I'm continuing my way through John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition. I have three items: Van Seters' treatment of etiologies in the patriarchal narratives, Van Seters' use of Olrik's laws on oral tradition, and Van Seters' application of source criticism.
1. Were patriarchal stories in Genesis composed to provide etiologies, as Gunkel argued, and as Noth believed regarding a number of them? Noth's view was that patriarchal stories that talk about the establishment of a sanctuary (for example) were composed specifically to provide an etiology of how that sanctuary came to be. Van Seters does not embrace this approach, however. In this item, I'll trace Van Seters' comments on etiologies throughout his book.
On page 133, Van Seters refers positively to the argument of Brevard Childs and Burke Long that etiological statements in stories were not original or integral to the stories themselves, but were added later as redactional commentary. At the same time, Van Seters states in a footnote on page 133 that he believes the etiologies "are part of the style of these literary works themselves"---even though he does not maintain that the stories were composed specifically for etiological purposes.
Noth argued that various patriarchal stories were associated with certain places. The stories in which Abraham is in Beersheba, for example, were from Beersheba. But Van Seters disagrees with the notion that the stories are emphasizing the place of their setting, and were thus associated with that place, for he states on page 148 that "it is well known from Greece that heroes and eponyms may be freely associated with a large number of sanctuaries and other places with which they have no ancient connection" (page 148). Stories can put heroes in a variety of places; that doesn't mean the stories originated in those places.
Genesis 26:12-33 presents Isaac establishing and naming wells, as Philistines drive him from one location to another. Finally, after arriving at an agreement (or oath) with the Philistines, Isaac starts a well at Beersheba, and the name he gave to the well (shiva, which means "oath") leads to the city being called (or, more accurately, renamed---see Genesis 21:13; 26:18) Beersheba, which the author of the story apparently interprets to mean "well of oath." Noth argued that the Yahwist in Genesis 26:12-33 combined various independent etiologies about wells. But Van Seters believes that the use of etiologies here is literary, not so much etiological. On page 190, Van Seters states that the author is showing that Israel has a legitimate claim to certain Philistine land, but that her ancestor was generous to her neighbors amidst hostility. According to Van Seters, this is good "political propaganda."
In Genesis 16:14, a well is called Lahai-roi because God saw and acknowledged the plight of Hagar. Was this story an etiology to "explain the name and holiness of the well" (page 193)? Van Seters does not think so. For one, he believes that the well is merely scenery in the story. And second, because there are "no indications in the story itself that the encounter was considered extraordinary or created a holiness at that place", but rather functioned "only to communicate to the slavegirl the destiny of her offspring", Van Seters holds that vv 13-14 "are additional and unnecessary for the story itself" (page 193).
In Genesis 19:17-22 (23), as Sodom and Gomorrah are being destroyed, Lot requests the angels' permission to flee to a city. According to v 22, the city was called Tzoar on account of this incident. Tzoar means "insignificant", and Lot in v 20 called it little---or mitzar. Were vv 17-22(23) an independent etiology of Tzoar that was inserted by a redactor into the Sodom and Gomorrah story? Van Seters says "no", for Tzoar is mentioned in vv 23, 30. Also, vv 17-22(23) echo the surrounding passage in terms of vocabulary, and vv 17-22(23) are important in the larger story because they present Lot's safe escape. (But, according to Van Seters, Lot was too scared to remain in Tzoar, and so he fled to a cave with his daughters.) On page 220, Van Seters states that the author includes in his story the etiology of Tzoar, along with the etiology of the pillar of salt, because they function as evidence that his story is true.
In Genesis 22, Abraham almost offers his son Isaac as a sacrifice, but he ends up offering a ram instead. Was Genesis 22 composed as an etiology for why a certain cult substitutes animal sacrifice for human sacrifice? Van Seters does not think so. He refers to Euripides' story about the sacrifice of Iphigenia, "in which the goddess Artemis miraculously substitutes a hind for the girl, who is thus rescued from death" (page 233). But there are other versions of the story in which the girl is sacrificed, and so that shows that Euripides' tale was not an etiology for a "change in the cult of Artemis or at the site of Aulis" (page 233); rather, it was just another variation of a story. Van Seters concludes that Genesis 22 may be due to the "great popularity of this motif of the hero who is forced to sacrifice his own son or daughter", not a desire to provide an etiology for a cult practice.
Notice that Van Seters acknowledges that the patriarchal narratives contain etiologies. He just does not think that the stories were primarily composed to function as etiologies. For Van Seters, the etiologies serve the stories, rather than the stories serving the etiologies.
2. Olrik's laws were used in traditio-criticism to identify oral traditions in the Hebrew Bible, which were believed to be quite ancient. Van Seters does not think that we can really recover ancient oral traditions, but Olrik's laws still play an important role in his treatment of the patriarchal narratives. He says that "The application of Olrik's laws may be useful in understanding the sources of a narrator and his mode of composition without saying very much about the history of the tradition" (page 161). My impression is that Van Seters uses Olrik's laws to identify the early form of the tradition. For example, Van Seters believes that the wife-sister story in Genesis 12:10-20 fits Olrik's laws and was the early wife-sister story, after which the wife-sister story in Genesis 20 was written.
On pages 160-161, Van Seters lists Olrik's laws. They include (1.) a stable introduction and conclusion, which means that "the setting is clearly given" and the conclusion is not abrupt (i.e., as an etiological conclusion would be); (2.) repetition is used to "fill out the action of the story and to move it forward towards the climax"; (3.) storytellers usually limit their short story to three characters, and they may love to use "threefold repetition of events"; (4.) only two characters actively share a scene, whereas others are neutral, allowing for contrast or polarity between the two characters; (5.) two people "of the same rank and status are often treated as one"; (6.) there is "Singleness of direction that does not drop back to make up for missing, prerequisite data"; (7.) there are few non-essential details in terms of the story; (8.) the story maintains the logic of the form of the story, whether that be natural or supernatural in perspective; (9.) if there is a "new treatment of a theme", that is a "sign of literary reworking"; and (10) the story concentrates on the main character.
On pages 162-163, Van Seters gives guidelines on how to distinguish an earlier version of a story from a later version. The earliest version has the "simplest form and structure", whereas the later version incorporates "heterogeneous material"; the later version shortens or summarizes material from the early version; and the later version has an "unexplained" detail that assumes knowledge of the earlier version. The earliest version does not summarize, nor does it "assume knowledge of various aspects of the story" (page 163). It's simple and self-contained. On page 168, Van Seters mentions other criteria for folk literature: there is an attempt (wise or unwise) to solve a problem, which meets with complications, and this is followed by "an unexpected outside intervention." Then there are "fortunate or unfortunate consequences." I should also say that another factor that comes up is that the early folk tales are for entertainment, whereas the later versions may have another function, that could be religious or moral (page 173).
Now I'll look at various pages to see how Van Seters applies Olrik's laws.
According to Van Seters, the wife-sister story in Genesis 12:10-20 is a fine example of a story that follows Olrik's laws: there is a problem (famine in Canaan), an attempted solution (going to Egypt), complications (Sarah is taken into Pharaoh's harem), unexpected outside intervention (God strikes Pharaoh with disease), and consequences (Abram leaves Egypt with his riches). The story is independent and self-contained---it doesn't even mention Lot, who is in the stories before and after it. There is repetition between the "plan and its execution" (page 169)---and what's repeated is the idea of Sarai telling the Egyptians that she was Abram's sister, and Abram getting rich. I'll also mention that there are three characters, and two are active in each scene. Van Seters refers to the view that this story could have been generic, before it was applied to Abraham. Another wife-sister story, Genesis 20, by contrast, is not so neat, for it does not say why Abraham went to Gerar, why he said that Sarah was his sister (until later in v 11), or why Abimelech took Sarah as his wife. For Van Seters, Genesis 20 presumes knowledge of Genesis 12:10-20 and tries to correct it for moral and theological reasons.
According to Van Seters, the wife-sister story in Genesis 26:1-11 is also messy. There is a famine, which is the problem, but, rather than going to Egypt (which is unaffected by famine), Isaac goes to Gerar (which is also in Palestine). Isaac says that Rebecca is his sister because she is fair, but there turns out to be no immediate threat to Isaac and Rebecca because Abimelech sees Isaac playing with Rebecca---before anyone in Gerar has even tried to take her. V 11 ends abruptly and does not even say what happened to Isaac and Rebecca, and the stage is set for the wells story. There's not much "focal concentration" in this story, as far as Van Seters is concerned. Van Seters contends that Genesis 26 was an attempt to correct problems in Genesis 12 and 20: Genesis 20 didn't say why Abraham went to Gerar, and so Genesis 26 said Isaac went there due to a famine; Sarah was married to Pharaoh and Abimelech, but Rebecca didn't even get that far with Abimelech, and so there was absolutely no possibility that she slept with a man other than her husband; unlike Abraham, Isaac is not enriched by foreign rulers, for his blessing comes from God, in accordance with J's belief system.
On pages 192-193, Van Seters regards Genesis 16 as a good example of Olrik's laws in action (though Van Seters thinks that there were some redactional additions to it). There is a stated problem---that Sarai is childless. Then, there is an attempt at a solution---Abram is given Sarai's maid Hagar, who would bear children for Abram and Sarai (and Hagar's children would count as Sarai's). There are complications---Hagar is pregnant and becomes haughty towards Sarai. Sarai disciplines Hagar, who flees, and then there's an unexpected intervention by an angel, who encourages Hagar to return to Sarai, and reveals to her that her son will "have a destiny that will be anything but submissive and his defiance will be her ultimate vindication" (page 193). For Van Seters, the story concludes with v 12, which is part of the prophecy about Ishmael. (This strikes me as rather awkward, since I'd expect a more stable conclusion from a story that follows Olrick's laws, such as "And Hagar returned to Sarai her mistress, and she had a son...").
Genesis 21:8-21, however, does not follow Olrik's laws, as far as Van Seters' is concerned. Whereas Genesis 16 has three characters---Abram, Sarai, and Hagar (for some reason, the angel does not count)---and contrasts pairs (Sarai and Hagar) in a scene that's integral to the story, Genesis 21:8-21 is messier: Isaac and Ishmael are just there and do not contrast with each other; Sarah and Hagar do not share a scene; a scene where there is a dual contrast---that of Abraham and Sarah---is (for Van Seters) "not central to the whole story"; in the desert, the angel responds to the plight of the boy, not that of Hagar, thereby "breaking the scenic dualism" (page 198). For Van Seters, Genesis 21:8-21 is modeled on Genesis 16, and it contains themes that are typical of J: Abraham's seed becoming a great nation, God's providence even extending to non-Israelites, etc. Genesis 21:8-21 does not stand alone, as Genesis 16 could, but is obviously connected with the larger unit.
I'll touch briefly on something that Van Seters says on page 236, as he addresses Genesis 22 (the akedah). Van Seters is responding to a scholar named Reventlow, who believes that Genesis 22 follows Olrik's laws. But Van Seters says that Reventlow runs into a problem: Genesis 22 "begins without any setting and a quite unmotivated divine command, which is hardly likely in an independent folklore unit" (page 236). Reventlow says that something in the story must be lost, which Van Seters does not find convincing.
Finally (for this item), there's Genesis 24, the story of Abraham's servant finding a wife for Isaac. Like folktales, Genesis 24 presents a problem (Isaac doesn't have a wife) and a solution (Abraham's servant finds him one). But, unlike folktales, there are no complications that the hero encounters: the solution comes so easily! Van Seters concludes that Genesis 24 is a creation of the Yahwist, since it has Yahwistic themes such as divine guidance and providence.
3. For this item, I will look some at Van Seters' source criticism: when he sees multiple sources, and when he does not.
Van Seters believes that there are tensions within the patriarchal narratives that indicate multiple sources. On page 115, he says it's odd that Abraham defeats mighty kings in Genesis 14, yet he's afraid of the king of Gerar in Genesis 20. (Well, Van Seters doesn't actually discuss source criticism when he makes this point, but he does attribute those two chapters to different sources---Genesis 14 is post-priestly, and Genesis 20 is pre-Yahwistic). On page 299, one reason that Van Seters gives for seeing Genesis 14:18-20 as an interpolation to Genesis 14 is that is presents Abram giving tithes, even though the surrounding story states that Abram took no booty for himself. What exactly is Abram tithing? And yet, on page 213, Van Seters treats Genesis 18:17-19 as integral to Genesis 18---not as redactional. Van Seters can think of a way for those verses to fit into their context: God is including Abraham in the divine council because "Sodom is to be a kind of object lesson of God's grace and judgment, which Abraham is to pass on to his offspring." I like it when Van Seters actually explains what the text means.