WRW Mattfeld

Scholars associating themselves with Julius Wellhausen’s JEDP paradigm (Jahwist, Elohist, Deuternomist, and Priestly authors) think that the narratives are a series of accretions by four different authors living in different time periods (ca. 960- 450 BCE). The past 20 years, however, has seen a number of prominent scholars calling into question the assumptions of the JEDP paradigm (Rendtorff, Van Seters, Whybray and others). They challenge the notion that layerings attributed to a given author can be ferreted out of the compositions. Still, old paradigms -especially one that has been around for 100 years- die a hard death. There are many scholars weaned on the JEDP (and apparently unaware of archaeological findings challenging this paradigm) still employing its assumptions in their scholarly articles and texts.
Whybray noted that several scholars were of the opinion from their research into the origins of the Pentateuch, that it was a composition by one author of the sixth century BCE in the Exile-
"Single Authorship or Growth by Accretion ? A number of recent scholars (Wagner, Winnett, Rendtorff, Schmid, Mayes), though differing from one another in important respects, have reached the common conclusion that until the period of the Exile at the earliest there was no 'Pentateuch' : in other words, whatever the earliest stages through which the materials now contained in THE PENTATEUCH may have passed, the first comprehensive work, covering the whole period from the beginning to Moses, WAS NOT COMPOSED EARLIER THAN THE SIXTH CENTURY BC." (p.221. "A Single Author for the Pentateuch ?" R. Norman Whybray. The Making of the Pentateuch, A Methodological Study. [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 53] Sheffield, England. Sheffield Academic Press. 1987, reprint 1999. ISBN 1-85075-063-7 Pbk [Late Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Studies, University of Hull, England])
"Van Seters, Schmid, Rendtorff and others have given substantial reasons for believing that the earliest 'Pentateuch'- whether it be attributed to a 'late J' or to a Deuteronomist- is a late composition...they all agree that there are very strong reasons for associating the composition of the Pentateuch with the circumstances of the Jewish people in the period of the Exile. It was then, more than at any other time, that the Jews needed to be able to look back at their origins and past history, to learn its lessons, and to understand and grasp their identity as a people, and the principles for which they stood." (pp.229-230, Whybray)
"The post-exilic -or even exilic- date of P is now far from secure...there is a growing recognition that the late date which used to command a virtual consensus of opinion can no longer be taken for granted. Moreover it it not only the date, but also the scope and content, of P which are now being questioned. Even its unity, and hence its very existence- whether as a 'document' or as a comprehensive and consistent redaction of the Pentateuch- have also now become matters for doubt." (pp.231-232, Whybray)
My own research supports the notion held by Whybray that the possibility exists that the Pentateuch and Primary History is "free of any redactions" and that it is a composition in the Exile of one author-
"There appears to be no reason why (allowing for the possibility of a few additions) the first edition of THE PENTATEUCH as a comprehensive work should not also have been the final edition, a work COMPOSED BY A SINGLE HISTORIAN." (p.232, Whybray)
"In all Pentateuchal study up to the present time it has been assumed that it is possible to detect the activity of successive redactors or editors. Yet the variety of conclusions which have been reached by scholars from the time of Wellhausen onwards, of which the results by such scholars as Van Seters are but the latest examples, arouses the suspicion that the methods employed are extremely subjective. The analogy with Herodotus suggests that insufficient allowance has been made for deliberate variations of style and compositional method on the part of a single author." (pp.232-233, Whybray)
"It is agreed by all critical scholars that the Pentateuch in its final form cannot have been completed before the sixth century BC. Can it be shown that any of the sources used by the author is significantly earlier than that time ?" (p.235, Whybray)
"It is well established that a large proportion of the narratives in the Pentateuch are fiction...In view of these varied examples of fictional writing in the Old Testament, not the least in the Pentateuch itself, the reluctance of scholars to admit the possibility that some of the other Pentateuchal narratives about Abraham, Jacob Moses and other figures may also be late fiction is surprising." (pp.240-241, Whybray)
"The criteria by which the original contributions of the Pentateuchal historian might be distinguished from his sources are difficult, if not impossible, to formulate...Attempts, for example, to find links with various periods in the second millennium BC when Moses and the patriarchs might have lived have proved fruitless...Parts of Genesis 1-11, too, may be fairly closely based on sources available to the historian, but it is impossible to determine how far he has reworked them. But with regard to the patriarchal stories and the stories of Moses' leadership of the people in the wilderness there appears to be no way in which the extent of the historian's own contribution can be measured.
The Pentateuch, then, it may be suggested, is an outstanding but characteristic example of the work of an ancient historian: a history of the origins of the people of Israel, prefaced by an account of the origins of the world...He had at his disposal a mass of material, most of which may have been of quite recent origin and had not necessarily formed part of any ancient Israelite tradition. Following the canons of the historiography of his time, he radically reworked this material, probably with substantial additions of his own invention, making no attempt to produce a smooth narrative free from inconsistencies, contradictions and unevennesses. Judged by the standards of ancient historiography, his work stands out as a literary masterpiece." (p.241-2, Whybray)


Recently, however, archaeologists have determined that the narratives were actually written in the Late Iron II period, the latter half of the 7th or early 6th centuries, ca. 640-560 BCE. The clues are the mention of towns, villages and hamlets in the texts -some of which- did not come into existence until this era. Obviously Moses could not know of non-existent places if writing all this in the 15th century BCE.
Israel Finklestein, an Israeli archaeologist and Neil Asher Silberman, a Bible scholar, have recently co-authored a book documenting the findings of archaeology and the light it casts upon establishing just when the Primary History (Genesis- 2 Kings) was composed.

Finklestein and Silberman (“emphasis,” e.g., CAPITAL LETTERS, in all quotations or citations throughout this work are mine) have noted that some sites appearing in the Book of Joshua did not come into being until the final decades of the 7th century BCE, suggesting that the Primary History (Genesis-2 Kings) is no earlier-
"This basic picture of the gradual accumulation of legends and stories- and
their eventual incorporation into a single coherent saga with a definite
theological outlook- was a product of that astonishingly creative period of
literary production in the kingdom of Judah in the 7th century BCE. Perhaps
most telling of all the clues that the book of Joshua was written at this
time is the list of towns in the territory of the tribe of Judah, given in
detail, in Joshua 15:21-62. The list precisely corresponds to the borders of
the kingdom of Judah during the reign of Josiah. Moreover, the placenames
mentioned in the list closely correspond to the 7th century BCE settlement
pattern in the same region. And some of the sites were occupied ONLY IN THE
FINAL DECADES OF THE 7TH CENTURY BCE."
(p.92. "The Conquest of Canaan." Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher
Silberman. The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York. The Free Press. 2001. ISBN
0-684-86912-8)

In concluding their research on the Exodus from an archaeological perspective, Finkelstein and Silberman suggest the Exodus narratives are of the late 7th or early 6th centuries BCE-
"All these indications suggest that THE EXODUS NARRATIVE REACHED ITS FINAL FORM during the time of the 26th Dynasty, IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE SEVENTH AND FIRST HALF OF THE SIXTH CENTURY BCE." (p.68, "Did the Exodus Happen ?" Finkelstein & Silberman)
Other clues from archaeology have caused many scholars to realize the composition is quite late, no earlier than towards THE END OF LATE IRON II TIMES, as noted by MacDonald.
Burton MacDonald, a professional scholar and archaeologist makes the following observations from his many years of experience in surveys of sites in Trans-Jordan, ancient Edom, Moab and Ammon (emphasis is mine)-
"My experience in the field of Near Eastern archaeology has led me to the general conclusion that the biblical stories about Transjordanian places and events best fit into the Iron II period and later. This conclusion comes from a general knowledge of the results of current archaeological work throughout Jordan and specifically from my archaeological survey work south of Wadi al-Hasa, in the Southern Ghors and Northeast `Arabah, and in the Tafila-Busayra region (beginning 1999). The findings of the above-listed surveys indicate there are few, if any, Late Bronze Age materials and a paucity of Iron I Age materials in the areas being surveyed. On the other hand, the Iron II Age is well represented in all of these areas. I WAS THUS FORCED TO QUESTION THE TRADITIONALLY HELD OPINION THAT THE MOSES-LED GROUP, ON ITS WAY FROM EGYPT TO THE LAND OF CANAAN, PASSED THROUGH/AROUND EDOM (AND MOAB) DURING THE LATE BRONZE-IRON I PERIODS. On the basis of recent archaeological work, I concluded that a Moses-led group would have encountered little, if any, opposition if it had passed through the territories in question during the periods traditionally associated with this event. However, recent archaeological evidence indicates that opposition to such a passage would be understandable during the Iron II period. Thus, the narratives relative to the Exodus best fit the settlement history of the area during the Iron II rather than the previous two archaeological periods. Similarly, the narrative of Israel's defeat of Sihon and the capture of his capital city of Heshbon would fit better the archaeological history of this site during the Iron II rather than the Late Bronze-Iron I period. This does not mean that the present writer denies that there are older traditions behind the biblical narratives.
However, THE TEXTS IN QUESTION WERE MOST PROBABLY WRITTEN IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS THAT PREVAILED IN THE IRON II PERIOD AND PROBABLY TOWARDS THE END OF THAT PERIOD. Thus, the assumption here is that although the biblical writer may have used material that predates his time, HE SET THAT MATERIAL INTO A CONTEXT, NAMELY, THE IRON II AND LATER PERIODS, THAT WOULD BE MEANINGFUL TO HIS READERS." (pp.4-5, "Introduction." Burton MacDonald. "East of the Jordan" Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scripture. Boston. American Schools of Oriental Research. 2000. ISBN 0-89757-031-6)
MacDonald, speaking of Kadesh-Barnea being portrayed as a town in Edom's border (Nu 20:16), it being identified with either Ain el Qudeirat or Ain Qadeis in the Negev-
"The text probably reflects the situation AT THE END OF THE SEVENTH OR BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH CENTURY when Edom moved, at a time when Judah was weak, into the eastern Negeb. This would have led to hostility, or perhaps increased hostility, between Judah and Edom at the end of the monarchial period (Briend 1987: 42).Thus the text describes a particular geographical and cultural situation, rather than an historical condition at the end of the Late Bronze or beginning of the Iron Age." (p.68, "Exodus Itineraries." Burton MacDonald)

In speaking of Mt. Hor's location, MacDonald again stresses that the text is probably of the 7th or 6th century BCE-
"The difficulty in accepting a mountain in the neighborhood of Petra as the location of Mount Hor is that Petra is not on the 'edge/border' of Edom but in Edom. Petra and vicinity would have been at the western edge of Edomite territory only in the city's formative years. THE TEXT, HOWEVER, APPEARS TO BE LATE AND DATED TO A TIME, POSSIBLY THE SEVENTH OR SIXTH CENTURY, when the Edomites had expanded westward into the central Negeb." (p.70, "Exodus Itineraries." Burton MacDonald)
In his conclusions on the Exodus Itineraries, MacDonald notes that most of the sites that can be identified, appear in Late Iron II, suggesting the narratives are very late-
"On the basis of textual and literary study of these texts plus archaeological evidence from biblical sites identified with confidence, we may conclude that THE PASSAGES IN QUESTION PROBABLY DATE TO THE END OF THE IRON II PERIOD. ONLY THEN WERE MOST OF THE IDENTIFIED SITES OCCUPIED; there is little or no evidence of their occupation during either the Iron I or early Iron II Age." (p.98, "Exodus Itineraries." Burton MacDonald)

My research suggests that contrary to the traditional understanding of Moses having written the Pentateuch, internal clues suggest it is a creation of ca. 562-560 BCE on the basis of 2 Kings 25:27, which mentions the Babylonian king Evil Merodach, who reigned during the aforementioned years, allowing that endings in a composition date the work, the Primary History being a National History, from the creation of the world to the Exile.. I have concluded that there is no JEDP, the Primary History being written at one go by one anonymous author, who certainly incorporated earlier sources, in the Exile.

Baidarka

WRW Mattfeld:

“I have concluded that there is no JEDP, the Primary History being written at one go by one anonymous author, who certainly incorporated earlier sources, in the Exile.”

Could those earlier sources be JEDP and could we call that anonymous author a redactor?
I tend to agree with most of your points, but how do you explain the Biblical doublets without multiple documents?
How do you explain the apparent stylistic differences within the texts?
Are you saying that all the careful work that has been done to separate and disentangle the various texts has been a totally delusional exercise?
How do you explain the 2 contradictory creation narratives?
How do you explain the use of 2 different names for God?
Some Biblical passages are violently jingoistic. While in other passages we are told to be good to foreigners. Unless this author is schizophrenic I think that we are dealing with multiple authors.
I find it hard to believe that the writer who gave us the mind numbing lists of begats and measurements for the building of shrines also wrote the sublime poetry and the moving imaginative narratives.
I’m not sure what you mean by a single author. I also don’t think that you have provided us with evidence of a single author.
I do not have any religious or emotional reasons to embrace either side of this issue and I am simply taking what I think is a reasonable position.
I almost think that we may not disagree at all, that we are just using different definitions for some of the key words.

Celsus

Baidarka,

I have asked almost exactly the same questions in the thread here:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000732" target="_blank">Dating Old Testament Books</a>

Maybe he's answered the questions in a round about way, and I haven't noticed.

Joel

Baidarka

Joejoejoe:
I too am perplexed. We might be missing some fine points in WRW’s logic but I don’t think that he has made a clear case. I would have read your points and wouldn’t have been so redundant if WRW hadn’t started a new thread on the same subject.


WRW Mattfeld :
Please refrain from starting a new thread if you are continuing with the same subject as it causes some of us to miss part of the conversation.