BEVT, 31), München 1960. - ‘Zur Frage einer Biblischen Theologie’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie (JbBTh, 1), Neunkirchen 1986, 13-30. - Prophetische Heilsworte im Alten Testament, Göttingen 1987. - Wurzeln der Weisheit: Die ältesten Sprüche Israels und anderer Völker, Göttingen 1990. - Forschungsgeschichte zur Weisheitsliteratur 1950-1990 (Abhandlungen zur Theologie), 71, Stuttgart 1991. - Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? (Theologische Bücherei, 87), Gütersloh 1994. - ‘The Old Testament’s Understanding of History in Relation to that of the Enlightenment’, in: Philips Long V. (ed.), Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays in Ancient Israelite Historiography, Winona Lake 1999, 220-231. WHITE L.L., ‘Historical and Literary Criticism: A Theological Response’, BTB 13 (1983), 32-34. WHITELAM K.W., - ‘Recreating the History of Israel’, JSOT 35 (1986), 45-70. - ‘Israel’s Traditions of Origin: Reclaiming the Land’, JSOT 44 (1989), 19-42. - ‘Israelite Kingship: The Royal Ideology and its Opponents’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 119-139. - ‘Sociology or History: Towards a (Human) History of Ancient Palestine’, in: Davies J.Harvey G.-Watson W. (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of J.F.A. Sawyer (JSOT SS, 195), Sheffield 1995, 149-166.

685 - The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, London-New York 1996. - ‘The History of Israel: Foundations of Israel’, in: Mayes A.D.M. (ed.), Text in Context, Oxford 2000, 376-402. WHYBRAY R.N., - ‘Reflections in Canonical Criticism’, Tl 84 (1981), 29-35. - ‘Prophecy and Wisdom’, in: Coggins R. (ed.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays of Honour of P.R. Ackroyd, Cambridge 1982, 181-199. - The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT SS, 53), Sheffield 1987. - ‘The Sage in the Israelite Royal Court’, in Gammie J.G.-Perdue L.G. (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990, 133-139. - ‘The Social World of the Wisdom Writers’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 227250. - ‘What Do We Know about Ancient Israel?’, ExpTim 108 (1996), 71-74. WIDENGREN G., ‘The Persian Period’, in: Hayes J.H.-Miller J.M. (eds.), Israelite and Judaean History, Philadelphia 1977, 489-538. WIEDENHOFER S., ‘Zum gegenwärtigen Stand von Traditionstheorie und Traditionstheologie’, TR 93 (1997), 444-468. WILCOCK M., The Message of Chronicles: one Church, one Faith, one Lord (The Bible speaks Today), Leicester 1988. WILDIERS M., - Wereldbeeld en Theologie, Antwerp 1973. - Theologie op nieuwe wegen, Antwerp 1985. WILES M., ‘Scriptural Authority and Theological Construction: The Limitations of Narrative Interpretation’, in: Green G. (ed.), Scriptural Authority and Narrative Interpretation: Festschrift H.W. Frei, Philadelphia 1987, 42-58. WILLAIME J.P., ‘L’ultra modernité sonne-t-elle la fin de l’œcuménisme?’, RSR 89 (2001), 177-204. WILLEMS A., ‘Onzekere zekerheid als geloofsopgave: Grenzen van fundamentalistisch en modern christelijk zelfverstaan’, TvT 33 (1993), 44-60. WILLI T., - Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT, 106), Göttingen 1972. - ‘Thora in den biblischen Chronikbüchern’, Jud 36 (1980), 102-105; 148-151. - ‘Late Persian Judaism and its Conception of an Integral Israel according to Chronicles: Some Observations on Form and Function of the Genealogy of Judah in 1 Chronicles 2,34,23’, in: Eskenazi T.C.-Richards K.H. eds.), Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period (JSOT SS, 175), Sheffield 1994, 146-162. WILLIAMSON H.G.M., - 1 and 2 Chronicles (The New Century Bible Commentary), London 1982. - ‘History’, in: Carson D.A.-idem (eds.); It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, Cambridge-New York-Melboune 1988, 25-35. - ‘Isaiah 63,7 - 64,11: Exilic Lament or Post-Exilic Protest?’, ZAW 102 (1990), 48-58. - ‘The Concept of Israel in Transition’, in: Clements R.E. (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 19934, 141161.

686 WILLI-PLEIN I., - Opfer und Kult im Alttestamentlichen Israel: Textbefragungen und Zwischenergebnisse (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 153), Stuttgart 1993. - ‘Das geschaute Wort: Die prophetische Wortverkündigung und der Schriftprophet Amos’, in: Baldermann I. e.a. (eds.), Prophetie und Charisma (JbBTh, 14), Neunkirchen 1999, 37-52. WILLIS J.T., ‘Dialogue between Prophet and Audience as a Rhetorical Device in the Book of Jeremiah’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 205-222. WILMS F.E., Freude vor Gott: Kult und Fest in Israel, Regensburg 1981. WILSON G.H., ‘The Shape of the Book of Psalms’, Int 46 (1992), 129-142. WILSON R.R., - Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, Philadelphia 1980. - ‘Interpreting Israel’s religion: An Anthropological Perspective on the Problem of False Prophecy’, in: Gordon R.P. (ed.), The Place is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 5), Winona Lake 1995, 332-353. - ‘Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Re-examination’, in: Carter C.E.-Meyers C.L. (eds.), Community, Identity and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 6), Winona Lake 1996, 404-422. - ‘Who Was the Deuteronomist? (Who Was Not the Deuteronomist?): Reflections on Pandeuteronomism’, in: Schaering L.S.-McKenzie S.L. (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 67-82. WINK W., Bibelauslegung als Interaktion: Über die Grenzen historisch-kritischer Methode (Urban Taschenbücher, 622), Stuttgart 1976. WINLING R., ‘Nouvelle Théologie’, TRE 24 (1994), 668-675. WINOGRADSKY A.A., ‘Présences Hébraïques dans l’histoire de l’Église’, RSR 74 (1986), 511-536. WINWARD S.F., A Guide to the Prophets, London 1968. WITTENBERG G.H., - ‘Amos and Hosea: A Contribution to the Problem of the “Prophetenschweigen” in the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr)’, OTE 6 (1993), 295-311. - ‘Johann Philipp Gabler and the Consequences: In Search of a New Paradigm for Old Testament Theology’, OTE 8 (1995), 103-128. WOLFF M.W., - ‘Das Geschichtsverständnis der alttestamentlichen Prophetie’, in: idem (ed.), Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament 2 (Theologische Bücherei, 22), München 1973a, 289-307. - ‘Das Zitat im Prophetenspruch’, in: idem (ed.), Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament 2 (Theologische Bücherei, 22), München 1973b, 36-129. - ‘Hauptprobleme alttestamentlicher Prophetie’, in: idem (ed.), Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament 2 (Theologische Bücherei, 22), München 1973c, 206-231. - ‘Jahwe und die Götter in der Alttestamentlichen Prophetie’, in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Theologische Bücherei, Altes Testament, 22), München 1973d, 418-441. - ‘Haggai Literarhistorisch untersucht’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zur Prophetieprobleme und Erträge (Theologische Bücherei Altes Testament, 76), München 1987a, 129-142. - ‘Obadja - ein Kultprophet als Interpret’, in: idem (ed.), Studien zur Prophetieprobleme und Erträge (Theologische Bücherei Altes Testament, 76), München 1987b, 109-123.

687 - Studien zur Prophetie: Probleme und Erträge (Theologische Bücherei Altes Testament, 76), München 1987c. WOOD C.M., ‘Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture’, in: Green G. (ed.), Scriptural authority and Narrative Interpretation: Festschrift H.W. Frei, Philadelphia 1987, 3-20. WREDE W., Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten neutestamentlichen Theologie, Göttingen 1897. Reprint in Strecker G., (ed.), Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (WdF, 367), Darmstadt 1975, 81-184. WRIGHT, D.P., ‘The Fallacies of Chiasmus’, ZAR 10 (2004), 143-168. WÜRTHWEIN E., - ‘Zur Opferprobe Elias I Reg 18,21-39’, in: Fritz V., Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin-New York 1989, 277-284. - ‘Die josianische Reform und das Deuteronomium’, in: idem, Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (ZAWB, 227), Berlin 1994a, 187-216. - ‘Erwägungen zum sog. deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Eine Skizze’, in: idem, Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (ZAWB, 227), Berlin 1994b, 1-11. YOUNG I., Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew (FAT, 5), Tübingen 1993. ZAHRNT M., Wachtend op God: De Duitse Protestantse Theologie in de twintigste eeuw, Merksem 1967. ZAKOVITCH Y., ‘Implied Synonyms and Antonyms: Textual Criticism vs. the Literary Approach’, in: Paul S.M., Kraft R.A., Schiffman L.H., Fields W.W. (eds.), Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden-Boston 2003, 834-849. ZAMAN L., R. Rendtorff en zijn ‘Das Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch’, Brussels 1984. ZEITLIN S., ‘An Historical Study of the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures’. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 3 (1931-32), 121-158. ZENGER E., - ‘Israels Suche nach einen neuen Selbstverständnis zu Beginn der Perserzeit’, BiKi 39 (1984), 123-135. - ‘Le thème de la ‘sortie d’Égypte’ et la naissance du Pentateuque’, in: De Pury A. (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 1989², 301-331. - ‘Thesen zu einer Hermeneutik des Ersten Testaments nach Auschwitz’, in: Dohmen C.Söding T. (eds.), Eine Bibel - zwei Testamente: Positionen Biblischer Theologie (UTB Uni-Taschenbücher, 1893), Paderborn 1995, 143-158. - ‘Der Pentateuch als Tora und als Kanon’, in: idem (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders Biblische Studien, 10), Freiburg 1996a, 5-36. - Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders Biblische Studien, 10), Freiburg 1996b. - Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Studienbücher Theologie 1,1), Stuttgart 1996c3. - ‘Weiße Flecken im neuen Dokument der Bibelkommission’, BiLi 69 (1996d), 173-176. - Das Erste Testament: Die Jüdische Bibel und die Christen, Düsseldorf 1998a². - Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 20066. ZEVIT Z., - ‘The Second-Third Century Canonization of the Hebrew Bible and its Influence on Christian Canonizing’, in: van der Kooij A.-Van der Toorn K., (eds.), Canonization & Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR) Held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Leiden 1998, 133160. - ‘Three Debates about Bible and Archaeology’, Bibl. 83 (2002), 1-27.

688 ZIEGENAUS A., ‘Kanon von der Väterzeit bis zur Gegenwart’, in: Schmaus M. e.a. (eds.), Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte B1, Fasz 3a, 2, Freiburg 1990, 1-252. ZIMMERLI W., - ‘The Place and Limit of the Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology’, in: Crenshaw J.L. (ed.), Studies in Ancient Israelite wisdom, New York 1976, 146-158. - ‘Der “Prophet” im Pentateuch’, in: idem, Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Komfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien-Freiburg-Basel 1977, 197-211. - ‘Wahrheit und Geschichte’, in: Emerton J.A. e.a. (eds.), Congress volume Göttingen 1977 (SVT, 29), Leiden 1978, 1-15. - ‘Vom Prophetenwort zum Prophetenbuch’, TL 104 (1979a), 481-499. - ‘Von der Gültigkeit der “Schrift” Alten Testaments in den christlichen Predigt’, in: Günneweg A.H.J.-Kaiser O. (eds.), Textgemäß Aufsätze und Beitrage zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979b, 184-202. - ‘Biblische Theologie: Altes Testament’, TRE 6 (1980), 426-455. - ‘B.S. Childs’, VT 31 (1981), 235-244. - ‘Proclamation Prophétique et Réinterprétation’, in: Knight D.A. (ed.), Tradition et Théologie dans l’Ancien Testament (Lectio Divina, 108), Paris 1982, 79-109. - ‘Zum Problem der Mitte des Alten Testaments’, EvTh 55 (1995), 97-118. ZOBEL H.J., - ‘Hosea und das Deuteronomium: Erwägungen eines Alttestamentlers zum Thema “Sprache und Theologie”‘, TL 110 (1985), 13-24. - Altes Testament - Literatursammlung und heilige Schrift: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Entstehung, Geschichte und Auslegung des Alten Testaments, in Männschen J.-Waschke E.J. (eds.), (ZAWB, 212), Berlin-New York 1993. ZOBEL K., Prophetie und Deuteronomium: Die Rezeption prophetischer Theologie durch das Deuteronomium (BZAW, 199), Berlin - New York 1992. ZUMSTEIN J., ‘Les Enjeux de la méthode historico-critique’, in: Coulot C. (ed.), Exégèse et Herméneutique (Lectio Divina, 158), Paris 1994, 51-67. ZUURMOND R., ‘Een kritische hermeneutiek’, in: Deurloo K.A.-Zuurmond R. (eds.), De Bijbel maakt School: Een Amsterdamse Weg in de Exegese, Baarn 1984, 15-29. ZWANGER H., ‘Kritischer müßten mir die Historisch-Kritischen sein! Hinter Barth zurück?’, EvTh 43 (1983), 370-379. ZWICKEL W., - Der Tempelkult im Kanaan und Israel (FAT, 10), Tübingen 1994. - ‘Die Wirtschaftsreform der Hizkia und die Sozialkritik der Propheten des 8. Jahrhunderts’, EvTh 59 (1999), 356-377. - ‘Thomas L. Thompson, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past’, Bibl 82 (2001), 293-298.

689

Index of Biblical References

Genesis 1:1 .....................................550 1-2 .....................................524 2:23-24 ..............................310 11:1-10 ..............................543 12-35 .................................274 15:18..................................412 18:16-19 ............................380, 588 34:7 ...................................283 37:1-11 ..............................544 37:1-36 ..............................524 37:39-50 ............................524 48:1-11 ..............................524 49:28..................................524 Exodus 1-32 ...................................219 3.........................................14, 332 12-13 .................................241 12-17 .................................284 12:12-22:17 .......................292 15:1-20 ..............................524 15:6,12...............................591 17-23,33 ............................293 19:5 ...................................224 19-20 .................................324 19-24 .................................288 19-34 .................................240 20:1-17 ..............................224 20:20..................................295 20:22-26 ............................296, 299 20:23..................................224, 299, 315 20-23-23:33 .......................284 20:24..................................297 20:24-25 ............................225, 234 20:24-26 ............................286, 299 20,33..................................293 21:1 ...................................300 21:2 ...................................290,291 21:2-8 ................................295 21:2-11 ..............................290

21:2-22 ..............................290, 291 21:6 ...................................291, 308 21:6,14...............................298 21:7 ...................................290 21:9-11 ..............................291 21,11.21.32.34.35 ..............309 21:12..................................289, 292 21:12,15-17 .......................303 21:12-13,22 .......................293 21:12-22:17 .......................292 21:13..................................297 21:13-14 ............................306 21:17..................................292 21:18-22 ............................292 21:18-32 ............................293 21,19.22.30 ........................309 21:20-32 ............................291 21:21..................................290 21:23-25 ............................292 21:23-27 ............................293 21-25 .................................284 21:32..................................292 21:37..................................306 22:2-17 ..............................289, 298 22,6.16...............................309 22:7 ...................................298 22:8 ...................................291 22:8,10,12..........................308 22:14..................................309 22:15-16 ............................302 22:17..................................299, 398 22:17-19 ............................296 22:17-23:26 .......................290 22:17-30 ............................301 22:18..................................297 22:18-20 ............................294 22:19..................................295, 297 22:20..................................294, 295 22:21..................................324 22:21-31 ............................294, 321 22:22-24,26,27,31 .............293 22:23..................................295

690 22:24..................................295, 297, 305 22:25..................................295, 305 22:25-26 ............................305 22:26-27 ............................295 22:27..................................312 22:27-30 ............................296 22:28..................................297, 298, 312 22:30..................................225, 297 23:1-9 ................................294, 296 23:1-10 ..............................300, 301 23:2 ...................................300, 301, 323 23:3 ...................................301 23:4 ...................................225 23:4-5 ................................293, 294, 301 23:6-10 ..............................301 23:7 ...................................300 23:7,13-15,20 ....................293 23:9,14,18..........................324 23:10-12 ............................294 23:10-16 ............................321 23:12..................................298 23:13-32 ............................296, 298 23:13-33 ............................294 23:14-17 ............................297 23:17,19,25........................294 23:19..................................299 23:20..................................324 23:20-23 ............................315 23:20-33 ............................295, 300 23:24..................................295 23:28-33 ............................324 23:29..................................299 23:33..................................224 24.......................................324 24:3 ...................................13 24:7 ...................................224 26-27 .................................284 28:30..................................533 31:3-5 ................................527 31:18..................................14 32:20..................................241 34.......................................224 34:1-2 ................................14 34:10-16 ............................285 34:10-26 ............................298 34:11ff ...............................286 34:17-26 ............................288 34:27..................................321

Leviticus 17:9 ...................................222 27:9-14 ..............................222 33:10..................................222 20:24,26.............................237 Numbers 24:3-25 ..............................524 34:1-13 ..............................412 Deuteronomy 1:1 .....................................258, 261 1:1,13,22............................261 1-3. ....................................248, 253, 283, ...........................................392, 411, 516, ...........................................519 1-4 .....................................223 1:5 .....................................221, 232, 565 1:7 .....................................256, 412 1:9-17 ................................395 1:9-18 ................................360, 395, 407 1:11....................................516 1:15 ...................................395 1:26 ...................................391 1-11 ...................................519 2:24 ...................................412 2:26-3:7 .............................508 4:1 .....................................232 4:1-40 ................................234, 400 4:2 .....................................221, 256 4:6-7 ..................................232, 411 4:6-8 ..................................536 4:7 .....................................565 4:8,44.................................221 4:9 .....................................232 4:11....................................519 4:13 ...................................224 4:26 ...................................284 4:29 ...................................232, 565 4:36 ...................................232 5:1 .....................................258 5:3 .....................................223 5-6 .....................................253 5-11 ...................................240 5:23 ...................................219 5:31 ...................................219 6.........................................222, 241

691 6:1 .....................................219 6:4 .....................................222, 258, 400, ...........................................564, 569 6:5 .....................................258 6:10 ...................................565 6:21 ...................................504 7:2-9 ..................................396 7:8 .....................................400 8:5 .....................................232 8:18 ...................................399 9:21 ...................................241 11:20 ..................................571 11:24 ..................................412 11:24-25 ............................411 11:32 ..................................400 12.......................................256, 393, 394 12:1 ...................................400 12:1-26:15 .........................391 12:5,14...............................225, 234 12:9-18 ..............................433 12:12,19.............................397 12-18 .................................242, 393 12-24 .................................519 12-25 .................................416 12-26 .................................223, 392, 395, ...........................................413, 513 13:1 ...................................256 13:1-6 ................................229 13:2-6 ................................256, 347, 397, ...........................................398 13:16..................................411 13,22..................................261 14:21..................................225 14:27-28 ............................397 15.......................................225, 238 15:4 ...................................237 15:6 ...................................411 15:11 ..................................237 15:12..................................290 15:12-18 ............................291, 400 15:19-22 ............................393 16.......................................393, 410 16:1-17 ..............................222, 298 16:11 ..................................397 16-18 .................................256, 395 16:18-20 ............................394, 413 16:18-18:22 .......................394, 398 16:19..................................395, 411 16:21-17:1 .........................393

17.......................................384 17:8-13 ..............................394 17:9 ...................................393 17:11 ..................................397 17:13..................................399 17:14..................................396 17:14-20 ............................234, 396 17:14,20.............................247, 249 17:16..................................396 17:17..................................397 17:18..................................220, 247, 256, ...........................................333, 397 17:20..................................397 18:1,3-4 .............................397 18:1-8 ................................397 18:6-7 ................................397 18:6-8 ................................402, 416 18:8-13 ..............................413 18:9 ...................................399 18:9-14 ..............................397 18:9-22 ..............................228, 330, 397, ...........................................398, 399 18:10..................................398 18:14..................................398 18:15-22 ............................397, 398 18:16..................................398 18:19-22 ............................398 18:20..................................229 18:21-22 ............................398 20.......................................217 20:1-20 ..............................411 20:5-8 ................................394 20:24-25 ............................393 20-30 .................................217 21:2,19...............................219 21:5 ...................................397 21:10-14 ............................397, 570 22:1-3 ................................225 22:13-30 ............................394, 397 22:15..................................219 22:21..................................283 23:15-16 ............................570 24:6-22 ..............................570 25:9 ...................................219 26.......................................219, 242 26:5-9 ................................262 26, 5-10 .............................262 26:5b, 10a ..........................253 27:1 ...................................219

692 27:3,8.................................220 27:9 ...................................258 27:14..................................397 27-28,30 ............................283 28.......................................221, 226 28:1 ...................................411 28:20-24 ............................329 28-30 .................................257 28:58..................................220, 221 28:61..................................220 28:69..................................247 29.......................................221 29:1 ...................................258 29:1-29 ..............................571 29:20..................................220 29:21..................................224 29:29..................................232, 248 29-30 .................................223 30.......................................217, 571 30:10..................................220, 221 30:11-14 ............................229, 232, 565 30:14..................................221, 222 30-34 .................................283 31.......................................260 31:1,11,30 ..........................258 31:9 ...................................219 31:10-13 ............................232, 397 31:12..................................221 31:24,26.............................220 31:26..................................224 32.......................................234 32:1-43 ..............................524 32:45..................................258 32:46..................................221 33:1-29 ..............................524 34.......................................519 34:10-12 ............................474 44-45 .................................240 Joshua 1:2 .....................................220 1:8 .....................................224 3:10 ...................................411 8:31 ...................................224 8:34 ...................................221 22:1 ...................................220 23,6....................................224 24.......................................233 24:26..................................224

Judges 2:6 .....................................220 3:12-30 ..............................508-509 5:1-31 ................................524 9:7-15 ................................524 14:3-14 ..............................524 17:5,12...............................365 20:6,10,12..........................283 Ruth 4:1-2 ..................................301 1 Samuel 4:6,9 ..................................290 7-2 Sam. ............................239 8-12 ...................................433 9:9 .....................................333 10:19-27 ............................508 10:25..................................223, 595 12.......................................220, 233 12:8 ...................................516 13:3 ...................................290 16-2 Sam. 5 .......................280 22:20-23 ............................233 30:24-25 ............................283 2 Samuel 7:4 .....................................228 7-20 ...................................252, 280 12:12..................................283 14:4-21 ..............................305 1 Kings 1-2 .....................................252, 280 1:13 ...................................397 7:12 ...................................313 8.........................................220 8:14 ...................................217 8: 46,51,61.........................217 10:1 ...................................524 11:41 ..................................239 12:6-16 ..............................311 12:8-16 ..............................252 13:33..................................365 14:1 ...................................217, 339

693 14:19,29.............................239 15:23..................................239, 258 16.......................................239 16:17..................................258 17:1,2-7,8-16 .....................430 17-19 .................................429, 430 17:16b................................430 18:1 ...................................430 18:20-40 ............................333 18:21-39 ............................332 21:10,13.............................312 21:17..................................430 22:1-28 ..............................336 2 Kings 1.........................................429 1:2-17 ................................429 1:17aa ................................430 4:44 ...................................430 7:16 ...................................430 8:8 .....................................339 10:28..................................419 10:29..................................419 10:34..................................258 11:14,20 .............................216 12-19 .................................419 14:6 ...................................224 15:19..................................309, 310 16:10-16 ............................298 17.......................................220 17:2-23 ..............................535 17:8-13 ..............................398 17:13..................................398 17:23..................................419 17:24-28 ............................372 18-20 .................................363, 415 20:12-19 ............................228 21.......................................335 21:23-24 ............................234 21:24..................................216, 310 22.......................................14, 217, 220, ...........................................223, 561 22:3,8,10,12,14..................224, 411 22:8 ...................................223, 257 22:8-9 ................................365 22:8-23:25 .........................401 22:8-23,27 .........................242, 401 22:11 ..................................220, 414 22:14..................................350

22:20..................................258,402 22-23 .................................311, 396, 401, ...........................................434, 512 23.......................................220, 242, 397 23:1 ...................................216 23:1-3 ................................414, 571 23:2,21...............................224 23:8-9 ................................416 23:25..................................225 23:30..................................216 24.......................................220 24:1-4 ................................535 25.......................................216 25:27-30 ............................228, 244 33:25..................................310 2 Chronicles 17:7-9 ................................395 18:1-27 ..............................337 19:5-11 ..............................395 19:11 ..................................395 33:25..................................216 34:14-33 ............................14 34:29-33 ............................14 35:20-27 ............................411 Ezra 2:64-65 ..............................292 8:8-13 ................................298 Nehemiah 7:67 ...................................292 8.........................................14 Job Psalms 16:1 ...................................542 23:1 ...................................542 80-81 .................................311 137:4..................................226 Proverbs 8:22-31 ..............................537

694 8:35 ...................................527 9:1 .....................................527 Isaiah 1,1-2,5 ...............................442 1,2 f. ..................................379 1:4 .....................................345, 442 1:10 ...................................345, 363 1:16-17 ..............................370 1:21 ...................................345, 370 1:21-23 ..............................367 1:21-28 ..............................376 1:23 ...................................363, 395 1:26 ...................................363, 395 1-39 ...................................449 1-4 .....................................442 1-12 ...................................448, 449 2:1-5 ..................................376 2:3 .....................................345 2:7-9 ..................................346, 396 2:12-22 ..............................375 3:2 .....................................339 3:5,14.................................363 3:6 .....................................363 3:14-15 ..............................395 3,16-4,1 ............................397 5:1-7 ..................................370 5:7 .....................................370 5:8 .....................................367 5:23 ...................................395 5:26-30 ..............................483, 591 6.........................................298, 346, 347 6-8 .....................................449 6:8-11 ................................341 6:13 ...................................368 7:1-17 ................................376 7:3 .....................................346 7:3-17 ................................346 7:9 .....................................355 7:17 ...................................380 7-20 ...................................591 8:2 .....................................346 8:3,18.................................346 8:11-15 ..............................338 8:19 ...................................398 9:5-6 ..................................376 9:6 .....................................380 9,7......................................359 9:12 ...................................405

9:14 ...................................363 10:1-2 ................................372 11:1-9 ................................376 11:13 ..................................404 11:16 ..................................376 14:14..................................368 14:32..................................376 15:2 ...................................368 16:5 ...................................395 16:12..................................368 19:19..................................368 20:1-6 ................................346, 396 20:4 ...................................363 22:3 ...................................363 22:6,15,20..........................346 22:15..................................363 22:15-17 ............................346 24:23..................................363 27:9 ...................................368 28ff ....................................449 28:6 ...................................395 28:7-9 ................................345 28:14-22 ............................367 28-16 .................................396 28:16-17 ............................376 29:1-7 ................................376 29:21..................................339, 371 29:23..................................345 30:9 ...................................345 30:10-11 ............................356 30:12..................................345 30:15..................................355, 391, 396 31:1 ...................................405 31:1-3 ................................396 31:11 ..................................345 32:9-14 ..............................397 36:7 ...................................368 36-37 .................................352 36-39 .................................231, 363 37.......................................346 40:18..................................226 42:1-7 ................................476 47:6 ...................................343 49:1-7 ................................476 50:4-11 ..............................476 52:13..................................476 53:12..................................476

695 Jeremiah 1:4-10 ................................349 1:5 .....................................349 1:10 ...................................346 1:13-19 ..............................341 1-25 ...................................447 2-6 .....................................415, 416 2:2-7 ..................................376 2:8 .....................................229, 347, 414 2:18-19 ..............................396 2:26-3:5 .............................350 3:17 ...................................376 4:9 .....................................347 4:13 ...................................368 5:31 ...................................347, 364 6:13-14 ..............................364 6:13-15 ..............................347 7:1-15 ................................347 7:3-7 ..................................376 7:16 ...................................226, 350 7:16-20 ..............................368 7:22 ...................................376 7:31 ...................................368 8:2 .....................................368 8:4-22 ................................350 8:8 .....................................374 8:8:9 ..................................229, 414 8:10-12 ..............................347 9:1-26 ................................350 11:1-7 ................................416 11:1-17 ..............................350 11:4....................................226, 376 11:14 ..................................226 11:18 ..................................350 12:6 ...................................350 14:11 ..................................350 14:13-14 ............................347 14:18..................................364 15:10-21 ............................349 16:1-9 ................................349 16:14-15 ............................376 17:2 ...................................368 17:3 ...................................368 17:22..................................221 18:18..................................347, 531 18:18-23 ............................350 19:1 ...................................363 19:5 ...................................368 19:5,13...............................368

20:1 ...................................339, 350 20:7 ...................................591 20:7-13 ..............................349 20:14-17 ............................349 21:1 ...................................350, 365 21:1-3 ................................352 21:11-14 ............................376 21:11-22 ............................380 21:37-38 ............................352 22:2-4 ................................376 22:6,15,20..........................346 22:15-16 ............................412 23:5 ...................................376 23:5-7 ................................370 23:7-8 ................................376 23:9-15 .............................. 348 23:9-32 ..............................347 23:11 ..................................364 26.......................................347, 349, 415 26:6 ...................................350 26:12,15.............................486, 487 26:17..................................363 26:18..................................368 26:18-23 ............................346, 351 26:23-24 ............................350 27:1-22 ..............................350 27:15..................................349 27-28 .................................398 28.......................................228 28:1 ...................................347 28:2,8-9,11,16-17 ..............349 28:8 ...................................340 28:8:9 ................................348 28:15..................................349 29:1 ...................................363 29:15..................................399 29:26..................................339 29:26-27 ............................365 30:8-9 ................................380 30:10..................................345 30:11 ..................................350 31:13..................................363 31:31-33 ............................376 31:31-34 ............................229 31:33..................................229 32:10-15 ............................372 32:35..................................368 33:14-26 ............................244 33:15,19-20 .......................380

696 33:17,26.............................376 34:8-11 ..............................221, 292, 414, ...........................................415 34:8-22 ..............................372 35:4 ...................................339 36.......................................241, 356, 434 37-38 .................................352 37:1-10 ..............................363 37:11-16 ............................351 37:14-15 ............................363 37:17..................................350 42:1 ...................................339, 350 42:11 ..................................352 43:13..................................368 44:15..................................226 44:17-19,25 .......................368 48:39..................................368 52.......................................231 Ezekiel 2-3 .....................................434 7:4 .....................................375 7:26 ...................................363 8:1 .....................................363 8:11....................................363 9:6 .....................................363 9:8,10.................................226 11:18,21 .............................226 14:1 ...................................226, 363 20:1 ...................................339, 363 20:31..................................226 23:3 ...................................363 33:25,29.............................226 36:2 ...................................226 36:27..................................229 37:24-25 ............................244 43:8 ...................................313 Hosea 1:4 .....................................338 1:4-5 ..................................341 1:4-9 ..................................338, 395 2:4-17 ................................397 2:4-22 ................................379 2:7,12,16............................338 2:10 ...................................397 2:16-17 ..............................376 3:4 .....................................368

4:13 ...................................406 4:15 ...................................337 4:19 ...................................368 5:1 .....................................337 5:15 ...................................405 6:1 .....................................405 6:5 .....................................340, 348, 351, ...........................................356, 399 6:6-10 ................................337 6:12 ...................................384 7:1 .....................................367 7:11-16 ..............................396 8:1 .....................................337 8:1-12 ................................372 8:4 .....................................397 8:5 .....................................337, 367 8:11-14 ..............................337 8:12 ...................................390 8:13 ...................................376 9:3-6 ..................................376 9:7-8 ..................................339, 341 9:8 .....................................340 9:15 ...................................337 10:1 ...................................337 10:1,2.................................368 10:1-5 ................................406 10:4 ...................................370 10:5,7.................................367 10:8 ...................................368 10:11-13 ............................405 10:12..................................370 11:1....................................379 12-13 .................................379 12:2 ...................................369 12:4-6 ................................406 12:5,7.................................370 12:6 ...................................384 12:8-9 ................................371 12:11 ..................................399 12:12..................................337 12:14..................................399, 412 13:2-5 ................................406 13:6 ...................................397 13:7 ...................................338 14:1 ...................................367 14:2-10 ..............................405 14:4 ...................................406

697 Amos 1:1 .....................................228, 484 2:6 .....................................291 2:9 .....................................379 2-10 ...................................406 2:10 ...................................376 2:11....................................399 2:11-12 ..............................340 2:21-25 ..............................370 3:1 .....................................376 3:7 .....................................340 3:8 .....................................338, 359 3:9,12.................................367 4:1-3 ..................................397 4:4 .....................................384 4:4-5 ..................................406 4:12 ...................................384 4:13 ...................................368 5:4-6 ..................................405 5:7,24.................................370 5:10 ...................................339, 371, 395 5:12 ...................................395 5:18-20 ..............................340, 375 5:24 ...................................370 5:25 ...................................376 5:26 ...................................406 6:1 .....................................367 6:12 ...................................370 7:8 .....................................338 7-9 .....................................357 7:9 .....................................368 7:10-15 ..............................335 7:11....................................338 7:11-15 ..............................341 7:11-17 ..............................341 7:14-15 ..............................487 7:15 ...................................486 7:16-17 ..............................341 8:2 .....................................338 8:6 .....................................291 8:11-13 ..............................406 9:7 .....................................376, 380 9:10 ...................................406 9:11....................................376

1:8 .....................................370 2:1-4 ..................................395 2:2 .....................................367 3.........................................346 3:1-9 ..................................363 3:2-3 ..................................367 3:8 .....................................486 3:10-12 ..............................367 3:11....................................363, 395 3:12 ...................................346, 368 4:14 ...................................363 5:1-5 ..................................404 5:1-8 ..................................376 5:9-14 ................................375, 396 5:12 ...................................368 5:13 ...................................368 6:1-2 ..................................372 6:2-4 ..................................376 6:8 .....................................372 6:9-16 ................................367 7:1 .....................................370 7:13 ...................................363 11:8-11 ..............................376 12:10-14 ............................376 13:5 ...................................376

Micah 1:3,5 ..................................368 1:5-6 ..................................367

Song of Salomo 7:22-27 ..............................535

Habakkuk 1:5 .....................................355 2:4 .....................................355 Zechariah 1:4 .....................................231 7:7 .....................................231 8:2-7 ..................................226 Zephania 1:14-16 ..............................375 2 Maccabees 2:13-14 ..............................14, 333, 539

698 Ecclesiastes Prologue ............................14 24:8-12,23 .........................537 24:9-12 ..............................527 24:19..................................527 48:17-49,10 .......................14

13:52..................................460 22:32..................................544, 665

Matthew 10:24..................................466

James 1:17 ...................................543

Luke 23:31..................................554

699

Index of Key Terms Various subjects seem to have arisen repeatedly during the course of this study. This was the case when reviewing the historical research (Part I) and in our own study into the historical canon process up to approx. 221 BCE (Part II). Highlighting the recurring themes in which the canon grew and operated is an important part of this study. Where possible, the same terminology was used to refer to these themes. Usually it occurs in different but similar expressions, which indicates how the themes shift, change and overlap yet remain related to one another despite this. Here we see what is most characteristic of the canon process. It is an evolution that remains the same throughout is various metamorphoses. The following list of key terms is intended as an instrument to aid study of the canon process’ twofold development, continuity and discontinuity, by following the evolution of the recurrent themes. The list is introduced by four sections summarising the study with the focus on the main themes in the history of the canon study (I) and earliest stage of the canon process’ formal (II) and intentional (III) development within the Israelite faith community (IV). This provides some context for the following index of key terms. The marks in de index refer to the notes only. I. The History of Canon Study Current study of the canon, which receives its impetus from Canonical Criticism, participates in the paradigm shift occurring in the broader literature on the Bible and esp. in the study of the OT. The trends in canon study can thus each be situated in a history that they seem to continue, however critical they may be of it. The canonical criticism evaluation of prior study in classical biblical criticism is based primarily on the erosion of the canon as a result of Atomism and drastic historicisation by the History of Religion to which biblical criticism increasingly exposed the biblical text. This explains the twofold tendency in the methodology that characterises the current canonical movement. On one side, the canon movement interlocks with the general and consistent turn toward the biblical texts (Textgemäss it is text-compliant) as now prevails in current exegesis. Hence its intense invocation of literary study, text-immanent methods, its preference for Redaction Criticism and those, like the scribes (Writing), who now work creatively and interpretively with the text as Reader (user). Hence their preference for the history of the reception (Rezeptiongeschichte) and operation of tradition (Wirkungsgeschichte). It can be seen that partly due to their zeal to highlight the Intertextuality and Schematisation in the context of the Holistic approach, the canonical movement’s Scriptocentric tendency ultimately derives from ideological (Ideology) reasons. This can, but need not necessarily, lead to exegetical derailment as in Post-critical exegesis and the factual, if not theoretical, tendency to ignore the Oral Tradition. In its response to the History of Religion’s historicising, which long tended to dominate classical biblical criticism, the canon-oriented literature, driven by Canonical Criticism, puts up a good show in its own exegetical approach. It, with the Revisionists and Minimalists, carried mistrust of biblical historiography to an extreme, esp. with regard to the pre-exilic period, and this as a result of the failure of previously defended Hypotheses on the amphictyony of the twelve tribes and everything to do with ancient Israel. However, their reservations regarding biblical history proved to exceed by far the concern for a dependable

700 historiography and ultimately to find its breeding ground in a theological dogmatic Ideology where it was rooted in the fundamental hermeneutical (Hermeneutics) issue. This is evident from its rigid approach to biblical historiography. Because they strove for absolute Certainty, with as condition absolute proof and an impossible demand for a total Reconstruction based on primary external Sources, they felt obliged by the purported lack of evidence to ignore completely the oldest periods of Israel’s history, with as result an irresponsible demolition. Moreover, because of the Dehistoricising and generalising (Generalisation) that the biblical text underwent during the exilic and post-exilic periods, the literature on the canon felt obliged to devote attention exclusively to the later Stages of the Canon Process and the later addition to the biblical text, esp. its Final Shape. This led to the obvious preference for a synchronic (Synchronicity) rather than diachronic (Diachronicity) approach. Giving little room to Tradition History and more to the history of the text’s reception (Rezeptsionsgeschichte) and operation (Wirkungsgeschichte), making biased use of the Comparative Method and Archaeology, undervaluing Sociology and the broader Context, and esp. the events, and linking dogmatic scepticism to dogmatic optimism are evidence of Inconsistency in applying criteria, mainly when arguing for a late Dating, and a striking acquiescence to a-historical tendencies. As we said, all this can only be explained from the researchers’ Ideology and inherent understanding (Vorverständnis), which, for our subject, has been inspired by a dualistic Dialectic since Barth. Among the things this implies is a rejection based on the Scripture Principle of everything modernistic since the Enlightenment and all that resembles Natural Theology, which obviously involves a preference for Salvation History rather than the History of Religion and General History. As correction to these trends in the literature, this study had to start with addressing the question of Hermeneutics. The insights derived from this could be used to design a more accurate research method that, thanks to its versatility, could cope with the restrictions imposed by literary research. It could attempt to preserve the balance between Synchronicity and Diachronicity, between particularity and Diversity, Continuity and Discontinuity, narrow Context and broad Context, the canon’s earlier and later Stages, and between Dogmatics and history. Moreover, it had to use Archaeology, the Comparative Method and esp. Sociology responsibly since the Canon Process is a long-term Current in which the Community was intensely involved. During the study, it was unavoidably intended that Hypotheses would be formulated that would attempt to attain the greatest possible certainty without aiming at a total Reconstruction of the Canon Process or to lapse into dogmatic optimism. In this regard, it was impossible to ignore the Bible as historical source (Historicity). II. The Formal Evolution of the Canon Process As late entrant to the cultural development found among the surrounding peoples (Umwelt), Israel was long dependent on borrowings from these people. In the earliest period, this was done orally. Confirmation is found in the apodictic and casuistic oral Legislation in the Torah, in the unsurpassed Storytelling, the Preaching of the original prophets, the forms of address found in the Dtr’s Paraenetic style and in Instruction. The explains the ample place of the system of customs in the Canon Process, the design of a common Constitution and the development of institutions (Institutionalising) such as the Cult. This also explains the importance of the Centralisation and purification of the Cult as a defence against Syncretism, as well as Israel’s rather late use of Writing. Only gradually were its mastery and general use encouraged and this primarily due to normative (Norms) considerations and because of the growing need for updating and revision. This is also the reason for the importance given to events (Historicity), faithfulness to Sources such as the prophets’ legitimating (Legitimating)

701 actions, and the pursuit of Orthodoxy rather than Aesthetic culture when shaping the written traditions. Most likely required by the circumstances caused by the crisis, first the oral, later the written traditions were subjected to Selection, Concentration, Dehistoricising, Generalisation, Schematisation, the latter via greater attribution to Moses, the fulfilment scheme and Typology. This involved a degree of Creativity and Interpretation, but always subordinated to the Sources, as can be seen from the Dtr’s preference for Anonymity. Because of the affiliation of religion and the Socio-Political reality of the time, fiction and Aetiology were used sparingly and only on the presupposition that overall historicity was guaranteed by events and reliable Sources. III. The Intentional Evolution of the Canon Process The conscious intention to pursue Canonisation started with ancient Israel’s exclusive oral tradition in which Tradition History and the history of its reception (Rezeptionsgeschichte) and operation (Wirkungsgeschichte) each played a specific role. It implies perception of a transcendent fact, of revelation, that gathered impetus authoritatively (Authority)as Canonical Principle with Yahwist Dynamism within the Israelite Community. This process occurred on the basis of mystical experience or inspiration amid a Socio-political life that was intertwined with religion and the events it encountered as recounted by its storytellers (Storytelling) in religious narratives, by the prophets (in their deeds and Preaching), by the priests and sages, first orally (Oral Tradition) and later put in Writing by scribes, redactors (Redaction Criticism) and all other tradents who participated in the process of Reflection that determined its Hermeneutics such as the biblical authors, the Dtr and the Israelite Community. That is why this process was long, developing in Stages, Revisions, updates, twists and turns involving the an Israelite Community that was highly diverse (Diversity) despite its small size. During this long development, Formalisation gradually became imperative with as ultimate result a definitive Closure. IV. The Community as Factor in the Canon Process YHWH and his Authority, which lay at the basis of the Canon Principle and which Israel experiences as transcendent, was not the sole determinant of the biblical Canon Process. Because YHWH’s, and hence the Canonical Principle’s, initiative was aimed at the Israelite Community, this Community was part of the message and, participated fully as partner in the course of the Canon Process. This could not follow its course without the consent and cooperation of and Legitimation by the Israelite Community. This means that, beside and beyond YHWH’s free initiative, Israel’s freedom also determined the Canon Process to a degree. This means that studying it is requires taking into account the mechanisms and forces that the Israelite community developed in moments of Crisis to render its indispensable cooperation in the Canon Process and to give it meaning in Hermeneutics of intelligent Obedience, resulting in practical Norms (Practical Orientation) regarding YHWH who remained the permanent basis of Yahwist Dynamism and as such of the Canon Process within Israel. Although the Yahwist Canon Principle aimed the Canon Process at the entire population that experienced its religiosity within the dominant social and political (Sociopolitical) situation, all the diverse segments of the community were involved. The uniform culture – in which the Canon Process used an Idiom to give a specific Identity to the entire Israelite Community and the Individuals that comprised it – was conditioned by the storytellers

702 (Storytelling), prophets and sages who mediated the transcendent revelation and the inspired mythical-numinous experience to the broader Community. This pursuit of unity amid diversity within Israel took place in Dialogue. This coincided with a series of tensions such as those between Minority and majority, between the Community and the Individual, between prophets and their public as a result of the Challenging nature of their activity and its need for Legitimation as well as the tension resulting from the exercise of Authority in teaching as can be seen from the Dtr’s Paraenetic and didactic (Didactics) style. Traces of all these tensions can be found in the diverse (Diversity) contrasting (Conflict) versions frequently found juxtaposed in the texts. The Cult, where the faith Community reached its apex, served as an important environment and instrument for channelling this tension and Dialogue. There the religious narratives were integrated (Concentration) in the Memorial Culture and the various ranks within Israel influenced one another in a Symbiosis. A Reflection of this is found in the interweaving of traditions that, for the most part, arose at the same time. All this coincided with a growing pursuit of Orthodoxy from which ultimately the Constitution as Community, recorded in Dt. resulted. This proved to be an important, but only provisional, stage among the many Stages through which Reflection in the Israelite Community passed. Via Ordering and the many Rereadings and updatings, Reflection could remain faithful to Continuity in Discontinuity and gradually be permanently formalised (Formalisation) in a written canonical structure. As such it could be generally accepted and exercise Authority within Israel. In this way, the Canonical Principle reached the destination toward which it had aimed from the start.

