Blue Cord

I received word this morning that my proposal for a paper at this year’s SBL meeting has been accepted for the Pentateuch section. The paper is on the demotion of the Levites in PT and HS. It builds on some of the work that Steve Cook has done on interbiblical exegesis between the Torah and Ezekiel. I wrote about half this paper in the summer of 2006. Unfortunately, I got busy with other things and never got around to finishing it. It will be interesting to dive back into the topic at some point this summer.

Steve Cook and John Hobbins both replied to my post on H in Genesis. I wanted to address their comments.

Steve is right, of course, in pointing out that Knohl does not completely reject the idea of H in Genesis. In addition to p.103, n.150, which Steve notes, Knohl also says on p.60 that parts of Genesis 17 may belong to HS. This is a far cry, however, from attributing large amounts of narrative to H as John and Jim Getz have done.

John asks how I explain Ezekiel when I date H to the post–exilic period. The answer is that I see a development of tradition from PT, through Ezekiel, to HS. Ezekiel is, in effect, writing Torah, especially in Ezekiel 40-48. But according to the authors of the Pentateuch, all Torah is given at Sinai. This leads to HS taking many of the ideas of Ezekiel and writing them into the Pentateuch. For one example of this, see my post on P in the book of Numbers.

John also criticizes van Seters for seeing J as entirely post–D, but I don’t think this is an entirely accurate reading of van Seters. J the author certainly worked post–D according to van Seters, but I am sure he doesn’t deny that J drew upon older traditions (and even if van Seters denies this, I don’t). Although I am not directly familiar with Blum’s work on the Jacob stories, I would have no problem seeing a pre–exilic version of this story. It probably had several versions, some that are oral and some that are written. This does not change the fact that J as an author is post–D.

Finally, John thanked me for keeping this topic going, but I wanted to thank those who have responded (and hopefully will continue to respond) to this thread. As you know, I am currently not working in academics, so my only colleagues are those in the biblioblogosphere. Thanks to all of you for providing the intellectual stimuli I need to challenge my thinking on this topic.

For those who read this blog but are not biblical scholars, I am sure all of the different signs used to designate different layers in the Pentateuch can be a bit confusing. So, I thought I would present this handy guide.

• P – the entirety of the Priestly Source; as classically formulated, P was an independent document from the post–exilic period that was later edited together with J, E, and D; P spans Genesis–Numbers, although some scholars see P continuing into Joshua and sometimes even further.
• Pg – the narrative sections of P, sometimes seen as the earliest version of the Priestly Document.
• Ps – later supplements to Pg, usually legal sections; Pg + Ps = P; Martin Noth in particular did a lot of work with Pg and Ps; the g and s are sometimes written in superscript.
• PT – the Priestly Torah; this siglum was devised by Israel Knohl to indicate an early layer in P; although much of Pg is seen as belonging to PT, the two are by no means coterminous.
• HS – the Holiness School, Knohl’s designation for the later layer in P; it contains much of what was classically designated by Ps plus some of Pg.
• H or HC – the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26); classically seen as being an independent document that was incorporated into the Pentateuch by P; contemporary scholarship now views H as being the last layer of P; Knohl developed his idea of HS by connecting H with other layers within P.

Unfortunately, scholars do not always use these sigla in a consistent way. I am guilty of this myself. I often refer to P and H when what I mean is PT and HS. Part of the problem is that the field of source criticism is in flux. The old consensus of JEDP has broken down and a new consensus has yet to emerge. This leads not only to a lack of clarity in the use of the sigla, but also to different scholars using the same signs to designate different layers in the Pentateuch.

Jim Getz and John Hobbins both replied to my previous post on whether the narratives in Genesis are from P or H (or better, PT or HS). I wanted to respond to their responses.

I would be interested in hearing what Knohl has to say on the subject of the narratives being from H. In The Sanctuary of Silence, he attributes all of Genesis to PT in one paragraph on p.60. He states, “In most of [Genesis] we find no linguistic features typical of HS; thus, we may assign them to PT, as is commonly accepted.” If he has rethought this, I would like to hear his arguments.

I would love to hear what Jim’s colleague has to say in her dissertation. If you don’t mind, please ask her to drop a comment on my blog if she has the time.

Jim points out that the Covenant Code is earlier than material in D, P, and H. I would agree, but I don’t think anyone would assign it to J. J may have been the one who edited it into Exodus, but it was around before that.

As for van Seters, there is a great deal on which he can be criticized and places where I disagree with him, but I think his main point that J is post-D is solid. At the very least, it certainly cannot be assigned to the 10th century any longer. This is a conclusion that has been reached by a number of scholars in Europe.

John points towards Milgrom. I quickly looked through his Anchor Bible commentary and his Fortress Press commentary (both on Leviticus) and didn’t see anything that suggested he assigned the narratives in Genesis to HS. Milgrom, like Knohl, sees P and H as being pre-exilic. He sees H as being later than JE, D, and P. I agree with him on P being pre-exilic, but I would date H to the post-exilic period, and thus still later than what used to be called J.

One final question to both Jim and John: If we assign the narratives to H, what then is left of P? Wouldn’t H have then taken over pretty much all of the Priestly Source? If that is the case, then all we have done is change the letter we use to refer to the Priestly Source.

Jim Getz and John Hobbins left comments on my prior post about parallel structures in creation stories. Both of them suggested that the priestly narrative materials in the Pentateuch are H, whereas I had assigned them P.

I would be interested in hearing their arguments for this. While I think H is the redactor of P and J (or better, P and non–P), I have not heard anyone argue that Pg comes from the same school as Leviticus 17-26.

So what do you say, guys? What is your evidence? If H is the author of the priestly narratives in the Torah, was he also the redactor? And for Jim, who sees JE as earlier than P and D, what do you do with the scholarship of H.H. Schmid, John van Seters, and others who have critiqued the arguments for the priority of J?