Parsha Insights - Yisro 2007

I’m taking a break from my intro to DH series to do a parsha post. Intro to DH will resume shortly.

A few posts back, Sara said she was less interested in disproving OJ and more interested in trying to figure out how OJ developed. I happen to disagree. I don’t care how OJ came to be. I just want to know if it’s true. But, as I try to accommodate reader requests, I figured I’d devote this week’s parsha insights to that question.

The foremost figure in this field who ever lived may very well have been Martin Noth. Noth put forward an elaborate explanation of how Judaism developed. Unlike DH, there is not much evidence to support his theory. But, it is a fascinating one. It is not something we can prove scientifically, but it’s more like an exercise in imagination. How did this tradition come to be? In this vort, I’m going to share one of Noth’s many insights in to the way tradition developed.

I’ve noted recently that Ex 20 (the dibros) belongs (in my opinion) to D. This verse, however,

כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת-יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֶת-הַיָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּם, וַיָּנַח, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי; עַל-
כֵּן, בֵּרַךְ יְהוָה אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת--וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ.

is likely an exception and belongs to P.

One of the reasons for assigning Ex 20 to D is that it is repeated in Deut 5. However, in Deut 5 we see a different reason for shabbos.

וְזָכַרְתָּ, כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וַיֹּצִאֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִשָּׁם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה; עַל-כֵּן, צִוְּךָ
יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת. {ס}

We can further bolster the case for assigning Ex 20:10 to P on the grounds that is essentially a repeat of Ex 31:17

כִּי-שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ

And Gen 2:3

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ

So the theory goes that Ex 20:10 was not originally part of the dibros (in Deut 5) but was added later by another editor who cut and pasted from various other P sections.

OK, where am I going with this?

We tend to view Shabbos as commemorating creation. However, many verses that speak of shabbos don’t speak of creation at all. In fact, in Deut 5 another explanation is given. If we accept the above assignment of Ex 20:10 to P, it will mean that actually the story of creation in 6 days appears nowhere in the Torah outside of P. And yet, shabbos appears in all the sources. However, P, is one of the later sources. This would mean that shabbos actually came before the story of the 6 days creation. But, how could that be? Doesn’t shabbos commemorate that? Noth suggests that actually the story of creation came to explain shabbos. In other words. First, the tradition of shabbos developed. No one really knew why. It just developed. Then, there came a desire to explain that tradition. One attempt by the D school was to say that it was a zecher to YT”M. But, that is not very satisfying. What does shabbos have to do with YT”M?! So, then, the P school actually came up with a creation story to explain shabbos. The original creation story in J says nothing about 6 days!

But, Noth takes this a step further. Noth attempts to show that actually, the entire creation story, and the one involving Noah (actually, all of Gen 1 -11) is of a pretty late origin. Here is the evidence Noth presents to this thesis.

1. Noth assumes that earlier elements of the tradition tended to get quoted a lot because there was much time for them to sink in to the tradition. Newer traditions are rarely quoted. Thus, YT”M is mentioned very frequently in Tanach, implying it was an early tradition. Interestingly, creation and the story of Noah are rarely mentioned. True, Noah is mentioned sometimes, like Isaiah 54:9, perhaps Ezekiel 14:14 and I Chronicles 1:4. But, the references are rare, and all of these examples are from very late books. The earlier books contain none (that I am aware of). Similarly, creation is rarely mentioned. Shabbos is an exception, but as I noted, the creation-shabbos connection is only mentioned in P which is a later book. Of course, the idea of creation itself may be independently mentioned in other sources, since creation is a basic theological idea, but you won’t find to many verses referencing the actually story presented in Gen 1-2. Sometimes, they may even refer to other creation traditions. That’s how some understand Isaiah 51:9 for example. This is especially striking since one would have thought creation would be a major theme. Yet, it takes a back seat. Noth sees this as indication of late origin.

2. Noth was a complete believer in DH. But, it rarely helped him. He was interested in knowing what elements of the tradition came before which ones. But, the earliest sources according to DH, J & E, already contain essentially the entire tradition. How then, can one find what came before what if J & E, are earliest sources already contain the entire developed tradition?

Noth believed in a 5th source (Noth was unsure if was written or oral) called G, for Grundlage. I won’t go into the evidence Noth had to support this theory, but his idea was that G contained the basic seed of the tradition. Both J & E based themselves off of G when they composed their books, but the original G is now lost. So, according to Noth, anything that is not found in G must be of a later origin.

How do we know if something was in G, given that we don’t have it? Well, since both J & E based themselves off of G, if something is in both J & E, it was likely in G as well. Now, E first begins in Gen 15. Why does E not have the story of creation and Noah? Aren’t those pretty basic stories? Of course, we can’t be sure that it didn’t. It is possible that E had these stories but they editor of JE removed them. However, Noth assumes that E never had these stories. The question, is, why? Since creation is such a basic story, one would not have expected E to cut it out of G. Thus, Noth concludes that the original G story began with Avraham. This establishes a very late date for the creation story. Remember, G already represents the basic story of the Torah. It has Avraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moshe, YT”M, etc.

3. Noth had a particular view about how traditions developed. First, there was something that needed explaining. It could have been the name of a place. It could be why a temple, alter, or burial ground was in a certain place. It could be the need to explain a treaty, or a custom. At first, a very basic skeleton of a tradition would develop to explain the phenomenon. There was a holy man who prayed here. That’s why there’s a temple. Then, it would develop further. More details would be filled in about the holy man etc. Then, various traditions would merge to form further complex traditions. And, more and more complex traditions would evolve.

When we look at Gen 1-11 very little is really explained. Shabbos is explained, but that explanation is not germane to the original creation story (the J version) which does not have the 6 day cycle. This suggests a later date. Further, the whole Gen 1 -11 is very far removed. It has little to do with the real life of the Israelite. As such, according to Noth, it shows a level of abstraction suggesting a later date of theological development. Further, Gen 1 – 11 contains very involved drawn out narrative. This, for Noth, suggests a late date. The early stories, were simple and to the point. This place has this name cause of so and so. Period.

Getting back to the issue I raised at the beginning of the post, these issues don’t really interest me so much. Firstly, I have to wonder how sure we are that this post isn’t total BS. When it comes to DH, everything I say is supported by much evidence. I have much confidence in it. But, this, really has very little evidence to support it. It’s nice theory, but much of the arguments are actually quite weak.

And, my other issue is that I just don’t care. I care very much if OJ is right. That has huge impacts on my life. But, if indeed OJ is wrong (a supposition on which this post is based, and which this post doesn’t further at all), then it’s just some ancient culture. Probably not worth my time.

But, Noth does have much more to say. If you agree with Sarah, let me know, and I’ll try to fit Noth in more often.

A gut shabbos to all