Of Pillars and Foundations: Seven Thesis Statements Concerning the Hermeneutics of the Pentateuch
Keywords:
Hermeneutics, Pentateuch, Graf-Wellhausen, Old Testament, Historical-Critical methodAbstract
The study of the composition of the Pentateuch has been at the center of critical scholarship since the nineteenth century. While there is general agreement that the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, as originally presented, is untenable, most of current Pentateuchal research has worked within the framework of the existence of divergent sources that underwent a number of editorial changes. Considering the basic physical law of input determining output, this study challenges the basic presupposition of the existence of divergent sources and calls for a fresh approach to the hermeneutics of the Pentateuch that approaches the biblical text on its own terms and that does not a priori negate the notion of inspiration, thus challenging the philosophical and methodological presuppositions of standard historical-critical scholarship. As a starting point for this new conversation, it offers seven thesis statements focusing on basic hermeneutics as well as promising methodological approaches that may point this important discussion beyond the well-worn tracks of critical scholarship.Downloads
References
See here the helpful research history in Cees Houtman, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner
Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, CBET 9 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) and Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture. Theology and Historical-Critical
Method from Spinoza to Käsemann (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). I also benefitted from
reading the earlier work of Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation Today. An Analysis of Modern Methods of Biblical Interpretation and Proposals for the Interpretation of the Bible as the Word
of God (Lincoln, NE: College View Printers/Biblical Research Institute, 1985). The present
study is a revised version of a plenary paper read on April 4, 2016, at the Composition of the
Pentateuch Symposium, held at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA. Many of
the revisions reflect the important questions and observations raised by my colleagues during
that event. In places, elements of the oral presentation have been kept in place.
Some of the early book-length critical voices looking at the big issues and larger picture of
the composition of the Pentateuch included Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis
and the Composition of the Pentateuch ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1941); M. H. Segal, The
Pentateuch: Its Composition and Authorship ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967); and R. N. Whybray,
The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
. More recent contributions to the discussion include Gordon J. Wenham, “Method in
Pentateuchal Source Criticism”, VT 41 (1991): 84–109; E. W. Nicholson, “The Pentateuch
in Recent Research: A Time for Caution”, in Congress Volume, Leuven 1989, ed., J. A. Emerton, VTSup 43 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991), 10–21; F. López García, “De la antigua a la nueva
crítica literaria del Pentateuco”, EstBib 52 (1994): 7–34; Rolf Rendtorff, “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies”, CurBS 5 (1997): 43–65; David M. Carr, “Controversy and Convergence
in Recent Studies of the Formation of the Pentateuch”, RSR 23 (1997): 22–31; Jean Louis
Ska, Introducción a la lectura del Pentateuco. Claves para la interpretación de los cinco primeros
libros de la Biblia (Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2001); Georg Fischer, “Zur Lage Der Pentateuchforschung”, ZAW 115 (2003): 608–616. Helpful introductions to recent approaches
and trends in Pentateuchal research can be found in Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and
Baruch J. Schwartz, eds., The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, FAT
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).
The idea of a paradigm change was argued by Rolf Rendtorff, “The Paradigm is Changing:
Hopes—and Fears”, BibInt 1 (1993): 34–53, in an influential essay published in 1993. While
there are signs of a multiplicity of methods and approaches, it appears as if the basic underlying
paradigm or framework has not fundamentally changed.
See the lucid introduction found in Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Rethinking the
Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
, 1–10; see earlier Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical
Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). A recent defense of the standard historical-critical reading of the Pentateuch can be found in Joel S. Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).
The work of Erich Zenger focuses on the final canonical text and represents a refreshing new
voice. See also his comments on the state of Pentateuchal studies in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 8th ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012), 69, echoing some of the sentiments expressed
earlier. Eckart Otto’s monumental 4-volume commentary on Deuteronomy (Deuteronomium,
vols., HThKAT [Freiburg: Herder, 2012–2017] includes a strong synchronic and canonical
component, suggesting a broader hermeneutical perspective.
John van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006).
A quick look at the varied sections, consultations, and study groups inviting scholars during the
Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature confirms this notion of an explosion of
methodologies.
See Gerald A. Klingbeil, “Historical Criticism”, in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch,
eds., T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical
Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 401–420. Concerning the foundational philosophical presuppositions of historical-critical scholarship in general and Pentateuchal criticism in particular, I have learned much from the work of my former colleague
Raúl Kerbs, “El método histórico-crítico en teología: en busca de su estructura básica y de las
interpretaciones filosóficas subyacentes (parte I)”, DavarLogos 1, n. 2 (2002): 105–123; and
idem, “El método histórico-crítico en teología: en busca de su estructura básica y de las interpretaciones filosóficas subyacentes (parte II)”, DavarLogos 2, n. 1 (2003): 1–27. Compare also
idem, “La crítica del Pentateuco y sus presuposiciones filosóficas”, in Inicios, fundamentos y paradigmas: Estudios teológicos y exegéticos en el Pentateuco, ed., Gerald A. Klingbeil, SMEBT 1
(Libertador San Martín, Argentina: EUAP, 2004), 1–43. Regarding presuppositions in biblical
hermeneutics in general, see Frank M. Hasel, “Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture”, in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, ed., George W. Reid, BRIS 1 (Silver
Spring, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005), 27–46.
See, for example, Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
, 287–344. I am indebted to my colleague Alberto Timm for this helpful reference.
In two chapters, co-authored with my brother Martin Klingbeil and published in 2000, I have
argued for the significance of a truly multi-disciplinary approach to the interpretation of the
Pentateuch (and Scripture as a whole) and offered an example for such an approach by interpreting the tower of Babel narrative of Genesis 11,1–9. Cf. Gerald A. Klingbeil and Martin G.
Klingbeil, “La lectura de la Biblia desde una perspectiva hermenéutica multidisciplinaria (I)—
consideraciones teóricas preliminares”, in Entender la Palabra: Hermenéutica Adventista para
el nuevo siglo, eds., Merling Alomía et al. (Cochabamba: Universidad Adventista de Bolivia,
, 147–173; and idem, “La lectura de la Biblia desde una perspectiva hermenéutica multidisciplinaria (II)—construyendo torres y hablando lenguas in Gn 11:1–9”, 175–198. Compare also Fernando L. Canale, “Interdisciplinary Method in Christian Theology? In Search of
a Working Proposal”, Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 43
(2001): 366–389.
For a helpful review of the concept of “worldview” in western philosophy and theology, see
David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).
Worldview and missions have been discussed exhaustively in Paul G. Hiebert, R. Daniel Shaw,
and Tite Tiénou, Understanding Folk Religion. A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), and Paul G. Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews:
An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008). The importance of worldview within hermeneutics has been discussed in Craig L.
Blomberg, “The Globalization of Hermeneutics”, JETS 38 (1995): 581–593; Dennis E. Johnson, “Between Two Wor(l)ds: Worldview and Observation in the Use of General Revelation
to Interpret Scripture, and Vice Versa”, JETS 41 (1998): 69–84; and Heikki Räisänen, et al.,
Reading the Bible in the Global Village: Helsinki (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).
Compare also Gerald A. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, BBRSup 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 1–21.
See Joshua Berman, “Historicism and Its Limits: A Response to Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert”, Journal of Ancient Judaism 4 (2013): 297–309, where Berman argues methodologically against the wholesale negation of comparative Hittite material relevant for the dating
of Deuteronomy.
Cf. Harrisville and Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture, 262–63. Note also the helpful comments by Ellen T. Charry, “Hermeneutics, Biblical”, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and
Theology, ed., Samuel E. Balentine, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1:459–460.
See Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), 281; and Eta
Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 84–92.
New Testament scholar Craig S. Keener has written extensively on miracle reports in the gospels
and the questions raised by the analogical argument. See Craig S. Keener, “Miracle Reports and
the Argument from Analogy”, BBR 25, n. 4 (2015): 475-495. Cf. also his entry “Miracles”, in
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Theology, ed., Samuel E. Balentine, 2 vols. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2015), 2:101–107, where he reviews the philosophical and theological
implications of these “signs” and “wonders” as they relate to the biblical data.
John Collins, while in general agreement with the three basic underlying principles postulated
by Troeltsch, suggests a fourth, i.e., the principle of autonomy, which highlights scientific freedom from church and state. Cf. John Collins, “Is Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” in The
Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed., William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Freedman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 2. Collins took this principle from Van A. Harvey,
The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief (New
York: Macmillan, 1966).
See the very detailed analysis by Kerbs already referenced. Compare also the intriguing study of
Alvin Plantinga, “Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship”, in ‘Behind’ the Text: History
and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al., Scripture and Hermeneutics Series
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 19–57.
Charry, “Hermeneutics, Biblical”, 1:459.
Douglas Lawrie, “How Critical is it to be Historically Critical? The Case of the Composition of
the Book of Job”, JNSL 27 (2001): 101–120.
I am interested here in revelation and inspiration itself—not the rhetoric of revelation, even
though the varying communicative strategies are intriguing. Cf. Dale Patrick, The Rhetoric of
Revelation in the Hebrew Bible, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999).
Aaron Demsky, “A Proto Canaanite Abecedary Dating from the Period of the Judges and its
Implications for the History of the Alphabet”, TA 4 (1977): 14–27
On the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon see H. Misgav, Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, “The Ostracon”, in
Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008 ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society;
Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009), and a number of publications
offering distinct readings. On the Khirbet Qeiyafa incised jar, see Y. Garfinkel, M. R. Golub,
H. Misgav, and S. Ganor, “The ‘Išba’al Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa”, BASOR 373 (2015):
–233.
See Benjamin Sass, Yosef Garfinkel, Michael G. Hasel, and Martin G. Klingbeil, “The Lachish
Jar Sherd: An Early Alphabetic Inscription Discovered in 2014”, BASOR 374 (2015): 233–245.
The eleven inscriptions, mostly incised on storage jars, have been dated to early IA II. Cf. Shmuel
Aḥituv and Amihai Mazar, “The Inscriptions from Tel Reḥov and their Contribution to the
Study of Script and Writing during Iron Age IIA”, in “See, I Will Bring a Scroll Recounting What
Befell Me” (Ps 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily Life from the Bible to the Talmud Dedicated to the
Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel, eds., Esther Eshel and Yigal Levin, JAJSup 12 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 39–68.
Ron E. Tappy et al., “An Abecedary of the Mid-Tenth Century from the Judean Shephelah”,
BASOR 344 (2006): 5–46.
See also the study by William H. Shea, “The Earliest Inscription and Its Implications for the
Writing of the Pentateuch”, in Inicios, paradigmas y fundamentos, 45–60, who suggests that
the Wadi el-Hol alphabetic inscription found on a rock wall alongside a military road north
of Thebes and possibly dated to c. 1800 B.C., as well as the earlier discovered proto-Sinaitic
inscriptions dated to the fifteenth century B.C. offer a possible historical parallel for the writing of the Pentateuch in the fifteenth century B.C.
On literacy, see Ian M. Young, “Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part I”, VT 48.2
(1998): 238–253; idem, “Israelite Literacy: Interpreting the Evidence. Part II”, VT 48.3 (1998):
–422. Young is not alone to posit the prophetic period as the time where literacy became
more widespread in Israel. It should be remembered, however, that written and oral traditions
could coexist in ancient cultures, as has been suggested by the research of Victor A. Hurowitz,
“Spanning the Generations: Aspects of Oral and Written Transmission in the Bible and Ancient
Mesopotamia”, in Freedom and Responsibility, eds., R. M. Griffen and M. B. Edelman (New
York: Ktav, 1998), 11–30.
See here particularly William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book. The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 24–34
Hurowitz, “Spanning the Generations”, 11–30.
Aaron Demsky, “Researching Literacy in Ancient Israel: New Approaches and Recent Developments”, in “See, I Will Bring a Scroll Recounting What Befell Me” (Ps 40:8): Epigraphy and Daily
Life from the Bible to the Talmud Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Hanan Eshel, eds., Esther
Eshel and Yigal Levin, JAJSup 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 89–104.
Some of the nomenclatura of divine speech in the Pentateuch (and the larger HB) include דְבַ־ר
יְוהָה,” the word of the Lord” (Gen 15,1.4; Exod 9,20; Num 3,16.51; Deut 5,5; etc.); נְאֻי־םְוהָה,
“says the Lord” (or “saying of the Lord”; Gen 22,16; Num 14,28); כֹּמאָ־הַר יְוהָה,” thus says the
Lord” (Exod 4,22; 5,1; 7,17; etc.); בְּיַמ־דֹשֶׁה,” though the hand of Moses” marks the close link
between Moses literary work and God’s revelation and law (Lev 10,11; Num 15,23). For more
on this, see Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 229–327, esp. 280–284.
“Erra and Ishum”, trans. Stephanie Dalley (COS 1.113:415). I am grateful to Prof. Daniel Block
for drawing my attention to this text.
Alan H. Gardiner, “The House of Life”, JEA 24, n. 2 (1938): 178. This unique reference to the
power of inspiration from an Egyptian context was brought to my attention by my colleague
Prof. James Hoffmeier.
A more systematic discussion of the issue of revelation and inspiration and Scripture’s own testimony regarding the concept can be found in Peter van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration”,
in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed., Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference
Series 12 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 22–57. Compare also Fernando L.
Canale, “Revelation and Inspiration”, in Understanding Scripture, 47–74.
Key biblical texts regarding inspiration include 2 Timothy 3,15 and 2 Peter 1,19–21.
See Fernando L. Canale, “Revelation and Inspiration: The Ground for a New Approach”,
Andrews University Seminary Studies 31 (1993): 91–104; idem, “Revelation and Inspiration:
Method for a New Approach”, Andrews University Seminary Studies 31 (1993): 171–194; and,
more expanded, idem, The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology: A Hermeneutical Study of
the Revelation and Inspiration of the Bible (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Lithotech,
.
Nicholas P. Miller, “Divided by Vision of the Truth: The Bible, Epistemology, and the Adventist
Community”, AUSS 47, n. 2 (2009): 241–262, esp. 253–57.
For a helpful introduction to the important topic of Scriptural unity see Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.,
Recovering the Unity of the Bible: One Continuous Story, Plan, and Purpose (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2009). This unity does not mean a lack of diversity (including also an extremely
wide spectrum of literary genres and styles). It does, however, suggest an underlying metanarrative or agenda.
For a helpful introduction to this educational concept and its application in a particular area
of educational research, see Debby Cotton, Jennie Winter, and Ian Bailey, “Researching the
Hidden Curriculum: Intentional and Unintended Messages”, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education 37.2 (2013): 192–203.
Richard M. Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11.1–2 (2000): 102–119. See also, more recently, his study of the
metanarrative in the book of Job. Cf. Richard M. Davidson, “Ezekiel 28:11–19 and the Rise
of the Cosmic Conflict”, in The Great Controversy and the End of Evil: Biblical and Theological
Studies in Honor of Ángel Manuel Rodríguez in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed., Gerhard Pfandl (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute/Review and Herald, 2015), 57–69.
Richard Averbeck, “Ancient Near Eastern Mythography as it Relates to Historiography in the
Hebrew Bible: Genesis 3 and the Cosmic Battle”, in The Future of Biblical Archaeology. Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. The Proceedings of a Symposium August 12-14, 2001 at
Trinity International University, eds., James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2004), 328–356, esp. 351–354.
Ibid., 352–353.
There is significant literature on the God-as-a-Warrior motif. See, for example, Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God is a Warrior, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995); Richard D. Nelson, “Divine Warrior Theology in Deuteronomy”, in A God So Near. Essays in Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller,
eds., Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 241–259.
Compare also the discussion of the relevant textual and iconographic data found in Martin G.
Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew
Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography, OBO 169 (Fribourg: University Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999).
See, for example, Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative”, 108–11, for 17 textual and linguistic arguments linking Eden to the sanctuary and for additional references. Other scholars who have
noticed this link include Gordon J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden
Story”, in ‘I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood, eds., Richard S. Hess and D. Toshio Tsumura, SBTS 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399–404; G. K. Beale, The Temple and
the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT (Downers Grove,
IL.: InterVarsity, 2004); G. K. Beale and Mitchell Kim, God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden
to the Ends of the Earth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014).
I have discussed this in more detail in Gerald A. Klingbeil, “El santuario, el ritual y la teología:
En busca del centro de la teología adventista”, Theo 27.1 (2012): 66–85.
Gerald A. Klingbeil, “Sacrifice and Offerings”, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Theology, ed., Samuel E. Balentine, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 2:251.
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3a
(New York: Doubleday, 1991), 598. James W. Watts translates the phrase “other fire” and links
it to Exod 30,9 “other [or strange] incense” (Leviticus 1–10, HCOT [Leuven: Peeters, 2013],
.
The following section is based on my comments in Klingbeil, “Historical Criticism”, 404.
John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative. A Biblical-Theological Commentary, LBI
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 32–46.
Consider here the well-known works of Lemche, Thompson, Davies, van Seters, and Whitelam.
See, for example, Niels Peter Lemche, Prelude to Israel’s Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998); Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, BZAW 133 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974); Philip R. Davies,
In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’, JSOTSup 148 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); K. W. Whitelam, The
Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (London-New York: Routledge,
.
Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, ConBOT 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
, reprint 2011).
Ibid., 115.
Klingbeil, “Historical Criticism”, 404–406, and additional references there.
V. P. Long, “Old Testament History: A Hermeneutical Perspective”, in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed., Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1997), 1:88.
John van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of
Biblical History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983).
See Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons. Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001), 107–112, for more on this. This story-telling quality focusing on key individuals connects to Israel’s identity and creates community. Any Israelite would identify with
Abraham and his experience and the notion of being “Abraham’s children” often comes to the
forefront in New Testament contexts of conflict between Jesus and his audience (cf. Matt 3,9;
Luke 3,8; John 8,39). Paul suggests that kinship lines in God’s Kingdom are not blood-based but
go through Christ (Gal 3,29).
A convenient and succinct synthesis of canonical criticism can be found in Mary C. Callaway,
“Canonical Criticism”, in To Each Its Own Meaning. An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and
Their Application, ed., Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1999), 142–155. Two names, Brevard Childs and James Sanders, have
been associated with the focus upon the final canonical text, even though they really represent
two distinct approaches. See, for example, Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament
as Scripture (Philadelphia, MN: Fortress, 1979); idem, Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia, MN: Fortress, 1985); and James A. Sanders, Canon
and Community (Philadelphia, MN: Fortress, 1984).
See, for example, Luis Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, Subsidia Biblica 11 (Rome:
Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988); and his impressive Spanish commentary on the
Psalms, Luis Alonso Schökel and C. Carniti, Salmos I (Salmos 1-72): Traducción, introduciones
y comentario (Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 1992), and idem, Luis Alonso Schökel and C.
Carniti, Salmos II (Salmos 73–150): Traducción, introducciones y comentario (Estella, Navarra:
Verbo Divino, 1993).
Luis Alonso Schökel, “Of Methods and Models”, in Congress Volume Salamanca 1983, ed., J. A.
Emerton, VTSup 36 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), 7.
See Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1988); Wilfried Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus, BIS 35 (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
; Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative; H. C. Brichto, The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Longman has pointed out
(I think correctly) three basic research aims shared by most scholars working in the field of literary analysis: (1) literary theory reveals the conventions of biblical literature; (2) it stresses whole
texts; and (3) it focuses on the reading process. Cf. Tremper Longman III, Literary Approaches to
Biblical Interpretation, FCI (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 58–62.
R. Alter,The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), and L. Ryken and T.
Longman III, eds., A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
. A more recent analysis of the impact of this method has been offered by Robert S.
Kawashima, “Literary Analysis”, in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, eds., Craig A. Evans et al., VTSup 152 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2012), 83–104.
See, for example, the pioneering work of James W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in
Hebrew Narrative, JSOTSup 139 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Other contributions focusing
upon the Pentateuch include Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 35–37, and particularly
Martin G. Klingbeil, “Poemas en medio de la prosa: Poesía insertada en el Pentateuco”, in Inicios,
paradigmas, y fundamentos, 61–85; and idem, “Éxodo 15: Entre la poesía y la prosa”, in ‘Y Moisés
escribió las palabras de YHWH’. Estudios selectos en el Pentateuco, ed. Merling Alomía, Investigaciones Bíblico-Teológicas UPeUenses 1 (Ñaña, Lima: Ediciones Theologika, 2004), 153–161.
The poetic sections of the Pentateuch included in Klingbeil’s study were Gen 3,14–19; 4,23–24;
,6–7, 23–24; 14,19–20; 16,11–12; 27,27–29, 39–30; 48,15–16; 49,1–27; Exod 15,1–18;
Num 6,24–26; 10,35–36; 12,6–8, 17–18, 27–30; 23,7–10, 18–24; 24,3–9, 15–24; Deut
,1–43; 33,2–29. He excluded Gen 2,23; 8,22; 24,60; 25,23; 48,20; Exod 15,21; 32,18; and
Num 21,14–15, based on Freedman’s criteria of length and quantity. Cf. Klingbeil, “Poemas en
medio de la prosa”, 71.
Klingbeil, “Poemas en medio de la prosa”, 61–85, for the detailed statistics and additional
bibliography.
The following comments are based on Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap, 154–157, and the appendix
“Ritual Texts in the Pentateuch” in ibid., 245–52.
See Benedikt Jürgens, Heiligkeit und Versöhnung. Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext,
Herders Biblische Studien 28 (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), esp. 187–302; Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus, passim. Compare also earlier Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure”, AUSS 34 (1996): 269–286.
Erich Zenger, “Das Buch Levitikus als Teiltext der Tora des Pentateuch. Eine synchrone Lektüre
mit diachroner Perspektive”, in Levitikus als Buch, ed., Heinz-Josef Fabry and Hans-Winfried
Jüngling, BBB 119 (Berlin-Bodenheim b. Mainz: Philo, 1999), 47–83.
Following is a quick sample of current work on creation in the HB and beyond. Bernard F.
Batto, In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and the Bible, Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
; Annette Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung des Menschen im Alten Testament und in den weiteren altorientalischen Quellen, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 101 (Zürich: TVZ, 2011); Hermann
Spieckermann, “Schöpfung, Gerechtigkeit und Heil als Horizont alttestamentlicher Theologie”,
Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 100 (2003): 399–419; Paul R. House, “Creation in Old
Testament Theology”, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5 (2001): 4–17; Bernhard W.
Anderson, From Creation to New Creation. Old Testament Perspectives, Overtures in Biblical
Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994); Ronald A. Simkins, Creator and Creation. Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994); R. J. Clifford and
J. J. Collins, eds., Creation in the Biblical Traditions, CBQMS 24 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic
Biblical Association of America, 1992); and the classic Bernhard W. Anderson, ed. Creation
in the Old Testament, Issues in Religion and Theology 6 (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984).
Compare also a number of doctoral dissertations written here at Andrews University over the
past two decades: Wann Marbud Fanwar, “Creation in Isaiah” (Ph.D. diss.; Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2001); Gnanamuthu. S. Wilson, “A Descriptive
Analysis of Creation Concepts and Themes in the Book of Psalms” (Ph.D. diss.; Seventh-day
Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 1996). Compare also most recently Gerald A. Klingbeil, ed., The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2015).
I have benefited from the work of Patricia K. Tull, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection
of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah, SBLDS 161 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997); idem, “Intertextuality
and the Hebrew Scriptures”, CurBS 8 (2000): 59–90; cf. also Kirsten Nielson, “Intertexuality
and Hebrew Bible”, in Congress Volume Oslo 1998, ed., André Lemaire and M. Sæbø, VTSup 80
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000), 17–31.
See, for example, Segundo Teófilo Correa, “Intertextualidad y exégesis intra-bíblica: ¿Dos caras de la misma moneda? Breve análisis de las presuposiciones metodológicas”, DavarLogos 5
(2006): 1–13, and earlier William M. Schniedewind, “Innerbiblial Exegesis”, in Dictionary of
the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed., Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson, A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005),
–509. Michael Fishbane’s groundbreaking contribution to this discussion should not be
overlooked (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985]).
See the helpful methodological discussion of intertextuality and additional bibliography in
Martin Pröbstle, “Truth and Error: A Text-oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9–14” (Ph.D. diss.;
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2006), 565–580.
Gerald A. Klingbeil, “’From the Wilderness to the Promised Land’: Echoes of Numbers in the
Book of Revelation”, in The Great Controversy and the End of Evil, 203–216.
Note this observation by linguists Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson, Relevance: Communication
and Cognition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 236–237: “The hearer or reader can go beyond just
exploring the immediate context and the entries for concepts involved in it, accessing a wide area
of knowledge . . . . The result is quite a complex picture, for which the hearer [or reader] has to
take a large part of responsibility, but the discovery of which has been triggered by the writer”.
Klingbeil, “’From the Wilderness to the Promised Land’”, 207; note the clear linguistic links
suggested there.
Ibid., 207–8.
Ibid., 212. Most commentators would equate the woman with the church.
Ibid., 213
Already recognized as a key theme in T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised
Land. An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995).
See, for example, Ronald Hendel, “The Exodus in Biblical Memory”, JBL 120 (2001): 601–622.
Cf. J. Gordon McConville, “Old Testament Laws and Canonical Intentionality”, in Canon and
Biblical Interpretation, eds., Craig G. Bartholomew et al., Scripture and Hermeneutics Series
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 259–281.
See Gerald A. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus
and Emar 369 (Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 1998), 325–340. I will not
repeat the long list of Hallo’s contribution to this important topic referenced in my published
dissertation. Another helpful resource can be found in Meir Malul, The Comparative Method in
Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies, AOAT 227 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1990).
Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980), 16:
“When applying comparative material to the biblical text, the interpreter must allow the biblical
text itself to be the controlling factor in the exegetical process”.
Frederick E. Greenspahn, “Introduction”, in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East,
ed., Frederick E. Greenspahn, Essential Papers on Jewish Studies (New York: New York University Press, 1991), 11.
This phrase was coined by Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems”, in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977, eds., Walther Zimmerli et al., VTSup 29 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 322, 356.
Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination, 547–569.
See Gerald A. Klingbeil, “La unción de Aarón: Un estudio de Lev 8:12 en su contexto veterotestamentario y antiguo Cercano Oriental”, Theo 11 (1996): 64–83; and its updated English
version in idem, “The Anointing of Aaron. A Study of Lev 8:12 in its OT and ANE Contexts”,
AUSS 38 (2000): 231–243. Independently, Daniel E. Fleming, “The Biblical Tradition of
Anointing Priests”, JBL 117 (1998): 401–414, came to similar conclusions.
See, for example, the important recent work on the larger ritual calendar by Bryan C. Babcock,
Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian
Text Emar 446, BBRSup 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 DavarLogos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
