When did the Old Testament become the Old Testament?
(a crash course in the form of a chart)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/08/when-did-the-old-testament-become-the-old-testament-a-crash-course-in-the-form-of-a-chart/
by Peter Enns
by Peter Enns
August 20, 2013
Last year, an English translation of Konrad Schmid’s (University of Zurich) approach to the literary history of the Old Testament–i.e., when the bits and pieces of the Old Testament originated and when they all came together to form a book–was published with the title The Old Testament: A Literary History.
I haven’t read the book, but I read a recent scholarly review (printed below) of it on line. Exactly why and when the ancient writings of Israel came to be, let alone when they were compiled and edited into a one-volume collection we call the Bible, is not the easiest thing to nail down.
But one pillar of modern OT scholarship, which isn’t seriously challenged outside of inerrantist writers, is that the OT had a long pre-history before it reached the form that we know today.
 |
| Author: Konrad Schmid |
That process began in at some point during the monarchic period but didn’t pick up serious steam until the exilic and post exilic periods, when Israel was in theo-political crisis and needed a book telling their story with God.
That process didn’t come to an end until sometime in the Greek period, which began with the conquests of Alexander the Great (332 BCE) and ended with the Maccabean Revolt (160s BCE). Some books are later still, such as the final form of Daniel and the shaping of the Psalter.
Whatever the Bible’s pre-history may be, the "Bible" we have now is a product of the exilic and postexilic periods.
That’s generally the broad outline of the historical-critical narrative of the origins of the OT, and, for what it’s worth, it’s pretty uncontroversial in contemporary OT studies.
What might be of most help and interest is the chart below complied by the reviewer, Trent Butler, and it’s largely the reason I wrote this post.
As I said, details are part of the scholarly dialogue, and Butler notes Schmid’s Euro-centric bias, but the overall picture that the chart gives is almost a crash course on the state of the field.
As I said, details are part of the scholarly dialogue, and Butler notes Schmid’s Euro-centric bias, but the overall picture that the chart gives is almost a crash course on the state of the field.
Study at it. Note how Schmid looks at different genres of OT literature and where he sees them falling within certain historical periods. Don’t let the details overwhelm you. Find a familiar chunk of the OT–say Genesis– and see in what periods (plural) it arose.
Again, the overall idea isn’t controversial, but working out the details of the how and when of ancient texts isn’t a hard science. It’s more like model building and there’s always room for more thinking and refinement.
The bottom line: Israel’s written (and oral) traditions grew to become the “Hebrew Bible/Old Testament” after a lengthy process, punctuated by the crisis of the exile and an uncertain future after Judah’s return. Or, as I put it elsewhere, it is an exercise in national self-definition in response to the Babylonian exile.
I don’t see this as a hushed, back room, discussion among biblical scholars with coded language and secret handshakes. I think all this is important to take in, because knowing something about when and why the Old Testament came to be helps us understand its theology. Afterwhich this saga of Israel gets reframed, redefined, and transformed in the NT around Jesus.
* * * * * * * * * *
A Review of:
The Old Testament: A Literary History
Written by Konrad Schmid
Translated by Linda M. Maloney
by Trent C. Butler
Gallatin, Tennessee
RBL 08/2013
Schmid is professor of Old Testament Studies and Jewish History at the
University of Zurich. Fortress Press has served Old Testament studies a great
favor by issuing this translation of a book that should be in every theological
library and on the reading list of every person doing research in the field of
Hebrew Bible. Schmid’s literary-history approach builds on only a few
predecessors, as he shows in his history of research section.
Schmid sets out his task and purpose quite clearly. “Literary history
is an attempt to present and interpret literary works not simply in themselves
but in their various contexts, linkages, and historical development” (1). He
“deals with the presuppositions, backgrounds, processes, and intertextualities
making up the literary history of the Old Testament.” (xi) To do so, he sets
himself an even more arduous task, working with whatever consensus recent
scholarship, at least European scholarship, has reached in dealing with
pentateuchal origins, the unifying elements of the Book of the Twelve, the nature
of scribal or literary prophecy, and the questioning of the Deuteronomistic History,
to name a few.
Literary history explores the linkages among texts both as
contemporary dialogue partners and as tradents interpreting the diachronic
interpretations of tradition. Following the literary history rather than the
canonical order differentiates literary history from introduction to the Old
Testament.
Methodologically, Schmid isolates three layers of work: (1)
literary-historical epochs (pre-Assyrian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian,
Ptolemaic, and Seleucid); (2) literary types (cultic\wisdom, narrative,
prophetic, legal); and (3) concrete literary works. Much of the literary
material has both oral and written prehistories as well as posthistories, since
the material is basically “traditional literature.” No longer does one point to
a JEPD Pentateuch but rather to limited sources dealing with Abraham and Lot,
Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. These limited narrative horizons were joined together
into the larger theological narratives only in the exilic or early postexilic
period. Similarly, prophetic studies have turned to a literary posthistory of
the sayings, with redactors seen as writing prophets whose work needs to be
studied in its own right. Finally, Psalms study has also turned to the written
book whose arrangement shows theological emphases in “a carefully structured
literary whole” (29).
Corollary to this for Schmid is that “not a single book of the Bible
has come down to us in its pre-exilic form.”(12) Beyond this, the Old Testament
preserves only a portion of Israel’s literary output, limiting one’s material
for comparison and conversation. In reality, “the literary history of the Old
Testament treats those texts that
survived as texts available for use in the Jerusalem Temple school that later
were recognized as sacred Scripture.” (15)
Schmid’s literary history begins, then, with a quite different piece
of literature than either evangelicalism or classic critical scholarship has
advocated. The Old Testament books have (1)
no salvation history frame, (2) no “early source,” (3) a new understanding of Deuteronomism,
(4) a new convergence between Israel’s monarchic religion(s) and that of their
neighbors, (5) new importance of literary shaping in the exilic and postexilic
eras, and (6) roots in scribal interpretation rather than in individual
religious geniuses (29–30). With this understanding of the available text,
Schmid chooses to deal with a text in the period of its first literary
formation.
Texts were products of ninth-century and later writers who belonged to
a narrow circle able to write, the majority of the population being illiterate.
Very few copies of a book were produced, with the Jerusalem library being
important in production and preservation. Scribes wrote the Old Testament
literature for scribes: “the audience was essentially identical with the authors
themselves.” (38)
Schmid begins the actual literary history by looking at Israelite
literature’s beginning at the time of the Syro-Palestinian city-states in the
tenth to eighth centuries. Schmid erases the Davidic/Solomonic empire and its
great literary creations. That the historical David and Solomon produced
written documents is no more than probable. Israel began “extensive literary
production” in the ninth century and Judah in the eighth (51).
A history of biblical literature begins under the Assyrians, giving
Israel its own cultural and religious identity. The reign of Manasseh (696–642)
becomes the flowering of Old Testament literature. Josiah (639–609) apparently
gave Judah control of the Bethel traditions. (68) Four theological streams
emerged:
(1) accusing king and people, not God, for defeats (prophets and kings);
(2) literary legends of origins without a king (Moses/exodus, judges);
(3) upholding the ideal of the monarchy (Psalms, wisdom); and,
(4) anti-Assyrian concepts transferred loyalty against Assyria and to God (Deuteronomy covenant).
Written law as in the Book of the Covenant was differentiated from ethics and gave rise to written wisdom. Narrative literature in Samuel and Kings focused on individual figures. God’s intervention becomes dependent on the right action of kings. This is expressed in language akin to Deuteronomy, a linguistic style reaching down to Daniel and Baruch. Israel’s ongoing written prophecies stand without parallel and appear under the monarchy whose messenger forms they use.
(1) accusing king and people, not God, for defeats (prophets and kings);
(2) literary legends of origins without a king (Moses/exodus, judges);
(3) upholding the ideal of the monarchy (Psalms, wisdom); and,
(4) anti-Assyrian concepts transferred loyalty against Assyria and to God (Deuteronomy covenant).
Written law as in the Book of the Covenant was differentiated from ethics and gave rise to written wisdom. Narrative literature in Samuel and Kings focused on individual figures. God’s intervention becomes dependent on the right action of kings. This is expressed in language akin to Deuteronomy, a linguistic style reaching down to Daniel and Baruch. Israel’s ongoing written prophecies stand without parallel and appear under the monarchy whose messenger forms they use.
We are stimulated and challenged to new study by this approach to
study of the Hebrew Bible. If only the work could incorporate and enter into
conversation with a wider range of scholars outside Europe and outside those so
totally devoted to Europe’s form of redaction criticism. We look forward to
updated forms of this literature pioneer.
Schmid organizes by chapters, each one after the opening introductions
and historical reviews follows the same pattern. The chapter title is a time
period each with historical backgrounds and theological characteristics
followed by a classification of the literature first developing in that time
period. The literature is divided by types: cult and wisdom, narrative,
prophetic, and legal. The following table attempts to summarize his analysis.
For Further Reading:
