57

Hans H.
zur

Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen . Theologisel er Verlag: Zurich, 1976. Pentateuchforschung
Wenham

G.J.

Department of Semitic Studies The Queens University of Belfast Belfast BT7 1NH

Fashions in Cl sciiolarsliip change more slowly than in the Paris salons, and are therefore more difficult to spot. But with L~.L,. Fedfords worl; on the Joseph story and <T . vain Seters or. the l,trahru:1 traditions, and now II.1:. : chrrid or. Per sogenannte Jaliwisr, a new trend is unmista.l~.able: the late dating of the Patriarchal traditicns, particularly those associated with the sources J Gna E. Schmid argues that J docs not
come

from the Solomonic

period tut from much later times, he is crcful not to be overprecise, but he believes that J has very close affinities with Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic lristory and the later prophets. h11 his arguments 1 Olllt to a date in the late 7th century EC for the composition of J. Unlike Fedforci and vain Seters, Schmid does
not make any a.ppeal to kear I asterr. evidence external to the OT to prove the lateness of J , but depends almost entirely on internal 0~1 consider2tions. he believes that a late dating of J gives 1 clearer and simpler I icture of tile evolution of ISY.el IS religion than an earlier date. Fundamental tc his view is the work of Ferlitt and others who have revived Wellhausens theory that the covenant was an innovation of the deuteronomic school unkinown before the 7th century.

The main thrust of t,he book is to demonstrate the lateness of a subs idiary theme is the inadequacy of the accepted methods of source criticism. It presupposes a picture oi the methods of cjicient a uthors and redactors that is not only withcut analogy but absurd (1,,.171). Schmid holds tlat by dating J in its entirety

J, tut

late,

one

can

cnd editorial

avoid splitting it up into early Solorr.onic material additions wizich betray their la.teness by their
or

deuteronomic
he exrresses

prophetic style ar.d outlook. At several places scepticism about the independence of E, and he

58

dismisses Noths G, Eissfeldts L and Fohrers N sources as the This book is consequence of taking source criticism too far.
therefore
a

plea for

a more

straightforward approach
criticism.

to the

problems

of

pentateuchal

source

To substantiate his views Schmid does not discuss all the material ascribed to J, but selected key passages that he believes He begins with the call of Moses in Exod are typical of the rest. 3f. There are various pointers to the lateness of this narrative. First, it is a purely literary form, not a tradition deriving He quotes Gunkels dictum that lengthy from a particular shrine. speeches without any action are always a sign of lateness in narra tives (p.24), which appropriately describes this story. Second, the narrative contains a number of words that are typically

deuteronomic, for example, see affliction, cry, deliver, good land (3:7f). Third, the theological scheme of the narrativ is very like that of Deut 26:5-9 and has much in common with the
deuteronomistic framework of Judges. Fourth, the call of Moses Schmid holds that it is resembles that of the later prophets.

likely that the Exodus account is based on an established gen than that it was their forerunner. Fifth, the concept of faith found in Exod 4 appears to be less primitive than Isaiahs. Finally, though he is not certain that Exod 3-~+ is a perfect unity, he doubts whether it should be split into J and E.
more

Schmid makes similar observations about the plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the wilderness wanderings, Sinai and the promises to Abraham. Deuteronomic and prophetic features in these stories are best explained on the supposition that J was written about the same time as the deuteronomic literature.
In his treatment of the Sinai pericope Schmid relies heavily Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (1969), who in Schmids judgment has demonstrated that the covenant elements in Exod 19-24, 32-34, are not original to J but are later additions by
on

L.

deuteronomic redactors. Perlitt argues that there are clear a deuteronomic hand throughout these chapters. However, Schmid believes it is impossible to recover a predeuteronomic account of Sinai, and it would be much simpler to ascribe its whole composition to the deuteronomic period.
traces of

Again in the patriarchal narratives there are pointers to late date of composition. For example, Genesis 15, generally to be has close affinities with Isa 7, a supposed very early, royal victory oracle. The comparison of Abrahams descendants with the stars of heaven (Gen 15:5) is deuteronomic (Deut 10:22),
a

59

and the remark that Abraham believea in the LORL (v.6) pureIn fact most of supposes such verses as Deut 9:4-6; b:25 etc. the traditional arguments in favour cf the ru1i..iLluity of Cer. 15 If covenant are based on feeling rather than solid evidence. be cannot Gen then are ideas 15 early. late, In a section entitled Traditic-l1istorical Reflections Schmid suggests that to date J late resolves some problems that are ctherwise intractable: for example the slight impact of Sinai traditions on early monarchy literature such as the [s2-lms anu Southern prophets like Amos and r1icat.
out that a late date for J has large of the development of Israelite implications religion. No longer may we ascribe the invention of history writing in Israel to the genius of the 10th century, rather we must envisage a whole group of historian developing in the late 7th century, among whom were the Yahwist and Deuteronomists.

Finally~ Schmid points

for
our

understanding

Schmids case is beautifully simple, and in this book he has presented it lucidly and logically. It would make pentateuchal criticism less complicated if one cold dispense with distinguishing between J and E, and date J to the late 7th century alone with D. Ockharis razor, Entities shculd not be multiplied beyond necessity, receives too little attention in biblical criticism.
doubt whether Schmid: will convince those who are not I share his scepticism about to his position. the independence of some of the supposed sources in the reritateuch, but belief in them is too ingrained into our scholarly tradition for them to be dismissed simply oy saying that we can do without therm or that nobody is sure which source is which in a particular Positive grounds must be adduced for supposing that a passage. is a unity, rather than composite. Arguments from syntax passage (eg, F. I . Andersen, The Sentence in Eiblical Eebrew) or from structure (see my article, The Coherence of the Flood Narrative, VT forthcoming) carry more weight than Schmids desire for simplicity. This is the more so when his arguments for unity rest If J is not contemporary with D, on an unconventional date for J.
Yet I

already inclined

Iiis

case

collapses. proved
that J dates

has Schmid
and is

from the late

7th century

approximately contemporary with other deuteronomic literature ? Those who incline to ciating J late on other grounds may His position seems Others will not. find his proofs comhelling.

60

vulnerable at

number of

points.

Firstly, he defines deuteronomic in such a broad and loose fashion that it becomes a catch-all for ideas that are common to Using Schmids criteria one would be many parts of the OT. of such books as Ezra, Malachi and Daniel the date to raise forced to about 600 BC because of the deuteronomic passages they contain. If it is admitted that deuteronomists had successors, might they
not have bad precursors as well? Religious language tends to be and if we are to identify authors with each very conservative, we attention not must only to the terms they use but to other, pay the contexts in which they use them (cf. H. Weippert, Die Prosareder des Jeremiabuches).

Secondly, Schmid presupposes that the covenant is a late institution in Israel. Despite the arguments of Perlitt and others this seems improbable. It requires extra-biblical evidence
to be set aside, the content of such Deut 33 and Jdg 5 to be ignored, and even early poems 15, more radical surgery of such prophets as Amos and Hosea than Schmid contemplates. Their covenant ideology cannot be expunged just by assigning an occasional verse to a late redactor. about covenant
as

practices

Exod

Thirdly, if history writing did

century,
lowered.

not begin until the 7th the date of the succession narrative must also be

In short, if Schmid is to establish a late date for J, he will have to be more radical in his treatment of other OT critical issues than this book suggests. vn1at he says about other scholarly reconstructions could be applied to his own: Insgesamt wird man angesichts der gegenwartigen Forschungslage nicht vorsichtig genug formulieren kt5nnen . (p.16).