20

A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR ROLF RENDTORFF

Norman E.

Wagner

Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I accept the invitation to respond to Professor Rendtorffs provocative paper, first read in 1974 at Edinburgh. Let me state at the outset that I agree wholeheartedly with much of the paper. I must confess, however, that my conclusion differs somewhat from that arrived at by Rendtorff. I will refer, with some immodesty, in these brief comments to several of my own publications so that readers wishing to do so may find fuller documentation for the points I raise.

If anything, Rendtorff has understated the significance of the major shifts which have occurred during the past century in the very foundations of pentateuchal criticism. Yet, as he correctly and emphatically points out, many scholars today seem oblivious to the fact that what was meant by &dquo;J,&dquo; &dquo;E,&dquo; etc., in the nineteenth century, is forced into a totally different scheme today. This matter is so vital to the problems raised that perhaps a few additional comments are in order.

There can be no doubt that during most of the final third of the nineteenth century critics viewed the pentateuchal strata as documents. J, E, D and P were thought to have originated in separate locales at different times and only later merged by redactors of varying degrees of skill and subtlety. It is also worth noting that a number of leading critics, Wellhausen included, held that these major documents were likely of composite origin. In the main, however, the critics held that the various segments were merged prior to any blending of a specific document with another. That is, Jl was merged with J2 etc., to form the J

21

document and

only later

was

combined with the others./1/

This classical view of the growth of the Pentateuch has been modified in a number of directions. As Rendtorff notes, Gunkel and Gressmann viewed J and E as collections developing over a long period of time. To them, J became a de-personalized label, at most, a school of thought.

Without changing the label, other scholars began to make subtle moves with the date of the sources. While ignoring completely much of the original rationale for the extent and function of the documents, some put forward the view that the Yahwist, for example, provided, not a picture of the ninth century in Israel, but a realistic view of mid- or late secondmillennium customs and practices./2/ Once more, the extent and content of the Yahwistic material was left basically unchanged,

although

some

scepticism

was

expressed concerning literary

new

criticism in general. Yet the fact of the matter is that was being forced into old skins.
The other basic shift is discussed most

wine

lucidly by

Rendtorff, namely, the more recent concern with the theology, not only of the J source, but of the Yahwist as well. In a sense, this leads to the opposite end of the spectrum from the work of Gunkel.
Gunkel was primarily occupied with identifying the smallest units of tradition. The scholars today who focus on the theology tend to view only the overall picture, assuming, apparently, that the literary question is solved, irrelevant or simply too complex to consider. The dilemma then revolves,

in part, around

choice of

terms. What does &dquo;Yahwist&dquo; mean to any specific reader today? How can we begin to communicate? After all these modifications, it seems silly to go on using &dquo;J&dquo; and &dquo;E&dquo;; but it is likely too

difficult to invent terms acceptable to more than a handful of We shall therefore have to provide some background for readers. the discussion which follows.
Before any discussion can take place it is essential some definition of the extent and limits of the sources under discussion. For example, is it legitimate to use Exodus material to bolster a point made in Genesis? Is the socalled J of Abraham in any way related to the J of Genesis 1-11? This is basic, as a simple illustration will show. It is often stated that E material in Genesis, and elsewhere, originated
to

attempt

22

Most of the evidence comes from the Joseph Story in the north. and its apparent northern orientation. Yet, the only so-called E material in Abraham (Genesis 20-21 and perhaps the core of ch. 22) is located in the Negeb. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the so-called E material in Abraham must not ipso facto be part of the northern E source?/3/ Rendtorff seems to tend in a direction similar to my own position when he notes that the apparent theological framework created by means of the promises in Genesis breaks down when it is applied to Exodus and beyond. My suggestion would be that it is simply not valid to speak of a &dquo;Yahwist&dquo; as embracing both Genesis and Exodus traditions I do agree that the so-called without prior agreement on terms. Yahwistic material in Genesis must not be identified in any way with the basic narrative of the Book of Exodus. I

must, however, go further.

as

It

seems

only sensible

to regard Genesis of material: the

being composed of at least four major blocks primeval stories, Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph.

Each block must be studied in and of itself. Only at a later stage can we begin to discuss the eventual joining of blocks to form the present book. This procedure can then be extended to The basic question therefore, revolves the entire Pentateuch. around the possibility of studying the content and purpose of the original collections as well as the redactional or &dquo;theological&dquo; purposes of the later compilers./4/
Professor Rendtorff has invited comment on the within the whole complex of promises to the Patriarchs. He suggests that a progression can be seen in the stages, involving the patriarch alone; the patriarch and his seed; finally, the descendants alone. The conclusion is put forward that since these developments take place within the patriarchal stories and thereafter play no significant role in the Pentateuch, it is not legitimate to consider the Yahwist as a true theological writer. Basic to this conclusion is the assumption, challenged above, that the Yahwists work included the entire Pentateuch.

&dquo;theological&dquo; development

The so-called promises to the patriarchs provide a for the discussion. Although relatively few in number, these promises are precisely the core of the theological debate. It is now more than a decade ago that Claus Westermann a detailed study of the promises./5/ It is not possible provided to enter into a full debate on the subject here. I do, however, wish to assert that no study to date has been entirely convincing.

pivotal point

23

I include here also the

I have learned

detailed study by J. Hoftizjer, from which great deal./6/ Westermanns most recent work on

the

subject provides

past decade.

thing
the

a valuable summary of research during the His detailed study invites extensive debate, somewhich lies beyond the scope of the present paper./7/

surely obvious that however brief or extensive of Abraham might have been, the promise of a son is essential to it. The story becomes quite pointless if the tension created by the frustration of the hope of an heir and

It is

original story

then the final

promise, integral

of the birth of Isaac is removed. This out in 18:10 must be ff., clearly spelled regarded as part of the basic Abraham narrative.

triumph

an

Is it necessary to postulate any additional promises in the basic narrative? I believe that it is. Although I differ with both Westermann and Rendtorff, I believe that the brief promise of the land in 12:7 must be part of the basic story. The theophany at Shechem prompted Abraham to build an altar and to make a beginning to his life in the promised land. As C. A. out the in 12:2-3 come too Simpson pointed long ago, promises early in the story and act almost like a carrot, luring Abraham If one omits vss. 2-3, the eventual to the promised land./8/ promise in verse 7 is required. Whether the promise originally applied only to Abraham or to his descendants (as it now states), is, of course, beyond our knowledge. I question the validity of pressing the point too far since a promise of land surely implies continued possession through ones descendants.

I would suggest that the basic narrative of Abraham contained only the two promises noted above./9/ One may use the label J to refer to this story if one wishes, but it is clearly not synonymous with the extensive &dquo;epic&dquo; held by most other critics.

promise motif.

The story of Jacob leaves us with even less of a The birthright and blessing stories, chs. 25 and 27, present Jacob in anything but a favourable light. The original nucleus of the Bethel story (28:10-2, 16-22) records only a vow on the part of Jacob. Finally, Jacobs name is changed after his encounter with a mysterious being (chapter 32), and he is blessed, but no promises are given.
I would contend that all other promises in Genesis the work of P (in a few cases) or (in most cases) of a postare

24

I refer to this latter editor as a exilic Yahwistic compiler. compiler for I am convinced that it is possible to ascertain a unity of purpose as well as literary style in the material attriThat such a compiler is Yahwistic is, of course, buted to him. obvious from his conscious attempts to put a Yahwistic stamp This compiler did work within a specific on all of his sources. theological framework; he was a theologian. I argue that he is responsible for a pre-P Book of Genesis, that is, virtually the book as we now have it without the P additions./10/ To illustrate my point concerning the sequences of the sources, let me turn briefly to chapter 16, the story of Hagar. Without debating the original purpose of vs. 9, let us While these verses are fraught with some turn to vss. 10-14. difficulty, they yield a certain amount of sense when it is seen that the writer is clearly a pro-Yahwist, and furthermore that he is recasting and utilizing material from the E story in ch. 21! He wishes to leave no doubt in the readers mind that the El who Someone &dquo;heard&dquo; the affliction was in fact YHWH (vs. 12). acquainted with the &dquo;crying&dquo; (21:17) would understand the story readily. The elements of &dquo;seeing&dquo; and a &dquo;well&dquo; in vss. 13-14 also make perfect sense if one knows ch. 21. In short, the El tradition has been recast in a new context which is manifestly
II

Yahwistic./11/
The pattern of promises beginning to emerge is interesting. In four major promises to Abraham (12:2-3; 13:14-17; 15:7-18; 22:14-18) we learn that (a) Abraham will become a great nation (12:2), that he will be so blessed that his name will be used by all the peoples of the earth in blessings (12:3; 22:98); (b) the land of Canaan is to belong to his descendants (13:14-15, 17: 15:18-19), and that his descendants shall become as innumerable as the stars of the sky (15:5, 22:17), as the dust of the earth (13:16), or as the sand of the seashore (22:17). Both in vocabulary and in content many of these references remind us of postexilic Israel, especially Deutero-Isaiah. The hand of the late Yahwistic Compiler is also clear in ch. 26, the brief story of Isaac, especially vss. 23-25. It is likely that this entire chapter is simply an attempt to fill out the very scanty Isaac tradition which may have existed in earlier times, although evidence to that effect is surely scanty. In the Jacob cycle, Isaac is barely introduced in ch. 25 and then plays a role far from glorious in ch. 27. Obviously, the writer drew on the limited material available, often re-telling

