I finished Thomas Thompson's Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel: The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23. On pages 192-193, Thompson characterizes the origin tradition of ancient Israel, namely, Genesis 1-Exodus 23, as well as speculates about the "date for the earliest redaction of what later became the Pentateuch" (page 51):
"The origin tradition as a whole is subsequent to or contemporaneous with a concentration on the sabbath, and is closely associated with an ideology which emphasizes the importance of that feast. Secondly, it is independent of, but not necessarily earlier than, a priestly centrism in Israelite religion. Thirdly, there is an emphasis upon covenant and prophetic models in theological language, and, finally, they postdate the introduction into the cult of Israel of not only the sabbath observance, but also the passover festival. That the tradition as a whole ought to be understood as postdating the passover is necessary because the tradition as such, is, in its very essence, an origin tradition. The origin theme of the passover story is at its very center. In narrative terms, it is in the passover event that Israel finds its beginning and understands itself as a nation. The passover is the climax of the entire narrative, beginning in the prehistory of Gen. 1.1f., and culminating in the Torah narrative, where Israel finds itself ready to enter Palestine as a nation led by God under the Torah.
"Traditionally, the passover festival had not been observed in Israel prior to the reforms associated with the reign of Josiah, and it is this period, no earlier than the end of the seventh century, that we might place the development of this central pentateuchal tradition."
I'll make two points:
1. Thompson's dating of Israel's origin tradition to the time of Josiah surprised me, considering that, in Mythic Past, he reads so much of the biblical narrative in light of the Hellenistic Period, which was after Israel's exile. One reason that Thompson gives for supporting the Josianic Period as the date for Israel's origin tradition is that the tradition climaxes with the Passover, which becomes the basis for Israel's existence as a nation, and, in II Kings, the Passover attains importance in the time of Josiah. Another reason is that Thompson agrees with Avi Hurvitz's view that the so-called "P" source employs pre-exilic terminology---which is not to say that Thompson believes there's a P source, for he dismisses the Documentary Hypothesis. But Thompson maintains that the origin tradition has pre-exilic Hebrew. Consequently, Thompson disagrees with John Van Seters' dating of J to Israel's post-exilic period (which was not the impression that I've gotten from Van Seters when I've read him, for Van Seters appears to relate J to the exile, not the post-exilic period), contending that Van Seters disregards the distinction between classical and late biblical Hebrew.
Was Thompson more of a maximalist before he wrote Mythic Past (see here for his views on dating in that book)? Even in the Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, he dates the patriarchal stories to the Iron Age, which is Israel's pre-exilic period, whereas minimalists have tended to date most of the Hebrew Bible to Israel's post-exilic period.
2. In the quote above, Thompson says that the origin tradition is independent of priestly centrism. Page 184 is where Thompson explains this position. According to Exodus 19:5-6, an Israel that is faithful to God's covenant is a priestly nation. It does not need priests, for all it has to do is obey the Torah that God revealed to Moses, which will make it a priesthood. For Thompson, such a view existed in pre-exilic Judah.
Scholars such as Van Seters argue that the democratization of the monarchy in J indicates that it has an exilic origin, for it was during the exile that Israel lacked the Davidic monarchy, and the time would then be ripe for the view that all of Israel is a kingly people. But what about the democratization of the priesthood? Would that indicate an exilic context? Maybe not, for there are scholars who argue that there were debates about who should be priest during the exile, which is why the exilic prophet Ezekiel (in chapters 43, 44, and 48) defends the Zadokites. So it wasn't the case during the exile that Israel lacked a priesthood, for there were people who claimed to be priests, even though there wasn't a temple. But perhaps there was another position in the exile and the post-exile that said that there didn't need to be a priesthood, for all Israel is holy. Numbers 16 tries to refute that position. The post-exilic Third Isaiah has been considered by some to be anti-Zadokite because it does not mention the Zadokite priesthood. And Zechariah 14:20 predicts that every cooking pot will be holy.
Since this is the last Thompson book that I have to read for my comps, I want to close by saying that I appreciate the way that Thompson lets his humanity shine through his scholarly works. In Mythic Past, he talks about how he worked as a house-painter and a handy-man after the publication of the Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, since he couldn't get an academic job, for his book was controversial in its denial of scholarly consensus about the patriarchs. In Origin Tradition, he discusses how his wife and his children taught him about stories, by continually drawing his attention back to the text or the story when he wanted to focus on scholarly interpretations and ideas. It's refreshing when I can see a down-to-earth side to scholars---which includes humility and a willingness to learn from others.