Roller

I have just recently found out about "traditional criticism" as an alternative to "documentary hypothesis." Supporters of this approach claim that documentary hypothesis is outdated and filled with problems (a "theory in crisis," reminiscent of evolution...) Well, I do not know about everyone else, but "Who Wrote the Bible" looks pretty convincing.

Anyways, what is your take on this "traditional criticism" and where would be a good place to start looking into this?

Celsus

Sometimes called "traditio-historical criticism" or "history of traditions", it was espoused by Hermann Gunkel, Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad. I'm not familiar with the approach, but as I understand it, it treats blocks of the Bible as various "traditions" in which to study its evolution and completion. The easiest division is Genesis 1-11 and 12-50. Within those, we might find different traditions involving the patriarchs, etc. It thus dispenses with J and E, while maintaining only P (Deuteronomy and the DtrH are treated separately). We might also organise the latter books into divisions like the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the covenants of the patriarchs, the wilderness, and Sinai.

One immediate advantage is to recognise how different episodes seem to show no knowledge of each other (surely in the wilderness, more mention must be made of Sinai?). Gunkel also believed that each tradition was connected with a specific cult locality. I haven't read any of the original works, though Noth's A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (1972) is usually cited. Try McKenzie and Graham's introduction in the reading list before you go out and buy Noth though.

Joel

Roller

Thanks Celsus!