354 - A History of Pentateuchal Traditions

A History of Pentateuchal Traditions
By Martin Noth
Translated with an Introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 296 pp. $11.95.

Old Testament scholarship lost one of its most gifted and creative interpreters when Martin Noth died in Palestine in 1968. He wrote a history of Israel which has become standard, several commentaries, most notably on Exodus and Joshua, and numerous articles and monographs on the laws of the Pentateuch, the territorial history of Palestine, and other subjects. He used new methods with skill and imagination, without abandoning the results achieved by previous scholars. For many years he was a professor at the University of Bonn, and after his resignation in 1965 he became director of the German Evangelical Institute for Archaeology in Jerusalem.

The present volume is a translation of a book originally published in German in 1948, with the title Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. It is a fundamental, classic study of the Pentateuch using the method of Old Testament research known as tradition criticism, or, more precisely, traditio-historical criticism. Noth's work has been severely criticized in some quarters, but it must be taken into account by anyone who wishes to do serious, detailed research on the Pentateuch.

355 - A History of Pentateuchal Traditions

Noth recognized the validity of literary criticism of the Pentateuch-that is, the documentary analysis into the sources J,E,D,P. He made his own literary analysis and employed form criticism. His main attempt, however, was to get behind the written "sources" to the period when the traditions were being formed and transmitted, mostly in oral form. In accepting the results of literary criticism, he differed markedly from certain other traditio-historical critics, such as Johannes Pedersen and Ivan Engnell, who scorned the work of Wellhausen and offered their history of tradition to take the place of the classical literary analysis. Noth's approach is sounder and more fruitful.

Noth believed that the Pentateuch originated around five independent themes: promise to the patriarchs, exodus from Egypt, revelation at Sinai, guidance in the wilderness, and guidance into the arable land. They arose among various tribal groups which later made up "Israel," and largely in cultic celebrations. In the course of time, the five themes were filled out with various narratives and then connected by means of "bracketings" which made the originally independent themes appear in chronological sequence. The primeval history (Gen. 1-11) was prefixed to the story of the patriarchs. Before the writing of J and E, a Grundlage was formed, but Noth did not decide whether this was oral or written.

The essay which Bernhard Anderson has written as an introduction to his translation is a perceptive summary of Noth's work in this volume, set within the context of twentieth century biblical research, a description of his method, and a critique of his method and results. Especially useful is Anderson's list of the six guidelines-which he thinks should not be considered as principles which Noth employed in his traditio-historical analysis of the Pentateuch. These are especially useful since Noth did not at any point set them down. Noth followed Ms guidelines consistently and sometimes quite rigorously. Anderson is able to demonstrate, however, that each of the guidelines contains weaknesses, however imposing the whole group may be.

Noth is concerned in this volume to point out the implications of his analysis for the early history of Israel. It is here that his method has been most severely criticized, for it led him to extreme skepticism regarding the use to be made of the Pentateuchal narratives for historical reconstruction. He could speak of the patriarchs as historical figures but could say little that is historical about them, for stories about them originated in different places and among various peoples, and the connecting of them is artificial.

Noth's view regarding the historicity of Moses has been accepted by very few other scholars. He believed that Moses was a historical figure but could say only that he belonged to the prehistory of the tribes that later settled in central Palestine, and be was first introduced into the "guidance in the wilderness" theme. Eventually

356 - A History of Pentateuchal Traditions

Moses was inserted into the themes of the exodus and the revelation at Sinai, but historically he had nothing at all to do with them. He was used as a literary "bracket" to bind together all the Pentateuchal themes. Anderson and others have rightly pointed out that such a view makes it impossible to explain the uniqueness of the faith of Israel; a charismatic figure such as Moses is required at the beginning of Israel's history. Noths view arose in part from a too stringent application of his guidline of Ortsgebundenheit -that is, the attachment of narratives very closely to places. Noth apparently believed that the only solid historical information concerning Moses is the tradition that he was buried in "the valley opposite Beth-Peor" (Deut. 34:6; 3:29).

Martin Noth was well aware of the fact that much of his work was tentative and that it would not meet with approval by all other scholars. He insisted over and over that he was concerned to raise the right questions in the right way, even if he could not answer all of them. He said, "Frequently it will be impossible to go beyond probabilities or even possibilities, as must necessarily be the case when one moves back from a literary witness, which is often difficult to analyze, into the dark and impenetrable area of the preliterary oral tradition" (p. 3). Some students of the Old Testament will doubtless think that the area of oral tradition is entirely impenetrable and thus there is no use to try to write a history of traditions. But it is important to continue traditio-historical research on the Pentateuch, and other parts of the Old Testament, seeking to find more and more objective criteria. It will be bard for scholars to arrive at a consensus. Some of Noth's guidelines and historical conclusions have been and will be questioned, but his work will continue to be recognized as a pioneering and thought provoking study.

Bernhard Anderson is to be commended for making a readable and accurate translation, which is not sprinkled too much with untranslatable German words. He has appended a useful Analytical Outline of the Pentateuch, based largely upon Noth's analysis, and also indices of biblical passages and of subjects that will make the book easier to use.

J. Philip Hyatt
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee