I rather appreciate
Joseph Blenkinsopp, having first encountered him as author of
The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible and later as the author of an extensive Isaiah translation and commentary. He's now shown up in the current volume of the Journal of Biblical Literature in an article titled
"Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis" where he argues that ...A number of supportive arguments are offered for consideration including:
- locating the title "the God of heaven" (Gen. 24:3,7) in the Persian Period,
- pointing to the frequent use of the name 'Shaddai' which, according to Blenkinsopp, is "most frequently attested" in the same period,
- noting the application/extension of the covenant to Ismael, curious when placed in the time of the Patriarchs but a politically astute nicety at a time marked by the ascendancy of the Kedarite confederacy, and
- further noting that the introduction of circumcision on the 8th day seems curiously anachronistic when placed prior to the explication of ritual law in Leviticus.
But the discussion I found most clarifying dealt with Genesis 23 and the narrative dealing with the purchase of land for Sarah's burial site. Here Blenkinsopp suggests:The force of these arguments are cumulative in effect. But when read through the lens of Blenkinsopp's position, the tale of our "resident alien" patriarch seems to take on a new and refreshing clarity.
While I enjoy Blenkinsopp's scholarship, I took issue with some of his conclusions here. First, he rejects the superimposition of P on an existing narrative on the grounds that too much remains which a P redactor should have removed (namely, the clean and unclean animals on the ark and Aaron's role in the golden calf incident). I don't agree with this assumption. In my experience, redaction is far less clean and neat. In many texts we know to be redacted from earlier texts there remain contradictions or remnants of unpalatable ideologies (thus two accounts of the animals brought aboard the ark). Also, in the golden calf episode it does seem odd that Aaron is not punished at all. If there has been a great deal of manipulation of the story, we wouldn't really be in a position say. There is also a great deal of archaic vernacular in the section of Genesis in question, and much that would be anachronistic to the Persian or Hellenistic period. Building altars all over Canaan, the
'ish theophanies, etc. In addition, the wife/sister narratives show different historical layers.
Next he argues that the emphasis of a place of worship indicates the temple has already been rebuilt, but it could just as likely indicate the first temple has been estabslished. That's the context of Deuteronomy. On the other hand, I see no clear indication a place of worship is prioritized in the text. As I pointed out earlier, Abraham is building altars all over Canaan, and that brand of worship seems all the author is familiar with. No temples, no central shrine, no possession of Jerusalem even seems to enter the picture anywhere. The priority, to me, seems to be the establishment of Abraham's seed in Canaan, and not any temple. There is also a rather striking familiarity with Bronze Age judicial tradition. No judges or priests are invoked, only the very early
rib between independent nomadic patriarchs. No monarchy or state institutions of any kind are hinted at.
Then we get to "God of Heaven," which Blenkinsopp asserts is used to reference Ahura-Mazda, and therefore should date to the Persian period. The Persian epithet derives from earlier Assyro-Babylonian texts, however (the Assyrian
Maqlu [1.47], for one). And what about Gen 14:19, 22? קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ. This is a very early epithet (that appears only here in the Bile) that is adapted by the Yahwists as עֹ֝שֵׂ֗ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ (Ps 115:15; 121:2; 124:8: 134:3; 146:5). The blessing formula in Genesis 14 and in the Yahwistic version is identical, but the procreative denotation of
qanah seems to have been unacceptable to a later generation that had supressed their god's sexual identity (see Norman Habel, "'Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth,' A Study in Tradition Criticism," JBL 91.3 [1972]: 226-32). The Syro-Palestinian version is
'l qn 'rs, and the use of "heaven and earth" rather than just "earth" betrays a 9th-7th century date, but the epithet changed after the exile.
Next he argues that Abraham is not found in any texts clearly predating the exile. I have to take issue with this as well, as it presupposes no mention in Exodus is preexilic (here espousing van Seters' chronology). Exodus 6 is engaging the question of Yahweh's conflation with earlier Canaanite deities, which predated the exile by centuries (Blenkinsopp attributes this to the "deterritorializaiton of Yahweh following the liquidation of the Judean state," which is not illogical, but no
more logical than the universalization of Yahweh following military defeats in the 9th-7th centuries. The Mesha Inscription attests to such an ideology in describing Moab's delivery into Israel's hands as a result of Chemosh's anger at them for disobedience. This propaganda is identical to that employed by those who changed Yahweh from a national deity to an international one. See also Deut 32:8-9, 43; Ps 82). It also brings up the earlier use of Shaddai, which is used frequenty prior to the Persian period, and is also used frequently in the other Syro-Palestinian literature. Gen 49 is clearly pre-exilic. The Deir Alla inscription mentions the
shaddayim. It is also found in Ugaritic, Egyptian, and the epithet "The One of the Mountains" is found in Hurrian inscriptions. It is not "largely, perhaps entirely, restricted to" the exile.
Blenkinsopp later identifies Abraham's Ur with the site in southern Iraq to support an argument about likely routes Abraham could have taken, despite numerous problems with that identification. He goes on to argue Abraham's attitude would serve as an example of how to deal with indigenous peoples for returning exiles, but Abraham's comportment would have been the same while sojourning through Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.
I'm not willing to go point by point through the entire article, but I think, overall, the author finds elements of premonarchic tradition as indicative of post-exilic return. He also doesn't deal comprehensively with the epithets of God, and he presupposes the chronology of van Seters (which has recently met with much criticism. See, for instance, Joel Baden's dissertation), which simply flips the order of the books, arguing A influenced B rather than B influencing A. I'm debating whether this is worth writing and submitting a response.
