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.
204 KONRAD SCHMID
derstanding its different parts. But the notion of open promises per
se is not a problem within the context of biblical literature; otherwise
the books of Isaiah or Jeremiah would need to be characterized as
being incomplete too. Baden expects an independent non-priestly
patriarchal story to narrate how the forefathers of Israel came into
possession of the land — why should they? If we distinguish be-
tween the world of the narrative and the world of the narrators, then
it makes perfect sense in historical terms to reckon with a patriarchal
story containing open, unfulfilled promises. Of course, such a notion
is especially plausible when the patriarchal stories as structured by
the promises are seen in a post-720 or post-587 B.C.E. historical con-
text. Once the land is lost, it can become the subject of promises.
Outside the Pentateuch, the texts in Deutero-Isaiah, for example,
seem to presuppose exactly such a theological shape for the patri-
archal story. Deutero-Isaiah makes a clear distinction between the
exodus tradition that has become obsolete and is no longer to be re-
membered (Isa 43,16-21) and the patriarchal tradition that remains
a valid and reliable theological argument (see, e.g., Isa 41,8-10).
Why is this distinction necessary? Due to the loss of the land in the
wake of the catastrophe in 587 B.C.E, the exodus tradition lost its
theological significance; it has been nullified. This is different for the
patriarchal tradition; because it contains an open promise of the land,
it still can be propagated as a valid theological perspective.
But does the end of the book of Genesis, which plays out in
Egypt, not demonstrate that it was aimed at a continuation in the
book of Exodus? In diachronic terms, it bears little significance that
the present text of Genesis 50 concludes in Egypt. As such, Gene-
sis 50 constitutes a bridge to the following exodus story. The ques-
tion, however, is: how old, in terms of literary history, is this bridge?
I do not want to present possible solutions to that problem here, but
suffice it to say that the problem of the textual growth of Genesis 50
is a debated one 33. And as Genesis and Exodus in their present shape
are linked as a continuous narrative, it is only to be expected that the
fringes of these books were reworked in order to fit together.
In addition, Baden also thinks that the exodus story cannot do
without Genesis as introduction: “Similarly, the non-priestly exo-
See e.g. J.C. GERTZ, “The Transition between the Books of Genesis and
33
Exodusâ€, A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in
Recent European Interpretation (eds. T.B. DOZEMAN – K. SCHMID) (SBLSympS
34; Atlanta, GA 2006) 73-87.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati