THE PENTATEUCH
A peep into its formation
O.M.Mathew Oruvattithara
Student,M.A.(R.Sc) Course, Batch VI
Mar Thoma Vidya Niketan, Changanacherry, Kerala
1.Return to the ‘Ressources’
Renaissance, the enlightening episode,
enkindled the enquiring ethos of Europe. Naturally, Biblical scholarship too,
blossomed forth. Provenance of the Pentateuch posed a puzzle for the academic
world. Certainly, the ‘revealed book’ could not have originated from a single
author or corpus, they surmised. ‘Return to the ressources’, the solution lies
there, ran the refrain.
2.The Inaugurators of the
solution
Savants, both of the Catholic and
Protestant world joined the chorus. Prominent among these inaugurators of the
solution, or the decisive men of revolutionary insight for this exacting
endeavour were the following. Thomas Hobbes of England, the treasury pensioner
turned political philosopher of the Stuart period, Benedict de Spinoza of
Holland, the anathematized Jewish thinker cum theologian, the French Oratorian
priest Richard Simon, Issac de la Peyrere, the propagator of Protestantism in
France, Herring Berhard Witter, the Lutheran pastor of Hildesheim and the Swiss
Calvinist Jean le Clerc.
3.The Problem Expatiated
A- Why the ‘five-fold’ division?
Scholars opine that, before the 2nd
c B.C, the ‘Torah’, or the Pentateuch, as it is called in the present period,
was ‘One Scroll’. The Hebrew word Torah
denotes ‘Instruction’. This is a quite meaningful designation, as the scroll
contained the do’s and don’ts to be followed by the faithful to please God. The
term Pentateuch, derived from the Greek language, means ‘five scrolls’ or ‘five rolls’. In Greek, ‘pente’ signifies
‘five’ and ‘teuchos’ denotes ‘the case’ for holding scrolls. Here, it may be
borne in mind that in those days, documents on parchments and other pliable
materials were kept in rolls. The term Pentateuch may also signify the
‘five-fold division’. Such a division was not attested before the 2nd
c B.C. Scholars suggest that the Pentateuch “had in all essentials reached its
final form much earlier than the Second Temple period.”[1]
In any way, we may safely say that this division was effected latest by the 4th
c B.C. It may be noted here, that the names of the individual books of the
Pentateuch are dated back to the translation of the Torah into Greek. This must
have taken place under Ptolemy Philadelphus, (285-247 B.C). The name,
‘Septuagint’, represented by the Roman numerals LXX was ascribed collectively
to the produced book, as the translation was said to have been undertaken by
seventy Jewish rabbis. Although, in Hebrew, books of the Torah were named after
their first word or by the first important word, the translators, on their on
accord, imposed Greek names on the five books. The Greek titles were adapted in
the Latin Vulgate. English versions have adopted and adapted the Latin titles.
Thus have come the names, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
It was only in the Middle Ages, that the Hebrew MSS of the Torah began to
appear in chapter-wise arrangements. This method however, was resorted to
earlier, in the English versions, by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of
Caterbury in the 13th c A.D. The question, the scholars pose, is as
to why was the original ‘One Scroll’ divided into ‘five’. That it was
necessitated for convenience of handling is too commonplace an argument.
Therefore, one is tempted to contend that this scheme of the so called
systematization had an ulterior motive.
The observation of Blekinsopp in his article, ‘An Introduction to the
Pentateuch’ is not inappropriate to be cited here. It “had the purpose of
highlighting Leviticus…… defining Israel as holy community distinct from
others.”[2]
B-Thematical Incoherence
Thematically too, the Torah betrays
incoherence and inconsistencies. Scholars discerned divergent themes, like
myths or origin stories, sagas with cult legends, legal codes, poems and poetic
fragments. This is the suggestion of S.H.Hooke, in his article ‘An Introduction
to Pentateuch’.[3] The
narratives or the mythical portion tells the story of mankind from the first
man Adam to Abraham the first patriarch and his descendents. The legal
materials appear as two large blocks. The first one is Mt. Sinai revelation and
the other, which appears at a later portion, is Moses’ mandatory proclamation,
with a different motif. On analysing
S.H.Hooke’s above cited article which runs, “When we examine the varied
natures of its contents and inquire how this shapeless and heterogeneous mass
of material came to be welded into a book with a plan and purpose”[4],
an unbiased student is inclined to take one of the following two conjectures;
that it was the result of due deliberation or deliberate dilatation.
C-‘Five Pillars - a puzzle’
Added to the thematical problem is the
puzzle of incongruous collation of the different subjects. On the structural
level, the savants noticed five variations. These five have come to be called
‘five pillars’ of criticisms. They are designated so because the Biblical
scholars of initial periods built up their theories or hypotheses on these
variations. They may be enumerated as ‘variations’. They are “1. the use of
divine names, 2. language and style, 3. contradictions and divergencies within
the text, 4. duplication and repetition of materials, 5. evidences that
different accounts have been combined.”[5]
With regard to the variation in ‘the use of divine names’, it is to be
mentioned that at some places, the Almighty is accosted by the name ‘Elohim’,
while in certain contexts the addressing is by the tetragrammaton ‘yhwh’.
Again, in some portions or pericopes, God is conceived anthropomorphically,
while elsewhere, the conception is transcendental. Regarding the variation in
‘language and style’, suffice it to say, that sometimes it is curt but at other
times copious. As regards the ‘contradictions and divergencies within the text’
as referred above, the two ‘creation stories’ as depicted in Gen. 1 and 2 are
irrefutable proofs. The accounts in Gen. 21:31 and 26:33 are instances of
repetition. These two verses speak the same incident, of how, ‘Barsheeba’ was
named so. Similarly Gen. 32:28 and 35:10 are examples of duplication. Both
these verses describe, the same event of the change of the name of Jacob to
Israel. All these instances would substantiate the ‘duplication and repetition
of materials’. As for ‘evidences that different accounts have been combined’,
the already cited two ‘creation stories’ can be adduced. Further, there is the
problem of anachronisms too, the savants surmised. A classical example of it,
is the description of the death of Moses in the Pentateuch, believed to have
been authored by Moses himself. How could it come about? A logical question
indeed ! There must be some satisfactory solution to these riddles.
4. Scholars step in
a. Very naturally scholars stepped in to
resolve the enigmas. They dared to propound hypotheses. A hypothesis is a
device or contrivance or conceptual structure with a definite purpose. And, it
is to organise and render intelligible a mass of observations which is
otherwise disjointed, disordered and disparate.
b. A few important points should be borne in
mind by the reader of the theories of the scholars. They may be summarily dealt
with. The subject of the Pentateuch narrative is Israel’s secular as well as
spiritual history. The question on the origin and the emergence of the
‘historic’ Israel with the twelve tribes is not easy to be settled. Yet that
event served as the historical condition for the formation of the Pentateuch.
Likewise, the arable land of Palastine must have been the arena for the origin,
the development and the completion of
the Pentateuch. Another noteworthy subject is that the Exodus and the
consequent Sinai Covenant form the central theme of the Torah. Genesis is only
a prologue to Exodus. The other three books are either amplification or
amendments of the Exodus.
c. With the dawn of the 15th
century of our era the ‘holy book’ was subjected to the scientific scrutiny of
many a savant, especially of those mentioned in the very beginning. True, even
before them many men of Biblical scholarship had expressed doubts about Mosaic
authorship of the Torah. One of the earliest in this category of scholars was
Abraham Ibn Ezra, the 12th century Jewish thinker. In his commentary
on Deut.,he alludes to it. Certain passages like Gen.12:6, Deut.13:1 presuppose
situations and events long after the time of Moses, he pointed out. He, however
did so very cryptically, as he was prudent enough to reckon the signs of the
times. For, both Judaism and Christianity or to put it figuratively, the
Synagogue and the Church as well, were cherishing as an article of firm faith,
that the Torah in its entirety was authored by Moses in complete deference to
divine dictates. Another scholar to cast doubt on the views of the ecclesiasts
was, Rabbi Issacedes, the celebrated commentator of the Talmud.
d. But the insight generated by the Italian
resurgence of the 14th and 15th centuries changed the
scenario. Scholars started to spell out their ‘secular’ views, freely, frankly
and fearlessly. Aided by the archaeological findings, buttressed by the body of
traditions in the Lavant, led by logic, both deductive and inductive and
propped up by philology of ancient classical and oriental languages, the
scholars built up various hypotheses. Of course, not all of their findings were
impeccable or infallible. But, by the sheer inner strength and systematic
sequel of their arguments, the academic world had to heed to them. However, as
the ‘once commented glory’ of the ‘holy book’ began to fade and wane, the
ecclesiasts, both of Judaism and Christianity came out with censures and
denunciations on the Biblical critics.
They, however, carried on their research relentlessly.
e. Thomas Hobbes in his ‘Leviathan’ published
in 1651, narrated a number of arguments against the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch.
f. About two decades later, Spinoza declared
in his ‘Tractus theologico-politicus’ of 1670, that in the Torah “we have only
notes and collations to be examined at leisure; materials for history rather
than the digested history itself”.[6]
He stressed the doublets in the Pentateuch and ascribed to Moses only that was
specifically attributable to him.
g. Richard Simon, brought out a
revolutionary thesis in his ‘Critical History of the Old Testament’ of 1678.
Conceded that he wanted, inter alia, to establish that the Protestant
principle, ‘sola scriptura’ was not as authentic and sound as the Catholic
canon of reliance upon Scripture, Tradition, and Church. Rejecting the
time-honoured Mosaic authorship of the ‘five scrolls’, Simon suggested that
there stretched a history of traditions from Moses the prophet to Ezra the
priest; it was finally reduced into writing by Ezra. He, therefore argued that
“the Pentateuch had been compiled form a number of sources”[7] or traditions. His contention can be put
differently. The tradition of a hero, or the saga or romantic tale of heroic
action of a ‘dead yesterday’ was first
transmitted orally. This may be christened “saga tradition.”[8]
Here, the Mosaic tradition is deemed to have been handed down through the mouth
of the narrator. With the efflux of time this is reduced into writing. The
transition from the oral to the written was accomplished through an
evolutionary process, spanning from the tribal to monarchical epochs of Israel.
Simon can legitimately be called the protagonist of the ‘traditional source’
theory. The sagacious Simon must have been aware that his hypotheses would
naturally give scope for plethora of problems or a multitude of
misunderstandings, of diverging dimensions. He, however, cared little to
attempt to answer them as it would have been presumptuous. His view on
traditions has come to be hailed the “Catholic principle of tradition.”[9]
But, as ill luck would have it, the Catholic Church, too conservative as it was
then, put Simon’s three volume treatise on the ‘Index’ i.e list of forbidden
books.
h. Peyrere, in his book, ‘Men before Adam’
argued as under. Remarks like ‘unto this day’ on the death details of Moses,
found in the Pentateuch, logically lead one to disbelieve this account. This
passage, Peyrere pointed out is poignant enough to proclaim a passage of
periods between the death of the prophet and its commitment to writing.
i. Jean le Clerc proposed that the Pentateuch
portion which came to be called later, the ‘Priestly Source’ must have been
penned by the priest, who on his return from the Babylonian captivity, engaged
himself in heralding a reformed Judaism.
j. In 1711, Henning Berhard Witter, noted the
alteration of divine names, Yahweh and Elohim in the preliminary chapters of
the Genesis. In fact, he was the first to exploit the variation as a means of
distinguishing between the two sources, the ‘Yahwist’ and the ‘Elohist’.
k. Witter’s theory was developed shortly
afterwards by Jean d’ Astruc, a Protestant turned Catholic physician. But his
hypothesis inclined towards giving Moses a hand in the formation of the
Pentateuch. Astruc astutely argued that
Moses, though not the author was the compiler. His theory of ‘parallel stories
or memoirs’ was significant for two reasons. Firstly, “the appeal to variation
in the divine names as a sign of different sources.”[10]
True, this idea was put forward earlier by Witter. The second reason is “his
employment of a combination of approaches which was later developed into the
source and fragment hypotheses.”[11]
He held that Moses had made use of the ‘Yahweh’ and ‘Elohim’ sources “plus ten
fragments.”[12]
l. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn gave publicity
to the ‘source hypothesis’ put forward by Astruc in seminal form. It may be
noted that he made it his own during the period 1780-83 and named the same ‘Documentary Hypothesis’. It was he,who
named the two principal sources, ‘Jahwist’ and ‘Elohist’. Incidentally it may
be indicated here that in the German
language, ‘Yahweh’ is spelt ‘Jahweh’. Hence the usage ‘Jahwist’. This was the Genesis of the ‘two source’ theory. The
methodology of the ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ is to focus on the texts with
narrative continuity. ‘Fragment hypothesis’, on the other hand makes use of
‘fragments’ or what was remembered about or in other words memoirs of a
particular figure. This ‘Fragment hypothesis’ was developed by certain scholars
of the same century.
m. Heinrich George August Ewald (1803-1875)
and a few other scholars of Germany made an attempt to reconcile the ‘Jahwist’
and ‘Elohist’ theories. The result was the formation of ‘Supplementary
hypothesis’. According to this theory, “a basic document or one connected
strand formed the nucleus of the Pentateuch to which were added various materials
in course of time.”[13]
n. Alexander Geddes a Scottish Roman Catholic
cleric of the 18th century and J.S Vater, professor at Halle, in the
early years of the following century rejected the ‘two source’ hypothesis.
Instead, they developed the ‘Fragment hypothesis’ hinted at, by Astruc. They
contended that a number of quite disparate blocks of materials were combined,
long after Moses.
o. Karl David Ilgen, in 1798 isolated
seventeen documents. He assigned them to three parallel sources. It is to his
credit that he distinguished two sources within the ‘Elohist’ tradition and
designated them by the sigla E1 and E2 .E1 was later called ‘Priestly’. E2 came
to be designated ‘Elohist’. P and E were the notations used respectively to
indicate these two sources. The ‘Yahwist’ was deemed to have been combined to
these two, by a later redactor.
p. Martin Liberercht De Wette, professor in
the University of Berlin, came out with a bang in the early 19th
century. He proposed that Deut. was the ‘ law book’ for the reform of King Josiah. This must have been around 621
B.C. The observation of Blenkinsopp is
not out of place. “The law book which the priest Hilkhah discovered in the
Temple during Josiah’s reign is planted by the priests to serve as a basis for
the religious reforms that followed its discovery.”[14]
De Wett argued that as Deut. was an independent work, it should be regarded as
the fourth stratum or source of the Pentateuch. Owing to the force of the
argument, the scholarly world added ‘Deuteronomist’ source also to the
‘Jahwist’, ‘Elohist’ and ‘Priestly’ traditions. Thus was born, the ‘four
source’ theory. The chronological order accepted by most of the 19th
century scholars was ‘Priestly’ , ‘Jahwist’, ‘Elohist’ and ‘Deuteronomist’,
indicated by the letters ‘P’ ‘J’ ‘E’ ‘D’ respectively.
5. Chronology Changed
a. A rearrangement of the chronological
sequence was necessitated because of the redating of the sources, following
further studies by certain scholars. Notable among them were Edouard Reuss and
his student Karl Heinrich Graf (1865-69) of the University of Strasbourg
Germany. Graf contended that ‘P’ was not the earliest as held by earlier
scholars, but the latest.
b. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) gave a
definite impetus to ‘historical-critical’ approach. In his ‘magnum opus’
‘Prolegomena to the History of Israel’, first published in 1878, Wellhausen
adduced this four-fold approach; but changed the sequence from ‘P’ ‘J’ ‘E’ ‘D’
to ‘J’ ‘E’ ‘D’ ‘P’. This has been acclaimed as the classical form of source
hypothesis.
c. A brief explanation on the notations.
‘J’ represents ‘Yahwist’ tradition. It is called in this manner because in this
source, God is referred Yahweh. The abbreviation used for ‘Elohim’ code is ‘E’.
This source is named so, as the Almighty is accosted ‘Elohim’. ‘D’ stands for
‘Deuteronomy’ . This book is designated ‘Deuteronomy’ because it contains a
repetition of materials like the Decalogue and Laws given in Exodus. The letter
‘P’ is assigned to the priestly document because of its evident predominant
priestly interest. Incidentally it may be noted, that Wellhausen preferred the
abbreviation ‘Q’ to ‘P’ because ‘Q’ represents the Latin ‘Quattior’ meaning
four. Therefore, “he designated the Priestly source as the book of the four covenants.”[15]
d. Following Wellhausen, ‘J’, the oldest
strand is assigned to the late 9th or early 10th century B.C; ‘E’ to the period between
9 and 8th century . ‘D’ is from the 7th century B.C.
Source ‘P’, which was once considered to be the oldest of the four documents is
now recognized as the most recent. Its origin was between 6 and 5th
century, before Christ. While the ‘Jahwist’ source was put to writing in the
Southern Kingdom Judah, it was in the Northern Kingdom Israel that the
‘Elohist’ tradition was reduced into black and white. Following the fall of the
Northern Kingdom in 721 B.C. these two documents were combined. After Josiah’s
regime, ‘D’ code was added. ‘P’ was fixed to the existing corpus in the post-
Exile period.
6.
Features formed, from ‘Formation’
A- Perennial Source of Morality
The foregoing account may prompt one to
jump into the conclusion that the Torah is merely a treatise on secular history
of the Jewish nation. Nothing can be farther off the mark. The Bible in general
and the Pentateuch in particular have a special view of History. The Pentateuch
points to the intervention of God in the affairs of men. The objective of the
authors of it was not to divorce God from men, but to bring Him more intimately
to them. The Pentateuch is a perennial source of moral teaching and theology.
B- The Theology of the ‘Yahwist’ tradition
The faithful folk owes to this tradition
much of the exhilarating passages of the Pentateuch. Though primitive in
character, its handling of the working of human psyche is subtle. Admittedly,
problem of sin is made much of; but this tradition instills confidence and joy
in man by its repeated references to the divine promises and of its permanent
nature. This tradition speaks of the intimacy of man and his lord, even verging
on the anthropomorphic conception of God. The part played by divine
intervention and God’s initiative is very prominent in this tradition. The
soul-stirring story of salvation is unique,conspicuous and grand.
C-The Theology of the ‘Elohist’ tradition
Undoubtedly, this tradition is less
vivacious and dramatic than the ‘J’. Instead of the anthropomorphism of the
author of the ‘Yahwist’ tradition, the ‘Elohist’ emphasises the transcendence
of God and stresses on the stern
sovereignty of the supreme Lord. Here, God communicates with mankind through
envoys like angels and prophets. Verily, this tradition instills the
indefatigable spirit of vigorous prophetic movement mooted and moulded by
Elijah and Elisha, in the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
D-The
Theology of the ‘Deuteronomist’ tradition
The Levites composed this treatise to
remind the people of the Northern Kingdom, about the Mosaic laws, as its rulers
did not care to enforce them. When this Kingdom was overthrown by the Assyrians
in 721 B.C, those Levites who took to flight to Jerusalem took it with them and
kept the same in the Temple. This code was subsequently developed. The Deut.
has a particular style and theology. That theology is spelt out through
instructions and not by imperatives. Further, this theology is very closely
linked with the Law that it enshrines. It starts with the idea of election
of Israel as the chosen nation and
summons the nation to an absolute and all-absorbing allegiance to the Almighty.
The Deuteronomist, discerns divine punishment for her defaults and
delinquencies, in the disasters which visited Israel.
E- The
Theology of the ‘Priestly’ tradition
The Book of Leviticus is the best
testament of this tradition. It must have been codified under Ezra the priest
and Nehemiah the governor. This code is remarkable for its cultic and
liturgical aspects. Wellhausen eulogises this code as “the scarlet thread on which the pearls of JE were hung.”[16]
This tradition gives a blue print for the prospective spiritual commonwealth to
be ushered in, on the vestiges of the system before Abraham’s call by the Lord.
