Tuesdays Are for the Old Testament
1/16/24
Lessing, R. Reed, & Steinmann, Andrew E. (2014). "Chapter One: The Old Testament Canon." In Prepare the Way of the Lord: An Introduction to the Old Testament. pp. 1-12. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
The first five books of the Old Testament, as organized both in Jewish and Christian tradition, are the same, and are considered foundational to the entire Old Testament (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 13). They take us from the creation through the death of Moses, depicting God gathering a chosen people and giving them a series of promises. Scholarly debate about the origin of the Pentateuch has been lively, as Lessing and Steinmann will discuss.
The Pentateuch was ascribed to Moses since the earliest times (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 13). Lessing and Steinmann observe that Moses would have been well qualified to compose the work. The Exodus, in 1446 B.C., happened when Moses was about 80 years old. This places his upbringing in the royal household of Egypt at a time when Egypt was an international power with extensive opportunity for influential people to receive an education (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 14). During the lengthy period in the wilderness Moses would have had opportunity to write. The Pentateuch itself indicates Moses as author of at least some materials. Lessing and Steinmann observe that other portions of the Old Testament affirm Moses as an author as well (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 15). The New Testament also cites Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, sometimes even simply referring to it as "Moses" (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 16). Lessing and Steinmann do freely acknowledge that there are a number of statements in the Pentateuch which are later additions, particularly the account of Moses' death (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 16). Ancient tradition maintained that these additions were likely the work of Joshua, who served as Moses' assistant (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 17). Most of these passages are explanatory in nature, identifying people or locations at a slightly later time.
A significant departure from this traditional understanding is known as the documentary hypothesis (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 19). In this model, enlightenment philosophers including Thomas Hobbes and Benedict Spinoza suggested Moses was not the author of most of the Pentateuch. By the mid 1700s, source criticism began to arise, with Jean Astruc taking Genesis to be compiled from a variety of sources (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 20). Astruc classified passages based on vocabulary and chronology into four categories, alleging different authorship of each category. This work of classification was continued in the 1780s by Johann Gottfried Eichorn, who divided Genesis and the start of Exodus into "J" and "E" for the Jahwist and Elohist (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 21). The division of the texts into material from different authors came to be known as the documentary hypothesis, which was later made more extreme by proposing assembly of the texts from fragments, a mode of analysis known as the "fragmentary hypothesis" (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 21). This brought in the work of a putative "redactor," an editor who pulled fragments together. This tactic was articulated at the end of the 1700s (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 22). By 1805, a fourth authorial tradition was added to J, E, and a redactor. This was "D," the Deuteronomist, who considered information and summarized it. By 1823 a "supplementary hypothesis" suggested that J, E, and D could not account for everything, so there must have been some supplementary material (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 23). While the supplementary hypothesis did not gain much ground, it did open the door to consideration of an additional element beyond J, E, and D. In the 1850s this took the form of a Leitical author, of a priestly bent. Thus we see the divisions of the Old Testament into material by J, E, D, and "P," the "priestly" source (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 24). This new documentary hypothesis gained considerable influence. It was crystallized in its current form by a series of articles, in 1876-77, followed by an influential book (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 25). Lessing and Steinmann describe the documentary hypothesis and its putative religious evolution of Israel in some detail (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 24-27).
Once the documentary hypothesis was well entrenched in scholarship, scholars began to attempt to reach behind the source documents and identify the pre-literary stages of different passages (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 27). This study became known as form criticism. Different types of sayings could be categorized according to topic, moral stance, spiritual concepts, etc. From the study of sayings, tradition criticism arose, in which the narrative cycles, such as the narrative about Abraham and Lot, would be seen as traditional units (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 29).
Lessing and Steinmann point out the speculative nature of these higher critical methods. A theory is formed, then everything is pushed into the theory (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 30). The scholars tend to be quick to dismiss any texts which are difficult to explain, and discount traditional interpretations out of hand. Lessing and Steinmann go on to provide numerous specific criticisms of the higher critical method made by more conservative scholars. In the end, the higher critical methods are highly subjective (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 31). Sources are assigned because they seem to fit. Yet no concrete evidence can be found. The dependence on vocabulary studies is problematic, as it discounts semantic range of words and authorial decisions about wording (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 32). Finally, the documentary hypothesis is philosophically dependent on the thought of Hegel and Darwin, who postulated a rigid progression of events according to necessary patterns (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 33). These philosophies are not widely accepted now, and in any case would force an anachronistic view upon Scripture.
The late 20th century has seen significant challenges to the documentary hypothesis within the world of higher criticism, as well as from conservative sources (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 34). Lessing and Steinmann discuss a number of scholars who have voiced critiques, summarizing them in brief. Interestingly enough, the critiques fall into the same categories described above, but come from sources who would be assumed to be loyal to the documentary hypothesis. In fairness, Lessing and Steinmann observe there are defenders of the documentary hypothesis still (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 38. They have not given up on their stance.
The chapter closes with a select bibliography for further reading on the Pentateuch and its origin (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 40-44).
