Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch

301 Pages·2006·39.814 MB·English

by  Jean-Louis Ska

Introduction to
Reading the Pentateuch

Introduction to
Reading the Pentateuch
JEAN-LOUIS SKA
Translated by Sr. Pascale Dominique
Winona Lake, Indiana
EISENBRAUNS
2006
English translation copyright © 2006 by Eisenbrauns.
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Published by agreement with Edizioni Dehoniane, Rome; this vol
ume first published as Introduzione alla lettura del Pentateuco: Chiavi per
l'interpretazione dei primi cinque libri della Bibbia (© 1998, 2000 Centro
Editoriale Dehoniano, Bologna; English language edition arranged
through the mediation of Eulama Literary Agency). This translation
a
from the French edition: Introduction la lecture du Pentateuque: Cles
pour ['interpretation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (Brussels: Editions
Lessius, 2000). The translation was reviewed and updated by the
author.
Imprimi potest. Imprimatur.
Rome, 26 November 1999 Mechelen, Belgium, 7 February 2000
R. F. O'Toole, S.J., Rector E. Goffinet, vicar general
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ska, Jean Louis, 1946-
[Introduzione alla lettura del Pentateuco. English]
Introduction to reading the Pentateuch I Jean-Louis Ska ; trans. by Sr.
Pascale Dominique.
p. cm.
Translation from the French version of a work first published in Italian.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-1-57506-122-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Bible. 0. T. Pentateuch-Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title.
BS1225.52.S53 2006
222'.1061-dc22
2006025270
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. 0"'
2012 201 l 2010
5 4 3 2
Contents
Foreword to the English Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1x
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xm
Some Common Textual Abbreviations xin
General Abbreviations xiii
Reference Works xiv
1. Basic Questions about the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. The Origin of the Word Pentateuch and Its Usage 1
B. Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? 3
C. Moses, the Pentateuch, and the
(
Canon of the Hebrew Bible 9
2. The Five Books of the Pentateuch: Content and Structure . . . . . 16
A. The Division into Five Books 16
B. The Structure of the Book of Genesis 19
C. The Structure of the Book of Exodus 26
D. The Stru~ture of the Book of Leviticus 32
E. The Structure of the Book of Numbers 35
F. The Structure of the Book of Deuteronomy '38
3. Literary Problems of the. Pentateuch I: The Legislative Texts . . . . 40
A. The Laws with Regard to Slaves 40
B. The Laws regarding Loans:
Exod 22:24, Deut 23:20-21, Lev 25:35-36 45
C. The Laws concerning the Enemy's Donkey
or the Love of One's Enemies:
Exod 23:4-5, Deut 22:1-4, Lev 19:17-18 46
D. The Decalogue 48
4. Literary Problems of the Pentateuch II: The Narrative Texts . . . . 53
A. Different Versions of the Same Event 53
B. Doublets within a Single Narrative 60
5. Literary Problems of the Pentateuch III:
Some Redactional Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A. Two Examples of Redactional "Insertions" 76
B. The "Resumptive Repetition" 77
C. Some "Linguistic Markers" of Redactional Work 82
D. Important "Divine Discourses" of Redactional Origin 87
E. Moses' Intercessions: Exod 32:7-14, Num 14:11b-23a 93
F. Conclusion 94
6. Exegesis of the Pentateuch: A History of Research
from Ancient Times to 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
A. Antiquity and the Middle Ages 96
B. Humanism and the Beginning of Modern Exegesis 99
C. The Classic Documentary Hypothesis 102
D. Gunkel, Noth, von Rad, and Form Criticism 112
E. Other Schools of Research 123
7. Recent Developments in the Study of the Pentateuch ......... 127
A. Criticisms of the Documentary Hypothesis 127
B. The Problem of the Various Sources 131
C. The "Synchronic" Study of the Pentateuch 161
8. Basic Characteristics of Ancient Literature ................. 165
A. The Law of Antiquity or Precedence 165
B. The Law of Conservation: Nothing Is Eliminated 169
C. The Law of Continuity and Updating 171
D. The Law of Economy:
Only What Is Necessary Should Be Written 173
E. Extrabiblical Parallels 177
9. Reference Points for Reading the Pentateuch ............... 184
A. The Pentateuch and the Reconstruction of Israel
after the Exile 185
B. Anchor Points for Interpretation: Three Codes,
Three Theologies, and the Final Redaction 187
C. Did a Preexilic Source on Israel's Origins Exist? 191
D. The Preexilic Materials of the Pentateuch 202
10. The Pentateuch and Postexilic Israel ...................... 217
A. Persian Imperial Authorization 217
B. The Theory of Citizens Connected with the Temple
(Burger-Tempel-Gemeinde) 226
Conclusion ........................................... 230
Postscript 233
Bibliography .......................................... 235
Indexes .............................................. 267
Index of Authors 267
Index of Scripture 273
I
l
Foreword to the English Translation
The first edition of Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch was written in Ital
ian and published in 1998 by the Edizioni Dehoniane of Rome. A second,
slightly revised edition was published two years later by the Edizioni Deho
niane of Bologna. The French translation, based on this second Italian edition,
was published in the same year, 2000, by Lessius (Brussels). I reread the whole
French translation, introduced some clarifications, and added some updates.
The present translation into English is essentially a translation of the French
version. 'I thank the publisher, Lessius, especially, because they kindly provided
the translator, Sr. Pascale-Dominique Nau, with the electronic files she needed
to facilitate the work. I also reread the English translation and introduced some
minor modifications for the sake of clarity. However, I have not changed my
basic opinions about the formation of the Pentateuch. On some points, such as
the Persian Imperial Authorization and the Yahwist, my opinions have received
support from various quarters (see, for instance, J. W Watts [ed.], Persia and To
rah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch [SBLSymS 17; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2001 ]; and J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte
[eds.], Abschied vom ]ahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jungsten Dis
kussion [BZAW 315; Berlin: de Guyter, 2002]).
Of course, the discussion continues, especially with regard to the possible ex
istence of a Yahwist who was either a Postexilic author (J. Van Seters) or a Post
exilic redactor (C. Levin). The date proposed for the final formation of the
Pentateuch-the Persian period-has become a kind of opinio comunis among
scholars. That several important texts go back to the same period is an idea that
is gaining support from various quarters. One problem that is still very much de
bated, with various solutions being proposed in recent years, is the identification
of the end of the Priestly source. R. Achenbach, J. Blenkinsopp, C. Frevel,
N. Lohfink, C. Nihan, E. Otto, T. Romer, and others have expressed their
opinions on this topic. On another topic, more and more authors assert that the
traditions about the ancestors of Israel and about the Exodus originate from
different traditions and that the Priestly writer was the first to unite them in a
coherent way (A. de Pury, T. Romer, and K. Schmid). The existence of post
Deuteronomistic and post-Priestly redactions-another major point of discus
sion in this Introduction-has been supported by several authors in the past de
cade, among them]. C. Gertz, M. Witte, E. Otto, and his pupil, R. Achenbach;
and by the recent dissertation of F. Giuntoli. For this and other points still under
discussion, as for other important works published in the field in the past five
Vlll Foreword to the English Translation
years, I refer the reader to the bibliography that I have prepared for this English
edition.
I would like to thank all the colleagues, friends, and students who promoted
the idea of this translation into English and encouraged its completion. First of
all, my thanks go to Bernard M. Levinson for his constant support, for the care
ful reading of the manuscript of the translation, and for invaluable suggestions,
especially with respect to the bibliography. He also helped correct my "Euro
pean biases." I also express my gratitude to my diligent translator, Sr. Pascale
Dominique Nau. Jim Eisenbraun, the publisher, who was always accessible and
ready to solve problems, and Beverly McCoy, the copy editor who was respon
sible for preparing the very accurate, competent, improved final form of this
text, deserve my special thanks. The quality of the book owes much to their
conscientiousness. Of course, I take full blame for any errors that remain.
Let me state, finally, that I hope the English Introduction will be as helpful to
scholars and students as the other versions have been.
JEAN-LOUIS SKA
October 2006
Preface
In recent times, the number of studies on the Pentateuch has been increas
ing, and it is difficult to keep up with all the theories in a field where problems
abound. This situation is new. At the end of the 1970s, the classic documen
tary hypothesis distinguished four sources in the Pentateuch: the Davidic
Solomonic Yahwist; the Elohist from the Northern Kingdom, who was close
to the first prophets-Amos and especially Hosea; the Deuteronomist, from
the time of the Josianic reform (622 B.C.E.); and finally, the Priestly Writer (P),
from the Exilic and Postexilic period. This theory became, for all cultured
readers of the Bible, a kind of "Gospel" reflected in introductions and in notes
in Bibles commonly used from the 1950s on.
This theory made its official "entry" into the Catholic world in 1956, with
the first French edition of the Jerusalem Bible. Exegetes, teachers, researchers,
and students of religion, as well as preachers could be proud of a theory that
explained in a simple and convincing way the problems raised by the Penta
teuch. Then this consensus fell to pieces, and today no one knows when a new
consensus, comparable to the one that existed 20 years ago, will be reached.
What can still be said about the Pentateuch today? The documentary hy
pothesis (which, by the way, took time to be accepted by the various con
fessions, especially by the Catholic Church) has once again been attacked,
blockaded, and captured by groups on all sides. Is there now "nothing left of it
but ruins," as some say? Or has the citadel withstood all the assaults and proved
its invincible nature, because it has finally rev~aled that it is more solid than
was thought and has repelled all enemies?
Even in Pentateuchal exegesis, all the war communiques resemble each
other, because each one claims victory. People who wish to read the Penta
teuch in an intelligent, critical way find themselves in an impossible situation.
Or to use still another analogy: each client is pressed by a crowd of salesmen
who want to sell their (often-contradictory) theories. What may be done?
The primary aim of the present introduction is to help these "customers"
gain their bearings in the difficult world of the Pentateuch. The confusion
reigning today in the exegetical field requires drastic choices for the goal to be
reached. Above all, it is necessary not to enter too hastily into the raging de
bates of our time. The reader must be prepared to face today's battles and, in
order to do so, we need to give him or her the indispensable critical "weap
ons." This is why the present introduction does not begin with the history of
research or a presentation of the historical-critical method. The starting point
must be "neutral."
x Preface
Consequently, the introduction begins by presenting the data, that is, by a
description of the Pentateuch in its present form, as it stands, because dia
chronic, analytical readings always follow synchronic readings and synthesis of
the data. If the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it is important to
consider the whole before looking at the "sum."
The first two chapters deal exclusively with the canonical form of the Pen
tateuch and of the five books that compose it. In the following chapters (3 to
5), I thought it would be useful to review at length the various fields of the
Pentateuch in order to discover, bit by bit, the "forms" of its variegated land
scapes. The texts have a "third dimension" that appears clearly in the course of
chaps. 3-5, which deal first with the legislative texts and then with the narra
tives. I wanted to present the problems before considering how they may be
solved. Of course, it has been impossible not to propose, already in the first
reading, some simple solutions. For this reason, "sources" and questions of the
"redaction" of composite texts, written by different authors at various periods,
are dealt with there. However, I do not propose a global theory.
Chapter 5 is probably the most innovative chapter, because it presents vari
ous examples of redactional activity. Some of the passages dealt with are well
known, while others are less familiar. This chapter also presents the techniques
generally used by the editors when they wanted to insert an addition into an
existing text.
Only after this comprehensive survey do I present, in two chapters (6 and
7), a summary of the research history. Instead of starting with Baruch Spinoza
and Richard Simon, I thought it necessary to consider this history once again
from its beginning, that is, from the period of the Rabbis and the Church Fa
thers, because this will help to explain better the problem of modern exegesis,
which, as we shall see, continues and corrects various trends that already ex
isted in preceding periods.
This history of the research does not present a long list of names, dates, and
theories. I want instead to point out the cultural and religious background of
each era and each exegetical school so that their questions and answers may be
understood better. If the Bible has a context, exegesis has a historical setting.
Specific questions are asked in specific contexts and not in other contexts.
At the end of chap. 7, the book reaches a critical point. It becomes neces
sary to take a stance and to propose some solutions to the problems enumer
ated in the course of the preceding chapters. Among the possible approaches, I
have chosen to present a study of ancient literature before dealing with the
formation of the Pentateuch. How did authors write? Why did they write?
What was written? What principles did the authors, redactors, and editors of
the Pentateuch follow in the process of their work? These are the main ques
tions we will try to answer in chap. 8.