A critical minded reader may conclude that this tradition is a sanction
for theocracy. But this code is
appreciated because of its exquisite exposition. To substantiate, the
observation of Antony F.
Campbell and Mark A. O’ Brien may be quoted “ P may be likened to a necklace
strung with pearls. The thread of the necklace is made up of genealogies,
itineraries…… The pearls are the major stories such as creation and flood……the
plague and passover…..”[17]
7. Hypotheses on the Anvil-
Reactions and Criticisms
a. There is no gainsaying to the triumph of
these hypotheses by the close of the 19th century. It is well to
remember, however, that “the victory was not won easily nor without battles and
scars.”[18]
b. The critical treatment of the Pentateuch
was deemed by theologians both of Judaism and Christianity, as a frontal attack
on many of their professions and proclamations. The Jewish theologian U.
Cassuto challenged the ‘five pillars’ of the ‘Document hypothesis’. He declared
“all these pillars were without substance and that the imposing and beautiful
edifice which scholars had erected as their own and lavishly decorated has, in
reality, nothing to support it and is founded on air.”[19]
c. From the Christian world Mangenot
arrayed a number of passages from the OT and the NT and asserted that Moses was
the ‘author and editor’ of the Pentateuch. The critics were not at all
satisfied. So Marie Joseph Legrange, a Roman Catholic Biblical scholar
suggested a solution to the perplexing problem of Mosaic authorship. He put
forward this at the Fribourg Catholic Congress of 1897. His contention was
that, in the Ancient Middle East, authorship was attributed to the one who
provided the pervading spirit of the work. We may further add, that in the
Middle Eastern areas there was the practice of pseudonimity. This implied that
a literary work would be attributed to a celebrated person to receive
recognition from the readers. As Moses was the chief and central character of
the corpus of Pentateuch, Israel had no hesitation in attributing the entire
Torah to him.
d. The chronological details express the
conviction of the Israelites that History has a direction and divine
dispensation. The reconstruction of
History by the secular Biblical scholars, who supported these hypotheses
conveniently sidelined this aspect.
e. It was pointed out that the ‘Source
theory’ tended to assume that the ‘J’ ‘E’ ‘D’ ‘P’ were solely the intellectual
properties or products of the particular persons who penned them. This is
certainly a misconstruction. For, myths, songs, stories etc. were amply availed
of by the authors.
f. R.N. Whybray makes an attempt to resolve
the ‘repetition riddle’ of the Pentateuch. He opines that the so called
“repetitive compilation from different sources need be nothing more than the
necessary literary repetition required to produce a particular effect.”[20]
It may be mentioned here that much of the prejudices to the Pentateuch may
dwindle to insignificance, once it is realised that the “Pentateuchal story has
been formed as the result of an incremental process of over a considerable
period of time.”[21]
g. Herman Gunkal’s (1852-1932) ‘Form
criticism’ was a challenge to the ‘Documentary Hypothesis’. According to
Gunkal, the emphasis must be shifted from the ‘documents’ as such to individual
pericopes.
h. The ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ is being
threatened by the ongoing analysis of the sources themselves. The result is
disquieting if not unsalutary. “The sources tend to disintegrate into
bewildering variety of smaller units or strands and the entire hypothesis is
undermined.”[22]
i. Another argument against the approach and
analysis by the documentary theory is that it makes use of modern criteria for
things which happened in bygone ages and entirely different environments from
those of modern times.
j. Adverting to the challenges of modern
times, the following observations deserve attention. In his treatise,
‘Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic’, published in 1973 Frank Moore Cross proposed
that ‘P’ should be redefined as a redaction rather than a source. Hans Heinriah
Schmid refuted a theory which was in vogue and opined that “ ‘J’ is not the
product of ‘Solomon’s Enlightenment’, rather it is a product of the exilic
period and bears a close affiliation to the ‘deuteronomic-deuteronomist
literature.”[23] In similar
vein does John Van Seters too, argue.
k. Considering all these views, one is
forced to follow the point put forward by the renowned Biblical scholar H.H.