703 Aesthetic 208, 342, 1207, 1295, 1353, 1428 Aetiology 551, 892, 996, 1142, 1190, 1320, 1330 Anonymous 1027, 1053, 1168, 1180, 1342, 1401 Archaeology 106, 155, 268, 318, 425, 435, 540, 645, 708, 713, 744, 760-761, 771, 863, 869, 924, 927, 931932, 935, 1009, 1027, 1097, 1104, 1209, 1213, 1247, 1358 Atomism 337, 343, 508-509, 899, 1164 Authority 29, 31, 33, 53-54, 56-57, 66-67, 71, 73, 85, 93, 103-104, 130-131, 145, 147, 159, 177, 182, 192, 205, 214, 234, 237, 239, 272, 280, 310, 322, 347, 356, 359-360, 366, 395, 404, 426, 447, 451, 460, 563-565, 577, 586, 616, 626, 629, 631-632, 647, 656-658, 660, 662, 664-669, 680, 693, 728, 736, 739, 744, 759, 761, 764, 771-772, 774, 780, 793, 797, 816, 828, 830, 838, 845, 851, 860, 884, 925-927, 940, 985-986, 988, 992, 1002, 1005, 1007, 1010, 1013-1014-1015, 1046, 1051, 1058, 1061, 1068, 1070, 1081, 1084-1086, 1094, 1097-1099, 1108-1109, 1113, 1116, 1119, 1121-1123, 1128-1129, 1132-1133, 1136, 1172, 1175, 1178-1180, 1185-1188, 1190-1191, 1193, 1208, 1221, 1224, 1237, 1239, 1261, 1266, 1309, 1312, 1330, 1344, 1350, 1353, 1366, 1376, 1388, 1400, 1402, 1408, 1414 Canon Erosion 40, 132, 165, 179-180, 1188, 1240 Canon Process 9, 29, 34, 67-69, 81, 313, 349, 357, 395, 426, 429, 457, 466, 517, 520, 525, 529, 538, 551, 556, 563, 566, 583, 654, 657-658, 664, 679-680, 686, 711, 740, 751, 753, 797, 803, 807, 816, 834, 838, 849, 851, 857, 868, 878, 901, 903-904, 933, 941, 946, 973, 975, 1015, 1024, 1050, 1056, 1065-1066, 1070, 1080, 1083, 1096, 1099, 1132, 1134, 1136-1138, 1174, 1176, 1180, 1183, 1185-1186, 1188, 1205, 1218, 1227, 1235, 1247, 1258, 1262, 1268, 1273, 1276, 1300, 1312, 1324, 1326, 1332, 1335, 1341, 1345, 1349, 1354, 1359-1360, 1362-1363, 1365, 1373, 1376, 1384-1385, 1388, 1391, 1395, 1402-1403, 1405, 1413, 1420, 1429-1430 Canonical Criticism 47, 55, 270, 276, 278, 282, 333, 341, 353, 355, 358-359, 363, 379-380, 389, 395, 407, 425, 432, 444, 466, 472, 488, 496, 498, 509, 679, 851, 1024, 1115, 1132, 1134-1135, 1203, 12461247, 1258, 1266, 1271, 1273, 1281 Canonisation (Intention) 69, 314, 511, 533, 580, 638, 640, 657-658, 666, 807, 816, 827-828, 933, 940, 949, 1017, 1048, 1056, 1060, 1062, 1065, 1077, 1081, 1084-1085, 1087, 1091, 1108-1109, 1115, 1120, 1132-1133, 1172, 1187, 1208, 1212, 1216, 1268, 1312, 1323, 1329, 1348, 1350, 1353, 1385, 1388, 1393, 1395, 1401

704 Centralisation (Cult) 606-607, 623, 648, 658-659, 719, 732, 745, 761, 788-789, 809, 824, 860, 924, 926, 930, 935936, 939, 941-944, 949, 954, 1012, 1017, 1107, 1133, 1168, 1176, 1212, 1331, 1331, 1338, 1345, 1349, 1411, 1414 Certainty (absolute) 225, 227, 234, 462, 479, 508, 682, 703, 711, 800, 842, 1029, 1157, 1285, 1355, 1369 Challenging 93, 233, 279, 404, 460, 657, 782, 830, 838, 844, 855, 924, 926, 939, 987, 1061, 1092, 1108, 1116, 1123, 1128, 1136, 1179, 1208, 1212, 1216, 1318, 1325, 1364, 1373, 1385, 1391, 1396, 1399 Closure 57, 62, 67-70, 93-94, 120, 158, 180, 190-191, 193, 302, 307, 309-310, 312-314, 328, 379, 429, 434, 442, 445, 447-448, 471, 497, 536, 657, 1043, 1185, 1212, 1216, 1236, 1260-1263, 1268, 1350, 1353, 1359, 1362, 1391-1392 Community 23, 29, 56-57, 63, 66-67, 71-73, 75-78, 83, 119, 120, 124, 126-128, 131, 159, 165, 191, 204, 214, 218, 222, 237, 239, 245, 268, 278, 330, 347, 350, 356, 359, 363, 371, 404, 418, 432, 439, 441-443, 451, 458, 466, 472, 481, 497-498, 500-501, 530, 532, 535, 563, 594, 598, 606607, 632, 634, 643, 658-659, 661, 664, 668-700, 702, 708, 718, 727, 731, 741, 743, 748-749, 751, 753, 755, 759-761, 763, 769, 776-777, 806, 815, 834, 839, 849, 851-855, 868, 873-875, 884, 903-904, 908, 925-926, 943, 1012, 1017, 1040, 1060, 1063, 1071, 1095, 1097, 10991100, 1104, 1107-1109, 1116-1117, 1121-1122, 1124, 1128-1129, 1132-1133, 1135-1136, 1158, 1164, 1168-1169, 1174, 1185-1187, 1208, 1212, 1224, 1227, 1235, 1237, 1239-1240, 1258-1260, 1268, 1291, 1295, 1323, 1327, 1329-1330-1331, 1333, 1341, 1351, 1366, 13701371, 1379, 1393-1395, 1403, 1405, 1413-1414, 1423, 1430 Comparative Method 262, 277, 424, 496, 714, 725, 761, 771, 805, 924, 1104, 1107, 1166-1167,1184, 1202, 1419 Concentration (Collection) 75, 277, 624, 630-632, 635-636, 651, 654, 658-659, 664, 666, 672, 677-678, 702, 721, 726, 746, 748, 751-752, 755, 767-769, 774, 776, 783-784, 834, 838, 851, 868-869, 892, 922, 924926, 940, 958, 960, 963, 965, 980, 987-988, 1002, 1009, 1012, 1027, 1032, 1037, 1041-1043, 1046, 1048-1049, 1051, 1053-1054, 1062, 1066, 1069, 1073-1074, 1076, 1080-1081, 1085, 1087, 1129, 1131-1132, 1144-1145, 1149-1150, 1159-1161-1162, 1164-1165, 1168, 1170, 1172, 1174-1178, 1180, 1185, 1212, 1223, 1226-1227, 1231, 1261, 1315, 1321, 1323, 1325, 1341, 1343, 1350, 1353, 1367, 1377, 1382, 1393, 1399-1400, 1415, 1432 Conflict (contrasting Versions) 33-34, 191, 214, 225, 231, 233, 241, 248, 291, 308, 311, 313, 321-322, 340, 353, 360, 376, 379, 383, 395, 413, 426, 454, 466, 482, 509, 532, 558, 630, 657, 659, 664, 682, 707, 723, 725, 752, 775, 777, 807, 814, 825, 828, 833-834, 838, 872, 881, 893, 895, 930, 941, 947, 954, 957, 988, 1002, 1032, 1087, 1099, 1114-1116, 1128-1129, 1132, 1141, 1159-1160, 1164, 1174, 1183, 1191, 1195, 1212, 1216, 1247, 1256-1257, 1364, 1378, 1385, 1387, 1393, 1409

705 Constitution 74, 647, 668, 719, 741, 761, 782, 941, 943, 1091, 1174, 1186, 1193, 1308, 1326, 1341, 1383 Context (broader versus narrower) 60, 64, 75, 93, 96, 222-223, 267-268, 278, 312, 320, 371, 383, 395-396, 425, 449, 461, 494, 496-497, 527, 539, 544, 554, 562, 566-567, 571, 591, 598, 608, 636, 639-640, 651, 653-654, 657, 664, 688, 724-725, 727-728, 743, 750, 753, 755-756, 803, 816, 875-876, 891, 895, 902, 917, 922, 926, 934, 940, 946, 952-953, 964, 981, 986, 996, 1005, 1009, 1048, 1062, 1071, 1141, 1164, 1166-1168, 1177, 1188, 1190, 1221, 1227 Continuity 23, 31, 125, 168, 179, 193, 207, 212, 214, 218, 235, 333, 375, 395, 465, 542, 586, 632-633, 654, 658, 669, 759, 762, 793, 805, 814, 816, 857, 865, 894, 901, 908, 988, 1012, 1016, 10511052, 1054, 1057, 1091-1092, 1129, 1172, 1174, 1186, 1188, 1193, 1205, 1214, 1260, 13151316, 1321, 1324, 1344-1345, 1371, 1379, 1384, 1392, 1402 Creativity 109, 219, 249, 395, 445, 458, 461, 488, 534, 597, 605, 620, 624, 633, 635-636, 651-653, 658, 691, 702-703, 708, 803, 816, 874, 891, 893, 903, 940, 949, 994, 1027, 1032, 1035, 1044, 1048, 1052, 1057, 1076, 1084, 1087, 1089, 1092, 1159, 1161-1162, 1164-1167, 1169, 1174, 1292, 1308, 1317, 1321, 1348, 1351, 1371, 1374, 1384, 1389, 1400, 1431 Crisis 46, 48, 67, 170, 176, 182-183, 349, 587, 631, 702, 751, 804, 818, 854, 884, 896, 924, 996, 1025, 1045, 1051-1052, 1097, 1114-1115, 1117, 1120, 1131, 1170, 1184, 1212, 1216, 1307, 1310, 1324, 1335 Cult 30, 52, 71, 75, 103, 167, 204, 497, 563, 586, 591-592, 598, 606-607, 618, 622-623, 625, 648, 651, 657-659, 661, 665-666, 683, 719, 722, 724, 726, 728, 732, 740, 743-746, 751, 755, 760761, 764, 769, 770, 778, 788, 804-805, 809, 813, 815-816-817, 824, 845, 853, 855-861, 863, 866, 869, 872, 874-875, 889, 903-905, 907-909, 912-913, 920, 926, 936, 938, 941, 943, 949, 954, 1097, 1099, 1132-1133, 1167-1168, 1170, 1174, 1208-1209, 1220, 1224, 1331, 1345, 1366, 1370, 1373, 1375, 1381, 1387, 1408 Current (long Term) 6, 67, 149, 235, 244, 249, 383, 430, 445-447, 503, 521, 527, 535, 539, 546, 561, 591, 594, 604, 612, 614, 616-617, 638, 648, 650, 654, 661-662, 679, 708-709, 722, 744, 755, 764, 783, 803, 808, 834, 868, 883-884, 917-918, 920, 926, 934, 940-941, 954, 975-976, 981, 985, 987, 993-994, 1001, 1011, 1013, 1021, 1024, 1029, 1052, 1067, 1082, 1108, 1111, 1129, 1183, 1186, 1216, 1219, 1298, 1323, 1332, 1334, 1336, 1347, 1357, 1359, 1373, 1378, 1386, 1389, 1391 Dating (late) 6, 294, 316, 445, 677, 679, 685, 697, 700, 702, 722, 752, 771, 802, 916, 919, 923, 949, 973, 1027, 1029, 1031, 1103-1104, 1144, 1155-1157, 1213-1214, 1285, 1287-1288, 1303, 1357, 1359, 1367

