Study in the Work of Late Redactors

by peacefulpete 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the OT. The 19th century approaches (Wellhausen et al.) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the Torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary. Unsurprisingly there have been refinements, or at least recognition of difficulties, with early proposals. A point in dispute is the role of redactors, who, when, why, how many.

  There are often legitimate reasons for disagreement, such is the nature of textual criticism. Often the suspected redaction (or even a source) involves a single word or phrase that interrupts the flow, is anachronistic, or contradicts and unfortunately, without supporting evidence, what may be recognized as a redaction by all, is difficult to be certain as to the who's and when's.

  Supporting evidence is difficult given the lateness of our extant documents. Stylistic, idiomatic and theological markers may not provide enough to be dogmatic. Therefore, it's not a failure to admit may need to be willing to be less than certain about details about the bumpy road the OT took to take the form we have today.

  However, what follows is an interesting example of a redaction that has a number of good lines of evidence that converge. This is mostly because the redaction/interpolation was pretty late in history.

  In the 1 Kings 6 description of the building of the Temple:

  He constructed the House and completed it. He paneled the House with beams and planks of cedar. 6:10 He built the storied structure against the entire House—each story 5 cubits high, so that it encased the House with timbers of cedar.

  6:11 Then the word of YHWH came to Solomon, 6:12 “With regard to this House you are building—if you follow My laws and observe My rules and faithfully keep My commandments, I will fulfill for you the promise that I gave to your father David: 6:13 I will abide among the children of Israel, and I will never forsake My people Israel.”[13]

  6:14 Solomon constructed the House and completed it. 6:15 He paneled the walls of the House on the inside with planks of cedar.

  The block of text (11-13 and the repetition in vs 14) are regarded as an interpolation. The vss11-13 section interrupts the narrative flow with a new appearance of Yahweh to Solomon. This created the necessity to repeat vs 9 in vs 14 to bring the readers' mind back to the topic of completing the Temple. As we will see, not only does the narrative flow suggest an interpolation, but the larger context does also.

  In 1Kings 3 Yahweh appears to Solomon at the Gibeon high place:

  King Solomon went to Gibeon to offer a sacrifice because that was the most important high place. He offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 While Solomon was at Gibeon, the Lord came to him at night in a dream. God said, “Solomon, ask me what you want me to give you.”

  and yet later in chapter 9 we read:

  YHWH appeared to Solomon a second time, as He had appeared to him at Gibeon. 9:3 YHWH said to him, “I have heard the prayer and the supplication which you have offered to Me…”

  Clearly the original narrative did not include the appearance in chapter 6 that we are discussing.

  What's really unusual in this case is we also have documentary evidence for this being a late (proto-Masoretic) redaction through the reading in the LXX (msB). Note the verses with the appearance to Solomon are not found. Α΄ Βασιλέων (1 Kings) 6 (LXX) - καὶ ἐγενήθη ἐν τῷ τεσσαρακοστῷ (blueletterbible.org)

  Regarding why the redactor (likely a 3rd century BC scribe of a school that ideologically identified with the Priestly source) felt the need to insert this new material, it seems consistent with a number of other similar redactions that went to pains to insist the Davidic covenant and Temple were conditional. Simply said, it supplied textual support for their explanation offered for the loss of the Temple and independence. Unfaithfulness.

  In my understanding, this redactor's outlook quickly became a minority view, it might already have been when this was done. (e.g. Deutero-Isaiah 2 centuries before argued differently)
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  I kinda skipped over the ideological/theological evidence of an interpolation. 1 Kings is part of the Deuteronomist History and throughout that source we find a clear rejection of the idea that Yahweh resides on earth, whether in a Temple or anywhere else. For instance in this same pericope in chapt 8:27-29:

  But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built! 8:28 Yet turn to the prayer and supplication of Your servant… 8:29 May Your eyes be open day and night toward this House, toward the place of which You have said, “My name shall abide there”….

  Yet in this interpolation/redaction we have Yahweh saying just the opposite.:

  I will abide among the children of Israel.

  This is an expression much more at home within the Priestly source which frequently spoke of Yahweh dwelling with them and in his Temple.

  For example:

  Ex 25:8 And let them make Me a temple that I may dwell among them.

  Lev 25:11 I will put my dwelling place[a] among you, and I will not abhor you. 12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.

  
  

  Therefore the conclusion is that a scribe with affinities for the Priestly source, living at a time prior to the traditional fixation of the text is responsible.

  So in this redactional example we have 4 lines of evidence, the interruptive nature of the passage, the contradiction in context that it creates, the documentary/manuscript evidence and ideological evidence.
  
  
• 

  Phizzy

  Thanks P.P , it is a minefield Textual Criticism, as you say, and we cannot but view the evidence, and draw conclusions we cannot prove satisfactorily in many cases, but this one is very convincing !