25

stories used elsewhere, e.g., the wife-sister story and the of Beersheba.

naming

One looks almost in vain for divine promises in the Jacob story, save for ch. 28 and the concluding chapters of One has the distinct impression in ch. 28 that a Genesis. Even here, renewal of promises lies at the heart of the story. Abraham wins out.
me pick up on that idea and suggest in conclusion possible to look briefly at the &dquo;theology&dquo; of the post-exilic Yahwistic Compiler. In my estimation it is clear It that he was a compiler and writer, not merely an editor. seems possible to postulate a relatively early Abraham story and also a fairly extensive Jacob story. Although I find no E material in the present Jacob cycle, it is surely possible to defend at least chs. 20-21 as E supplements to the Abraham story. They are obviously intended to supplement and, in so doing, to This correct possible misinterpretations in the earlier story. is especially clear in the wife-sister story, but also in the Hagar episode. Abraham appears as a much more noble individual.

Let

that it is

Working with brief stories of Abraham and Jacob as well the E revision to Abraham, the Compiler is able to put together His is the so-called J a proper preface to the Exodus./12/ material linking Abraham and Jacob by means of a few incidents involving Isaac; he has set his framework. Now comes his &dquo;theological&dquo; bias. He is clearly writing from a pro-Judean point of view. He does little to correct the image of Jacob, quite unlike his The reader is left without a doubt as to treatment of Abraham. which patriarch is uppermost in the writers view, even though Shechem held primacy as the northern capital, Israel. Jacob but Abraham visited it when he first entered the promised land (12:6-7). Even Bethel, which might well have been located originally on Mount Gerezim, was transferred by the Compiler to a rather insignificant location overlooking the northern end of the Dead Sea (12:8; 13:3-4; ch. 35).
as
=

Lack of space makes it

impossible

to pursue the

subject

In most respects, the question has barely at hand any further. I do agree with Professor been asked, let alone answered.

Rendtorff that pentateuchal criticism requires a new methodology, but need we discard all that we have learned during the past century? I am still convinced that a modified form of literary analysis is called for and is capable of yielding useful results.

26

We need a renewed respect for the viewpoint and purposes of the various biblical authors (or the sources they produced, if Thus, it appears as if I agree you wish a less personal approach). with Professor Rendtorff in his basic questions. My post-exilic Yahwistic writer was a theologian, one who compiled material and augmented it with a very clear purpose. On the other hand, to apply the same label to material traditionally ascribed to J is, I await Professor Rendtorffs for me, simply no longer possible. in the that a discussion of a new phase in hope response pentateuchal criticism will continue.

NOTES

1.

For more details

No Clear

see my article, "Pentateuchal Criticism: Future," Canadian Journal of Theology , 13/4

(1967), 225-232; especially pp. 227-28.

2. This whole
van

subject

has been dealt with

admirably by

John

Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale, 1975), see especially pp. 7-11.
3.
See

"Pentateuchal Criticism," 229-30.

4.

This question is discussed more fully in my article, "Abraham and David?" in Wevers and Redford (eds.), Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), 117-40. Claus Westermann, "Arten der am Alten Testament

5.

Erzählung
(Munich:
an

in der

Forschung
6.
J.

Genesis," Kaiser, 1964), 11-34.

Hoftizjer,

Die

Verheissungen

die drei

Erzväter

(Leiden:
7.
Claus

Brill, 1956).

Westermann, Die

Verheissungen

an

die

Väter (Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck &
8. C. A.

Ruprecht, 1976).

Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1948), 69. Killian does virtually the same thing although he regards the story as outlined as pre-Yahwistic, while vss. 2-3 are the work of the Yahwist, see R. Killian,

27

Die Die
9.
In

vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen (Bonn:

, Verheissungen
general,
Cf. Westermanns conclusion in 148-149.

Hanstein, 1966), 1-15.

I attribute to the basic Abraham narrative the

following: 12:1, 4, 5 (part), 6-7, 9-20; 13:1-2, 5, 7-9, 10 (part), 11-13, 18; 16:1-2, 4-9, (birth story now missing); 18:1-16, 20-21, 33, 22 (part); 19:1-16, 24-28.
10.
I note with considerable

pleasure

van

Seters

general

acceptance of this scenario (van Seters, Abraham , 148-153).

11. This point was argued in detail in my paper "The Hagar Stories in Genesis and Redaction Criticism" presented to the IOSOT in Edinburgh, August 1974.
A

12.

provocative study worthy

van

of attention is

provided by

J.

Seters, "Confessional reformulation in the Exilic

Vetus Testamentum ,

period,"

22/4 (1972),

448-59.