In this post, I want to accomplish two goals: (1.) I want to write about my Fishbane paper, and (2.) I want to write about my comps.
I slept in too late this morning, and that really gives me a kick in the rear end! I decided to do some reading for my comps, and I'll write a post every day (except Sabbaths and holy days) on something I read in my comp readings. That way, I'll be interacting with the material actively rather than passively. Today, my comp reading overlaps somewhat with my Fishbane research.
Here are some quotes from Martin S. Jaffee, Early Judaism (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997):
"...although [the Hebrew Bible] has composers, none of them took responsibility for their work. Biblical writings came into being in a culture that did not regard authorship as a creative activity. Rather, many whom we might regard as 'authors' regarded themselves as mere 'arrangers' or 'retellers' who organized and recounted what they recieved as ancient tradition. If, in preserving for the future the wisdom of the past, writers changed what they received, they did so--in their view--in order to enhance it, not necessarily to falsify it" (56).
"Often, the precise role of a given text in the common life is a source of conflict. Different segments of a larger community might dispute whether this or that writing is truly authoritative for all members" (59).
This reminds me of certain elements of Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford, 1988):
Fishbane acknowledges that there was "confluence in the exile of many different priests, each with regional texts and practices" (263). What happened in exile was that the different traditions were put together into a traditum (264). That may explain a few things:
(1.) How certain biblical authors could disagree with things that entered the Pentateuch. For example, Fishbane notes that Second Isaiah polemicizes against Genesis 1, for Second Isaiah denies that God created anyone in his likeness (Isaiah 40:18, 25; 46:5) or consulted with other beings in his act of creation (Isaiah 40:13-14; 44:24) (325-326). The creation account in Genesis 1 is well-known enough for Second Isaiah to polemicize against it. Yet, the fact that he disagrees with it indicates that it had not yet reached the status of authoritative tradition--at least not in the sense of being completely unquestioned by everyone. In the exile, some ideas were new to certain Jews, so they were reluctant to accept them.
(2.) And there may have continued to be a reluctance among some to accept certain traditions as authoritative. As I discussed in Fishbane Paper: Post-Exilic Controversy, there were post-exilic prophets who disagreed with the Torah on the Gentiles and priestly qualifications.