706 Dehistoricising 75, 339, 653-654, 691, 816, 940, 1013, 1032, 1053, 1097, 1293, 1304, 1349 Diachronicity 296, 345, 350, 380, 395, 401, 494-495, 508, 538, 615, 623, 680, 708, 722, 726, 980, 1037, 1041, 1044, 1054, 1149, 1164, 1360, 1365 Dialectic 54, 110, 132, 167-171, 175-177, 182, 188, 191, 194, 207, 218, 220, 225, 235, 237, 241, 271, 301, 337, 347, 354, 395, 411, 429, 484, 505, 658, 751, 1050, 1058, 1061, 1081, 1135, 1137, 1159-1160, 1166, 1169, 1203, 1216, 1229, 1382 Dialogue 177, 193, 250, 253, 382, 446-447, 483, 648, 654, 903, 917, 933, 987, 997, 1012, 1051, 1054, 1099-1100, 1116, 1128-1129, 1132-1133, 1165, 1168, 1178, 1186, 1208, 1247, 1316, 1323, 1364-1365, 1376-1377, 1382, 1385, 1388, 1394, 1399, 1403, 1408 Didactics 567, 648, 741, 751, 755, 770-772, 783, 903, 941, 996, 1142, 1179, 1189, 1205-1206, 1320, 1426 Discontinuity 21-23, 227, 328, 507, 630, 632-633, 658, 816, 895, 901, 1032, 1060, 1096, 1129, 1159, 1166, 1172, 1174, 1186, 1188, 1260, 1315, 1344, 1379, 1384, 1391, 1402 Diversity 64, 75, 94, 107, 132, 176-177, 184-185, 187, 195, 206, 208-209, 214, 233, 236, 242, 267, 276, 292, 308, 310-311, 335, 340, 371, 376, 379, 387, 399, 438, 462, 499, 503-504, 516, 521, 535, 540, 542, 554, 561, 564, 568, 586, 601, 604-606, 621-623, 626, 629, 630-631, 633, 635636, 648-649, 653-654, 658, 664, 670, 682, 684-685, 697, 702, 723-724, 727, 737, 744-745746, 751, 755, 762, 767-769, 771, 775, 777, 781, 783, 787-788, 799-800, 805, 809, 813, 816, 828, 834-835, 844, 854, 857-858, 868-869, 875, 892, 918, 926, 930, 941, 943, 946, 952, 958, 960-962, 980, 989, 999, 1012, 1014, 1019-1020, 1027, 1036, 1041, 1043, 1048, 1050-1053, 1060-1062, 1068, 1070, 1072, 1074, 1081, 1085, 1087, 1099-1101, 1115, 1124, 1129, 1131, 1133, 1135-1137, 1142, 1150, 1153, 1156-1158, 1160, 1164, 1168, 1171, 1174-1175, 11831184, 1187-1188, 1192, 1200, 1206, 1208, 1213, 1216, 1227, 1237, 1246, 1249, 1260-1261, 1268, 1274-1275, 1282, 1291, 1299, 1322-1323, 1325, 1334, 1336, 1341, 1343, 1351, 1373, 1377-1378, 1385, 1393, 1400-1401, 1408-1409, 1417, 1420 Dogmatics (Theology versus History) 33, 40, 65, 104, 107, 112, 123, 125, 136, 168, 170, 176, 178, 182, 189, 191, 199, 218, 220, 267, 270, 278, 282, 347-348, 354, 358-359, 375, 384, 392, 395-396, 402, 404, 413, 420, 422, 429, 432, 436, 443, 445, 453, 457, 459, 461-466, 471-472, 492, 496, 501, 523, 683, 725, 1163, 1176, 1188, 1240, 1245, 1252-1254, 1257, 1259, 1264, 1268, 1270-1271, 1273, 1308, 1335 Enlightenment 33, 100-101, 111, 132, 147-149, 165, 246, 354, 360, 454, 460, 462, 516, 675, 725, 1203, 1264, 1266-1267

707 Final Shape 33, 65, 67, 81, 266-267, 272, 307, 313, 315, 328, 339, 380, 395, 400-402, 404, 424-426, 445, 449, 493-495, 497, 526-527, 532, 535-536, 538, 630, 657, 679-681, 697, 724, 727, 797, 799, 816, 879, 921, 926, 958, 960, 987-988, 999, 1023, 1033, 1037, 1043, 1048-1049, 1051, 10531054, 1061-1062, 1065, 1072-1073, 1075, 1080-1081, 1083, 1086-1087, 1099, 1111, 1115, 1134, 1205, 1216, 1284, 1356 Formalisation 85, 103, 120, 145, 207, 291, 296, 311, 313, 341, 344-345, 352, 368, 373, 445, 488-489, 542, 567, 581, 598, 632, 636, 645, 648, 657-658, 662, 664-666, 679, 689, 691, 724, 726-728, 736, 750, 753, 768, 778, 780, 785, 787, 789, 792-793, 807, 814, 816, 835, 857, 874-875, 877-878, 884, 891, 905, 908, 924, 926-927, 943, 946, 949, 961, 985, 988, 999, 1002, 1006, 1012, 1017, 1027, 1029, 1049, 1069, 1071, 1080-1081, 1096, 1142-1143, 1159, 1166, 1170, 1175, 1196, 1200, 1214-1215, 1224-1225, 1227-1228, 1239, 1249, 1257, 1261, 1268, 1271, 1297, 1330, 1336, 1340-1341, 1362, 1365, 1373, 1388, 1394, 1417 General History 135, 147, 167-168, 177, 180, 289, 318, 375, 425, 700, 843, 846, 891, 1115, 1169, 1176, 11851187, 1203, 1221 Generalisation 75, 614, 640, 710, 755, 834, 857, 892, 926, 928, 940, 1008, 1012, 1017, 1055-1056, 1160, 1164, 1166, 1293, 1349-1350 Hermeneutics 46-47, 66, 72, 83, 106, 164, 185, 193, 195, 205, 209, 223, 270, 274, 276, 345, 351, 360, 363, 365, 384, 387, 396, 402, 416, 418, 420, 423, 437, 440, 443-444, 454, 462, 469, 472, 478, 484485, 494, 497, 538-539, 558, 601, 634, 657, 705, 721, 788, 946, 980, 986-987, 1027, 10311032, 1043-1044, 1063, 1065, 1081, 1086, 1096-1097, 1124, 1141, 1161, 1163, 1165, 1170, 1180, 1185, 1218, 1227, 1259-1260, 1318, 1382, 1405, 1408, 1417, 1429 Historicity 34, 40-41, 43, 46, 67, 112, 168, 190, 207, 225, 238, 289, 347, 558, 564, 567, 569, 577, 586587, 606, 623-624, 637, 640, 651-654, 664, 668, 673, 691, 693, 696-698, 700-701-702, 704705, 708, 710, 726, 745, 748, 764, 767, 775, 797-798, 802-803, 805, 813-814, 816, 822, 825826, 828, 843, 851, 861, 869, 877, 886-887, 889, 891-892, 896-897, 913-914, 920, 922, 926, 928-930, 942, 946-947, 949, 957-958, 1002, 1004, 1012, 1017, 1025, 1028-1029, 1038, 1048, 1051-1054, 1057, 1060, 1062-1063, 1075, 1081-1084, 1086, 1088-1089, 1096, 1104, 1107, 1110-1113, 1116, 1118, 1119-1120-1121-1122-123, 1125, 1128-1129, 1132-1133, 1135, 11401141-1142, 1158, 1160-1161, 1164-1167, 1169-1170, 1172, 1175-1177, 1183, 1186-1187, 1190-1191, 1193, 1240, 1259, 1293, 1300, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1335, 1347-1348, 1350-1351, 1358, 1360, 1371, 1379, 1391, 1397, 1400, 1427, 1431-1432 History of Religion 68, 113, 119, 121, 123, 147, 152, 165-166, 168, 172, 216, 289, 291, 318, 328, 375, 401, 425, 430, 449, 465, 491, 497, 515, 523, 533, 538, 571, 624, 636, 658, 664, 779, 805, 869, 871, 891, 926, 933-934, 1109, 1115, 1132, 1136, 1176, 1209, 1227, 1309, 1411