Rawley in the article, ‘Old Testament and Modern Study’. He argues “…..it
cannot be said that any agreed pattern is emerging from the welter of
challenges, to the older view.”[24]
l. In conclusion, it is expected that a
student of Pentateuch will be charitable to the critics. For, they tried to
enlighten the people and broaden their vision which had degenerated into mere
optics, due to excessive Bibliolatry.
8. Rationale of the Hypotheses
and criticisms of the Pentateuch
The celebrated Biblical scholar, John H. Hayes points to the
following rationale for the various hypotheses. According to him, there are
mainly three reasons for the marvelous attempt by the scholars to identify the
sources. He opines that it was “first of all to deal with the problems inherent
in the Biblical text; secondly to make sense the history of Israel presented in
the historical books and thirdly to make understandable the ‘Old Testament
which was practically a sealed book even to the thoughtful people’, who did not
possess ‘the historical key to the interpretation’ of that wonderful
literature.”[25] Why bother to pursue the study of the
Pentateuch? An ordinary man might ask. A very convincing answer has come from
Antony F. Campbell and his co-author Mark A. O’ Brien. They say, “awareness of the
processes of growth inherent in the creation of the biblical text can give
contour and colour to the understanding in its final form.”[26]
“ The Lord has more Truth to break forth out of His holy Word.” This prophetic proclamation of the great
Evangelist, John Robinson to the ‘Pilgrim Fathers’, as they set sail to
America, the New World in search of greener pastures, ought be the directive
principle, paradigm and parameter to the future study and research of the
Pentateuch.
ORUVATTITHARA, O.M.MATHEW ORUVATTITHARA
NAGAMPADAM, (TF 0481 584795),
KOTTAYAM, PIN:686 001, KERALA.
12/12/2002
Email: raborvat@sancharnet.in
[1] JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP. ‘An Introduction to
the Pentateuch’ ( The New Interpreters Bible Vol.1,
Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN. USA, 1994), 307
[2] Ibid, 307
[3] S.H.HOOKE. ‘An Introduction to Pentateuch’,Peake’s Commentary on Bible,
(Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. London, 1967),168
[4] Ibid, 168
[5] JOHN H. HAYES. An Introduction to Old Testament Study, (Abingdon,Nashville, Tennessee1980), 118
[6] JOHN H. HAYES. An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Op.Cit, 110
[7] ANTONY F. CAMPBELL AND MARK A. O’ BRIEN. Sources of the Pentateuch,( Fortress Press,
Minniapolis 1993), 1
[8] MARTIN NOTH. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, Tr. Bernhard W. Anderson.( Scholar Press,
Chico.California), xiv
[9] Ibid, xv
[10] ANTONY F. CAMPBELL AND MARK A. O’ BRIEN. Sources of the Pentateuch, Op.Cit, 2
[11] Ibid, 2
[12] JOHN H. HAYES. An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Op.Cit ,116
[13] Ibid, 118
[14] JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP. The New Interpreters Bible Vol. I, Op.Cit ,309
[15] ANTONY F. CAMPBELL AND MARK A. O’ BRIEN. Sources of the Pentateuch. Op.Cit, 5
[16] JOHN H. HAYES. An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Op.Cit ,166
[17] ANTONY F. CAMPBELL AND MARK A. O’ BRIEN.Sources of the Pentateuch, Op.Cit, 9
[18] JOHN H. HAYES.An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Op.Cit ,120
[19] Ibid, 172
[20] ANTONY F. CAMPBELL AND MARK A. O’ BRIEN. Sources of the Pentateuch, Op.Cit, 14
[21] JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP.The New Interpreters Bible Vol. I, Op.Cit ,307
[22] Ibid, 311
[23] ANTONY F. CAMPBELL AND MARK A. O’ BRIEN. Sources of the Pentateuch, Op.Cit, 10
[24] H.H. RAWLEY. ‘Old Testament and Modern Study’, Peake’s Commentary on Bible, Op.Cit,168
[25] JOHN H. HAYES. An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Op.Cit ,159
[26] ANTONY F. CAMPBELL AND MARK A. O’ BRIEN. Sources of the Pentateuch, Op.Cit,xiv