In my post yesterday on Volume I of Gerhard Von Rad's Old Testament Theology, I talked about some scholarly attempts to identify the J and the E sources in Exodus 19, 24, and 34. The division of sources was not entirely based on J's use of the name "YHWH," and E's use of "God," for there were plenty of times that E used "YHWH." Von Rad says on page 292 that E was endeavoring "to weld together the religion of the ancestral God with Yahwism"---which I take to mean that E was seeking to identify YHWH with the high God, El. In that case, perhaps it wouldn't be surprising that E, at some point in the narrative, would use "YHWH" and "God" (Elohim) interchangeably.
In my reading today, Von Rad discussed differences between J and E. I've encountered those differences in some manner in my other readings, but I want to write a post about them so that I can have something to refer myself to in my study for my Bible comp. In this post, I will talk about those differences, as well as bring in some stuff that Von Rad says about P.
On page 292, Von Rad states that J's view of Moses was that he "was no worker of miracles, no founder of a religion, and no military leader", but "an inspired shepherd whom Jahweh used to make known his will to men." This echoes, in part, what I read in Wellhausen's Prolegomena, on page 346: "With the Jehovist...Moses' work consists in this, that he delivers his people from the Egyptians and cares for it in every way in the wilderness."
But why would J write stories about God's anger against Israel and her sins in the wilderness, if J was pre-exilic (as Julius Wellhausen and Von Rad believed)? Wouldn't such a theme more likely have originated in Israel's exilic or post-exilic period, when she was reflecting on what caused her exile---and arrived at the answer of "we disobeyed God" (my paraphrase)? Why would a pre-exilic J harp on Israel's rebellion, though? Rainer Albertz, on page 66 of Volume I of his History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, does not talk about the division of sources with regard to the Torah's wilderness stories, but he does say that "the experience of the wrath of God is a necessary part of a relationship to God, grounded in history and politics, of a larger group, the process of whose liberation is constantly endangered." And Von Rad, on page 283 of the book that I'm currently reading, says that "the view of history as a series of human rebellions against God's leadership is to be understood in the light of the cultic purpose of the psalm as a song of penitence."
Von Rad here is talking about a Psalm, but I wonder if his point can be applied to the question of why a pre-exilic J would talk about God's anger at Israel's continual rebellion: Pre-exilic Israel was often vulnerable, and so she was continually taking moral and spiritual inventory of herself, evaluating her relationship with God. She tried to reassure herself that God had forgiven her sins in the past, while also remembering that God was strict. That would give her a framework for her to understand her relationship with God in her turbulent pre-exilic period.
Von Rad's statement that J's Moses did not work miracles is significant as he contrasts J with E, for Von Rad believes that E's Moses is "the miracle worker, in fact almost to the point of being a magician" (pages 292-293). According to Von Rad, J does not know of Moses' rod, with which Moses does miracles (but, on page 292, Von Rad thinks that the story of Aaron's rod budding---in Numbers 17:8-15---may be the work of J). But E emphasizes Moses' miracles, along with Moses' significance in the work of God. In J, God instructs Moses to tell the elders that YHWH will being Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 3:8, 16); in E, God tells Moses that "you"---Moses---are to bring Israel out. In E, Moses outshines Aaron at the Golden Calf incident. Moses is also God to Aaron, who is merely Moses' spokesperson (Exodus 4:16). E also emphasizes that Moses was a prophet---a prophet who did miracles, and who had such charisma that "a mere portion of it, when it was further distributed over seventy elders, threw the recipients out of their normal psychic state and stimulated them to ecstasy (Num. XI.25ff., E)" (page 293). This makes sense in light of what I have read other scholars say about E: that he came from the North, where prophecy was influential, and that he represented Mushite priests, who were descendants of Moses. For many scholars who believe in E, those are reasons that E highlights Moses as a charismatic prophet.
Elsewhere in the book that I am reading, Von Rad does not appear to believe that J was big on miracles. On pages 49-54, he discusses this. Von Rad acknowledges that, in J's compilation, there are stories in which YHWH intervenes in a manner that is immediately audible or visual. But he also notices something else in J: God working behind the scenes, guiding events. A good example of this is Genesis 24, in which YHWH guides Abraham's servant to Rebecca, in a manner that is not ostentatiously miraculous, for YHWH's intervention here does not "break from the outside into the normal evolution of events upon earth to make itself felt." Von Rad sees this sort of divine providence (if you will) in other biblical stories (i.e., Ruth, David), and he says that this more secular trend (if "secular" is the right word) was from a time when Israelites "no longer experienced Jahweh's working mainly in the sacral form of miracles or miracle-like episodes". At this stage, writers could concentrate more on the characters of the story rather than miracles. Starting with the creation of David's kingdom, Von Rad affirms, Israel could create a sophisticated history and literature.
J also appears to go the non-miraculous route in two stories in Exodus. On page 293, Von Rad talks about Wellhausen's division of Exodus 10:12-14. In J, YHWH brings about a wind, which carries a dense swarm of locusts into Egypt; in E, YHWH tells Moses to stretch out his rod, that the locusts might come. E emphasizes the role of Moses more, and it also contains more of a miraculous element---Moses' rod brings the locusts. In J, however, God uses natural causes to bring the locusts into Egypt.
On pages 176-177, Von Rad discusses the sources' telling of the Red Sea story. Von Rad states: "If according to J a 'strong east wind' had opened up a way as through a lagoon (vs. 21), in E's version the water stood like walls on either side of the Israelites as they passed through (vs. 22)..." So, for Von Rad, J's story is less miraculous than that of E.
I want to quote some of Wellhausen's discussion of J and E in his Prolegomena, for he brings in some additional considerations. On page 361, Wellhausen states the following:
"We can trace first of all the influence on the tradition of that specific prophetism which we are able to follow from Amos onwards. This is least traceable in the old main source of the Jehovist, in J; and yet it is remarkable that the Asheras never occur in the worship of the patriarchs. The second Jehovistic source, E, breathes the air of the prophets much more markedly, and shows a more advanced and thorough-going religiosity. Significant in this view are the introduction of Abraham as a Nabi, Jacob's burying the teraphim, the [positive] view taken of the [matzeba] at Shechem (Jos. xxiv.27), and above all, the story of the golden calf. The Deity appears less primitive than in J, and does not approach men in bodily form, but calls to them from heaven, or appears to them in dreams. The religious element has become more refined, but at the same time more energetic, and has laid hold of elements heterogeneous to itself, producing on occasion such strange mixtures as that in Gen. xxxi.10-13."
This is interesting because Wellhausen appears to interpret the data (if you can call it that) differently from Von Rad. My impression of Von Rad is that he views J as more sophisticated than E, for J doesn't stress the miraculous as much as E does: J reflects a more secular (if you will), grown-up view of God. But Wellhausen takes the opposite track. He looks at J, and he sees God coming out and speaking to humans. He looks at E, and he sees objects of a religious institution (i.e., teraphim, a matzeba), or reaction to such an object (i.e., the golden calf). Wellhausen also observes that E does not like to present God just showing up and speaking to people, but prefers some distance or intermediary between the divine and the human. For these reasons, Wellhausen views E as more sophisticated than J.
I now want to discuss Von Rad's view of P. On pages 295-296, Von Rad states the following:
"[I]n P...Moses is totally immersed in the revelation at Sinai. That revelation is no longer, as it was still for E, one event among many others in the Exodus: here it is because of this event that Moses is there at all; he is so taken up into it that his activity is really always somehow or another connected with it. In P, as a result, Moses is to a large extent relieved of the tasks which the older traditions (especially E) assigned to him. This tendency is most clearly apparent in connexion with the plagues in Egypt, which are not brought about by Moses, but by Aaron (Ex. VII.19-20, VIII.1f. [5f.], 12f. [16f.], etc.). Admittedly, the divine command in the matter comes to Moses. But Moses passes it on to Aaron, and it is Aaron who then engages in the trial of strength with the heathen magicians. The rod by which the wonders are worked is now Aaron's rod. The same thing happens with the offering of sacrifice which in P devolves exclusively upon Aaron. Even in the cases of rebellion it is not Moses who acts. What Moses is for P can no longer be summed up under the generally accepted concepts of priest, worker of miracles, prophet, etc. Moses is something beyond all this---he is set apart for intercourse with Jahweh alone. The picture of Moses ascending into the clouds of Sinai all by himself and spending a long time in speech with God (Ex. XXIV.15b-18) is characteristic of P's concept. In proportion as he is taken over on to God's side, he is separated from men. They flee from him as he comes back, and he has first to cover the reflexion of God's glory on his face before he can speak to them (Ex. XXXIV.29ff.). Nevertheless, P too regarded Moses as wholly human---indeed this is the source which tells of a serious lapse of which Moses was guilty, and because of which he was not permitted to set foot in the land of promise."
Using this quote as a launch-pad, allow me to speculate about P, as I draw from other scholarly things that I've read. P was trying to elevate the Aaronic priesthood over the other Levites, maybe even the Mushites descended from Moses. This could have occurred before, during, or after Judah's exile. To do so, P did two things: First, he set Moses apart from humanity, making him the mythological giver of the Torah (not mythological in the sense of "we don't think this happened," however). Second, P said that Moses sinned and disqualified himself from entering the Promised Land. So P's message was this (in my paraphrase): "Sure, Moses was a great guy, but God entrusted the ground-work of spiritual leadership to us, the Aaronides. Moses was primarily the one who received and revealed God's laws, not the one who was to serve as priest. The priesthood is our job! Plus, Moses disqualified himself from the Promised Land anyway, so he's no longer an integral part of the present system. He just founded it. But we---the Aaronides---are the ones who are supposed to continue it."
In summary, for Von Rad, J was a product of the secular state of Judah, and so his Moses was not big on miracles. E had its source in the North, where prophecy was prominent, and so his Moses was a prophet with charismatic power. And P relegated Moses solely to the status of receiving God's revelation, affirming that the leg-work of sustaining the Mosaic system was to be carried out by the Aaronic priests.