The first word of this post was originally “qw2MKJ,” which our new kitten typed by walking across the keyboard. But as she seems too dogmatic (ironically!), I am not going to let her blog anymore. I will give her credit, however, for spelling “qw2MKJ” correctly.

Van Seters has commented on Rendtorff’s comments on the Yahwist in a letter to the SBL Forum. Although it is a nice summary of the disagreements between them, it is nothing new to those who follow source criticism. Rendtorff basically wants to see the formation of the Pentateuch as being due to redactors, while van Seters sees various authors (D, J, and P in that order) adding supplements to the Pentateuch until it reaches its final form.

I think van Seters is more on target here. I find it hard to imagine the Pentateuch coming together without the work of creative authors. Neither communities nor the transmission of traditions produce documents; individuals do (whether working alone [J] or in groups [P]). While I think van Seters is on the right track, I think he also needs to deal with the separation between PT and HS proposed by Knohl. So far, I have yet to hear him comment on this.

I am looking forward to van Seters’s new book, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. I hope to pick it up at the SBL annual meeting in November.

Permalink