1/16/24
Lessing, R. Reed, & Steinmann, Andrew E. (2014). "Chapter One: The Old Testament Canon." In Prepare the Way of the Lord: An Introduction to the Old Testament. pp. 1-12. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
The first five books of the Old Testament, as organized both in Jewish and Christian tradition, are the same, and are considered foundational to the entire Old Testament (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 13). They take us from the creation through the death of Moses, depicting God gathering a chosen people and giving them a series of promises. Scholarly debate about the origin of the Pentateuch has been lively, as Lessing and Steinmann will discuss.
The Pentateuch was ascribed to Moses since the earliest times (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 13). Lessing and Steinmann observe that Moses would have been well qualified to compose the work. The Exodus, in 1446 B.C., happened when Moses was about 80 years old. This places his upbringing in the royal household of Egypt at a time when Egypt was an international power with extensive opportunity for influential people to receive an education (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 14). During the lengthy period in the wilderness Moses would have had opportunity to write. The Pentateuch itself indicates Moses as author of at least some materials. Lessing and Steinmann observe that other portions of the Old Testament affirm Moses as an author as well (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 15). The New Testament also cites Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, sometimes even simply referring to it as "Moses" (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 16). Lessing and Steinmann do freely acknowledge that there are a number of statements in the Pentateuch which are later additions, particularly the account of Moses' death (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 16). Ancient tradition maintained that these additions were likely the work of Joshua, who served as Moses' assistant (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 17). Most of these passages are explanatory in nature, identifying people or locations at a slightly later time.
A significant departure from this traditional understanding is known as the documentary hypothesis (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 19). In this model, enlightenment philosophers including Thomas Hobbes and Benedict Spinoza suggested Moses was not the author of most of the Pentateuch. By the mid 1700s, source criticism began to arise, with Jean Astruc taking Genesis to be compiled from a variety of sources (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 20). Astruc classified passages based on vocabulary and chronology into four categories, alleging different authorship of each category. This work of classification was continued in the 1780s by Johann Gottfried Eichorn, who divided Genesis and the start of Exodus into "J" and "E" for the Jahwist and Elohist (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 21). The division of the texts into material from different authors came to be known as the documentary hypothesis, which was later made more extreme by proposing assembly of the texts from fragments, a mode of analysis known as the "fragmentary hypothesis" (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 21). This brought in the work of a putative "redactor," an editor who pulled fragments together. This tactic was articulated at the end of the 1700s (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 22). By 1805, a fourth authorial tradition was added to J, E, and a redactor. This was "D," the Deuteronomist, who considered information and summarized it. By 1823 a "supplementary hypothesis" suggested that J, E, and D could not account for everything, so there must have been some supplementary material (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 23). While the supplementary hypothesis did not gain much ground, it did open the door to consideration of an additional element beyond J, E, and D. In the 1850s this took the form of a Leitical author, of a priestly bent. Thus we see the divisions of the Old Testament into material by J, E, D, and "P," the "priestly" source (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 24). This new documentary hypothesis gained considerable influence. It was crystallized in its current form by a series of articles, in 1876-77, followed by an influential book (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 25). Lessing and Steinmann describe the documentary hypothesis and its putative religious evolution of Israel in some detail (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 24-27).
Once the documentary hypothesis was well entrenched in scholarship, scholars began to attempt to reach behind the source documents and identify the pre-literary stages of different passages (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 27). This study became known as form criticism. Different types of sayings could be categorized according to topic, moral stance, spiritual concepts, etc. From the study of sayings, tradition criticism arose, in which the narrative cycles, such as the narrative about Abraham and Lot, would be seen as traditional units (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 29).
Lessing and Steinmann point out the speculative nature of these higher critical methods. A theory is formed, then everything is pushed into the theory (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 30). The scholars tend to be quick to dismiss any texts which are difficult to explain, and discount traditional interpretations out of hand. Lessing and Steinmann go on to provide numerous specific criticisms of the higher critical method made by more conservative scholars. In the end, the higher critical methods are highly subjective (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 31). Sources are assigned because they seem to fit. Yet no concrete evidence can be found. The dependence on vocabulary studies is problematic, as it discounts semantic range of words and authorial decisions about wording (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 32). Finally, the documentary hypothesis is philosophically dependent on the thought of Hegel and Darwin, who postulated a rigid progression of events according to necessary patterns (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 33). These philosophies are not widely accepted now, and in any case would force an anachronistic view upon Scripture.
The late 20th century has seen significant challenges to the documentary hypothesis within the world of higher criticism, as well as from conservative sources (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 34). Lessing and Steinmann discuss a number of scholars who have voiced critiques, summarizing them in brief. Interestingly enough, the critiques fall into the same categories described above, but come from sources who would be assumed to be loyal to the documentary hypothesis. In fairness, Lessing and Steinmann observe there are defenders of the documentary hypothesis still (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 38. They have not given up on their stance.
The chapter closes with a select bibliography for further reading on the Pentateuch and its origin (Lessing & Steinmann 2014, p. 40-44).
RSS Feed