The Problem of The Process of Transmission in The Pentateuch PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
89
Editors
David J A Clines
Philip R Davies
JSOT Press
Sheffield
This page intentionally left blank
The
PROBLEM
of the
PROCESS
of
TRANSMISSION
in the
PENTATEUCH
Rolf Rendtorff
Translated by
John J. Scullion
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 89
Originally published as
Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch
(BZAW, 17; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977)
© 1977 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin
This translation copyright © 1990 Sheffield Academic Press
Published by JSOT Press

JSOT Press is an imprint of
Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
The University of Sheffield
343 Fulwood Road
Sheffield S10 3BP
England
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain

by Billing & Sons Ltd
Worcester
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Rendtorff, R.
The problem of the process of transmission in the
Pentateuch
1. Bible. O.T. Pentateuch.—Critical studies
I. Title II. Series III. Überlieferungs-
geschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. English
222.106
ISSN 0309-0787
ISBN 1-85075-229-X
CONTENTS
Foreword 7
Translator's Note 9
Chapter 1
THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION
AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 11
1.1 The new approach of Gerhard von Rad 12
1.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth 16
1.3 The documentary hypothesis maintained 24
1.4 The question of the 'larger units' 31
Chapter 2
THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES OF A
'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF
THE PENTATEUCH 43
2.1 The stories of Joseph, Jacob, and Isaac 43
2.2 The story of Abraham 48
2.2.1 The variety of layers in the process of
transmission of the Abraham tradition 49
2.2.2 The promises in the divine addresses in the
Abraham story 52
2.3 The promises to the patriarchs 55
2.3.1 The promise of the land 57
2.3.2 The promise of descendants 61
2.3.3 The blessing 64
2.3.4 The guidance 66
2.3.5 The combination of individual
promise themes 68
2.4 The function of the promise addresses in the
composition of the patriarchal story 74
2.5 The absence of any definite reworking in
Exodus-Numbers 84
2.6 The larger units' in Exodus-Numbers 90
2.7 Traces of an over-arching reworking 94
Chapter 3
CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 101
3.1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism 102
3.2 The problem of the Yahwist 108
3.2.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist 108
3.2.2 Characteristics of the work of the Yahwist 119
3.2.3 The theology of the Yahwist 126
3.2.4 Reasons against the acceptance of a
Yahwistic work 133
3.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the
patriarchal story 136
3.3.1 The stories of Joseph and Isaac 138
3.3.2 The Jacob story 140
3.3.3 The Abraham story 146
3.3.4 Genesis 23 154
3.4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story 156
3.4.1 Chronological notes 157
3.4.2 Theological'passages 163
3.4.3 The function of the priestly layer 167
3.4.4 No priestly narrative, but a layer of
priestly reworking 169
3.5 Synthesis 170
Chapter 4
CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES 177
4.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis 178
4.2 The larger units' in the Pentateuch 181
4.2.1 The patriarchal story 181
4.2.2 The other 'larger units' 184
4.3 The problem of the synthesizing, final
arrangement of the Pentateuch 189
Index of Biblical References 207

Index of Authors 213
FOREWORD
This book marks the terminal, for the time being, of many
years of confrontation with the basic methodological questions
of pentateuchal criticism. Discussions with colleagues of other
countries provided many a stimulus to concentrate more
intensively on these questions. And so it is no mere chance that
a variety of earlier papers on this complex of questions reflect
these discussions. In the lecture 'Literarkritik und Traditions-
geschichte' in Uppsala in 1965 (EvTh 27 [1967] 138-153) I still
supported the view that the current solution to the problems of
the Pentateuch was still the most plausible despite all critical
trimming. In my contribution Traditio-Historical Method
and the Documentary Hypothesis' in Jerusalem in 1969
(Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies,
pp. 5-11), I tried to show that as a result of a consistent
traditio-historical approach, the documentary hypothesis
could not be sustained. In Edinburgh in 1974, I finally ques-
tioned the existence of the main pillar of the documentary
hypothesis, the Tahwist' (T)er "Yahwist" als Theologe? Zum
Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik', VT Supp. 28 [1975] 158-66).
Here, a new approach to pentateuchal study is to be outlined
on a broader basis.
I have to thank many with whom I have been able to discuss
these questions in the course of the years. First, there are my
Heidelberg colleagues with whom the dialogue has been, and
is still being, carried on in a variety of ways. Then there are
my colleagues and friends in Jerusalem; after many earlier
meetings and discussions, they gave me the opportunity, as
guest of the Hebrew University in the winter semester 1973-
74, to devote my attention entirely to these questions and, in
intensive exchange with them, to clarify them further. Finally
there are Konrad Rupprecht, without whose constant consul-
tation and co-operation the book would never have appeared,
8 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
and Erhard Blum who co-operated in the preparation of the

manuscript and the proof-reading and prepared the index of
biblical passages. I thank the German Research Council
(Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) which enabled me to
spend a first period of study in Jerusalem in 1966.
SchriesheinVHeidelberg, July 1975 Rolf Rendtorff

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE
In Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs

(BZAW 147; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977), Rolf Rendtorff is
interested above all in the process by which the Pentateuch
reached the form in which it now lies before us. He concludes
that the classical documentary hypothesis has been tried in
the fire and found wanting, and traces briefly in his preface
the scholarly path that led him to this conclusion. His
approach has met with strong disagreement, cautious agree-
ment, and, in some quarters, relief and a readiness to look for
other ways than that of the documentary hypothesis to
explain the formation of the Pentateuch.
It is sometimes said that Rendtorff has not disproved the
documentary hypothesis, as the distinguished Cambridge
semitist J.A. Emerton has written of R.N. Whybray's The
Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (JSOT
Supp. Series 53 [1987]; VT 39 [1989], 110-16, p. 116). But the
documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis and not an article of
faith as many scholars, especially in the German-speaking
area, seem to presume, showing a stubborn unwillingness to
consider seriously another approach. It is hoped that the
English version of Rendtorff s contribution will help a wider
range of English-speaking students to make up their own
minds on the complex matter in Old Testament studies and
perhaps go their own independent way.
The English versions of most of the German works from
which citations appear in the original were not available to me
while I was preparing the translation in Heidelberg. I have
given my own translation of these. The references in the notes
are to the standard English versions.
I am grateful to Professor Rendtorff for his lively interest in
the translation during my stay in Heidelberg (January-June
1989), and to Professor David J.A. Clines of the Department of
Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, and co-director of

Sheffield Academic Press, for his encouragement.
United Faculty of Theology John J. Scullion S.J.

Melbourne Newman College
University of Melbourne
Parkville, Victoria 3052
Australia
Chapter 1
THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE

DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
In the present state of pentateuchal research, two methods of

approach stand juxtaposed. The one is the literary-critical
method which, in the classical form that it has taken since
Wellhausen, distinguishes continuous literary 'sources' run-
ning through the Pentateuch. The other is the method of
form-criticism and the history of the process of transmission
which, since Gunkel, takes its point of departure not from the
final form of the written text of the Pentateuch, but from the
smallest, originally independent, individual units, and traces
the process of their development right up to their final written
form. The two methods therefore are opposed to each other in
their starting point and in their statement of the question.
This does not necessarily mean that they come to opposite
conclusions. However, it is surprising that so far there have
scarcely been any studies of the relationship to each other of
these two basically different approaches. The main reason for
this is obvious. Those scholars who developed or make use of
the form-critical and traditio-historical method adhere
almost without exception to literary source division.
Consequently, one could speak quite frankly of 'an extension
of the methods by means of form criticism'1 without realizing
clearly or even mentioning that it is in fact not a matter of an
extension, but of a fundamental alteration of the statement of
the question.2 The procedure is often that which Westermann
1 K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. The Form Critical

Method, 1969.
2 K. Koch, op. cit., p. 77. Koch describes literary criticism as a 'part of
form-criticism'.
criticized in Noth's method: 'both methods are merely added

together mechanically in such a way that the text is treated
now according to one, now according to the other'.1
But the consequence of this procedure is that the form-criti-
cal approach, in its attempt to progress by means of the tradi-
tio-historical approach, has not yet developed fully. The pre-
sent work is an attempt to show the reasons for this and to
advance a step further towards this goal. At the same time, it
intends to bring out more strongly than hitherto the criticism
of the literary-critical source division which is inherent in the
different methodological approach. And so I deliberately take
up two works which, since Gunkel, have had a lasting influ-
ence on pentateuchal studies. I take up their approaches
partly in a critical vein, and partly to carry them further.
They are: G. von Rad, The Form-Critical Problem of the
Hexateuch' (1938; Eng. 1966),2 and M. Noth, A History of
Pentateuchal Traditions (1948; Eng. 1972, 1981).3 The prob-
lem of the process of transmission of pentateuchal traditions
will be developed here on the basis of, and in critical dialogue
with, these two works.
1.1 Gerhard von Rod's new approach

Von Rad wanted to break a deadlock that had been reached in
pentateuchal (hexateuchal) research. He saw that the reaso
for the general 'scholarly lassitude' lay in this: the analysis of
the Pentateuch into sources on the one hand, and the study of
individual pieces of material on the other, had introduced 'a
process of disintegration on a large scale': and many scholars
had been paralysed *by an awareness, vague or clear, that the
process was irreversible'. Von Rad's perception was that this
process of disintegration pertained especially to the final form
of the Hexateuch, which was deemed to be no longer worth
any serious discussion in itself; rather it served merely as a
1 C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, (1966-1974) Eng. 1984, p. 573.

2 G. von Rad, 'The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch',
(German 1938), in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays,
(Eng. 1966), pp. 1-78.
3 M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, (German 1948) Eng.
1972,1981.
1. The Documentary Hypothesis 13 13
point of departure 'from which one got away as quickly as

possible to deal with the real problems lying behind it'. Von
Rad therefore directed attention once more to this final form.
He did so by means of form-criticism, attempting to
understand the whole Hexateuch as 'genre' (Gattung) 'from
which it must be supposed that... its 'setting in life' and its
further extension right up to the very expanded form in
which it now lies before us, are in some way recognizable'.1
Von Rad has given new and substantial stimulus to hexa-
teuchal (pentateuchal) study with this fresh approach,2 and
his initiative has had far-reaching effects beyond this area.
His thesis of the 'small historical Credo' has provoked a
variety of form-critical and traditio-historical works, and the
consequence of his stating the question of the cultic setting of
the different basic themes in the process of pentateuchal
traditions has been an entirely new branch of research into
the history of cult. Finally, his interpretation of the large
complexes of tradition in which the pentateuchal traditions,
which were originally independent, were collected and passed
on, has been of far-reaching significance for Old Testament
theology.
Two principal features of von Rad's work have had further
consequences for the Pentateuch itself: the one, the subdivision
of the pentateuchal traditions into several independent com-
plexes of tradition, the other, the importance that he ascribes
to the Tabwist' for the final shape of the Pentateuch.3 How-
ever, the recognition that there was available a variety of
complexes of tradition, originally independent, has not yet
thrown clearer light on the final shape of the Pentateuch, as
was von Rad's intention. But it has diverted attention from the
one-sided emphasis on literary analysis; and further, it has led
beyond the treatment of individual pieces of material which
featured so prominently in the works of Gunkel and Gress-
mann, to a concern for the larger units, and so to a new
1 Von Rad, op. cit., pp. 1-3.

2 We will speak of the Pentateuch in what follows, even when the
authors quoted speak of the Hexateuch. The term Hexateuch will be
used only where it is actually required.
3 See below, 1.3.
branch of the study of the historical process of tradition.1

Von Rad recognizes several larger complexes of tradition in
the Pentateuch which stand out clearly from each other. This
is the case above all with the Sinai tradition, Exodus 19-24.
Here is found a self-contained complex of tradition which
originally had no connection at all with the preceding
tradition of the exodus from Egypt and the wandering in the
desert. And so von Rad insists that the process of formation of
this complex has, 'in all its essential elements issued into a
fixed form' before the tradition settled down to its literary
shape in the liexateuchal sources JE, i.e. with the Yahwist and
the Elohist'; this latter is to be regarded 'rather as a later
procedure... perhaps even the end stage'.2
Von Rad, following Pedersen,3 regards Exodus 1-14 as a
further complex of tradition, clearly recognizable as a self-
contained unit. 'We have here... a genuine exodus tradition
which is clearly distinct from the tradition of the occupation of
the land'.4 This tradition too was at the disposal of the Yahwist.
With regard to the tradition of the occupation of the land,
the question arises whether one can identify the 'collector' of
the Gilgal stories, whose method of working Noth had dis-
cerned in his commentary on Joshua, with one of the penta-
teuchal sources or, as Noth had done, separate him completely
from them.5 Von Rad underscores here the internal connec-
tion with the pentateuchal traditions by means of the orienta-
tion towards the taking of the land; and so for him 'it is no
longer just a literary question with J and E, but just as much a
question of genre'.6 However, in the long run, the question
remains unresolved.
With regard to the patriarchal story von Rad, following
1 With Noth, op. cit., p. 1, I understand Uberlieferungsgeschichte as

the whole process of the formation of the tradition which extends
from origin of the smallest units, across their broader development
and insertion into smaller and larger collections, right up to the
whole as it now lies before us.
2 Von Rad, op. cit., pp. 18-19.
3 J. Pedersen, Tassahfest und Passahlegende', ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75.
4 Von Rad, op. cit., p. 52.
5 M. Noth, Das Buck Josua, 1938, 1953 (2nd edn).
6 Von Rad, op. cit., p. 76.
1. The Documentary Hypothesis 15
Gunkel, recognized different groups of stories of very different

kinds. For the Abraham stories, he supposes that the union of
the Abraham and Lot cycles was data available to the Yahwist
'though he often sees the hand of the Yahwist at work giving
theological direction'.1 As for the Jacob stories, the union of the
Jacob-Esau cycle and the Jacob-Laban cycle... was already
complete', though it is all but impossible, apart from intelligent
guessing, to demonstrate the part that the Yahwist played'.2 At
best, von Rad believes that he can recognize him in the
arrangement of the cult-stories of Bethel (28.10-22) and
Penuel (32.2S-33).3 Finally he writes: 'It is generally accepted
that the Yahwist found the Joseph story a novella already
complete and self-contained in its essentials, and fitted it into
his work'.4
The primeval story too forms an independent composition
whose shape derives 'from a series of originally independent
pieces of material', but 'which is certainly the work of the
Yahwist',5 just as is the 'joining together of the primeval story
and the story of salvation' (12.1-3).6
These studies of von Rad gave pentateuchal research a new
theme. Since Gunkel, attention to the smallest, originally inde-
pendent, units had passed over the old source analysis which
took its point of departure from the final form of the text. Von
Rad now opens up the question about a stage which is inter-
mediate between the smallest units and the final shape of the
whole coherent narrative complex, and for this certain prin-
ciples of organization clearly hold good. The most conspicious
feature is the regular thematic matching within the individ-
ual complexes of tradition. On the one hand, many texts are
linked which, form critically, are of quite different kinds, and
they are fitted together with each other so as to produce new
larger units; on the other hand, the independence of these
larger units, and the quite different and independent devel-
1 Ibid., p. 58.
2 Ibid., p. 59.
3 Von Rad sees the beginning of the Penuel story only in v. 25 (Eng.
v.24), op. cif.,p.59.
4 Op. cif.,p.59.
5 Op. ci*.,p.64.
6 Op. cit., p. 65.
opment of each of them, emerges. This distinction of larger

complexes of tradition, each coloured by its own theme, has
taken a strong hold on the attention of subsequent scholarship.
1.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth

The basic contribution which Martin Noth made to the fur-
ther progress of pentateuchal scholarship finds its clearest
expression in that he brought into the discussion the concept of
the 'history of the process of tradition' which, since that
moment, has become the determining leitmotif of all Old Tes-
tament scholarship, far beyond the limits of pentateuchal
research.1 It is appropriate to give precedence and attention to
the first of Noth's two great works which bear this catchword
in their titles. In 1943 he published 'Studies in the History of
the Process of Traditions'. It was described as the 'first part' of
a planned series of studies which had as its object 'the histori-
cal works of the Old Testament which were the subjects of
collections and reworkings'.2 In his introductory remarks
Noth takes his stand explicitly in strict and historical continu-
ity with von Rad's work on the Hexateuch. The close associa-
tion consists in this, that Noth is likewise concerned here with
the very same stage of the process of development from which
the works lying before us, namely the deuteronomic and
chronistic histories, reached their final shape out of various
elements in the course of transmission of the traditions. A sur-
vey of the deuteronomistic historical work shows striking
features in common with those concrete elements which von
Rad had worked out for the Pentateuch. According to Noth's
explanation the Deuteronomist' (Dtr) too found a whole series
1 His understanding of Ubearlieferungsgeschichte (the process of the

formation of tradition) is indebted at least to the suggestions made
by Hermann Gunkel. The idea takes a somewhat different form in
the Uppsala-school'; cf. H. Ringgren, 'Literarkritik, Form-
geschichte, Uberlieferungsgeschichte', ThLZ 91 (1966) 641-50; R.
Rendtorff, 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte', EvTh 27 (1967)
138-53.
2 M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden
und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament, 1943,
1957 (2nd edn).
17 17
of cases at hand to him in which, at least in several instances,

larger complexes of tradition had already been joined
together. This is true especially for the beginnings of the
monarchy of which Noth says: Tor the history of David and
Saul the Dtr had at his disposal the broad complex of Saul-
David traditions which had already grown together long
beforehand out of the stories of David's rise and the problem o
the succession'.1 There were other cases in which the
Deuteronomist was able to or had to intervene to shape the
material at his disposal because it was too little, or not at all,
arranged in the way in which he could or wanted to use it for
his total presentation.2
And so, under the catch-phrase 'the history of the process of
tradition' (Uberlieferungsgeschichte), Noth dealt with the
final stage of the process of development. The work as a whole
had acquired the shape in which it now lies before us out of a
series of complexes of tradition, smaller or larger, already
formed. Despite the different starting points, both the intent
and statement of the question agree in substance with the task
that von Rad undertook for the Pentateuch. Both approaches
reckon with larger complexes of tradition, working with the
presupposition that in each case the complexes have grown
together or been assembled out of individual traditions. But
neither approach took as the object of its study the path that
led from the individual traditions to the larger complexes.
The last observation is of significance inasmuch as both
scholars were aware that they were very profoundly under
the influence of Gunkel's form-critical work. Gunkel had
directed his special attention to the original, individual tradi-
tions which were often described as the 'smallest literary
units'.3 They form the proper object of form-critical study. In
1 Op. cit., pp. 61-62.

2 Noth compares the work of the Deuteronomist expressly with that
work which von Rad attributes to the Yahwist, and he describes
this Yahwist as the 'forerunner' of his Deuteronomist (op. cit., p. 2,
n.2).
3 Already, O. Eissfeldt, 'Die kleinste literarische Einheit in den
Erzahlungbiichern des AT', ThBl 6 (1927) 333-37 = Kleine Schriften
1,1962, 123-49; An Introduction to the Old Testament (1964, 3rd edn)
Eng. 1965. One can well invoke Gunkel himself in this context, Die
contrast, the union of several originally independent units

represents a second stage in the process of formation. Gunkel
paid attention to this stage and in some cases spoke of'cycles of
stories'. However, he did not develop any methodological cri-
teria for discerning collections of this kind, but rather
expressed his observations in a very loose and casual way;1 he
attached no particular importance to this question. The same
holds true for Gressmann's important work, Mose und seine
Zeit (1913). This is all the more striking as Gressmann's
statement of the question in general points very clearly in the
direction of the later work on the history of the process of
tradition. Gressmann likewise does not go beyond very
general formulations when giving criteria for 'cycles of
stories'.2
There exists therefore an obvious gap between the study of
the original smallest units and the question of the final shape,
formed out of larger complexes of tradition, of the works as
they now lie before us. The path from the smallest units to the
larger complexes, known as larger literary units',3 has not yet
been methodically trod and examined. This gap stands out as a
basic defect when one takes as the point of departure the
statement of the program of the process of the history of tradi-
tion as Noth has formulated it in A History of Pentateuchal
Traditions. He outlines the 'growth and gradual formation of
the larger blocks of tradition which lie before us today in the
extensive and complicated literary shape which is the Penta-
israelitische Literatur, 1925.

1 H. Gunkel, Genesis (9th edn, 1977), cf. p. 4 n. 5.
2 H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-
Sagen, 1913, p. 386: 'The cycles of stories can comprise smaller and
larger units. They are there wherever several individual stories
have been strung together to form a loose composition. Stories
which deal with the same material or with a related theme have no
need at all to be brought together into a group. Rather, because of
the fragility of the individual narrative, due to its original indepen-
dence, some sort of continuous thread must be spun out which
leads from one story to another'.
3 Gunkel speaks of larger units', as does Eissfeldt, See further, A.
Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1,1952 (2nd edn) = 1959
(5th edn), 'From the Smallest Literary Units to the Great Literary
Complexes', pp. 2523*.
1. The Documentary Hypothesi 19
teuch' as a long process, leading from the formation in oral

tradition, across the written record, up to the purely literary
redaction. He then continues: It is the task of the history of the
process of tradition in the Pentateuch to trace this process
from beginning to end'.1
Noth explains what his intention is. His main interest is not
so much 'to attend to the later and more and more purely lit-
erary procedures... but rather to those beginnings that were
decisive for the coming into being of the whole and to the first
stages of growth'.2 However, he then went on to speak in great
detail about the questions of the final literary shape,3 but not
about the intermediate stages of the history of the process. And
therein lies a notable unevenness in his work. The major part
of his presentation deals with 'the pre-literary history of the
formation and growth of the process to what is ultimately, in
all essentials, a definitively shaped work';4 it is concerned
therefore 'in essence with what is still the oral process of for-
mation and shaping'.5 Then, after a few remarks about
'clamps, genealogies, and itineraries',6 he jumps to the end of
the process of formation and occupies himself with the tradi-
tional 'pentateuchal sources'7 without having given any con-
sideration to the various stages of the intermediate literary
shaping and process of tradition.8
Noth's own methodological approach should have
suggested that he study more precisely the final phase of the
literary arrangement as he had in the deuteronomistic
history; that is, like von Rad, he should have traced the path
from the larger literary complexes of tradition to their
assembly and arrangement in the 'pentateuchal sources'. On
the other hand, given the exegetical tradition in which Noth
1 Noth, cf. op. cit., p. 1, n. 5.

2 Op. cit.
3 Op. cit., par. 15, 16.
4 Op. cit., p. 44.
5 Op. cit., p. 198.
6 See headings to par. 11,12,14.
7 Op. cit., par. 15.
8 The second part of A History of Pentateuchal Traditions carries a
heading whose claim was not discharged: The Coalescence of
Themes and Individual Traditions.
stands, one would have expected a treatment of the smallest

narrative units in which the material passed on had taken
shape. Finally, Noth's own programme, to trace the history of
the process of tradition 'from to end', should have suggested a
treatment of the path from the smallest units to the larger
complexes of tradition so as to arrive at a coherent picture of
the whole process.
Noth himself has given the reason why he did not take up
and carry through the programme as outlined. Following vo
Rad, he took as his starting point the task of unravelling the
main basic themes of the Pentateuch as a whole before under-
taking an analysis of the material passed on. In this, he
accepted von Rad's thesis of the 'historical Credo' as the fun-
damental principle that shaped the Pentateuch (Hexateuch),
at the same time re-interpreting it in decisive and successful
wise. Whereas von Rad was concerned with definite com-
plexes of tradition, and so with concrete literary arrangement
which were brought together and disposed under the guiding
view-points in the credal formulations, and given further
shape by means of'inset' (Einbau), 'extension' (Ausbau), and
'remodeling' (Umbau),1 Noth speaks of'themes' which have
determined the shape of the Pentateuch. He sees that 'the
main task... is to unravel those basic themes out of which the
great whole of the Pentateuch as handed on has grown, to lay
bare their roots, to trace their complementation from individ-
ual pieces of material passed on, to pursue how they were
joined with each other, and to make a judgment on their sig-
nificance'.2
The elements of von Rad's Credo, being described as
'themes', underwent a decisive process of abstraction. From
now on, they appear primarily as concepts and ideas which
can be developed in a variety of ways and joined with each
other and all sorts of other concepts and ideas. Scarcely any
attention is paid to their concrete relationship to a particular
setting in life or even to their concrete narrative or literary
1 Cf. the corresponding headings and sub-divisions of the chapter on

the Yahwist in von Rad's The Form-Critical Problem', pp. 52, 54,
63.
2 Noth, A History, p. 3.
development. On the contrary, in the case of the basic theme,

'the leading out from Egypt', the question of the setting in life
is rejected explicitly: 'inasmuch as this confession was of too
general importance; it was such that it could, or had to be,
recited on every cultic occasion that permitted a hymn'.1 With
the other themes too this question, so far as it is even raised,
has no real significance.
One must speak of abstraction here in yet another sense.
Noth distinguishes between the *basic themes',2 or 'the main
themes of the tradition'3 as they are later called, on the one
hand, and 'the complementation from individual pieces of
material passed on'4 or 'the filling out of the standard thematic
frame with individual pieces of material handed on',5 on the
other. Accordingly, everything that does not belong to the
main themes is regarded as 'filling out' and so its significance
is substantially limited. But even in this limited framework,
Noth's interest is directed not to the concrete shaping of the
narrative but to the 'enriching of the basic main themes with
further traditional material, while the detailed development
by means of narrative art is to be regarded rather as an
aside'.6 The reason why Noth's work cannot be linked imme-
diately with that of Gunkel becomes clear here, because it is
just this 'detailed development by means of narrative art' that
was of decisive interest to Gunkel.7
It must be expressly emphasized here that there can be no
question at all of calling into doubt the value and significance
of Noth's work. On the contrary, it must be heavily under-
scored that Noth's studies have given rise to numerous
insights into the history of the origin and growth of the Penta-
teuch and brought a variety of stimuluses to Old Testament
1 Op. cit., pp. 49-50.

2 Op. cit., p.B.
3 Heading to par. 7.
4 Op. cit., p. 3.
5 Heading to par. 8.
6 Op. cit., p.65.
1 Cf. further Westermann, 'Arten der Erzahlung in der Genesis',
Forschung am Alten Testament, 1964, pp. 9-91: 'The individual
narrative... and what happens in it, recedes (in Noth's presenta-
tion) in a remarkable way' (p. 35).
research. However, the limits of Noth's methodological

approach must be pointed out. His work at the same time by-
passes the concrete text. Consequently, it is not possible with
his approach to arrive at a history of the process of formation
of the Pentateuch which takes as its point of departure the
concrete shape of the texts; Gunkel, and after him von Rad in
particular as well as others, have made these the objects of
their study and exegesis; they have followed them further to
the formation of larger complexes of tradition and ultimately
to the final literary stage.1 And so once more it is back to
Gunkel's approach.
Consequently, much of what is found in the important
observations of Noth on the history of the process of tradition
would have to be accepted on the understanding that it would
be set in the context of the pre-literary history of the traditions
now preserved in fixed concrete texts. In many ways, Noth
actually deals with the pre-history of concrete narratives in
such a way that a methodological link between the interpre-
tation of the texts developed by Gunkel and the question of the
pre-history of the traditions embodied in them is entirely pos-
sible. This would be in a way the first phase of the process of
the history of tradition. Methodologically, then, it would be in
order to proceed in such a way that the form-critical determi-
nation of an individual text as the smallest conceivable unit of
tradition forms the point of departure; thence, the further
question of the pre-history of the text and the traditions
embodied in it would be put. Gunkel, Gressmann, von Rad and
others proceeded by and large in this way without, however,
having developed a comprehensive understanding of the task
of the study of the process of the history of tradition.
We must now take up a further critical objection, already
noted, to the procedure of Noth's traditio-historical pro-
gramme It is the fact that Noth, without taking account of the
1 Noth explicitly denies that the growth of the Pentateuch took place
in this way when he maintains that its 'form... is not the subse-
quent and final result of the simple grouping together and arrang-
ing in sequence of individual traditions and individual complexes o
traditions, but... at the very beginning of the formation of the tradi-
tions, there was a small number of themes that were essential for
the faith of the Israelite tribes' (op. cit., p. 2).
literary growth of the tradition, presupposes the existence of

'pentateuchal sources' in the traditional literary-critical sense
and includes them within his presentation of the traditio-his-
torical process.1 Some fundamental remarks are necessary
here. The form-critical method and its application mean a
basically new approach in the matter of access to the penta-
teuchal texts. The different 'sources' of the Pentateuch was
the answer to a particular question, namely: is the final form
of the Pentateuch as it lies before us a unity or not? Source
division as used hitherto makes sense only as an answer to this
question, inasmuch as it explains that the present text, taken
as a whole, consists of several, originally independent,
accounts of the whole pentateuchal material which have been
brought together in a 'redaction'. The documentary hypothe
sis, when all is said, has meaning only as an answer to this
question; and it is with this that we are now concerned, what-
ever different shapes it may take.2
So then, as soon as access to the pentateuchal texts is set in
the context of the form-critical method, the statement of the
question is basically altered. The Pentateuch as a whole as it
lies before us is no longer the point of departure, but rather the
concrete individual text, the 'smallest literary unit'. The work
begins as it were at the opposite end. The contexts in which
each individual text now stands, however large, are not yet a
matter of attention in this approach, nor must they be the
primary concern of the interpreter.
This does not mean that there is no place for questions of lit-
erary criticism. However, a fundamental distinction must be
made between literary analysis on the one hand, as it puts the
question of unity to a concrete, individual text, seeking to
explain the tensions and contradictions and inquiring about its
coherence with the context, and on the other, the traditional
1 Op. cit.,par. 2-5.

2 For other hypotheses about the formation of the Pentateuch, in par-
ticular for the 'complementary hypothesis' and the 'fragmentary
hypothesis', one should consult the appropriate sections in the
standard introductions to the OT. Also: R. Rendtorff, 'Pentateuch',
EKL, III, 1959, cols. 109-14; O. Ploger, 'Pentateuch', RGG (3rd edn)
1961, cols. 211-17; R. Smend, 'Pentateuchkritik', BHHW, III, 1966,
cols. 1413-19.
division into sources. There will be many cases in which a cor-

rect form-critical determination of a text will be rendered
possible only after particular literary-critical questions have
been put and answered; often it is only then that one can
delimit the original smallest unit. But all this has nothing at all
to do with the question of whether individual elements, which
literary criticism has shown to be separate from each other,
belong to particular 'sources' in the sense of continuous
'documents'. It is a fundamental error when literary-critical
work on the Pentateuch is equated with source division in the
traditional sense, as is so often the case today.
1.3. The documentary hypothesis maintained

It is the task of the traditio-historical method which builds on
the form-critical statement of the question in the way in
which Noth formulated the programme, to pursue the whole
process of the formation of the tradition right up to the present
final literary stage. This requires that the literary-critical
questions as well be put at all phases of the traditio-historical
inquiry. But they must be related on each occasion to the stage
of the formation of the tradition and limited thereby. Only at
the end of the inquiry into the process of the history of the
tradition can the question of the literary-critical judgment of
the final shape be put. From the standpoint of the traditio-his-
torical approach, one is only justified in accepting continuous
'sources' in the Pentateuch when, at the end of the traditio-
historical inquiry, the source theory offers the most enlighten-
ing answer to the questions which arise from the final shape of
the text.
Recent study of the Pentateuch, however, shows that this is
scarcely ever the case. And so the attempt must be made to
show the reasons why tradition-history and source division
are still for the most part applied side by side. I see two main
reasons for this. One consists in the fact that Gunkel, and
likewise his pupil Gressmann, both adhered to source division.
This could give rise to the impression that the two methods
belonged together or in any case could be joined together with-
out difficulty.1 The first thing to be said to this is that frequently

in the history of research, there is only a gradual awareness of
the consequences of a new methodological approach, so that
this fact in itself, considered from our present point of view,
can say nothing about its methodological justification. The sec-
ond, that it is clear that Gunkel, and particularly Gressmann,
applied the separation of sources in a far less stringent man-
ner than is generally done today. Above all, they did not see
themselves in a position to recognize the 'Personalities' of the
authors of the written sources. Gunkel emphasized that liere
(i.e. with the Tahwist' and the 'Elohist') it is not a question of
unities or even of collocations of unities, but of collections
which are not from one mould and cannot have been com-
pleted at one stroke, but have arisen in the course of a
history'.2 And so he continues: "«F and 'E' therefore are not
individual writers, but schools of narrators. What individual
hands contributed to the whole is thus a matter of relative
indifference because they differ very little individually, and
never reveal themselves with certainty'.3 Gressmann goes
even a step further. In his view the distinction of J from E can
only rarely be carried out with any sort of certainty',4 and he
adds: 'In many cases JE are nothing more than labels which
can be exchanged at will. Nevertheless, one must try in the
meantime to come to terms with the hypothesis of JE, never
forgetting that it is a hypothesis. But for it to establish itself and
to find justification for the abundance of variants, the symbols
JE are indispensable, even though they can lay claim only to
relative validity'.5 In the long run therefore it is merely a
matter of giving terms to passages which, from the literary-
critical point of view, are separate from each other. The
sources have not each its own profile.
The other reason for adhering to source division in the tra-
ditio-historical context is simply that von Rad conferred a new
profile on the Yahwist. He attributed to him the central role in
the definitive formation of the Hexateuch. He portrayed in a
1 So too Rendtorff, EvTh 27 (1967) 148ff.

2 Gunkel, Genesis, p. Ixxxiv.
3 Ibid, p. Ixxxv.
4 Mose und seine Zeit, p. 368.
5 Ibid.
most impressive way the great achievement of the Yahwist as

composer and moulder. He underscored that in this case there
could be no question of an anonymous growth, but that liere...
one plan is at work',1 and he worked out with particular
emphasis that, before all else, a theological achievement is to
be seen here.2 In von Rad's view, the Yahwist is the one who, in
a powerful theological work, 'took up the material which had
broken free from the cult and preserved it in the firm grip of
his literary composition'.3 The result is a 'massive work',4 and
'it is astounding how firmly it was possible to bind the bewil-
dering abundance of the assembled traditions... to the basic
on-going tradition'.5
Why did von Rad attribute this role precisely to the Yah-
wist? It is surprising to note that von Rad did not put this ques-
tion, because he obviously saw in it no problem at all.6 He
begins without more ado: The Yahwist marks for Israel the
intervention that we see continually recurring in the spiritual
history of many peoples: old, often widely scattered, traditions
are gathered together in a powerful work of composition
under a dominant idea and become literature'.7
That this role belongs to the Yahwist derives apparently,
without it being said explicitly, from the generally acknowl-
edged image of source division in which the substantial section
of the narrative material of the tradition is ascribed to the
Yahwist. Von Rad discusses only the question, Svhether we are
to consider the work of the Yahwist as that of a collector or of a
1 'The Form-Critical Problem', p. 59.

2 Op. cit., pp. 67-68.
3 Op. cit., p.50.
4 Op. a'*., p. 52.
5 Op. cit., p. 51.
6 He touches only the other, more basic question, whether instead of
reckoning with one 'great collector and moulder* it were better to
reckon with 'a gradual, anonymous process of growth' (op. cit.,
p. 52). But the switch-points have already been set in another direc-
tion.
7 Op. cit., p. 48. Von Rad, up to this point, speaks of the Yahwist only
in a casual way, on the same literary level as the other sources,
without giving him any notable pre-eminence; cf. pp. 15-16; notes
17,27,29,35,53.
writer'.1 But the possibility that another than the Yahwist

could have brought to completion this 'massive work of com-
position' is never considered. This shows that von Rad has
here simply taken over something already available.
But it is all too clear how far von Rad has thereby distanced
himself from the original conception of source division which
understands sources as parallel and for the most part con-
stituent parts of essentially equal value in the final shape of the
present text. Von Rad assigns them a subordinate place and
maintains at the same time that their relationships to each
other remain in the long run unexplained: 'Not that the way
in which E and P are related to J is for us something transpar-
ent, an entirely satisfying and explicable phenomenon! The
question of the origin and destiny of these two works, of their
growth and their readers is after all open and is likely to
remain so. But these problems are of a different sort from
what we are discussing here. The stratification of E and P in
relationship to J and their binding together is a purely literary
matter and so, from the form-critical point of view, introduces
nothing essentially new over and above what has been dis-
cussed. The form of the Hexateuch is definitively the Yah-
wist's'.2
The picture therefore has basically changed: there is not a
number pentateuchal (hexateuchal) sources of more or less
equal worth which have been joined together by a process of
redaction; rather the Yahwist has provided a basic arrange-
ment; 'the form of the Hexateuch is definitively his', and the
'stratification' of the two other sources in relationship to this
work remains basically opaque. But this is to be understood,
and in essence can only be understood, as something theologi-
cal.
This new understanding of the Yahwist marks too a basic
change in respect of Gunkel and Gressmann who denied any
possibility of recognizing the individuality or personality of
any of the authors of the pentateuchal sources. There is here
so to speak a re-discovery of the personality of the authors of
the sources, though only of one of them, the Yahwist, and
1 Op. cit., pp. 50-51.

2 Op. cit., p.74.
primarily as a theologian who gives shape to large passages.

Noth too at the beginning of the section on the sources of the
Pentateuch writes: Tentateuchal narrative has undergone a
change with the pentateuchal sources synthesized into the lit-
erary whole in which they now lie before us; it has moved out
of the realm of the cultic, so necessary for the forming of
themes, and out of the realm of the popular, which gives rise to
the shaping of narratives out of the themes, and enters into
the realm of the theological, the reflective, and the
synthesizing over-view'.1 Thus for Noth too, the Yah wist has a
special place: his theology contains 'the richest and most
important theological accomplishment expressed anywhere
in the pentateuchal narrative'.2
Closer examination, however, shows that Noth's portrait of
the Yahwist does not agree in important points with that
drawn by von Rad. For Noth contests the fundamental state-
ments of von Rad about the way in which the Yahwist com-
posed the work. To be sure, 'the forecourt (Vorbau), which is
the primeval story... is clearly the work of the Yahwist... But
the two others (i.e."the insetting of the Sinai tradition" and
"the extension of the patriarchal tradition") derive from G
(Grundlage) (namely, the common basic source that Noth
accepts for J and E) and so belong to the same material as that
already taken over by J... But the Pentateuch did not come
into being by looking backwards, as von Rad would have us
believe when he attributes such an epoch-making role to the
Yahwist in the traditio-historical process. It is a question
rather of a growth that took place step by step'.3 The Yahwist
then 'is not the sole author of the most important advances in
the process of the development of the Pentateuch... but only
one of many... Many others, before him, at the same time as
him, and after him had a share in it. When literary criticism
unraveled the common basic (G) of J and E, then this was of
significance not only for literary criticism, but also for the gen-
eral traditio-historical process, inasmuch as it pointed con-
1 A History, p. 228.
2 Op. cit.,p.236.
3 Op. cit., pp. 40-41.
cretely and clearly to this fact'.1

Von Rad's basic view of the Yahwist can in fact scarcely be
contested more concretely and clearly. Von Rad's judgment of
the Yahwist as a theologian depends on his view of him as a
composer of a work, and it is this view that Noth contests.
What is Noth's position here? When discussing the 'question
of the basic ideas... which were normative when the material
being passed on was given literary formulation... one must
prescind from the entity G, because we can know nothing at
all of its wording1.2 And so there can be no theological judg-
ment on the basic composition that Noth, at any rate, ascribes
to 'G'. Thus the essential connection between the work of com-
position and the theology on which, for von Rad, everything
depends, is abolished. But if E is 'to remain, according to the
state of things, almost completely out of consideration',3 then
'the theology of J is all the more clearly before us'.4 It finds
expression above all in the arrangement of the primeval story
and its binding with the subsequent Pentateuch narrative'; in
this, Noth is in broad agreement with von Rad in his explana-
tion of the Yahwistic primeval story and his understanding of
Gen. 12.1-3 as a link passage between the primeval story and
the patriarchal story. 'So the whole weight of the theology of J
lies at the beginning of his narrative. Subsequently, he kept
almost exclusively to the traditional stuff of the pentateuchal
narrative without intervening to alter or expand its substance.
He was satisfied to have said at the beginning how he wanted
the rest to be understood'.5
This is clearly a quite different Yahwist from the one whom
von Rad described and who certainly was not satisfied 'to have
said at the beginning how he wanted the rest to be understood'.
On the contrary: it was just this work of thoroughly shaping
the whole of the massive amount of traditional material that
renders his hand so recognizable. And it must be underscored
yet again that von Rad's judgment depends precisely on the
work being a theological one. By reducing the contribution of
1 Op. cit., p. 41.

2 Op. cit., p. 236.
3 Ibid.
4 Op. cit., p.236.
5 Ibid.
the Yahwist to the shaping of the Pentateuch, Noth has pulled

away the mat. While he held to the view of the Yahwist as a
theologian, yet he described the stage of the pentateuchal
sources as the stage of 'the theological, the reflective, and the
synthesizing overview'.1 Many others have followed him here.
And so a particular branch of literature has developed which
is concerned with the theology of the sources of the Penta-
teuch.
It is worthy of note then that the widespread error of a
search for a literary proof of the existence of sources corre-
sponds to the dominance of theological interest in the penta-
teuchal sources in recent research. This is so particularly for
the Tahwist'. In general, its literary content is unraveled by
way of negation. The general view is that it is easy to delimit
the content of the 'priestly* writing. But opinions are divided
over the 'Elohist'; hence his existence is in need of literary
demonstration. And so the prevailing view is that which, by
means of literary analysis, arrives at the existence of an elo-
histic source, however imperfectly preserved. What remains
belongs to the 'Yahwist' inasmuch as there are no convincing
reasons against it (e.g. signs of a deuteronomistic reworking).
But scarcely any attempt has been made to demonstrate a lit-
erary cohesion between the passages ascribed to the Yahwist.
Generally, one has recourse to the presentation of his theology
or in any case to the overriding ideas and compositional stand-
points. However, it becomes apparent that in many cases the
theological ideas and the compositional standpoints are quite
different in different parts of the Pentateuch. Here again the
(unproven) opinion that these passages belong together as a
literary unit must bear the burden of proof that, in spite of this,
it is a matter of the theology of one author.2
On the other hand, it must be underscored once more that,
from the point of view of the traditio-historical approach, one
is only justified in accepting continuous 'sources' when this is
the result of a study of the history of the traditions of the
smallest units, through the larger literary complexes, right up
1 Op. cit., p. 238. Apart from the primeval story, Noth regards only
Gen. 18.22ff. as a passage of Yahwistic theological work.
2 Op. cit., p. 228.
1. The Documenatary Hypothesis 31
to the final stage of the text. If the question that the traditio-
historical approach is taken seriously, then, on methodical
grounds, the acceptance of 'sources' is excluded by reason of
an analysis made at the final stage, without its being verified
through the study of the formation of the tradition. It goes
without saying that the traditio-historical study makes use of
the varied insights and results of the literary-critical work so
as to unravel the layers and growth of the texts. It will itself, of
course, have to work with literary-critical tools and, for its
part, will have to give answers to the questions raised by liter-
ary criticism. And so it will have to proceed no less 'critically'
and also, to be sure, literary-critically. But it cannot from the
very start equate the literary-critical method of working with
the results carried over from the source theory, as is done so
widely today. This procedure identifies a particular method o
study almost exclusively with one of its conceivable results.
From a methodological point of view, the literary-critical
statement of the question too must always remain open to
results other than those of the traditional source division. And
this all the more so when it is to serve as an assistant to the
traditio-historical method.1
1.4. The question of the 'larger units'

It has already been mentioned that a particular defect in
pentateuchal study hitherto is the gaping cleft between the
study of the smallest units and concern for the final literary
stage. There is a lack of studies of the larger units, formed
from a synthesis of originally independent texts before these
units were brought together at a later stage in the whole
which is the Pentateuch.2 There is many a reference in the lit-
erature to the existence of such larger units;3 but they have
scarcely ever been the object of independent studies, and there
has scarcely ever been any consideration of their function in
the process of the formation of the Pentateuch. But above all,
1 For more detail, see below, section 3, Criticism of Pentateuchal Crit-

icism.
2 See above, 1.2.
3 Cf. Introductions to the OT by Eissfeldt and Sellin-Fohrer.
there has been a lack of studies of the question of how these

texts grew into or were arranged into larger units, and how
this relates to the composition of coherent written 'sources'
whose existence is generally accepted.
The peculiar nature of these larger units has already been
outlined in the presentation of von Rad's study.1 They are a
synthesis, forming a new unit, of texts which form-critically
and because of their origin are often to be judged very differ-
ently. The larger units that are thus formed distinguish them-
selves clearly over against others in which the traditions
belonging to other cycles of themes have been brought
together in like manner. One can in many cases recognize
more or less clearly the means by which the collectors or
authors have shaped and brought together into a unity the
originally independent and often quite disparate material.
This procedure must be studied in closer detail in order to close
the gap in the study of the history of the origin and growth of
the Pentateuch.
It requires very thorough special studies for the individual
complexes of tradition/larger units; and before all, the
methodological pre-requisites must first be broadly established
and developed. Hence, the intent of what follows is twofold: on
the one hand, and in brief, the larger units within the Penta-
teuch, so far as they have been worked out hitherto, must be
presented so as to acquire, under this point of view, a survey of
the material gathered together in the Pentateuch; on the
other hand, one example of the growth and reworking of such
larger units must be studied so as to arrive thereby at criteria
for our statement of the question.
The patriarchal stories of Genesis will be chosen as the
example. The different stages of the process of the formation
of the tradition can be clearly discerned in them: the
independent individual narratives, the formation of individual
'cycles of stories', the gradual collecting of the narratives
about the individual patriarchs, and finally, the putting
together of the stories about the patriarchs so as to form a
larger unit. This makes clear the means used in the course of
formation of the individual stories and the comprehensive
1 See above, 1.2.

larger units and the theolological intentions at work in the

process of assembling and reworking them. And finally, some
reflections are added on the relationship of the larger units so
formed to other units, which once more lead back to the basic
question that this work puts.
Something must be said first of all about the larger units
within the Pentateuch. For the most part they delimit them-
selves, and the literature is broadly at one in accepting this
self-delimitation.
The primeval story forms the first larger unit. It comprises
Genesis 1-11. The current stage of exegesis sees a clear link
between the primeval story and the patriarchal story at the
beginning of the Abraham story. One can put the division
between the two after Gen. 12.1-3 (von Rad)1 or after Gen.
11.26 (Westermann).2 In both cases Gen. 12.1-3 is regarded as
'a clamp between the primeval event and the patriarchal
story'.3
As for the matter of the primeval story in detail, there is
broad agreement that the passages stand side by side with no
intrinsic link between them. Gunkel writes: The passages
begin almost always quite abruptly; they are in rough
sequence or are in complete contradiction'.4 Following
Gunkel, von Rad distinguishes a 'series of cycles of material
originally independent'.5 Westermann tries to arrange the
texts into three narrative groups: 'narratives of creation, of
achievements, and of revolts and their consequences'.6 But he
speaks also of the 'apparently unconnected block(s) in the
primeval story which are heaped together*.7
All interpreters try likewise to work out the inner connec-
tion between these narratives within the framework of the
1 'The Form-critical Problem', p. 65.

2 Genesis 1-11, p. 562
3 O.H. Steck, 'Genesis 12.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten', in
Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift. G. von Rad, 1971,
pp. 525-54.
4 Genesis, p. 2.
5 Op. cit.,p.64.
6 Genesis 1-11, p. 566. In the table on the same page, the last group
stands under the heading 'Crime and Punishment'.
7 Op. cit.,p.64.
present composition. Gunkel speaks of a 'thread as the last

collector will have conceived it';1 von Rad sees in the composi-
tion 'the directing of the individual pieces of material towards
a goal';2 and Westermann puts the question whether these
apparently unconnected texts are 'somehow... joined with
each other in a much more profound arrangement than
appears at first sight, an arrangement which derives from the
primeval story as a whole and keeps this whole always in
sight'.3
Two things become clear from this first of the larger units:
the individual pieces and their narrative shape have pre-
served a great deal of independence with respect to each other;
nevertheless, they seem to have been put together as if by one
who wanted to impose a unified form, so that despite this dis-
parity in the individual elements, the whole has the effect of a
tightly closed unit. Interpreters try now to work out the inten-
tion of the composition and the means used to give it its shape.
Neither, of course, is immediately obvious so that very differ-
ent answers are given.
Reference must be made to a further matter which West-
ermann in particular has stressed: to synthesize the narra-
tives in the primeval story and in the patriarchal story under
the general concept of 'Sage' does not do justice to the
profound differences in the style of presentation; rather must
it be said 'that the style of the narratives in Genesis 1-11 is
basically different from that in Genesis 12-50; the two types
belong to two fundamentally different styles and lines of
tradition'.4 So then, on the one hand there would be form-
critical consequences to be drawn with regard to the
determination of the different characteristics of the 'Sage']
while on the other hand the question arises, when and at what
stage of the formation of the tradition these very different
complexes were joined together, and to what extent a
common, over-arching, reworking can be discerned.
The patriarchal story (Gen. 12-50) forms the next larger
1 Genesis, p. 1.
2 Op. cit.,p.64.
3 Genesis 1-11.
4 Ibid.
1. The Documentary Haypothesis 35
unit; it will be dealt with in detail in the second chapter. Let it

be said here by way of summary simply that the same phe-
nomena are evident in it: on the one hand a broad indepen-
dence of a section of the individual narratives, and on the
other a clearly recognizable, synthetic shaping of the
narrative materials into larger complexes. Each of the
patriarchal stories in itself exhibits such a synthesizing
reworking: each of the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph
stories are the result of the juxtaposition and collection of
single narratives. And more—the first three have been
further joined together to form a larger unit. The dominant
intentions and the way in which they have been arranged are
clearly evident. However, it is only in the patriarchal story
that they are found in this form.1
Various suggestions have been made for the delineation of
larger units in the following books of the Pentateuch. Gress-
mann tries to establish the largest unit when he writes: The
largest cycle of stories which one can discern at first sight
extends from the birth of Moses and the sojourn of Israel in
Egypt to the death of Moses and the arrival of the people of
Israel at the border of the promised land'.2 But Gressmann did
not himself divide this large narrative complex further. Apart
from some smaller cycles of stories within this larger frame-
work, this group of stories in the Moses narrative 'splits into
two loose halves'. The stories from the birth of Moses to the
arrival of Israel at Sinai3 form a coherent unit up to a point.
The second half of the Moses story portrays as its general
theme the departure of Israel from Sinai for the promised
land.4
Let us turn then to the first part of the Moses story. Gress-
mann writes: 'The cycle of stories of Exodus 1.1-15.21 can be
followed clearly, but after this the contours fade'.5 Pedersen
brought a completely new approach to Exodus 1—15 when he
considered it as a coherent larger unit.6 He understands the
1 For further detail, see below under 2.5.

2 Mose und seine Zeit, p. 386.
3 Op. cit., p. 387.
4 Op. cif.,p.388.
5 Op. cit., pp. 387-88.
6 ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75.
whole narrative complex as a cult legend of the feast of the

Pasch which lies at the basis of the dramatic arrangement of
the feast. Despite all unevennesses and secondary additions,
the legend forms a well articulated whole from beginning to
end (Exod. 1-15), constructed according to a definite plan'.1
And so an entirely new statement of the question arises here; it
considers the history of the growth of larger units within the
Pentateuch not only from the point of view of narrative, but
also from that of the history of cult and liturgy. It is clear that
with such presuppositions the question of the origin, growth
and formation of larger units presents itself in a radically
altered form. In particular, the intentions and the method of
arrangement, which have been at work in the process of
assembling the individual pieces of material, must be judged
quite differently than from a purely narrative point of view.
Von Rad took up Pedersen's 'directive towards the internal
coherence of Exodus 1-14 (sic!) and its origin from the feast of
the Pasch'.2 His interest was less the liturgical element than
the fact that these chapters 'present a well-rounded comple
of tradition' in which we have before us 'a genuine exodus
tradition'.3 Noth also accepts the validity of Pedersen's thesis,
however 'in a somewhat more narrowly drawn framework,
confined to the narrative of the plagues of Egypt'.4 This means
in particular that he no longer wants to count the narrative of
the destruction of the Egyptians in the sea (Exodus 14) as part
of this complex. Further, Noth deals with the traditions of the
birth and call of Moses, as they have taken form in Exodus 1-
4, in a quite different place.5 But in the division of the book of
Exodus in his commentary, he brings chs. 1-15 together
again under the heading The leading out from Egypt'.6
Fohrer too has analysed the way in which Exodus 1-15
cohere, including in his approach the criticism by exegetes of
Pedersen.7 On the one side, he divides the material into a great
1 Op. cit., p. 167.

2 The Form-critical Problem', pp. 51-52.
3 Op. cit., pp. 51-52.
4 A History, p. 66.
5 Op. cit., pp. 156ff., 201ff.
6 Exodus heading on p. 19.
7 See in particular S. Mowinckel, 'Die vermeintliche 'Passah-
number of smaller narrative 'elements', but on the other, he

comes to the conclusion 'that the exodus tradition is not a self-
contained complex and that the exodus itself is not an isolated
event to be evaluated separately and by itself.1 He rejects 'the
fiction of a deep cleft that has made it possible to accept an iso-
lated exodus tradition', and continues: In reality, Exodus 1-15
is directed to a continuation of and forms a part of a more
comprehensive historical narrative... That larger whole was
the occupation of the land by Moses' host which comprised the
tradition of how the exodus came about, the exodus, the firm
alliance with Yahweh on Sinai, the further wandering right
up to the entrance into the territory of east Jordan; then the
death of the charismatic leader Moses, and originally too the
settlement in east Jordan'.2
It is obvious that very different methods and statements of
the question clash in this discussion of Exodus 1-15. Besides
the difference, already mentioned, between a predominantly
narrative approach and a cultic approach, historical questions
too come under consideration which once more are involved
with the traditio-historical question of whether the exodus
tradition existed and was passed on in isolation; (the exodus is
'not an isolated event to be evaluated separately and by itself);
and finally, it is very obvious that interest in the large narrtive
complexes is closely bound up with the concept of the existence
of continuous narrative sources which embrace the whole of
the pentateuchal material. On the contrary, there has so far
been scarcely any attempt to look for clues to the conscious
shaping of larger units within Exodus 1—15—as is the case too
in other parts of the book of Exodus. Within the framework of
our statement of the question, this would require an entirely
new approach.3
Von Rad has laid special emphasis on the independence of
the Sinai passage, in particular of Exodus 19-24. Following
Mowinckel, he regards it as a 'cult legend', i.e. he brings into
legende'; 'Ex 1-15 in Bezug auf die Frage: Literarkritik und Tradi-
tionskritik', STL 5 (1952) 66-88.
1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 1-
15,1964, p. 121.
2 Op. cit.,?. 122.
3 See below under 2.6.
relief once more the cultic, liturgical function of this collection.

This is in line with his thesis that the Sinai tradition was first
passed on separately from the traditions of the exodus and the
occupation of the land, and was joined with them only at a
relatively later stage. This opinion has been frequently criti-
cised.1 The criticism is concerned primarily with the ques-
tion—do the different complexes of tradition just mentioned
belong together or not. The relatively self-contained indepen-
dence of the Sinai pericope has scarcely been contested, nor
can it be, as it is so obvious.
But it is just this discussion that has stood in the way of fur-
ther study of the formation and structure of the Sinai
pericope. Hence, there have been scarcely any studies of the
question of how the extremely different elements within the
Sinai pericope came together.2 It lies before us in a form that
reflects a wild growth; Exodus 19 through to Numbers 10
contains an assortment of narrative, cultic, and legal material
which has been thrown together. Scholarship has, to be sure,
separated out certain blocks of material, in particular
different codes of law. But as to how all this came together into
a whole, and whether there were any guiding principles of
arrangement or discernable intent at work in the process, this
question has still not really been put.
A further problem in the Sinai synthesis is the fact that it is
preceded and followed by narratives about Israel's sojourn in
the desert (Exod. 16-18; Num. 11-20).3 Gressmann accepted
as a basis for all these narratives a collection of stories con-
nected with the sanctuary at Kadesh. According to him they
1 Cf. A. Weiser, Introduction to the Old Testament. W. Beyerlin,

Herkunft und Geschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen.
2 Further pointers in this direction may be found in L. Perlitt, Bun-
destheologie im Alien Testament, 1969, pp. 156-238.
3 There are differences in the delimitation of the ending of this com-
plex of tradition. Noth sees in Num. 20.14-21 the transition to the
theme 'leading into the land' (A History, p. 206); and so in his
commentary on Numbers he makes the division: Num. 11.1-20.13,
'further sojourn in the wilderness', and Num. 20.14-36.13,
'Preparation for and beginning of the "conquest"' (Numbers,
pp. 81, 148). V. Fritz represents an opposite view: Israel in der
Wiiste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wiisten-
uberlieferung des Jahwisten, 1970, esp. chs. 20 and 21.
were only separated from each other by the inset Sinai pas-
sages in the course of the traditio-historical development.1
This question is in turn linked with historical, religio-histori-
cal, and traditio-historical questions, especially with the ques-
tion of whether Kadesh was ever a cultic centre for some or
for all the Israelite tribes. Noth has contested this thesis very
strongly,2 while others have accepted and elaborated it.3 But in
all this, the question of how the narratives came together in
their present arrangement has remained undiscussed. That
is, in our statement of the question: was there one (or several)
larger unit(s) with the theme 'Israel in the desert' whose
growth from individual narratives or suchlike smaller units
can be outlined.4
Finally, of particular interest is the discussion of the tradi-
tions about the Israelites' occupation of the land. At the begin-
ning of this century Old Testament scholarship in general
accepted that the traditions of the occupation of the land in the
book of Joshua were an immediate continuation of the penta-
teuchal presentation. The reason for this was that the texts in
Joshua were regarded as belonging to the pentateuchal
'sources'. And so one spoke of the 'Hexateuch'. Noth, in his
analysis of the book of Joshua, came to the conclusion 'the lit-
erary-critical theses, demonstrated above all for Genesis, are
not valid for the book of Joshua in the same enlightening way.
The reason for this is that it is not possible to arrive at inter-
nally coherent complexes for each of the accepted continuous
narrative threads'.5 Instead of continuous 'sources' in the nar-
rative parts of Joshua, he discerned a 'collector' at work, who
gathered together older traditions which had already been
partly joined together and shaped them into a 'very old whole
unit'.6
This means nothing else than that Noth here regarded the
occupation of the land traditions in Joshua as an independent
larger unit. It is surely not due to chance that this occurred in
1 Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, pp. 386-87.

2 A History, pp. 164-65.
3 Cf. Beyerlin, op. cit., pp. 165ff.
4 Fritz, op. cit., p. 25.
5 Das Buck Josua, 1953 (2nd edn), p. 8.
6 Op. cit., p. 12.
work on a commentary on a single book of the Old Testament

which required that one come to grips more accurately with
the problems of this larger unit without looking at them in the
framework of the usual problems of pentateuchal (hexa-
teuchal) study. Noth then drew the consequences of this: he
separated the book of Joshua once more from the Pentateuch
and abandoned the thesis of 'sources' extending beyond the
Pentateuch, and hence any talk of the *Hexateuch'.
However, this raised a new difficulty for Noth. It seemed
certain to him that the old pentateuchal sources originally
ended up with a narrative of the occupation of the land. One of
the main reasons for this surmise is the 'repeated promises
right throughout the patriarchal story that the descendants
are ultimately to possess the land of Palestine'.1 Further, there
is the fact that the book of Numbers begins with the account of
the occupation of east Jordan which, in Noth's opinion,
requires a continuation in the account of the occupation of
west Jordan. Noth thinks that this original description of the
occupation of the land in the older pentateuchal sources has
Tbeen lost'; the reason being that the priestly writing is not
interested in the theme of the occupation of the land; hence,
'its description would have ended with the reports of the death
of Miriam, Aaron, and Moses'; the redactor would then have
'tailored the narrative of the old sources to the literary
framework of the P narrative and so have simply left out the
end of that narrative extending beyond the death of Moses'.2
One can only say that this is an extremely precarious way of
arguing. On the one hand Noth, on the basis of his analysis of
the book of Joshua, cannot maintain the thesis of continuous
sources which end up with the description of the occupation of
the land; on the other, he cannot, or will not, draw the conse-
quence of this, namely to submit the source theory itself to
critical examination. And so he makes use of a redactor who
has simply left out' the postulated, but not extant, texts. Noth's
thesis has subsequently undergone lively discussion, and has
been accepted by various scholars, again without the conse-
quences for the source theory as a whole being drawn.
1 A History, p. 16.
2 Ibid.
It must be stated that, for our context, a large unit consisting

of traditions about the occupation of the land has been clearly
discerned in the book of Joshua. From the traditio-historical
point of view the question, to what pentateuchal 'source' does
it belong, plays no role; there is no ground for regarding this
larger unit as, in essence, anything else than an independent
complex of tradition within the Pentateuch. The question
whether it belongs to a broader context is to be put only at a
later stage. But for the Pentateuch itself there would be the
further question, whether the narratives about the occupation
of the land in east Jordan can be understood only as the
beginning of a more comprehensive and total description of
the occupation of land, or whether the occupation traditions in
the book of Numbers can be considered as an indeendent
larger unit which has had its own history of tradition.
The survey of the Pentateuch according to recognizable
larger units with a common theme has shown that virtually
the whole pentateuchal material is divided into such larger
units: the primeval story, the patriarchal story, Moses and
exodus, Sinai, sojourn in the desert, occupation of the land.
Each of these units has its own characteristic profile; each is
assembled from various elements of tradition and presents
itself now as a more or less self-contained unit. Research so far
has acknowledged the independent character of most of these
units, and there are already many individual studies. These
works, however, try consistently to show that the present
unity is a constituent part of a larger context, namely the
pentateuchal 'sources'. As a consequence, the question of the
independence is not dealt with, and the qualities characteristic
of the carefully planned arrangement are for the most part
very quickly—or even a priori—traced back to the authors of
the 'sources'. It is striking that scarcely a single thorough
comparison has been carried out of the method of working of
the supposed authors of the 'sources' in different larger units
And so there has been no convincing demonstration so far that
the recognizable reworking of the traditions in the different
parts of the Pentateuch goes back in fact to the same redactor
or author. One is often content to designate a reworking as
'theological' so as to ascribe it, together with other 'theological'
reworkings, to someone called the *Yahwist'. Hence, there
must be a new approach: there must be a thorough study of

the arrangement and the reworking of the individual larger
units in which each must be considered in itself without any
previous decision whether it belongs to a larger complex or to
one or other 'sources'. It is only in a next step in the compari-
son that the question of the larger complexes can be put.
Chapter 2
THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES

OF A 'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF THE PENTATEUCH
2.1 The stories of Joseph, Jacob, and Isaac

Within the patriarchal story several independent narrative
complexes delineate themselves clearly. The special place of
the Joseph story (Gen. 37-50) stands out most clearly of all.
Gunkel has already described appositely its peculiar charac-
ter. However, he shows himself remarkably uncertain in his
choice of form-critical terminology. First of all he writes: The
Joseph story is a cycle of stories (Sagenkranz)'. Nevertheless,
he continues: 'However, it marks itself off... from the other
cycles of stories by its very tight structure'; hence, he describes
it as 'a well arranged whole'. It is scarcely possible to separate
the individual stories from each other; rather 'the boundaries
between the passages are very fluid'.1 After describing the
characteristics of the style and the manner of presentation in
further detail, he says finally: 'After all this, we can scarcely
call this narrative a story (Sage); we must call it a Novelle'.2
Consequently, one must go further and say: the Joseph story is
not a cycle of stories. It is clear that here, as in other places,
Gunkel uses the notion 'cycle of stories' in a very undefined
sense, not only to describe a collection of originally
independent stories, but also for literary arrangements, the
constituent parts of which are not appropriately designated as
stories (Sagen).
The notion 'Novelle' has prevailed by and large for the
Joseph story. Its special character within the patriarchal story
1 Genesis, p. 396.
2 Op. cit.,p.397.
has been generally acknowledged. Von Rad has added a fur-

ther dimension with his thesis: 'the Joseph story is a didactic
wisdom narrative which, both in the ideal that it presents and
in its basic theological thinking, is dependent on many a
stimulus of Egyptian origin'.1 This classification among the
traditions influenced by Egyptian wisdom sets it apart even
further from the rest of the tradition in the patriarchal story.
Gunkel has also made the most important observations on
the Jacob story. He has shown that it consists in essence of two
large narrative complexes: the Jacob-Esau stories (Gen.
25.19-34; 27.1-28.9; 32-3G2) and the Jacob-Laban stories
(Gen. 29—31). Both have been skilfully joined together: 'a
'frame' has been fashioned out of the Jacob—Esau stories into
which the Jacob-Laban stories have been inserted'. He
specifies the arrangement that has thus arisen in the
following way: This Jacob—Esau-Laban cycle is, accordingly,
not a loose juxtaposition from the hand of a redactor, but an
artistic arrangement: a sequence of cross references forwards
and backwards... and especially the conclusion which reverts
to the beginning, binds the whole together into a unit'.3 Besides
these two larger complexes of narratives Gunkel names as a
further independent element the 'stories about the places of
cult which Jacob founded'4 (besides the 'accounts of the birth
and the later fate of Jacob's children'5 which he maintains are
not constituent parts of the old arrangements of the stories). It
is a question here of the cult stories of Bethel, Mahanaim,
Penuel, and Shechem which *have been distributed along the
trail of Jacob's travels'.6 Von Rad has taken Gunkel's observa-
tions further at this point by showing that the two cultic stories
of Bethel (Gen. 28.10-22) and Penuel (Gen. 32.23-33 [22-32])
in particular play an important role in the overall arrange-
ment. They stand at the two turning points of Jacob's journey:
1 The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom', in The Problem of the

Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966 (German 1953), pp. 292-300.
2 Gunkel, however, deals with the passages from 33.17 onwards
under the heading 'Jacob in Canaan', p. 368.
3 Op. cit., p. 292.
4 Op. cit., p. 291.
5 Ibid.
6 Op. cit., p. 292.
2. The Patriarchal Stories 45
the flight from Esau and the retreat from Laban. The Jacob
story then is supported by these two narratives 'as a bridge is
supported by two pylons... These two narrative blocks are
clearly markers indicating the guiding theological thinking*.1
Westermann too has arrived at essentially the same
division and designation of the constituent parts of the Jacob
narrative. Looking at the entire block of the Jacob-Esau-
Laban cycle of stories, he speaks of a 'group of coherent
narratives dominating the whole which can be called one
large narrative'.2 He says of this group that 'in the way in
which they are arranged they stand somewhere between the
type of short, self-contained Abraham narratives and the
Joseph narrative which forms a much larger and more
complex unit'.3
There is an independent Isaac story in Genesis 26. The lit-
erature for the most part does not evaluate this chapter as an
independent section, but looks at it within the frame of the
Jacob story. Gunkel puts it under the heading 'Survey of the
arrangement of the JE Jacob stories'; it is in brackets with the
additional note, 'inserted... by a later hand'.4 Von Rad writes:
'There are only two stories about Isaac (Gen. 26.6-11, 12-33)
which have been incorporated into the broad arrangement of
the Jacob stories'.5 In his Genesis commentary, however, it is
different. On the one hand it is fitted more firmly into the
'units of tradition'; on the other, he writes: These Isaac tradi-
tions have passed into the literture basically in their ancient
form and without any adjustment to the later and broad
arrangement of the patriarchal stories'.6 Gunkel too felt that
the Isaac story had its own character over against the other
patriarchal stories, and so surmised that the chapter liad
been taken from another related book of stories and inserted
here'.7
1 Genesis, 1972, p. 39.

2 'Arten der Erzahlung in der Genesis', in Forschung am Alien Tes-
tament, 1964, pp. 9-91, esp. p. 87.
3 Ibid., also Noth, A History, pp. 98ff.
4 Op. cit., p. 291.
5 'The Form-critical Problem', p. 57.
6 Op. cit., p. 270.
7 Op. cit.
The independence of Genesis 26 with respect to the context

is well underscored. The chapter is described as a 'mosaic',1 a
passage which 'has not become a completely self-contained
composition'.2 'On the other hand one can recognize clearly
the attempt to weld subsequently the small units of tradition
into some sort of self-contained coherent whole'.3 Kessler, on
the basis of his study of the cross references within the chap-
ter, comes finally to the conclusion that 'Genesis 26 presents a
narrative cluster that can be described as "the Isaac
cluster"'.4
We must pursue this question somewhat more closely. Noth
stated that the author (for him, J) *has assembled here, as it
were in a compendium and with the help of a continuous nar-
rative thread, all that the narrative tradition known to him
about Isaac was aware of. He describes the chapter as a
'string of units of tradition that are in part only sketchy and in
themselves not tightly knit'.5 In fact, one of the crucial prob-
lems for the understanding and evaluation of the Isaac stories
is that they are to some extent not amplified as narratives in
the usual way. Genesis 26 contains only two detailed narra-
tives: 'the betrayal of the ancestress' (w. 7-11) and the
making of the treaty with Abimelech of Gerar (w. 26-31).
Both have their parallels in the Abraham story (Gen. 12.10-20
and 20.1-18; 21.22-32). Noth has, in my opinion, proposed
convincing reasons arguing that each of the Isaac variants
are, from the traditio-historical standpoint, older.6 Both are
linked as narrative by the cross reference in v. 29.
The remaining parts of the chapter are of a very different
type. Two divine addresses stand out which have no immedi-
ate connection with the narrative context (w. 2-4, 24).7 Verses
1 Franz Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar fiber die Genesis, 1887, p. 360.

2 Gunkel, Genesis, p. 300.
3 Von Rad, Genesis.
4 R. Kessler, Die Querverweise im Pentateuch. Uberlieferungs-
geschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen
innerhalb des vorpriestlichen Pentateuchs, Diss. theol., Heidelberg,
1972, p.108.
6 Op. cit., pp. 103ff.
7 However, the first divine address is linked to the context by w. 1 and
6, the second by w. 23 and 25.
12-14 provide some very general information about Isaac's

wealth, which is described as a result of God's blessing, and
about the consequent envy of the Philistines. They have the
very obvious function of giving the prerequisites for the subse-
quent narratives about the disputes over the wells.1 (Verse 28
refers back expressly to this.) Verses 16-17 report quite
undramatically Isaac's 'expulsion' from the Gerar territory;
and there is a reference back to this in v. 27. It is easy to dis-
cern here the concern to form a unified whole.
The remainder has to do entirely with wells, and it is a ques-
tion only of passages that have not been elaborated in narra-
tive fashion. How are they to be evaluated? Verses 15 and 18
report that the Philistines had blocked up the wells that Abra-
ham had dug earlier, and that Isaac had dug them again and
given them their old names. Since Wellhausen it has been
common to attribute these verses to a redactor (Gunkel, RJ) or
to a later hand (von Rad). It is amazing how woolly the argu-
ments for this are. According to Gunkel, the 'insertion betrays
itself *by referring back to an earlier story'.2 But no story
about the Philistines blocking up the wells dug by Abraham
exists. Rather in the place to which reference is made (Gen.
21.25), Abimelech's men took the wells by force, which actu-
ally amounts to something different, namely that in this ver-
sion they wanted to use the wells themselves.3 Wellhausen
was consistent in this: 'After all, v. 18 is a harmonizing inser-
tion referring back to 21.22ff which, in a rather infantile
manner, wants to put Abraham's wells out of action by block-
ing them up so that Isaac can dig them again'. Hence, Well-
hausen admits that new statements are being made here
which are not taken from other narratives. But why should
these verses come from a 'later hand'? They give certain
pieces of information and are quite comprehensible in them-
selves. They lack only the usual narrative shaping.
Perhaps we can go further if we point to similar short
communications, not developed in narrative form, in other
1 Westermann, 'Die Arten'.

2 Genesis, p. 302.
3 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bttcher des
Alten Testaments, 1899 (3rd edn), p. 21.
places in the Old Testament. In the story of David's rise

(1 Sam. 16—2 Sam. 5), for example, there are a number of
brief passages with self-contained pieces of information which
have not been developed into narratives.1 One must conceive
of these as the work of a collector or author of a particular
group of texts who, side by side with developed narratives,
made use as well of information which had not been formed
into narrative, but which, nevertheless, he wanted to take into
his work; and so by means of short communications he was
able to pass on the relevant information.
This would mean that, for the Isaac story, the collector or
author was aware of certain traditions about wells in the
northern Negev which were linked with the figure of Isaac
(and Abraham), but which had not been passed on in the form
of developed narratives: traditions about the digging a second
time and re-naming by Isaac of Abraham's old wells
(w. 15,18); about the dispute over the newly dug wells at Esek
(w. 19-20) and Sitnah (v. 21), and the undisputed use of the
well Rehoboth (v.22), with the naming of each well on each
occasion; and finally about the naming of the newly dug well
at Beersheba in association with the treaty between Isaac and
Abimelech (w.25b, 32-33). There is no reason for considering
the tradition in w. 15 and 18 very differently. Further, faced
with these short communictions, it is form-critically mis-
guided to say that 'an etymological story has been spun' out of
the names of the wells.2 What typifies these short communi-
cations is precisely that they have not been turned into story.
They have been fitted into the framework of the other Isaac
traditions in such a way that the synthesis, despite the variety
of the material, gives the impression of a relatively self-con-
tained piece.
2.2 The story of Abraham

The interpreter of the Abraham traditions is faced with a
1 Cf. R. Rendtorff, 'Beobachtungen zur altisraelitischen Geschichts-
schreibung anhand der Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids', in Prob-
leme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift G. von Rad, 1971, pp. 428-39,
esp. pp. 432ff.
2 Gunkel, Genesis, p.302.
unique situation. On the one hand, there are many indepen-

dent units of tradition in the Abraham stories which have no
explicit relationship to their context. There is scarcely any
other area in the Pentateuch where the individual narratives
stand out as such self-contained and independent literary
units.On the other hand, the reader gets the impression of an
internal coherence which runs through the whole Abraham
tradition and makes it appear to be a relatively self-contained
unit. The traditio-historical question then may be formulated
thus: Is it in fact a question here of a larger unit so conceived
according to a definite plan? If so, what are the characteristics
of this larger unit, and what are the means used to arrange
these originally independent smaller units, still recognizable
as such today, into a larger unit?
2.2.1 The variety of layers in the process of transmission of the

Abraham tradition
A first step towards answering this question is that closer
attention is being given to the connections between individual
smaller units already featured in the literature. Gunkel has
already spoken of an Abraham-Lot cycle to which he reckons
the following texts: Gen. 12.1-8; 13; 18.1-16aa; 19.1-28; 19.30-
38j1 but he has seen also that the expression 'cycle' is not
entirely appropriate here. He describes it in the form-critical
context as a collection of originally independent, individual
stories (Sagen} which had been woven into a certain unity.2
The term story (Sage) however, as Gunkel himself has
explained, is appropriate only for a part of the texts mentioned.
This notion is clearly not applicable to the passage Gen. 12.1-8,
of which Gunkel, summing it up, writes: The narrative has
little concrete about it and can scarcely be called a 'story'
(Geschichte)', in its present form it must be considered late.
The writer had before him only the 'information' that Abra-
ham had come from Aram-Naharaim and that he founded
the altars at Shechem and Bethel. He developed this
'information' into a sort of story (Geschichte) which he has set
1 Genesis, p. 159.
2 As, for example, is the case in the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban
stories.
as it were as a 'signature-tune' (Motto) at the beginning of the

Abraham stories. Hence we are to regard Abraham as the
believer, the obedient one, and consequently the one blessed'.1
Accordingly, Gunkel considers that we are dealing here with
something belonging to the collection and the reworking, not
with an original story (Sage) or narrative.
Gunkel maintains that the same holds for Genesis 13. This
narrative is not constructed for itself but is rather a prepara-
tion for the two narratives about Abraham and Lot at Mamre
and Sodom. This narrative differs qualitatively from old sto-
ries inasmuch as it is not constructed for itself but rather pre-
supposes the Sodom story in such a way as to be quite incom-
prehensible without it... and so one must consider it a later
and new formation, a shoot grafted on to an older branch'.2
Hence Genesis 13 would have been placed before the two nar-
ratives of Mamre (18.1-16) and Sodom (19.1-28) only after
these had been brought together to balance each other. These
for their part have been joined together by means of the
intermediary passage 18.17-33, and especially by the geo-
graphical references in 18.16, 22; 19.27-28, so as to form a
larger unit with Genesis 13 (and 19.30-38),3 the intention of
which is quite clear, as are the means used to arrange and
bind together the individual elements. Gunkel himself limited
the function of 12.1-8 in the collection when he described it as
the 'signature tune' (Motto) of the Abraham stories as a
whole.
But this broader context which Gunkel established covers
only a small part of the Abraham tradition. A further group of
narratives that belong together is readily discernible in Gene-
sis 20-22. Kessler has described them as the 'Negev group'
because their common scene of action is in the Negev. Of par-
ticular importance here is Kessler's demonstration that the
four 'scenes' (Gen. 20; 21.1-7, 8-21, 22-34) are joined together
1 Genesis, p. 167. What Gunkel has to say about these 'pieces of

information' is very close to what we have just said about some pas-
sages in the Isaac tradition.
2 Genesis, p. 176.
3 Kessler, op. cit.; he gives chs. 13, 18, 19 the title 'Narrative groups',
pp. 69ff.
by cross-references.1 The note about Isaac's growing up in

21.8 refers back to the preceding passage which tells of Isaac's
birth; the passage about the treaty between Abraham and
Abimelech at Beersheba in 21.22-34 'is unintelligible in its
beginning (w. 22-23) without a knowledge of Genesis 20'.2
And so we are dealing here with a collection of narratives
which are joined together by their common scene of action as
well as by cross references (with the exception of Genesis 223).
These two collections have themselves been obviously joined
together at a particular stage of the reworking as is clear from
the explicit link at the beginning of 20.1 (Then Abraham set
out from there') joining it with the preceding narrative(s).
This is all the more striking as the large majority of Abraham
narratives begin with introductory formulas which contain
no explicit reference at all to the context.4
Quite distinct from these collections or groups of narratives
stand a number of other narratives which show no sign of any
connection with the context, apart from the fact that the
actors in them are the same. This is the case with Genesis 14;
16;5 17;6 23. Further, the narrative in 12.10-20 is self-con-
tained and has no explicit references to the rest of the Abra-
ham traditions. It has, however, been joined to the context in
12.9; 13.1, 3-4 in a remarkably elaborate way by 'resuming7
geographical details. But this procedure is without parallel
within the patriarchal story, so that it cannot be taken in itself
to be a typical sign of a particular layer of reworking.7
There are some further narratives, likewise self-contained
which, however, presuppose the whole context of the Abra-
1 Kessler, op. cit., pp. 80-87.

2 Op. cit., p. 87.
3 For the relationship of Gen. 22 to the 'Negev-group', cf. Kessler, op.
cit., p. 92, n. 6.
4 Gen. 12.10; 14.1; 16.1; 17.1; 23.1; compare too 18.1; 24.1. On the other
hand, for a link with the context: 13.1-2; 15.1; 20.1; 21.1, 8, 22; 22.1.
5 The mention of Sarah's barrenness in Gen. 11.30 cannot be alleged
against this.
6 Here, however, the birth of Ishmael is presupposed.
7 And so there are no grounds whatever for any claim that this
'resumption' belongs to the Yahwist: this is against Noth, A His-
tory, pp. Ill, 221f., nn. 590, 253, 611; cf. von Rad, "The Form-critical
Problem', p. 59; and Genesis, ad loc.
ham traditions to such an extent that they can scarcely have

existed without it. This is true in particular of Genesis 24, the
narrative about the winning of a bride for Isaac.1 It presup-
poses the whole life-story of Abraham. And so it is obvious that
it has only been formulated at that stage of the process of for-
mation of the tradition when its different elements had, for the
most part, come together.
The situation is much more difficult in Genesis 15. Both
parts of the chapter (w. 1-6, 7-21) presuppose as a whole, and
each in a different way, the general theme of the Abraham
tradition: the problem of no son and the promise of numerous
descendants joined to the birth of a son (w. 1-6), as well as the
departure from the original homeland (Ur-Kasdim) and the
promise of the possession of the land (w. 7-21). On the other
hand, the chapter stands in the middle of a context with which
it not only has no link, but over against which it exhibits clear
tensions.2 In contrast to Genesis 24, therefore, it cannot have
been formulated with a view to the present context. It presents
a unique, independent exposition of the basic themes of the
Abraham tradition.
Finally, it has already been noted that the passage 12.1-8
has been arranged with a view to the overall complex of the
Abraham tradition in its present form. It belongs, therefore,
again in contrast to the two chapters already mentioned, to
that stage of the reworking which was bringing the Abraham
tradition together.
2.2.2 The promises in the divine addresses in the Abraham

story
The Abraham traditions present, from the literary standpoint,
a picture that is very uneven and many-layered. If one asks,
what is the overarching element which, despite this, allows
the impression of a self-contained unity to emerge, of which
we have spoken above, then the answer must without doubt
be: the divine promises to Abraham. Closer examination, how-
ever, reveals that the element of promise appears in a bewil-
dering variety of forms, both in content and formulation, so
1 Cf. Kessler, op. cit., pp. 92ff.

2 Cf. L. Periltt, see above under 1.4.
that at first glance it seems impossible to arrive at criteria for

the collection and arrangement of the Abraham traditions.1
Nevertheless, we must undertake the task because it is possi-
ble that this may give access to the problems of the
composition of the Abraham traditions.
Westermann has made an important step in this direction.
He has dealt with the theme of the promises to the fathers
above all in his work The Types of Narrative in Genesis'.2 His
statement of the question must be taken up and developed
here.
Westermannn first of all raised the question of how the
theme of the promise stands in relationship to the individual
narratives in the patriarchal traditions. He came to the con-
clusion that only very few of the individual narratives can be
described as 'promise narratives'.3 Genesis 18 is a very obvious
example of a promise narrative. The promise of a son is the
central narrative element here, and there is no way in which
it can be detached. It is similar in the case of Genesis 16 where
the promise of the birth of Ishmael to Hagar likewise belongs
to the essence of the narrative.4 In 15.1-6, the promise of the
son is closely joined to the promise of numerous descendants.
The structure of the whole passage is multi-layered and, from5
the traditio-historical standpoint, very difficult to penetrate.
Finally, in 15.7-21, the promise of the possession of the land is
an essential part of the narrative. Westermann however
surmises that the narrative does not lie before us in its original
form.6
According to Westermann's analysis, in all other cases the
element of the promise does not belong to the oldest constituent
part of the narrative. Rather, The promise motif belongs pre-
dominantly to that stage when the old narratives were
brought together to form larger units'.7 Investigation must
1 Cf. Westermann, see above under 2.1.

2 Op. cit., pp. 11-34.
3 Op. cit., p. 33.
4 Op. cit., p. 19. It is notable that both narratives contain as well ele-
ments of a place etiology.
5 Op. cit., pp. 21ff.
6 Op. cit., p. 29.
7 Op. cit., p. 33.
carry on from here. However, there must first be a series of

preliminary studies before this 'stage when the old narratives
were brought together to form larger units' can be clearly set
in focus; for the complicated situation, already referred to,
does not allow an immediate analysis of the text.
The promises occur almost exclusively in divine addresses
or in citations from them. Hence, further inquiry commends
itself so as to broaden the investigation and to inquire about the
function of the divine addresses in the Abraham stories. The
first result of this is negative: however significant the role of
the divine address is in many places, it is by no means present
in all the Abraham narratives. Rather, there is a striking
number of narratives in which there is no divine address at
all: 12.10-20; 14; 19.30-38; 21.22-34; 23; 24.This means then
that neither in the original formulation nor in the later
reworking is the divine address used as a regular means of
arranging the narrative.
On the other hand, in a second group of narratives, the
divine address forms a constituent element. This is the case
particularly when the divinity itself is present, even though
unrecognized at first, and speaks directly to people, as in Gen-
esis 18 and 19. In these cases, the divine address is a direct,
constituent part of the narrative. In Genesis 18, the promise
element is in the foreground.1 In the remaining cases YHWH
only speaks without intervening in the action. And the for-
mula, Then YHWH appeared', remains opaque.2
But the divine address can also be used as an integral part of
the narrative in such a way as to initiate a particular event.
There is a divine command at the beginning of Genesis 22,
which Abraham carries out, but which contains no explicit
promise (v. 2).3 There is a command from YHWH to Abraham
in Gen. 15.9 to do a particular thing, as there is in 21.12. On the
other hand, the event in Genesis 16 runs its course without
1 It is possible that the announcement of the birth of a son was

already part of the pre-Israelite sanctuary legend; cf. Gunkel, Gen-
esis, p. 200.
2 Despite Gen. 17.22.
3 On the element of guidance in the promise addresses, cf. below
under 2.3.4.
any divine address to Abraham; only at a later stage is a

promise addressed to Hagar. But it has no influence on Abra-
ham's conduct. The same is true for Genesis 20 where the
address is directed to Abimelech only. These examples show
that the divine address can be employed in different ways as a
narrative device, though does not at all have to be joined
always to the promise element.
There are some cases where the divine address is so domi-
nant that one can hardly speak of a narrative. This is the case
particularly in Genesis 17 where there is but the barest nar-
rative frame (apart from the execution of the command in
w. 23-27); the divine address is predominantly promise, joined
here with covenant obligation. In 15.1-6 too, the action recedes
completely behind the promise address. Likewise in 12.1-3, the
promise address carries its own weight in the context.
Finally, the divine address occurs as an independent and
clearly denned piece in 13.14-17; 15.13-16; 22.15-18, in each
case added to or inserted into the context. Each is pure
promise address. It is clear, therefore, that when the divine
address dominates the context or stands independently over
against the context, it becomes more and more exclusively a
promise address. This is a clear indication that the promise
emerges into sharper relief particularly in the later stages of
the history of tradition.1
2.3 The promises to the patriarchs

And so we return once more to the promise addresses in the
narrower sense. We have mentioned already the difficulties to
which this inquiry gives rise. On the one hand, a great number
of different promise themes occur in the promise addresses
1 It is of interest, in contrast, that the late narrative form in Gen. 24

contains no direct divine address, nor does the Joseph story, which
is an example of a very advanced stage of narrative art. There is
therefore a basic difference between the development of the narra-
tive on the one hand, where the direct divine address yields more
and more in favour of an indirect divine action—Gen. 24 is an
expressly 'pious' narrative!—and on the other, the development of
the increasing use of the divine promise address as an element of
reworking.
which can be formulated in a variety of ways and whose rela-

tionship to each other is difficult to determine. On the other
hand, these individual promise addresses are inter-twined
with each other in very different ways without there being at
first glance any definite principle.
Hence, it is very necessary to extend the study across the
patriarchal stories as a whole. Though promise addresses are
incomparably more frequent in the Abraham story, they
occur nevertheless in the Isaac and Jacob stories in the same
or similar form;1 but they are completely absent from the
Joseph story.
Westermann has studied both the individual promise ele-
ments and the links between them and has gained important
insights.2 But the synthesis of his results leaves the question
open. Setting side by side the various possibilities in which the
promise elements can appear, he writes: 'At the end, we are
left with the cumulative combination of a great deal of
promise material, especially in P and the later expansions of
the old narratives'.3 This 'combination of a great deal of
promise material' presents the most difficult problem in the
analysis of the promise addresses and in their development in
the process of tradition; it seems that each promise element
can be joined to any other in any sequence whatever. And
Westermann has not really succeeded in progressing beyond
this situation. He writes: 'the combination or addition of a
great deal of promise material can be considered with com-
plete certainty as a late stage'.4 He adds, to be sure: This late
stage however is evident too in J, in passages like 28.13-15, and
1 In the Isaac story, divine addresses occur only in two independent

promise addresses without any immediate connection with the con-
text (26.2-5, 24). In the Jacob story, the practice is somewhat more
varied: the divine address occurs in the poetic passage which has
been taken up in 25.23; then in narrative context, 31.3 (more of this
later) and 31.24; again when referring to the divine address in 31.11-
13; further, in undoubtedly older narrative passages in 28.13-15
(cross reference in 35.1) and 32.27-30; finally, in the independent
promise addresses in 35.9-12 and 46.2-4 and in the account of a
promise address in 48.3-4.
2 'Arten', pp. 11-34.
3 Op. cit., p. 33; cf. also the synthesis on p. 32.
4 Op. cit., p. 32.
in E, in the addition in ch. 22'. * It is obviously a question of a

relatively late stage, that is, a stage which in the process of
tradition is to be subordinated to the appearance of individual
promise elements, without thereby making any pronounce-
ment about its absolute age. Hence, the principle established by
Westermann is of particular importance: 'One must go
behind the late combinations which contain a number of
promises, and inquire about their individual elements and the
particular history of each in the course of tradition'.2 It is this
task that we now undertake.
The situation is obviously very complicated. And so we must
try to make it more perspicuous by a careful analysis of the
individual promise elements. In so doing, one cannot avoid
extending the analysis across a relatively wide area. In accor-
dance with the methodological principle already mentioned,
we will begin with an analysis of the individual elements and
so postpone for the time the question of their joining or combi-
nation. That means that where we find different promise ele-
ments joined together, we will first deal with each of them sep-
arately and compare them with the other texts that contain
the same promise material.
2.3.1 The promise of the land

We begin with the promise of the land which occurs in a vari-
ety of formulations. We will try to throw light on the history of
the traditions of these formulations, to which the following
table should help.3
15.7
13.17
28.13
13.15
35.12
26.3
17.8
28.4)
1 Ibid.
2 Ibid.
3 In this and the following tables, texts which are not in direct divine
addresses are placed in round brackets.
12.7
24.7)
15.18
26.4
48.4)
15.7 to give to you this land as a possession
13.17 because to you will I give it
28.13 to you will I give it and to your descendants
13.15 to you will I give it and to your descendants for ever
35.12 the land which I gave to Abraham and to Isaac, will
I give the land
26.3 because to you and to your descendants will I give all
these lands
17.8 I will give to you and to your descendants after you
the land of your sojournings
(28.4 may he give to you the blessing of Abraham, to you
and to your descendants with you, that you may pos-
sess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to
Abraham)
12.7 to your descendants will I give this land
(24.7 to your descendants will I give this land)
15.18 to your descendants I give this land
26.4 I will give to your descendants all these lands
(48.4 I will give to your descendants after you this land as
an everlasting inheritance to possess)
(Translator's note: (1) the personal pronouns and the per-
sonal possessive adjectives 'you' and 'your' are always in the
singular in the Hebrew; (2) the word 'descendants' renders
the singular Hebrew word zera', lit. 'seed'.)
The table tries to trace a definite line of development in the
formalized phrases within the promises of the land. In some
cases God's address to Abraham runs: 'to you will I give it (the
land)' (13.7; the formulation in 15.7 is clearly outside the pat-
tern); in a number of other cases which occur in addresses to
all three patriarchs, the words 'and to your descendants' are
added to 'to you'. That it is a question of an addition here will be
readily discernible from the fact that in some cases 'and to
your descendants' has been inserted only after the verb (28.13;
13.15); in one case the verb has been repeated again in such a
way that it is very clear that the phrase is composite (35.12).
In other cases, which may be regarded as the latest stage in

the process of formation, the words 'to you and to your seed'
have been brought together in immediate succession and the
verb on each occasion is put either before or after the whole
phrase (26.3; 17.8; 28.4). Finally, the personal element has
receded entirely into the background so that the 'descendants'
alone appear as the recipients of the promise (12.7; 24.7; 15.18;
26.4; 48.4).
Before pursuing further the development of this formula,
we must take up and anticipate briefly other promise themes
which leave themselves open to similar observations. This
holds particularly for the promise of the effectiveness of the
blessing for others.
12.3
28.14
18.18)
22.18
26.4
12.3 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing
28.14 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing and
in your descendants
(18.18 in him will all the nations of the world find blessing)
22.18 in your descendants will all the nations of the world
find blessing
26.4 in your descendants will all the nations of the world
find blessing
The table shows clearly that the statements divide themselves
into two groups: in the one, the verb is in the Nip'al (12.3;
18.18; 28.14), in the other it is in the Hitpa'el (22.16; 26.4); in
the first group the effectiveness of the blessing is directed to 'all
the clans of the earth', in the second to 'all the nations of the
world'. (18.18 takes an intermediate position.) What is impor-
tant for our perspective is that in the first group the receiver of
the promise, from whom the effectiveness of the blessing pro-
ceeds, is the patriarch himself (12.3; 18.18), while in 28.14 'and
in your descendants' is attached; that this is a subsequent
addition is as clear here as in the corresponding formulations
of the promises of the land. Finally, in the second group, in
which the verb is in the Hitpa'el, the descendants alone are the
receiver. The development corresponds exactly to that in the
promise of the land.

The key-word 'seed' (Heb zera', 'descendants') also plays a
notable role in the promises of numerous posterity. On the one
hand there are formulations in which a multiplication of the
'seed' is promised without the use of any image of comparison.
These are also expressions in which the image of dust or sand
is used; these too regularly speak of 'seed'. On the other hand
there are sentences in which the promise of numerous poster-
ity is expressed by the concept of 'nation' , 'assembly*
and others. It is surprising that the expression 'seed' is never
employed in these.1 This means therefore that we are dealing
with two different lines of tradition, one of which links the
'promise of increase' (so Westermann) with the key-word
'seed', the other on the contrary does not. This is a further
proof that the use or non-use of the word 'seed' is neither acci-
dental nor arbitrary, but on each occasion has a clear purpose.
Let us return to the promise of the land! The question might
arise whether the line of development accepted above (2.3.1),
in which the expression 'to you will I give the land' stands at
the beginning, is to be understood simply in this way. There
are, in my opinion, clear indications in favour of this, the most
important of which is the following: the formulations with 'to
you', and likewise with a juxtaposed 'and to your seed', which
has not yet been inserted firmly into the formula, are more
obviously related to the context than those formulas which we
regard as later in the process of tradition. And so we will have
to leave the formulation in 15.7 out of consideration; this is
obviously part of a fixed deuteronomistic formula.2 However,
the situation in 13.15,17 and 28.13 is clear. In these cases the
promise of the land is part of a divine address related imme-
diately to the narrative context and itself too points to the con-
text: 'the land that you see, I will give it to you' (13.15); 'up,
walk through the land... , because I will give it to you' (13.17);
'the land upon which you are lying, I will give it to you'
1 See below under 2.3.2.

2 On the deuteronomistic character of 15.7, cf. 0. Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15', ZAW 70
(1958) 107-26; J.G. Ploger, Literarkritische, formengeschichtliche
und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, 1967,
p. 65.
(28.13). On each occasion ('I will give it') is found in the

Hebrew text, the suffix referring to the land about which the
narrative is actually speaking. It is similar again in 35.12:
here the promise of the land is set within an independent
divine address, and after the promise of increase; but the land
is described as 'the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac',
and the words 'I will give it to you', with the same suffix form
as in the passages already mentioned, refers to it.
At the other end of the scale there are formulations in which
the receiver of the promise of the land is the 'seed' only. These
occur particularly in short formalized sentences without any
immediate relationship to a narrative context: In 12.7 the
formula is set within the 'note'1 about Abraham's foundation
of an altar in Shechem, which can scarcely be described as
narrative; the author is rather using the basic elements of the
cult etiology in a very formalized way.2 In 15.18 the formula is
part of the note about the striking of the covenant which
clearly stands apart from the narrative itself. The phrase in
24.7 is a formalized cross reference to the promise of the land
pronounced earlier in Abraham's address; it is similar in
Jacob's address in 48.4, where it is set in conjunction with the
preceding promise of increase. Finally, the formula in 26.4 is
part of a complex divine address with a number of promise
elements. More will be said later about the juxtaposed promise
addresses where further arguments will be advanced in
favour of an earlier allocation of the singular form of the
promise of the land in the process of the formation of the tra-
dition.
2.3.2 The promise of descendants

The promise of descendants (posterity; the promise of
increase) occurs in a variety of forms. First of all, it should be
said that the assurance of a son is never pronounced in for-
malized phrases but always within narratives and in a form
determined by the narrative context. This is the case particu-
1 See above under 2.2.1.
2 Cf. R. RendtorfF, 'Die Offenbarungsvorstellungen im Alten Israel',
in Offenbarung als Geschichte, KuD Beih. 1 (1961, 1970 [4th edn]) =
Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament, 1975, pp. 39-59, esp.
pp.41ff.; similarly Westermann, 'Arten', p. 28.
larly for the narrative in Genesis 18 in which the promise of a

son is the central constituent part of the narrative itself
(w. 10,14). In Genesis 16, the announcement of the birth of a
son to Hagar is made by taking up a poetic piece which, origi-
nally, was certainly independent (w. 11-12). In 15.4 too the
formulation of the assurance of the birth of a son is deter-
mined entirely by the context, with the resumption of Abra-
ham's hesitant utterances in v.3. Finally, the formulations
with which the birth of a son is promised in 17.16, 19 show no
formalized elements such as are found in the remaining
promises of increase.
In the promises of increase, there are first of all a group of
expressions which speak simply of the increase of the 'seed'
without using further images or metaphors.
21.12
26.24
16.10
21.12 because after Isaac will your seed be named
26.24 I will increase your seed
16.10 I will increase your seed greatly so that it cannot be
counted for number
Then there are the images in which the great increase of the
'seed' is described; the stars,
15.5
26.4
15.5 count the stars! ... so will your seed be
26.4 I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven.
then, dust and sand.
13.16
28.14
32.13
13.16 I will make your seed like the dust of the earth
28.14 your seed will be like the dust of the earth
(32.13 I will make your seed like the sand of the sea which
cannot be counted for number)
finally, a combination of both.
22.17
22.17 I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven and
the sand that is on the shore of the sea
Over against these expressions, there stands another group in
which the word 'seed' does not appear. The assurance of the
great increase of descendants is, incidentally, entirely without
comparative images.
17.2
48.16)
17.2 I will increase you very, very greatly
(48.16 may they increase in number over the earth)
For the rest, the talk is of a 'nation' and 'nations' and
of 'peoples' , and of 'assembly'
21.13
12.3
21.18
46.3
18.18
17.4
17.5
17.6
17.16
17.20
35.11
28.3)
48.4)
21.13 I will make you into a nation
12.2 I will make you into a great nation
21.18 because I will make him into a great nation
46.3 because I will make you into a great nation there
18.18 he will indeed become a great and strong nation
17.4 you will become father of a number of nations
17.5 because I will make you father of a number of
nations
17.6 I will make you very, very fruitful, and I will make
you into nations, and kings will come forth from you
17.16 she will become peoples; kings of nations will come
from her
17.20 I will make him fruitful and increase him very, very
much; he will beget twelve princes, and I will make
him a great nation
35.11 be fruitful and increase! A nation and an assembly of
nations will come from you, and kings will come
forth from your loins
(28.3 may he make you fruitful and increase you, and you
will become an assembly of peoples)
(48.4 see, I will make you fruitful and increase you and I
will make you an assembly of peoples)
The idea of 'seed' is completely missing from this whole
group, as already noted. And so one can recognize clearly that
there are before us two different lines of tradition which differ
in the use of the word 'seed' as well as in comparative images
by means of which the numerous descendants are described.
There is a further terminological difference: the verb 'to
increase' hip'il) is used predominantly in the first group,
though it occurs also in the second; on the other hand, the verb
'to be/make fruitful' qal/hip'il) is found only in the second
group in combination with the notions of 'nation' etc. This too
makes clear that we are dealing with traditions that are inde-
pendent of each other.
2.3.3 The blessing

The declarations of increase are frequently joined with the
assurance of blessing. Westermann has pointed out that
blessing cannot really be the object of promise. On one occasion
in the patriarchal story there is a report about the actual
blessing-event and then the appropriate blessing formulas are
pronounced (48.15-16; cf. also 28.1-4). There is no doubt that
the idea behind this is that the blessing becomes effective at the
instant that it is pronounced, and hence it is not the object of a
promise which will only find fulfilment in the future.1
When blessing is assumed into the realm of promise where
it did not belong originally, then some uncertainty or vague-
ness accompanies its use. At times the statement about the
blessing precedes the divine address so that the address itself
as a whole appears as blessing. In 48.3-4 Jacob says: *E1 sadday
appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan; he blessed me
1 Westermann, 'Arten', pp. 25-26.

and said to me: See, I will make you fruitful...' Likewise, the
whole divine address (consisting of two parts) in 35.9-12 is
introduced as blessing: Then God appeared to Jacob again
when he came from Paddan-aram and blessed him; and God
said to him: Your name is Jacob...'
Further, the idea of blessing (or the act of blessing) appears
within the divine address. In 26.3 it is linked with the assur-
ance of guidance ('I will be with you and bless you'), and the
promise of the land follows it. In 28.4 the possession of the land
is described as the immediate consequence of 'the blessing of
Abraham'. In 12.2 the promise of increase stands immediately
before the blessing ('I will make you a great nation and bless
you'); for the rest, the precedence that Westermann1 estab-
lished of the promise of blessing before the promise of increase
holds: 17.16, 20; 22.17; 26.24; 28.3.2
It should be noted further that the pronouncements of
blessing begin with both combinations of the groups of
promises of increase mentioned above, which use the expres-
sion 'seed' (22.17; 26.24), as well as with the others in which it
is missing (12.2; 17.16, 20; 28.3). This combination therefore is
on a different level in the process of the history of tradition
from the individual, independent development of both these
sequences of pronouncements.
It is striking too that the assurance of blessing for others
('clans' or 'nations') is always combined with promise of
increase—but in reversed order: in all five places where the
promise of blessing for others occurs, it is preceded by an
assurance of increase: 12.2-3; 18.18; 22.17-18; 26.4; 28.14.
Here too there is no difference with respect to the
formulations, with or without the mention of the 'seed'.
The obvious conclusion from all this is that the 'blessing' is
not an independent promise theme, but occurs always in
combination with other themes, and in the very large
majority of cases with the promise of numerous posterity.3
1 Op. cit., p. 25.

2 These are the correct references. 32.12 does not belong here because
the word occurs neither in v. 12 nor in v. 13.
3 Cf. Westermann, op. cit., pp. 25-26.
2.3.4 The guidance

Finally, there is yet another independent element in the
promise material, namely the assurance of guidance which
includes YHWH's presence or Taeing-with' the patriarch. This
promise is formulated in very brief and lapidary wise: 'I will be
with you' 26.3; 31.3) or 'I am with you'
26.24; 28.15); it occurs too in the form of a report: 'the
God of my fathers has been with me' 31.5; cf. 28.20;
35.3; similarly 31.42); finally, Jacob's words to Joseph and
his sons: 'God will be with you' 48.21).1 One
must include here as well: 'I will prosper you'
32.10; 32.13).
This promise often occurs as someone is about to set out on a
journey for which guidance is assured. For example in 46.4: 'I
will go down with you into Egypt and I will bring you back
again'. Also, the brief formulations already mentioned are
almost always there in a corresponding context: 'I will protect
you everywhere you go, and will bring you back to this land...'
(28.15; cf. also 50.24); 'Return to the land of your fathers and
your kinsmen' (31.3; cf. 31.13; 32.10); or in a kind of reverse
process: T)o not go down into Egypt, but stay in this land which
I bid you' (26.2).
It is striking that these stylized, lapidary promises of guid-
ance occur in the Jacob and Isaac stories, but not in the Abra-
ham story. However, there are addresses there which are
very close in content to these. For example in 12.1: 'Go forth
from your country and your kinsmen and your father's house
to the country that I will show you'. This formulation is obvi-
ously very close to 31.3, even though the phrase 'I am with
you' is missing. A further element, which has links with the
promises of guidance, is the reference to 'the land that I will
show you'; it recalls the command to Isaac to remain 'in the
land which I bid you' (26.2). There is too a clear connection
with the words in 22.2: 'Go forth to the land of Moriah and
offer him (i.e. Isaac) there on one of the mountains that I will
1 On the formula: H.D. Preuss, '... ich will mit dir sein', ZAW 80
(1968) 139-73; D. Vetter, Jahwes Mit-Sein—ein Ausdruck des
Segens, 1971. Talk of : in 26.24; 31.5, 42, presents a
problem of its own in connection with the formula; cf. 2.5 below.
show you'. The command to go uses the same language as in

12.1 , and the reference to the 'mountain that I will
show you' recalls both 12.1 and 26.2. One must mention fur-
ther in this context God's command to Abraham: 'Up, go
through the length and breadth of the land' (13.17); it contains
a divine command which requires Abraham to make a par-
ticular journey in trust.
Clearly, then, there are no explicit assurances of guidance
in lapidary formulations in the Abraham story; but there are
pronouncements which, in the opinion of the narrators, show
that Abraham set out and undertook a particular journey
under divine instructions. One can ask, therefore, if the styl-
ized expression 'I am with you' draws something from this
idea which it passes on to the other patriarchs. If this is so,
then the basic element in the promise of guidance would have
its original setting in the Abraham tradition; thence it would
have found its way into the other patriarchal stories in its
stylized, lapidary form.
By way of conclusion to this resume, it should be further
mentioned that a number of promise addresses are introduced
by formulas in which the divinity presents itself. They are
brought together here.
26.24
28.13
46.3
31.13)
15.7
17.1
35.11
15.1]
26.24 I am the God of Abraham, your father
28.13 I am YHWH, the God of Abraham, your father, and
the God of Isaac
46.3 I am Ha-El, the God of your father
(31.3 I am Ha-El, of Beth-El)
15.7 I am YHWH, who brought you out from Ur of the
Chaldees
17.1 I am El Sadday
[15.1 I am your shield]
This survey shows that formulas like these were by no
means used mechanically and that there was considerable

variation in the individual formulations of the divine self-
predications.
2.3.5 The combination of individual promise themes

Among the individual themes of promise whose different for-
mulations and variations we have examined and noted, it is
only the promise of blessing (above 2.3.3) that occurs always
with other promise themes; for the most part it is joined to the
theme of numerous posterity (promise of increase); each of
the other promise themes occurs also by itself within a divine
address. The promise of the land is found relatively seldom by
itself, and only in that group which belong together in the pro-
cess of the formation of the tradition (12.3; 15.18; 24.7; cf. above
2.3.1) and in 15.7. The promise of increase occurs more often
without other promises: 15.5; 16.10; 17.2; 21.12, 13, 18. The
theme of guidance—given the overall frequency of its occur-
rence—is found alone for the most part: 31.3, 13 (cf. 28.20;
31.5, 42; 32.10; 35.3; 48.21).
In our investigation of the combinations of different, inde-
pendent promise themes, we will begin again with the promise
of the land. There is in some cases a characteristic combina-
tion of the promises of land and increase. In 13.15-16, the
promise of the land, 'I will give it to you and to your seed for
ever*, is followed immediately by the promise of increase, 'and
I will make your seed like the dust of the earth'.1 The key-
word 'seed' occurs in both sentences. We have seen already
that there is an extension of the original formula in the
promise of the land which was directed only to the first patri-
arch. Consequently, the word 'seed' now stands in an
emphatic position at the end of the promise of the land; it is
resumed immediately at the beginning of the promise of
increase.
This situation is even more characteristic in 28.13-14. Here
too the key-word 'seed' stands in an emphatic position at the
end of the promise of the land: The land on which you are
lying I will give to you and to your seed'. The promise of
increase follows immediately, with the word 'seed' again in an
1
emphatic position at the beginning: 'And your seed will be like

the dust of the earth'.1 The link appears even more clearly
here as an explicit resumption of the key-word 'seed', a sort of
link by association. One might formulate the matter in this
way: the expansion of the promise of the land by the attach-
ment of the 'seed' has drawn with it the addition of a promise
of increase related to this 'seed'. And so one can speak here of a
gradual expansion of the promise.
It must be mentioned further that in both cases the promise
of increase is formulated with the image of 'dust of the earth',
the only two places where that image occurs; the parallelism
therefore is clearly discernible.
The combination is reversed when the promise of increase
precedes the promise of the land. It is immediately clear, how-
ever, that the presuppositions here are different in many
ways. Firstly, in 35.11 the promise of increase appears in a
detailed formulation: 'Be fruitful and increase! A nation and
an assembly of nations will come from you, and kings will go
forth from your loins'. We are dealing here with those formu-
lations of the promise of increase in which the key- word 'seed'
is not used; instead, there are the notions of 'nation' and
'assembly' as well as the verbs 'to be fruitful' and 'to increase'.
In this respect therefore there is no immediate connection
between the formulations of the promise of increase and the
promise of the land. It follows without any explicit link in v. 12;
the word 'seed' is at the very end without any reference to the
promise of increase. The sequence and the theme correspond
in 48.3-4, where explicit reference is made to the promise in
35.11-12. The text by and large is somewhat more compact
and shows in addition an interesting shift of emphasis; instead
of the two-fold 'to you . . . and to your seed', there is only 'to
your seed'. It seems therefore as a whole to be a more
developed stage of the combination of the promise of increase
and the promise of the land. Finally, in 28.3-4 too the promise
of increase is at the beginning with the same terminology; the
promise of the land follows at the end with the key- word 'seed'
binding the two. In these cases therefore we are dealing not
with a gradual expansion of the promise, and certainly not
1
with the resumption of a particular element by association,

but rather with the fitting together of two completely self-con-
tained and independent elements. One might describe this sit-
uation, in contrast to the former, as one in which a second
element of the promise has been attached to the first for the
sake of completion without the formulations themselves hav-
ing given any occasion for it. The reason is rather that these
two promise themes were now regarded as belonging
together.
Genesis 17 belongs here too.1 the real theme of this extensive
promise address is the promise of increase. The theme is
unfolded in several layers: first, as object of the divine
'covenant' with Abraham (v. 2), then as the unfolding of the
change of name (w. 5-6);2 the key-word 'covenant' is taken
up anew and developed by bringing it into explicit relationship
with the 'seed' (v. 7); and finally, the 'seed' offers the key-word
for attaching the promise of the land (v. 8) where, in contrast
to 13.15 and 28.13, it stands at the very beginning of the (more
detailed) formulation. So ends the long divine address with the
combination of different promise themes. One gets the
impression that the promise of the land was felt to be neces-
sary here for completion, though the real theme is the promise
of increase.
There are therefore two clearly separate ways of combining
the promise of the land and the promise of increase: in the one
case, the promise of the land is firmly embedded in the context
and draws the promise of increase with it by means of the
key-word 'seed' which is attached and so extends it; in the
other case, it is a question of promise addresses which are
independent of the context and in which the promise of
increase is first of all the real theme; then, without any
immediate linguistic link, the promise of the land is attached
to it. It is obvious that we are dealing here with a later stage
1 On Gen. 17, cf. G. Ch. Macholz, Israel und das Land. Vorarbeiten
zu einem Vergleich zwischen Priesterschrift und deuteronomisti-
schen Geschichtswerk, Habilitationsschrift, Heidelberg, 1969,
pp. 42ff.
2 Cf. also Gen. 35.9-12, where a change of name from Jacob to Israel
occurs likewise in a divine address, and linked also with a promise
of increase.
where promise themes have been simply added, in contrast to

the gradual growth and development of the themes in the
course of the process of their being passed on.
We must now go back again to the first group of texts. In
both cases, Genesis 13 and 28, the promise address is not at an
end with the combination of the promise of the land and the
promise of increase with which we have been dealing so far.
Let us begin with ch. 28. There is a sentence in v. 15 which is
obviously joined to the context more immediately than those
which precede it: it is the assurance of the divine guidance and
presence to Jacob on the journey before him. The narrative of
the revelation in a dream at Bethel is thus brought into
immediate relationship with the composition of the Jacob
story as a whole. In the face of this assurance of guidance, the
two elements of the promise of the land and the promise of
increase have the effect of a later stage in the growth or
reworking of the text. Now if the view expounded above is cor-
rect, namely that the promise of the land drew the promise of
increase with it, then we must assume: (1) that the assurance
of guidance (v. 15) was the earliest part of the present context;
(2) that in the course of the reworking and with obvious refer-
ence to the context ('the land upon which you are lying*) the
promise of the land was added (v. 13); (3) that this was
expanded, taking up the key-word 'seed', and then drew with
it the promise of increase. We must certainly ascribe the addi-
tion of these two promise themes to an overarching reworking
of the patriarchal story.
The situation is very similar in Genesis 13. In this text too,
after the combination of the promise of the land and the
promise of increase (w. 15-16), there is a further passage in
the divine address (v. 17); it is concerned yet again with the
promise of the land. When we approach the text with the
insights gained from Genesis 28, then it is clear here as well
that the relationship of v. 17 to the context is even closer than
that of the remaining verses: crossing the land is a pre-requi-
site for Abraham to arrive finally in Mamre (v. 18) which he
must reach for the further continuation of the narrative. In
addition, crossing is a much more immediate and concrete
way of taking possession than seeing (v. 15). Finally, v. 17 pre-
sents the earliest stage of the promise of the land in the process
of the history of the tradition, inasmuch as the key-word 'seed'

has not yet been added: 'I will give it to you'. Even though the
situation here is not quite as clearly discernible as in Genesis
28, nevertheless we can presume a similar process of growth
for 13.14-17 as for 28.13-15.
Finally, one further text must be mentioned which can be
fitted only with difficulty into the reflections advanced so far
on the combination of different promise themes, namely 26.2-
5. The promise address begins with the assurance of guidance
on which the promise of blessing follows immediately
(w. 2,3a). Then comes a promise of the land (v.3b) in the form
in which 'you and your seed' are brought together in imme-
diate succession and not separated by the verb, representing
an intermediate stage in the history of the process of the devel-
opment of the tradition. It is striking that the promise is
directed to 'all these lands', plural; the plural occurs only here
and in v. 4 in the promise of the land in the patriarchal story.
Further, it is quite unusual for the promise of the land to be
traced back to an 'oath' of God to Abraham, a formulation
which elsewhere is all prevailing in deuteronomistic usage.1 A
promise of increase follows (v. 4ad) according to which the
'seed' is to be like 'the stars in the sky*; yet another promise of
the land is attached (v. 4a), again with the plural reference to
'all these lands', but this time it is a promise to *your seed' only.
Finally, the passage concludes with the promise of blessing for
others, basing it in detail on Abraham's conduct (w. 4b, 5).
The passage contains therefore a series of unusual
elements. The two-fold promise of the land is striking; it may
be explained as follows: First, the promise of increase was
understood as a consequence of the promise of the land; then, a
later reworking transposed the promise of the land after the
promise of increase where it is often found at a later stage of
the process of the formation of the tradition; hence, it is made
to follow yet again. The version in v. 4 would also favour this;
there, only the 'seed' appears as the receiver of the promise,
and this, following our reflections, represents a later stage in
the process of tradition than v.3 where the promise holds 'for
you and your seed'. In any case, the procedure is to be reck-
1 On the oath formula, see 2.7 below.

oned as involving several stages. Further, the unusual formu-

lations point to a stage of reworking which is not identical with
most of the other promise addresses. We will return to this
again.
Finally, some further observations on the combinations in
which the promise of guidance occurs: this too is found
together with a variety of other promise themes. In some
cases it is clearly linked with the promise of increase; in 26.24
the divine address contains only these two promise elements;
in 46.3 the promise of increase is worked into the assurance of
guidance: Tor there I will make you into a great nation'.
In 26.3, the promise of blessing follows at once on the assur-
ance of guidance, and the promise of the land is linked with
these by an emphatic *because'. In 28.13-15 too, according to
our earlier observations, the addition of the promise of the land
(v. 13b) to the assurance of guidance (v. 15) is the first step in
the expansion of the promise address. In the accounts of the
divine guidance or the divine presence with Jacob, the
'blessing' in the form of wealth in herds is the consequence of
the presence (31.5, 42); likewise in 31.10-11, where there is
talk of God's 'prospering* Jacob and the visible expression
which this finds in the increase of his possessions.
If we include here the non-stylized statements of the Abra-
ham story, then in 12.2 the promise of increase again follows
the assurance of guidance, and in 13.17 the promise of the
land follows it.
There are then a number of possible combinations with the
assurance of guidance. Indeed, it has become quite clear now
that the combination of promise elements often has something
to do with the function of the promise addresses in a particular
narrative context. Synthesizing the results of our study of the
combination of the different promise elements we see that,
despite great variety, definite contours stand out.
The promise of blessing is not an independent promise ele-
ment, as Westermann has already shown; the blessing does
not appear as a separate element in his table of possible
promise types.1
The promise of the land can occur alone, especially in short,
1 Westermann, 'Arten', p. 32.

stylized phrases as in 12.7: 'to your seed will I give this land', cf.
15.18; 24.7. In each of these cases the context is exclusively
that of the promise of the land. It is scarcely by chance that we
are concerned here with these brief formulations, relatively
late in the process of the formation of the tradition, which now
speak of the 'seed' as the receiver of the promise. Likewise in
15.7, the promise of the land is not linked with other promise
elements; it is in a context stamped by deuteronomistic lan-
guage.
For the rest, on the one hand, the promise of the land is
combined with the promise of increase in such a way that the
latter, associated with it by the key-word 'seed', grows out of it;
in such cases, the promise of the land is the older in the process
of the formation of the tradition; on the other hand, it is the
reverse—the promise of the land is attached to the promise of
increase, formulated differently, so as to round off the general
theme of promise; in such cases, the promise of increase is
earlier in the process of the formation of the tradition than the
promise of the land. Finally, in some cases, the promise of the
land combines in a characteristic way with the assurance of
guidance.
The promise of increase occurs rather frequently without
the addition of other promise elements. Even when it is com-
bined with the promise of blessing, nothing of importance is
attached to it. The promise of increase, in combination with
the promise of the land, admits of two possibilities: the one, that
it grows out of the promise of the land, the other, that it is itself
the earlier element in the process of the formation of the tra-
dition and that the promise of the land has been added to it.
The promise of increase is also combined with the assurance
of guidance in particular ways.
2.4 The function of the promise addresses in the

composition of the patriarchal story
The question now arises whether, in the relationships of the
promise themes and formulations to each other, more can be
said about the function of the promise addresses in the patri-
archal story. And so we come to the question of the structure
and composition of the patriarchal story and the over-arching
reworking.
First, let us consider the Isaac story. It contains only two
divine addresses, one at the beginning (26.2-5), the other at the
end (26.24) of the collection of Isaac traditions. Neither has
any immediate connection with the narrative context; hence,
they can well be elements of the theological reworking of the
collection. Both divine addresses begin with the phrase *YHWH
appeared to him'. Both contain the element of the assurance of
guidance, 'I am with you',1 even though the language in
which it is expressed takes a somewhat different form.
When we look at the content of the two addresses, we find
that w. 2-5 present, as already noted in detail, a very complex
and many layered picture. It is clear, however, that besides the
guidance, the promise of the land stands underscored as the
centrepiece. In contrast, in the closing address in v. 24, only the
promise of increase is there with the guidance. They form,
then, the emphatic end-point of the theological interpretation
of the Isaac story.
The element of guidance plays an important role in the
Jacob story as well.2 It is there with all its force in the first
divine address to Jacob in 28.15. It marks the first decisive
intervention in the life-story of Jacob—the flight to Haran. It
appears a second time and is underscored at the next turning
point: in 31.3, Jacob receives the divine command to return to
the land of his fathers.3 It is particularly striking here that the
divine address (v. 3) breaks the narrative thread which i
resumed again in w. 4-5 with the words from v. 2. It is only at
the end of Jacob's address to his wives that the divine com-
mand to depart is mentioned and communicated directly
(v. 13). It is obvious here that the divine address with the
theme 'guidance' is not part of the narrative, but serves the
theological interpretation of the Jacob story in the context. The
theme appears yet again at the very end of the Jacob story: in
46.2-4, Jacob is the subject of a divine address before he sets out
1 in 26.3 could also be understood in a future sense.

2 Cf. Kessler, op. cit., p. 140.
3 It is to be noted that the term in Gen. 31.3 is not used of the
whole land as in Gen. 12.1 and 24.4, 7. i is the place whence
Abraham set out; here it is the goal to which Jacob will return,
though it be from Abraham's
for Egypt; its main content is the assurance of guidance on the

journey. The Jacob story, therefore, is framed by these three
assurances of guidance; the beginning, the turning point, and
the end of his 'journey', are each marked out by a divine
promise address.
With regard to the content, our analysis shows that the
promise of the land is in the foreground in the first of the
divine addresses (28.13), and was elaborated first out of the
promise of guidance. At the conclusion, it is only the promise of
increase that has been interwoven into the assurance of guid-
ance (46.3). There is a parallel to the Isaac story here. The
Jacob story, however, framed as it is by divine addresses, has
double conclusion. Yet another detailed divine address stands
before the broadly developed Joseph story (35.9-12). More
exactly, there are two divine addresses: the first contains
Jacob's change of name and thus is clearly a parallel to Abra-
ham's change of name in Genesis 17; the second begins with
the extensively elaborated promise of increase, to which again
a promise of the land has been attached;21 here too there are
obvious linguistic links with Genesis 17. The framework of
the Jacob story, and the theological interpretation that goes
with it, obviously did not take place at one stroke; rather it
exhibits several stages or layers. Let us turn finally to the
Abraham story. Here, the theme of 'guidance', as we have
already seen, is not as fixed and formalized as with Isaac and
Jacob. Nevertheless, the Abraham story too begins with a
narrative of guidance or, more accurately, with a divine
address in which the element of guidance occupies a central
place: 'Go forth from your country... to the land that I will
show you' (12.1). Following our observations so far, it is
certainly no chance that there is also a guidance narrative at
the end of the Abraham story with the injunction to make a
particular journey under divine instruction (Gen. 22). The
instruction, which becomes divine guidance because of
Abraham's obedience, stands at the beginning and the end of
the Abraham narrative.
Of the promise elements, the promise of the land stands at
1 In v. 12.
2 Compare, for example, (35.12) with (17.19).
the very beginning, though not in the fixed and formalized

form, when Abraham is to set out 'to the land that I will show
you' (12.1). For the rest, the promise of the land is found par-
ticularly in the early chapters of the narrative (12.7; 13.15,17;
15.7,18; 17.8), and then no more. The promise of increase also
occurs at the very beginning: 'I will make you into a great
nation (12.2), and then throughout the whole Abraham nar-
rative, 13.16; 15.5; 17 (passim); 21.12; further, it is applied to
Ishmael, 16.10; 17.20; 21.13,18.
The passage 22.15-18 is of special importance for our pur-
pose. This 'addition', which clearly extends beyond the limits of
the narrative of the offering of Isaac, is obviously one of those
passages of the framework such as we have encountered
already in the Isaac and Jacob stories. These verses under-
score the close of the Abraham story.1 As in the other collec-
tions, here too the promise of increase is emphasized at the
conclusion; it is developed further as an 'oath' of YHWH, with
formulations which have been taken up again in the introduc-
tory passages of the Isaac story (26.2-5). A further element in
the closing address must be mentioned here: the promise of
blessing for others (22.18). The function of the divine
addresses as framework and interpreters are once more
clearly recognizable in this promise element. It appears first
with an introductory function in the Abraham story (12.2); it
is repeated in the citation in 18.18; and it is found yet again at
the close of the Abraham story (22.18). It occurs once in each
of the Isaac and Jacob stories, and notably at the beginning, in
the first divine address to each of the patriarchs (26.4; 28.14).
This promise, that each of the three patriarchs is to be a
blessing for the whole human race, brings the traditions about
them together into one large unit.
This procedure by which the stories of the patriarchs have
been brought together allows still more precise distinctions in
the process of the history of the traditions. We spoke earlier of
the different linguistic formulas of the promise of blessing for
others. The nip'al form is found at the beginning of the Abra-
ham story (12.3) and in the Jacob story (28.14), the hitpa'el
1 Chapters 23 and 24 form a sort of appendix or post-script to the

Abraham story which has been largely shaped into a unity.
form on the contrary at the conclusion of the Abraham story

(22.18) and in the Isaac story (26.4). Corresponding to this,
12.3 and 28.14 speak of'all the clans of the earth', 22.18 and
26.4 of'all nations of the world'. But there is more in common,
especially between the conclusion of the Abraham and the
Isaac stories. The whole of the divine address to Abraham in
22.16 is introduced by a solemn oath formula; this oath is
taken up explicitly in 26.3 and the promise described as the
fulfilment ('maintenance') of the oath. In both cases the
promise address comprises the promise of increase—using
largely the same terminology1—and the promise of blessing
for others. In both cases the reason is given, introduced by a
phrase which one might render by 'that is why9, 'in that', and
which is rare in the Old Testament and is found only in these
two places in Genesis. The reason is that Abraham listened to
the voice of God;2 in 26.5, this statement is expanded in the
deuteronomistic style. And so the very tight link both in lan-
guage and content between 22.16-18 and 26.3-5 is quite clear.
Considering this from the point of view of the process of
formation of the tradition, the following emerges: a first phase
saw the Abraham and Jacob stories bound together by means
of the promise of blessing for others; the formulations in 12.3
and 28.14 are, following our observations, older from the point
of view of the history of traditions than those in 22.18 and 26.4.
A second phase saw the same promise element of blessing used
to bind the Isaac tradition as well to the Abraham tradition;
later formulations were used here in the process of the forma-
tion of the tradition, and another reason was added which in
both language and thought is close to that of Deuteronomy.
The assembling of the patriarchal stories therefore to form
a larger unit took place in different stages. Each of the
patriarchal stories had its own antecedent history. First, the
collections of the Abraham and Jacob stories that had a more
markedly narrative form were joined together. Later, the
Isaac story was added to them as a collection in its own right.
In contrast to the two other collections of narratives, the divine
1 Talk of possessing the gate of one's enemies' in 22.17 does not occur
in 26.3; there, the gift of'all these lands' is assured.
2 See also the phrase 'because of Abraham my servant' in 26.24.
promise addresses were not yet inserted into the narrative

context but stood by themselves as independent speeches. The
different promise elements were taken up into these speeches,
and in the process the element of guidance, which plays an
important role in the Jacob story, acquired a prominent place.
This phase, in which the Isaac story was brought in, coincides
with the stage when the final framework of the Abraham
story was constructed by means of the promise address at the
conclusion of the group of Negev-narratives.
In the Isaac story, promise addresses occur and serve only
to construct the framework described. In the Jacob story too,
their use is to be understood basically in the same way, even
though, up to a point, they have been brought somewhat more
into the narrative context. In the Abraham story, the situation
is somewhat different. There are promise addresses here of
broader compass whose function is more than constructing a
framework. However, here too one can always discern typical
links with the other patriarchal stories. This must be investi-
gated in further detail.
We begin with the promise of posterity, because one can dis-
cern readily definite layers of tradition and reworking. First,
we must take up an observation mentioned earlier. The
promise of the son occurs first in narrative form. It is striking
here that there are scarcely any connecting links between the
promise of the son and the promise of increase in its more
detailed form. In Genesis 18, in the narrative of the promise of
the birth of a son to Abraham and Sarah, there is no reference
at all to a promise of increase in the sense of numerous poster-
ity; there is talk only of the one son. This means therefore that
when the promise of posterity was developed further in the
form of the promise of increase, the narrative of the promise
of a son was not included in it.
With regard to Isaac, there is only the brief remark in 21.12:
'because your seed shall be named after Isaac'. The key-word
'seed' is used here; but the primary purpose is to emphasize
the legitimate line of the posterity through Isaac in contrast to
Ishmael, whereas there is no talk here of numerous posterity.
As for the narrative account of the tradition of the birth of
Ishmael, the promise of increase only became part of it at a
later stage in the reworking. And so the talk of the increase of
descendants (seed) in 16.10 stands in a quite isolated divine

address; in 21.13,18, Ishmael is to become a (great) nation. By
and large, therefore, the promise of the son and the promise o
increase are clearly separated.
The situation is somewhat different in 15.1-6. This text too
begins with the promise of a son as an answer to Abraham's
hesitant questions (w. 2-4). But it then moves on to speak of
the abundance of posterity, making use of the image of the
stars. The promise of the son therefore is developed further
towards the promise of increase, so that it is in this that one
must look for the purpose of the text of 15.1-6 as it now lies
before us. The image of the stars is found again in the Abra-
ham story only in the closing passage, 22.15-18 (v. 17); for the
rest, it occurs in the Isaac story in 26.4.
A further expression of the promise of increase appears in
13.16 where, in the framework of the extension of the promise
of the land to the promise of increase, the multiplication of the
'seed' is to be like the dust of the earth. This formulation does
not occur again in the rest of the Abraham story, though it
does in the Jacob story in 28.14, a text which is traditio-histori-
cally parallel.1
Finally, there is the rather frequent statement, from which
the word 'seed' is missing, that the posterity will become a
nation, a great nation, or nations.2 The groupings here are
again clearly different. First, there is the single statement
about a great nation in 12.2 and 18.18 (where it is expanded).
Given the context of the Abraham story, there is no doubt that
Isaac is in mind. It is also said, and repeated, that Ishmael is to
become a (great) nation (21.13,18); the same occurs in a very
different sort of context in 17.20. It is noteworthy that this
formulation, as a single statement, occurs again in 46.3, at the
conclusion of the Jacob story.
There is another group of texts in which an increase to
'peoples' is promised. This statement is heavily underscored in
the framework of the alteration of 'Abram's' name to
'Abraham', where the new name is explained in a word play
as 'the father of a host Cab-hamon) of nations' (17.4-5); it is

conceivable that the plural form 'nations' had its origin in this
word play. The plural occurs twice more in Genesis 17 (w. 6,
16), and then in the passage that frames the Jacob story (35.9-
12), where there is an accumulation of ideas, 'nation and an
assembly of nations' (v. II).1
The promise of increase has certainly not been developed at
one stroke in the course of the reworking of the Abraham
story; rather, there has been a series of stages which, in part,
have had scarcely any connection with each other. We will
have to reckon here with a gradual growth of the tradition.
It is similar in the case of the promise of the land. We must
again begin with a text in which the promise is an immediate
constituent part of the context, namely 15.7-21. First, one
must note carefully that this verse is formulated in quite obvi-
ous parallelism to 11.31.
2.
11.31
15.7
11.31 he (Terah) brought them from Ur of the Chaldees to
go to the land of Canaan
15.7 I who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldees to give
you this land to possess
The gift of the land is here linked closely with the journey to
the land. 12.1, where Abraham is ordered to journey to the
land which YHWH will show him, fits nicely into this context.
The orientation of the promise of the land is different in
13.14-17. Here it is a matter of the assurance of the possession
of the land after the separation from Lot; it is the original
announcement of the occupation of the land where Abraham
is already living. Once again we must refer to the parallel
texts in 28.13-15, where a corresponding assurance is given to
Jacob.3
There is a further series of texts in which the promise of the
land is likewise the consequence of the promise of increase,
while the possession of the land is assured to the 'seed' as well.
1 Gen. 17.16; besides also D'D; outside the divine address in the
form in 28.3; 48.4.
2 So with the Sam and LXX; cf. BHS.
We have already referred to this combination of the promises

of increase and land. This is the case in 17.8, and outside the
Abraham story in 28.4; 35.12; 48.4; cf. also 26.3. Here, the
promise of the land itself is not the real theme. We can reckon
therefore with a stage in the process of the history of tradition
in which, in a series of passages where the real interest is the
promise of increase, the promise of the land has been added.
Finally, the promise of the land occurs in brief, formalized
sentences without any link with other promise elements;
characteristic of these is that the promise is addressed only to
the 'seed'. When Abraham takes possession of Shechem as a
place of cult, this is underscored by the brief to your seed will I
give this land'. The same formula confirms the striking of the
covenant in 15.18; the formulation is notably different from
15.7 and belongs without doubt to a quite different stage in the
process of formation. The citation of a divine address in 24.7,
with the same wording, belongs here also; it is noteworthy too
that the promise of the land is the centre point for the author
of Genesis 24 so that he sees it as the decisive assurance of
YHWH to which he has Abraham's servant summoned. One
could say then that the promise of the land in 12.7 holds a
similar emphatic position. However, one must always keep in
mind that one is dealing here with a late stage in the process of
formation of the tradition.
In conclusion, let us add a few remarks on the promise of
blessing. We have discovered that it always occurs in combi-
nation with other promise elements. Likewise, the place
where it occurs is not without significance. In the Abraham
story it occurs, and certainly not by chance, at the beginning
(12.2) and at the end (22.17), and in precisely in the same
places in the Isaac story (26.3, 24); in the Jacob story, before
and after the journey to Haran (28.3; 35.9), then again at the
very end (48.3) where there is talk of the blessing. For the rest,
it is found twice more in the Abraham story in conjunction
with the promise of increase, in parallel passages about Sarah
(17.16) and Ishmael (17.20). Here too one can recognize
clearly a deliberate intention in the placing of the promise
elements.
Let us summarize: we have seen that the promise addresses
have on the one hand gone through a varied and many-lay-
ered process of development, but on the other hand have been

carefully and consciously made a part of the reworking and
theological interpretation of the patriarchal stories. The
reworking did not take place at one stroke, but shows signs of
different stages and layers. Likewise, the intention and careful
planning which have directed the process are in many cases
clearly discernible.
It is of particular importance that the promise addresses
have been used to frame the individual patriarchal stories and
to join them to each other. Certain elements are particularly
prominent. In the Isaac story, the element of guidance is in an
emphatic position at the beginning of the two divine addresses
which frame it (26.2-3, 24). It pervades and stamps the Jacob
story also; here, besides the divine addresses (28.15; 31.3; 46.3-
4), there are still further passages to mention in which the
divine guidance appears as a determining element (28.20;
31.5, 42; 32.10-11). The Abraham story too is determined by it;
a clearly stamped guidance narrative stands at the beginning
(12.1-3) and the end (ch. 22).1
The blessing for others is a second promise element which
joins together all three patriarchal stories. It stands at the
beginning (12.3) and at the end (22.18) of the Abraham story,
and at the beginning of each of the Isaac and Jacob stories
(26.4; 28.14). In these last two, there is a close link between the
guidance and the blessing for others. These were obviously the
two elements which had established themselves as stamping
and covering comprehensively the patriarchal stories, by
means, however, of a variety of links with the other promise
themes—land, posterity, and blessing.
There can be no doubt therefore that the patriarchal stories
present an independent larger unit which, in the course of the
process of its formation, has been reworked in different stages
and provided with theological interpretations; and the divine
promise addresses dominate both the reworking and the
interpretation. It is also discernible that this reworking has
had its effect in different ways in the individual parts of the
collection: in the Abraham story it has had its most profound
1 The term 'narrative' is not at all appropriate for Gen. 12.1-9; see
above under 2.2.1.
effect in the narratives; in the Jacob story it shows itself as an

element of the composition, while in the Isaac story it appears
only in the two divine addresses without any reference to the
context. But before all else, it is clear that the reworking has
fitted these three collections together so as to form one com-
posite whole, and that once again by means of the promise
address. This finds its clearest expression in the promise
addressed to all three patriarchs that they are to be a blessing
for the whole human race: Gen. 12.3; 22.18 (Abraham), 26.4
(Isaac), 28.14 (Jacob). Thus one can see that this promise,
which stands as a signature tune (Motto) at the beginning of
the Abraham story, holds for the whole of the patriarchal
story.
2.5 The absence of any definite reworking

in Exodus-Numbers
It has been shown that the patriarchal stories represent a self-
contained larger unit which, in both its individual parts and as
a whole, has undergone intensive reworking and theological
interpretation. The question now arises whether one can
demonstrate a reworking, determined by the same purposes
and using the same means, for the rest of the Pentateuch as
well. And this suggests that we direct the question first to the
continuation of the patriarchal story in the book of Exodus.
A first result is a negative conclusion: the promise addresses,
as a determining and characteristic element, are not found in
the traditions of the book of Exodus. The direct divine address
is used far less often than in the patriarchal story; in particu-
lar, the contents of the promise addresses of Genesis scarcely
occur and are not at all the centre point. This is clear at once in
the passages where themes occur which, in the patriarchal
story, belong to the content of the promise addresses.
The prolific increase in numbers of the Israelites is men-
tioned in the very first verses of Exodus (1.7), but there is no
reference at all1 to the constantly repeated promise of increase
1 In the very redundant Exod. 1.7, referring to the increase of the

Israelites, there are but two terms, not very specific, which have
already occurred in the promise of increase in the book of Genesis,
addressed to the fathers,1 of which the author is obviously not

aware. The situation is even more striking with the first men-
tion of the land into which it has been proclaimed, the Israel-
ites are to journey after they have been rescued from slavery
in Egypt. The text reads: 'I will lead you into a good, broad
land, into a land that flows with milk and honey, the home of
the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites' (3.8). The land is introduced here as
an unknown land, and more, as a land that is the home of for-
eign nations; there is not a word which mentions that the
patriarchs have already lived a long time in this land and that
God has promised it to them and their descendants as a per-
manent possession.2 Following the terminology of the promise
of the land in Genesis, those addressed here would be the 'seed'
for whom the promise holds good. But they are not spoken to
as such.
The absence of this link is even clearer when these texts are
set over against some passages in the patriarchal story in
which the link between the promise of the land to the fathers
and the leading out from Egypt is expressly made. In Gen.
50.24, Joseph says to his brothers before his death: 'God will
come to your aid and will take you out of this land (Egypt) to
the land which he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob'. One would expect that this promise would be taken up
in Exodus 3. It is not, and instead, the land is introduced as
something entirely new. In Gen. 15.13-16, there is a theologi-
cal-historical reflection on the theme that the Israelites must
first pass through a period of slavery in a foreign land before,
at a time determined by God, they are to return to the land
promised them. This text stands in splendid isolation within
the patriarchal story; nevertheless, it shows what sort of
reflections on the relationship of the promise of the land to the
patriarchs and the liberation from the slavery in Egypt can be
employed. And so the silence about these links in Exodus 3 is
all the more striking.
However, references to the patriarchal story are not
the verbs and see above under 2.3.2.

1 Cf. Westermann, 'Arten', p. 27.
2 Cf. Fohrer-Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 124f.
entirely lacking. In Exod. 2.23-25, there is a transition piece

between the story of Moses' youth and the following traditions
about his call and the leading out of Egypt. The text reads:
Then God remembered the covenant with Abraham, with
Isaac, and with Jacob' (v. 24). This is a reference back to the
patriarchal story, but not by way of resuming one of the
promise elements; it is rather by mention of the 'covenant'
that God made with the patriarchs. Only in Genesis 15 and 17
is there talk of this 'covenant'. In the former, it is the land that
is mentioned as the content of the divine self-obligation
(15.18); in the latter, the theme 'covenant' is developed
extensively, with the whole range of promises sounding, and
with the addition of the assurance 'to be your God and the God
of your descendants after you' (17.1). In Exod. 2.24, nothing is
said about the content of the covenant obligation; one might
perhaps conclude that the author had in mind some sort of
general statement, rather like Gen. 17.7, than a concrete
promise.
In Exod. 6.2-9, there is a very extensive divine address,
which has no immediate connection with the narrative con-
text, where there is likewise reference back to the promises to
the patriarchs. The word 'covenant' is there again, but only in
explicit relationship to the promise of the land. The formula-
tion corresponds to that in Gen. 17.8. The land is described as
the 'land of Canaan' and 'the land of sojourning(s)' (Exod.
6.4).1 At the end of the divine address, it is once more stated
expressly that God will lead the Israelites into the land that he
has solemnly promised to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
(v. 8). Further, the assurance of God's presence has been
taken up from 17.7 in a somewhat adapted formulation (v. 7).
The reference back to the patriarchal story is obvious.
However, it stands outside the narrative context in an
independent narrative address; and moreover, it is a matter of
a resumption of those formulations which, within the
patriarchal stories, belong to the latest in the process of the
formation of the tradition. This means then that this
connection has been made only in a relatively late stage in the
1 On the as yet unsolved problem of the understanding of , cf.

G. Ch. Macholz, see above under 2.3.5, n. 3, n. 141a.
process.
There are some further places, though quite sporadic,
where there are references to the promises to the patriarchs,
especially to the promise of the land. Exodus 13 contains cultic
prescriptions about the eating of the unleavened bread and the
offering of the firstborn. The prescriptions in both cases refer
to the period after YHWH will have led the Israelites into the
land. In each case it is said of the land, with certain differences
in the formulation, that it is that which YHWH swore to the
patriarchs to give to the Israelites (w. 5,11). There is talk here
of the oath which is found in the patriarchal stories in Gen.
22.16 and 26.3.* In these places, however, it refers not to the
promise of the land but to the promise of increase, whereas it
occurs in connection with the promise of the land only twice
outside the divine address (Gen. 24.7; 50.24).2 The reference
therefore is to a layer of tradition in the patriarchal story
which is relatively late and by no means central.
In the prayer of Moses, after the people had sinned by
making the golden calf, there is extensive reference to the
promises to the patriarchs: 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and
Israel, your servants to whom you swore by yourself and to
whom you spoke: I will increase your seed like the stars of
heaven, and the whole of this land of which I have spoken to
you I will give to your seed, and they will take possession of it
for ever' (32.13). There is a clear echo of Gen. 22.16-17 with
the oath that YHWH swore by himself and the promise of
increase under the image of the stars; the promise of the land,
missing in Genesis 22, is added here. The address of YHWH to
Moses in Exod. 33.1 reads: TJp, go on your way from here, you
and your people whom you have lead out of the land of Egypt,
to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: to
your seed I will give it'. The address corresponds almost word
for word to that of Joseph in Gen. 50.24, the citation of the
divine address to that in Gen. 24.7. And so it is a matter of the
two passages in which, in the patriarchal story, God's oath is
joined with the promise of the land. One can recognize again
1 For the connection with the tradition in Exod. 3.8, see below under
2.7.
2 Further detail see below under 2.7.
and again from the different passages throughout the book of

Exodus isolated references back to the patriarchal story.
There was clearly a layer of reworking which joined the two
complexes of tradition together. But the reworking did not find
its way into the narrative substance; rather it has the mark of
a relatively late layer in the process of formation.
There is alongside this another group of explicit references
back to the patriarchal story in which the 'God of the fathers'
is mentioned. They are stacked together in Exodus 3 and fol-
lowing. The very first of YHWH's addresses to Moses reads: 'I
am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (3.6). Then, when Moses has to
justify himself before the Israelites, he refers to 'the God of
your fathers [who] has sent me to you' (v. 15); and he is to bear
the good news of YHWH to the Israelites with the opening
words: *YHWH, the God of your fathers, has appeared to me,
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' (v. 16). And finally,
when Moses has to justify himself by signs, he is to do so 'in
order that they may believe that YHWH, the God of their
fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, has appeared to you' (4.5). The point at issue is this: the
legitimation of Moses and the demonstration that the God
who appeared to him and sent him to the Israelites to lead
them out of Egypt is YHWH, and none other than the God of
the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The identity of
YHWH with the God of the fathers is the central question here.
The consequence of this is an entirely new relationship
between the Moses tradition and the tradition of the patri-
archs. Both are here brought into relationship with each other
in a new way and with a new posing of the question. The
patriarchs are not now spoken of as receivers of the promise,
and the contents of the promises are not mentioned. Instead,
the God of the patriarchs takes the central position; more pre-
cisely, the question of the identity of the God who appeared to
Moses with the God of the patriarchs. It is a question of conti-
nuity. But it is not a continuity of the contents of the promises,
as one would expect from the patriarchal stories; it is a conti-
nuity of God's revelation.
This latter question plays no explicit role in the patriarchal
stories. God's presentation of himself as the God of the father
or fathers occurs once in connection with the promise of the

land to Jacob (Gen. 28.13)1 and twice in connection with the
formula 'Fear not' together with an assurance of guidance
(26.24 to Isaac; 46.3 to Jacob). Further, in the Jacob story there
is, besides the divine address, talk of the God of the fathers, and
that likewise almost entirely in connection with statements
about the guidance of Jacob by YHWH (31.5, 29, 42; 32.10).
These references show that this designation for God occurs
only in a relatively narrow section of the patriarchal
traditions and that it nowhere serves to give expression to the
continuity of revelation. In Exodus 3-4, talk of the God of the
fathers has acquired a new function which it did not have in
the patriarchal stories. Accordingly, this reference back to the
patriarchal stories is not something that arose out of the
stories themselves, and does not take up a topic already at
hand there; rather it looks back to the patriarchal stories with
a different formulation of the question.2
It is of particular importance to have established that there
are here other questions than those in the patriarchal stories
which are determinative. Exodus 3-4 is concerned with a
central and theologically important text at the beginning of
the Moses tradition in which one is to expect basic pointers to
the understanding of that whole, within which the author or
redactor wants the questions to be understood. This goes
together with the observation that with the information about
the prolific increase of the people (Exod. 1.7) and with the first
mention of the land into which YHWH will lead the Israelites
(3.8), there is no reference at all to the corresponding promise
themes in the patriarchal stories.3 Hence, the inevitable con-
clusion: the Moses tradition has been reworked and inter-
preted from entirely different points of view than the patriar-
chal stories. In the basic stage of their formation and rework-
ing, these two traditions obviously did not belong together.
1 It is only here that the divine name YHWH occurs when God is
addressing himself to one of the patriarchs; and Jacob, when taking
up this episode in 32.10 (Eng. 9), says... In 46.3, the God of
the patriarch (Jacob) presents himself as "?«n.
2 Cf. further Exod. 15.2; 18.4.
3 See above under 2.5 (beginning).
2.6 The 'larger units' in Exodus-Numbers

It would be beyond the bounds of this study were we to
advance as well proof of the interpretation and reworking
that runs through the Moses tradition. First, the
methodological criteria would have to be worked out, as we
have tried to do for the patriarchal stories, and they would
have to be quite different because, as we have seen, the basic
element of the divine addresses does not appear in the Moses
tradition. And more, the presuppositions are essentially other.
Von Rad has indicated briefly1 that one can scarcely speak of
stories (Sagen) in the proper sense in the Moses-tradition;
rather we have to do at most with 'motifs' (Sagenmotiven).2
This is in accord with the absence, by and large, of 'developed
narrative units'.3 In contrast, 'the tight inner coherence of the
narrative in Ex 1-14'4 is striking.5
Just a few remarks may now be made on the composition of
the Moses narratives. It is clear that Exodus 1—4 has been
composed as a relatively self-contained unit. The verses 2.23-
25 mark the decisive turning point: God hears the cry of the
oppressed Israelites and takes heed of it. The conclusion in
4.31 has clearly several functions: first, it brings to a close the
question whether the Israelites will "believe' Moses 4.1,
5, 8, 9): 'the people believed'; then it takes up the statement
that God 'saw' (2.25) the Israelites and their distress. Now
they experience this themselves; they bow down in worship.
This trait occurs again later when the proclamation is made
to the Israelites of their definitive rescue by the slaying of the
firstborn and of their own preservation (12.27b). Finally, the
statement of the "belief of the Israelites is taken up by way of
conclusion in 14.31. Their belief is no longer based merely on
the proclamation of rescue by Moses, but on the Israelites
1 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzahlung Exodus 1-14', EvTh 31 (1971)

579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2, 1973, pp. 189-
98.
2 Op. cit., p. 192 = p. 582.
3 Op. cit., pp. 192-93 = pp. 582-83.
4 Op. cit., p. 193 = p.583.
5 Cf. also S. Hermann, 'Mose', EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28, who speaks of a
'tighter arrangement of events' with regard to Exod. Iff. (p. 326).
having 'seen' what YHWH has done. One can discern then a
clear connection between the composition of Exodus 1-4 and
the overall composition of Exodus 1—14.1 But these questions
must be pursued further.
No particular demonstration is needed to show that the
Sinai passage is an independent larger unit. Express cross ref-
erences to the preceding complexes of tradition occur only in
isolation.2 The introductory divine address runs: *You have
seen what I did to Egypt and how I carried you on eagles'
wings and brought you here to me' (Exod. 19.4). There is only
a very general reference here to the event of the Exodus. The
references in Exodus 32 are more concrete. The Israelites say:
'As for this fellow Moses, who brought us out of the land of
Egypt' (w. 1, 23); YHWH says to Moses: 'your people, the people
you brought out from the land of Egypt' (v. 7); Moses uses the
same formulation about YHWH (v. II); 3 of the image of the
golden calf they say: 'these are your gods, Israel, that brought
you out from Egypt' (w. 4, 8). Here, it is a matter throughout
of fixed and formalized formulas which on each occasion have
been joined by as relative sentences for further precision. It
is only in v. 12 that this reference back to the leading out from
Egypt is used as an argument: 'Why let the Egyptians say: He
had evil intent when he led them out, to kill them on the
mountains and to wipe them from the face of the earth?'
Then, attached to this, comes the broad reference to the
promises to the patriarchs (v. 13).4
Finally, the situation in Exod. 33.1-3 is interesting. YHWH
commands Moses to set out with the words: 'Up, go on from
here, you and your people whom you have brought out of the
land of Egypt'.5 The link with the promises to the patriarchs
1 Cf. von Rad, op. cit., p. 198 = p. 588.

2 Account is not taken here of references which occur within the legal
material and the uncontestably priestly layer of the Sinai passage.
3 Here and in v. 12 the verb (Hip'il) is used instead of (hip'il).
On the problem of the difference between these two verbs in the
'formula of leading out', cf. W. Gross, 'Die Herausfuhrungs-
formel—Zum Verhaltnis von Formel und Syntax', ZAW 86 (1974)
425-53.
4 See above under 2.5.
5 Cf. Exod. 32.7.
follows immediately on this reference back to the leading out

from Egypt: 'to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob: to your seed will I give it'.1 Then, there is more
about the land into which Moses is to lead the Israelites; it is
spoken of in the same way as we have known it from the
beginning of the Moses narrative, and with that striking
absence of any connection with the patriarchal story. The land
is described as 'the land that flows with milk and honey' (v. 3),
and YHWH announces the expulsion of the nations living
there, enumerating them in almost the same terms as in
Exod. 3.8.2 The passage is characterized by a striking mingling
of traditions.
It must be said that in general, reference to the exodus tra-
dition occurs only in isolation in the Sinai pericope and that it
plays no role in the central passages of this larger unit; this
holds too for the references to the patriarchal story.
In the narratives about Israel's stay in the desert, the lead-
ing out from Egypt is mentioned often in connection with the
'murmuring' of the people. Its function is, primarily, to set in
relief the contrast between the present, dangerous situation in
the desert and the comparatively much better position in
Egypt, and so bring to the fore the accusations against Moses
(and Aaron) (Exod. 16.3 [cf. w.6, 32]; 17.3; Num. 11.5, 18, 20;
14.2-4; 16.13; 20.4-5; 21.53). It is clearly something more than
mere passing references or after-thoughts. One rather gets
the impression that the tradition of the 'murmuring' of the
Israelites contained this element right from the beginning.
This does not in any way mean that the two complexes of
tradition must have been related to each other originally.
Apart from the mere reference back to the better situation in
Egypt, the content of these texts shows no further connections
with the traditions about the leading out from Egypt. So one
can say no more than that knowledge of the fact of the leading
out from the fertile land of Egypt was a presupposition for the
origin and development of the theme of the 'murmuring1 of

2 Verse 2; only the sequence 'Amorites, Hittites' is the reverse of
Exod. 3.8.
3 On the question whether ch. 21 belongs to the desert or occupation of
the land tradition, see above under 1.4."
the Israelites; and hence, that in a limited sense, there is some

dependence in the process of the formation of the tradition.
There has, however, at the same time been a notable shift of
emphasis. The reference to the leading out from Egypt serves
only as a contrast to the present situation, whereas its real
significance as a historical and saving action of YHWH for
Israel is scarcely mentioned. And it is striking that the com-
plex of narratives of Israel's stay in the desert manifests no
over-arching reworking which joins it in a positive way with
the narratives of the leading out. It is scarcely possible to glean
from the texts that the leading out was a saving action of
YHWH for Israel.1
There are only two places in this complex of tradition where
there are references to the patriarchal stories. In both cases
the reference is to the 'oath' that YHWH swore to the patri-
archs that he would give them the land (Num. 11.12; 14.23).
The first occurs without any links within an address of Moses
to YHWH. The second combines the traditions: immediately
before, in an address of YHWH, the 'signs' which he had done
in Egypt and in the desert (!) are referred to (Num. 14.22). But
it is just this rare mention of the patriarchs that makes us
aware yet again that there has been no far-reaching connec-
tion between the different complexes of tradition.
The narratives of Israel's stay in the desert have not, as a
whole, been brought into an inner harmony with the tradi-
tions preceding them.
In the narratives of the occupation of the land in the book of
Numbers, Moses sends a message to the king of Moab at the
very beginning in which a brief survey of the history of Israel
is given; it recalls the 'credo' formulations which we find in
other places: 'Our fathers went down into Egypt and we lived
there for a long time. The Egyptians treated us and our
fathers badly. Then we cried out to YHWH, and he heard our
voice and sent an angel and led us out from Egypt' (Num.
20.15, 16a).2 Here, the leading out from Egypt is mentioned
1 On the other hand, cf. Exod. 18, as well as Exod. 16.6; Num. 14.13,
19, 22.
2 Moses' message opens in v. 14 with reference to the 'ill-treatment'
that 'befell' the Israelites, so resuming a formulation already used
in Exod. 18.8.
together with the history that preceded it, though there is

nothing more precise as to who is meant by the 'fathers' who
went down into Egypt. And further, in the context of the lead-
ing out from Egypt, the passage speaks of an angel and not of
Moses. In Num. 32.8, 14 the generation of the desert is
described as 'fathers' in distinction from the generation that is
to occupy the land and is addressed there. The notion of
'fathers' has shifted; it evokes no association at all with the
patriarchs of whom Genesis speaks. These are mentioned
explicitly within the same context and by name: 'None of the
men who came up out of Egypt... are to see the land which I
swore to Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac' (32.11). This passage
joins together the traditions of the promise of the land to the
patriarchs and of the leading out from Egypt. The relationship
to the different traditions is clearly quite disjointed in this
chapter.
Finally, there are two further places, introductions to lists,
where the leading out from Egypt is mentioned: in Num. 26.4
the lists of the tribes and clans is introduced: 'These are the
Israelites who came out from Egypt'; and in Num. 33.1 the list
of stopping places during the wandering in the desert begins:
'These are the camping places of the Israelites who came out
from the land of Egypt (ordered) according to their tribal
hosts'. In both cases it is a question of a formalized ordering
which is aware of the tradition of the leading out of Egypt as a
general background without, however, making any concrete
narrative connection.
And so only isolated references to the exodus tradition and to
the patriarchal stories occur in this context. But here too, one
cannot speak of any real connection with the larger units of
tradition that have preceded.
2.7 Traces of an over-arching reworking

Our review of the larger units of tradition within the Penta-
teuch has shown that each is very independent and self-con-
tained in respect to the others. The cross references, which
appear everywhere, do not as a rule belong to the real narra-
tive substance of the individual units. But no comprehensive
reworking which shapes the whole into a unit is immediately
evident.
This is all the more striking because the patriarchal stories
which we have examined closely as examples, show a very
thorough reworking in which a theological intent arranging
them was clearly at work. But this theological intent is not dis-
cernible in the same way for the Pentateuch as a whole. In
other words: the theological arrangement of the patriarchal
stories is not to be equated with the theological arrangement of
the Pentateuch. Rather, the patriarchal stories have under-
gone a theological interpretation and reworking which has
turned them into a self-contained piece of well moulded tradi-
tion which stands out clearly in all its own independence
within the Pentateuch. The reworking and arrangement of
the remaining units requires still more careful study; but it
has already become quite obvious that it will have to be of a
different kind from that of the patriarchal stories. Further
studies in the direction indicated will be hard put to it to alter
the judgment that the theological arrangement of the individ-
ual larger units within the Pentateuch cannot be equated with
the arrangement of the Pentateuch as a whole.
This does not mean, however, that an over-arching rework-
ing of the Pentateuch, which encompasses the different larger
units, would be in no wise discernible. Among the cross-refer-
ences mentioned, there emerges one particular group of texts
to which we must give somewhat more careful attention; they
are all concerned with one thing—that YHWH swore to the
patriarchs that he would give the land to them. Gen. 50.24
anticipates the exodus story. Joseph says to his brothers: 'God
will come to you1 and will lead you out of this land into the land
that he swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. Talk of
YHWH's oath is not very deeply anchored in the patriarchal
stories. It appears, however, in two texts which are important
for the composition of the patriarchal story as a whole, Gen.
22.16; 26.3. It is noteworthy that the mention of YHWH's oath
in 22.16 does not appear in a fixed formula as in the majority
of other cases;2 here, YHWH's address (i.e. through the mal'ak
1 For , see also Exod. 3.16; 4.31.

2 See below; cf. also N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid, 1967,
p. 15.
YHWH) is introduced by the phrase: *By my own self I swear*.1

The reason for this is then given, namely Abraham's comport-
ment in the preceding story of the offering of Isaac; the con-
tent of the oath is the promise of blessing and the increase of
descendants and finally the assurance: 'your seed will possess
the gate of their enemies'. One can scarcely see here a connec-
tion with the promise of the land where the formulations are
quite different. We can only conclude that in this passage, so
important for the composition of the Abraham story as a
whole, there is talk of YHWH's oath, but without any connec-
tion with the promise of the land.
The situation is not entirely clear in 26.3. The passage of
course is linked with 22.16 in the process of formation of the
tradition.2 The words 'I will fulfil the oath that I swore to your
father Abraham', can refer only to 22.16; it is followed imme-
diately by the promise of increase and the image of the stars in
the sky which appears only here and in 22.17. The passage
about the oath is framed by the double promise of the land
(w. 3b and 4a ). One can see here a step in the direction of the
formulation in Gen. 50.24.
Finally, a fourth passage needs to be mentioned, Gen. 24.7,
where there is a clear connection between YHWH's oath and
the promise of the land: *YHWH, the God of heaven ... who
spoke to me and swore to me: to your seed will I give this land'.
The formulation is close to that in Gen. 50.24. It occurs in the
context of a narrative which is relatively late, and which has
obviously been added subsequently to the body of the Abraham
stories.
The formulation of Gen. 50.24 therefore has not developed
immediately out of the Abraham story as it lies before us. It
belongs to another context in the tradition in which the oath by
which YHWH confirmed the promise of the land to the fathers
finds its natural place. But what is most important is that it
has the function of a transition piece in the place in which it
stands. It joins the patriarchal story to the following traditions,
1 elsewhere only in Jer. 22.5. Gen. 22.16 is the only
attestation of in the book of Genesis; it is completely absent
from Exod. and Lev., and appears again only in Num. 14.28, linked
with (as in Isa. 49.18; Jer. 22.24, and 11 x in Ezek.).
in particular to the narrative of the leading out from Egypt. It

provides a link, therefore, which, as we have seen, is not pre-
sent in the two units of tradition themselves.
The next example does not appear, at first sight, to give any
grounds for thinking that it has a corresponding function in
the over-arching composition. In Exodus 13, the oath of YHWH
to the patriarchs is mentioned twice (w.5, 13) in the prescrip-
tions about the unleavened bread, each time with explicit ref-
erence to the promise of the land. In v. 5, the formalized
description of the land, 'which he swore to your fathers to give
you', is joined with the enumeration of the foreign nations who
now occupy it (Exod. 3.8, first occurrence), and with the
description of it as a land flowing with milk and honey'. The
formulation therefore presupposes both traditions. As for their
function, one must remember that the exodus of the Israelites
from Egypt has been mentioned immediately beforehand
(12.51). What follows in ch. 13 is concerned in content with
the prescriptions about the unleavened bread; nevertheless,
there is much talk in w. 3-10 about the leading out from
Egypt and of the imminent leading into the land promised by
YHWH, so that what is said reaches far beyond the ambit of
ritual prescriptions. It could then very well be that one can
detect in the express mention of the promise of the land in this
place, an intent directing the composition, namely that what
was announced in Gen. 50.24 is beginning to be fulfilled. This
surmise is confirmed further by the fact that a little later in
the same chapter there is talk of Moses carrying the bones of
Joseph with him (13.19) with express reference back to Gen.
50.25.1 This then is the obvious place where the link with the
last words of Joseph could, and had to be made.
Seen from this point of view, it is scarcely a surprise that the
next important turning point where there is mention of the
promise of the land which YHWH swore to the patriarchs is the
departure of the Israelites from Sinai. The command to Moses
to set out is given in Exod. 33.1-3a: Then YHWH spoke to
Moses: Up, depart from here, you and the people you have led
out from the land of Egypt, to the land which I swore to Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob: to your seed I will give it. And I will
1 On see above, p. 95 n. 1.
send an angel before you,1 and I will drive out the Canaanites,
the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites—to a land flowing with milk and honey'. We find the
same traditions joined together here as in Exod. 13.15. So then,
after a break in the journey by a stop at Sinai, the promise of
the land is again mentioned and confirmed when the journey
is resumed; at the same time it is said that this journey to the
land constitutes the realization of this promise.
The reference to the promise of the land in the prayer of
Moses in Exod. 32.13 is also to be seen in this context. The links
with the oath in Gen. 22.16-17 are once again clear.2 The
function of this cross reference at this place could be that, with
YHWH's express decision in Exod. 32.10 to annihilate the peo-
ple, the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs would
have become impossible; so Moses intercedes and counters
YHWH with his very own promises. These two passages then
complement each other. After Moses' intervention in Exod.
32.11-14, YHWH himself resumes the promise of the land to
the patriarchs in his command to journey on (33.1-3).
There are some further passages where there is mention of
the promise of the land to the patriarchs confirmed by YHWH's
oath in situations in which its fulfilment seems to be in danger.
In the prayer in Num. 11.11-15, Moses gives expression to his
doubts; he thinks that he cannot carry out the charge that
YHWH has laid upon him to bring the people into the promised
land (especially w. 14-15); YHWH's oath is mentioned here, in
however concise a form ('the land which you swore to their
fathers'). In the episode of the scouts in Numbers 13-14 also,
the realization of the promise is put in question: YHWH
declares that not one of the desert generation is to see the
promised land, with the exception of Caleb (14.22-24); and
once again YHWH's oath is recalled in the same concise form
(v. 23). (It should be expressly noted here that the rest of the
story of the scouts has no connection at all with the tradition of
1 Cf. Gen. 24.7; where Abraham requests that YHWH, whom he

describes, among many other things, as the God who made the
promise of the land, would send his angel before Eliezer.
2 On (Gen. 22.16); besides, in the context of the
promise of increase, 'the stars of heaven' are mentioned, as in Gen.
22.
the promise of the land to thw patriarchs. The land is described

as quite unknown, strange, and dangerous; it must be first
explored; that the patriarchs had already lived there for a long
time and that YHWH had promised them possession of it—of
all this, there is not a word [except in Num. 14.23!]). Finally,
these words of YHWH are cited again in Num. 32.11 (with
variations in the wording) when Moses sees the final realiza-
tion of the promise of the land endangered by the desire of the
tribes of Reuben and Gad to settle east of the Jordan
When one surveys the attestations advanced in the context,
one can scarcely avoid the impression of a very deliberate
intent in the composition and interpretation of the Pentateuch
as a whole. They appear throughout in their present context
as 'post-scripts', that is, they belong to a layer of reworking
which has not penetrated into the substance of the narratives
themselves, but have merely made clear at certain decisive
places the guiding point of view under which the whole is to be
understood. Two passages are of particular importance for the
composition as a whole: the announcement by Joseph in Gen.
50.24 that YHWH will bring the Israelites back into the land
promised to the patriarchs, and the command of YHWH to
Moses in Exod. 33.1-3a at which the real journey into the
promised land begins. Both passages join the patriarchal sto-
ries with the traditions which tell of the journey of the Israel-
ites from Egypt back into the promised land,1 and at the same
time clamp together all Pentateuch traditions under one all-
embracing theme: YHWH has given the land to the Israelites.
One usually calls the layer of reworking of which we are
speaking here 'deuteronomistic' or more recently 'early
deuteronomic'2 or 'protodeuteronomic'.3 In any case, it is a
matter of a reworking which in its ideas and language is
closely related to Deuteronomy. It has been shown that this
reworking has left the texts at hand essentially unchanged
and has inserted interpretative additions at definite places. It
1 K. Rupprecht also supports this function for Gen. 50.24:

(Exod. 1,10; Hos. 2,2): "Sich des Landes bemachtigen"?, ZAW 82
(1970) 442-46, esp. 445.
2 N. Lohfink, op. cit., pp. 17-18 with n. 30.
3 J. Ploger, op. cit., p. 67.
presupposes therefore the present text more or less in the

form in which it lies before us.
Chapter 3
CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM
The question now arises whether, apart from this reworking

with its deuteronomic stamp, the individual, larger units of
the tradition had already been brought together as a whole in
an earlier stage in the process of the formation of the tradition.
At the same time, recent pentateuchal research puts the
question of the 'sources' in the sense of the documentary
hypothesis. Do the pentateuchal 'sources' stand as complete
representations of the pentateuchal material between the
arrangement of the individual larger units and the
synthesizing reworking in the deuteronomic style? Following
the methodological criteria established earlier, such 'sources'
would have to find their justification in the course of the study
of the process of the development of the text from the smallest
units, across the larger literary complexes, right up to its
present and final stage.1 Hence, this is the place to ask if this
assumption is justified.
Current international study of the Pentateuch presents at
first glance a picture of complete unanimity. The overwhelm-
ing majority of scholars in almost all countries where schol-
arly study of the Old Testament is pursued, take the
documentary hypothesis as the virtually uncontested point of
departure for their work; and their interest in the most
precise understanding of the nature and theological purposes
of the individual written sources seems undisturbed. And so it
commends itself to take a closer look at the present state of
pentateuchal study so as to establish the actual extent of the
agreement and to examine the persuasive force of the
arguments.

3.1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism

One reads in the latest German 'Introduction to the Old Tes-
tament' by Otto Kaiser: 'The sources are... on the whole
definitively separated.'1 This sounds like the final result of a
long development, and the author obviously wants it to be
understood as such. The sentence, however, contains a
parenthesis. The sources are, prescinding from the problem,
not yet finally explained, of a first and second Yahwist, on the
whole definitively separated'.2 The reader must pause here: Is
the question, does the chief source of the Pentateuch, the
Yahwist, accepted by Kaiser and many others, actually exist
or must two sources in fact be accepted in its place, so
unimportant that one can 'prescind' from it without calling
into question the judgment that the sources have been
'definitively' separated? Must not rather the whole question,
discussed earlier, of the theological significance of the Yahwist
depend on it? There is, after all, circulating in German and
contemporaneous with Kaiser's book an 'Introduction' by
Georg Fohrer;3 Fohrer represents the view noted in the
parenthesis, namely that the texts which Kaiser and others
claim for the Yahwist are to be divided into two sources, and
calls the second of them the 'nomad source'. There is also the
standard, comprehensive 'Introduction' by Otto Eissfeldt, the
3rd edition of which is not much older than the two
mentioned;4 he likewise divides the Tahwist', but calls the
second source the 'lay course'.
One can certainly object that the impression aroused by this
chance situation on the German book market does not corre-
spond with the actual state of Old Testament scholarship; i.e.
the number of scholars who reckon with only 'one' Yahwist
seems to be considerably greater than those who support a
1 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1969, 1970 (2nd edn), p. 48. 5th
edn, completely revised and rewritten, 1984. English version of
Introduction to the Old Testament, 1970 edn (and incorporating fur-
ther revisions by the author to 1973 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975), p. 44.
2 Emphasis added; see below p. 107 n. 5.
3 E. Sellin-G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1969 (llth
edn). English, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SPCK,
1970) trans. David Green.
4 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1964 (3rd edn) English.
3. Criticism of Pentaieuchal Criticism 103
division. But one cannot thereby get rid of the fact that, from
the time that Wellhausen formulated the now widely
accepted documentary hypothesis, there have been
distinguished scholars who have constantly supported the
division of this oldest pentateuchal source. This situation
carries all the more weight as the representatives of this view
have throughout been constant and convinced advocates of
the principles of some division in the sense of the 'later
documentary hypothesis'1 or, as Eissfeldt puts it: the latest
documentary hypothesis'.2 One must say then that in one
decisive and basic question, source criticism has not led to a
definitive conclusion, The reason for this is obviously that the
methods acknowledged by and large by all scholars are simply
not suited to answer conclusively the questions thrown up by
the texts of the Pentateuch.
The same holds, with the appropriate adaptations, for the
'Elohist'. The situation is still more complex here inasmuch as
not a few scholars contest the existence of an independent
'elohistic' source, while others on the contrary maintain that it
once existed as an independent work, but is preserved only in
fragments (so that it is better to speak of 'elohistic frag-
ments'); 3 still others think that one should consider the
'Elohist' 'as an originally independent and for the most part
preserved source layer'.4 Here too the methodology used is
inadequate to arrive at a final explanation.
As a consequence, great uncertainty dominates the separa-
tion of these two or three sources. As an example, one may cite
the most recent commentary on the book of Exodus by W.H.
Schmidt, the first fascicule of which appeared in 1974.5 When
considering the first part of the book, Schmidt cites C. Steuer-
1 Fohrer is one of these, though he prefers to speak of 'source-layers'

rather than of 'sources', German edn, pp. 124-25.
2 German edn, par. 23.9, pp. 223-24.
3 So H.W. Wolff, 'The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch' in
Interpretation 26 (1972) 158-73. Von Rad also speaks of 'elohistic
fragments' and states: 'what presents itself as elohistic material
cannot be described as a work which really runs parallel to the
Yahwist'. See op. cit., p. 190 = p. 580.
4 Fohrsr, Introduction, p. 152; Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 91ff.
5 Exodus, 1974.
nagel who wrote: 'Complete certainty has been reached in

separating out P. On the contrary, there is often great uncer-
tainty in separating J from E. The survey that follows there-
fore claims only a limited degree of probability, and many a
time one has to renounce completely any separation of J and E
as too uncertain'.1 Schmidt observes that this characterizes
'the state of research into the book of Exodus which remains
basically unaltered up to the present da/.2 Nothing essential
then has changed in this uncertainty for half a century, so
that what is said 'claims only a limited degree of probability' or
that 'one has to renounce completely any separation of J and E
as too uncertain!' Can one really say that the sources 'are
definitively separated?' In face of the actual situation, one can
only describe such a statement as wishful thinking.3
But further; the statement of Steuernagel cited by Schmidt
about the 'complete certainty' that has been reached in sepa-
rating out the 'priestly writing' holds only with considerable
limitations. It is certainly true that there is broad agreement
in working out a layer of tradition within the Pentateuch
which, in style and content, can be described as 'priestly'. Even
so passionate an opponent of classical source criticism as
Engnell acknowledges this.4 But there are basic differences of
opinion when it comes to determining further the nature of
this layer and establishing its intent. Fohrer gathers together
almost all the material in the Pentateuch described as priestly
and understands it as one coherent source layer which he
describes as a literary composition'.5 He writes: 'A character-
istic of the content of P is the tight link between historical nar-
rative and law. The two are bound together inseparably'.6
Noth represents an opinion which is the complete opposite of
1 Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1912, pp. 146.

2 Op. cit., p. 8.
3 I. Engnell has expressed in withering words how this situation is to
be judged: 'In reality, the development of the literary-critical
approach in the period following Wellhausen's classical formula-
tion ... amounts to a complete dissolution of the entire system by the
very scholars who defend it' (Critical Essays on the Old Testament,
trans. J.T. Willis from Swedish, 1970, p. 53).
4 Op. cit., p. 59.
5 Fohrer, op. cit., p. 183
6 Op. cit., p. 183
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 105
this. He wants to separate the legal components completely

from the narrative. He even goes so far as to reject utterly the
designation *F for the legal parts, though with some further
precision, because in his opinion it 'signifies at the least a mis-
representation leading to error when one includes them in the
concept of P and labels them with something like P8. They
should be given some sort of neutral sign. One must prescind
entirely from these passages when dealing with the P narra-
tive'.1 This can only mean that Noth contests that a notable
amount of material which, in Fohrer's opinion, can be
assigned to P 'with broad unanimity',2 belongs to this source or
layer. This means at the same time that there are fundamen-
tally different opinions in the question of the relationship to
each other of the historical narrative and the legal sections of
P. Faced with this, one can scarcely maintain that the symbol
T' really means the same in both cases.
Between these two extreme positions there is an abundance
of attempts to make distinctions within the P material. The
most popular view distinguishes a *basic narrative' or the like
(Pg) from parts added later (P8; s = secondary). However, very
different answers are given to the question, what is to be
understood under T8>. Noth will have the symbol used only for
additions to the P-narrative,3 while Kaiser wants to use it for
the legislative material' which has been attached secondarily
to the basic narrative.4 For the rest, the literature offers a veri-
table host of designations for these legal parts, each provided
with yet another letter qualifying P. There is a variety of views
on the question, which legal texts are to be regarded as original
constituent parts of the 'priestly writing* and, of course, by
necessity also a variety of views on the nature and intent of
this source or layer. Hence, there can be no talk at all of
unanimity here.
A survey of the present state of pentateuchal study leads to
the conclusion that adherents to the documentary hypothesis
generally acknowledge only two things.
1 A History, p. 10.
2 Op. cit., p. 10
3 Op. cit., p. 10, n. 15.
4 Op. cit., p. 103.
1. there is a priestly layer in the Pentateuch; there is, how-

ever, no agreement as to its more precise purpose nor as to
which texts are to be assigned to its basic content;
2. there is, besides, one or several more sources or layers, but
nogreement as to their number, their delimitation, and
their relationship to each other.
There has been no essential change in the arguments and
counter-arguments for the delimitation of the sources not
O0nly since 1912, as W.H. Schmidt has noted, but since the end
of the previous century. Most of the positions assembled by H.
Holzinger1 in 1893 are still represented today by individual
exegetes. There have certainly been new positions in addition,
and certain scholars or groups of scholars have shifted the
emphasis in their statement of the question; but looking across
the broad spectrum of current OT scholarship, there still
remains a variety of different opinions.
Pentateuchal research, therefore, is far less unanimous
than is often maintained, and a glance over its history shows
that it was ever so. What is often presented as the 'triumph' of
the documentary hypothesis since Wellhausen is basically but
two things: (1) since then, the 'documentary hypothesis' has
been supported almost exclusively, i.e. it is accepted that the
Pentateuch is assembled from several continuous 'documents'
or 'sources'. In face of this, the other hypotheses proposed in
the course of the 19th century have receded into the back-
ground: the 'fragmentary hypothesis', which reckons not with
sources extending from the beginning to the end of the Penta-
teuch, but only with individual, more or less extensive, frag-
ments; and the 'complementary hypothesis', according to
which there was one basic document which was comple-
mented by all sorts of other material. One must add, however,
that these two hypotheses have had virtually no support since
the middle of the 19th century, i.e. long before Wellhausen. (2)
Since Wellhausen, the 'priestly document' has normally been
regarded as the latest of the pentateuchal sources; in fact, the
1 Einleitung in das Hexateuch, 1893; see also the statement of von

Hiigfi from the year 1897 on 'the unanimity in general and in
deta T in the separation of sources, quoted by H. Gazelles, Tenta-
teuque', DBS, VII, 1966, col. 791.
s
Eeuss-Graf-Kuenen~Wellhausen-hypothesis' has pre-
vailed to such an extent that, since then, it has only been con-
tested by outsider—though still with the limitations already
mentioned with regard to the extent and purpose of the
priestly document,
There is an increasing number of voices today which ques-
tion the apparent consensus or doubt whether it exists at all.
Many critics have expressed the view that Moth's conception
amounts to a new complementary hypothesis: he does not
reckon with a redactor who accepts more or less on an equal
footing the original independent sources, but assumes that the
redactor has used the priestly document as a frame, has taken
the narrative material in essence from the Yahwist, and has
added the Elohist by way of complement only to a limited
extent; thus, Moth has in fact renounced to a very large extent
complete reconstruction of the original sources which as a
whole exist only in the theory of his system. Others go farther.
Let us cite only such a brilliant interpreter of pentateuchal
research as H, Gazelles^ who wrote not so long ago: 'The pre-
sent state would justify the title under which N.E, Wagner
presented his views: "Pentateuchal Criticism: No Clear
Future"', 3 Caselles then speaks of the 'present malaise in
pentateuehal criticism.,, which necessarily has repercussions
on the theological analysis',4 O. Kaiser maintains that penta-
teuchal research is really on the move again, This is because
lie sees that the very question which he himself felt to be cen-
tral,, namely concerning the Yahwist,. is still open: The works
produced in the last ten years cm (the sources of the Penta-
teuch) have at the very least shown clearly that the problem
of the unity and specific nature of the Yahwist cannot be
regarded as solved'.5 As an example of the younger German
1 E.g., Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from the Beginnings to

the Babylonian Exile, trans, and abr. M. Creenberg from Hebrew,
1960, pp. 153ff.; I. Engnell, op, dt.t pp.SOff.; U. Cassuto, The Docu-
mentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, 1981.
2 See above p. 106 a. 1, esp. sections III, IV, and Conclusion.
3 BibThB 2 (1972) 3-24, esp. p. 9.
4 Ibid.
5 'Die alttestamentliche Wissensehaft', in Wissenschaftlicht Theolo-
gie im Uberblick, ed. W. LohfET. Haha, 1974, pp. 13-19(15).
OT scholars, one may cite F. Stolz whose writings reflect a

widespread view. After assessing the difficulties under which
the hypothesis of a *Yahwist' labour today, he writes: With a
conception such as this one must, to be sure, reckon with a
Yahwist whose character is as complex as can be imagined...
In any case, it is in no wise a rounded picture'.1
3.2 The problem of the Yahwist

It is certainly no chance that in the citations given so far the
talk concerns mainly the Yahwist and that the lack of clarity
in regard to this source has been felt to be particularly disturb-
ing. In fact, judgment about the Yahwist constitutes as it were
the key to the whole problem of the documentary hypothesis,
and that for two reasons: (1) the Yahwist is the only older
source accepted by all supporters of the documentary hypoth-
esis; essential parts of the narrative material derive from it. If
one does not succeed in demonstrating this chief source con-
vincingly, then the hypothesis as a whole can scarcely be
maintained. (2) More recently, the theological meaning of the
Pentateuch has to a large extent been built on the interpreta-
tion of the Yahwist; the other sources are dealt with and char-
acterized in comparison with him. If this source is no longer
clearly discernible, then the current, widespread method of
explaining the Pentateuch theologically is in danger.2
3.2.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist

Has the current Pentateuch research a clear picture of the
Yahwist? First, let us put the question of the literary analysis.
To what extent does it see itself in the position to delimit clearly
the texts to be ascribed to the Yahwist. Certain demands must
at least be put to the Yahwist which, according to the basic
principles of the documentary hypothesis, hold in fact for all
sources: namely, that it can be demonstrated that it is com-
plete from beginning to end, i.e. from the creation right down
1 Das Alte Testament, 1974, p. 36.

2 See above under 1.3 (von Rad's view of the Yahwist); also the citation
above from Gazelles (3.1 above).
to the occupation of the land, and that the texts attributed to it

constitute a clearly recognizable coherent whole. Only then
can the Yahwist stand as a 'source' in the sense of the docu-
mentary hypothesis. Let us call to mind once more a basic
methodological principle mentioned earlier: the documentary
hypothesis arose as an answer to the question about the liter-
ary unity of the text of the Pentateuch as it now stands, and it
only makes sense as an answer to this question. But it is not
enough to demonstrate the lack of unity in the text, inasmuch
as there could be the most diverse explanations of this. Rather,
the documentary hypothesis claims to be the best and most
convincing (and so, in the opinion of its subsequent supporters,
the correct) explanation of the origin of the present form of
the text, in that it has worked out the earlier constituent parts,
namely the 'sources', and has also traced the path from them
to the present final form, namely the 'redaction'
What then is the case with the Yahwist as a source running
through the whole Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) in the sense of
the documentary hypothesis? Let us begin with the book of
Genesis. At first glance no particular problems appear to arise
in the analysis. The majority of exegetes reckon with only two
sources for the primeval story, J and P (or three: L/N, J and
P), i.e. the Elohist has no part in the primeval story according
to the prevailing view. The rest of Genesis is shared out,
according to the respective views, among two, three, or four
sources. Recently, voices have increased which doubt if the
source theory is applicable to the Joseph story (Gen. 37—50).
Von Rad, in the last edition of his Genesis commentary, added
an appendix in which he took account of these doubts.1 Some
exegetes doubt only that several of the narrative sources can
be found in this complex and advance arguments that only the
Tahwist' is at work here.2 This at least puts a large question
mark over the documentary hypothesis as the method which
is to explain the whole Pentateuch if, in an extensive block of

2 Genesis (German 9th edn 1972; Eng. 2nd edn 1972) p. 440. Cf. also
D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-
50), VTSupp. 20 (1970); O. Steck, Die Landnahme der israelitischen
Stamme in der neuren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion. Ein kriti-
scher Bericht, 1967, p. 92, n. 3.
the tradition, the tensions and unevennesses which are pre-

sent in the text have to be explained in another way.1 Other
exegetes want to go further and contest the presence in the
Joseph story of any sources at all in the sense of the documen-
tary hypothesis.2 This means yet a deeper breach in the valid-
ity of the documentary hypothesis, because this large passage
of text drops completely out of the conventional framework of
explanation.3
The difficulties of delimiting the sources in the first half of
the m:ck of Exodus have already been mentioned.4 Let us cite
furl.her from the commentary of W.H. Schmidt in this matter:
There is often agreement in registering the tensions, breaks,
and gaps in the text; but in explaining these unevennesses,
axcgetes are more or less divided. It is relatively easy to per-
form the task of sorting out roughly the passages whose
r or;? co live contents cohere. There is often a twofold problem:
(1) the assigning of these pieces to each other, i.e. inserting
them into their original context, and (2) the precise delimita-
tion of the units. Where does a source really begin, where does
it end? Are the transition verses which clamp different units to
each other to be assigned to a written source or to the redac-
tion? And so it is often difficult to corne to terms with sec-
ondary additions with any certainty.5
This citation shows that one can establish that a text is not a
unity,/' but that a generation of work has not succeeded in
determining which individual passages belong to the different
sources. Accordingly, the assignment of texts remains an
extremely doubtful matter. After weighing thoroughly all
1 Sfcesk, op. cit.

2 Redford and ¥/eippert. Also, R.N. Whybray, 'The Joseph- Story and
Pentateuchal Criticism', VT 18 (1988) 522-28.
3 Wellhausen had already noted perceptively what the detachment of
the Joseph story would mean for the source theory as a whole: The
main source for the last section of Genesis is also JE. One surmises
that this work, here as elsewhere, is assembled out of J and E; our
earlier results force us to this and would be shattered were it not
demonstrable3 (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der histori-
schen Biicher des Alien, Testaments, 1899 [3rd edn], p. 52).
5 Exodus, 1974, pp. 82-83.
6 Cf. Noth, A History, p. 20,
3. Criticism of Pentafouchai Criticism, 111
arguments, Schmidt assigns Exod. 2.1-10 as follows: Though,

there are few concrete clues for assigning the text to any liter-
ary source, nevertheless they speak more in favour of the
Elohist;, to whom one earlier and without exception assigned
the main part. Recently, the preference is for the Yahwist
because of general considerations... Nevertheless, assigning it
to J remains questionable; J. Wellhausen was rightly reserved
in the judgment that he pronounced on Exodus 2: "the sepa-
ration cannot be carried through"'.1
There is therefore great uncertainty of method in
delimiting the sources. Decisive in this is that there are no solid
criteria capable of indicating which passages are to be
assigned to which sources. The available clues 'speak in
favour" of one source, though there 'is a preference for the
other'. Such statements show clearly that the exegete, on the
basis of the available source hypothesis, sees himself compelled
to assign the texts to one of the accepted sources, even though
he has no criteria for doing so. Despite intensive efforts, there
has been no success in providing precise data for the
continuous course of the Yahwistic narrative thread.
Fohrer solves the problems differently. He is of the opinion
that he has at his disposal criteria by which he can assign texts
or parts of texts to the individual sources; by means of them he
can often discern elements of the sources, even if the redaction
has almost completely altered the original text. So for Fohrer,
for example, Exod. 2.11-22 'presents a narrative which has
been moulded almost to a perfect unity from elements of the
source layers J, E, and N'.2 Therefore, unified passages of texts
also, which in themselves offer no cause for literary-critical
operations, can be assigned to several sources, and indeed to
several sources at the same time! It is clear that in this way it
is very much easier to point out the continuity of the presenta-
tion in the different sources.3
1 Exodus, p. 64.
2 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 1~
15,1964, p. 26.
3 It is at the same time clear that, in such a procedure, one has aban-
doned the point of departure of classical pentateuchal criticism,
namely the question of an explanation of the breaks and repetitions
ascertainable in the present text, and by means of an in-built system
If Schmidt and other exegetes find it difficult to point to a

Yahwistic narrative in the first two chapters of the book of
Exodus, Noth finds problems in Exodus 3—4. He considers that
the whole passage which deals with Moses' meeting with God
and the commission given him to lead the Israelites out of
Egypt (Exod. 3.1-4.17) as a 'secondary element',1 in so far as
he does not hold it to be elohistic, which seems 'to have been
interpolated only secondarily into the work of the Yahwist'.2
And so the Yahwist would have reported nothing of all this!
In the further course of the narrative there are even more
and greater difficulties. Noth maintains that the narrative of
the Sinai event, already within the old pentateuchal material
(Exod. 19-24; 32-34), has, by expansions and interpolations,
been given such a complicated literary arrangement that a
plausible analysis is now no longer possible'.3 One could also
describe this situation in another way, namely by concluding
that the criteria for source criticism have proved unsuitable to
explain the literary problems of the Sinai pericope! Going into
detail, Noth carries out some negative delimitations: the story
of the golden calf is 'a secondary element within J, not only in
the process of the formation of the tradition, but also from the
literary standpoint'.4 'One must renounce any literary critical
analysis of Exodus 33. It seems here to be a matter of a con-
glomeration of seconda/y growths'.5 And the passage Exod.
24.3-8, which deals with the ceremony of the *blood of the
covenant', has not been included in the list, because it seems to
Noth Very doubtful whether this piece belongs to any source
at all and is not rather some sort of secondary appendix to the
book of the covenant'.6 And so there is less and less left over for
the Yahwist—and more and more texts disappear from the
record by the methods of source divisions!
As one proceeds, the problems do not become easier, but
only verified the hypothetical solution given earlier.

1 A History, p. 30, n. 103.
2 Op. cit.,p.2Q3, n.549.
3 Op. cit., p. 31, n. 115; cf. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testa-
ment, 1969, pp. 156ff.
4 Noth, ibid.
5 Op. eft., p. 31, n. 114.
6 Op. eft., p. 31, n. 115.
more difficult. Immediately after dealing with the Sinai peri-

cope where, according to the prevailing view, the old penta-
teuchal sources begin again, Noth writes: The very fragile
ch. 12 of Numbers is one of the most despairing cases in penta-
teuchal analysis; I simply give up any attempt to dismember
it'.1 And a little later: In the second half of the book of Num-
bers, all sorts of supplements have been inserted towards the
end of the Moses tradition in the different literary stages;
there has also been a literary working together of the Penta-
teuch and the deuteronomistic history; the far reaching con-
sequence of all this has produced a final text so complicated
that it is only with the greatest difficulty that one can make
out anything certain about the original form of the penta-
teuchal material in this area'.2 In Noth's view then it appears
that no information about the death of Moses has been pre-
served from the old sources!3
Kaiser's judgment is similar. In his rehearsing of the Yah-
wistic work he writes: *We feel our way through the frag-
ments of the Yahwistic narrative. In the last available pieces
in Numbers 32, Moses appears no more'.4 And Noth himself
later sharpened his judgment still further on the possibilities of
source division in the book of Numbers: 'If one takes the 4th
book of Moses in itself, then one would not easily come to the
idea of 'continuous sources', but rather to that of an unsys-
tematic arrangement of numerous pieces of tradition of very
different content, age, and character ('fragment hypothe-
sis')'.5 Nevertheless, Noth is of the opinion that one should not
isolate the book of Numbers, and considers it 'justified to
approach the 4th book of Moses with the results of penta-
teuchal analysis gained elsewhere and to expect continuous
pentateuchal 'sources' in this book as well even if, as already
said, the situation in the 4th book of Moses does not of itself
lead at once to these conclusions'.6 As for the 'results of penta-
teuchal analysis gained elsewhere', one should call to mind
1 Op. cit.,p.32, n. 120.

2 Op. cit., pp. 32f., n. 126.
3 Ibid.
4 Introduction, p. 89.
5 Numbers, p. 4.
6 Ibid., p.5.
once more that already, from Steuernagel to Schmidt, 'great

uncertainty' reigns in the source division in the first part of
the book of Exodus, and the results have 'often only a limited
degree of probability*, even if one does not 'renounce com-
pletely as too uncertain5 the assignment of texts to particular
sources.1 It must remain doubtful if this is a basis from which
one can expect 'sources' in the book of Numbers, even though
one cannot discern them there.
One must not pass over the fact that there are also exegetes
who place more confidence in the trustworthiness of source
analysis. But the citations given here indicate that there is in
any case widespread uncertainty, and in addition, the
analyses of Noth must be counted as truly representative of
the present day. Hence, it cannot in any way be said that there
is a broad and well founded consensus today among
supporters of the documentary hypothesis about the precise
course of the Yahwistic work.
The problem area for the understanding of the whole work
that arises out of all this may be clarified under two points: (1)
the question of the conclusion of the Yahwistic work: von Rad
reckons with a Hexateuch because he understands the whole
as directed to the occupation of the land. Noth is in basic
agreement, but thinks that the conclusion *has been lost' in the
course of the redaction.2 Wolff on the other hand does not have
these difficulties because for him the once so important theme
of the promise of the land has, with the Yahwist, been
'contracted to a secondary narrative trait'.3 'Hence there
should be no cause for surprise when at the end of the Yah-
wistic work the theme of the occupation of the land does not
appear with its special significance and to the extent
expected'.4 Wolff then is satisfied to conclude the Yahwistic
work with the Balaam narrative (Num. 22-24).5 There is no
more talk of the death of Moses. Other exegetes manage by
passing over the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua and
taking the traditions of the occupation of the land in the first
3 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist', Interpretation 20 (1966) 131-58.
4 Ibid., n. 37.
5 Op. cit.
chapter of the book of Judges as the conclusion of the

Yahwistic work. They acknowledge thereby Noth's separa-
tion of the book of Joshua from the Pentateuch, but do not
draw the consequences from it; rather, they want to retain a
small bit of 'Hexateuch'.1 But for these also the difficulty
remains that in the Yahwistic work there is no information
about the death of Moses. Many would like to find it in
Deuteronomy 34; but here too, great uncertainty reigns.2 But
all in all the question of the end of the Yahwistic work remains
undecided and many exegetes leave it aa open question both in
itself and for themselves. Can one then really say anything
reliable about the purpose and goal of this work?
(2) A further controversial point which ought be mentioned
fis yet another exuniDle is the part "olayed bv the Yahwist in
the Sinai periecpe ar-d the question, what is the significance of
the Sinai periocope for him. Noth has maintained that the
account cf the events at Sinai 'have been given such a
complicated literary arrangement that a plausible analysis is
no longer passible5.3 He is of the opinion that this is 'thoroughly
comprehensible in view of what is narrated here'.,4 He
explains the situation thus: the insertion of different codes of
law' have 'disturbed the tight structure of the three narrative
sources not inconsiderably' and 'so central an event as the
divine manifestation, the making of the covenant, and the
'law'-giving has obviously given occasion for all sorts of
subsequent expansions and statements'.5 Noth is clearly of the
opinion that the Yahwist too originally had a considerable and
discernible share in this central passage, Wolff thinks
otherwise: He maintains that the Yahwist is 'taciturn' on the
Sinai theme. But this is not due to redactional alteration of the
text; rather: 'How can it be otherwise, given as starting point
the kerygma (of the Yahwist}? The nations which
1 E.g. Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 78ff,; also S. Smend, Biblische Zeug-

"Jsse.Literatur des alien Israel, 1967, pp. 86-87. Noth has already
spoken against this view (A History, p. 33, n. 127),
2 Gazelles finds the opinion which ascribes Deut. 34.1b-6 to the Yah-
wist as 'tenant' (DBS VII, 1966, col. 791).
3 A History, p. 31, n, 115.
4 Ibid.
6 Exodus, p. 13.
preoccupied him in the primeval story, on whose account the

patriarchal theme was so fruitful for him, and whom he saw
both in the Joseph story and then in the exodus tradition in the
form of the shackling might of Egypt, have no place at all in
the Sinai theme. He could not of course by-pass it, because it
was already there before him, having grown up together with
the other themes'.1 And so Wolffs conception of the Yahwistic
work allows no significance worth mentioning to the Sinai
theme.
Over against this there should be set other opinions, the
selection of which can only be more or less random. Von Rad
has emphasized that the 'inset of the Sinai tradition' was one
of the decisive theological accomplishments of the Yahwist. It
was 'a free and daring act of the Yahwist' and signifies theo-
logically 'a considerable enrichment'.2 The tradition of the
occupation of the land attests Yahweh's merciful will; in the
centre of the Sinai tradition stands Yahweh's will that
demands justice. By taking to itself the Sinai tradition, the
simple and basic soteriological idea of the tradition of the occu-
pation of the land acquired a powerful and beneficial substruc-
ture'.3 For von Rad, both themes are at the very centre of the
theological conception of the Yahwist, themes which for Wolff
have no further independent significance. Gazelles says of the
Sinai theme: the Yahwist 'knows the Sinai [theme] and is
more interested in it than one thinks'.4 There are still further
opinions in the different monographs on the theology of the
Yahwist. According to Marie—Louise Henry 'the Yahwist
makes the event at Sinai the climax of his presentation'.5 P.F.
Ellis writes: The Sinai covenant may rightly be termed the
climax of the Yahwist's saga'.6
These examples are cited merely to show how broad are the
differences of opinion as to which themes in the tradition are
1 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist'.

2 The Form-critical Problem', pp. 53-54.
3 Op. cit., pp. 53-54.
4 'Positions actuelles dans l'ex£gese du Pentateuque', in De Mart a
Qumr&n, Festschrift J. Coppens, 1, 1969, pp. 34-57 (50).
5 Jahwist und Priesterschrift. Zwei Glaubenszeugnisse des Alien
Testaments, 1969, p. 19.
6 The Yahwist. The Bible's First Theologian, 1969, p. 181.
to be regarded as specifically and characteristically Yahwistic.

The uncertainty becomes still greater when it is a question of
the marks that characterize the Yahwist's way of presenta-
tion and style. Older generations applied much ingenuity to
working out the linguistic peculiarities of the penta-(hexa-)
teuchal sources. A classical example of this are the tables of
'linguistic characteristics' of the sources in Holzinger's Intro-
duction. One reads: 'One can speak of a characteristic Lexikon
oftT.1 1 There follow no less than fourteen pages of Yahwistic
vocabulary, then some more on grammar and style. There is a
corresponding 'Lexikon' of E (9 pages),2 again with further
details on grammar and style; likewise for (T)' and) P.3
Since then, argument by means of differences in linguistic
usage has receded completely into the background. It is gen-
erally emphasized that the language of the priestly document
is clearly recognizable. Eissfeldt writes: *Even for J and E a
whole list of statements have been made which are of perma-
nent value. But as soon as one comes to refinements, confusion
begins. The same narrative is not infrequently assigned by one
author to J, by another to E, each time on the basis of lan-
guage'.4 He therefore gives place to the argument of the fre-
quent occurrence of narratives, narrative motifs, and notes,
and tries, 'in the current abandonment of other arguments to
make use of this one alone to solve the problems of the Hexa-
teuch'.5 But in his Introduction he again advanced the argu-
ment from linguistic usage; but little has remained from
Holzinger's comprehensive lists; apart from the distinction
'Canaanites/Amorites' and 'Sinai/Horeb', all that is left is that
the slave woman is called in the J-layer and in the E-
layer; but the probative value of this is reduced when the slave
woman serving the man' (and only she is in question in the
alleged proofs!) is described as well in the J-layer as 'concu-
bine' ,6 Here the argument from different linguistic
1 Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893, p. 93 (emphasis in original).

2 Op. cit., pp. 181-89.
3 Op. cit., pp. 283-90,339-48.
4 Hexateuch. Synopse, 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn), p. 5.
5 Op. cit., p. 5.
6 Introduction, p. 183; also A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment, 11, 1959 (5th edn), pp. 29,45.
usage is reduced to a tiny crumb.

Fohrer speaks confidently: The linguistic usage is different
in the individual source layers. Further examination shows
that the change in the designation of places, persons, objects
etc. is not due to chance but coheres with other distinguishing
marks'.1 However, he does not produce any examples but
refers merely to the tables in Driver (1891, 1913) and Steuer-
nagel (1912),2 Kaiser refers to Holzinger (1912) and mentions
a few examples, something like Eissfeldt.3 Noth, however,
doubts whether these arguments carry any weight at all: The
study of language and style in itself is of scarcely any decisive
help in the analysis of the Pentateuch material... closer atten-
tion shov/s only faint traces of synonyms and synonymous
phrases whose variable use can with any probability be traced
back to a difference in writers who have given the material its
formulation as handed down; and these words and phrases
occur too seldom to be of any real service in classifying the
material as a whole'.4
One thing becomes very clear from this example: in the pre-
sent state of pentateuchal study, arguments are often taken
over and repeated on the basis of a general, however ill-
defined,5 consensus about the acknowledgment of the docu-
mentary hypothesis; these arguments scarcely carry convic-
tion and the individual exegete has scarcely been able to sub-
stantiate them with concrete content. When the claim that
the sources J and E differ from each other in their use of lan-
guage, is reduced after all to the statement that there are two
(or three!) different designations for the slave woman,6 it can
only be due to the principle of inertia that this argument is still
used at all.7 Reference to tables in older literature without con-
2 Whether the summary details given by Steuernagel in his
Lehrbuch—4see above under p. 104 n. 1) pp. 203, 214-15, 233-34, can
be described as 'detailed' (so Fohrer), must be questionable.
4 A History, p. 21.
5 The German word used is 'diffus'; it is not used in any polemical
sense, but only to state that the consensus consists only in a basic
conviction, but in detail cannot be more sharply defined.
6 Cf. also F. Stolz, Das alte Testament, 1974, p. 31.
7 And this all the more so in view of A. Jepsen's discussion, 'Amah
crete details about what is considered still valid in them, serves

scarcely more than to function as an alibi.
3.2.2 Characteristics of the work of the Yahwist

But the real problem goes much deeper: in what way is it pos-
sible at all to ask about the distinguishing marks of the
Tahwistic style' or the Yahwistic language'? This question is
closely linked with the other: in what way is the Yahwist to be
regarded as 'narrator* or 'writer'? If one looks for information
on this question in recent literature, one finds a very divided
answer.
One generally insists today that the Yahwist's work had a
long pre-history. It has been accepted since Gunkel that the
individual narratives often existed independently at first
before they became parts of larger compositions—and then at
some time or other of the Yahwistic work as well. Since then
further intermediary steps have been introduced into the dis-
cussion. Noth in particular has found a large following with
his thesis that before the Yahwist and the Elohist there
already existed a 'common basis' (G = Grundlage}.1 Fohrer
extended the thesis, 'G has been worked over in different
ways 2 ... so that one must reckon with two basic narratives,
first an older (G1) and then a later (G2)'.3 But this only makes
the question more urgent, what part did the Yahwist and the
other older authors of the sources play in the shaping of the
texts ascribed to them.
There are various aspects to this question. First, it has
something to do with the question of oral and written tradi-
tion.4 The matter was rather clear for Gunkel: the origin of
the written sources marks at the same time the transition
from oral to written tradition. The collection of stories had
already begun in the oral tradition'. Their committment to
and Schiphchah', VT 8 (1958) 293-97: 'It would be far better to

exclude the two words and from the arguments for source
division', p. 297.
1 A History, p. 39.
2 Introduction, p.IS.
3 Op. cif.,p.!29.
4 It is not a matter of alternatives as opponents of the documentary
hypothesis have developed it under the catch cry 'oral tradition'.
writing 'will have followed at a time which lent itself rather to

writers'. The written collection of stories... took place in a
long process in which one can distinguish "two periods", to the
older of which we owe "the collections of the Yahwist (J) and
the Elohist (E)"'.1 This was at the same time the end of the
oral tradition ^because the fixation in writing will then for its
part have contributed to the death of the remains of the oral
tradition still existing'.2
Fohrer's judgment is similar: 'In accordance with the liter-
ary promises available to Israel, the oral tradition was con-
cerned for the most part with individual pieces whereas the
written sources of the Pentateuch were without doubt
recorded in writing'.3 Koch, in his discussion of this whole
group of questions,4 insists that the question of the transition
from the oral to the written stage 'must be put anew for each
type of literature, and indeed for each literary unit', and
answered differently.5 He surmises that 'the popular narra-
tives, as they are found from Genesis to Samuel, were written
down only relatively late, and with their committment to
writing the living oral transmission by no means came to an
end'.6 Unfortunately he does not say what he means by
'relatively late' and what consequences are to be drawn from
this for the sources of the Pentateuch. In another place he
describes the Yahwist repeatedly as a 'writer' (likewise the
Elohist)7 and speaks for example of literary clamps' of which
the Yahwist makes use.8 There is then only an apparent con-
tradiction to the opinions of Gunkel and Fohrer already cited.
The written sources/layers therefore are in essence unani-
mously considered to be written works. What preceded them?
For Gunkel, as we have seen, the formation of the written
sources meant the transition from oral to written tradition.
But what about the entity 'G'? Noth leaves the question open
1 Genesis, p. Ixxx.
2 Ibid.
3 Op. cit.
4 See above under 1.
5 Op. cit., p. 85.
6 Op. cit., p. 85.
7 Op. cit., pp. 128-32.
8 Op. cit., p. 131.
and maintains that it cannot be decided. He insists 'that this

common basis for J and E must already have had a fixed
form', but continues: *Whether it be that it was fixed in writing
or whether it was that in its oral transmission it had acquired
a distinct form both in structure and content'.1 Kaiser speaks
similarly of a 'moulded tradition (G), be it oral or written',
from which 'the Yah wist took over... the basic outline for his
narrative'.2 Fohrer is of a different opinion here: 'It is to be
presumed that G1 circulated only in oral tradition, whereas
G2, at the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon,
was probably available in a written version'.3 Kaiser refers to
the suggestions of Kilian and Fritz that the Yahwist may well
have had available to him and used a written model for par-
ticular complexes of tradition.4
There is no unanimity therefore on the question whether
the Yahwist used written sources which were available to
him; however, there is a recognizable tendency to give an
affirmative answer.5 For the rest, it is emphasized that the
material available, be it oral or written, had a distinct form. It
is frequently noted6 that one should not imagine that an
ancient writer like the Yahwist was in any way near as free as
a modern writer; he was much more strongly bound to what
lay before him. Gunkel had already insisted that the stories
were taken over by the collectors essentially as they found
them,7 meaning here by 'collectors' expressly J and E. Noth
writes: 'the ancient sources clearly kept substantially to the
narrative tradition given to them both as a whole and in
detail'.8 And Fohrer very similarly: 'Apart from their
individual characteristic, the authors of the ancient source
layers kept in general and in detail to the tradition that they
1 A History, pp. 39, 229.

2 Introduction, p.8L
3 Introduction, p.lSOt
4 Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 84f.
5 Differently, H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung
im Alien Israel, 1972, p. 74.
6 For von Rad's view, see above under 1.1.
7 Genesis, pp. Ixxx, Ixxxiii.
8 A History, p. 229. Despite this agreement with Gunkel, Noth rejects
G's opinion of the sources as 'schools of narrators'.
used'.1
Is there anything then such as a Tahwistic style' or a
Tahwistic language'? Gunkel replies affirmatively: 'On the
other hand, there are collectors who are far removed from
passing on material transmitted without any alteration. They
have allowed the stories to penetrate their being; their
uniform use of language is a clear sign that the stuff of the
stories has passed through the mould'.2 Likewise Fohrer: 'In
any case, the source layers rest on the activity of individual
writers who show differences in both language and style'.3
The shape that the material had taken had already reached
such a point 'that the definitive literary version was for the
most part subject only to linguistic and stylistic reworking5.4
Noth's judgment is more reserved: 'The work of J and E
consisted largely in simply giving formulation to the
narratives transmitted, which gives one readily to reflect that
all sorts of modes of expression and stylistic characteristics
had already been given with the old tradition, so that the
ancient sources could not have yet become formal, tightly self-
contained, units'.5 Noth makes the explicit point that 'the
brief/detailed narrative style, without any attempt to balance
the individual narratives, has been preserved, each in the style
transmitted, in the final written form'.6 Thus he has basically
denied the existence of a peculiar Yahwistic style; for one
cannot seriously bring together under the common term
'Yahwistic style' texts in the "brief narrative style of Gen.
12.10-20 and texts in the 'detailed' style of Genesis 24—not to
speak of the 'novellistic style' of the Joseph story! In any other
area of the OT one would regard it as a serious methodological
error were an exegete to ascribe such fundamentally different
texts to a common author; rather the very difference in style
would be judged as evidence against common authorship.
Ought other standards hold for the Pentateuch? Or can other
common and convincing stylistic marks be found which,
1 Introduction, p.
2 Genesis, p. Ixxxv.
4 Op. cit.,p. 144
6 Ibid., n. 603.
despite these fundamental differences, suggest that one accept

a common author?
Von Rad has given another answer to this question: 'In the
shaping of the individual narratives the Yahwist has perhaps
not been beyond a certain hewing of the archaic profile and
the chipping of quite distinct and subtle traits'.1 Wolff too
insists that the Yahwist is by and large a trustworthy collector
who has himself done little by way of redaction to the material
transmitted'.2 Smend writes on the question: We must think
of the Yahwist as first and foremost a loyal collector of popular
tradition... (He) has for the most part been content to pass on
what was available to him'.3 And after a short survey of the
course of presentation in the Yahwistic narrative he contin-
ues: The Yahwist presents all this while allowing his sources
to speak in as trustworthy a manner as possible'.4
And so in this question as well, there is no unanimity: did the
Yahwist not even so much as formulate or remodel the texts
passed on, or did he 'mould' them into another form, or did he
rework their language and style so that they now bear his own
characteristic stamp? If yes, then in what does this stamp
consist, given the fundamental differences in form and style
between the individual narratives? If no, how can we know
which texts come from the Yahwist or are to be ascribed to
him?
It is clear that this question only becomes a problem if one
does not take as the point of departure the assumption, consid-
ered as certain, that the documentary hypothesis holds and
that consequently everything that is not ascribed to the
priestly writing or, if need be, to the Elohist, must be
considered Yahwistic.5 We have already spoken of a sort of
method of subtraction which is used today whereby
everything, which is not on firm grounds reckoned to another
source or layer of reworking, is ascribed to the Yahwist.6 If one
1 Genesis (9th edn German; Eng 2nd edn) p. 37.

2 The Kerygma', p. 136.
3 Biblische Zeugnisse. Literatur des alien Israel, 1967, p. 26.
4 Op. cit.,p.27.
5 I prescind here from the question of the separation of the Yahwist
into two sources and from the question of the part of the 'redactors'.
6 See above under 1.3; also W. Schmidt, Exodus, p. 64.
accepts this assumption as certain, then one can quite well

argue, on the basis of the variety of forms in the traditions
used by him, that the Yahwist likewise disposed of a variety of
stylistic forms. One asks then not, how does one recognize the
work of the Yahwist?—but, what does all this mean for the
stylistic forms found in the Yahwist—whose literary stock has
been fixed beforehand and independently of them? But
whoever wants to put the first question, inasmuch as he holds
the assumptions described above to be not all that certain, is
left without a concrete answer. And what is offered to him,
now here now there, as representations of the variety of styles
in the Yahwist, is really nothing else than a description of the
'art form of the stories (Sagen)' as Gunkel had already
provided for Genesis. The presentations by Gazelles1 and Ellis2
can serve as recent examples of this.
However, there does seem to be basic agreement that a quite
decisive characteristic of the Yahwist is the way in which he
has arranged the material that came to him and that he took
over. This was the fundamental idea in von Rad's plan. But we
have already seen, with Noth's qualifications, that the actual
work of the Yahwist as a composer has been reduced quite
notably. Hence, one can understand why the statements on
this point in the literature are mostly very vague. And so Wolff
writes: *What the Yahwist himself has to say becomes clearer
in his arranging of the material handed on, in his outline, in
which he allows the large blocks of tradition belonging to the
preliterary stage to give expression to themselves, sometimes
extensively, as with the patriarchal tradition, sometimes
sparsely, as with the Sinai tradition. However, there is no reli-
able evidence here, because we cannot see clearly what was
sacrificed when the material was worked together with the
Elohist and later with the priestly writing. But the outline is as
a whole independent of this, and so above all are the contents
of the great forecourt known as the primeval story which is
generally regarded as his literary accomplishment'.3 It is quite
clear here, in my opinion, how an argument is maintained,
1 Tentateuque', DBS, VII, 1966, cols. 792-93.

2 The Yahwist. The Bible's First Theologian, 1969, pp. 113ff.
3 The Kerygma', p. 136.
although it has lost its essential basis and thereby its power of
conviction: for von Had, the arrangement of the larger blocks
was the decisive accomplishment of the Yahwist; Wolff holds
to this idea and underscores it heavily, while in this 'arranging
the material passed on', the 'self-expression' of the Yahwist
becomes very clear. But Wolff has to qualify this immediately
and say in the very next sentence that there is 'no reliable evi-
dence here', and that of the arrangement of the great blocks of
tradition there remains peculiar to him what 'is generally
regarded as his (the Yahwist's) literary accomplishment',
namely 'the contents of the great forecourt known as the
primeval story*. According to Wolffs opinion therefore and in
face of the present text—and we have no other!—one can not
give concrete details of what this compositorial accomplish-
ment comprises.
The picture is similar with Fohrer. In his view 'it is to be
noted to what extent the single event is brought into large
complexes and set under over-arching view points, and how
'history' (Geschichte) is shaped out of individual stories
(Geschichten). This is shown both by the structure of the
whole which is expanded around the primeval story and by
the special emphasis given by J'.1 He continues further:
'Striking here is the mingling of national (already noted) and
universal concepts'.2 As proofs are alleged Gen. 8.21 and
(without explicit citation) Gen. 12.3 (The other nations can
and so ought to share in its blessing?3). Another characteristic
mark of the present discussion is in evidence here: the argu-
ments for identifying the Yahwist (for his theology, see below
under 3.2.3) are taken predominantly, often almost exclu-
sively, from Genesis! It is not mentioned if the 'special empha-
sis' of J is demonstrable in other places as well.
According to Kaiser the Yahwist has 'in the traditions avail-
able to him undoubtedly moved the action of Yahweh firmly
into the foreground'.4 It is not said how this is done and to what
extent the action of Yahweh was originally expressed less
1 Introduction, p. 150 (with reference to Weiser).

2 Ibid.
3 Op. ci*.,p.!50.
clearly in the versions taken over by the Yahwist. T3y giving

shape to the promise motifs handed on and by linking together
the ancient traditions he achieved furthermore a theologiz-
ing*.1 Here too there is the undemonstrated claim about the
'linking together of the ancient traditions' and the intention
inherent in it.2 And more—two sentences before we read 'that
besides the basic plan linking together the different cycles of
themes, larger complexes of traditions were already available
(to the Yahwist)'. What then could he still link together?
There is present here once more that general yet ill-defined
consensus which we noted earlier.3 The peculiar accomplish-
ment of the Yahwist consists not in the linguistic and stylistic
shaping of the traditions handed on (although there was pos-
sibly something like this, even though one cannot exactly
prove it), but in the arrangement of the traditions (although
the complexes of tradition were to a large extent available to
him) and in putting certain emphases (which one can recog-
nize clearly only in a very few places)4 Here, in my opinion,
one can discern clearly yet again how the overall conception
has been maintained, although more and more some of the
individual parts of which the structure once consisted have
become questionable or have had to be abandoned entirely.
Critical reflection shows that the structure is really held
together only by the common conviction of those for whom the
documentary hypothesis is a fixed piece of data in the tradition
of scholarship in which they stand; it does not occur to them to
doubt it, even though so many individual supporting argu-
ments have been shown to be no longer tenable.5
3.2.3 The theology of the Yahwist

But we have not yet mentioned a crucial matter of discussion
1 Ibid.
2 As shown above (2.3-2.4), there can be no talk of a promise motif or
motifs being passed on to the Yahwist.
3 See above under 3.2.1 (towards the end).
4 Wolff (op. cit., pp.!36ff.) talks of five much discussed bridge pas-
sages, exclusively from the book of Genesis, 6.5-8; 8.21-22; 12.1-4a;
18.17-18,23b-33.
5 See further R. Rendtorff, 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte',
EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53.
3. Criticism of Peniateuchal Criticism 127
which dominates to a large extent the current literature: the

theology of the Yahwist. In their presentation of the Yahwist,
most of the contributions just cited pass quickly from a few
general and often quite summary statements about the com-
position to a treatment of the theology of the Yahwist. It has
already been noted that von Rad saw the theological achieve-
ment of the Yahwist above all in the theological composition,
i.e. in the arrangement of the hitherto independent large
complexes of tr&dition of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. We have
already referred to the basic shift of emphasis which judg-
ment about the Yahwist as a theologian has undergone
through Noth, inasmuch as his share in the composition is
given a considerably lower rating and his theological contri-
bution finds expression mainly in a few programmatic sen-
tences. Moth's opinion has prevailed by and large. A great
number of authors have repeated mechanically that one can
best recognize the Yahwist where he himself formulates and
this he does in those same programmatic sentences.
The selection of texts has generally remained the same.
Besides a few sentences in the primeval story (especially 6.5
and 8.21-22), there are mainly two places: Gen. 12.1-3 and
18.22b-33. Von Rad had already elaborated in detail the signif-
icance of the first: it is a link which binds the story of the
human race described in the primeval story with the story of
Israel which begins with Abraham; it is 'the clamp between
the primeval story and the story of salvation' and 'the etiology
of all etiologies of Israel'.1 This text has been explained often
and in detail; Wolff, with the heaviest emphasis, has put it at
the centre of the theology of the Yahwist.2
The second text, Gen. 18.22b-33, on the contrary plays no
role at all in von Rad's presentation of the Yahwist's theology.
He did not mention in it his The Formcritical Problem...'; in
his commentary on Genesis he writes of both passages: If they
do not stem precisely from his (the Yahwist's) pen, they are in
their whole pattern of thought incomparably closer to him
1 The Form Critical Problem', p. 66.

2 The Kerygma', pp.!37ff. It is striking that this text is missing from
the presentation of the Yahwist's theology in the Introduction of
Fohrer and Kaiser.
than the really ancient narratives'.1 However, in his Theology

of the Old Testament he has this to say about the second piece
(18.20-33): The passage stands quite isolated and it is scarcely
possible for us to classify it in the historical-theological pro-
cess'.2 Hence, for von Rad, it has never had a constitutive
function for the understanding of the Yahwist, but stands in
solitary isolation. Noth sees it differently. For him this piece is
'an independent contribution of J'3 and 'in the analysis of the
theology of J deserves especially careful attention'.4 According
to Kaiser 'we ought to regard (this piece) as something pecu-
liarly his own' so that 'it is in this passage perhaps that we
come to recognize the Yahwist most clearly as a theologian'.5
Smend writes: 'Only once, it seems, can we latch on to a
lengthy piece in all these passages which he himself has writ-
ten: Abraham's dialogue with Yahweh before the destruction
of Sodom'.6 And this is the only passage outside the primeval
story that Fohrer expressly cites in his presentation of the
theology of the Yahwist.7
What is the reason for saying that we must be dealing here
with a particularly characteristic and important piece of the
theology? A first reason is easy to see. It is obviously a matter
here not of a piece of ancient story tradition, but of a theologi-
cal reflection which, without any doubt, is to be reckoned only
to a stage in the process of tradition when reworking and
reflection were at work. As this is beyond dispute, it immedi-
ately suggests itself to many exegetes that the piece is to be
ascribed to the Yahwist. Nothing, apparently, speaks in favour
of one of the other sources; only the 'addition' in 18.19 is
deuteronomistic;8 such refined theological reflection ought not
be confided to a 'redactor*; and so only the Yahwist remains; in
any case one would like very much to ascribe so lapidary a
piece of theology to this great theologian.
1 Genesis (German, 1972, 9th edn; Eng. 1972, 2nd edn), pp. 214-15.
2 Theology of the Old Testament, I, p. 395.
4 Op. cit.,p.239.
5 Introduction, pp. 84-85.
7 Introduction, p. 151
8 Cf. Noth, op. cit., p. 239, n. 627.
But in what does the characteristically Yahwistic quality of

this piece consist? Kaiser cites with approval a sentence from
Noth which he would like to extend 'across the whole of the
Yahwist's narrative story': '... it becomes clear that people in
this world can only be rescued through the free action of God
himself, not through some sort of righteousness of their own
by which they might be able to protect themselves and others
before the divine judgment'.1 Noth points out that in Sodom...
there were not even the 'ten just' of v.32; probably there would
not even be one', and he is of the opinion that thus 'the human
being of the Yahwistic primeval story stands before us,
described as unambiguously and consistently as anywhere
else in the Old Testament'.2 Similarly Smend: The problem of
the primeval story is also the problem of the other parts of the
Yahwistic work: it is the action of Yahweh, the "judge of all the
world", towards a world where righteousness is missing or
hopelessness seems to lie at its base'.3 But does this do justice to
the text? Is the text really dealing with the general problem
described? And is it really justified to set Sodom and all the
'people of the world' in parallelism?4 Noth has already
described the problem quite differently: it is 'to be noted in this
discussion... that the 'righteous action' of the 'judge of the
whole earth' (v. 25) would, according to Abraham's view
implicitly confirmed by Yahweh, consist in this, that he would
not as it were number off the 'just' over against the 'godless';
rather for him the very few 'just' carry such weight that
because of them the great crowd of the 'godless' would go
unpunished instead of the opposite, namely that the individual
'just' would be taken up into the judgment that befalls the
'godless".5 But this is not at all the problem of the primeval
story! The idea that the righteousness of Noah could have any
influence on YHWH's decision to destroy appears nowhere
there. And further, such reflections do not appear 'in other
parts of the Yahwistic work' (Smend).
The statement of Noth (and Kaiser) that the human person
1 Cf. Noth, op. cit., p. 239; Kaiser, Introduction.

2 Ibid.
3 Cf. p. 23 n. 2.
4 Noth, op. ci*.,p.239.
5 Op. cit., p. 239.
cannot be rescued 'through any personal righteousness'

would find its parallel in the Pentateuch at best in Deut. 9.4-6
where it is said expressly 'not because of your own righteous-
ness'. Wolff wants to see in this passage an initial development
of the Yahwistic theme of Gen. 12.3, how blessing can come to
those threatened with death in Abraham-Israel. The answer
is: in the tireless intervention of Abraham-Israel on behalf of
those who are destined to death'.1 But the closest parallel to
Abraham as intercessor would be the 'elohistic' passage in
Gen. 20.7, 17!2 The intercession of the Tahwistic' Moses for
the Egyptians is, on the contrary, that Pharaoh acknowledge
that YHWH alone is God and has the power (Exod. 8.6; 9.29);
the plagues also serve the same goal (8.18; 9.14; 11.7); and
finally, when the firstborn of Egypt are destined to death, there
is no intercession.
And so it is difficult to find in Gen. 18.22b-33 evidence of a
theology that is characteristic of the work of the Yahwist. On
the contrary, it is clear that the passage must be seen in the
context of the discussions about the relationship between col-
lective (or corporate) to individual righteousness as found
particularly in Ezekiel. One may leave it an open question
whether the view in the text is 'still far from the later, in many
ways doctrinaire, individualistic solution* of the question,3 or is
already 'on the way from corporate to individual responsibility
and liability as formulated in Ezekiel'.4 For von Rad it is 'a
unique breakthrough which, in place of the old notion of col-
lectivity, laid down a new way of thinking which took its point
of departure from the protective and representative function
of the He sees it 'in the perspective of many future gen-
erations' in line with the statements about 'the suffering ser-
vant who brings salvation "for the many" (Isa. 53.3,10)'.5
But is this passage really so 'unique*? It seems to me that the
important point of reference is less the discussion about indi-
vidual responsibility as such in Ezekiel 18, but rather Ezek.
1 'The Kerygma'.
2 For the claim that 20.7 belongs to the 'Elohist', see Wolff, op. cit.,
pp. 147f.
3 Noth, op. cit., p. 238.
4 Fohrer, Introduction, p. 151
5 Theology of the Old Testament, I, p. 395.
3. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 131
14.12-20 which, in my opinion, von Rad passes over too

quickly. The question in the background there is clearly: can a
few just effectively protect the whole community from the
judgment of God? The negative answer given in Ezekiel 14 is
only comprehensible if those listening to the prophet reckon
with this possibility. One could say somewhat subtly: Ezekiel's
contemporaries also know the problem dealt with in Genesis
18, whether a few just can save a whole community. But
Ezekiel denies this: men so exemplary and just as Noah,
Daniel, and Job could not effect that; they alone would be saved
(Ezek. 14.14, 16, 18, 20). It must remain open here whether
Ezekiel holds this thesis to be utterly false theologically, or is
simply of the opinion that the time is now come when the
intercession of such exemplary and just people can no longer
ward off judgment;1 in any case it is clear that the theological
reflections in Gen. 18.22b-33 and Ezek. 14.12-20 belong to a
common context in the process of the history of tradition.2
What remains of the 'theology of the Yahwist'? First, a fur-
ther remark must be inserted here: one often finds para-
phrase-like descriptions of the overall theological conception
of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch which are given out as the
theology of the Yahwist. It is evident here that for many
authors—often enough when writing for a rather broad circle
of readers—the idea of the Yahwist as the great theologian
who has given the Pentateuch its decisive stamp, has broken
away from the literary critical problems of the documentary
hypothesis and become independent. However, let it be said
expressly here that this is in no way to contest the possibility of
making synthetic theological statements about the Penta-
teuch as a whole. Rather, in the question of the 'theology*, the
talk here is first, in the methodologically strictest sense, of the
Yahwist as a 'source' or 'source layer' as understood by the
documentary hypothesis. What, if need be, might take its
1 Verses 22-23!
2 On this, cf. Wellhausen, Die Composition, 1899 (3rd edn), p. 25. He
holds Gen. 18.22b-33 to be an 'insertion', and the 'motive' for it was
a 'mood' that '(dominated) the Jewish people at the time when
Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied and the book of Job took form'.
Von Rad, Theology, I, p. 395, underscores the closeness to Isa. 53.3,
10.
place, is a later question.

What remains then of the 'theology of the Yahwist*? The
great achievement of arrangement in which von Rad thought
he could discern his theological intentions, can no longer be
claimed for him. Individual passages had for the most part
already been formed. Language and style he took for the most
part from what was available to him. And the individual pro-
grammatic statements can be claimed for him only to a very
limited extent—and that only at the very beginning of his
work. It is entirely in accord with the present state of scholar-
ship when the theology of the Yahwist is developed out of one
programmatic passage, Gen. 12.1-3,* or limited almost
entirely to the primeval story.2 It is clearly not possible to pre-
sent a theological conception which embraces the whole Pen-
tateuch and can be shown convincingly to belong to the Yah-
wist.
Here again, attention must be drawn to a peculiar situation:
although attempts to present a theology of the Yahwist pro-
ceed almost entirely from Genesis, the element of the divine
promise addressed to the patriarchs plays an astonishingly
small role. Yet it is clearly evident that there is in them a very
concentrated form of theological reflection and speech. But
they are not of the kind out of which one can develop a theol-
ogy of the Yahwist. On the contrary: they present almost an
embarrassment. And so even Wolff in his approach to Gen.
12.1-3 has to explain that the promise of the land, which so
clearly runs through the whole patriarchal tradition, is
'contracted to a secondary narrative feature' and 'is not in the
area of his particular interest'.3 And as for the Abraham-Lot
narrative in Genesis 13, in which, in its present narrative con-
1 Wolff, The Kerygma'.

2 Thus Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline, pp. 167-72; O.H.
Steck, 'Genesis 12.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten', in
Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift G. von Rad, 1971, pp. 525-
54; L. Rost, 'Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pentateuchquellen', ZThK
53 (1956) 1-10 = Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alien
Testament, 1965, pp. 25-35.
3 Op. cit., p. 140. When he describes 12.7 as 'tradition' (ibid.), he is in
agreement with Noth, A History, p. 233, but not with von Rad, The
Form Critical', p. 60.
tent, the assurance of the land to Abraham plays a central

role, Wolff writes: The one blessed becomes a source of
blessing inasmuch as he freely leaves to the other fertile land'.1
And so he exchanges the theme expressly mentioned in the
text, the promise of the land, for that not contained in it, taking
out of 12.1-3 the *Yahwistic' theme of blessing, so as to be able
to interpret the text within the frame of the Yahwistic
theology, as he sees it.
But other authors as well scarcely mention the promises in
this context. And when these themselves are the subject of a
theme, as is the case with Westermann, the 'sources' on the
contrary play no role; this question is *but touched on in pass-
ing'.2 There is obviously in Genesis a large area of quite
expressly theological statements which cannot, or can
scarcely, be taken into consideration when one inquires about
the 'theology' of the 'sources', whereas, in reverse, this theol-
ogy often has to be tapped from very indirect hints.3
3.2.4 Reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work

We return then to the place where the reflections of this
chapter began. We had put the question, can one discern indi-
cations of a pre-deuteronomic reworking or shaping of the
Pentateuch as a whole? In the present state of pentateuchal
research this function is generally ascribed to the Pentateuch
'sources'; so the question must now be put, how do our reflec-
tions so far stand in relationship to the 'documentary hypoth-
esis'? We gave precedence over this to the general question
about the present state of pentateuchal research in the matter
of sources; we came to the conclusion that the agreement in
essential basic questions was very much less than is generally
maintained; that the uncertainties coming to light show a
very obvious weakness in the whole theory which, in many
cases, the weight of tradition has not yet allowed to penetrate
consciousness.
This is true in a special way for the Yahwist. In his case,
1 Op. ci*.,p.l4a
3 Cf. Wolff, op. cit., p. 133 on Gen. 22.16-17: This is a guide to under-
standing passages, in which the theme (namely, blessing) is not
directly sounded, in the intent of the Yahwist'.
there are certain general basic presuppositions which, without

exception, are acknowledged as valid; but in the concrete
application of the general framework, incompatible contra-
dictions arise, which make it clear that the fundamental
unanimity claimed does not in fact exist to any extent. And
attempts to work out the 'theology of the Yahwist' are not in
the end touched by this.
The question is of particular importance for our theme
inasmuch as the question of the 'theology* of the Yahwist is as
a general rule understood as the question of his overall con-
ception, of the guiding theological ideas that compass the
Pentateuch as a whole. And so it is precisely here that the
crucial point must lie on which rests our statement of the
question to the theses of pentateuchal research up to the pre-
sent.
Now we have already seen that in the different attempts to
set out the theology of the Yahwist, the promise addresses of
the patriarchal stories play a remarkably minor role. If our
reflections are correct, namely that one can discern in them a
very intensive theological reworking and interpretation
which did not take place at one stroke, but that they show dif-
ferent stages and layers, then the question must be put, how
does any sort of Yahwistic theological work relate to this?
It is remarkable that none of the independent themes of the
promise addresses to the patriarchs is found in the passage
Gen. 12.1-3, which is generally held to be the central state-
ment of the Yahwist; for, as Westermann has shown, the ele-
ment of blessing is not an independent promise theme. Verse 3,
as we have seen, belongs to a stage in the process of tradition
which links the stories of the three individual patriarchs with
each other: Abraham (12.3) and Jacob (28.14) are to be a
blessing for all the clans of the earth. But this is not the final
stage of the process of formation of the tradition; when the
Abraham and Isaac stories are joined together, this promise
appears in a further developed form in which it is not the
patriarch himself, but his 'seed' that is to be the mediator of
the blessing to the 'nations' (Gen. 22.18; 26.4). Gen. 12.3,
therefore, represents one stage within the history of the
theological reworking and interpretation of the patriarchal
story, but not the last.
Other texts which are ascribed to the Yahwist belong to

other stages in the process. Gen. 12.7, for example, displays the
later form of the promise of the land in which the 'seed' is the
bearer of the promise; the same wording of the formulation is
found in Gen. 15.18, a verse which is judged entirely differ-
ently in the allocation to sources. Other promise addresses
have several layers, for example, Gen. 13.14-17 and 28.13-15,
so that it is not very plausible when these texts, which have so
much in common,1 are assigned to different sources.2 This is
true also in other places: for example, the assurances of guid-
ance to Jacob in Gen. 28.15; 31.3; 46.2-4, which obviously
belong together,3 are assigned to different sources.45
These examples are only meant to show that our reflections
on the theological reworking of the patriarchal stories can
scarcely be brought into harmony with the acceptance of a
'theology of the Yahwist' as it is often represented today. The
incompatibility becomes all the more clear when we take up
once more the question, what contribution to the understand-
ing of the comprehensive reworking and interpretation of the
Pentateuch as a whole can the assumption of a Yahwistic
theology provide? We have drawn attention earlier to the
remarkable fact that there are no discernible links between
the patriarchal stories and the complexes of tradition that fol-
low in the Pentateuch; also, that it is only with a layer of
reworking that bears the deuteronomic stamp that explicit
cross references have been inset. Particularly remarkable is
the fact that in Exod. 3.8 the land, into which YHWH will bring
the Israelites after leading them out of Egypt, is described as
an unknown land, inhabited by foreign nations; and there is no
mention at all that the patriarchs had already lived there for a

2 Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign Gen. 13.14-17 to L/N and Gen. 28.13-15 to
J; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn), pp. 21,52-53;
Fohrer, Introduction, pp. 161,147. Noth, A History, p. 28, attributes
Gen. 13.14-17 to the Yahwist, but in brackets.
3 See above under 2.4; 31.11,13 also belong here.
4 See the respective passages in Eissfeldt, Fohrer, and Noth, where all
three assign 28.15 to J; Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign 31.3 to L/N, Noth
to J; Eissfeldt assigns 46.2-4 to E/J, Noth to J, Fohrer to E.
5 Op. cit.,p.30, n. 103.
long time and that continually repeated promises had assured

them and their descendants that they would possess it. Even
when one makes way for sources to which one may assign
passages in this synthesis of texts, as does Noth, the fact never-
theless remains: in the rest of the Pentateuch there is not a
single text that mentions the patriarchs and the promises
made to them which is assigned to the Yahwist (or to any one
of the 'old' sources!) by the ruling pentateuchal criticism. It is
utterly inconceivable that the Yahwist has now suddenly for-
gotten, or has consciously chosen to remain silent about, all the
theological concerns that preoccupied him with the divine
promises to the patriarchs in their various forms. These facts,
in my opinion, have but one explanation: a *Yahwist', who
shaped and handed on the patriarchal stories and the com-
plexes of tradition that follow them, does not exist.
This conclusion best supplements the uncertainties and
incompatibilities in the current discussions described in detail
above. It is clear that today it is not only difficult or almost
impossible to agree about which details are to be assigned to
the Yahwist, how one delimits his work and determines his
method and intention; but it is clear also that there are
weighty, and in my opinion compelling, reasons against the
acceptance of a Yahwistic work in the sense of the documen-
tary hypothesis, i.e. of a coherent narrative work covering the
whole Pentateuch.
3.3 The problem of a priestly narrative

in the patriarchal story
Before we draw the final conclusions from the reflections on
the Tahwist', we want to turn our attention first to the ques-
tion of the status of the other chief source of the Pentateuch,
the 'priestly document', about whose delimitation there is
apparent agreement. We have already mentioned that there
are diametrically opposed views among the exegetes whether
and to what extent the sections dealing with cultic laws are to
be combined with the narrative sections. Noth represents the
most extreme position inasmuch as he will include under the
symbol P only the narrative sections. He requires that one
'prescind completely' from all non-narrative passages with a
cultic-ritual interest 'when dealing with the P narrative'.1 He

continues: This last-mentioned thus stands out more clearly
and clear-cut as a narrative than it would with the conven-
tional application of the symbol P.2 An astounding closed cir-
cle! When one excludes all the non-narrative material, the
rest 'stands out more clearly and clear-cut as narrative. What
'stands out' here? Only this, that Noth carries through his
opinion consistently by excluding all the material that is
opposed to it.
But, however that may be, the opinion that the priestly doc-
ument is a narrative work is today almost universally shared.
This includes the opinion that P provides an originally inde-
pendent, coherent account of events from the creation on; only
the question of its ending is in dispute: whether the work ends
with the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34, or whether parts
of the traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of
Joshua belong to it. For our statement of the question it is
important that the document being discussed is a coherent P
narrative with but few gaps.
There is another of Noth's theses that has found wide
agreement. Noth accepts that the redactor who put the penta-
teuchal sources together used P as a basis and framework and
inserted the narrative material of the older sources into this
framework. This is all the more important inasmuch as it fol-
lows therefrom 'that only in this (i.e. the P-narrative)... is
there to be expected the complete preservation of the original
content and so a coherent (story) without gaps when the
[other] elements are excluded'.3
What, then, about this 'coherent (story) without gaps' in the
P-narrative? Let us examine the question in the patriarchal
stories! Here, Noth himself must be content with a 'very
meagre P-content'.4 And he sees himself compelled at once to
call in question his own basic principles.
1 A History, p. 10.
2 Ibid.
3 Op. cit.,p.l7.
4 Op. cit.,p.l2.
3.3.1 The stories of Joseph and Jacob

Let us begin with the Joseph story. Obviously it has not been
preserved 'without gaps'. We have rather, *besides the intro-
duction in Gen. 37.1, 2, only the brief note in Gen. 41.46a of the
summary synthesis of the presupposed P-narrative of the
Joseph story'.1 K Elliger has largely disregarded the fragmen-
tary character of this tradition. According to him 'it is (here)
no more than the notification of what is absolutely necessary.
Joseph makes himself the object of his brothers' hatred, is sold
into Egypt, and is elevated by Pharaoh'.2 When one looks for
proof of the 'sold into Egypt' in the table provided by Elliger
himself,3 one finds only a gap! P. Weimar has dealt with this
text recently. He discovered the gap, even though in his view
'it was not all that extensive'.4 So he provides his own proposed
reconstruction of 'the text struck out by Rp' and concludes
contentedly that his own constructed text fits into the gap
'without interruption'.5 Weimar in any case is of the opinion
that one cannot speak of an independent P-Joseph story: The
information about Joseph carries no weight of its own; it only
wants to explain why Jacob went down into Egypt'.6
We are faced therefore with the situation that there are
only a very few remarks on the 'Joseph' theme which the
exegetes are able to assign to P, but that nevertheless they
postulate the existence of an originally independent coherent
narrative, however sparse it may be. There must be such—
because P has presented a coherent account without gaps.
This once more is a clear case of a circular argument. The
possibility that perhaps there might not be such a coherent
1 Noth, op. cit., p. 14. 41.46a is not included in Fohrer's synthesis of

the P source layer, Introduction, p.lflOl
2 'Sinn und Ursprung der priestlichen Geschichtserzahlung', ZThK
49 (1952) 121-43 (esp. p. 124) = Kleine Schriften zum Alien Testa-
ment, 1966, pp. 174-98 (p. 177).
3 Op. cit., pp. 121-22 = pp. 174-75.
4 'Aufbau und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte',
ZAW86 (1974) 174-203 (p. 195).
5 Op. cit., p. 195, n. 86.
6 Op. cit., p. 195. Cf. H. Gazelles, 'Pentateuque', DBS VII, 1966, col.
831; E.A. Speiser, Genesis, 1964, p. 292. According to Fohrer, in P
'the primeval and patriarchal stories... are reduced to an introduc-
tion to the revelation on Sinai' (Introduction, p. 181).
narrative is not considered, though it would explain the situa-

tion without trouble.
What are the reasons for ascribing Gen. 37.2 and 41.46a to
P? First the details about his age: on each occasion the age of
Joseph at the time is given, and the prevailing opinion is that
details of this kind are characteristic of P. But there are still
further reasons. Holzinger, followed by Gunkel, sees in the
attachment of the words 'king of Egypt' to 'Pharaoh' in Gen.
41.46a an 'unnecessary and pedantic addition' that is
'characteristic' of P.1 Such valuations—or better, devalua-
tions—of the writer P are common, without any criteria for
them ever being given; nevertheless they serve as generally
accepted signs of P-passages.2 It is maintained that in 37.2, in
the motivation of the enmity of the brothers towards Joseph
there is a difference from or a contradiction to the narrative
beginning in v. 3. According to w. 3ff., the reason for the
enmity is Jacob's preference for Joseph; according to v. 2,
Joseph himself has given cause for it. But that the verse for
that reason belongs to P, is difficult to prove. Holzinger, after
discovering the tension, comes to the conclusion: 'then only P
is left to take 26'; and the whole of v. 2, after the exclusion of
secondary elements, is a unity and a possibility for P.3 Gunkel
has less scruple: '37.2 belongs entirely to P.4 He discovers, and
this is entirely the work of imagination, a whole narrative,
whose beginning is allegedly here; he knows too the reasons
why P introduced changes in face of the older source.5
Unfortunately, this narrative no longer exists. One must then
in all sobriety conclude that for the exegete who is not
convinced beforehand that there must be a P-Joseph story,
such does not exist.
For the Isaac story, things seem clear: There is no separate
Isaac story in the priestly history'.6 But this is very surprising.
1 Genesis erkl&rt, 1898, p. 219; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 492.

2 See below under 3.3.3.
3 Op. cit.,p.224.
4 Genesis, p. 492.
5 Ibid.
6 See W. Gross, 'Jakob der Mann des Segens. Zur Traditions-
geschichte und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsuber-
lieferungen', Bib 49 (1968) 321-44 (spec. pp. 321-22).
One must assume as certain that the patriarchal genealogy

Abraham—Isaac-Jacob was long established at the time when
P was supposedly written. How could P have simply waived
an Isaac story? Gunkel sensed this problem: 'It is strange that
P under the heading 'genealogy of Isaac' narrates in essence
the stories of Jacob and then under the heading 'genealogy of
Jacob' those (Sagen) of Joseph. This surprising shift has come
about because P had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac,
but felt himself obliged to preserve due order, and so to put in a
column for Isaac and fill it out'.1 It is curious enough that P
who, according to the prevailing opinion, knew the older
sources, 'had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac'! He is
given credit, rather condescendingly, for at least 'feeling him-
self obliged to preserve due order'; this accords with the image
of P as a second rate writer, obliged to talk, which has made its
home in much exegesis. But nevertheless, there is no Isaac
story.2
3.3.2 The Jacob Story

What is the situation with the Jacob story? Weimar writes:
'The Jacob story begins with the Toledot of Ishmael Gen.
25.12-17'.3 A sentence difficult to understand! How can a
heading which names Ishmael be the introduction to the
Jacob story? Apart from the fact that Weimar himself a little
later describes the passage Gen. 25.12-17 explicitly as the
'Ishmael story' without solving the contradiction, the sentence
only raises again the dilemma described by Gunkel.4 When
one wants to understand the Toledot' headings attributed to P
as structural signs in a coherent and continuous P-narrative,
then one gets into insoluble difficulties. In other words: there is
no discernible beginning to the P-Jacob narrative.
And what next? Earlier, one attributed many fragments of
1 Genesis, p. 385.
2 I cannot understand how Weimar (op. cit., p. 185) can speak of the
Toledot-formula in Gen. 25.19 as 'having been prefaced by Pg to the
whole Isaac story as heading and structure-signal (?), although he
had already on p. 175 established the absence of the Isaac story in P.
4 Genesis, p. 385.
texts in the story of Jacob and Esau to P;1 but now, one invokes
Elliger among others: 'Omitting Jacob's stay in Paddan-aram,
Pg only takes up again with Jacob's departure from there
(31.18ap,b).2 Now this is a remarkable and unreasonable
demand on the reader. According to P Isaac, in an unusually
detailed speech and with the most pressing of reasons, would
have required Jacob not to take a wife from 'the daughters of
Canaan', but to find one to go to Paddan-aram, the land of his
mother's family to find one, and would have sent him on his
way with a blessing extending far afield (Gen. 27.46—28.5).
But P would not have considered it necessary so much as to
register Jacob's arrival in Paddan-aram, not to mention a
report on the successful outcome of the commission to marry;
he would have been satisfied with a note about his departure
from there. Elliger plays down this dilemma when he writes:
'Jacob obeys by looking around for a wife among his mother's
relations'.3 He thus hushes up the fact that nothing at all is
reported of the execution of the commission.
But what of the quite isolated verse Gen. 31.18ap,b which
must now bear the whole burden of the thesis of a continuous
Jacob story from P? The exegete is obviously not at ease with it.
According to Noth we have here 'the rare appearance of a P-
fragment which must have been preceded by the now missing
P-information about Jacob's marriages.4 One recalls that for
Noth only for the P-narrative 'is there to be expected the
complete preservation of the original content'.5 All the more
inconvenient then is the appearance of such a 'fragment'!
Weimar too must concede after all that 'the beginning of the
unit has been broken off by Rp'.6
But why is the piece ascribed to P? Here the arguments are
taken almost exclusively from language. First, the word is
generally regarded as characteristic of P.7 However, if one
1 See the divisions of P in Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, pp. 43ff.;

Fohrer's table, Introduction, p. 182
2 Weimar, see above under 3.3.1, n. 4, p. 183.
4 Op. cit., p. 14.
7 Cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, p. 183.
opens the concordance, one finds surprisingly that in the book

of Genesis more than a half of occurrences are in texts which
are not ascribed to P: the word occurs five times in Genesis 14
(w. 11, 12,16 [2x], 21), which among recent exegetes, as far as
I know, is attributed to P only by Procksch, and that with
reservation.1 There is a further attestation in Gen. 15.14,
within the reflection on the theology of history (w. 13-16),
which likewise is not ascribed to P. In the attestations that
remain, the closed circle of argumentation appears once
more; they are attributed once again to P because of this lin-
guistic usage! And almost all of them are in a context which is
ascribed to one of the other sources and from which they are
taken out because of their linguistic usage. The places in ques-
tion in the book of Genesis are 12.5; 13.6; 36.7; 46.6; add Num.
16.32b (a piece almost universally not ascribed to P!) and 35.3.
The verb need not be dealt with here as it occurs in more
or less immediate context with the noun.
The word 2 serves as the next 'proof (Gunkel) for P. It
occurs three times in the book of Genesis, once in a text (34.23)
which no one ascribes to P. It is found later in the Pentateuch
within the "Holiness Code' (Lev. 22.11), which is closer to the
priestly pentateuchal layer; however its usage is quite differ-
ent. And so one can scarcely say that this word can make a
contribution to source criticism.
Finally, there is the designation of the land from which
Jacob departs, Taddan-aram'. It too is held to be characteris-
tic of P. First it must be stated that the only attestation which
uses simply the designation Taddan' (Gen. 48.7) is not gen-
erally reckoned to P, although immediately beforehand there
is a text so reckoned. In 46.15, Paddan-aram is found in a list
of the sons of Jacob and their descendants which today is not
predominantly ascribed to P or is, at any rate, regarded as an
addition to P. The list of Jacob's sons in Gen. 35.22b-36, in
which Paddan-aram occurs, is, on the contrary, ascribed to P,
even though this involves difficulties. Weimar tries to explain
why P does not report the birth of the sons there, where one
would expect it, but only 'makes up for it... in the form of a
1 Die Genesis Ubersetzt und erkldrt, 1924, p. 501.

2 Genesis, p. 388.
list'.1 Others have experienced greater difficulties here; it has

been common since Gunkel to re-arrange the P-text frag-
ments in the Joseph story arbitrarily so as to create a tolerably
coherent text. Hence, the list is either given preference so as to
substitute for the missing account of the birth of the sons of
Jacob,2 or ends up after the Toledot of Jacob in Genesis 37.3
And so, even though all assertions about the completeness and
integrity of the P-narrative are clearly contradictory, this
thesis is maintained, nevertheless acquiring thereby and at
the same time criteria for determining other texts, inasmuch
as the argument from linguistic usage enables the texts
ascribed to P to give each other mutual support.
So too the text fragment Gen. 33.18a is assigned to P because
of the expression Paddan-aram.4 The classical solution is to
take out v. 18a so that Jacob's arrival in Shechem is assigned
to one of the older sources and only the words 'in the land of
Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram' are ascribed to
P.5 This solution is classical in that it proceeds exclusively from
the argument of linguistic usage and cuts several words out of
their context as it were with a scissors, although they are in no
way a bother or offensive. But the P-context must be estab-
lished! Finally, the expression Paddan-aram is found in the
chronological note on the marriage of Isaac in Gen. 25.20, in
the introductory piece to the divine address to Jacob in Gen.
35.9, and four times in the narrative of Isaac's sending of
Jacob (28.2, 5,6, 7).
It should be further noted that, with the expression Paddan-
aram, no accompanying description is given of the land which
one could set over against it as in some way characteristic of
the linguistic usage of the other sources. There is often talk
merely of the city of Haran—generally too in texts that are
usually ascribed to P, e.g. Gen. 11.31; 12.5! The last mentioned

2 Gunkel, op. cit., p. 384.
3 Procksch, op. cit., p. 553.
4 But not by Wellhausen, Composition, p. 45.
5 Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, p. 69. Gunkel is not entirely consis-
tent when he claims for P on one occasion the words cited, and on
another the preceding words as well, 'to the city of Shechem', op.
cit., pp. 368, 388; cf. Fohrer, Introduction, p.lTft
has also the word , though not Paddan-aram, but Haran;

nevertheless, this is ascribed to P together with the other attes-
tations with reference to 'characteristic' linguistic usage. The
expression Paddan-aram then occurs only in the context of
Jacob (with the exception of the note in Gen. 25.20 relating to
Isaac). This is without doubt a pointer to a particular layer in
the tradition, but scarcely has anything to do with 'sources' in
the sense of the documentary hypothesis.
The next piece ascribed to P is again a fragmentary sen-
tence, namely Gen. 35. Ga.1 One accepts that the second half of
the sentence, 'he and all the people with him' stands
unrelated. Holzinger's reason is: T naturally narrated as well
the arrival in Bethel, or rather in Luz, which now bears the
name of Bethel; this is now lodged in v. 6a where is a
certain sign of P'.2 Gunkel says more exactly why this is a sign
of P: 'the superfluous and precise determination of the place'.3
We have already noted earlier these typical judgments about
P. But what is meant by this 'certain sign of P'? The
concordance provides the following information: about half of
the attestations of in the book of Genesis are in the
Joseph story, and nobody ascribes them to P. Within the story
this designation is used in all 'sources' and layers, e.g. in Gen.
42.5, 7, 13 which exegetes divide variously between J and E,
like so many other examples; by P again (48.3), by secondary
pieces (48.7, according to Eissfeldt;4 Noth, E;5 46.12), and in
Genesis 50 in passages quite close to each other by J (v. 5) and
P (v. 13). A 'certain sign of P?
Further, the concordance shows that there is no other so to
speak 'geographical' designation of the land in the patriarchal
stories; the only other descriptions used of it are 'the land of
sojournings' (generally to *P'!), 'the land of the fathers', or the
like. The opinion that the land of Canaan' is a characteristic
of P would therefore include the thesis that the other sources
renounce an exact designation of the land. But the opinion is
1 Once again it is to be noted that Wellhausen does not ascribe this

fragment to P.
2 Holzinger, Genesis erklart, p. 184.
3 Op. cit.,p.387.
4 Cf. op. cit., pp. 99-100 n. 19.
5 A History, p. 36.
clearly laid to rest by the concordance material without more

ado.1
After the divine address in Gen. 35.9-13, v. 15 is also to be
accounted to P; the change of name from Luz to Bethel had
already taken place earlier in the other sources, namely in
28.19. It is curious that 35.14 is ascribed to E although/because
it reports again the erection and anointing of the massebah
which E has described already in 28.18. The repetition is
apparently a sign of the same source and not of another. But
that is obviously using a double standard.
There has already been talk of the problem of the list of
Jacob's sons in Gen. 35.22b-26. The account of Jacob's return
home to Isaac and of the latter^ death in 35.27-29 is reckoned
as P's. For Gunkel, 'the names Mamre and Kiriath-arba' are,
among other things, characteristic of P.2 This is a bold state-
ment as the two names occur together only here! The associa-
tion of Kiriath-arba and Hebron, which is found in Gen. 35.27,
occurs in 23.2 (but without mention of Mamre), while Mamre
for its part is associated with Hebron in 23.19. In Gen. 13.18 it
is said of Abraham that Tie settled by the terebinths of Mamre
which are in (near) Hebron'. Further, it is said several times
of the field in which the cave was situated that Abraham
bought, that it lay > (Gen. 23.17) or (23.19;
25.9; 49.30; 50.13) (translated each time by 'east of Mamre' in
NEB, trans.). There can be no question at all here of a
standardized linguistic usage characteristic of a single source.
It is remarkable that Gen. 35.27-29 does not say that Isaac
was buried in the cave, though this is presupposed in 49.30-31
and though it is said of Abraham (25.9) and Jacob (50.13);
'why not, is not clear'.3 But in any case, this is scarcely
evidence of the studied and 'pedantic' style alleged against the
source P.
When we survey the texts in the Jacob story which are sup-
posed to belong to P, we find very fragmentary and incoherent
1 Holzinger in Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893, p. 340, had taken

into account the findings in the concordance. He maintains there
that the 'occurrence of (is) an almost certain mark of P', but with
the limitation that it 'however occurs also in JE'.
2 Op. cit.,p.389.
3 Ibid.
pieces which can be attributed to this source for the most part
only on very dubious grounds. In addition, many exegetes
have felt themselves compelled to rearrange the texts freely at
their discretion so as to construct some sort of reasonably con-
tinuous text. This is all in such utter contradiction to the pic-
ture that the advocates of the documentary hypothesis are
accustomed to paint of the P-narrative that, starting from
their own assumptions, it must be said that there is no coher-
ent Jacob story from P.1
3.3.3 The Abraham story
Let us now turn to the Abraham story \ It seems to offer the
clearest and most convincing narrative complex. First, Gene-
sis 17 stands out as an entity that is sui generis. It is the freest
composition' within the whole P-narrative.2 Nowhere in the
patriarchal stories is there a passage so extensively laid out, so
self-contained, and as a whole bearing the marks of the
priestly layer of the Pentateuch. Such comprehensive and
self-contained passages of a priestly character occur only
rarely in the rest of the Pentateuch. The few examples, such
as Gen. 1.1—2.4a or Gen. 9.1-17, are not as free compositions as
seems to be the case here. These reflections are important
because they are an advance warning against considering
Genesis 17 without more ado as a constituent part of a coher-
ent narrative; and more, the special nature of the passage
must be considered carefully.
The passages ascribed to P in the Abraham story, apart
from ch. 23 which is to be dealt with later, are for the most
part small or very small textual units. First, following on the
genealogy of Shem (Gen. 11.10-17), there are the pieces of
information about itineraries: the migration of Terah with his
family from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran with the chronologi-
cal note about his age at his death (11.31-32), then the migra-
tion of Abraham from Haran to the land of Canaan (12.4-5).
Questions begin again with the latter text. Noth has concluded
1 This makes no difference to Weimar's construction; see under 3.3.1,

3.4.2.
2 S.E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, 1971,
p. 145.
that 'a corresponding passage with the same content from the
old sources has had to give way to the P-passage, 12.4b-5,
here'. This is 'in the interest of retaining as fully as possible'
the content of P. We have already experienced the whole area
of problems that this last argument raises; Noth himself men-
tions them expressly a few sentences later. But whereas in the
Jacob and Joseph stories P-passages are supposed to have been
suppressed by the older sources, here the opposite is assumed.
Why? First, it is the chronological note about Abraham's age
at the time of his migration in v. 4b, which is ascribed to P; this,
however, is not in the problem area inasmuch as it would
hardly have suppressed a corresponding statement in another
source. In v. 5 we meet again an argument already well
known: linguistic usage 'proves' that it belongs to P
(Holzinger, Gunkel): and i and according to Holzinger,
i as well;1 further, the verb-form as in Gen. 11.31,
and elsewhere, would be a mark of P.2 There is no need to
3
repeat here the observations on and the view that
these are marks of P does not gain in probative strength by
repetition. The balance of tfsu meaning 'persons' and i
referring to the rest of one's possessions occurs again in Gen.
14.21, hence outside of the passages ascribed to P. It is
meaningless to claim as a mark of P; it is the most natural
and obvious way to state that somebody is departing and that
he is taking others with him, cf. Gen. 22.3; 24.10, 61; 31.23;
32.23 (Eng. 22). But such assertions are not untypical of the
method, because in this way different P-passages give each
other mutual support. The consequence of this is that the
refutation of such an argument unleashes a sort of chain
reaction and brings a whole series of texts into question. As for
Gen. 12.4b, 5, it need only be said that the chronological note in
v. 4b is to be seen in conjunction with other like notes, while
there is no occasion at all to take it out of its context, not to
mention the assumption that because the piece allegedly
belongs to P 'a corresponding passage with the same content
from the old sources has had to give way'. The passage Gen.
1 Genesis, p. Ixxxv.
3 See above tinder 3.3.2.
12.1-9 shows every sign of being very composite indeed.1

In what follows, Gen. 13.6, lib, 12ab should belong to P. The
arguments are again: (v. 6), (v. 12); further, a
conflict is seen between the expressions the 'Jordan valley*
(w. 10-11) and the 'cities of the valley*. This is a remarkable
statement; each of the expressions has a different function; the
'Jordan valley' describes the fertile area that Lot chooses,
while the 'cities of the valley' are mentioned as the place
where Lot is to establish his future home. It is incomprehensi-
ble how there could be any competition or contradiction here.
But there are a number of other arguments in addition.
Gunkel writes: 'v. 6 is superfluous in the context of the story;
that a lack of space is the cause of the quarrel is to be read out
of 2, 5, 7 and becomes entirely clear from 8, 9; good narrative
does not say everything explicitly'.2 Criticisms are made here
about the quality of the writing; it will have done little to put
the writers on the track of striking out something
'superfluous' so as to get a 'good narrative'. But Holzinger sees
things differently. The absence of an explicit basis for the con-
flict between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot disturbs him;
so he disects a little more and assigns only v. Gab to P, while
reckoning v. 6b to 'the other source'.3 But in another place he
says: 'A part of 6 is indispensable for the context'.4 This type of
argument is characteristic; it makes clear that the necessity of
source division is not based on contradictions or tensions in the
text. Rather it is based on the presupposition that there are
several sources and attributes what is 'dispensable' in the
main narrative to the other source. This becomes even clearer
in v. 12. Gunkel writes: '12a also, which can be dispensed with
more easily in J than in P, and 12a come from F.5 When one
does not want to engage in this sort of argument, which
assumes the presence of several sources already, and then
looks for proofs for them, one can hardly find reasons for attri-
buting anything in Genesis 13 to the P-narrative.
It is of further interest to see how the resulting P-narrative
2 Genesis, p. 174.
3 Genesis erkl&rt, p. 124; less clearly, p. 140.
4 Op. cit.,p. 140.
5 Genesis, p. 263.
is judged and evaluated. Gunkel has on the whole a poor opin-

ion of P. He writes: *Here too P has taken merely the bare facts
from the story; everything concrete, especially the dispute
between the herdsmen and Lot's self-interest, as well as Abra-
ham's readiness for a peaceful settlement, is missing; and of
the mood of malicious joy ringing in the story, there is not a
sign'.1 Holzinger's judgment is milder: 'What is remarkable
for P is the easiness with which the separation of Abraham
and Lot takes place without conflict. Characteristic also is the
general nature of the statement that Lot settles in the area
round about; nothing is said of his living in Sodom (N.B.:
because v. 12bp is attributed to another source! [author]); thus
it would appear that Lot, as Abraham's nephew and erstwhile
companion in the caravan, is a half saint who must remain
free from any suspicion that he went to live among the people
of Sodom out of sympathy'.2 Elliger exalts still further the lit-
erary intentions of P: The main facts are communicated
soberly, always with precise dating; it is a matter here of real
and reliable history'.3 Does this mean the other narrators who
report vividly, but without precise dating, are less concerned
with 'real and reliable history'? Or ought one not ask this
question?
Further, Gen. 16.1(a),4 3, 15-16 are assigned to the P-nar-
rative. Noth has to establish that 'the old Hagar story has been
pruned at the beginning and the end in favour of the P-details
in Gen. 16.la, 3, 15, 16'.5 This means therefore that what
remains of the 'old Hagar story' is incomplete without these
pieces. According to the basic principles of source division,
there must be tensions and contradictions in the text and/or
clear indications in the language or content which lead to the
exclusion of P-parts. What are the arguments? According to
Holzinger and Gunkel, a mark of P is to be found in v. la, the
'pedantic addition' of 'Abraham's wife'.6 A glance at
1 Ibid.
2 Op. cit.,p. 124.
4 See n. 12, p. 121 (= p. 174). Wellhausen, Die Composition, p. 14, does
not include 16.1 under Q (= P).
5 A History, p. 13.
6 Genesis, p. 124; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 264.
the concordance shows that this pedantic addition appears as

well in Gen. 12.17, a classical 'J-'piece, and in 20.18, a piece
regularly attributed to *E'. One could use this material better
as a certain proof that this part of the verse does not belong to
P. And as it is indispensable in the context of the narrative, the
very basic principles of source division forbid that it be
assigned to P.
Verse 3, again, is a chronological note which must be seen in
the context of other chronological notes; it is not in competition
with the expected statements of other 'sources'. The same
holds for v. 16. Only v. 15 remains! According to Noth, the 'old
Hagar story' has been 'pruned at the end' in favour of P.1 But
this is a very unsatisfactory piece of information; if there is
anything missing, it is a note that Hagar went back to Abra-
ham. But there is nothing about this in v. 15, which is ascribed
to P. Could a redactor be so purblind as to have pruned the
indispensable conclusion of the narrative simply so as to sub-
stitute for it an inadequate sentence from P? The problems of
this chapter, as is well known, are more complex, as Well-
hausen has already shown in detail.2 The words of the mal'ak
YHWH in v. 9 require Hagar's return to Abraham; but this
verse certainly does not belong to the same layer of tradition or
reworking as the two other addresses of the mal'ak in w. 10
11-12. The second address in particular presupposes that
Ishmael grew up in the desert, i.e. that Hagar did not go back
to Abraham. Many exegetes have followed this view. For Noth
also v. 9 is a 'redactional addition', but 'with attention to Gen.
21.8ff.',3 where it is presupposed that Ishmael is present as a
member of Abraham's family. But it remains an open
question for Noth how the original conclusion of the 'old
Hagar story' may have looked. Perhaps there was originally
nothing more than the tribal saying about Ishmael and the
place etiology in v. 14? Verse 15 could also be a 'redactional
addition with attention to Gen. 21.8ff.' What shows that it is
part of a P-narrative? According to Holzinger, prescinding
from the sweeping judgment, 'the utterly pedantic
1 A History, p. 13.
2 Die Composition, pp. 19-20.
3 A History, p. 28, n. 86.
awkwardness of the verse', it is 'the giving of the name by the

father*.1 Now everyone who has ever been concerned with the
matter knows how difficult it is to answer the question, who
usually named the new born child in ancient Israel, and how
un-unified are the texts in this regard. One need only look at
the tensions and lack of clarity in the single chapter, Genesis
38,2 or in Gen. 25.25-26, not to speak of the conjectures of the
exegetes! That it is only in P that the father gives the name is
untenable; Holzinger himself confirms this for Gen. 4.26: This
is one of the exceptional cases in which in J it is not the mother
who names the new born child: cf. (5.29); 25.25f.; Ex 2.22'.3
The list of exceptions is far too long for one to draw a definite
criterion from it for source division.
It is beyond dispute that the conclusion of Genesis 16 is not a
unity and leaves questions open; it is clear also that v. 15 is in
tension with the obvious intention of the older layer of the nar-
rative according to which Ishmael grows up in the desert and
hence was also born there. But this holds as well for v. 9 which
nobody attributes to P. And there is no tenable argument that
v. 15 belongs to a continuous P-narrative.
One usually reckons Gen. 19.29 to the P-narrative. But this
is a sign of embarrassment, because this verse should have
followed immediately on Gen. 13.6, lib, 12ab , according to the
prevailing opinion; but in the final redaction it could 'only be
accommodated to the continuation of the narrative Gen. 18.1-
19.28'.4 The verse is undoubtedly a *brief summary note about
the rescue of Lot',5 the function of which is not immediately
discernible. But, what argues for P? The arguments which are
advanced by the commentators, following Dillmann, are
exclusively from linguistic usage. According to Dillmann,
Holzinger, Gunkel, and others, the use of the verb in the
pi'el, 'destroy', is a mark of P.6 Reference is made to Gen. 6.17;
9.11, 15. One has the impression that none of these
1 Genesis, p. 124; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 264: T records the whole act

like a registry clerk'.
2 Verses 3, 4, 5 and 29, 30.
3 Genesis, p. 57.
4 Noth, A History, p. 13.
5 Holzinger, Genesis, p. 132.
6 Holzinger, ibid.; Gunkel, p. 263.
commentators has taken the trouble to consult the

concordance. The verb is used immediately beforehand in
Gen. 19.13 in the J-narrative as well as in the 'J'-text of Gen.
13.10 in anticipation of the destruction of Sodom! One is
continually surprised at the thoughtless way in which such
inept assertions are passed on without control from
generation to generation. This sort of argument becomes all
the more contradictory when the *Yahwistic' verse, Gen.
13.10, is ignored, and the expression 'cities of the plain' in the
allegedly priestly verse, Gen. 13.12, must be brought in to
support the priestly character of Gen. 19.29. A further
argument is the use of the divine name elohim. One text only
will be referred to: in Amos 4.11, mention is made of
clearly a stereotyped phrase, in the middle of an
address by YHWH about the destruction of Sodom in which the
divine name YHWH is used four times. This, however, is not all
that is to be said on the question; but it is necessary to study
somewhat more closely the stereotyped use of such
expressions instead of short-circuiting the matter by looking
for arguments for source divisions!
Finally, a further note: the phrase 'then God thought of
Abraham' ("ori) in Gen. 19.29 is to be compared with the
apparently corresponding expression in Gen. 8.1, which is
attributed to P. But there are problems here. First, according
to Gen. 8.1, God 'remembers' immediately the one he will res-
cue; in Gen. 19.29, on the other hand, he remembers Abraham
and rescues Lot because of him. It would be more appropriate
to make a comparison with the sentence in the prayer of
Moses in Exod. 32.13, which bears the deuteronomistic stamp:
'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants', cf.
also Deut. 9.27. For the rest, the expression is used with refer-
ence to Rachel whose prayer for fertility God hears. One can
hardly draw an argument out of all this for assigning a pas-
sage to a particular 'source'.
The account of the birth of Isaac in Gen. 21.1-5 has provided
the exegetes with a headache because the sources do not read-
ily allow separation. Holzinger gives voice to the dilemma:
'Something in 21.1,2 must belong to F.1 It must belong, there-
1 Op. cit., p. 132.

3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism. 153
fore arguments must be found for it! For example: 'the

colourless in v. la looks like P, but R, under the influence of
in v. la, has inserted this divine name into P.1 The word
, 'do, make' occurs 2600 times in the Old Testament;2
because it is 'colourless', it becomes a mark of P, even when
the consequence is that one of the most certain signs of P, the
use of the divine name elohim, no longer holds! But it is almost
too easy to criticise manipulations of this sort by which many
exegetes discredit their own methodology. And in w. 2b and 4
elohim is of course once more a mark of P. Further, the aston-
ished reader learns that in v. 2b is a sign of P; reference is
made to Gen. 17.21—but is it to be insinuated that the reader
has passed over or already forgotten the same expression in
Gen. 18.14 in VF?
Holzinger's overall judgment is: '21.1-5 is one of those cases
where R has not simply juxtaposed the elements from his
sources, but has mixed them; thus, and this is seldom enough
the case, P has not had a chance to speak fully and his
wording has even been altered'.3 Noth's judgment is different:
in his opinion 'the mention of the birth of Isaac, so important
for the context, comes about exclusively through Gen. 21.1b-5
by leaving out the corresponding statement of the old
sources'.4 What reasons he has for disregarding the reflections
of Holzinger and others, the reader does not learn. It is clear
once again that, by and large, the search for elements of an
assumed, continuous P-narrative has occasioned exegetes to
assign elements to P even when there are serious reasons
against.
It is the common and prevailing opinion that the Abraham
story concludes with the account of Abraham's death and
burial in Gen. 25.7-10. Again, the chronological data, the
'pedantic detail' (Holzinger), 'and especially the rambling
nature of the whole piece' (Gunkel), are to the fore (N.B.: but
was not brevity, even paucity of presentation, a special mark
of P?). We will come back to this later.
1 Op. cit.,p. 133.

2 KBL, s.v.
3 Op. cit.,p. 133.
4 A History, p. 13.
3.3.4 Genesis 23
One of the strangest phenomena in this area is that exegetes
almost unanimously attribute Genesis 23 to P. The arguments
have been passed on, unaltered in essence, since Dillmann
who based himself on Knobel (1852/1860!). The first argument
is the chronological data in v. 1. In many other cases, verses of
this kind are freed from any control by their context precisely
because of their assumed P-character; here, on the con-
trary—and only here—a chronological note of introduction is
used at the same time to assign the whole narrative to a par-
ticular source. A further argument is 'the juridical exactness'
(cf. esp. w. 17-18)';1 but this holds only from v. 17 onwards, not
for the body proper of the narrative. Gunkel mentions further
'the many repetitions in the narrative'.2 For the same reason
he should also reckon the extensive narrative of Genesis 24 to
P. When Dillmann speaks further of the 'artistic detail of the
presentation',3 he makes it difficult for the reader to harmo-
nize this with the image of P which the representatives of the
documentary hypothesis otherwise draw.4
Even today the special character of Genesis 23 within the P-
narrative is underscored. Procksch writes: This narrative...
is relatively quite fresh, though rather ancient in origin... a
new example that P has used older material available'.5
According to Fohrer the narrative 'is of material of Pales-
tinian origin'.6 Speiser sees in it a passage from J going back to
an older tradition in which only the introductory note belongs
to P.7 McEvenue does not follow this entirely,8 but notes: 'the
chatty, colloquial, style of Genesis 23 seems untypical of F, and
concludes from this that one must assume older material
available.9 According to von Rad, it has 'the appearance as if P,
1 Genesis, p. 273.
2 Ibid.
3 Die Genesis, 1875 (3rd edn), p. 309.
4 G. Ch. Macholz has written appositely of the style of Gen. 23: 'the
alleged "P-characteristics" have their basis in the subject-matter of
the text rather than in its "author"'. See above under 2.5.
5 Die Genesis, p. 526 (see above under 3.3.2).
6 Introduction.
7 Genesis, 1964, p. 173.
9 Op. c#.,p.22.
against customary practice, has built in an older narrative

almost unaltered, because the freshness and liveliness of
thrust and counter-thrust is unique within this source'.1 The
narrative 'is thus rather a puzzle for us from the traditio-his-
torical standpoint'.2
In any case it has become clear that Holzinger's decision:
'there is no possible doubt that this passage belongs to P*,3 can
hardly be maintained today in this form. What then has given
occasion, nevertheless, to reckon this chapter to P? Once
again, one must bear clearly in mind the methodological pro-
cedure: the general opinion is that one recognizes P first and
foremost by the style. From this standpoint Genesis 23 cannot
belong to P. A second characteristic mark of the P-passages is
the strong, often very heavy, theological statement; there is
not a trace of this in Genesis 23. So why then is it reckoned to
P? Without doubt, it is due to the pressure of traditional
opinion; it is because of the chronological note in the introduc-
tion, and 'precise chronology* is the real mark of P, as von Rad
alleges.4 Fohrer says: *But everything is entirely ordered to
and subordinated to the personal leanings of P;5 but what this
in fact means for Genesis 23, he does not say.
The question for von Rad is: *What theological interest—
and it is this alone that is of concern—has given it (i.e. the
narrative) such a prominent place in the priestly document?'
His answer: 'the typical broken relationship to the material of
the promise of course, the land'; that the possession of the land
was promised to the patriarchs, but that this promise was not
yet fulfilled, all this 'could not remain unformulated by such a
precise and conceptual theologian as P. He says several times:
the patriarchs live "in the land of their sojournings"
chs. 17.8; 28.4; 36.7; 37.1; 47.9). But a question arises here: did
the patriarchs, who had left everything behind them for the
sake of the promise, remain without any share at all? No,
replies our narrative: in death they were already "heirs" and
1 Genesis, 1972 (2nd edn Eng.), p. 249.

2 Op. cit., p. 246. For the whole of ch. 23, cf. Macholz.
3 Genesis, p. 133.
4 Genesis 1972 (2nd edn Eng.).
no longer "sojourners".'1 This very impressive interpretation

has, in my opinion but one basic error: from what we know
elsewhere of this 'precise theologian', he would certainly have
expressed this in such a way that the reader could not but
understand it. There is not a word, not even a hint, about these
theological connections. And there is a further, complemen-
tary, point of view: all the more detailed texts that are else-
where ascribed to P consist, more or less entirely, of accounts
of an action or an address of God. But God is not even men-
tioned in the whole of Genesis 23! It is, in my opinion, incon-
ceivable that the author of texts like Genesis 17 and Exod. 6.2-
8 should have departed so far from his own style as to have
taken over this purely 'profane' story, unaltered (there can be
no question at all, in my opinion, of P being the real author),
without throwing even the slightest theological light on it; and
further, that he should leave it entirely to the reader to discern
that the theological concept of the land of sojournings' used by
P had been overcome and annulled at one decisive point.
When all is said and done, I see no valid reasons for accepting
that Genesis 23 is a part of a P-narrative, but numerous rea-
sons against.
3.4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story

It is clear that a coherent P-narrative in the patriarchal story
cannot be demonstrated. A large part of the texts or text frag-
ments, which are claimed to establish an even tenuous, con-
tinuous, coherent narrative, cannot withstand critical exami-
nation. In particular, there is a series of cases in which the
material in the concordance contradicts the alleged linguistic
criteria. And so the opinion that there is a P-narrative run-
ning through the Pentateuch is, in my opinion, effectively
contradicted.
It would be beyond the limits of this book to advance in like
detail the corresponding proofs for the remainder of the Pen-
tateuch. We will add just a few remarks about the fragmen-
tary nature of the narrative and about the arguments with
which one usually disregards them. It is obvious that no
1 Op. cit.,p.250.
coherent narrative can be constructed out of the pieces

usually attributed to P in the first chapters of the book of
Exodus. First, there is no introduction of Moses: he is suddenly
there and receives assurance that the Israelites will be led out
of Egypt (Exod. 6.2-8). Wellhausen writes on this: To expect
that Moses be first introduced before he appears as a well
known person, as in 6.2, is not justified in Q'.1 But this only
means: in the case of so poor a writer as P, one ought not
expect such banalities as that a leading person be first
introduced. And so once more, the well known pre-emptive
judgment about P serves to hush up the fact that the story
lacks continuity. A further example: an account of the
departure from Egypt is obviously missing in the assumed P-
narrative. Elliger writes: *NB: the departure itself is simply
recorded with a single sentence Ex 12.41, so trouble-free and
with such nightly stealth and security does it take place!'2 And
so here, the absence of an indispensable piece of narrative is
exalted to a particularly profound theological interpretation. A
simple chronological note is encumbered with a narrative
function.
Some further reflections may be added to these. They are
not meant as a polemic against particular authors; rather,
they serve to show how widespread is the assumption that
there must be a coherent P-narrative, and how from this
assumption obvious facts which speak against it are ignored
or overlooked. But this is typical of wide areas of current
pentateuchal research. A new critical scrutiny of the
arguments will only be possible when this assumption is
brought into the discussion.
Let us turn now to those passages in the patriarchal story
which one can maintain with better reasons belong to the
priestly layer of the Pentateuch. They do not form a continu-
ous, coherent narrative, as has become clear; at the same time,
they are obviously linked with each other.
3.4.1 Chronological notes

First, there is a group of chronological texts which stands out
1 Die Composition, p. 62 (for Wellhausen, Q = P).

clearly and which is generally held to be characteristic of P.

However, on closer study they are less unified than assumed
by most. There is a remarkable lack of unity in the linguistic
form in which the numbers are put together. In the numbers
of the years which comprise two groups of digits, the word nxJ,
'year', occurs two/three times and usually in this form: the
single digit is in the plural, and the tens and hundreds are in
the singular.1 But there are deviations from this where the
word 'year' is not repeated: Gen. 17.24;2 47.9, 28 (repeated
once only)i 50.11, 26.3 Further, the order is different:
sometimes the single digit stands in front (Gen. 11.32; 12.4;
47.28), in the remaining cases, however, at the end. In
numbers over a hundred, the hundred group is generally at
the front, though not always (47.9, 28). The word for the
number 100 is for the most part used in the construct state,
though there are variations (Gen. 23.1; 50.22, 26).
Apart from this lack of unity in form, different groups of
chronological details stand out clearly. A first group gives the
age of a person at the time of a particular event. The structure
is quite well balanced: at the beginning is the name of the per-
son concerned preceded by the particle wow, i; then follows the
age preceded by' i (son of); then come the details of the event,
always in the infinitive prefixed by 3 and, where required, with
a suffix.
12.4
16.16
17.24
17.25
21.5
25.26
41.46
12.4 Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran
16.16 Abram was 86 years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to
Abram
17.24 Abraham was 99 years old when he had himself cir-
1 W. Gesenius—E. Kautzsch (trans. A.E. Cowley), Hebrew Grammar,

#134 e-h.
2 In 17.25 is to be understood as one number; hence, after
1
is to be expected.
3 50.22, 26 are not generally ascribed to P.
cumcised
17.25 Ishmael, his son, was 13 years old when he was cir-
cumcised
21.5 Abraham was 100 years old when his son Isaac was
born to him
25.15 Isaac was 60 years old when they (Esau and Jacob)
were born
41.46 Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service
of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.
A variation of this scheme occurs in Gen. 25.20 with the initial
When Isaac was 40 years old he married Rebekah.

A more notable variation of the scheme is 26.34; there is the
initial .. ., and the event is given in the imperfect consecutive.
When Esau was 40 years old, he took as his wife...

The same variation of the scheme is found in 17.1.
When Abram was 99 years old, YHWH appeared to Abram

It is noteworthy that here the name of Abraham is repeated in
the subordinate sentence. This is of significance primarily
because in all other cases in the patriarchal stories when a
divine appearance is introduced by this verb stands at the
beginning of the sentence (Gen. 12.7; 18.1; 26.2, 24; 35.9); only
here does it appear in the subordinate sentence. This suggests
that the detail of the age in Gen. 17.la has been added subse-
quently; in favour of this is that the same information about
the age appears again in v. 24.
The information about the age in Gen. 37.2 deviates from
the scheme in many respects: it begins with the name, without
however the preceding waw, 1. Then follows a circumstantial
sentence with and a participle, and there is no parallel to
this in the remaining chronological notes; finally, it is note-
worthy that yet another circumstantial sentence follows
immediately with and a following noun. The sentence,
without the information about the age, i.e. without the words
would present no syntactical difficulties at all,
whereas in the present form, there are syntactical problems,
as well as its being singular, in comparison with the
remaining chronological information in the patriarchal
stories. This suggests that here also one may assume the later
insertion of the note about the age.
It should be noted further that the ages are given for the
most part in round numbers: Abraham 75 (Gen. 12.4) and 100
(21.5), Isaac 40 (25.20) and 60 (25.26), Esau 40 (26.34), Joseph
30 (41.46).1 The 99 years of Abraham at his circumcision
17.24 are as it were a prelude to the birth of Isaac. Only the
chronology of Ishmael is not given in round numbers; but it is
clearly set in relationship to the circumcision and so to the
birth of Isaac. It is likely that circumcision at the age of 13 has
a special signification.
It is without doubt a question of a definite chronological sys-
tem here. Now that it has become clear that the chronologica
notes are not linked by connecting passages to a coherent nar-
rative, one will have to reckon this system, not to a particular
narrative 'source', but rather to a layer of reworking or
redaction.
Something similar holds also for the other chronological
data. First there are some texts to be mentioned which do not
allow themselves to be classified readily under the patterns so
far established. Gen. 16.3, in a circumstantial sentence which
seems to interrupt the narrative context, gives the informa-
tion that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham so as to have descen-
dants through her. The note about the date is in the middle of
the sentence and runs in translation more or less: 'after Abra-
ham had been living 10 years in the land of Canaan'. This
agrees exactly with the rest of the chronology. Abraham is 86
at Ishmael's birth (16.16), i.e. 11 years older than at the time of
his departure from Haran (12.4). But it is remarkable that
this information is not given in the usual form, but within a
separate sentence. Obviously the author's concern was not
1 Cf. also Exod. 7.7 where, following the same principle, Moses is
reckoned as being 80 at the time of his dealings with Pharaoh;
Aaron's 83 derives from this.
this chronological information, but the main matter of the

sentence: Sarah's giving over of Hagar.
The formalized sounding phrase occurs often in cor-
responding phrases, e.g. Gen. 24.67; 25.20; 28.9; 34.8; 38.14;
further 12.19; 20.12. Gen. 34.8, together with w.2 and 4,
shows that it is the legal aspect that is meant. In the Jacob
story also, the giving over of the servant maids to Jacob by his
two wives (Gen. 30.3-4, 9) is reported almost word for word as
in Gen. 16.3; it is not at all a question of something peculiar to
T'.
Two chronological details from the life-story of Jacob must
be mentioned here. In Gen. 47.9 Jacob replies to Pharaoh's
question about his age: The days of the years of my sojourning
are 130 years'. The formulation with is closer to the age
given at death (to be dealt with shortly) than to those already
considered. In the chronological system, this information
coheres with that in Gen. 47.28a, according to which Jacob
lived 17 years in Egypt, so that his total age is given as 147
years (47.28b; below). For the rest, it is striking that the at
the beginning of the sentence corresponds to the stereotyped
details in the primeval story,12 whereas it occurs only here and
in Gen. 50.22 in the patriarchal story.
The next rather large group mentions the total age together
with the death of the one in question. Here too a definite
scheme is evident which, however, allows several variations.
The simplest form is found in Gen. 11.32: first, the age intro-
duced by then the death expressed by repeating the
name and mention of the place.
The information about Sarah's death in Gen. 23.1 is struc-
tured according to a similar pattern; only here, is in place of
1
One might consider if this latter phrase has the function of
bringing to a conclusion the self-contained information of
Sarah's life-span; would the original narrative then have
begun with the words ?3
The information about the death of Isaac in Gen. 35.28 also
1 Gunkel (Genesis, p. 272), assumes that the age for circumcision

'was common among the Ishmaelite nations'.
2 Cf. Gen. 5.3-30 (passim) and 9.28; 11.11-26 (passim).
3 Cf. Gen. 11.28; Exod. 1.6; 1 Sam. 25.1.
begins with the words followed by the age; the subordi-

nate sentence is formulated in greater detail: 'then Isaac
expired and died and was gathered to his kin, old and fulfilled
in life; and his sons Jacob and Esau buried him'. The same
detailed formulation occurs several times. With Jacob, it
begins in the same way in Gen. 47.28b,1 but concludes only in
49.33b; but these two pieces, following the parallels, belong
together, i.e. the reworking has separated them from each
other so as to insert between them the last words and instruc-
tions of Jacob. Two further texts belong immediately in this
context: Gen. 25.7 (Abraham's death) and 25.17 (Ishmael's
death) differ from the two texts just mentioned in that they
begin with the words I2 the subordinate sentence
is somewhat more detailed in the case of Abraham, somewhat
shorter in the case of Isaac (35.28).
The formula is expanded in Abraham's case by mention of
the burial place in the 'cave at Machpelah' which is awk-
wardly formulated, like the closing verse of Genesis 23. This
suggests that one consider a subsequent expansion; otherwise
it would remain incomprehensible why the reference is miss-
ing in the case of Isaac, although Gen. 49.30f. presupposes that
he was buried there. This is more easily explained if, after the
insertion of Genesis 23 in the Abraham story, a corresponding
assimilation took place, whereas it did not in the Isaac story.
Gen. 49.29-32 presents a further stage in the formation of the
tradition; here, not only is the burial of Isaac in the cave
reported by way of supplement, but also the burial of Rebekah
and Leah, who are nowhere else mentioned. The execution of
Jacob's instructions in Gen. 50.12-14 also belongs to this layer
of reworking.
It is clear then that the information about the deaths of
Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob come from the same
layer of reworking. The remaining texts show other marks.
This is true too of Gen. 50.22, 26. The introductory (v. 22)
which we have already met in Gen. 47.28a and which occurs
often in the primeval story, occurs again here. The subordi-
nate sentence too in v. 26 diverges from the other texts in that
1 Here only with instead of

2 In 25.7 expanded with
it repeats again the age with the information about the death,
and with the prefixed . Here again another layer of rework-
ing is discernible.1
Looked at as a whole, the chronological data in the patriar-
chal story shows a variety of marks. Most of it can be divided
clearly into two groups: (1) information about the age of a per-
son at the time of a particular event, (2) information about the
entire lifespan in the context of the report of the death. There
are no discernible links between the two groups. It is remark-
able that there is nothing about Jacob in the first group, but
there is something about Esau; on the other hand, there is no
mention of Esau's death. All in all, it is clear that there has
been no uniform and consistent reworking.2
3.4.2 Theological' passages

A second group of coherent texts in the patriarchal story
which are generally attributed to P are the 'theological' pas-
1 Despite these deviations, it is surprising that this verse is without

exception reckoned to E, or divided between J and E (Procksch,
Fohrer). This then would be the only place where the older sources
would have given such information about the life-span. No reasons
at all are given why this is considered to be the case here.
2 The problem of the toledot-formulas still remains opaque. Weimar
(see above under 3.3.2) has erected an imposing structure on these
formulas. The main difficulty which I see in his work is the fact
that he works with notions of 'history' (Geschichte, story, trans.),
'narrative', 'report', etc., which I cannot comprehend. Let me pick
out a sentence at random: 'And thus the list of Ishmaelites
formed... the first main part of the history of Ishmael' (p. 179). But
this is form-critically quite incomprehensible. How can a list be a
main part of a 'history' (Geschichte, story, trans.). A little later he
writes that the list of Ishmaelites 'presents only a phase in the life
of Ishmael'. I do not understand how a list can be a 'phase in the
life'. Weimar often puts 'narrative' for 'history*, e.g. in the synthe-
sis on p. 183, n.2. His understanding of 'narrative' is displayed, for
example, in the table on p. 182, where the two chronological notes,
Gen. 25.17 and 26.34 are classified respectively as 'heading' and
'narrative'. But perhaps these notions are not to be understood as
form-critical precisions? But how else could they be understood?
Weimar's constructions, though they contain some correct observa-
tions, seem to me to point much more to a particular system of
reworking an available narrative than to an independent 'history'
(Geschichte).
sages. They are Gen. 17; 27.46-28.5;1 35.9-13; 48.3-4 (5-6).2

One can discern readily that these texts are related to each
other. First, one notes that they all use the divine name, *E1
sadday*; in 17.1 and 35.11 it occurs in the form of the formula
of self-presentation 'I am El sadday' as introduction to a
divine address; in 28.3 and 48.3, with reference back to it. The
texts stand in pairs: 28.1-4 refers back to ch. 17, 48.3-4 to
35.11-12.
A further link is that the talk in these texts is of blessing.3
28.1 is introduced as Isaac's blessing of Jacob; in v.3 there is
the actual blessing formula and in v. 4 a reference back to the
'blessing of Abraham'. The objects of the blessing are fertility
and increase in v.3, the possession of the land in v.4. In 35.9
the two-fold divine address is again introduced as blessing; the
content of the blessing however follows only in the second
address, w. 11-12, and is again fertility and increase (v. 11)
and possession of the land (v. 12). In 48.3-4, with reference
back to the latter, it is said that El sadday appeared to Jacob
and blessed him; the content is again fertility and increase as
well as possession of the land (v. 4). It is noticeable that the
cross reference does not cite literally, but that the passages run
in parallel lines, though with numerous variations in the
choice of words; there is further a link between 48.4 and 17.8
in the phrase (an eternal possession), which occurs in
these two places only in conection with the promise of the land.
In Genesis 17 the promise address is not introduced as
blessing. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that the
content of the promise in 17.6-7 (cf. also v. 2) corresponds
exactly to what is described as blessing in the texts just men-
tioned; and further, the promise of fertility and increase for
Sarah (v. 16) and for Ishmael (v. 20) is described expressly as
blessing. A number of different explanations present them-
selves: first, it would be conceivable that the author of Genesis
17 wanted to have the promises that he mentioned, which cor-
respond to the other texts, understood as blessing without
1 26.34-35 and 28.6-9 belong here as well; one should note the repeti-
tion in 28.6-9!
2 There is scarcely any argument in the literature for assigning 48.5-6
to P.
saying so explicitly; one could argue that the assurance 'I will
make you very, very fruitful...' in v. 6 is nothing other than a
pronouncement of blessing. But then one might also suppose
the idea of 'blessing' belongs only to a later layer of reworking
and for that reason was first missing from Genesis 17, which
obviously forms the point of departure for the whole group of
texts, and would only have been supplied later (in 17.16, 20, as
well as in the cross references); and one could also argue that
in Gen. 35.9 the word ^bless' has been put in front of the whole
complex of divine addresses, but that it is missing in the actual
promise address in w. 11-12. Finally, there could be a third
possibility: that originally there was talk of blessing at the
beginning of ch. 17, but that this idea has been eclipsed and
suppressed (w.2, 4, 7,...) by the idea of 'covenant' in
any case a clear distinction is made between the blessing for
Sarah and Ishmael (vv. 16, 20) and the covenant with
Abraham and Isaac (w. 19b, 21!). Whatever the case may be,
the connections between these four texts are clear, despite the
notable differences.
A further point common to this group of texts is that in all of
them the promise of the land comes after the promise of
increase. It was shown earlier that therein lies the peculiarity
of these texts against others in which the sequence is
reversed;1 the land promise in second place testifies to a later
stage of the tradition.
Some further observations may be made on the position of
this group of texts with the remaining promise addresses in
the patriarchal story. The formulation 'to you... and your
seed' is found in three texts promising the land; both expres-
sions follow immediately on each other twice (Gen. 17.8; 28.4;
the latter is not formulated as a divine address and shows
some peculiarities); once the verb stands between them, and
once it is repeated after them (35.12); once, there is only 'to
your seed' (48.4). And so these text do not stand out from the
other promises of the land as a self-contained group (see above
under 2.3.1, table of beginning). In three cases 'after you'
17.8; 35.12; 48.4) is added to 'seed'; this is a peculiarity of
this text group, as well as already mentioned (17.8;
1 See above under 2.3.5 and 2.4.

48.4). As for the promise of increase, these texts belong to the

group which does not use 'seed' in this context (see above
under 2.3.2, tables). It is notable that the plural form 'nations'
and 'peoples' occur only in this group. The special place of the
texts then is apparent, but the group is not to be detached
entirely from the historical process of tradition of the promise
addresses.
Finally, yet another link is that the two divine addresses in
Genesis 17 and 35.9-12 involve a change of name of the patri-
arch concerned, Abraham (17.5) and Jacob (35.10). And this
parallel is clearly intended.
There can scarcely be any doubt, therefore, that these four
texts are related to each other. Their intention is obviously to
point in a definite theological direction. On the one side, the
different promise elements, which are found in various forms
in the patriarchal story, are synthesized in a characteristic
way,1 while on the other new elements have taken their place,
in particular the notion of God's 'covenant' with Abraham,
and circumcision as the visible expression of the covenant
relationship. It is remarkable, however, that circumcision as
sign has not been carried further; after the account of the
actual circumcision of Abraham, Ishmael, and the males who
belonged to the *house' of Abraham in Gen. 17.23-26, the only
other note about circumcision concerns Isaac in Gen. 21.4,
where there is reference back to Gen. 17, in particular to v. 12
There is no account of any other circumcisions in the patriar-
chal story. The purpose of the author of Genesis 17—perhaps
more accurately of these parts of Genesis 17—was obviously
not to report a continuous passage of the patriarchal story, but
rather to anchor the prescription about circumcision in God's
covenant with Abraham.
The remaining passages are all concerned with Jacob. They
show how the blessing of God (more accurately, of El sadday)
accompanies him on his way. There are the same main stages
which in another layer of theological reworking are charac-
terized by the theme 'guidance'.2 his departure for Haran
(Gen. 27.46-28.5), his return from there (35.9-13), and the
1 See above under 2.3.5 for more on Gen. 17.

end of the journey in Egypt (48.3-4). The emphases in detail lie

in a different direction from those in the 'guidance' layer. The
departure for Haran is already under the blessing; the second
blessing is given only after the return to the ground of the
promised land; and the last mention of blessing looks back,
presupposing the journey down to Egypt. The impression that
arises from this is that of a complement and a new emphasis
of an already existing narrative. It has already been shown
that these texts cannot be part of a continuous priestly Jacob
story.1 At the same time it is evident this layer of reworking
has a quite characteristic interest in the figure and journey of
Jacob.
One question further may be raised: is there a connection
between this 'priestly' layer of redaction and the divine
addresses in the Isaac story? The latter, generally, are not
reckoned to P. But it is notable even so that, like the divine
addresses to Abraham (Gen. 17.1) and Jacob (35.9), they are
introduced with , And further, there are many details in
Gen. 26.2-5 which point at least to an advanced stage in the
process of the formation of the tradition which is close to the
priestly texts. But these questions require farther study.
3.4.3 The function of the priestly layer
This last conclusion touches the question of the function which
this group of texts has within the patriarchal story as a whole.
An important direction is given in the Abraham story in Gen-
esis 17. But this does not touch the many promise addresses to
Abraham which belong to other layers of tradition and
reworking. These texts give the Jacob story a separate, new
interpretation which takes its place by the earlier one. But this
exhausts their contribution to the shaping and interpretation
of the patriarchal story as a whole. In particular it is striking
that this group of texts has no part in the framing and shaping
of the patriarchal story as a self-contained larger unit. Nei-
ther the assurance of guidance, which runs through all three
patriarchal stories,2 nor the assurance of mediatorship of the

blessing for others,1 which has proved itself in a special way to

be an element binding the arrangement together, are found in
these texts.
The 'priestly' texts then stand out in relief within the patri-
archal story as an independent group with a number of pecu-
liarities. At the same time one can discern a definite line of
interpretation in this group as a whole. But it is by no means
the dominant interpretation within the patriarchal story,
because it embraces only a partial aspect (primarily the Jacob
stories), and in addition it does not share in the overall
arrangement of the story.
A few further remarks may be added here about the combi-
nation of the patriarchal story with the traditions that follow.
We had concluded earlier that on the one hand the lack of
connection between the individual complexes of tradition is
striking, but that on the other hand there are isolated refer-
ences back to the patriarchal story in the exodus tradition.2
Beside the texts formulated in the deuteronomic style, there
are again those which are generally reckoned to the priestly
document: In Exod. 2.23-25, in a link piece, which in the pre-
sent context indicates the change of fortune pointing toward
the imminent rescue of the Israelites,3 there is reference back
to God's 'covenant' with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v. 24)
We had earlier expressed the conjecture that one might see
here a link with Gen. 17.7. Also, in the divine address in Exod.
6.2-9,4 one can recognize clear echoes of Gen. 17.7-8.5 For the
rest, however, with the broad expansion of the formula 'I am
YHWH' and with the 'recognition statement'6 in v. 7, a quite
unique type of theme is evident.
With these two texts then a deliberate tie of the patriarchal
and exodus traditions is achieved. However, it strikes one
immediately that in the further course of the narrative there
is no cross-reference of this sort to be found. The exodus event

2 See above under 2.5 and 2.7.
5 Ibid.
6 Cf. W. Zimmerli, Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel, 1954
= Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufs&tze, 1963, pp. 41-119.
itself, the wandering in the desert, and the occupation of the

land, give no indication that it is the land, the goal of the jour-
ney, that YHWH had assured to the patriarchs. We find in
these priestly texts therefore no reworking covering the whole
of the Pentateuch, but only, beside the episodic, new interpre-
tation of the patriarchal story, a single tie of the patriarchal
and exodus traditions under the aspect of YHWH's covenant
with the fathers.
3.4.4 No priestly narrative but a layer of priestly reworking

Let us draw together our reflections on the 'priestly docu-
ment' in the patriarchal story: a continuous P-narrative can-
not be demonstrated. The texts generally claimed for this nar-
rative thread are to be judged very differently. First, a small
group of'theological' texts stand out, one of which synthesizes
the divine promises to Abraham in a new way and puts them
under the key word 'covenant' (Gen. 17), while the others all
have to do with Jacob (Gen. 27.46-28.5; 35.9-13; 48.3-4); they
are linked with Genesis 17 in a particular way, though they do
not use the idea 'covenant'.
Further, there are several groups of chronological notes.
They mention partly the age of a person at the time of a par-
ticular event, partly the total life-span with the information
about the death of the person concerned. There are no dis-
cernible connections between these groups, either stylistic or
in content or in their particular setting in the present text. Nor
are there connections between the chronological notes and the
theological texts; only that in Genesis 17 the age of Abraham
(w. 1, 24) and Ishmael (v. 25) at the time of their circumcision
is mentioned.
The thesis of a coherent P-narrative in the current
research depends for the most part on the assumption that
certain small pieces of text are to be reckoned to P which
establish the connection between the texts just mentioned, so
that the result is a continuous, coherent narrative. Study of
these texts demonstrates that the arguments for assigning
them to P (arguments which are almost entirely absent in
more recent literature) cannot, in the majority of cases,
withstand critical examination; indeed, there is a considerable
number of assertions which a simple glance at the
concordance proves to be false. I underscore once again as

typical examples: the appendage 'Abraham's wife' in Gen.
16.1 which is held to belong to P, but which occurs also in the
'J-passage' 12.17 and in the 'E-passage' 20.18; the alleged P
use of the verb in the pi'el, 'destroy* in Gen. 19.29 which is
used in the immediately preceding J-narrative in 19.13 as
well as in the J-text in 13.10; the claim for P of the expression
'at the particular time' in Gen. 21.2b, which is found also
in the immediately related 'J' piece in 18.14. Examples could
be multiplied at will. The refutation of arguments such as
these sets up a sort of chain reaction, because the texts, which
are claimed for P, to a large extent support each other, and
that on the grounds of 'proofs' from linguistic usage. In my
opinion, critical examination shows cogently that these
connecting pieces are not to be claimed for P.
This pulls the mat from under any assumption of a
coherent P-narrative. Even when one assumes that the
remaining groups of texts mentioned are all to be reckoned to
one 'source', despite the lack of any discernible relationship to
each other, they still do not produce a coherent narrative. At
most, one could attribute them all to the same layer of
reworking which has complemented and interpreted in a
particular way a text already available. But no proof is
forthcoming that they are constituent parts of a 'source'
within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis, i.e. of a
continuous narrative which once existed independently on its
own.
3.5 Synthesis
It has been demonstrated that, on the one hand, there have
been different reworkings of the patriarchal story which are
consistent and of theological significance, and of the Moses
and exodus traditions on the other; and further, there is the
fact that traces of a comprehensive reworking of the Penta-
teuch as a whole appear only in a relatively late stage of the
process of the formation of the tradition; hence, we are faced
with the question, how do the reflections made here stand in
relationship to the prevailing assumption of continuous
'sources' or layers of 'sources' in the Pentateuch?
The traditio-historical approach requires that 'sources' of
this sort appear as the next logical stage in the formation of

the tradition; it is on this that the larger units', themselves
collections of very different kinds of material, build and are
brought together into larger outlines which cover the whole
theme of the Pentateuch.
It is because our studies hitherto have not led to such out-
lines that we have undertaken the 'crosscheck', i.e. we have
subjected current pentateuchal study to critical questioning
directed to the tenability of its arguments, its *built-in system',
its unity, and the persuasive power of its arguments.
The attempt to carry through this 'crosscheck' ran into a
serious difficulty very soon. It proved almost impossible to
acquire from current study any sort of clear picture of that
source, generally regarded as the most important, namely the
Tahwist'. Though the thesis is almost universally maintained
that there is basically general agreement about the delimita-
tion of his work, the determination of his character and his
intention, closer attention reveals very soon that there is no
such basic agreement among the majority of exegetes in any
single essential question. The examination of the reasons for
these divergences and differences of opinions shows that they
arise out of a profound methodological uncertainty. The deci
sive causes of this uncertainty are the fact that certain basic
theses are maintained, even though their presuppositions are
no longer correct, and the arguments by which they were
supported in the first place have lost their tenability.
Let us focus once more on this problem area: the documen-
tary hypothesis first appeared as a convincing answer to the
question of the literary unity of the Pentateuch. The assump-
tion of several parallel and originally independent sources,
and of a redaction that fitted them together, seemed to answer
plausibly the greater part of the literary questions. In particu-
lar, it seemed convincing that, side by side with a later priestly
source, there were several older sources; hence, one could
divide among these different sources individual narratives
which occurred several times, differences in the use of the
divine name and other linguistic usage, different religious and
moral concepts, different historical presuppositions, and so on.
The endeavour to establish these sources as accurately as
possible and to work out what was peculiar to each, revealed
very quickly the difficulties and the problem area of this

undertaking. A survey of the history of modern pentateuchal
study shows that it has always been faced with the dilemma:
to lay down the strictest criteria for the unity of the individual
sources, but never to be able to distribute the entire material of
the Pentateuch among them. This has led time and again to
the questions whether one should postulate new sources or
sub-sources, or ascribe relatively large sections of texts to
redactors, or to explain them as not belonging to sources and
so as 'additions', 'glosses', 'growths' or whatever, or to reduce
by virtue of necessity the demands of the criteria for source
division. The discussion about the delimitation of the sources
very soon became a highly esoteric game in which the theory
as such was never called into question—and so the situation
has remained up to the present.
The question whether the individual sources have been fully
preserved has played a special role in these discussions. The
changing fate of the TDlohist' is a clear example of the problem.
It is evident at the same time how decisions already made
have largely prevented an evaluation of considerations about
the text in any other way than that which the documentary
hypothesis has prescribed. When it is recognized that individ-
ual texts belong together, then they must also belong to a
'source', because since Wellhausen the 'fragmentary* hypoth-
esis has been superceded. And even when today one has
largely renounced any wish to reconstruct the Elohist com-
pletely, nevertheless the 'elohistic fragments' are expressly
understood as parts of an 'originally independent written
source with its own composition technique and independent
line of proclamation'.1 That the doublets or complements at
various places in the Pentateuch could be independent of each
other is thus not given serious consideration.2
The problems of source division have intensified notably
with the rise of form-criticism and the discipline arising out of
it, namely the study of the process of formation of the
tradition. Even though many exegetes have clearly not
1 H.W. Wolff, op. cit., p. 136.

2 Those who contest the Elohist are the exceptions here, see above
under 3.1.
become conscious of this, there has, nevertheless, been many

an alteration in the presuppositions. The first basic alteration
is that the Pentateuch is no longer regarded primarily as a
literary product. The question of the literary unity of the text
which now lies before us has long since ceased to be the point of
departure from which one approaches the Pentateuch. First,
a much greater self-sufficiency is attached to the individual
narrative or tradition. One usually reckons with a stage of
oral tradition in which the texts to a large degree more or less
acquired their form. But because one can speak of 'sources'
only from the earliest time when the text was fixed in writing,
this means that the authors of the individual written sources
made use by and large of material already given shape. Thus,
quite new questions arise of which classical pentateuchal crit-
icism was not aware in this form: what part did the authors of
the sources play in the shaping of these texts? did they simply
take them over? work them over? reshape them? formulate
them anew in their own language? are they really writers at
all? or only collectors?
It is evident that the understanding of the authors of the
sources has run into a severe crisis. Many exegetes are not
aware of this and it has not left any discernible trace in the lit-
erature; the only explanation is that, at least for Old Testa-
ment scholarship in the German-speaking area, pentateuchal
study and documentary hypothesis have become so insepara-
ble, that alterations in the statement of the question are felt to
be merely problems within this theory, but not a question
addressed to it.1 But when the question is put in the context of
the process of the formation of the tradition, further problems
come into the perspective. After von Rad had demonstrated
the independence of the individual complexes of tradition
within the Pentateuch and their general independence of
each other, the question arose, what part did the authors of the
sources play in the composition of the present whole. Von Rad
1 So Fohrer, Introduction, p.lll. 'None of the views mentioned [i.e.

the recent attempts to contest or modify the documentary hypothe
sis] are really any more than a warning to make sure once more of
the strength and reliability of the foundations which the more
recent documentary hypothesis has laid for the separation of the
pentateuchal sources'.
himself assumed that all complexes of tradition had been fixed

in essence before they were taken over by the Yahwist;1 and
many exegetes have more or less followed him expressly.2 But
that would mean that the question of the characteristic marks
of the Yahwist would have to be directed in essence to the final
form of the Pentateuch as a whole. But Noth, Fohrer, Kaiser
and others had already assigned these not to the Yahwist, but
to 'G'. And so once again other criteria must be sought for dis-
cerning and characterizing the Yahwist. In the face of this sit-
uation then it is no wonder that statements in this area
remain as imprecise and vague as they are today.
There is evident here, even with von Rad, a remarkable
imbalance in evaluating the Yahwist. On the one hand he
ascribed to the Yahwist the final arrangement of the com-
plexes of tradition, essentially self-contained, which were
available to him. On the other hand he writes: The Yahwist
took up the material which had broken free from the cult and
preserved it in the firm grip of his literary composition'. This
process of the transition of the material at one time stamped
by the cult into new literary' arrangements is then described
in detail; and there is very often talk there of the Yahwist
without his part in the development becoming readily dis-
cernible. He writes of the two cultic stories of Bethel (Gen. 28)
and Penuel (Gen. 32) that 'the part of the Yahwist in [their]
composition... is very probably...' still discernible; of other cult
stories it is said expressly that 'we can regard the blending of
[the] sacral traditions with the Yahweh faith', and conse-
quently the 'fulfillment and penetration of that ancient story
material by the Yahweh faith, only as the work of the Yah-
wist'; as for the literary arrangement, in the exegesis of 18.22-
33, for example, he speaks of'connecting pieces... which the
Yahwist has inserted between the old narrative passages',
clearly standing out from the narrative context; yet in the
summarizing 'epilogue' to the preceding cult story of Mamre,
the Yahwist is not mentioned. On the contrary, he is occa-
sionally claimed for narrative details: e.g., Gen. 18.1: Thus, in
one most vivid sentence about place and time, the Yahwist has
1 Von Rad, "The Form Critical Problem', pp. 18ff., 53ff., 67f.
brought us right into the picture.. ,Jl

It becomes quite clear from all this, I think, that modern
pentateuchal study has accepted more and more the state-
ments of the question and insights of form-criticism and the
traditio-historical method without, however, examining seri-
ously and reflecting methodically on their compatibility with
the assumptions and statements of the question of the
'classical' documentary hypothesis.2 The interpreter who tries
to approach the texts of the Pentateuch with a consistent
statement of the question from the point of view of traditio-
historical criticism finds now that the documentary hypothe
sis opens up many more questions than it is able to answer. I
cannot at present discern what contribution the documentary
hypothesis makes to the question of the formation of the Pen-
tateuch from the smallest units (and their pre-history), across
the larger units or the complexes of tradition, to the present
synthetic whole. On the contrary, I see numerous important
reasons which, from such a statement of the question, speak
against the currently reigning view of pentateuchal sources
within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis.
1 See above under 1.1 and 3.2.

2 See also Westermann's critical survey, Genesis 1-11, pp. 569ff.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 4
CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES
The purpose of the present study is to clarify a little more the

problem of the process of transmission in the Pentateuch by
directing attention to the hitherto neglected stage of the for-
mation of the tradition between the 'smallest units' on the one
hand and the overall picture of the Pentateuch on the other.
For as long as one does not study this intermediary stage thor-
oughly and does not take appropriate account of it in the ques-
tion of the formation of the Pentateuch, then one cannot
acquire a coherent view of the history of its growth. It is pre-
cisely this that is the express goal of the traditio-historical
method since it appeared.1
We might take then some observations of von Rad as our
point of departure. He has shown that the Pentateuch consists
of a number of complexes of tradition which are clearly sepa-
rate from each other, each of which has obviously had its own
pre-history. A result of our study is that the mutual indepen-
dence of these complexes is considerably greater than has
been generally accepted to date. Above all, there is a notable
absence of cross-references between these larger units'. This
is particularly remarkable at the level of the generally
accepted 'older sources' of current pentateuchal study, to
which the essential arrangement of the Pentateuch is
ascribed. These 'sources' are for the most part regarded as
theological works. Hence, it must appear very remarkable
that a very intensive and varied theological reworking can be
discerned in the patriarchal stories which we have chosen as
examples of such a larger unit, but that this is not continued in
the following larger units which deal with the stay in Egypt,

the exodus, Sinai, and the wandering in the desert. On the

contrary, there is a characteristic lack of continuity, and
especially of over-arching interpretative evidence.
These remarks must of necessity be understood as critical
questions addressed to the currently reigning 'documentary
hypothesis', according to which the Pentateuch is assembled
out of several parallel, continuous, 'sources', each with its own
profile and own thought pattern. Our observations are
scarcely in harmony with this. We tried to establish by means
of a 'crosscheck' of the documentary hypothesis whether,
directing the question in this way, we might perhaps gain
better insights into the connections between the individual
larger units within the Pentateuch. But this check was ren-
dered extraordinarily difficult, because it is scarcely possible in
the present state of pentateuchal study to find any sort of
agreement about the 'sources' that would enable us to answer
our question. On the contrary, the documentary hypothesis
proves itself to be extremely contradictory, especially in wha
concerns its chief source, the *Yahwist'. There is today
scarcely anything more than a general, ill-defined consensus
about him, a consensus, however, to which there is no agree-
ment among the exegetes in any single, important, concrete
detail. In particular, there have been alterations in the state of
the question which have quietly taken place since the advent
of the form-critical and traditio-historical methods, and
which have scarcely been reflected at all; the result is that for
the critical observer, the documentary hypothesis, and
especially the picture which it presently presents of the
*Yahwist', must be regarded as, methodologically, a highly
problematic, and in many respects, a quite anachronistic,
undertaking. That the continuity of the 'priestly document' is
greatly overestimated and often supported by arguments
which cannot withstand critical scrutiny, is another aspect of
the same problem.
4.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis

Hence, a first answer is given to the question raised in the
introduction to this study, namely, how do the literary-critical
method in the form of the documentary hypothesis as it reigns
4. Conclusions and Consequences 179
today, and the traditio-historical method, stand in relationship

to each other? When one tries to follow the gradual formation
of the Pentateuch starting from the 'smallest units' right up to
its present final stage, one does not encounter the 'sources' in
the sense of the documentary hypothesis; and when one tries
to allege the currently reigning notion of 'sources' to answer
the questions raised by traditio-historical study, then there is
no answer. The assumption of 'sources' within the meaning of
the documentary hypothesis can no longer make any contri-
bution today to the understanding of the formation of the
Pentateuch.
This conclusion must be protected from possible misunder-
standing. It has already been underscored, and it must be
repeated again here, that it is not at all a question of contesting
in any way the legitimacy of literary-critical statements of the
question. Many of the observations made about the texts since
the rise of the literary-critical method retain their validity and
still require an answer. What is to be questioned rather is a
particular conclusion of the literary-critical work on the
Pentateuch, a particular hypothesis, namely what is known
as the 'documentary hypothesis'. However, in recent penta-
teuchal study, this hypothesis has almost been identified with
the literary-critical method as such, so that the difference
between the two must again be expressly brought to mind. Lit-
erary criticism of different passages of the Pentateuch has
separated out individual units of text. It is by no means obvious
that these units are now to be joined together and considered
as constituent parts of 'sources' which run through the whole
Pentateuch. On the contrary, one must say that in numerous
cases plausible literary-critical observations become prob-
lematic only when one tries to ascribe the elements of the text
to particular 'sources'.1
In any case, dissent from the documentary hypothesis,
while maintaining the literary-critical position, means an
alteration in the methodological approach. Fohrer expresses
1 The terminology of the discipline is significant: one assigns the text

to a source, and quite obviously even when there are no clear crite-
ria favouring one source or the other; cf. as an (unintentional)
example, W.H. Schmidt, Exodus, pp. 63-64; see above under 3.2.1.
aptly the current situation: It is a non-negotiable basic prin-

ciple of the anlaysis of the Hexateuch that, to start with, the lit-
erary-critical separation of the different strands... must
stand'.1 But it is legitimate to contest even this basic principle.
It too, in my opinion, has in fact long since lost its force because
'to start with', one must in many cases concentrate on indi-
vidual narratives and other such 'smallest units', and put the
question of belonging to one of the 'sources' only at a later
stage of the exegesis. And so a variety of literary observations
is made and divisions of the text undertaken without the
exegete being sure to which 'source' the individual elements
might belong. But, be it that the basic principle cited agrees
with exegetical practice or not, from a form-critical or a
traditio-historical point of view, it is to be flatly denied. The
basic principle already mentioned earlier must be set against
it, namely, that from the traditio-historical point of view, the
assumption of continuous 'sources' in the Pentateuch is only
justified when, at the end of the path of the traditio-historical
inquiry, it presents itself as the most plausible answer to the
questions which the final form of the text raises.2 But our
inquiry, and especially the 'crosscheck' of the documentary
hypothesis, has shown that this is not the case.
This first part of the conclusion to our inquiry could con-
tribute to freeing pentateuchal study from a realm of hypoth-
esis which has turned out to be an increasingly heavy burden.
A great amount of exegetical ingenuity is still being spent on
the problem of source division, although it has long since
become clear that a self-contained picture of the 'sources', as
the documentary hypothesis demands, is no longer to be
gained.3 And even if one might hope to come to convincing
1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus, 1964, p. 4.

3 Von Rad has seen this clearly, 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerz&hl-
ung Ex 1-14', EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum
Alien Testament 2, 1973, pp. 189-98: 'So as things stand today, it does
not in any way appear as if we are going to arrive at an analysis of
the individual sources in which we might divide the whole of the
material in some satisfactory way among the written sources' (580 =
190). Similarly Fohrer: 'Indeed, it is long since clear, that the Hexa-
teuch contains more material that does not belong to a source and
that the narrative threads contain more disconnected narrative
conclusions in Genesis or in the first half of the book of Exodus,

this is no longer possible from the Sinai pericope on at the very
latest, and that very obviously. This concern about source
division presents exegetes from devoting proper attention to
other questions of the exegesis of the text and of the under-
standing of its history. And the newly enkindled discussion
about the dating of the sources of the Pentateuch, especially of
the 'Yahwist',1 only shifts these concerns on to another plane;
but in my opinion it is chasing after a phantom.
4.2 The 'larger units' in the Pentateuch

The main purpose of this study, however, is not to refute the
documentary hypothesis. Rather its aim is to achieve a
methodological access to the understanding of the formation
of the Pentateuch in the stage between the 'smallest units' and
the overall presentation. The conclusions remain to be
sketched briefly and the consequences to be pondered.
4.2.1 The patriarchal story

The patriarchal story which, as an example of a 'larger unit'
within the Pentateuch we have subjected to detailed analysis,
proves to be a complex and at the same time a rounded unit.
First, it is evident yet again that the Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob stories each has its own history of formation and its own
independent profile. The work of arrangement and interpre-
tation which makes use of the divine promise addresses in
particular has allowed this relative independence to remain
stuff than the documentary hypothesis in its strictest form was will-
ing to concede...' (see p. 6 n. 2).
1 J. Van Seters, 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period', VT
22 (1972) 448-59; N.E.Wagner, Tentateuchal Criticism: No Clear
Future', CanJT 13 (1967) 225-32; B. Diebner/H. Schult, 'Die Ehen der
Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975) 2-10; 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten
der Makkabaerzeit', DBAT 8 (1975) 11-17; 'Argumenta e Silentio.
Das grosse Schweigen als Folge der "alten Pentateuchquellen"', in
Festschrift fur R. Rendtorff zum 10.5.1975, DBAT Beiheft
1, 23-34. H.H. Schmid has also argued for a late dating of the
Yahwist (May 1975: Fachgruppe Altes Testament in der Wissen-
schaftlichen Gesellschaft fur Theologie).
intact. This is evident, for example, in the framework of the

Isaac story with the two divine promise addresses in Gen.
26.2-5 and 26.241 and in the arrangement of the Jacob story as
a 'guidance' narrative.2 In both cases the promise of the land is
emphasized at the beginning, and the assurance of abundant
descendants at the end. In the Jacob story, the assurance of
blessing which accompanies him on his way has been added in
another layer of tradition.3
In the Abraham story the divine promise addresses play a
comparatively larger role than in the two other stories and
have penetrated more deeply into the narrative context. But
here too the function of a framework is clearly recognizable,
especially in the closing promise address in Gen. 22.15-18.4
This belongs as well to the passages which bind the three
patriarchal stories with one another and fit them together into
a whole. The promise of the blessing for others dominates
here. It is given to Abraham (12.3; 22.18), to Isaac (26.4) and to
Jacob (28.14); the different formulations show that the Abra-
ham and Jacob stories were first joined together (12.3; 28.14)
and, only at a later stage of the reworking and arrangement,
the Abraham and Isaac stories (22.18; 26.4).
The traditio-historical problems of the patriarchal story are
not thereby finally solved; rather a way has been opened to
deal with them more intensively. But now that the indepen-
dence and complexity of the patriarchal story has become so
evident, study can apply itself to the numerous individual
questions without having to reflect constantly on the supposed
connections with the other complexes of tradition in the Pen-
tateuch. Only a few problems will be indicated here which
present themselves anew. First, the genre 'Sage' undoubtedly
needs a renewed and more nuanced study. It must be more
carefully taken into account that the stories (Sagen) in the
patriarchal story are of an entirely different kind and have a
different pre-history from the texts of the primeval story on

2 See above tinder 2.4.
the one hand and the complex of traditions with which the
book of Exodus begins on the other.1 Thus study can free itself
from the necessity of having to assign the individual narra-
tives and stories (Sageri) each to a particular 'source'-author;
and it can, to take up an example already mentioned,2 set into
relief the profound differences between texts like Gen. 12.10-
20 and Genesis 24 without being forced to look for proofs
which would assign them to sources. And texts which are dif-
ficult to classify, like Genesis 14 and 23, can be simply studied
and evaluated in their own right.
And further, study can turn itself to the questions of the
structure of the patriarchal story under different presupposi-
tions. In particular, there was the very awkward situation in
the Abraham story whereby the exegete had to look for crite-
ria under which the individual narratives had been collected
and arranged, but in such a way that he was forced to span
certain texts. In the case of the *Yahwistic' Abraham story, he
had to carry on as if chs. 14; 15; 17 were not there, and
likewise again chs. 20-22.3 They were added anyway by a
redactor, and so did not merit any thorough consideration. A
new beginning may be made here.
In doing so, one would pursue more precisely the connec-
tions between the divine promise addresses and their context.
The reflections presented above still leave many questions
open in this regard. I have deliberately tried to avoid prelimi-
nary decisions about whether individual texts belong to par-
ticular 'sources',4 thereby leaving the way open for as unprej-
udiced analysis as possible; but I am very conscious that my
own insights are only a beginning.
Finally, one must investigate in more precise detail than has
been possible within the limits of this study, the collection and
arrangement of the patriarchal stories. In this area, the work
of R. Kessler on the 'cross references' offers further pointers
1 Cf. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp. 18fF.

3 Von Rad has included Gen. 22 among the narratives designated by
him as 'Yahwistic' (Theology of the Old Testament, 1, pp. 170f).
4 And thus, in dealing with the promise addresses in ch. 2, particular
groups of texts were not assigned to the priestly layer.
and suggestions;1 a question of course which is linked with

those already mentioned. To give but two examples: how is one
to understand the following: the narrative in Gen. 12.10-20
('the ancestress in danger*) has no divine address and so no
mention of the divine promises to Abraham; yet they are
mentioned in an insertion into its context (13.1,3-4) with an
emphasis to which there is no parallel in the patriarchal
story? Can one, without more ado, put this side by side with
other narratives in which, in their present form, the divine
promise addresses carry such weight, but have not been tied to
the context in any comparable way? And how does one
evaluate this: the cult etiology of Bethel (Gen. 28.10-22) has
undergone a very varied and multi-faceted interpretation by
means of the divine promises, whereas the event at Pnuel
(Gen. 32.23-33 [Eng. 22-32]) has remained quite untouched?
Can one simply maintain the interpretation of von Rad, so
plausible at first sight, about the function of these two cultic
stories in the structure of the Jacob story?2 How do the
composition of the patriarchal story and its interpretation by
means of the divine promise addresses stand in relationship to
each other?
It is clear that the questions touched on here, to which
others could be added, are concerned with specific problems in
the patriarchal story, which do not arise in the same way for
other larger units within the Pentateuch. Hence, answers to
them would first promote a better understanding of the
patriarchal story as an entity, throw light on the path, step by
step, from the smallest units to this larger unit, and so allow
one to discern the guiding principles and methods of
reworking.
4.2.2 The other 'larger units'

Something corresponding holds for the other larger units
within the Pentateuch. A survey of recent literature shows
that for a long time now there have been numerous publica-
tions which have been concerned with the particular
problems of these larger units. This is especially the case with

the primeval story;1 it has always been the object of studies

which have focussed entirely on the problems in these
chapters. At the same time, however, yet another aspect
becomes clear: many studies on the primeval story limit
themselves entirely to it, underscore its internal coherence,
and interpret it accordingly as a unit in itself;2 nevertheless,
they take it for granted that the layers of tradition discernible
there must be regarded as constituent parts of the
pentateuchal sources. The express connection is made merely
by a few remarks about Gen. 12.1-3,3 or not at all.4
The independence of the primeval story as a larger unit has
long since been recognized and stressed; but further reflection
is required about its connection with the other units. And a
further remark: 'the universal perspective of the primeval
story which the Abraham story achieves in (Gen. 12) v. 3'5 is
often alleged as a reference back to the patriarchal story to the
primeval story. If this is correct, then it means that, according
to our reflections, the primeval story has indeed been tied to
the patriarchal story, but only with it; because Gen. 12.3 is one
of those passages which bring the patriarchal stories together
as a whole, but which has no counterpart in the larger units
that follow.6 This could be a clue to the simultaneous growth of
1 Cf. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, Ertrage der Forschung, 1972, p. 7.

2 E.g. O.K. Steck: 'Gen. 2-11 is, in the intent of the Yahwist, a whole,
which is meant to encompass all that is typical of the human condi-
tion, with all the possibilities and depreciation of human exis-
tence...', in 'Genesis 12.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten',
Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift von Rad, 1971, pp. 525-54
(esp. p. 549); cf. also Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp.64ff.
3 E.g. Steck, pp. 549-50.
4 So Westermann, Genesis 1-11, on the basis of Gen. 1-11 alone.
5 Steck, op. cit., p. 550.
6 I think that H.W. Wolff has unintentionally shown this in 'The
Kerygma of the Yahwist'.
the only occurrence of the key-word 'blessing' in the whole of the
book of Exodus in Exod. 12.32 shows no connection with Gen. 12.3b
and is in fact not a continuation of the promise given there; rather
the opposite. And the single occurrence in the book of Numbers
within the Balaam oracles, Num. 24.9, can certainly be related to
Gen. 12.3a (despite the notable change of the verbs) but not so to
the words of 12.3b, about which Wolff insists 'the real message of
the Yahwist is to be seen only in 12.3b'.
these two larger units independently of their connection with

the following units. But this question needs further careful
attention.
With regard to the other larger units, we can for the most
part latch on to what has already been said.1 Since Pedersen,
the question of the special character of Exodus 1-14(15) has
been there. Even if the supposition that the unit is in essence a
liturgical text has receded into the background, nevertheless
its peculiar literary character and relative internal coherence
is continually underscored, though from the most divergent
points of view.2 Once again we may take up the reflections on
a deliberate, theologically interpretative, arrangement of the
unit.3 Exod. 2.23-25 marks the turning point in the first sec-
tion of the call of Moses. God takes heed of the Israelites. In
4.31 the Israelites 'believe' the message that Moses has
received and bow before it—just as later, when the definitive
rescue is announced to them (12.27b) and they finally see this
rescue with their own eyes (14.31). There is obviously a mind
at work here, planning, arranging, interpreting, which has
given this passage its own stamp.4 And so it is evident once
more that the reflections made here have no counterpart in
other larger units.
Pentateuchal study takes for granted that the Sinai
pericope is an entity in itself. This notion, borrowed from the
liturgical realm, expresses very clearly—even if in part—that
the section is an entity to be considered in itself and that it has
in some way to do with divine worship. The analysis of the
Sinai periocope usually begins with the speedy, and
unanimous, exclusion of the parts belonging to the 'priestly
document'. The remaining 'nucleus', cramped together into a
few chapters, is then studied again, mainly in respect of
assigning passages to their sources, and thereby further cut

2 Cf. S. Herrmann, "Mose', EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28 (esp. 326); G. von
Rad, 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzghlung Exodus 1—14', EvTh 31
(1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2, 1973,
pp. 189-98.
4 It is remarkable that the verb used in these passages, (hip'il),
occurs only seldom elsewhere in the Pentateuch.
up.1 But this procedure is particularly unsatisfactory here

because the results are always rather uncertain and at the
same time scarcely give the interpreter access to fresh points
of view. The discussion of the 'covenant theology* is certainly a
step forward because it attempts to throw light on the traditio-
historical problems of the Sinai pericope under the aegis of a
theme. The task that now lies before us is to put the question
more concretely of the texts in the Sinai pericope, and to put
the question, how does one explain the process by which these
texts came together, what were the intentions and ideas at
work, and what systems of arrangement are discernible. The
advantage of this could well be that source division
(prescinding from T') has thus exhausted itself, and that
many exegetes would not find it all that difficult to renounce it
in this area.
The problems of the narratives of Israel's stay in the desert
have already been outlined.2 Here too there are indications
that this group of texts is to be understood as an independent
larger unit.3 It must be emphasized, over against recent
attempts, that it is necessary to free oneself from the hypothet-
ical realm and the bonds of source division; the attempt to
work out an isolated 'Yahwistic' desert tradition must of
necessity cover over more problems than it can solve. This
holds particularly for the still quite open question, whether
and how far these texts belong together in one larger unit.
Here, a further problem must be considered: the decision
about where the texts which precede and follow the Sinai
pericope belong cannot be separated from the question of the
Sinai pericope in its present place. This brings up a partial
aspect of the question, how the larger units have been brought
together and finally assembled into the whole which is the
present Pentateuch. But the notion of larger units' must not
be overdrawn. It is not at all being said that all texts which deal
with the events of Israel's stay in the desert must have at one
time been joined together, and then when the different parts of
the Pentateuch were assembled, been torn apart again. These
1 Cf. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, 1969, pp. 157-58.