  What we can say is that a very corrupted Text, done deliberately with Interpolations and Redactions etc, and the odd Scribal error, is ALL we have in the very late MSS we have, and this applies to the Christian Greek Scriptures with even more transparency.

  What fascinates me is that we can trace the Evolution of Israelite/Jewish Theology easily, and the later evolution of Theology/Christology in the N.T.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I've learned enough to be confidently wrong a lot of the time. I do find the differing P and D conceptions of Yahweh's presence intriguing.

  Mettinger hypothesized that both writers (or schools) needed to address the realities of the exile and loss of Temple but approached it in slightly different ways. D (intentionally or not) invented the so-called Name Theology. Yahweh's 'Name' could be uniquely attached to a place and represent him but yet the divine greatness resided in heaven.

  P, the priestly approach seems to be more concerned about the mobility of Kabod of Yahweh. Now you see me, now you don't. This Kabod (glory) of Yahweh is often said to be speaking and acting as Yahweh (often used in same passage interchangeably) was said to reside in the movable tabernacle and fixed Temple and so was free to move around as circumstances required. What more, this Kabod was in the Temple as Yahweh but was also in heaven.

  It's not hard to see how these terms and others evolved into a Two Powers concept, that we touched on before.

  Both authors freed their god from being a localized deity living in a temple. One by denying he ever really lived there, the other by giving his god a new ability to be present and in heaven at the same time.
  
  
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  While I disagree with the dating of the editing the rest is a good find. I have recently been untangling the book of kings and have found two layers. Some of the clue are for instance Jehu killing all the prince's of judah and then in the next chapter Athaliah does the same thing. Or Elijah introduced abruptly as if we are in the middle of his story. Elijah is given three commissions but two of them Elisha does instead. The Josiah story has huldah promise Josiah a peaceful death. However a small blurb at the end of the chapter has Josiah die in battle.
• 

  peacefulpete

  HTBWC....The tangle is an irresistible puzzle. Yes, many have recognized at least 2 if not 3 layers within the DH. D itself was a composition/compilation of old and new.

  I was following the advice of others in the assigning the date of the redaction in 1 Kings 6. It makes sense in my estimation. When would you date the redaction?
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  I'm a Minimalist. I've corresponded with Russell Gmirkin on much of this material a few years ago. He dates this to 273-269bce. I go further and follow Dr. Robert m price and Philippe Wajdenbaum placing the Deuteronomist code in the second century bce under the Hasmoneans.

  Three layers I think is right for kings. Imo the story originally ended at jeroboam ii. The rest was added later using Berossus for the hezekiah and Babylonian exile material and the kings from uzziah to Zedikiah. But as mentioned before someone added Josiahs death.

  Have you read Margret barker works? The priesthood split in 155bce between the Zadoks and the Hasmoneans
• 

  peacefulpete

  I see I didn't elaborate sufficiently but a 3rd century BCE date was what I was suggesting. A scribe with affinities to the Priestly work and theosophy living a couple centuries later.

  I've read most of Thompson's works. His Mythic Past was one of the first critical books I was exposed to. His Minimalist outlook has certainly influenced my views through the years. Since then, my research has led me to a slightly more middle path. For example, David and Solomon, there is no doubt the stories as they read are mythical, but something as simple as the retention of Canaanite theophoric names like Jerusalem and Solomon (Shalem god of the dusk) makes the antiquity of the legends, in some form, more likely. It would seem if the authors were creating the legends whole cloth, they would have at least created names for the characters featuring Yahweh. It's a small peg to hang from, but it has convinced me that we may have some reimagining of genuinely ancient stories.

  I read Barker's book The Great Angel fairly recently. I may have even commented on it some time ago.
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  Hosea 10:14 might change you view on Solomon. Shalmam or shamanessr iii has a list of places he conquered is matches one of the lists from 1 Kings 10. It's likely Solomon is a coopted story from Mesopotamian sources imo. David or beloved bthdwd is mentioned in Syrian sources possibly but it is a title. You might like the podcast dragons in genesis. It matches alot of your material
• 

  peacefulpete

  Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm not sure we can be sure just who and where the Hosea passage was referring. The work is exceptionally opaque. It's possibly referring the one of the Shalmanesers, but the questions of corruption, redaction have persisted since antiquity. You probably know many see the work as a post exilic revision/rewrite of some older prophet's work.

  Many years ago I did a thread discussing the twins Shalem and Shahar. To me this makes clear the familiarity of OT writers.

  Using mythology to understand obscure passages.

  Shalim - Wikipedia

  I'm aware of Thompson's take on the tel Dan inscription, and the objection over no word divider. He may be right. It's even possible the 'Beloved" was an epithet for a deity. This might then suggest the David character also retained a Canaanite deity's reference.