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.
202 KONRAD SCHMID
There are other observations that are relevant here, and especially
John Van Seters would not intend to deny a literary connection be-
tween Genesis and Exodus in the pre-priestly literature, although he
did so for the pre-deuteronomistic literature. At any rate, he chal-
lenges, in my mind correctly, the notion that the patriarchal stories
and the exodus narrative were combined from the very beginning of
Israel’s tradition history.
Already Baden’s starting point for his argument is questionable
because “D†is an exegetical assumption implying a specific histori-
cal setting. Apparently, for Baden, texts like Deuteronomy 1–3; 4; 5–
11; 12–26; etc. all belong to the same literary corpus, i.e., “Dâ€,
originating from the monarchic period. To put it cautiously, this is a
very bold presupposition. Just to pick out some examples: there are
good reasons to see Deuteronomy 4 as a post-priestly section in its
context. Michael Fishbane earlier argued for the dependence of at least
Deut 4,16-19 on Gen 1,1-2,4a 29, and the historical summaries in Deut
10,22 and 26,5 (referred to by Baden on p. 184) are not very likely to
be pre-Priestly texts either 30. It will, however, be difficult to reach a
consensus about the redaction history of the book of Deuteronomy, but
I would insist, against Baden’s position, that Deuteronomy includes a
significant number of textual portions that belong to the exilic and
Persian periods 31. Therefore, the argument that possible references to
the “fathers†always implied the patriarchs and are scattered through-
out the book does not carry much weight. For the final shape of the
book of Deuteronomy, it is clear that the reader should identify the
“fathers†with the patriarchs of Genesis, but this is a canonical and
not a literary-historical understanding of the book.
To further support such a historical differentiation, it is especially
helpful to broaden the horizon beyond the book of Deuteronomy. In
the “Deuteronomistic corpus†from Joshua to Kings, there are only
M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985)
29
321-322.
On Deut 26,5 see esp. J.C. GERTZ, “Die Stellung des kleinen geschichtli-
30
chen Credos in der Redaktionsgeschichte von Deuteronomium und Pentateuchâ€,
Liebe und Gebot. Studien zum Deuteronomium. Festschrift für Luther Perlitt
(eds. R.G. KRATZ – H. SPIECKERMANN) (FRLANT 190; Göttingen 2000) 30-45;
SKA, Introduction, 196-197; for both texts T. RÖMER, “Nachwortâ€, N. LOHFINK,
Die Väter Israels, 120-121.
See e.g. E. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumâ€, RGG4 II, 693-696; SCHMID, “The
31
Late Persian Formation of the Torahâ€, 236-245.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati