34 1.3.4 Archaeology and Legal Studies

34

35

Wide divergence exists among scholars regarding the origin and developmental history of the literature of the Hebrew Bible.

¹⁶⁷

The debate has implications for the study of

revealed law, and will therefore figure significantly in subsequent chapters of this

dissertation. The following summarizes two leading continental theories of the origin the larger unities as summarized by E. Zenger:

1. The majority of the tradition-unities originate in the late preexilic period—temporally in the middle of the seventh century and theologically in the intellectual horizon of the Josianic reform movement (cf. P. Weimar and E. Zenger’s so-called Münster Pentateuch model).

2. P created the historical arc (Geschichtsbogen) of the Pentateuch in the early postexilic, and thus Persian, period. Notable advocates include K. Schmid, E. Blum, E. Otto, and R.

G. Kratz.

¹⁶⁸

P

^g

(das Priestergrundschrift)

This study advocates the latter theory, some of the proponents of which envision P

^g

, the fundamental document of the priestly source, as the conceiver of a three-part, embryonic Pentateuch structure consisting of an Urgeschichte (Adam-Noah), ancestral narrative (Abraham-Jacob), and the Moses-Exodus narrative.

¹⁶⁹

The P Grundschrift makes possible the first narratival realization of the tripartite configuration.

¹⁷⁰

Accordingly,

167 “Über eine argumentative nachvollziehbare und im Kontext der Theologiegeschichte Israels plausible Datierung gehen derzeit die Meinungen auseinander” (ibid.). Cf. Schmid, Erzväter, 273ff.

168 Zenger, “Theorien,” 98; but see Römer, “Périphérie,” 10: “Un dernier déplacement important de la recherche récente sur le Pentateuque concerne la question des modalités d’une première édition de la Torah dans la deuxième partie de l’époque perse. Il y a presque unanimité sur cette date” (secondary emphasis).

In his dating of the development of P from start to finish (which includes both his Priestly Torah and Holiness School sources) from first temple times to the time of the return from Babylon, Knohl (Sanctuary, 201 and n. 5; 202f) seeks to reconcile the sharply diverging dating of sources of J. Wellhausen and Y.

Kaufmann. For Knohl it is the time of the reigns of Kings Ahaz and Hezekiah that H was written: “It would seem, thus, that the religious, social, and political conditions under the reign of Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judea most closely correspond to the picture that emerges from the Holiness Code. It would seem that the change in Priestly circles that led to the rise of HS took place at this time.” Of the many beneficial proposals submitted in Knohl’s monograph, we do not find the Hezekian dating of his holiness school and H particularly convincing.

169 Cf. Römer: “Il est cependant devenu extrêmement difficile d’envisager un document, voire une tradition antérieure à P, qui aurait contenu tout le fil narratif du Pentateuque (origines, Patriarches, exode, Sinaï, désert [conquête]) (“Périphérie,” 4).

170 Cf. Christophe L. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (vol. II/25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007),11-12: “‘Pg’ is now usually understood as a narrative

36

historically focused, diachronic analyses of the Pentateuch need concern themselves with (a) the linguistic, divergent (argumentative), and thematic relationships between the laconic P

^g

and (b) obtaining a more accurate view of its literary and conceptual contours.

That the authors are priests seems certain.

¹⁷¹

But what does P

^g

assume? What does it most likely initiate?

¹⁷²

Further down the literary path of development, what should then be viewed as post-priestly?

¹⁷³

Research on the Priestly Writing invariably comes up against the problem of

delineating difference between and interconnections of P

^g

and P

^s

(die Ergänzungsschrift, a later expansion of P

^g

).

¹⁷⁴

Moreover, do priestly texts in which law predominates

¹⁷⁵

actually constitute the main grid of the Pentateuch? Imbedded in affirmative answers to this question is usually a conviction that P

^g

offers the most certainty and fewest

exceptions.

¹⁷⁶

Frevel’s reluctant assessment “P

^g

für manche die ‘letzte Bastion’ der

klassichen Quellenscheidung ist”

¹⁷⁷

rings true.

source exclusively, and the presence of ritual details is even regularly used as a literary criterion for identifying secondary material in P—not an unproblematic model if one thinks that the massive presence of cultic themes and terminology was traditionally considered a decisive feature for isolating P among the other traditions of the Pentateuch.”

171 Karl Elliger, “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung,” ZTK 49 (1952): 121-22, 130.

172 Nihan entertains the likelihood of P’s account of the ancestors serving as a systematic “political program” for Israelites upon their return to the land (Christophe L. Nihan, “From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus” (Lausanne University, 2005), 374, hereafter referred to as “Dissertation.”

173 Cf. Albert de Pury, “Gottesname, Gottesbezeichnung und Gottesbegriff ‘Elohim als Indiz zur

Enstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. Gertz, et al.; vol. 315 of BZAW; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 25-47, 30f.; cf.

Zenger, “Theorien,” 98f.

174 “Auch darüber gehen die Meinungen nicht auseinander, daß die Priesterschrift literarisch eine komplexe Größe darstellt, insofern eine Grundschrift Pg durch Zutaten verschiedener Hände Ps erweitert worden ist”

(Elliger, “Sinn,” 121); Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) places the P^s additions in the general categories of matters pertaining to atonement and the forgiveness of sins; cf. Alfred Marx, “The Theology of Sacrifice,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (ed. R. Rendtorff and R. Kugler (with the assistance of S. Bartel); vol. 193 of VTSup; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 103-20, 111, who also places atonement outside of the core of the sacrificial cult.

175 Otto Eißfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 207, dates the legislation to the exilic period; P moreover presupposes a central cult, which requires a date subsequent to D (ibid.).

176 Nonetheless, the fragmentary nature of P poses serious problems for understanding its sacrificial system;

cf. Alfred Marx, Les systèmes sacrificiels de l’Ancient Testament: Formes et fonctions du culte sacrificiel à Yhwh (vol. 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 30: “Le fragmentation excessive de P a constitué un très lourd handicap pour l’analyse de son système sacrificiel”; see Marx’s meticulous summary on pp. 30-40, in which he emphasizes the sophisticated literary techniques of P. “Although P’s presentation of the sacrificial system may not be exhaustive, this ensemble is nonetheless extremely precise. Indeed, by the skilful play of introductory formulas and differentiated conclusions and other markers of discourse or stereotypical

37