708 Holistic 63, 238, 246, 343, 370-371, 376, 379-380, 382, 392, 404, 406, 517 Hypotheses 267, 291, 308, 339-340, 376, 395, 400, 404, 413, 419, 427, 479, 503, 508, 542, 558, 594, 683684, 687, 705, 708, 712, 714, 753, 761, 764, 800, 933, 949, 961, 1002, 1028, 1032, 1043, 1056, 1148, 1153, 1164, 1277, 1280, 1296, 1298-1299 Identity 73, 75, 78, 234, 245, 309, 356, 439, 447, 530, 564, 658-659, 702, 708, 746, 753, 755, 775, 834, 839, 941, 1032, 1053, 1109, 1115, 1183, 1186, 1326, 1332, 1395, 1409 Ideology 40, 64, 106, 335, 459, 465, 478, 538-540, 597, 645, 652-653, 685, 697, 700, 756, 759, 761, 764, 810, 816, 830, 842, 846, 859, 914, 936, 939-940-941, 957, 1027, 1029, 1132, 1141-1142, 1160, 1162, 1165-1166, 1168, 1174, 1237, 1264, 1282, 1287, 1320 Idiom 586, 683, 753, 783, 850, 960, 1029, 1041, 1049, 1109, 1177, 1316 Inconsistency 218, 316, 322, 392, 410, 555, 615, 682, 700, 725, 926, 1029, 1049, 1053, 1104, 1146, 1158, 1164-1165, 1188, 1250, 1286 Individual (Subjectivity) 33, 75-77, 106, 131, 138, 147, 151, 156, 165, 167, 174, 177, 185, 195-209, 218, 233-234, 238-239, 245-246, 249, 270, 272-273, 275, 282, 300, 321, 335, 337, 344-345, 359, 423, 440441, 443, 462, 478, 482-485, 487-488, 496, 500, 508-509, 513, 516, 535, 540, 571, 625, 633, 654, 657, 659, 664, 675, 699-700, 713, 731, 742, 746, 748, 750, 755, 761, 767, 773, 777, 786, 799, 803, 806, 815-818, 826, 834, 836, 838, 851, 853, 855, 871, 874-876, 889, 896, 904, 908, 925-926, 937, 940, 1007, 1012, 1027, 1048, 1051-1053, 1058, 1060, 1062, 1067, 1070, 10801082, 1084, 1088, 1097-1099-1100, 1116, 1119, 1128-1129, 1131, 1136, 1159, 1161, 1168, 1177, 1179, 1208, 1212, 1214, 1227, 1234-1235, 1251, 1291, 1295, 1308, 1313-1314, 1322, 1327, 1329-1331, 1333, 1351, 1375, 1379, 1390, 1401, 1405, 1412 Institutionalising 75, 158, 245-246, 249, 548, 580, 598, 606-607, 622, 626, 654, 657, 661, 664, 667, 671, 719, 753, 755, 763, 775, 782, 790, 793, 811, 839, 857, 859, 861-862, 867, 884, 900, 907, 917, 926, 928, 939-941, 943, 946, 1006, 1012, 1017, 1092, 1099, 1101, 1129, 1132-1133, 1136, 1159, 1168, 1212, 1227, 1331-1332, 1334, 1341, 1377-1378, 1383, 1386 Instruction 131, 194, 205-206, 244, 338, 442, 482, 497, 563, 566, 592, 617, 638, 654, 658, 662, 724, 746, 755, 778, 898, 912, 940, 994, 1175, 1182, 1205, 1212, 1218, 1224, 1226, 1320, 1325, 1330, 1373, 1410 Interpretation 23, 56, 67, 72, 75-76, 88, 94, 100, 104, 110, 112-113, 159, 193, 195, 214, 245, 277-279, 282, 301, 310, 315, 321-322, 345-346, 371, 380, 394-395, 399, 404, 412, 423, 429, 441, 448-449,

709 458, 464, 467, 478, 482-483, 496, 501, 505, 507, 534-535, 541, 544, 567, 571-572, 606, 615, 632, 634, 636, 651, 654, 657-658, 664, 691, 696, 711, 713, 722, 726-727, 744, 751, 788, 797, 803, 806-807, 816, 833, 838-839, 851, 886, 900, 929, 939-940, 944, 988, 994, 997, 1002, 1005, 1010, 1013, 1029, 1043, 1060, 1062, 1068, 1072-1073, 1085-1086, 1089-1090, 1099, 1104, 1108, 1113, 1129, 1132, 1161-1162, 1164-1165, 1168, 1174, 1180, 1183, 1188-1189, 1197, 1212, 1260, 1264, 1269, 1291, 1293, 1340, 1382, 1391 Intertextuality 62, 71, 238, 246, 278, 335, 688, 816, 850, 1024, 1046-1047, 1166 Legitimation 212, 234, 632, 647, 756, 761-762, 775, 793, 838-840, 861, 911, 992, 1053, 1116, 1119-1123, 1125, 1128-1129, 1132, 1237, 1394 Legislation (Law) 73, 158, 301, 359, 542, 560, 562-568, 574, 579, 582, 586, 591, 594-595, 598, 604, 606, 611, 614-617, 621-623, 625, 630-631, 635-638, 640, 651, 657-658, 662, 666, 671, 677, 691, 714, 719, 721-722, 724-728, 732-733, 735-738, 741-744, 746, 750-751, 753-756, 761-766, 768, 770-773, 775, 781-782, 785, 787-789, 793, 804, 834, 842, 854, 861, 874, 878-879, 882, 884, 924-928, 941-943, 958, 978, 1051, 1097, 1141, 1164, 1166, 1169-1170, 1172, 1175, 1181, 1186-1187, 1208-1209, 1223, 1226-1227, 1315, 1319, 1321, 1330, 1351, 1367, 1369, 1371, 1373-1383, 1389 Memorial Culture (Gedächtnisgeschichte) 67, 357, 461, 521, 563, 592, 617, 666, 745, 748, 924, 926, 946, 1084, 1095, 1133, 1158, 11681170, 1186, 1191, 1294, 1343, 1423 Minimalists 540, 696, 744, 761, 944, 1028-1029, 1157, 1165, 1355 Minority (Elite versus Majority) 233, 251, 623, 664-665, 718, 748, 753, 759, 764, 775, 777, 782-783, 804, 829-830, 834, 839, 855, 862, 871, 1097, 1108-1109, 1132, 1196, 1214, 1237, 1295, 1324, 1336, 1392, 1395, 1412 Natural Theology 129, 134-135, 143, 148, 168, 169-170, 177, 202, 218, 220, 243, 253, 346, 375, 484, 494, 1203, 1227 Norms 23, 52, 57-58, 65, 71, 73, 75-77, 113, 147, 156, 159, 177, 182, 191-192, 245, 273, 276, 279, 347, 351, 358-360, 363, 371, 402, 413, 426, 440-441, 448, 459, 461, 482, 485, 496-497, 508, 526-527, 540, 579, 625, 640, 643-644, 657, 659, 662, 664-665, 702, 715, 721, 724, 741, 748749, 755, 761, 771-772, 778, 793, 858, 874, 879, 881, 895, 898, 926, 949, 958, 996, 1084, 1099, 1107, 1159, 1175, 1181, 1186, 1188, 1223, 1227, 1240, 1261, 1312, 1319-1320, 1324, 1336-1337, 1371, 1376, 1384, 1388, 1393

710 Obedience 76, 131, 234, 485, 594, 597, 637, 657, 662, 747, 749, 755, 940, 1319-1320, 1336-1337, 1414 Oral Tradition 63, 122, 308, 538, 540, 556, 563, 594-595, 629, 654, 660, 672-674, 708, 719, 721, 725, 728, 746, 749, 751, 755, 771, 805-806, 815-816, 840, 853, 878, 908, 924, 940, 1003, 1008, 1025, 1032-1033, 1036, 1050-1051, 1060-1061, 1068, 1115, 1142, 1146, 1148, 1152, 1158, 11681169, 1196, 1219, 1356, 1370, 1376, 1381-1382, 1389, 1392, 1399, 1417, 1420 Ordering 64, 138, 499, 533, 625, 636, 647, 1068, 1091, 1160-1161, 1200, 1349-1350, 1368 Orthodoxy 33, 110, 128, 169, 234, 443, 496, 579, 613, 662, 665, 670, 764, 811, 828, 870, 873, 1081, 1099, 1132, 1199, 1240, 1316, 1318, 1328, 1373, 1385, 1417 Paraenetic 207, 557, 592, 594, 662, 722, 789, 925-927, 940, 942-943, 949, 958, 1012, 1122, 1168, 1172, 1181-1182, 1224, 1227, 1383 Post-critical 386, 389, 397, 421, 423, 485, 505, 558 Practical Orientation (Needs) 76, 93, 103, 112, 159, 267, 363, 447, 514, 566, 594, 607, 647, 657-659, 662, 666, 741, 755, 764, 854, 874-875, 880, 883, 903, 908, 925-928, 940-941, 1010, 1013, 1050, 1057, 10591060, 1086, 1095, 1115, 1123, 1128, 1131-1132, 1141, 1159, 1164, 1168, 1170, 1178, 11811182-1183-1184, 1186, 1188-1190, 1206-1207, 1212, 1222, 1261, 1307, 1310, 1313-1314, 1319-1320, 1325, 1330, 1335-1337, 1341, 1348, 1372-1373, 1376, 1379, 1383, 1414, 1416, 1418, 1424, 1428-1429 Preaching 167, 191, 237, 347, 359, 383, 567, 577, 579, 581, 584, 586-587, 594, 639-640, 658, 662, 764, 780, 797, 804-805, 813, 815-816, 824-825, 828, 833, 835-837, 839, 851, 874, 878-879, 882, 900, 903, 906, 908, 925, 955, 1003, 1005, 1024-1025, 1027, 1031-1032, 1048, 1050, 10601061, 1069, 1081, 1094, 1113, 1324, 1400 Reader (User) 73, 345, 434, 455, 459, 478, 488, 509, 520, 531, 624, 637, 640, 651, 679, 691, 693, 700, 713, 817, 839, 853, 886, 891, 911, 925, 927, 1030, 1032, 1036, 1054, 1057, 1071, 1119, 11231124, 1128, 1131-1132, 1141, 1166, 1168, 1189-1190, 1213, 1224, 1291, 1295, 1356 Reconstruction 113, 177, 209, 263, 278-279, 350, 400, 404, 421, 423, 466, 493, 514, 702, 708-709, 721, 726727, 751, 753, 764, 797, 803, 816, 826, 873, 903, 924, 932, 975, 1017, 1025, 1030, 1036, 1048-1049, 1054, 1060, 1108, 1116, 1135, 1158, 1165, 1301, 1371, 1397

711 Redaction Criticism 291, 317, 340, 389, 395, 541-542, 544, 548, 615-616, 620, 623, 630, 632-633, 640, 671-672, 680, 682, 689, 696, 709, 722, 726-729, 736, 744, 746, 752, 755, 764, 771, 780, 783, 813, 815816, 826, 828, 839, 846, 850-851, 884, 892, 916, 918, 924, 926, 930, 938, 955, 961-964, 973, 978, 980, 986, 988-990, 998, 1002, 1009, 1022-1023, 1027, 1029-1031, 1033, 1037-1038, 1041-1052, 1054, 1058, 1060-1063, 1065-1068, 1070-1076, 1078, 1080-1081, 1084-1087, 1089, 1091-1093, 1120, 1129, 1131-1132, 1144, 1150, 1156-1157, 1159, 1161, 1163-1170, 1175, 1179-1181, 1185, 1190, 1193, 1218, 1227, 1289, 1316, 1331, 1359, 1361, 1374, 1389, 1391, 1394, 1400, 1404, 1422 Reflection 69, 191, 223, 227, 277, 366, 385, 414, 428, 440, 459, 533, 558, 594-595, 624, 630, 654, 666, 700, 702, 755, 784, 813, 815-816, 822-823, 825-828, 830, 835, 838-839, 846, 849, 851, 854, 872, 874, 889, 891-892, 912, 925-927, 929, 932, 940-941, 949, 1002, 1011, 1051-1052, 1056, 1061, 1068, 1070-1071, 1081-1082, 1086-1087, 1090, 1097, 1099, 1124, 1128, 1132, 1162, 1165, 1190, 1207, 1212, 1221, 1223, 1226-1228, 1240, 1348, 1373, 1407-1409, 1413 Rereadings 803, 1015, 1049, 1071, 1347 Revision 76, 94, 103-104, 110, 126-127, 131, 156, 167, 177, 192-193, 212, 267, 277, 291, 311, 315, 412, 460, 531, 564, 586, 594, 614, 617, 625, 628, 630, 632-633, 635-636, 648, 651, 653, 657658, 661-662, 664, 666, 705, 722, 751, 772, 786-787, 789, 791, 793, 804-806, 816, 848, 851, 865, 878, 901, 915, 918, 924-928, 939-941, 943, 949, 985, 988, 996, 1001, 1014-1015, 1027, 1030, 1043-1044, 1051-1052, 1054, 1057-1059, 1061, 1072, 1081-1082, 1086, 1092, 1101, 1119, 1128-1129, 1132, 1148, 1160, 1164, 1168, 1175, 1181, 1183, 1186-1187, 1192, 1212, 1216, 1223, 1226, 1228, 1246, 1253, 1255, 1260, 1266, 1274, 1280, 1308, 1315, 1321, 1325, 1331, 1345, 1369, 1376, 1391, 1394, 1398-1399-1400 Revisionists 653, 685-686, 697, 937, 1029, 1031, 1132, 1148, 1155, 1158, 1162, 1165, 1167-1168, 1282, 1285-1287, 1357 Rezeptionsgeschichte 6, 67, 72, 75-76, 342, 356-357, 373, 402, 481, 501, 521, 534, 536, 634, 682, 714, 850, 886, 925, 1032, 1051, 1060, 1072, 1132, 1186, 1216, 1258, 1398, 1432 Salvation History 142, 167-168, 177, 180, 218, 220, 289, 317, 495, 843, 1203 Schematisation 515, 574, 640, 653, 839, 926, 996, 1005, 1009, 1012, 1017, 1036, 1053, 1069, 1074, 1077, 1322, 1349 Scriptocentric 540, 563, 673, 1032, 1080, 1091, 1168, 1196, 1283, 1301, 1353 Scripture Principle 84, 93, 110-111, 113, 136, 168, 190, 374, 451, 1239-1240, 1268

712 Selection 9, 62, 190, 282, 488, 567, 571, 583, 613-614, 633, 659, 662-663, 669, 708, 719, 755, 772, 787, 816, 839, 873, 965, 1005, 1014, 1027, 1030, 1032, 1056, 1061, 1069, 1072, 1081, 1137, 1166, 1168, 1177, 1185, 1218, 1250, 1275, 1318, 1349-1350, 1422, 1429 Sociology 214, 223, 231, 244, 451, 482, 496, 500, 513-514, 654, 761, 1097, 1102-1104, 1106-1107, 1116, 1123, 1128-1129, 1132, 1136, 1166, 1207 Socio-political (Circumstances) 130, 251, 268, 496-497, 538, 541-542, 551, 553, 594, 598, 606, 608, 614, 621, 623, 644, 648, 654, 658, 661, 668, 685, 697, 702, 710, 713-714, 718-719, 726, 729, 732, 740-743, 746, 751, 753, 755-760, 762, 764-765, 774, 781, 784, 788, 803-805, 808, 812, 815-816, 820, 825-826, 842, 846, 860, 862, 869, 871, 875, 881, 889, 903, 905, 916-917, 924, 926, 928-929, 933-934935, 938-943, 945, 949, 953, 956, 980-981, 986-987, 1004, 1012-1013, 1015, 1017, 1032, 1039-1040, 1051, 1053-1054, 1063, 1070, 1081, 1086, 1096-1097, 1099-1105, 1108-1110, 1112, 1115-1117, 1119-1120, 1123, 1128, 1132, 1135-1137, 1144, 1148, 1157, 1164-1165, 1169, 1176-1177, 1186, 1188, 1207, 1210, 1212, 1214, 1236-1238, 1326, 1330, 1333, 1351, 1359, 1366, 1368, 1371-1372, 1374, 1376, 1383, 1400, 1402, 1408, 1416, 1423, 1428 Sources 6, 34, 36, 85, 98, 110, 122, 127, 132, 237, 266, 275, 291, 301, 345, 419, 426, 497, 531, 535, 540, 542, 563, 572, 612, 615, 630, 636, 653, 672-673, 676, 679, 683-685, 691, 696-697, 707708, 720, 724, 726, 729, 751, 753, 793, 815-816, 878, 931, 960-961, 965, 967-968, 980, 986988, 991, 998, 1000-1003, 1015, 1027, 1031, 1044, 1060, 1138, 1146-1147, 1149-1150, 1153, 1157-1160, 1162, 1164-1165, 1174, 1186, 1227, 1276, 1316, 1321, 1346, 1352, 1359 Stages 42, 81, 112, 125, 127, 147, 158, 199, 257, 266, 279, 282, 315, 380, 395, 401, 447, 449, 495, 515, 525, 529, 536, 541-542, 636, 677, 680, 682, 686, 704, 709, 724, 726-727, 751-752, 755, 762, 764, 769, 783, 799, 834-835, 874, 891, 915-916, 923-924, 926, 961, 987, 1007, 1009, 1011, 1027-1030, 1032-1033, 1036, 1038, 1041, 1044-1046, 1048-1049, 1051, 1061-1062, 1065-1067, 1071-1072, 1075, 1086, 1093, 1133-1134, 1136, 1138, 1145, 1165, 1169, 1190, 1228, 1260, 1268, 1284, 1287, 1290, 1292, 1302-1303, 1336, 1345, 1362, 1367, 1369, 1371, 1382, 1389, 1399-1400, 1408 Storytelling 201, 207, 209, 226, 233-234, 236, 238, 244, 335, 340-341, 345, 453, 567, 733, 775, 806, 816, 819, 822, 828, 838-839, 847, 855, 871, 920, 970-971, 987, 989, 996, 1001-1003, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1029, 1032, 1053, 1069, 1119, 1129, 1132, 1142-1144, 1147, 1156, 1158-1159, 1161, 1164, 1168-1169, 1175, 1189, 1206, 1224, 1330, 1348, 1400, 1407, 1426 Symbiosis 130, 176, 183, 187, 193, 214, 225, 307, 379, 388, 401, 463, 508, 540, 551, 567, 595, 621-622, 630, 648, 664, 751, 778, 854, 857, 878, 881, 891, 939, 946, 987, 1000, 1002, 1015, 1037, 1051-1052, 1060-1061, 1081, 1136-1137, 1144, 1161, 1168, 1186, 1201, 1206, 1208, 1216, 1227, 1250, 1276, 1364-1365, 1394, 1400, 1415, 1482 Synchronicity 296, 345, 380, 395, 495, 538, 542, 615, 640, 722, 726, 924, 980, 994, 1049, 1062, 1075, 1080, 1331, 1335, 1365

713 Syncretism 571, 745, 764, 788, 870, 872, 889, 926, 934, 941, 1366, 1379, 1411-1412, 1429 Textgemäss (Text-compliant; Text-immanent) 6, 36, 98, 110, 136, 159, 201, 221, 238, 341-342, 371, 395, 430, 506, 508, 662, 664, 687, 697, 724, 903, 916, 922, 932, 985, 987, 1017, 1025, 1032, 1036, 1165, 1168, 1214, 1250, 1339 Tradition History 6, 120, 122, 124, 127, 138, 159, 180, 184, 189, 193, 206, 212, 214, 222, 237, 238, 244, 266267, 278-280, 282, 289, 291, 308-309, 317, 326, 328, 330, 341, 347, 360, 363, 368, 371, 373376, 380, 400, 425-426, 430, 432, 443-444, 447, 449, 460-461, 488, 500, 517, 525, 531, 534535, 540-542, 551, 563, 565, 571, 585-587, 591-592, 594-595, 604, 606, 613-614-615, 625626, 628-632, 635-636, 648, 651, 653-654, 657, 659, 661, 664, 666, 672-673, 677, 679, 684, 691, 700, 702, 708, 725-726, 729, 740, 746, 751, 759, 775, 778, 782-785, 793, 797-798, 803, 805-808, 814-816, 821, 823, 825-826, 829, 834-836, 840, 846-847, 853-855, 861, 863, 865, 873, 879, 884-885, 889-892, 894-895, 897-902, 907, 911, 913, 915-916, 918, 920-921, 932934, 936-937, 939-940, 944, 946, 948-949, 960, 985-987, 1002, 1007, 1013, 1018, 10321033, 1036, 1048-1051, 1053, 1056-1057, 1061, 1063, 1065, 1068-1069, 1074-1075, 1077, 1082, 1084, 1088, 1091, 1095, 1099, 1106-1108, 1112, 1128-1129, 1132-1133, 1142-1143, 1148, 1155-1156, 1158-1160, 1170, 1172, 1174, 1177-1180, 1183, 1185-1187, 1205, 12111212, 1214, 1216, 1218, 1221, 1226-1227, 1240, 1254, 1256, 1260, 1294, 1300, 1305, 13251326, 1334, 1340, 1344, 1346-1347, 1349-1350, 1353, 1362, 1365, 1373, 1379, 1385, 1387, 1397, 1403, 1408, 1416, 1428 Typology 218-219, 653, 892, 894, 1158 Umwelt (surrounding Peoples) 177, 268, 653, 658-659, 714, 725, 728, 735, 740-741, 743-746, 750-751, 753, 755, 761, 764, 768, 771, 775, 777, 804-806, 823, 833, 854, 859, 872, 908, 924, 936, 941, 944, 946, 949, 964, 1130, 1147, 1158-1159, 1166, 1184-1185, 1187-1188, 1201-1202, 1207, 1209-1210, 1214, 1216, 1223, 1227, 1230, 1294, 1324, 1326-1327, 1329, 1331, 1335, 1348, 1366, 1373, 1379, 1385, 1389, 1422, 1425 Vorverständnis (inherent Understanding) 60, 104, 106-107, 111-112, 129, 137, 153, 168, 205, 214, 251, 273, 347, 359, 366, 374, 376, 379-380, 383, 395, 402, 404, 407, 416, 418, 426, 429, 437, 439, 446, 453, 458-459, 462, 465, 478, 507-508, 523, 552, 658, 662, 679, 697-698, 700, 702, 711, 737, 1005, 1021, 1031, 1043, 1063, 1081, 1158, 1163-1165, 1176, 1245, 1287, 1295 Wirkungsgeschichte 75, 356-357, 359, 418, 481, 666 Writing (Scribes) 36, 62, 68, 83, 538, 556, 563, 566-567, 580, 582, 592, 594-595, 606, 626, 630, 646, 653-654, 657-659, 661, 665-666, 673-674, 685, 696, 702, 705, 708, 719, 721, 725, 729, 740, 746, 748, 751, 753, 755, 771, 775, 799, 804, 806-808, 816, 827, 835-840, 851, 873, 878, 897, 903, 909, 916, 927, 930, 940-942, 1013, 1018, 1024, 1032-1033, 1049-1051, 1053, 1060-1062, 1065, 1068, 1071, 1081, 1090, 1094, 1097, 1115, 1120, 1132, 1141-1142, 1146, 1148, 1168, 1213, 1224, 1227, 1353, 1369, 1382, 1392, 1394, 1399, 1413, 1417, 1421, 1424

714 Yahwist Dynamism 127, 313, 380, 401, 501, 503, 606, 622, 630, 636, 658, 744, 746, 777, 781, 806-808, 816, 842, 851, 875, 884, 902-903, 946, 964, 987, 1003, 1005, 1008, 1015, 1052-1053, 1055, 1059, 1081, 1083, 1087, 1092, 1116, 1123, 1128, 1137, 1172, 1174-1175, 1179, 1205, 1218, 1220, 1317, 1350, 1354, 1373, 1379, 1388-1389, 1391, 1393, 1420