Konrad Schmid, «Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel», Vol. 93 (2012) 187-208
This paper is a response to Joel Baden’s article, which claims that the material in Genesis and Exodus was already literarily connected within the independent J and E documents. I suggest an alternative approach that has gained increased acceptance, especially in European scholarship. The ancestral stories of Genesis on the one hand and the Moses story in Exodus and the following books on the other hand were originally autonomous literary units, and it was only through P that they were connected conceptually and literarily.
GENESIS AND EXODUS AS TWO FORMERLY INDEPENDENT TRADITIONS 199
Baden’s strong rhetoric that the “supposedly post-priestly pas-
sages agree entirely with the non-priestly text in which they are now
embedded†or that they “are completely in line with the non-priestly
text (176)†— note the qualifications “entirely†and “completely†—
require direct support from the texts. From my perspective, Genesis
15 never really fits the paradigm of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Furthermore, Exodus 3–4 was seen by Martin Noth as an “addition
in J†(!) 22. Finally, Genesis 22 would be another example. In addi-
tion, Genesis 15 and 22 were both traditionally deemed to be E texts
and both employ the Tetragrammaton, which is not really support-
ive of such an assignment (see e.g. Gen 15,1; Gen 22,11.14-16), al-
though Baden does not assign texts to E primarily on the basis of
their use of “Elohimâ€; he also takes other elements into account. To
my mind Genesis 15; 22 and Exodus 3–4 are post-priestly texts that
presuppose P and are not in line with other non-priestly texts 23. Fur-
thermore, the assumption whereby Baden seems to reduce the notion
of post-P texts to “one†thoroughgoing post-Priestly redactional
layer in the Pentateuch requires critical discussion. Again, such an
assumption might be a possible result, but if the literary evidence
suggests otherwise, and I think it does, then a variety of post-priestly
texts with different literary horizons and different theological con-
ceptions needs to be distinguished 24. As a result, it is only to be ex-
pected that these post-P texts differ in terms of their theological
profile, their language and their relation to P. Baden’s own alterna-
tive seems inconclusive to me: “The passages that link the non-
priestly patriarchal and exodus narratives — which demonstrate no
knowledge of P, which contradict P regularly, and which are entirely
in accord with the non-priestly text — make the best sense, there-
M. NOTH, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Chico, CA 1981) 31-
22
32, n. 103.
For Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4 see the arguments below and, in more
23
detail, SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 158-182, for Genesis 22 see
K. SCHMID, “Die Rückgabe der Verheißungsgabe. Der ‘heilsgeschichtliche’
Sinn von Genesis 22 im Horizont innerbiblischer Exegeseâ€, Gott und Mensch
im Dialog. Festschrift Otto Kaiser (ed. M. WITTE) (BZAW 345/I; Berlin – New
York 2004) 271-300.
The recent study of C. BERNER, Die Exoduserzählung. Das literarische
24
Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73; Tübingen 2010), however,
oversteps the evidence; see my review in ZAW 123 (2010) 292-294.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati