Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis

Abstract

The intent of this essay is to argue that the story of Abraham, an important segment of the Priestly History in the Hexateuch (Genesis to Joshua),1 was composed with the purpose of providing those who survived the disaster of 586 b.c.e. with religious basis on which they could rebuild their lives. More specifically, the component of the History dealing with Abraham was intended to provide paradigm or model for those who aspired to return, or actually did return, to Judah once this became possible after the fall of the Babylonian empire in 539 b.c.e. I am aware that the considerable amount of ritual law in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers associated with or in secondary derivation from this narrative source is an important aspect of the theological profile of P. But since all biblical law is presented in the context of an unfolding historical process, an understanding of the function and intent of the legal material will require, or at least be greatly facilitated by, prior understanding of the History. I therefore propose to deal with the legal material only where it impinges directly on the understanding of the History and the Abraham segment of the History in particular. I. THE P HISTORY A critical consensus now exists that the P History was composed after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 and subsequent deportations. This preliminary conclusion, which will call for further definition in due course, goes back to the early pioneers of the critical study of the Pentateuch- Eduard Reuss, Karl Heinrich Graf, A. Kuenen, and Julius Wellhausen, in particular- and will be confirmed by glance at the standard introductions.2 The task of disengaging this source from the other narrative strands with which it has been combined is rendered less arduous than it might otherwise be on account of P's distinctive style, idiom, vocabulary, and theological orientation. The P historian makes generous use of lists and genealogies, which generate narrative in their own way, and for the most part the narrative itself is succinct and descriptively economical. The author has no great interest either in populating his narrative with an abundance of minor characters, is the case, for example, in the account of intrigues at the court of David in 2 Samuel, or in developing the characters of the principal dramatis personae- Sarah, Lot, Hagar, Ishmael, and Abraham himself. The focus throughout is on the unfolding drama of divine-human interaction and the destiny of Abraham.3 All the more striking, then, are the two junctures in the Abraham narrative at which we are given an extensive account complete with human interest and dialogue: the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:1-27) and Abraham's purchase of burial plot (23:1-20). Here and elsewhere in P- the dispositions for the new world following the deluge (Gen 9:1-27) and the call of Moses (Exod 6:2-7:7) - such expansive accounts mark defining moments in the History with notable consequences for the future. The further question, which has proved not so easy to answer, is whether the History is an independent source or redactional layer added to existing narrative; whether, in other words, it is meant to be read together with an existing narrative line to which it has been added, or is fully intelligible when read on its own self-standing text. In his Prolegomena, Wellhausen described P (for which he used the siglum Q) concerned primarily with narrative links and articulations rather than content. It is, he continued, as if Q were the scarlet thread on which the pearls of JE (the Yahwist and Elohist sources combined) are hung. It is, therefore, little more than a genealogy with explanations.4 This reading was accepted by many scholars, often without argument. One of these was Frank Moore Cross, who read P systematic reworking of traditional source material available at the time of writing. If, therefore, we find no explicit reference to Sinai covenant in P, the reason must be - since it is incredible that P would not have covenant at Sinai-that the author assumed it to be known from the JE form of the Sinai story which P took over. …