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.
200 KONRAD SCHMID
fore, as part of an independent non-priestly text†(178-179). I
strongly disagree. If we have a look at the most important texts in
this respect, Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4, then Genesis 15 can be
convincingly interpreted as a reception of Genesis 17 (P). The same
is true for Exodus 3–4 with regard to Exod 6,2-8 (P). These texts
demonstrate intimate knowledge of P, but, as reinterpretations, they
also differ conceptually from P. Let’s first have a look at Genesis
15. The wording of Gen 15,14-15 (rkÅ¡; Å›ybh á¹wbh) uses language
that is characteristic for P (cf. Gen 12,5; 13,6; 31,18; 46,6 and 25,8),
Abraham’s exodus out of Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 15,7) is remi-
niscent of Gen 11,28 (P); the interpretation of the donation of the
land as “covenant†(Gen 15,18) is otherwise only attested in P texts
(Gen 17,7-8; Exod 6,4). I do not think it is simpler to explain away
these connections than to concede them. In terms of content, the
similarity of Genesis 15 to Genesis 17 is also striking. Abraham re-
ceives a promise of progeny. But his reaction is different: in Gene-
sis 17, he laughs, in Genesis 15, he believes. In my opinion, it is
easier to interpret Genesis 15 as an orthodox reception of Genesis 17
than to interpret Genesis 17 as a heterodox reception of Genesis 15.
To deny any process of reception between the two texts as a third al-
ternative seems to be the least convincing option given their the-
matic similarities and their literary proximity.
In Exod 3,7.9, there are close links to the wording of Exod 2,23-
25 (P). The cry of the Israelites in Exod 3,7.9 that YHWH hears has
previously only been reported in Exod 2,23b. But above all, the
theme of Exodus 3–4 is the same as in Exod 6,2-8. What is espe-
cially striking is that Exodus 3–4 integrates the problems that Ex-
odus 6 unfolds in a narrative way after the call of Moses. The
narrative account of the Israelite people not listening to Moses in
Exod 6 is stated as a problem by Moses in Exodus 3, even though
he has not yet talked to the Israelites. In addition Exodus 3 changes
the location of the call of Moses to the holy mountain, which is
more likely to be a secondary setting for the commission of Moses
when compared to its location in the land of Egypt in Exodus 6 25.
According to Baden’s most recent publication, we seem to agree
at least on the assumption that the compilation of the sources of the
Pentateuch was not the last step in its composition: “The Docu-
See the detailed discussion in SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 66-
25
71, 182-192.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati