Van Seters on the Authorship of Genesis 22 and Explanatory Phrases

I finished John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition. I have two items: Genesis 22, and explanatory phrases.

1. As I look at Anthony Campbell and Mark O' Brien's Sources of the Pentateuch, I see that Martin Noth attributed Genesis 22:1-19 (the akedah story) to E, while he viewed vv 15-18 as a later addition. Vv 15-18 present an angel calling to Abraham a second time from heaven and reaffirming the promise of blessing and progeny for Abraham, along with the promise that the nations of the earth would bless themselves by Abraham's offspring. Noth's idea may be that vv 15-18 are secondary because they are drawn from a variety of sources, such as Genesis 12:1-3 (J) and 13:14-17, and also because they appear to be an addition: if the author of the rest of Genesis 22:1-19 had indeed composed the promises of vv 15-18, why didn't he just include them in God's first message to Abraham from heaven? Noth also may have felt that Genesis 22:1-19 made sense even when vv 15-18 were taken out, showing that vv 15-18 are secondary. But Campbell and O'Brien regard vv 15-18 as "strategically located" within Genesis 22: "After the crisis of the apparent threat to Isaac's life and as the Abraham cycle draws to a close, a reaffirmation of the promises is appropriate" (page 170).

John Van Seters, however, attributes all of Genesis 22:1-19 to J. Van Seters begins his discussion by dismantling the scholarly attribution of the akedah story to E. According to Van Seters, scholars attribute Genesis 22:1-14, 19 to E for three reasons: the story uses "Elohim" for God, there's an angelic intermediary in the story, and Beersheba is presented as Abraham's primary abode. Regarding the name of God in the unit, Van Seters points out that "the name Yahweh appears in v. 11 and twice in v. 14" (229). Van Seters is not sympathetic to scholarly attempts to get around this, such as the argument that "Yahweh belongs to a previous level of the tradition", or that "Elohim has been changed to Yahweh by a post-Elohistic redactor". Van Seters says that these arguments "seem arbitrary and only weaken the divine name criterion" for source division (page 230). Van Seters' treatment of the other two reasons is based on his previous arguments: Van Seters attributed Genesis 21:8-21, 34 to J, and Genesis 21:8-21 contains an angelic intermediary, and v 34 emphasizes Abraham's stay in Beersheba, and so, for Van Seters, those features don't disqualify a text from being J. (I should note that Noth attributes Genesis 21:8-21, 34 to E. Genesis 21:8-21 uses "Elohim", but v 34 refers to the name YHWH.)

Van Seters then argues that the terminology of Genesis 22:1-14, 19 is characteristic of J. "And it came to pass after these things" (Genesis 22:1) occurs also in Genesis 15:1 and 22:20, and Noth attributes both of those passages to J. "Upon one of the mountains which I will designate to you" and "he went to the place which God designated to him" (Genesis 22:2-3) sounds like Genesis 26:1---"dwell in the land which I designate to you." Van Seters must attribute that verse to J, but Noth sees it as secondary to Genesis 26 (which Noth believes is from J).

Van Seters also believes that Genesis 22:15-18 is from J, for "The content of this addition is very similar to that of many so-called J passages emphasizing the blessing of the patriarch" (page 230). On page 239, Van Seters explains what he believes is the function of those verses---to give Abraham's obedience a larger significance, namely, the blessing of Abraham's descendants. As far as Van Seters is concerned, Abraham getting his son back is of "no real consequence", but vv 15-18 describe the relevance of the akedah story to the nation of Israel: On account of Abraham's act of obedience, Israel is guaranteed that she will receive God's promises, even if she is in exile on account of her disobedience of God's law.

In concluding this item, I should note a profound point that Van Seters makes on page 238. In Genesis 22:14, Abraham names the location of the akedah YHWH-Yireh (the LORD sees) and affirms that the LORD will be seen on the mount. While Van Seters acknowledges that "it clearly points to the divine election of a cult place", "signifies the divine choice of Palestine as the promised land", and "must certainly be the counterpart of the Deuteronomic 'Place where Yahweh your God will choose", he does not believe that the passage here is referring to Jerusalem, "for then he would have used specific rather than symbolic names" (page 238). For Van Seters, what we see here is a "'demythologizing' of the concept of the sacred place", which makes a radical break from the election of Zion. Van Seters states: "The holy place is the place of the fear of God (vv. 2), the place where one goes to pray (v. 5), the place where the providence of God is seen" (page 238). Van Seters makes a similar point in his discussion of Genesis 24 (J), where (according to him) we see a late theme: Abraham's servant prays to God in a foreign land, without the mediation or oracles, holy men, or visions (page 247). Van Seters may believe that J had these concepts because they spoke to Israel in exile---to assure her that she had access to God, even though the Jerusalem temple had been destroyed. But Van Seters may not think that J is thereby downplaying the importance of the Promised Land, for, in another work, he refers to I Kings 8, which states that Israel in exile can pray towards the altar in Jerusalem. Van Seters may hold that J thought the altar in Jerusalem was efficacious---even for Jews who were not in the land.

2. On page 297, in his discussion of Genesis 14, Van Seters talks about "explanatory phrases that are intended to identify supposedly ancient places by their more modern equivalents." Van Seters states that many scholars conclude from this that Genesis 14 contains an ancient account that was touched up so that it could be intelligible to later readers. But Van Seters thinks that there is a problem with this view. One of the place-names in Genesis 14, for example, is Bela, "devoured", which Van Seters believes is "nonsense as a name." According to Genesis 14:2, Bela was the older name of Zoar---which, in Genesis 19:22-23---becomes Zoar after Lot flees to it. Van Seters says that the author of Genesis 14 may have known the tradition that the city became Zoar after Lot fled to it, and so he decided to invent an older name for the city. In the same way that he invented kings whose names meant "son of evil" and "with iniquity", the author of Genesis 14 came up with a name for Zoar---Bela, or "devoured." His goal, for Van Seters, was "to give an archaic sense to the whole account."

The Settlement of the Transjordan, Part 2

I'm continuing my series on Jacob Milgrom's Excursus 70 in his Jewish Publication Society commentary on the Book of Numbers, "The Settlement of Transjordan (chap. 32)". Yesterday, we saw the problem that Milgrom is addressing: Why does the Hebrew Bible say in some places that Reuben possessed certain land in the Transjordan, but it says elsewhere that Gad had that land? R. de Vaux's solution was that Reuben held it, until Reuben was absorbed into Gad by the time of the Israelite United Monarchy.

But Y. Kaufmann disagrees with de Vaux on this. Kaufmann argues that there are references to Reuben even after the time of the United Monarchy. II Kings 10:33 mentions Reuben within the setting of the time of Jehu (the ninth century). I Chronicles 5:6, 26 says that Reuben dwelt in its territory until the Assyrian king Tiglath-pilesar III defeated and exiled the Reubenites.

B. Oded adds other arguments. First, whereas Simeon no longer had a single clan chieftain after it was absorbed into Judah, but rather had many clan chieftains (I Chronicles 4:38), Reuben had one nasi until its exile (I Chronicles 5:6).

Second, I Chronicles 5:9-10 presents a Reubenite as a migrant---one who was not sedentary but who pastured his flock "over the entire desert fringe of Transjordan as far north as the Euphrates" (page 495). Because the Reubenites were migrants and were vulnerable to neighboring tribes, Deuteronomy 33:6 prays that Reuben might live and not die. Reuben preferred the "eastern, desert fringe" and allowed Gad "to occupy the southern Mishor, as indicated in [Numbers 32:3, 34] and supported by the Moabite stone" (page 495). In I Chronicles 6:63-64, the Levitical cities of Reuben are on the desert fringe, and Milgrom (and I think Oded) contends that this "scheme of Levitical cities is of Solomonic origin" (page 495). But the Reubenites gradually entered the Mishor. Whereas Joshua 21:37 assigns Heshbon to Gad, for example, Numbers 32 presents "Reubenite concentration around" it (page 494). After the Moabites whipped Gad in the ninth century, however, Reuben's take-over of Mishor was accelerated. Numbers 32 presents a situation in which Reuben held territory in the south, while Gadites dwelt below and above it. For Oded, this reflects a situation between the time of Solomon and the Moabite stone: Reuben is in Mishor, but Gad still has territory around that area---territory that elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible is said to be Reuben's. That territory was said to be Reuben's after the time that the Moabite stone depicts: when the Moabites whipped the Gadites.

For Oded, the absence of Reuben from David's census, Solomon's districts, and the Moabite stone is not due to Reuben disappearing as a tribe on account of its assimilation into Gad. Rather, Reuben is not recorded for the reason that it was pastoral and moved around. But Reuben infiltrated Mishor and occupied that land until it was exiled in 733 B.C.E.

Tomorrow, we'll look at the half-tribe of Manasseh, which settled in the Transjordan.

Psalm 25

For my weekly quiet time today, I will blog about Psalm 25 and its interpreters. Here are three items:

1. The Psalmist starts out Psalm 25 by saying that he lifts up his soul to God (v 1). What does this mean? Among medieval Jewish interpreters, I found answers that include offering one's afflicted soul to God as an expiatory offering, depending on God for assistance, dedicating one's soul to the service of God, and directing one's consciousness to God in prayer totally, without being distracted. Scholars Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler in the Jewish Study Bible interpret the phrase to mean that the Psalmist is turning to God for protection. I can imagine a suffering person having all of these emotions and thoughts when turning to God in a time of trouble. The sufferer may say that he has suffered enough for his sins and now has paid his debt, or feel powerless and utterly dependent on God for protection, or focus totally on God, or resolve to serve God if God will deliver him or her. These are spontaneous emotions and thoughts that can arise in the mind of a suffering person who turns to God (only many Christians would deny that their own suffering can atone for their sins, which is why they believe that they need Jesus as their Savior). At the same time, Psalm 25 is not exactly spontaneous, for it is a carefully crafted acrostic, which may have been for the purpose of easing memorization. (In Psalm 25, however, vv 18-19 both start with resh, and there is no qoph, which is why Peter Craigie emends v 18.) But an acrostic can convey the complex emotions that can perplex people while they are suffering and crying to God for help.

2. Speaking of complexity, there is a tension in Psalm 25 between the Psalmist's felt need for God's grace, and his realization that God primarily regards the righteous. The Psalmist asks God to forgive him for his sins---even those that he committed when he was young. In vv 7, 11, he asks God to forgive him for the sake of God's goodness, which may indicate that the Psalmist does not believe that he deserves God's deliverance, for he appeals to God's graciousness and desire for glory rather than to any personal merit on his part. The Psalmist also appeals to his own suffering, as if he expects that to move God to pity, and he also refers to his trust in the LORD. And yet, v 10 says that God's paths are mercy and truth to the people who keep God's testimonies and covenant. V 14 affirms that the LORD's sod (often translated as "secret" or "counsel") is for those who fear him. (I prefer "counsel" because of the Psalm's emphasis on God's guidance, and sod indeed can mean "counsel", as it does in Proverbs 15:22 and other verses.) In v 3, the Psalmist asks that those who transgress without cause might be ashamed. And, in v 21, the Psalmist asks that integrity and uprightness might preserve him, and Peter Craigie feels compelled to clarify that the Psalmist here is not self-righteous, but rather is cognizant of his own integrity. The Psalmist affirms a system in which God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked, but he realizes that he himself falls short in such a system, which is why he desires God's grace.

The Psalmist may be trying to do right, even as he remembers times in his past when he did wrong, for which he needs God's forgiveness. But he does not believe that he himself has arrived at a state of righteous perfection, for, in Psalm 25, he continually asks God to teach him and to guide him (vv 4-5, 8-9, 12). The Psalmist is a work in progress.

Patrick Miller in the HarperCollins Study Bible states regarding v 11: "The realization of God's faithfulness to those who keep God's instruction (v. 10) leads the psalmist, who is mindful of failure to do that in the past, to insert a prayer for forgiveness." This is a way to account for the combination of different themes in this Psalm: a desire for deliverance and security, a prayer for forgiveness, etc. But does the Psalmist desire forgiveness and divine guidance because those things would protect him from suffering and premature death? Perhaps, but I do not think that the Psalmist's desire to follow God's ways is necessarily based on an ulterior motive, at least not solely, for v 10 says that God's paths are mercy and truth to those who keep God's covenant and testimonies. This could mean that God is merciful and reliable towards those who keep his covenant and testimonies (which could be the law, the mark of the covenant, and yet Calvinist commentator John Gill says that the covenant that the Psalmist wants to maintain is one of grace). But the orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary says regarding the verse that "The goodness and truth of all the commandments of Hashem's Torah can be understood by those who adhere to them..." This implies that the commandments are valuable by themselves---that they are inherently good and true---and that those who observe them come to understand how they are good and true.

3. In v 22, the Psalmist asks God to redeem Israel from all of its troubles. Some hold that the Psalm about the individual's plight was applied to the nation in its plight, meaning that v 22 was added. Others contend that the Psalm itself is about the plight of Israel. I would like to believe, however, that the individual sufferer was learning to think beyond himself and his own afflictions---and to think about others as well, and to desire for God's blessing upon them. It's easy for me to become solipsistic, and so I need reminders that I should have a vision that includes more people than me.

Van Seters on Etiologies, Olrik's Laws, and Source Criticism

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.

The Settlement of the Transjordan, Part 1

In this post, I'll talk about Excursus 70 in Jacob Milgrom's Jewish Publication Society commentary on the Book of Numbers. This Excursus is entitled "The Settlement of Transjordan (chap. 32)".

Milgrom discusses discrepancies in the Hebrew Bible on who has what land in the Transjordan. One voice presents a picture in which "Gad lay to the south of Manasseh, and Reuben lay to the south of Gad" (page 495). This is what I see on Bible maps that I've looked at, and Milgrom cites such passages as Deuteronomy 4:23 and Joshua 20:8.

But there are other pictures in the Hebrew Bible. Numbers 32, for example, "places Gadite towns both to the north and south of Reuben", and, whereas Numbers 32 assigns Aroer and Dibon to Gad, Joshua 13:16-17 assigns them to Reuben.

Why are there different pictures of the Transjordan? One view that Milgrom cites is that of R. de Vaux. De Vaux argued that Reuben was eventually assimilated into Gad. There are indications in the Hebrew Bible that Reuben at some point lost its prominence and was eclipsed by Gad (Genesis 49:3-4; Deuteronomy 33:6, 20-21). In the time of Saul, the Transjordan is called Gad and Gilead (I Samuel 13:7). Moreover, "David's census north of the Arnon only mentions Gad (2 Sam. 24:5)", "Solomon's lower Transjordanian district is called Gad (I kings 4:19 LXX)", and "the Moabite stone (ninth century) refers only to Gad" (page 495).

Tomorrow, we'll look at critiques of De Vaux's proposal that Milgrom mentions.

Van Seters' Historical Arguments Regarding the Patriarchs

I'm continuing my way through John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition. Here are three items.

1. A significant point that Van Seters makes is that the patriarchal narratives have anachronisms: they locate things from the first millennium B.C.E. in the second millennium B.C.E. Examples that Van Seters offers include: tents (which, according to Van Seters, are not mentioned in Mari texts or other second millennium sources); the domesticated camel (which existed on a limited scale in the second millennium B.C.E. and is occasionally represented on monuments, but there was no widespread domestication of camels or Near Eastern camel-nomads who had contact with the Fertile Crescent); nomadic use of goats and cattle; a route that connected Ur with Haran, and Haran with Palestine (the route from Haran to Palestine was possible during the late Assyrian empire, and the route from Ur to Haran occurred under the neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus); and Arabs (who were in the South Transjordan and the Negev in the late monarchical-early exilic period, which is important because the patriarchal narratives present the Ishmaelites as having a relationship with Transjordanian peoples). (For conservative scholar James Hoffmeier's interaction with what appears to be Van Seters on the tent question, see here.) Moving to the debate over whether Abraham lived in Middle Bronze I or Middle Bronze II (both of which are in the second millennium B.C.E.), the patriarchal narratives present cities, whereas Middle Bronze I was largely pastoral.

On page 29, Van Seters argues that the patriarchal narratives do not reflect what we know about second millennium B.C.E. Palestine from the Amarna letters and Nineteenth Dynasty inscriptions. Abraham's enemies in Genesis 14 are from Mesopotamia and Chatti but not from Egypt, which is odd because Egypt ruled Canaan in the second millennium B.C.E. The sons of Jacob kill Shechemites, when Shechemites cooperated with the Hapiru during the second millennium B.C.E. The patriarchal narratives largely depict a peaceful setting, which is different from nomadic existence of the late second millennium B.C.E. Speaking of nomads, Van Seters argues that the patriarchs do not fit the profile of nomads: they do not reflect all that often "the basis characteristics of nomadism---transhumance, belligerence, and migrations" (page 38).

2. Like Thomas Thompson, Van Seters interacts with the scholarly arguments that Abraham's migration is historically-accurate because Amorites or Arameans migrated south in the second millennium B.C.E., and that the customs in the patriarchal narratives reflect second millennium B.C.E. customs. For the first argument, Van Seters states that the patriarchal narratives assume that the Arameans have already settled, as well as sharply distinguish Abraham from the Amorites. For the second argument, I'll refer to a custom that Van Seters discusses, that of a childless man sleeping with a maid in order to have children (for I have already discussed the wife-sister stories and Eliezer of Damascus elsewhere on my blog). In the second millennium B.C.E., the focus of texts regarding this issue is on the childless husband, whereas the patriarchal narratives consider the wife's perspective, or (in the case of Jacob) present a man who already has children sleeping with his maid to give children to his childless wife. In the twelfth century B.C.E. and the first millennium B.C.E., we see consideration in ancient Near Eastern texts of childless women, and so Van Seters concludes that the patriarchal stories reflect the first millennium B.C.E. rather than the early-middle second millennium B.C.E.

3. On page 54, Van Seters discusses the story about Abimelech the king of Gerar. Gerar is said to be in the land of the Philistines in Genesis 21:32, which is an anachronism because the Philistines only settled in that area after they were defeated by Raamses III in the late second millennium B.C.E. Nahum Sarna argued that it was not an anachronism, however, because it depicts the Philistines differently from how they were in the first millennium B.C.E.---for example, it does not mention the five powerful Philistine cities. Sarna argued that Genesis was depicting Philistia as it was before the first millennium B.C.E. But Van Seters goes the opposite route: he says that the part about Gerar being in the land of the Philistines was added during Israel's exilic period, which was after the Philistine pentapolis broke down and the Jews remembered Philistine society rather vaguely---and thus did not mention the pentapolis.

The Decalogue: Organizing the Book of Exodus

This will be the last post of my series on pages 275-278 of David Aaron's Etched in Stone. On these pages, Dr. Aaron summarizes what he believes were the stages of the Decalogue tradition. I'll give you the gist so far. First, there was a proto-narrative, which developed a Decalogue that was non-cultic and was modeled on ancient Near Eastern legal codes. The goal behind this Decalogue was to show that Israel could have a law, even though she no longer had a king (due to the destruction of Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C.E.). Then, there was a priestly reaction against the Proto-Narrative. These priests highlighted a cultic Decalogue (Exodus 34) and used the Golden Calf story to attack the Proto-Narrative and to portray the Proto-Narrative's Decalogue as invalid. Then, the Deuteronomist chimed in. The Deuteronomist preferred the Proto-Narrative's Decalogue to the cultic one of the priests, but the Deuteronomist still used the Golden Calf story---to promote Deuteronomistic ideas such as opposition to idolatry.

Now, we're on Stage 4, which Dr. Aaron characterizes as "Revamping the Exodus Story". I'll quote this stage:

"Deuteronomy, as a free-standing document, was ultimately juxtaposed with those other epics that make up the Exodus story. The idea of a covenant document and its corollary social and religious obligations needed to be reflected in that story. Suddenly a wilderness sojourn emerged to accommodate a whole variety of literary material that had not previously been contemplated by the authors of the Exodus story. Exodus 19-20 was situated to emulate the chronology of Deuteronomy 4-6. The 'tablets' are read, but the fabrication of the ark is assigned to the priests (Exodus 25). As the final redactors were themselves interested in the polemical themes of the Golden Calf story---especially its priestly flavor that was concerned first and foremost with cultural and religious assimilation---Exodus 32-34 were incorporated. This, however, required further adjustments to Deuteronomy. Thus, chapters 9 and 10 of that book were integrated so that all of the core narratives of Exodus and Deuteronomy were now more or less parallel."

We have the Book of Deuteronomy, and the Book of Exodus is being shaped. Deuteronomy embraced the concept of the tablets of the Decalogue serving as Israel's covenant document, and Deuteronomy 4-6 includes the story of God giving Israel the Decalogue from Horeb. Exodus 19-20 was inserted where it was in order that the chronology of Deuteronomy 4-6 could be imitated. I would have to read Etched in Stone again to understand more fully what Dr. Aaron has in mind here, but, on page 227, Dr. Aaron says that the Covenant Code was put where it was to mimic the structure of Deuteronomy---which may mean that, just as in Deuteronomy a series of laws beginning with Deuteronomy 12 comes after the Decalogue, so also in Exodus does the Covenant Code come after the Decalogue.

Exodus 32-34 (which contained the Golden Calf story and the cultic Decalogue) was incorporated because the redactors liked its opposition to religious and cultural assimilation---an issue that confronted the Jews even in these redactors' historical context. But then Deuteronomy 9-10 (which contains the Golden Calf story) was incorporated into Deuteronomy, so that the story of Exodus and Deuteronomy were parallel---in that both talked about the Decalogue, followed by the Golden Calf story.

I may revisit this stage sometime in the future.