Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 2: FOUR POINTS OF ORIENTATION: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE; PENTATEUCH SCHOLARSHIP IN SOUTH AFRICA; A METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE; THE PATRIARCHS IN CRITICAL RESEARCH
Insights, though always born afresh through a creative process the dynamics of which cannot with any validity be precisely determined, are also, at the very same time, borne by a series of external influences which have become internalised in an investigator. Though such influences, which may be described as the spirit of the times or the intellectual climate within one works, cannot ever be fully acknowledged, the main influences often can be teased out. That is what is attempted in this chapter. Four of the main series of influences which have formed and informed, in other words: which in very concrete ways have made possible the exegetical insights on offer in Chapter 3, are acknowledged here in Chapter 2. Naturally, in the scholarly enterprise, such shaping influences are not merely confessed to, but are argued. Either in explicitly building forth on what has gone before, or in reacting against past and present contexts by critical rejection, the own “intellectual innards”, that is: the determinative undercurrents with give rise to the scholarly identity of the researcher, are to the extent possible layed bare.
This is done not because of an inherent sense of insecurity, as postmodernist scholarship has often been accused of, but for the exact opposite reason; that is: for the sake of intellectual openness – so that the interpreter may be interpreted. This section is thus an attempt at giving voice, to some extent at least, to the communal aspect of the academic enterprise.
The four most prominent aspects acknowledged here, are:
- The philosophy of science which has fundamentally determined my studies;
- The main points of local Pentateuch scholarship, which are both reacted to and built forth on;
- The deliberate and argued methodological choice in favour of historical readings of biblical texts; and
- The main turning points in modern research into the Old Testament patriarchs, in overview.
Considerations from philosophy of science
Not to beg the alwayspresent implicit questions, the reasons for the preponderance of historicalcritical theories (as opposed to textimmanent readings), as well as the reasons for the number of divergent historicallyoriented theories on the composition of the Pentateuch, call for discussion. Why do historical theories dominate the scene? Upon which follows directly: why do the historical theories differ so dramatically? These two matters are inherently connected, since both relate fundamentally to underlying philosophies of science that, though seldom indicated, are determinative of what has happened to date in critical Pentateuch scholarship.
History as scholarly paradigm
The tradition of science that has developed most strongly in the Western(ised) world, and as far as for our purposes here Old Testament scholarship is concerned, most influentially in and from German circles, is a thoroughly historical enterprise. By this is meant that, whatever the subject matter under investigation (be it the universe, homo sapiens, language, political theory, philosophy, literature, and so forth), it is considered to be understood and explained once the way3 it has developed into its present form is made clear. The purpose of scholarship, in this model of science, is that we gain knowledge of how our subject matter came into being – differently put: how it evolved to reach its present state. Much of modern Western theology can be understood in this way: from the basic ad fontes call of the Reformation (cf. e.g. Tracy 1987:252267), to the search for ipsissima verba of Jesus or the Old Testament prophets (cf. e.g. Soulen 2001:4041, 88), to the recurring religionsgeschichtliche interest (cf. e.g., most recently, Albertz 1992), to the demythologising quest in the biblical sciences (for which Bultmann is most famous; cf. e.g. Bultmann 1984). This historical approach to science has often been accompanied by what may be characterised as optimistic expectations (cf. le Roux 1993:114140), namely that the application of (positivist) scholarship would yield truth, and (romanticist) ideals of laying bare “facts” about what had “really” happened, or, for the sake of the present study, the “true” identities of the person(s) referred to in a biblical account.
Idealisms disappointed
Such optimistic expectations of the pioneering stage of scholarship within this philosophy of science were difficult to sustain for later writers, mainly because almost all findings came, in time, to be contested. In the case of Pentateuch scholarship, substantial variations within the widely accepted Wellhausenian approach to solving the riddle of the evolution of the Pentateuch texts were concluded to. Within a philosophy of science which seeks truth, and seeks truth via controlled method, this indicated to some that new methods were called for. Those who grew disillusioned with the inconclusiveness of the proposed historicallyoriented answers or theories, therefore proposed alternative approaches, often still with the optimistic assumption that, now, “solutions” would be found. Yet, as will be set out more fully below, approaches such as narrative and structural analyses of the texts of the Old Testament ultimately failed the positivist requirement of unanimity of results, a unanimity which would then have served as a guarantor of “truth”.
In addition, and vitally important, these nonhistorical approaches could not answer the research problems which historicallyoriented research into the biblical texts had uncovered. Once opened, the Pandora’s box of historical questions cannot be closed: the European mind and, hence, science as it to a great extent remains understood among scholars internationally, have a strongly evolutionistic, that is,historical slant4. This applies no less to theology as a scholarly activity. The alternative approaches to reading the texts from the Bible provided fruitful new pathways, both as avenues in themselves5 and in time as enrichment to the established historical approaches6, but by no means have the older roads been made redundant7.
The latter may be ascribed to at least two reasons. First is the already mentioned feature that nonhistorical approaches could not solve the penetrating and fundamental questions raised by historicalcritical research. Second and equally important are theological reasons: once doubt had been raised – to employ for the moment here the language of positivism – about the factual accuracy (i.e. the historical reliability) of the biblical narratives and about the textual integrity (i.e. the compositional unity) of the biblical texts, historicalcritical research had to be sustained. The “truth” about these matters simply had to be uncovered. The insight that philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth (objective versus relational versus subjective), the nature of historiography (positivist versus perspectivist) and the nature of the biblical text (“inerrancy” versus “humanity”) were more determinative of both the problem and its proposed solutions than were the historical approaches to biblical exegesis themselves, took some time to gain acceptance. Beside such insights, historicalcritical readings of the Bible with changed philosophical underpinnings (often implicit) had become less intimidating and, surprisingly for many, had become theologically edifying. For a Western cultural conscience in which history is fundamental, researching the involvement of God in the history of humanity as reflected upon in the biblical texts seems innately appropriate; hence, the historicalcritical methodologies gained theological legitimacy, even urgency8.
From a broad perspective such as this, hence, the existence of historicalcritical theories on the Bible is thus mandated culturally, theologically and scientifically. This explains, to some extent at least9, both the preponderance and the endurance of historicallyoriented work on the biblical text, when considered in relation to, for example, structural and narratological studies.
Morethanoneness as customary theoretical state
The problem of the variety of mutually exclusive theories on the Pentateuch (among other biblical corpora) remains, though.
At present, for instance, at least half a dozen historical theories on the composition of the Pentateuch vie for scholarly attention (cf. e.g. Zenger 2006:8688, 92123). This number of theories, all of which but one postdate the 1970s, show a kind of response different from those of the nonhistorical reactions against the Wellhausenian approach during the 20th century: the uncertainties of results yielded in the Wellhausenian tradition does not lead within these historical proposals to a search for a different kind of method, but to a search for a better, yet still wholly historical explanation. The evolution of the Pentateuch into its present shape remains the primary focus.
Naturally, this theoretical diversity implies that no firm consensus exists in contemporary Pentateuch studies. Precisely this state of affairs has been a much maligned aspect of this field of study (cf. e.g. Fohrer 1988:243254; Lohfink 1988:638641; Schmid 1991:8788). However, another perspective on this variety of Pentateuch theories may carry greater validity: that any number of competing theses indicate the healthy condition of the discipline, with lively – at times even harsh (cf. Lombaard & le Roux 2002:1857) – debate, and ongoing primary research into a problem that certainly escapes simple solution.
Perhaps, then, the despair expressed at times at the state of Pentateuch theory has less to do with the variety of rival theories on offer than with a combination of the demanding complexity of the subject matter itself, dishearteningly so for many, on the one hand, and on the other hand, more fundamentally, the continuing underlying philosophical assumptions in much of the academic world about the end10 of science– that a final answer, and if not that, then at least a “best answer” must be concluded to. Whereas the former point on the complexity of the Pentateuch as subject matter requires no proof, the latter point requires further exposition.
Science under its modernist cloak (cf. Lombaard & Froneman 2006:152256, 2004a:29; 2002a) does not accept as part of its outer apparel a fundamentally existential engagement with a chosen subject matter, namely, quite simply, « because » like Mount Everest “it is there!” 11 Engagement with a topic for the sake of intellectual challenge, or joy, or calling, or chance, may at best – and then only grudgingly – be donned by modernist science as an undergarment, which is for the sake of propriety covered by more acceptable outer garments (« objectivity », « method », « control », and other protocols of science) without ever being discussed in polite academic society. Science in this way of thinking is, above all, about discovering the truth by means of certain accepted rational endeavours – though precisely what constitutes rationality is hardly ever considered outside of Philosophy.
ABSTRACT
PREFACE
CHAPTER 1: THE QUESTIONS AT STAKE
CHAPTER 2: FOUR POINTS OF ORIENTATION: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE; PENTATEUCH SCHOLARSHIP IN SOUTH AFRICA; A METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE; THE PATRIARCHS IN CRITICAL RESEARCH .
2.1 CONSIDERATIONS FROM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
2.2 OF SERPENTS, REEDS, UNDERSTANDING, AND TURNS. SOME PERSPECTIVES ON IMPLIED APOLOGETICS AND RECENT PENTATEUCH THEORY
2.3 THE OLD TESTAMENT BETWEEN DIACHRONY AND SYNCHRONY: TWO REASONS FOR FAVOURING THE FORMER
2.4 BROAD OUTLINES OF CRITICAL RESEARCH INTO THE PATRIARCHS
2.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: ISAAC, EXEGETED – GENESIS 22* AS MAJOR ISAAC TEXT
3.1 GENESIS 22* – THE MAJOR INTERPRETATIVE TEXT ON ISAAC
3.2 WHAT ARE THE HISTORICAL ISSUES RELATED TO GENESIS 22*?
3.3 PROBLEMS OF NARRATOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF GENESIS 22
3.4 ISAAC MULTIPLEX – GENESIS 22* IN A NEW HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION
3.5 GENESIS 22* AS INTERPRETATIVE KEY TO THE ISAAC TEXTS
CHAPTER 4: INTERPRETATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF GENESIS 22* AS READ ANEW ON THE OTHER ISAAC PASSAGES IN GENESIS
4.1 ISAAC’S BIRTH NARRATIVES – GENESIS 17:19-21 & 21:1-8
4.2 A FAMILY FOR ISAAC – GENESIS 24, 25, & 27
4.3 ISAAC’S PROSPERITY FOUND, PROSPERITY LOST – GENESIS 26:12-33 AND THE “MY
WIFE – MY SISTER” PASSAGES
4.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5: THE SǏN IN ISAAC
5.1 THE RARE FIND OF ISAAC IN THE PSALMS
5.2: THE CURIOUS CASE OF ISAAC IN AMOS
5.3 ISAAC’S JEREMIAD – 33:26
5.4 TAKEN TOGETHER: THE OCCURRENCES OF SǏN IN ISAAC
CHAPTER 6: INCIDENTAL AND FORMULAIC ISAAC REFERENCES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
6.1 THE GOD OF ABRAHAM AND / OR ISAAC IN JACOB / ISRAEL REFERENCES – GENESIS
6.2 “GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB” – EXODUS 3:6, 3:15 & 16, 4:5, 6:2-3, 32:13
6.3 LAND OF ABRAHAM AND ISAAC… AND JACOB – GENESIS 35:12 & 50:24; EXODUS
CHAPTER 7: THE STORY OF ISAAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, CRITICALLY RETOLD
7.1 UP TO THIS TIME
7.2 ONCE UPON A TIME
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
