Biblical Evidence of Ancient Redaction

37 1.3.6 The Complexity of the Sinai Complex

1.3.10 En Route to the Hexateuch Redaction

1.3.10.3 Biblical Evidence of Ancient Redaction

There may actually be a text in Proverbs that describes redactional work being carried out by ancient Israelite scribes. In his reading of the superscription of Prov 25:1, Leo Perdue accurately renders the hip’il stem of קתע ) וקיתעה) as “redact.” Persuasive contextual

258 Hagedorn, “Taking the Pentateuch,” 54.

259 Ska, Introduction, 94.

260 Cf. Thomas C. Römer, “How Many Books (TEUCHS)? Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. T. Dozeman, et al.SBLAIIL; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 25-42, 29- 32. His affirmation of the HexRed and PentRed and those that apply similar models is explicit: “Therefore, E. Otto, R. Achenbach, and others are right in distinguishing within the Torah a ‘hexateuchal redaction’

and a ‘pentateuchal redaction.’ According to this model, an important number of texts that were formerly considered ‘Yahwistic’ and ‘Deuteronomistic’ are now attributed to the hexateuchal or pentateuchal redactors” (ibid., 30-31).

A leader in the merging of archaeology and diachronic, redaction-historical research, Ernst Axel Knauf,

“Toward an Archaeology of the Hexateuch,” 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), 275-94, 276, n. 3 and passim, reckons with “empirical evidence” supporting the notion of a Hexateuch. In instances when corroborative evidence is lacking, “this is by no means implying that no historical data at all can be retrieved from literary texts” (ibid.).

55

support accompanies this linguistic decision in the demarcated “sections” comprising the canonical book of Proverbs:

The verb refers literally to the moving of sayings from one place to another and identifies the “Men of Hezekiah” as editors of collections of texts, a role played by Qoheleth (see Qoh. 12:9-12). The plural construct noun ישנא … refers to those who were in the administrative service of King Hezekiah, in this case court scribes who had the responsibility of assembling, archiving, and transmitting proverbs and other

literary materials that were part of the ideology supporting the reign of the monarch.

²⁶¹

1.3.10.4 Yes to Isaiah but No to the Pentateuch?

Continuing the contemplation of the merit of diachronic, redaction methods, the

prevailing consensus regarding the large blocks in Isaiah also speaks in their favor.

²⁶²

The broad agreement obtaining today with respect to the basic historical and textual

differences between, say, First and Second Isaiah (cf. also Third Isaiah) can be said to have begun in the late nineteenth century with the seminal work of Bernard Duhm.

²⁶³

Since that time not only scholars but also many general readers with a modicum of exposure to authorship issues with Isaiah have come to embrace aspects of the view that

261 Perdue, Sword and Stylus, 95, secondary emphasis. In spite of the historical problems associating this text with an eighth-century Hezekiah, stripping the literary activity so described of its claims to historical viability seems an incautious enterprise. For detailed, compelling arguments that the widespread

redactional activity in cuneiform literature forms the likely backdrop for similar activities in the editing of the Covenant Code, see Levinson, Chorale, 293-306.

For the “very close relationship” between Hezekiah and Levites in a cultic context (2 Chr 29–31) in a

“later level”of Chronicles,” see Labahn, “Antitheocratic Tendencies,” 118. Against commentators and translations that render בל־לע רבד Chr 30:22 as “encourage,” “speak encouragingly to” (= most Eng. trr.) she opts a more vibrantly relational rendering of םיולה־לכ בל־לע והיקזחי רבדיו: “Hezekiah spoke to the heart of the Levites” (cf. Vg: et locutus est Ezechias ad cor omnium Levitarum; Luth: “und Hiskia redete herzlich mit allen Leviten”; ZUR: “und Jechiskijahu sprach zum Herzen aller Leviten,” R-Val: “y habló Ezequías al corazón de todos los levitas”; perhaps also TOB: “Les paroles d’Ezékias touchèrent le coeur de tous les lévites”). Labahn notes the conspicuous non-mention of priests in this cultic context. “The kings assign specific tasks to the Levites and this shows that the kings regard the Levites as standing in a special relationship to themselves, which marks them off from the priests” (ibid.). “The sovereign acts in a way which was expected of the priests who themselves have nearly disappeared from the scene or play just a very limited role. Thus, the cultic responsibility of the Levites is bound to the king and not to the priests”

(ibid., 117, emphasis added). “The Levites were set in close relationship to the king and put at a distance from the priests” (ibid., 119). One can assume that such a special relationship between the Davidide and his intensely faithful functionaries (2 Chr 30:18b) would carry with it important, perhaps delicate (e.g., intertribal and international dealings) literary responsibilities, which calls to mind the post-dtr text of Deut 17:18, and perhaps 31:9 (in which case the Moses figure would represent the priestly sovereign); see

§§5.1.1; 5.6.1-2; n. 1321 within the context of §4.14; see also n. 1350.

262 Cf. also Ezek 40–48, widely believed to be a substantially later, non-Mosaic, revealed legal code. See Mark A. Christian, Torah Beyond Sinai: A Study of the Plurality of Law and Lawgivers in the Hebrew Bible, forthcoming.

263 Bernard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). Ibn Ezra is gratefully acknowledged as having made early, cryptic comments on the authorship of Isaiah and the Pentateuch.

56

the ensemble Isa 1–66 comprises either two or three diachronic-thematic blocks (chs. 1–

39; 40–66; [or 40–55; 56–66]). Unless a priori rejecting any notion of multiple authorship of biblical text, it has been my observation that Isaiah enthusiasts find the general idea of the contrasting historical circumstances and contexts out of which 1–39 and 40–55 likely emerged helpful.

²⁶⁴

If one accepts the notion of a bi- or tripartite Isaianic corpus, the rejection of corresponding hypotheses of post-dtr and post-P formations of the Hexateuch and Pentateuch needs to be explained.

²⁶⁵

It seems an inconsistency to accept the complex, literary-historical “discoveries” in Isaianic research

²⁶⁶

while simultaneously looking askance upon continuing advances made in other large textual constellations, even those within the Pentateuch.

The benefits of source criticism and redactional analysis did not exhaust themselves during the “golden years” from, say, Wellhausen to Eißfeldt

²⁶⁷

).

²⁶⁸

Although attempts to

264 Recent Isaianic research has demonstrated editorial work (e.g., redaction, Bearbeitung, Fortschreibung) at the latter and final stages of the literary development of the sixty-six book corpus.

265 With his synchronic description of the relationizing (Relationierung) of the Jacob and Moses trad in Deut 31–34, Jean-Pierre Sonnet, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 200-34 discovers the tracks and footprints left behind by the post-dtr redactions of HexRed and Pentred.

These chapters have in view not only Deuteronomy but indeed the whole of the Pentateuch, and in some respects even form the basis of the Hebrew Bible canon. With the conclusion of Joshua by PentRed the conclusion of the Pentateuch opens up and desires to be continued. The deeds of Joshua are interpreted negatively in Judg 1:1—2:5 and in the horizon of PentRed integrated into a context of the failed history of Josh--2 Kgs. Once again the reader yearns for a positive continuation, which (re)commences intentionally and prophetically in Isa 1, which simultaneously leans legally backward to the Torah and points

prophetically forward toward the future, in hopes of finding fulfillment of the promises of the past. In synchronic terms, a “canonical interpretation” presents itself as a “kanonische Auslegung interpretiert die Addressaten von Tora und Prophetenkanon im Horizont der Vorderen Propheten in der Erwartung der messianischen Zukunft” (Otto, DPH, 270-72 and nn. 108-112; German quote from n. 112).

266 Following Lohfink, Otto deals with the later stages of the formation and reaching the canonical form of Isaiah in the 2^nd century BCE and its significance for the Torah. Parallel texts such as Isa 1:2//Deut 32:1;

Isa 1:10//Deut 29:22f suggest that the opening of the book of Isaiah ties directly to Deuteronomy (DPH, 272). “Therewith the former prophets of Josh to 2 Kgs within the prophetic canon become a negative foil for the corpus propheticum beginning with Isaiah that extends from Isaiah to Malachi, which has for a theme the future fulfillment of the promises of the Torah. A canonical reading of Deuteronomy in the horizon of the torah of the Pentateuch dovetailing with the prophetic canon [der mit dem Prophetenkanon verzahnten Tora] interpreting the context of positive foundational history of Israel in the Pentateuch, failed history in the former prophets, and the hope in a messianic future in the corpus propheticum in the horizon of the second century, was absorbed into the chronological system in the Pentateuch” (ibid.).

267 I am speaking here of what I take to be a common north American perspective familiar with the best- selling works translated into English of these two highwater marks within literary-critical and historical research. It may however be that familiarity with Eißfeldt’s massively erudite Introduction to the Old Testament, auspiciously and judiciously translated by Peter Ackroyd in 1964, has decreased in the past two decades in the wake of the spate of new introductions.

57

tie together otherwise disparate themes and traditions do not always pan out on the literary plane,

²⁶⁹

redactional theories pursuing the interpretation of expansive—

particularly canon-traversing themes—merit continued, careful attention on a case by case basis.

In the case of Eckart Otto, as one works their way through his voluminous,

interconnecting studies published over several decades, the logic of his incrementally developing theses becomes evident. Although their complexity sometimes leads to their rejection, in view of the progression of his combining of diachronic and synchronic approaches, the extrication of the ribars running through his (re)construction of

Deuteronomy and the significant roles it plays in the development of the Hexateuch and Pentateuch is not easily accomplished.

²⁷⁰

The distillation and in some respects

culmination of decades of work on Deuteronomy is observable in Das Deuteronomium im Hexateuch und Pentateuch, which provides a convenient summary with helpful tables

268 A measure of justification for more complex redactional approaches also meets us in the growing number of texts manifesting the literary involvement of both “Deuteronomistic” and “Priestly” tradents.

Further, even when the difference between those two lines has been plotted, there remain unaligned strands or fragments. There is evidence in Numbers, for example, to suggest that post-P redactors combined P with non-P traditions. The book itself may be a post-P composition (this position is advocated by Nihan as well;

see the main text comments below, §1.3.11.3). In general, the unexplained textual Fund left over after traditional assignment to “Deuteronomistic” and “Priestly” texts “seems to be one of the main problems for the present discussion on the Pentateuch” (Reinhard Achenbach, “The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God and the Redactional Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch,” in A Critical Study of the Pentateuch. An Encounter Between Europe and Africa [ed. E. Otto and J. LeRoux; vol. 20 of ATM;

Münster: Lit Verlag, 2005], 126-51, 127, n. 8; cf. idem, “gescheiterten Landnahme,” 60, n. 24: “the categories ‘P’ and ‘dtr’ are not as such sufficient to unlock the redaction events encompassing both circles of tradition in the Pentateuch”). One might add that the plotting of such lines does not constitute a futile exercise, since detailed engagement with the text at this level always stands to bring out multiple voices that otherwise tend to remain muted behind the dominant “line” or “thread” (cf. in some instances the difference between the surface and deep structure of a text). The attempts at dividing a text according to (im)probable historical contexts also produce argumentation that increase the valid vantage points from which to view the texts, e.g., foregrounding the socioreligious thought-worlds ostensibly lying behind them. Do texts such as, e.g., Deut 7:6; 14:2 suggest themselves as a nation-al self-perception of a subjugated people subsisting during the period of the Babylonian exile? In the case of Numbers,

Achenbach (Vollendung) is to be credited with a precise chronology of the post-P redactions (cf. Nihan’s assessment in “Mort de Moïse,” 150).

It should be also pointed out that facets of Dead Sea Scroll research at times appear to turn on an argument regarding the reconstruction of a few markings on a crumbling surface piece of papyrus. Does artifactual evidence truly and always deserve to take precedence over “more subjective” historical-literary based on internal analysis? An archaeology of the text judiciously informed by external considerations still, I would argue, deserves a spacious place in the empirical sun.

269 Cf. Nihan, “Mort de Moïse,” 153.

270 Decrying the Otto/Achenbach model because of its complexity seems an imprudent rationale for its rejection.

58

and illustrations in the final chapter entitled Vom Deuteronomium zur Tora im Kanon der Hebräischen Bibel.

²⁷¹

The directions Otto’s studies have taken demonstrate the scholar’s commitment to integrate synchronic methodology into diachronic analyses and speak in behalf of their relevance within the wider fields of Hebrew Bible research and ancient Near Eastern legal studies.

²⁷²

The scholarly partnership between Otto and former student Reinhard Achenbach—fully conversant in the sequential progression of thought in Otto’s publications and who collaborates with him on numerous projects—has generated an atmosphere of academic accountability,

²⁷³

as they do not always see eye to eye.

²⁷⁴

Although their methods and conclusions often intersect, at times converging into a single stream, divergence can nonetheless be detected at numerous points. The differences actually demonstrate the flexibility possible within the cross- and proto-canonical reconstructions that may on first blush appear rigid and inflexible.

²⁷⁵

Overall, one may

271 Unfortunately, depending on which publication one reads, Otto’s grouping of redactional layers varies, spawning new sigla that may disappear in subsequent studies. For example, whereas in his 1999 Das Deuteronomium he uses the sigla DtrH (Dtr Historiker) to describe a redaction that precedes DtrD, his 2000 Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch contains few references to DtrH.

272Otto’s conversance in Assyrian law codes also adds artifactual depth and additional probative dimensions to his analyses. See, e.g., his “Rechtsgeschichte der Redaktionen im Kodex Eshunna und im

‘Bundesbuch,’” in Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Studie zu altbabylonischen und altisraelitischen Rechtsüberlieferungen (ed. O. Keel, et al.; vol. 85 of OBO; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1989); idem, Kontinuum und Proprium: Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996; various essays by the author); idem, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (vol. 284; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000). In the latter study Otto adduces compelling religionsgeschichtlich argumentation that, similar to Moshe Weinfeld’s comparative lawcode work, defends the hypothesis of preexilic borrowing from Near Eastern texts by Israel (for a convenient précis, see Christian, “Priestly Power that Empowers,”

70f.). To be congratulated for encouraging dialogue between the broad sphere of the humanities and the unique contributions of Hebrew Bible is Bernard M. Levinson, in his monograph Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

273 There have been questions about the lack of critical checks and balances in book reviews written by Achenbach or Otto in the journal ZA(B)R.

274 It is also occasionally problematic however that Achenbach’s expertise in aspects of Otto’s complex theories sometimes assumes a level of familiarity in the latter’s work that readers may not possess. In general, the conclusions in Otto’s DPH (see also its many reviews) offer essential assistance in gaining clarification on Otto’s major theses.

275 For example, and as is noted elsewhere in this study, the two scholars sometimes differ when attributing traditions to different redactions. In general, we tend to follow Achenbach in assigning passages to HexRed that Otto would assign to the later Pentateuch redaction. Another area of divergence, whereas Otto tends to speak of the “schools” of HexRed and PentRed, respectively, in which those interpretative legacies were able to continue and develop, including post-redactional contexts, Achenbach locates editors of the post- redactional Schichten in three, successive layers contoured by theocratic revisers (Bearbeiteren). Thus in the case of the latter model, less continuity obtains between HexRed and PentRed on the one hand, later, post-redactional revisions on the other.

59

say that although the scrutiny is rigid, the details of the conclusions exhibit some flexibility. The “Otto/Achenbach Schule” has shown itself to be a powerful historical- critical collaboration, one of the most influential to emerge in recent scholarly history.

²⁷⁶

Our primary points of disagreement with Otto/Achenbach, which will be made clear as we proceed, arise primarily in their attribution of authorship of the composition and redaction of HexRed to Zadokite elites. Otto has also recently made inchoate comments about a direct connection between Zadokites and Aaronides;

²⁷⁷

here again, though, both constituencies are elites. Such preoccupation with elite priestly authorship has resulted in insufficient heed being paid to the involvement of other levels of religious leadership (e.g., middle-tier levitical priests, peripheral prophets, and perhaps even influential laity

²⁷⁸

) in the overall transmission and formulation of Israelite traditions leading to their Verschriftung.

²⁷⁹

276 Achenbach’s recent move to the faculty at the Westfählische Wilhelms Universität, Münster has availed increased collaboration with Rainier Albertz, whose views on the developmental theories of the Hexateuch and Pentateuch reflect apparent agreement with some of the broader lines of the Otto/Achenbach model, for example, regarding the importance of recognizing Deuteronomy as die literarische Wiege des Pentateuch.

277 “Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony,” 148: “For the Aaronides, according to the narrative of the Pentateuch, an unbroken continuity exits from Aaron as Moses’ brother in Egypt and at Mount Sinai on to Pinhas (Num 25,10-12) as the ancestor of the Zadokites (1 Sam 14,3; 2 Sam 8,17; 1 Chron 5,33; 6,37-38;

18,16)”; “they supplemented the Sinai pericope with Lev 17-26, which was to be transmitted orally by the Aaronide priests, who were at that time at the end of the 5th or early 4th century BCE ‘disguised’

Zadokites” (ibid., 149); in a footnote connecting with the first quote (ibid., 148, n. 49), he states “Here the priestly authors of the Pentateuch built a direct bridge between the Mosaic narrated time and their

postexilic time of narration of the fifth and early fourth century BCE”; cf. idem., “Tora für eine neue Generation in Dtn 4: Die hermeneutische Theologie des Numeruswechsels in Deuteronomium 4,1-40,” in Tora für eine neue Generation (ed. G. Fischer, et al.; vol. 17 of BZAR; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 105-22, 117-20; cf. ibid., 118: “Die hermeneutische Konzeption des Deuteronomiums identifiziert die Zweite Generation in der erzählten Zeit des Moses mit den Adressaten des Deuteronomiums seit der nachexilischen Zeit als der Erzählzeit.”

278 Regarding lay involvement in the production of Israelite literature, Otto appears to think in terms of all or nothing: “There is no sufficient reason for the hypothesis that Deuteronomy and the so-called

Deuteronomistic literature was written by laymen.” One wonders if the same would be true regarding the multiphase literary development of the Psalms and other “songs” in the Hebrew Bible. The enigmatic (for this context) statement follows: “A historical-critically diachronic approach to the Pentateuch should not renounce the message of its synchronically-read narrative” (ibid., 148, n. 50; 150, n. 58: “Any diachronic analysis needs a synchronic reading of the different literary layers if the literary-critical results are to be convincing”; cf. idem, “Synchronical,” 15 et passim, where Otto sets forth his notion of the “time of narration” vs. “narrated time”: “The plot of the final Pentateuch demanded a reader who did not only differentiate between narrated time and time of narration and count with several authors of the pentateuchal narratives, but differentiated also between the written Sinai-Torah and its Mosaic interpretation in

Deuteronomy.”). With such hearing/reading competence expected of the laity, one would think that those among them benefitting from moderate training could attain to involvement in a meaningful aspect of the literary process (cf. Christian, “Priestly Power that Empowers”).

279 An attempt to provide a more complete picture of the cross-pollination of priestly and other views greets readers briefly in the final chapter of Otto’s DPH (261f. and n. 82), as the author points out the wisdom