2 See above tinder 1.4 and 2.6.
3 E.g. V. Fritz, see above under 1.4.
questions then must be examined very carefully and without

previous commitment.
The narratives about the occupation of the land in east
Jordan also contain a double problem. On the one hand there is
the question whether they were at one time bound together as
an independent larger unit, on the other hand there is the
problem, requiring further discussion, whether they were
conceived as part of a comprehensive presentation of the
occupation of the land and where, if at all, the continuation is
to be sought. But it is always very awkward when one has to
reckon with pieces that have 'fallen out' or have been left out'
by redactors so as to give a basis for a particular theory.1 The
traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of Joshua do
not in any case suggest that they must be understood as some
sort of continuation of preceding texts. They are much more
readily recognizable as an independent larger unit with its
own particular profile. One must examine the corresponding
texts in the book of Numbers independently of these to see if
they belong together.
But let it be said once again: it must not be the case that all
texts of the Pentateuch have been constituent parts of a larger
unit before the final arrangement of the whole. Reflections
which suggest this for large parts of the Pentateuch should
not be a temptation to look for such larger units at any price
where nothing points in this direction. One must always be
ready to grant that single pieces of material, which have not
belonged to such larger contexts, have only been taken up at
one of the stages of a synthesizing redaction, or at the final
redaction of the Pentateuch.
It is clear, however, that most of the texts of the Pentateuch
were united into 'larger units' before these were brought
together to form the present whole. The study of the patriar-
chal story has shown that it is not only a collection of texts that
belong together thematically, but that this collection has
undergone work of arrangement and interpretation, and that
this work did not take place at one stroke, but shows several
stages and layers. It is similar with other larger units: the

primeval story, the Sinai pericope, and, even though not with
the same clarity, the Moses and exodus narratives of Exodus
1-15.
What stands out above all in this is that clearly defined theo-
logical intentions were at work in the arrangement and inter-
pretation of these larger units. The present study has
expounded this in the case of the patriarchal story; it needs no
further demonstration for the primeval story and the Sinai
pericope; it is, in my opinion, sufficiently apparent for Exodus
1-15, so that one can maintain the same for this larger unit as
well. But this means that the theological intentions of the pre-
liminary stages of the Pentateuch as a whole are most clearly
grasped in these larger units. One can then trace a 'theology of
the primeval story', a 'theology of the patriarchal story', a
'theology of the Sinai pericope', and, I think, a 'theology of the
Moses and exodus narratives'—each of them with several
layers.
And so what is remarkable and characteristic is this,
namely that each of these theological outlines, each with its
own complexity, entirely self-contained, and at first with no
connection with one or several of the others, is set out. It goes
without saying that the attempt to present a 'theology' of the
individual 'sources' of the Pentateuch is incompatible with
this. Rather the concern, methodologically justified and neces-
sary, to discover the theological plans which precede and
underlie the present Pentateuch, must, in my opinion, find its
appropriate expression in the description of a 'theology* of the
individual larger units. Work on the Pentateuch has long
since taken this path, and it would be consistent with this
approach if it were to be freed from the hypothetical realm of
the documentary hypothesis.
4.3 The problem of the synthesizing, final

arrangement of the Pentateuch
Finally, one must look again at the question of the synthesiz-
ing, final arrangement of the Pentateuch. In this regard too,
our reflections and considerations mean a basic shift from the
view hitherto taken. This concerns first the concept of
'redaction' or 'redactor'. The documentary hypothesis
assumes that the individual written sources were joined

together by redactors. Here too, Eissfeldt carried through his
view of the situation consistently and in detail to the end. He
saw the chronological sequence of the constituent parts of the
Pentateuch as follows: L(lay source), JCYahwist), E(Elohist),
B([Bundesbuch] Book of the Covenant), D(Deuteronomy),
H(Holiness Code), P(Priestly document). He assumed further
that one must 'conceive the growth of the Pentateuch as a
regular grafting of each of the later sources on to the older
content'.1 Hence, when one designates each of the Redactors
with an index letter indicating the source that was added, one
has the sequence RJ RE RB RD RH Rp. Fohrer supports in
essence this view of the growth of the Pentateuch to its final
form but without any further precisions: 'In the interim, it is
not possible to describe in detail the redaction history of the
Pentateuch. Not even the question of the sequence in which
the source layers were joined together can be answered with
certainty'.2 Even when one can discern here a loss of confi-
dence in the possibility of explaining the history of the redac-
tion of the Pentateuch, there persists, however, the basic
notion that the individual written sources were joined
together by redactors.
The presuppositions of this assumption have collapsed with
the renunciation of the documentary hypothesis. But this does
not at all mean that all the literary-critical observations made
so far, and which have led to the assumption of redactors at
work, have thereby become untenable. Rather, the earlier
statement must be repeated here yet again, that to contest the
documentary hypothesis is not to question the right and
necessity of the work of literary criticism. There will have to
be further reflection however on the extent of this work and
on the legitimacy of literary-critical judgments in detail.
The consequence of the change in viewpoint of the forma-
tion of the Pentateuch is that literary-critical reflections must
be adapted to other contexts. These reflections must look in
part for their answers within the history of the formation of
the individual larger units. A new area of study is opened here
1 Introduction, pp. 239ff.

because it is no longer a matter of assigning individual texts to

different sources, but of outlining more exactly the process by
which the single narratives came to form the larger units.
Thus, there must be renewed discussion of the sign of this
work of collecting and reworking and of those who were
responsible for it. The notions of 'redaction' and 'redactor* are
too closely bound with the putting together of 'sources' in
pentateuchal study. For this reason Noth introduced other
notions into the study of the book of Joshua, which he wanted
to withdraw expressly from the prevailing realm of the docu-
mentary hypothesis, by speaking of the 'collector' of Joshua 1—
12 and of the 'reworker' of Joshua 13-21 in the pre-
deuteronomistic pre-history of the book.1 But the narratives of
the occupation of the land in Joshua 1-12 are to be judged in a
way very similar to the larger units within the Pentateuch.2
Hence the suggestion that similar terminology be used with
them. However, one must make further distinctions here; and
so more refined distinctions commend themselves, on the one
hand for the independent process of growth of each of the
stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and on the other hand
for the process of gathering them into one larger unit. This
should not result in imposing a fixed terminology, but should
point primarily to the necessity of arriving at a further clarifi-
cation, refinement, and, so far as is possible, standardization of
ideas.
New criteria must also be reclaimed for the process of
putting together the larger units to form the Pentateuch as a
whole. And to this end various reflections from earlier chap-
ters of this work may be taken up. First, it must be
emphasized that the only layer that can be discovered within
the Pentateuch that is comparable to the 'sources', is a
cohesive group of 'priestly' texts. However, it has become
evident that the assumption of a continuous 'priestly'
narrative cannot stand critical examination. Hence, it is better
not to retain the expression 'priestly document' because it is
1 However, Noth uses these terms in the sub-title of A History of Pen-

tateuchal Traditions: 'The historical work of collection and rework-
ing in the Old Testament'.
too heavily impressed with the stamp of a continuous

narrative. In addition, there must be renewed examination of
the question, disputed in current pentateuchal study, whether
different types of priestly texts belong together. It commends
itself to speak of *priestly texts'.
It is evident that the priestly texts are not restricted to one of
the larger units of the Pentateuch. We have seen that the
'theological' priestly texts in patriarchal story find their clear
continuation in Exod. 2.23-25 and 6.2-9. Likewise the retro-
spective linking of these texts with the primeval story is obvi-
ous: the divine address in 9.8-17 has as its central point the
'covenant' of God with Noah and shows many a connection in
content and language with Genesis 17 which speaks of the
'covenant' with Abraham. The first part of the divine address
in Gen. 9.1-7 is introduced as blessing and thus corresponds to
the other theological priestly texts in the patriarchal story,12 as
well as to the terminology where there is talk of fertility and
increase as consequences of the blessing.3 There are also obvi-
ous connections with the creation account in Genesis 1. These
references are sufficient for our purposes to show that in this
layer there is a connection between the primeval story and the
patriarchal story.4
It should immediately be called to mind that these
'theological' priestly texts do not occur throughout the whole
of the Pentateuch. We had discovered that with Exod. 6.2-9
the priestly cross-references to the patriarchs cease.5 From
this point on there is not a text in the Pentateuch which devel-
ops theological statements in a way like that in the primeval
story, the patriarchal story, and Exodus 6. These texts reach
beyond the limits of the larger units, but do not cover the whole
Pentateuch.
The chronological details, which are generally reckoned to
1 Cf. R. Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alien Israel,

1967, pp. 6-7.
3 The refinements necessary here within the priestly layer cannot be
carried out in this study.
4 A corresponding connection with the flood story is less clearly
demonstrable.
the *F texts, manifest likewise some connections between the

different larger units. There is a group of texts in the patriar-
chal story which stand out from the chronological notes by
giving the age of a person at the time of a particular event;
these texts are formulated according to a fixed pattern.12
There is only one sentence that corresponds to this pattern in
the larger units that follow the patriarchal story; it is in Exod.
7.7 in the note on the age of Moses and Aaron 'when they
spoke to Pharaoh'.3 Of the other chronological notes, one
might put Exod. 16.1 and 19.1 in some sort of relationship to
Gen. 16.3, a text which is quite outside the pattern.4 The
remaining chronological remarks in Exod. 12.40; Num. 10.11;
20.1 show no linguistic relationship to the chronological texts
of the patriarchal story.
There is no text at all in the primeval story which corre-
sponds exactly to the pattern of the group mentioned above.
Some, however are close to it: the note on the age of Shem
when he begot Arphacsad (Gen. 11.10), on the age of Noah
when he begot Shem, Ham, and Japhet (5.32), and at the
beginning of the flood (7.6). With the texts of the second main
group, which give details of the entire life-span in connection
with the notification about the death, it has already been
pointed out that the note about the death of Terah in Gen.
11.32 corresponds to the basic pattern in the patriarchal story.
This holds too for the corresponding data in Genesis 5 (w. 2,8,
11, 14,17, 20, 27, 31) and the notification of the death of Noah
in 9.29, whereas in Gen. ll.lOff. data about the death is miss-
ing, except in the case of Terah.
And so, in respect of the chronological notes, there are clear
connections between the patriarchal story and the preceding
1 Ibid.
3 The information about the death of Moses in Deut. 34.7 is formulated
in a unique way, to which there is no parallel in the rest of the Pen-
tateuch.
4 One could see a connection in that the specific time is on each occa-
sion given in relation to another event, namely the beginning of
residence in the land of Canaan, or departure from the land of
Egypt, and that this other event is on each occasion in the infinitive
with a preceding lamed,
and following larger units. The connections with the primeval

story are also rather marked, though there is no complete
agreement. The same picture is evident in the following units
as in the theological' texts. The Moses story shows a further
tie with the patriarchal story, but after it, no more.
These observations make it clear that with the priestly texts
it is a matter of a layer of reworking which put the emphasis
on definite central points. This is expressed in the primeval
story by certain very weighty texts which describe a unique
conception of creation and a covenant struck with Noah. In
the patriarchal story the main emphasis is on the divine
covenant struck with Abraham. The pronouncements about
Jacob form a further central point; they consist partly in
rather short promise addresses; they show a clear connection
with the pronouncements of the creation account, which is not
present in the same way with Abraham.12 Finally, at the
beginning of the Moses story, the link with the patriarchal
story is once again underscored emphatically and the name of
YHWH is introduced. After this, there is no further sign of the
priestly layer in the Pentateuch.3
This means that we are dealing here with a layer of
reworking which extends beyond the limits of the individual
larger units, but does not cover the whole Pentateuch. The
earlier surmise expressed from time to time that *P might be
identical with the end redaction of the Pentateuch, has not
held and so must be abandoned.4
It is different however with the layer of reworking which
bears the deuteronomic stamp, to which we have already
drawn attention.5 It is evident that there is a whole series of
texts dealing with the events of the exodus from Egypt, Sinai,
and the beginning of the occupation of the land which refer

2 The characteristic formula, 'be fruitful and multiply* echoes clearly
in Gen. 28.3; 35.11; 48.4; both verbs appear next to each other in
Gen. 17, but only in the promise about Ishmael in v. 20.
3 A new and careful examination is necessary to see if reasons other
than those given here speak in favour of reckoning other texts to
this priestly layer.
4 Rendtorff, see above under 1.3.
hack to the patriarchal story, and especially to the promise of

the land to the patriarchs, and are stamped with deutero-
nomic language. First, there is Gen. 50.24 where, at the end of
the patriarchal story, an anticipation of the leading out from
Egypt has been inserted which gives the verse the character of
a leading back to the land of the patriarchs—an idea which is
expressed neither in the patriarchal1 nor in the exodus story.
In Exod. 13.5, 11, immediately before the departure from
Egypt, there is reference back to the promise of the land to the
patriarchs. It is the same immediately before the next depar-
ture, from Sinai, when the fulfillment of the promise to the
patriarchs appears in danger: Moses begs YHWH to
'remember' the patriarchs to whom he has sworn that he
would make their posterity numerous and give it the land
(Exod. 32.13), and YHWH orders the departure for the land
which he swore to the patriarchs that he would give to their
descendants (Exod. 33.1-3a). In Numbers 11 there is yet
another critical situation in which Israel's journey into the
promised land appears in danger. Moses prays to YHWH,
reminding him of his oath (v. 12). It is similar in Numbers 13-
14 where YHWH himself recalls his oath as he withdraws,
partially, his decision to annihilate the people (14.23). This
pronouncement of YHWH is taken up again when the occupa-
tion of the land appears in danger for the last time because the
tribes of Reuben and Gad have expressed the wish to settle in
east Jordan (Num. 32.11).
It is clear that this series of texts extends over the whole
Pentateuch and that they occur in every larger unit or com-
plex of traditions from the patriarchal story on: in the patriar-
chal story, the exodus, Sinai, the desert, the occupation of the
land in east Jordan. The connection between the promise of
the land to the patriarchs and the leading out of Egypt is par-
ticularly underscored: in Gen. 50.24 and Exod. 33.12 both are
set side by side in almost identical formulations. Thus, at the
1 Except in the isolated passage, Gen. 15.13-16; cf. Kessler, op. cit.,
p. 340.
2 In Exod. 33.1, to the formula 'the land which I swore to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob', is added: 'to your descendants (seed) will I give
it'. The formulation is very close to that used in Gen. 12.7; 15.18;
24.7.
same time, the whole coherent pentateuchal narrative is pre-

sented: the promise of the land to the patriarchs—the leading
out of Egypt—the leading (back) into the promised land; and
this is pronounced at the departure from Sinai (Exod. 33.1).
There can be no doubt therefore that these formulations are
deliberately meant to span the whole Pentateuch complex
(with the exception of the primeval story). This is significant
because our inquiries hitherto have found no text or no layer
of reworking about which this can be said. The advocates of
the 'source' theory can no longer demonstrate this for the
ancient pentateuchal 'sources', and the ^priestly document'
has shown that it likewise can not establish itself as a coherent
whole. And so this deuteronomically stamped layer of
reworking is the first and, according to our examination so
far, the only one which unambiguously views the Pentateuch
as a whole and will have it understood as one great coherent
complex.
But this certainly does not solve the problem of the final
redaction of the Pentateuch. It is not the purpose of this study
to inquire in detail into the final stage of the history of its for-
mation. But there should be a brief sketch of the consequences
and the questions thus raised.
First, a qualifying statement: the texts advanced show
clearly that the layer of reworking to which they belong views
the Pentateuch as one great complex. But nothing is thereby
said of the part that this layer had in the final arrangement of
the whole Pentateuch. The question remains open: is it a mat-
ter here of a layer of reworking which itself cooperated in
putting the Pentateuch together out of the individual larger
units and other parts, or which can definitively be made
responsible for it; or is it a matter of a predominantly interpre-
tative reworking, which found the Pentateuch already as a
whole and provided it with particular interpretative
emphases? It is for further study to explain if there is a dis-
cernible work of redaction which is demonstrably coherent
with these texts.
There is another question which is relative to the more pre-
cise designation of this layer and its pertinence to texts in other
areas, I have described these texts as 'deuteronomically
stamped' so as to avoid a premature conclusion as to what
their place might be within the concept 'deuteronomic'. I have

already referred to the discussion whether one ought speak
rather of 'early deuteronomic' or 'proto-deuteronomic'.1 But
here too there would be a definite conclusion which it would be
better to avoid at first.
The texts do not contain just current deuteronomic or
deuteronomistic statements. Rather, the characteristic link in
the two central texts of this layer between the statements
about the leading out from Egypt and the oath promising the
land to the patriarchs is entirely unusual. It occurs in
Deuteronomy only in the 'Credo' text (6.23),2 and in the
deuteronomistic history only in Judg. 2.1.
It would be methodologically inadmissible, therefore, to
combine this group of texts with other 'deuteronomistic' texts
in the first four books of the Pentateuch and attribute them to
a 'deuteronomistic' redaction, without examining more
closely and basing more firmly their connection. For example,
the heavily 'deuteronomistically stamped' Genesis 153 con-
tains nothing about YHWH's oath which is so frequent in
Deuteronomy. In Gen. 18.19, to mention just one other exam-
ple, a quite different sort of theme occurs; it belongs to the
broad realm of deuteronomic-deuteronomistic language and
theology; but this does not necessarily mean that this text
belongs, with the group of texts already mentioned, to one
layer of reworking and redaction. This, of course, is by no
means excluded, but requires careful scrutiny. This is neces-
sary because criteria for what is 'deuteronomic', or how
'deuteronomic' is to be discerned in this area, have not yet
been adequately worked out. It would be cause for concern if
premature, inadequately based, all-embracing, new theories
were to replace hypotheses now outgrown.
1 See above under 2.7 (end).

2 In Deut. 6.23 the verb is used instead of; of Gen. 50.24 and
Exod. 33.1. There exists here a fundamental difference between the
'Credo' formulations of Deut. 6.20-24 and Deut. 26.5-9. In Deut. 26,
there is no mention of the promise of the land to the patriarchs, but
the formula found elsewhere, e.g. in Exod. 3.8, a 'land flowing with
milk and honey', is used. Neither is the promise of the land to the
patriarchs mentioned in Josh. 24.11-14 (cf. w. 17-18).
With this reservation, a few further observations and

reflections may be added. Vriezen has drawn attention to the
striking parallelism between the beginning of the exodus story
and the beginning of the story of the judges.1 The texts of Exod.
1.6, 8 and Judg. 2.8, 10 show much in common both in struc-
ture and in formulation: 'Then Joseph/Joshua died... and all
that generation... and there rose up a new king/another gen-
eration..., who I which did not know Joseph/YHWH...' Vriezen
has shown, convincingly I think, that these two texts *belong to
the same literary pattern'.2 He sees in them 'two clear exam-
ples ... of the same phraseology..., which is used in the histori-
cal literature at the transition from one epoch to another*.3
Vriezen reflects further and interestingly 'that the author
(of Exod. 1.6, 8) was aware of something of a gap between the
periods in the history of his people' and that he '(was) con-
scious that after the close of the Joseph story an entirely new
direction in the history of his people was opened... however
convinced he may have been of the continuity of the two peri-
ods and have arrived at his formulation in this conviction'.4
This fits very well into our picture of the history of the forma-
tion of the Pentateuch. Vriezen also reckons with a far-
reaching independence and detachment of the patriarchal
complexes of tradition on the one hand and of the Israelites in
Egypt on the other.
It is of primary importance in our context that the same lit-
erary pattern is used within the Pentateuch in leading up to
and linking two originally independent narrative complexes
as within the 'deuteronomistic history*. It is hardly likely, in
my opinion, that it is a matter of a literary form that would
Ijave had its own life independently of the author or a particu-
lar circle of authors; rather we must assume that the rework-
ers, who used this pattern in Exodus 1 and Judges 2, belonged
to the same circles. And so again we encounter the deutero-
nomic-deuteronomistic circle.
1 'Exodusstudien Exodus 1', VT 17 (1967) 334-53.

2 Op. crt.,p.339.
3 Ibid. Vriezen, under the influence of the source theory, is of the
opinion that here there 'was an older and a later' example available
for this pattern, and refers to 'the dtn. idiom' in Judg. 2.
4 Op. cit.,p.343.
This gives new weight to the fact that towards the end of the
book of Numbers, especially in chs. 32-35, the deuterono-
mistic element appears clearly. In any case, it is clear that the
book of Deuteronomy cannot be sharply separated from the
remaining Tetrateuch'. The announcement of the death of
Moses in Num. 27.12-23 and the account of it in
Deuteronomy 34 show that the link between the two is
intended. The book of Deuteronomy in its turn cannot, in its
present form, be separated from the books that follow, because
they show too many common features. Finally, it is also clear
that the last sections of the book of Numbers are not
comprehensible when detached from this overall complex.
Noth dealt with this problem in detail1 and expressed the view
that 'one... (could) consider here, that this link was made in
the context of the great work of the redaction of the
Pentateuch'.2
Noth, because of his presuppositions, came to reject this
conjecture. His arguments rely in essence on the assumption
that there existed a tightly outlined *F-narrative and that this
work had been made the ground plan of the pentateuchal
redaction. And so in Noth's view, the fact that it is not *P* but
'Dtr' who dominates in the account of Moses' death in
Deuteronomy 34, favours the opinion that it must be a matter
of later redaction here. But this argument is rendered irrele-
vant when one does not reckon with such a tightly outlined
'P'-narrative. This holds likewise for the other argument of
Noth that the later existence of the Pentateuch 'as the basic
sacred writing of the post-exilic community... only becomes
really comprehensible if it already existed within the limits set
by the P-narrative and enjoyed special esteem'.3
This manner of argument would in any case carry little
conviction because of the assumption of an independent P-
narrative. The delimitation and canonization of the Penta-
teuch certainly presents a problem for our present view of the
literary history of its formation. But it can hardly be explained
by the conjecture of a 'special esteem' for a fictitious earlier
1 The Chronicler's History, p. 25.

2 Op. cit., p. 143.
3 Op. cit., p. 145.
written form; it is the understanding of the Pentateuch as

Torah' that must come under consideration. This shows quite
clearly how one-sided it must be to consider the whole Penta-
teuch as narrative. The legal sections are often treated merely
as an interruption of the narrative or as insertions or the like.
It is obvious that this does not do justice to the present picture
of the Pentateuch. Methodological criteria must be developed
whereby the connections between the narrative and the legal
sections can be better understood. The whole question of
'redaction' would, in my opinion, have to be thought through
anew under this aspect.
It is not at all so certain that the Pentateuch' existed first as
an independent entity without Deuteronomy before, in a later
act of redaction, it was joined with Deuteronomy and possibly
with the 'deuteronomistic history'. The problems that arise
from the interrelations between the last chapters of the book of
Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the 'deuteronomistic' tradition
of the occupation of the land, show that the 'deuteronomistic'
element clearly played an important role in this area when
the different parts of the tradition were brought together.
When we take these reflections together with the earlier
considerations on the significance of a deuteronomically
stamped layer of reworking for the overall conception of the
Pentateuch, we see that, all things considered, the share of the
deuteronomic-deuteronomistic circles in the arrangement of
the Pentateuch as a whole appears to have been considerable.
This conclusion gains strength from the fact that so far no
other layer of reworking is discernible which could have had a
comparable significance. At the same time, however, the
methodological demand must be repeated, that careful dis-
tinctions must be made within these circles so as to gain a
clear view of the layers of tradition in this area, and thereby
also into the procedures of pentateuchal redaction.
Finally, there is a further question to put: is it at all justified
to use such completely different methods when dealing with
the Pentateuch on the one hand and the 'deuteronomic his-
tory* on the other, as is generally done today? Now that earlier
attempts to trace the 'sources' of the Pentateuch into the books
of Kings have not prevalied, a quite different way of looking at
the historical books from Joshua to Kings has taken the fore-
ground. Attention has turned to the larger complexes which

were already available to the authors or redactors who estab-
lished the final form of the text. It is a matter then of larger
units which form the intermediary stage between the individ-
ual narratives and the final form of the text, such as we find in
the Pentateuch. We drew attention earlier to Noth's study of
the book of Joshua in which he encountered traditions of the
occupation of the land as an independent larger unit.1 Some-
thing corresponding holds for the Samuel—Saul complex, the
story of the rise of David, of the succession, and so on. The obvi-
ous availability of such larger units in the Pentateuch should,
in my opinion, have given cause for similar methodological
treatment there. I hold that it is very likely that, by turning
away from the traditional manner of treating the Pentateuch,
important insights for a fresh methodological approach can be
gained from what has been learnt when dealing with the his-
torical books.
If no pre-'deuteronomistic' Pentateuch redaction is dis-
cernible, and if the existence of 'older pentateuchal sources' is
not demonstrable, then the questions of the dating of the Pen-
tateuch and its individual constituent parts necessarily place
themselves anew. There can be no question of dating the
'sources' at a later period, as is often attempted today.2 How-
ever, within the framework of such attempts, and however
independent of them, important observations have been made
which require these questions to be thoroughly examined.
In particular, attention has been drawn repeatedly to the
fact that essential themes and names in the Pentateuch tradi-
tion are scarcely, or not at all, mentioned in the pre-
deuteronomistic or pre-exilic period. This observation must
undoubtedly be taken more seriously than it has been hitherto.
In fact, this 'silence' in the pre-exilic literature is a certain sign
that the contents of the pentateuchal tradition cannot have
played the central role at this time that is often attributed to
them today.
What methodological consequences does one draw from
this? First, it must be conceded that we really do not possess
1 See above under 1.4; cf. 4.3.

reliable criteria for dating the pentateuchal literature. Each

dating of the pentateuchal 'sources' relies on purely hypothet-
ical assumptions which in the long run have their continued
existence because of the consensus of scholars.1 Hence, a study
of the Pentateuch which is both critical and aware of method
must be prepared to discuss thoroughly once more the
accepted datings. Further, it must be granted that our tradi-
tio-historical reflections rely for a large part on hypotheses
which on each occasion must undergo critical scrutiny. B.
Diebner has formulated the 'discomfort' briefly and pointedly,
namely 'to pursue tradition-history as the history of the after-
effects of old traditions whose origins one thinks one knows,
thanks to the longstanding conclusions of scholarship. As a
matter of fact, tradition-criticism seems to me to be
'reception-criticism'; it starts from the latest comprehensible
form of a particular tradition, established with probability
within the history of Old Testament literature, and traces it
back carefully to the origins of what, on each occasion, has
been received'.2 One must approve of this basic principle of
methodology; tradition-history has often been carried out in
this way.
Under such criticism of opinions held to date, care must be
taken that the pendulum does not swing too far to the other
side. This holds especially when replacing current dating with
new. There is a tendency among some scholars today to
maintain an exilic or post-exilic date for the great mass of
pentateuchal material. The methodological criteria for such
dating, however, must still be carefully weighed. It is not
enough to replace a common enough early dating by a late
dating. In place of an all-embracing theory which ascribes the
great mass of pentateuchal narrative material to the 'older
sources', and so to a relatively earlier period in the history of
1 A particularly obvious example of this is the dating of the 'Yahwist'

in the period of the kingdom under David and Solomon; there is not
a single proof for this; yet it is accepted by a great number of Old
Testament scholars.
2 ' "Isaak" und "Abraham" in der alttestamentlichen Literatur
ausserhalb Gen. 12—50. Eine Sammlung literaturgeschichtlicher
Beobachtungen nebst uberlieferungsgeschichtlichen Spekulatatio-
nen', DBAT 7 (1974) 38-50 (p. 48).
Israel, it is more a question, I think, of an approach which

makes distinctions; it reckons with a rather long period of
formation of the Pentateuch, and above all with the joining
together of the individual larger units so as to form a single
whole; this would be the final stage, which is to be put rela-
tively late. To describe this in concrete terms: an overall view
of the Pentateuch reveals clearly the deuteronomically
stamped layer of reworking; a rather long process of develop-
ment involving a number of layers must have preceded this;
and in this process the smallest units grew into rather small
collections, these collections into the larger units, and finally
came the end stage as the text now lies before us.
It must be noted again that in the matter of dating, those
texts from which one normally takes one's orientation, pro-
vide only relative and by no means certain clues to a fixed
dating. This is true in many respects for the deuteronomic-
deuteronomistic area. The formation of Deuteronomy itself
cannot be dated with certainty. There are very sound reasons
for setting the basic material of Deuteronomy in the eighth
century BCE.1 One must certainly reckon with the fact that
the authors of such a work were not in their time isolated
individuals, but rather representatives of particular circles.2
This would mean that texts in the 'deuteronomic' style could
occur already from this time on or even earlier, if one takes
account of 'early deuteronomic' texts which are not depend-
ent on Deuteronomy,3 but precede it and witness to 'early
stages of deuteronomic thought and language'.4 This would
shift the dating of the whole by more than two hundred years.
What the notion 'deuteronomistic' means in regard to
chronology, is in turn not clear. Further, to assume depen-
dence on Deuteronomy is to say nothing about the temporal
interval. Finally, it must also be said that the common dating
of the 'priestly' sections, be they narrative or legal, to the exilic
or the post-exilic period, likewise rests on conjecture and the
consensus of scholars, but not on unambiguous criteria.
1 Cf. Fohrer, Introduction, pp. 167ff.
2 Cf. H.W. Wolff, 'Hoseas geistige Heimat', ThLZ 81 (1956) 83-94 =
Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament, 1964, pp. 232-50.
3 Thus N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid, pp. 17-18.
4 Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 124-29.
The question of an absolute chronology for the individual

stages of the formation of the Pentateuch must remain open.
It is not my intention to burden the present work with it
because what concerns me primarily are the processes at
work in the history of the formation of the Pentateuch, and so
some sort of relative chronology. Thus, the period over which
each of the individual processes extended must remain an
open question. I am nevertheless aware that the question
requires an answer. It will be necessary to make a renewed
effort to determine the intentions and interests of the circles
behind the individual phases of the formation of the tradition,
the reworking and the interpretation, the collection and the
arrangement, so far as is possible with our fragmentary
knowledge of Israel's social, cultural, and intellectual-spiritual
history.
Finally, the problem must be taken up again of the 'silence'
of a large area of pre-exilic literature on the themes and
names in the pentateuchal traditions. The fact as such is
indisputable. But the question arises, what is to be concluded
from it? First, that the themes of the Pentateuch were not at
the centre of Israelite belief and thought in the pre-exilic
period; this certainly would have found expression in the lit-
erature of this period, especially in the prophets. Van Seters
has rightly pointed out that in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (and in
the older layers of Deuteronomy as well), YHWH's saving
action toward the 'fathers' refers to the exodus generation and
not to the 'patriarchs' of Genesis;1 the different traditions
therefore were not yet joined together with each other at this
time. However, it is worthy of attention that in another pas-
sage in Ezekiel, Abraham is mentioned as the one who 'took
possession of the land' (Ezek. S3.24).2 It is very important that
this appears as an argument on the lips of those who have
remained back in the land. This shows clearly, I think, that
this was a well-known, popular tradition at that time.
This last observation makes it clear how reserved one must
1 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period', VT 22 (1972) 448-

59.
2 When Van Seters remarks on this text that the idea of promise is
missing (p. 449), then this is no very effective argument.
be in drawing conclusions from 'silence'. The 'silence' of the

pre-exilic literature on the themes of the Pentateuch shows, as
we have said, that they were not, at this time, really central
themes in Israel. However, it seems very questionable
whether one can conclude without more ado that they were
unknown. There must be a more accurate inquiry which
asks, in what areas could these traditions have had their
'setting in life'. But this question can only be answered if it
were expected that they should occur, for instance, in the
prophets, had they been available at the time. We should not
imagine that life in the pre-exilic Israel was uniform and self-
contained. Rather, we must reckon with the reverse, that in
Old Testament literature much has been bound together in
literary form which never existed together in the life of
ancient Israel. So it is certainly possible that individual
traditions were handed down in certain circles and over a long
period of time, but remained unknown in other circles. One
should not only think of the differences between north and
south, which were undoubtedly considerable, but also of the
differences between city (in particular, Jerusalem) and
country, of local and regional, cultic and court traditions and
of the peculiarities of what was passed on in priestly, levitical,
and prophetic circles. Whoever wants to work with the
'argument from silence' must, I think, first demonstrate that
what is found missing in a particular place ought to appear
there if it were known at the time when the text was formed.
This does not at all mean that observations on the
widespread absence of pentateuchal themes in the pre-exilic
literature should be pushed aside. Rather, they link up with
our own observations in so far as they make clear that the
pre-exilic literature nowhere indicates that at this time there
existed in any form the Tentateuch' as a central witness to
Israel's faith. In which form and in which circles the individ-
ual traditions were handed on, how they grew together into
larger units, were reworked and interpreted, all this must be
the object of further thorough and detailed studies. A first
contribution to this may have been achieved here.
It would be following a false trail methodologically, I think, if
'new* or 'late' sources were now to replace the 'old' penta-
teuchal sources, or if one wanted to try to repeat the global
interpretation of the Tahwist' or other 'sources' with another

dating and on the background of other time-conditioned cir-
cumstances. That would be to pour new wine into old skins.
The problem of the process of tradition in the Pentateuch lies
deeper. One must tackle it, as von Rad demanded in one of his
last statements: 'we urgently need a comprehensive new
analysis of the narrative material of the Pentateuch'.1
1 Genesis (German 9th edn; Eng. 2nd edn), p. 440.

INDEXES
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Genesis 11.32 158, 161, 12.10- 12150

1-11 32, 34 193 12.10 51n4
1.1- 12-50 34 12.13 49
2.4a 146 12.1-9 83nl 12.15 150
1 192 12.1-8 49, 50, 52 12.16 150
4.26 151 12.1-3 15, 33, 12.17 170
5.2 193 55, 185 12.19 161
5.3- 30 161n2 12.1 66, 67, 13 50, 70,
5.8 193 75n3, 76, 132, 148
5.11 193 77 13.1-2 51n4
5.14 193 12.2-3 65 13.1 51, 184
5.17 193 12.2 65, 73 13.2 148
5.20 193 12.3 59, 63, 13.3-4 51, 184
5.27 193 68, 77, 13.5 148
5.29 151 78, 83, 13.6 142, 148,
5.31 193 84, 125, 151
5.32 193 130, 134, 13.6b 148
6.5 127 150, 182, 13.7 58, 148
6.17 151 185 13.8 148
7.6 193 12.3a 185n6 13.9 148
8.1 152 12.3b 185n6 13.10-11 148
8.21-22 127 12.4-5 146 13.10 152, 170
8.21 125 12.4 158, 160 13.l1b 148, 151
9.1-17 146 12.4b-5 147 13.12 148, 152
9.1-7 192 12.5 142, 143 13.12a 148
9.11 151 12.7 58, 59, 13.12b 149
9.15 161n2 61, 74, 13.14-17 55, 72,
9.29 193 77, 82, 81, 135,
11.10- 17 146 132n3, 135n2
11.10 193 135, 150, 13.15-16 68, 71
11.11-26 161n2 159 13.15 57, 58,
11.26 33 195n2 60, 70,
11.30 51n4 12.9 51, 150 71, 77
11.31-32 146 12.10-20 46, 51, 13.16 62, 77
11.31 147 54, 122, 13.17 57, 60,
183, 184 71, 73, 77
13.18 71, 145 17 51, 55, 17.25 158,

14 51, 54, 70, 70nl, 158n2,
183 76, 77, 169
14.1 51n4 86, 146, 18 53, 54,
14.11 142 156, 164- 62, 78,
14.12 142 67, 169, 181
14.16 142 183, 192 18.1-19,
14.21 142, 147 17.1 51n4, 67, 28 151
15 52, 86, 86, 159, 18.1-
183, 197 164, 167, 16aa 49, 50
15.1-6 52, 53, 169 18.1 51n4,
55, 80 17.1a 159 159, 174
15.1 51n4, 67 17.2 63, 68, 18.10 62
15.2-4 80 70, 164, 18.14 62, 170
15.3 62 165 18.16 50
15.4 62 17.4 63, 165 18.17-33 50
15.5 62, 68, 77 17.4-5 80 18.18 59, 63,
15.7-21 52, 53, 17.5-6 70 65, 77, 80
77, 81 17.5 63, 166 18.19 128, 197
15.7 57, 58, 17.6-7 164 18.20-23 128
60, 67, 17.6 63, 81, 18.22 50
74, 81, 82 165 18.22b-
15.9 54 17.7-8 168 33 127, 130,
15.13-16 55, 85, 17.7 70, 86, 131,
142, 165, 168 131n2,
195nl 17.8 57, 59, 174
15.14 142 70, 77, 18.25 129
15.18 58, 59, 82, 155, 18.32 129
61, 68, 164, 165 19 54
74, 77, 17.12 166 19.1-28 49, 509
82, 86, 17.16 62, 63, 19.13 152, 170
135, 65, 81, 19.27-28 50
195n2 81nl, 82, 19.29 151, 152,
16 51, 53, 164, 165 170
54, 62, 17.19 62, 75n5 19.30-38 49, 50, 54
151 17.19b 165 20-22 50, 183
16.1 54n4, 170 17.20 63, 65, 20 50, 51, 55
16.la 149 77, 80, 20.1-18 46
16.3 149, 160, 82, 164, 20.1 51, 51n4
161, 193 165, 20.7 130,
16.9 151 149n2 130n 2
16.10 62, 68, 17.21 165 20.12 161
77, 80 17.22 54n3 20.17 130
16.11-12 62 17.23-27 55 20.18 150, 170
16.15-16 149 17.23-26 166 21.1-7 50
16.15 151 17.24 158-60, 21.1-5 152
16.16 158, 160 169 21.la 153
21.2b 153, 170
21.4 153, 166 23.1 51n4, 78, 78nl,

21.5f. 158 154, 158, 82, 87,
21.5 160 161 95, 96
21.8ff. 150 23.2 145 26.3b 72
21.8-21 50 23.17-18 154 26.4 58, 59,
21.8 51, 51n4 23.17 145, 154 61, 62,
21.12 54, 52, 23.19 145 65, 72,
68, 77, 79 24 52, 54, 77, 78,
21.13 63, 68, 54nl, 80, 83,
77, 80 55nl, 84, 134,
21.18 63, 68, 77nl, 82, 182
77, 80 122, 183 26.4a 72
21.22-34 51, 54 24.1 51n4 26.4ad 72
21.22-32 46, 47 24.4 75n3 26.4b-5 72
21.22-23 50, 51 24.7 58, 59, 26.5 78
21.22 51n4 61, 68, 26.6-11 45
21.25 47 74, 195n2 26.7-11 46
22 51n3, 54, 24.10 147 26.12-33 45
57, 76, 24.61 147 26.12-14 46
83, 87 24.67 161 26.12 75n4
22.1 51n4 25.7-10 153 26.15 47, 48
22.2 54, 66 25.7 162, 26.16-17 47
22.3 147 162n2 26.18 47, 48
22.3b 96 25.9 145 26.19-20 48
22.4a 96 25.12-17 140 26.21 48
22.15-18 55, 77, 25.17 162, 26.22 48
80, 182 163n2 26.24 46,56n l,
22.16-18 78 25.19-34 44 62, 65-
22.16-17 87, 98, 25.19 140n 2 67, 73,
133n3 25.20 143, 144, 75, 78n2,
22.16 59, 78, 159, 160, 82, 89,
87, 95, 161 159, 182
96, 96nl, 25.23 56nl 26.25b 48
98n2 25.25-26 151 26.26-31 46
22.17-18 65 25.26 158, 159 26.28 47
22.17 62, 63, 26 45, 46, 26.29 46
65, 78nl, 160 26.32-33 48
80, 82, 96 26.2-5 56nl, 72, 26.34-35 164nl
22.18 59, 77, 75, 77, 26.34 159, 160,
78, 83, 167, 182 163n2
84, 134, 26.2-4 46 27.1-
182 26.2-3 83 28.9 44
23 51, 54, 26.2-3a 72 27.46-
77nl, 26.2 66, 159 28.5 141, 164,
146, 154- 26.3-5 78 166, 169
56, 162, 26.3 57, 59, 28 71, 72,
183 65, 66, 174
72, 75nl, 28.1-4 64, 164
28.1 164 31.5 66, 68, 35.14 145

28.3-4 69 73, 83, 89 35.15 145
28.2 143 31.10-11 73 35. 22b-
28.3 63, 65, 31.11-13 56nl 36 142, 145
81n1, 82, 31.13 66-68, 75 35.27-29 145
164, 31.18abp 141 35.27 145
194n2 31.23 147 35.28 161, 162
28.4 57, 59, 31.24 56nl 36.7 155
65, 82, 31.29 89 37-50 43
155, 164, 31.42 66, 68, 37 143
165 73, 83, 89 37.1-21 38
28.5 143 32-36 44 37.1 155
28.6-9 164nl 32 174 37.2 139, 159
28.6 143 32.10-11 83 37. 3ff. 139
28.7 143 32.10 66, 68, 89 37.3 139
28.9 161 32.12 65 n 2 38 151
28.10-22 15, 44, 32.13 62, 66 38.14 161
184 32.23-33 41.46 158,160
28.13-15 56, 56nl, (22-32) 44 41.46a 138,
72, 73, 32.23 138nl,
81, 135, (22) 147 139
135n2 32.27-30 56nl 42.5 144
28.13-14 68 33.18a 143 42.7 144
28.13 57, 58, 34.2 161 42.13 144
60, 61, 34.4 161 46.2-4 56nl, 75,
67, 70, 34.8 161 135
71, 76, 89 34.23 142 46.3 63, 67,
28.13b 73 35.1 56nl 73, 76,
28.14 59, 62, 35.3 66, 68 80, 82, 89
65, 77, 35.6a 144 46.4 66
78, 80, 35.9-13 145, 164, 46.6 142
83, 84, 166, 169 46.12 144
134 35.9-12 56nl, 65, 46.15 142
28.15 66, 71, 70n2, 76, 47.9 158, 161
73, 75, 81, 166 47.26 162
83, 135, 35.9 82, 59, 47.28 158
135n4 164, 165, 47.28a 161, 162
28.18 145 167 47. 28b 161, 162
28.19 145 35.10 166 48.3-4 56nl, 64,
28.20 66, 68, 83 35.11-12 69, 164, 69, 164,
30.3-4 161 165 167, 169
30.9 161 35.11 63, 67, 48.3 144, 164
31.2 75 69, 81, 48.4 58, 59,
31.3 56nl, 66, 164, 61, 63,
68, 75, 194n2 81nl, 82,
75n3, 83, 35.12 57, 58, 164, 165,
135 61, 75n5, 194n2
82, 165 48.5-6 164n2
48.7 142, 144 2.23-25 86, 90, 13.11 87, 195

48.15-16 64 168, 186, 13.13 97
48.16 63 192 13.15 98
48.21 66, 68 2.24 86, 168 13.19 97
49.49-32 162 2.25 90 14 36
49. 30f. 162 3ff. 88 14.31 80, 186
49.30-31 145 3–4 89, 112 15.2 89n3
49.30 145 3.1- 16-18 38
49. 33b 162 4.17 112 16.1 193
50.5 144 3 85 16.3 92
50.11 158 3.6 88 16.6 92, 93nl
50.12-14 162 3.8 85, 87nl, 16.32 93
50.13 144, 145 89, 92, 17.3 92
50.20 158n3, 97, 135, 18 93nl
161, 162 197n2 184 89n3
50.24 66, 85, 3.15 88 18.8 93n2
87, 95- 3.16 88, 95nl 19-Num
97, 99, 4.1 90 10 38
99nl, 4.5 88, 90 19-24 37, 111
195, 4.8 90 19.4 91
197n2 4.9 90 24.3-8 112
50.25 97 4.31 90, 85nl, 32-34 112
50.26 158, 186 32 91
158n3, 6 192 32.1 91
162 6.2-9 86, 168, 32.3 92
192 32.4 91
Exodus 6.2-8 156, 157 32.7 91, 913n5
1-15 35, 36, 6.2 157 32.8 91
36n7, 37, 6.4 86 32.10(9) 89nl, 98
37nl, 189 6.7 86 32.11-14 98
1.1- 6.8 86 32.11 91
15.21 35 7.7 160nl, 32.12 91
1-14 36, 90, 193 32.13 87, 91,
91, 186 8.6 130 98, 152,
1-4 36, 90, 91 8.18 130 195
Iff. 90n5 9.8-17 192 32.23 91
1 198 9.14 130 33 112
1.6 161n3, 9.29 130 33.1-3 91, 98
198 11.7 130 33.1-3a 97, 99,
1.7 84, 84nl, 12.27b 90, 186 195
89 12.32 185n6 33.1 87, 195,
1.8 198 12.40 193 195n2,
1.10 99nl 12.41 157 196,
2 111 12.51 97 197n2
2.1-10 111 13 87, 97 37 111
2.11-22 111 13.3-10 97 46.3 89
2.21 151 13.5 87, 97,
195
Leviticus 24.9 185n6 1 Samuel

22.11 142 26.4 94 1.16-
27.12-23 199 2.5 48
Numbers 32-35 199 25.1 161n3
10.11 913 32 113
11.1- 32.8 94 Isaiah
20.13 38 n 3 32.11 94, 99, 49.18 86nl
11-20 38 195 53.3 131n2
11.5 92 32.14 94 53.5 130
11.11-15 98 33.1 94 53.10 130,
11.12 195 35.3 142 131n2
11.18 92
11.20 92 Deuteronomy Jeremiah
13-14 98, 195 6.20-24 197n2 22.5 96nl
14.2-4 92 6.23 197, 22.24 96nl
14.13 93nl 197n2
14.19 93nl 9.4-6 130 Ezekiel
14.22-24 98 9.27 152 14 130
14.22 93nl 25.5-9 197n2 14.12-20 131
14.23 98, 99, 34 115, 137, 14.14 131
195 199 14.16 131
14.28 96nl 34.7 193n3 14.18 131
16.13 92 14.20 131
16.32b 142 Joshua 18 130
20.1 193 1-12 191 33.24 204
20.4-5 92 13-21 191
20.14-21 38n3 24.11-14 197n2 Hosea
20.14- 24.17-18 197n2 2.2 99nl
36.13 38n3
20.15 93 Judges Amos
20.16a 93 2 198, 4.11 152
21.5 92 198n3
22-24 114 2.1 197
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Bentzen, A. 18n3, 117n6 Holzinger, H. 106, 117, 118, 139,

Beyerlin, W. 39n3 144, 145nl, 147-53, 155
Cassuto, U. 107nl Jepsen, A. 118n7

Gazelles, H. 107, 115n2, 124, 138n6
Coppens, F.J. 116n4 Kaiser, O. 60n2, 102, 103n4, 105,
107, 113, 115nl, 121, 121n4, 125,
Delitzsch, F. 46nl 128, 129, 174, 203n4
Diebner, B. 202 Kaufmann, Y. 107nl
Diebner, B.-H. Schult.l81n2 Kessler, R. 46, 46n4, 50, 50n3,
Dillmann, A. 151, 154 51nnl,3, 52nl, 75n2, 195nl
Driver, S.R. 118 Kilian, R. 121
Knobel, A.W. 154
Eissfeldt, O. 17n3, 18n3, 31n3, 103, Koch, K. llnnl,2, 120
117, 118, 135nn2,4, 141nnl,7,
143n5, 144, 190 Lohfink, N. 95n2, 99n2, 203n3
Elliger, K 138, 141, 149, 157
Ellis, P.F. 116, 124 Macholz, G.C. 70nl, 86nl, 154n5,
Engnell, I. 104, 104n3,107nl 155n2
Mowinckel, S. 36n7, 37
Fohrer, G. 102, 103n4, 105, 111,
112, 118n2, 120-22, 125, 128, Noth, M. 11, 12n3, 14, 14n5, 16,
135nn2,4, 138nl, 141nl, 143n5, 16n2, 17, 17n2, 18, 19, 19nl, 20,
154, 155, 163nl, 173nl, 174, 179, 20n3, 21, 22, 22nl, 24, 28-30,
181nl, 190, 203nl 30nl, 36, 38n3, 39, 40, 45n3, 46,
Fritz, V. 38n3, 39n4, 121 51n7, 105, 107, 110n6,112,
112n4, 113-15, 115nl, 119-21,
Gesenius, W.-E. Kautzsch 158nl 121n8, 122, 127, 128, 128n8, 129,
Gressmann, H. 13, 18, 18nn2, 22, 132n3, 135nn2,4, 136, 137,
24, 27, 35, 38, 39nl 138nl, 144, 147, 150, 151n4, 153,
Gross, W. 91n3, 139n6 174, 191, 199, 201
Gunkel, H. 11, 13, 15, 17, 17n3,
18nnl,3, 21, 22, 24, 25n2, 27, 33, Pedersen, J. 14, 14n3, 35, 36, 186
43, 44, 44n2, 45, 46n2, 47, 48n2, Perlitt, L. 38n2, 52n2, 112n3, 187nl
49, 50,50nnl,2, 119-21, 121n8, Ploger, J.G. 60, 99
122, 124, 139, 139nl, 140, 142, Plöger, O. 23n2
143, 143n5, 144, 145, 147-49, 151, Preuss, H.D. 66nl
151nl, 153, 154, 161nl Procksch, O. 142, 143n3, 154,
163nl
Henry, M.-L. 116
Hermann, S. 90n5, 186n2 Rad, G. von 12, 12n2, 13, 13nl, 14,
14nn2,4,6, 15, 15n3, 16, 19, 20,
22, 25, 26, 26n7, 27-29, 32-34, 36, Steuernagel, C. 103, 114, 118,
37, 44, 45, 46n3, 47, 51n7, 90, 118n2
91nl, 103n3, 109, 114, 116, Stolz, F. 108, 118n6
121n6, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130,
131, 131n2, 132, 132n3, 154, 155, Vetter, D. 66nl
173, 174,1 77, 181nl, 183n3,184 Vriezen, T.C. 198, 198n3
184n2, 186n2, 206
Redfern, D.B. 109n2, 110n2 Wagner, N.E. 107
Rendtorff, R. 16nl, 23n2, 25nl, Weimar, P. 138, 140, 142, 142n2,
48nl, 61n2, 126n5, 182nl, 194n5 146nl, 163
Ringgren, H. 16nl Weiser, A. 38nl
Rost, L. 132n2 Wellhausen, J. 11, 47, 103, 106,
Rupprecht, K. 99nl 111, 131n2, 143n4, 144nl, 149n4,
150, 157, 172
Schmid, H.H. 181n2 Westermann, C. 11, 12nl, 21n7,
Schmidt, W.H. 103, 106, 110, 111, 33, 34, 45, 47nl, 53, 53nl, 56, 57,
112, 114, 123, 123n6, 179nl 60, 61n2, 64, 64nl, 65, 65n3,
SeUin, E-G. Fohrer 31n3, 85n2, 73nl, 85nl, 133, 134, 175n2,
102n3 183nl, 185nl,2
Seters, J. van 181n2, 204n2 Whybray, R.N. 110n2
Smend, R. 23n2 Wolff, H.W. 103n3, 114-116, 123-
Speiser, E.A. 138n6, 154 125,126n4,127,130,130n2,132,
Steck, O,.H. 33n3, 109n2, 132n2, 133, 133n3, 172nl, 185n6, 203n2
185n2
Zimmerli, W. 132n2, 168n6

The Problem of The Process of Transmission in The Pentateuch PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Problem of The Process of Transmission in The Pentateuch PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

© 1977 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin

This translation copyright © 1990 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by JSOT Press

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Index of Biblical References 207

and Erhard Blum who co-operated in the preparation of the

SchriesheinVHeidelberg, July 1975 Rolf Rendtorff

In Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs

Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, and co-director of

United Faculty of Theology John J. Scullion S.J.

THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE

In the present state of pentateuchal research, two methods of

1 K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. The Form Critical

criticized in Noth's method: 'both methods are merely added

1.1 Gerhard von Rod's new approach

1 C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, (1966-1974) Eng. 1984, p. 573.

point of departure 'from which one got away as quickly as

1 Von Rad, op. cit., pp. 1-3.

branch of the study of the historical process of tradition.1

1 With Noth, op. cit., p. 1, I understand Uberlieferungsgeschichte as

Gunkel, recognized different groups of stories of very different

opment of each of them, emerges. This distinction of larger

1.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth

1 His understanding of Ubearlieferungsgeschichte (the process of the

of cases at hand to him in which, at least in several instances,

1 Op. cit., pp. 61-62.

contrast, the union of several originally independent units

israelitische Literatur, 1925.

teuch' as a long process, leading from the formation in oral

1 Noth, cf. op. cit., p. 1, n. 5.

stands, one would have expected a treatment of the smallest

1 Cf. the corresponding headings and sub-divisions of the chapter on

development. On the contrary, in the case of the basic theme,

1 Op. cit., pp. 49-50.

research. However, the limits of Noth's methodological

literary growth of the tradition, presupposes the existence of

1 Op. cit.,par. 2-5.

division into sources. There will be many cases in which a cor-

1.3. The documentary hypothesis maintained

out difficulty.1 The first thing to be said to this is that frequently

1 So too Rendtorff, EvTh 27 (1967) 148ff.

most impressive way the great achievement of the Yahwist as

1 'The Form-Critical Problem', p. 59.

writer'.1 But the possibility that another than the Yahwist

1 Op. cit., pp. 50-51.

primarily as a theologian who gives shape to large passages.

cretely and clearly to this fact'.1

1 Op. cit., p. 41.

the Yahwist to the shaping of the Pentateuch, Noth has pulled

1.4. The question of the 'larger units'

1 For more detail, see below, section 3, Criticism of Pentateuchal Crit-

there has been a lack of studies of the question of how these

1 See above, 1.2.

larger units and the theolological intentions at work in the

1 'The Form-critical Problem', p. 65.

present composition. Gunkel speaks of a 'thread as the last

unit; it will be dealt with in detail in the second chapter. Let it

1 For further detail, see below under 2.5.

whole narrative complex as a cult legend of the feast of the

1 Op. cit., p. 167.