“The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the Pentateuch” by Albert de Pury is the third essay in A Farewell to the Yahwist? De Pury wrote the ABD article on the Yahwist, so he is no stranger to this subject.
He begins the article by noting that the Jacob story has received little attention as a part of the formation of the Pentateuch. He argues, however, that the Jacob story existed, at least in oral form, long before being joined to the exodus story by P. In his view, the Jacob and Moses stories are competing versions of Israel’s origins. In this, I think he may be correct.
According to de Pury, the Deuteronomists did not like the Jacob story. They left it out completely, except for Deuteronomy 26:5-9, where Jacob is not named and is seen as a weakling. It is in Egypt, according to D, that Israel’s history begins. He thinks D is from prophetic circles and that the prophets were the ones who held to Moses as the originator of Israel.
A part of his argument relies on Hosea 12, where he sees Jacob and Moses being contrasted. If this is the case, then Hosea (a prophet) is holding up Moses (who is pictured as a prophet) as the hero, while painting Jacob as rebellious. This is the part of the argument that I find the weakest. Even if Hosea does contrast Jacob and Moses, he does not seem to be rejecting the idea that Jacob is the ancestor of the Israelites. Quite the opposite. He seems to be arguing the Israel is just like its ancestor. If that is not the case, then his oracle does not seem to hold together logically.
As with others in the volume, de Pury sees P as the one who originally linked together Jacob and the exodus story. I can probably accept this, although I would like to read the rest of the book before making up my mind. But I disagree with him that P is dated to the postexilic period. He even goes farther than most scholars and sees P being written about 535-530 BCE. He does this because he views the formation of P being brought about by the need to produce a law acceptable to Persian authorities. I don’t find that theory convincing, and for reasons I have mentioned before I date P to the preexilic period.
I find it odd that so many people find the dating of the Priestly work to the preexilic period problematic. In every ANE society we know, priestly circles are one of the main loci of scribal activity. It would make sense for the priests in Israel to have been among the first to write, and it seems to me that the narrative part of P is exactly what we would expect of an early attempt to write a history of Israel. In reading over P, it strikes me as being more similar in tone to other works from the ANE, whereas the non-P material seems more verbose. If anyone is writing in the preexilic period, it should be the priests.