Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments

Abstract

Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments, by Otto Kaiser. FB 90. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 2000. Pp. 249. DM 48.00. This book is a collection of articles written by one of most influential European scholars of last generation, when it comes to historical criticism of OT. His Einleitung, which appeared for first time in 1969, has been widely read at theological institutions all over Europe. The book being reviewed here stands in same tradition, dealing with origin-history of Pentateuch and Dtr History, but also aiming at a comprehensive presentation of canonical character of OT. The concluding article is one about ethos of interpreter. A majority of articles have been published before (the oldest one in 1988), but two of them appear for first time. The first article is on the literary history of O.T. It is a reprint from Theologische Realenzyklopddie. Thus, reason for its being republished here is probably its contribution to synthesis of book rather than an issue of accessibility in libraries. The article basically reflects European scholarship. Following this is an article on Pentateuch and Dtr History (previously unpublished) that presents state of art in redaction criticism. Both articles are encyclopedic in scope. Kaiser's points of orientation are, first, hypotheses of M. Noth and J. Wellhausen, and, second, existence of five different textual levels in Pentateuch (pp. 71-72): a P and a J level whose endings are controversial; an E level that appears between Gen 20 and Exod 24 as added comments; an independent law code D that governs Joshua-2 Kings and is reflected in redactional additions in Genesis-Numbers; and post-P and post-D texts belonging to final redaction of Pentateuch. These claims are subject to further qualifications at end of his survey. As for J and Yahwist, Kaiser pleads for a study of die historische Tiefe prd- and protojahvistischen Texte and a detailed distinction between der redaktionelle Anteil des Jahvisten and den nachfolgenden Redaktionen his hin zum Endredaktor and possible later additions (p. 116). In this, Kaiser is much more in line with E. Blum and C. Levin than with J. Van Seters, whose grandiose Vereinfachung Befunde in Exodus-Numbers (according to Kaiser evidently different stages of patriarchal promises, some of which are pre-Dtr, p. 101), as well as in Dtr History, both fascinates and irritates author (p. 103). J thus appears as a redactor-author and theologian (possibly even a school, p. 115; see also p. 131). Kaiser states that E texts result from different authors; some are prior to and independent of J (e.g., Gen 20; 21:9ff., and Reuben version of Joseph story); others are redactional additions (Exod 3). Kaiser thus finds serious obstacles to theory of a continuous E source (p. 109). On other hand, Kaiser concedes that there are good arguments for regarding P as originally independent. Referring to those who do not find any P source in the death of Moses, he regards this case as settled (p. 112). He also thinks (with E. Zenger) that P might have ended at Lev 9:24. The third article is also previously unpublished. This is a discussion in dialogue with J. Van Seters on relation between so-called Court History of David (the Succession Narrative) and DtrH. The article is a continuation of and a comment on an earlier article by Kaiser on same texts, published in 1988 and reprinted in this volume (pp. 165-82). While Van Seters claims that Court History is a post-Dtr, antiroyal addition to history of David from postexilic times (the Court History has been added to DtrH as an antilegitimation story), Kaiser argues for hypothesis of a pro-dynastic, pre-Dtr reworking (Bearbeitung) of an even older Court History. This revision Kaiser finds in 2 Sam 18:10-14 (p. …