In the fall I asked some friends and family what kinds of
questions they had about the Bible, and one of the topics that came up the most
frequently had to do with the composition, compilation, and canonization of the
Bible (Yay, alliteration! I think I'll refer to these as the Three Cs). In
short, people want to know how the Bible came to be. Most folks are well aware
that it didn't just drop into the lap of some ancient religious leaders by the
Holy Spirit. But a lot of people still aren't really sure about the Bible's actual
origins.
As I have
insisted in my earliest posts, the Bible is not really a book, but more like a
library of books. It is a whole corpus of literature composed over a period of a
thousand plus years or so, and its content concerns events that range over two thousand
years of history (delving into some undatable, legendary periods as well). The
books of Bible are compiled somewhat according to the order of the over-arching
narrative – where there is a narrative to follow – but certainly not according to when they were written. Some of the older books of the Hebrew
Scriptures predate some of the books of the Torah (those first 5 books).
Matthew's Gospel precedes Mark's in the New Testament, but Mark was almost
certainly written first – not to mention the letters of Paul before any of the
Gospels. And Romans is the first letter to appear among Paul's epistles, but it
was likely one of his later letters. Basically, the ordering of the books in
the Bible has little to do with the date of their composition.
The who and when of biblical authorship is a rather complex issue. Regarding
the Old Testament alone, most of the books were not composed by single authors
but were more so the product of collaboration "– collaboration of a
special kind because the various authors were widely separated in space and
time, had no knowledge of one another, and certainly had no conception of the
form that their work would finally take."[1] The
Hebrew Scriptures had a slow development that included various authors, sources
(both oral and written), editors, and compilers. This is especially true for
the Torah, which brings me to source
analysis and the "Documentary Hypothesis." (Exciting, right?) As
technical as these sound, they're really just fancy terms for talking about
how the Torah is a compilation of several sources with varying origins and points
of view.
Personally, I
am a fan of the concept of the Documentary Hypothesis, and I have no problem
believing that the Scriptures were developed from various sources. As with many
things in academic disciplines however, it's a theory, and scholars continue to
debate and dispute the dating and nature of the proposed sources. However, as
Michael Coogan concedes, "the data must be explained, and almost all
scholars agree with the general principle that underlying the present text of
the first five books of the Bible are distinct sources."[2]
One way we can think about the use of various
sources in the formation of the Torah is to imagine writing a book on your family's
ancestry. You might have heard family stories from your grandma Dorothy, but
then you also have a diary written by your great-aunt Bertha. Maybe you find a few
legal documents that have to do with your great-grandfather Robert on
ancestry.com, so you decide to add those to the mix as well. And then there are
always those family legends – the ones that have been passed down from
generation to generation with a few variations here and there. You're not sure
if they actually happened in the same way that they've been related, but they
reflect an important part of your family's character and identity, so you put
them in too. Some of the materials may seem to contradict each other. Perhaps Dorothy
tells a story that disagrees with Bertha's diary, but you choose to put it all
together anyway and try to make a somewhat homogenized story of your family.
All analogies
fail at some point, of course, but I hope this kind helps to put in perspective
what I mean by the use of sources in the Torah's composition. Just as the
family stories were passed down orally before writing this book from the example,
the oral traditions which influenced the biblical texts also had a
long-standing history before they were committed to writing. But just like Bertha's
diary or Robert's legal documents in the analogy, it wasn't only oral
traditions that were used as sources in the development of the Torah. Some written
material was produced as early as the monarchy, which began around the 10th
century BCE (the 900s).These sources, both oral and written, would eventually
would lead to the formulation of parts of the Torah.
With some
confidence, scholars can point to the reign of Josiah of Judah (640-609 BCE)
as a datable period for an early edition of what would become the book of
Deuteronomy. At that time, a so-called "Book of the Law" was
"found" in the Temple (see 2 Kings 22:1- 23:30). Later, with the
experience of the Babylonian exile and the threat of their religious faith
disappearing altogether, there was an unprecedented need "to fix [their]
traditions permanently as canonical documents."[3] So
by about the 4th century, a good while after the exile, the material
that made up the Torah was collected, compiled, and redacted to form more or
less what we know as the Torah today.
So, okay, by that time we pretty much have the Torah, and it evidently was an
authoritative text for its readers (i.e. canonical), since the post-exilic
Judahites needed to preserve and pass on their religious faith. But what were
those sources that made up the Torah? Here is just a bird's-eye view of the four
classical sources and some of their characteristics.
J (Jahwist): This
source, pronounced YAH-wist (because them Germans have the market on biblical
scholarship, and they pronounce Js like Ys, as in Jägermeister) is so named because when referring
to God this source uses the Divine Name, YHWH. English Bibles typically never
use the Divine Name, and rightly so out of respect. Instead, whenever the
Divine Name appears it reads the LORD, and in fact, whenever Jewish people read from the Scriptures and
encounter the Divine Name in Hebrew they instead say Adonai, which more or less means "Lord." J is probably
the earliest of the traditions, and it likely developed in the southern Kingdom
(Judah). God is depicted as more humanlike and speaks more directly to human
beings rather than through messengers.
E (Elohist): This
source is so named because it uses the Hebrew word elohim to refer to God – at least up to the revelation of the
Divine Name in Exodus 3. Elohim is
usually simply translated as "God" in English Bibles. In E, God is
more distant and communicates through dreams and messengers (angels). Geographically it has a more northern perspective. The term
"prophet" is favored in this source, for even Abraham is called a prophet. Also, the mountain known as
"Sinai" in J is here called "Horeb" (as well as in the D source, but
I'm not there yet). Since E
is very fragmented and intertwined closely into the J source, the two are
sometimes indistinguishable.
P (Priestly): The
Priestly source gets its name because it deals so much with religious matters and
instructions: rituals, sacrifices, Sabbaths, etc. It was likely the last of the
four sources to develop – probably during 6th century, given the
need to preserve the traditions in the midst of the turmoil that occurred in that period (destruction of the Temple, exile, return and reconstruction; let's
face it, the 500s were a trying and pivotal century). Almost all of Leviticus
is from the P source, but P is interlaced in all of the books of the Torah. God
is more remote in P than any other source. The light-filled cloud described
in Exodus is an example of P's distant and transcendent depiction of God's
glory.
If you're
wondering how all of these sources got pulled together, you can thank the P
source for at least being the final editors of the source materials, which is
why their contributions are found in all
five books. In fact, chapter 1 of Genesis and the last chapter of Deuteronomy
are from P, so it basically bookends the whole Torah. It may have been a later source,
but the Johnny-come-latelies got the final say.
D (Deuteronomic): You
can thank the Deuteronomists for a good chunk of the Hebrew Scriptures. A type of religious/intellectual movement which scholars refer to as the Deuteronomic School developed as early
as the 8th century in the northern Kingdom (Israel). That school
later moved to Judah after the fall of Israel to the Assyrians. Surprise,
surprise, the Deuteronomic source was responsible for most of the book of
Deuteronomy (from which the D source gets its name). But the Deuteronomists
were also the authors of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. These books make up
what is known as the Deuteronomic History. They also edited and possibly
collected material from a number of the earlier prophetic books, most
particularly Jeremiah, who himself may have been part of the Deuteronomic
School. Obviously this school of thought didn't have much to do with what we
mean by "schools" today, but if it did and had I lived back then, I
would have had a closet full of their T-shirts and gone to all their games with
a big foam finger. I am that much of a fan of their accomplishments. Go
Deuteronomists!
This is
merely a rough sketch of the four main hypothetical sources originally proposed
by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918).There were indeed other source traditions in
existence. For example, chapters 17-26 of Leviticus probably derive from a
separate source known as the "Holiness Code." And the book of Numbers
is a patchwork of not just J, E, and P, but of other folklore, laws, lists and
accounts that were passed down.[4] Some
of the books of the Old Testament even refer to non-biblical textual sources
(e.g. the Book of Jasher) which have since been lost to us.
Lastly, we
cannot pretend that the literature and oral traditions from the surrounding
cultures and nations had no effect on biblical writings. The Israelites settled
among Canaanites and were under Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and
Greek domination at different periods of their history. Naturally, some of the
literature and lore of their neighbors and captors would have rubbed off on
them. It's no surprise, for example, that multiple flood stories occur in ancient
Near Eastern literature. But comparing biblical and other ancient Near Eastern
texts is a topic for another day. The point is that the formation of biblical
literature was a rather organic process and consisted of much more than just a
handful of individual authors. Even the Documentary Hypothesis can be critiqued
for oversimplifying what was certainly a complicated development.
But why does
any of this matter? What sort of effect will it have on our biblical reading? Why
am I going into a whole rant about source
analysis? One reason is simply because I find that people are hungry to
know where the Bible comes from. How did this anthology of books come about
that has had so much influence over history and our lives today. The best way I
could think of to approach that question was to write a bit about the
ever-enthralling Documentary Hypothesis. The other reason, however, is because
I am edified and mystified by the wondrous way in which God communicates God's
self. As I said in my previous post, the Truth has a way of making itself know
to us. The fact that multiple sources and traditions – some of which differ
greatly in perspective from one another – can all be brought together to proclaim
the word of God says something about God's infinite greatness and inclusivity.
We find that God is more "both/and" than "either/or." Some
lament the apparent contradictions in Scripture. I prefer to see them as an
example of the fine tension in which all things are held, tempering extremism
and giving us the freedom to stretch our arms out wider to embrace even more of
the mystery of our faith.
For this
week, I recommend reading chapters 1 & 2 of Genesis. They're a perfect
example of two separate sources at work. If you compare these creation myths,
you'll find distinctive and differing characteristics between them. Gen 1-2:3 is from the P source, and in it there is more of a sense of bringing order out
of chaos. It orders creation with the perfect number, seven, and concludes with
Sabbath rest. God is more distant in chapter one; God speaks, and creation is
made. On the other hand, Gen 2:4-24 is from the J source. God is more
humanlike, forming a man out of the earth like a potter, planting the garden
like a gardener, building up a woman from the man's rib. The narrative is much
more story-like with explanatory asides and a developing plot which will unfold
in the following chapters. You don't have to try to pick out all the
differences in the two accounts, but I would encourage you to see how each one
is unique but at the same time speaks a truth about God, humanity, stewardship, the
goodness of creation and the preeminence of relationship.
Since this
post is only Part One of a series of entries on the Bible's origins, I hope to
go over other areas of the Three Cs in subsequent posts. Today's has only
covered a tiny speck of what is certainly a topic best explored in a lecture
series with an actual professor. Nevertheless, I welcome questions and comments
via e-mail, Facebook, or this blog page. And now you can even follow the Codega
on Twitter (@biblecodega). Come back next week for more about the origins of
the Bible, and until then...
Peace and all good!
[1] John B. Gabel and Charles B.
Wheeler, The Bible as Literature: An
Introduction, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 9.
[2] Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and
Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006), 28.
[3] Ibid., 76.
[4]
Ibid., 145 & 153.
No comments:
Post a Comment