JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

quarters “P” is subject to even more revisionism. Menaḥem
*Haran (Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 1978)
regards “P” as having reached literary form already before the
Exile, while Frank Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,
1973) doubts if it ever was more than a supplement.
Form-critical efforts of the more classical type also continue,
but there is evidence of a certain exhaustion, if not abandonment.
A plateau may have been reached, and the results
to date are conveniently summarized in: John H. Hayes (ed.),
Old Testament Form Criticism (1974).
In reaction to the “diachronic” or atomistic tendencies of
both source-criticism and form-criticism, however, the general
trend of the period has clearly been in more holistic or
“synchronic” directions. Although of various sorts, they often
overlap. Most novel has probably been French-based “structuralism,”
rooted in the theories of de Saussure, Levi-Strauss,
Barthes, and others. It searches for “deep structures” or modalities
apart from the author’s intentionality. No clear verdict
is yet possible, but structuralism’s preference for philosophic
universals over historical particularities and its dependence
upon an esoteric, almost impenetrable, jargon appear to becloud
its future. Probably the best general introduction to the
approach is R. Polzin, Biblical Structuralism (1977).
Also French, but closer to the center of gravity, is the
work of Paul Ricoeur (The Conflict of Interpretations, (1974),
and many other works), who increasingly attracts a following.
Ricoeur speaks of a “second naiveté” enabling us to read
the ancient texts again with a “hermeneutic of belief,” which
is “beyond the deserts of criticism.”
Less philosophically oriented is the “rhetorical criticism”
of Muilenburg and his disciples, which notes overarching
unities of stylistic and compositional features in the finished
product. A memorial volume to Muilenburg, entitled Rhetorical
Criticism (J. Jackson and M. Kessler, eds., 1974) explores
many of the issues involved. A more extensive example of this
type of research is: W. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah
1–20 (1976). Not immediately aligned, but of the same general
type is: D.J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (1978).
Mainstream efforts to compensate for the centrifugality
of much traditional criticism, however, are best characterized
by the label “tradition-history/criticism.” In fact, if anything
today might be labeled “critical orthodoxy,” it would
be this approach. Major effort is devoted to attempting to reconstruct
the process by which discrete traditions are combined,
expanded, supplemented, reinterpreted, and actualized
in the course of time, in response to new historical stimuli.
The presumably later levels no longer tend to be discounted
as “ungenuine” or “epigonic,” but an effort is made to listen
to the “whole choir of witnesses” – or at least to that one (not
necessarily the earliest) which seems most relevant. One can
compare two applications of this method in the commentaries
on the minor prophets of H.W. Wolff and J. Mays. An excellent,
popular introduction is W. Rast, Tradition History and
the Old Testament (1973). Many issues are thoroughly aired
in D. Knight, (ed.), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testa-
bible
ment (1977), and G. Coats and B. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority
(1977).
As the last two titles indicate, such literary concerns inevitably
overlap with the more theological issues of the nature
of biblical authority. The “canonical criticism” of James Sanders
(Torah and Canon, 1972) attempts to interpret traditionalhistorical
pursuits in relation to the shaping and significance
of a canon. Brevard Childs goes further. In a series of efforts,
beginning especially with Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) and
culminating in his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
(1979), Childs argues that, in the formation of a canon, the
literature was deliberately loosened from its original historical
particularity in order to expose and release its universal,
transhistorical significance. Thus, the normative meaning of a
passage is to be found on its canonical level, not at any of the
earlier stages (though their existence is not denied, nor the
usefulness of the search for them entirely repudiated). Most
scholars, however, are not prepared to go that far, and continue
to affirm the potential authority of also precanonical stages.
Within the same period, J. Blenkinsopp (Prophecy and Canon,
1977) has resuscitated an essentially Wellhausenian picture of
the canonical process.
In some respects, Childs’ unique isagogics is about as
close as the period has come to “biblical theology.” Although
followed by others, he once pronounced that movement as
good as dead. Von Rad continues to cast a long shadow, however,
and, often following his lead, there have been many investigations
of the theologies of individual writers or traditions.
But, in spite of much discussion, no agreement could be
reached on what “center,” if any, could be found in the Bible.
Cf. G. Hasel’s survey Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in
the Current Debate (1972).
Only toward the end of the period have more ambitious
“theologies” begun to become frequent again. The noteworthy
titles are (in alphabetical order; the first three, 1977): R.
Clements, Old Testament Theology; W. Kaiser, Toward an Old
Testament Theology; S. Terrien, The Elusive Presence; C. Westermann,
Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzüge (1978);
and W. Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (1972,
19772, 1978, ET).
The situation is equally confused in the area of archaeology.
There has certainly been no abatement of scientific excavation
in biblical lands, especially not in Israel (and it is impossible
to note here even the major ones). In fact, so much raw
material is accumulating that even specialists are scarcely able
to stay abreast of it, and there is great concern here about the
“knowledge explosion.” Furthermore, there is no consensus
on how to deploy the material vis-à-vis biblical studies. The
very term “biblical archaeology” is increasingly coming under
fire. Some of the debate is merely semantic, and some of
the objection to the term is well founded (sometimes shoddy
workmanship and attempts to “prove” the Bible true). But, on
the whole its rejection scarcely conceals a trend away from
primary concern with biblical history and culture to broader
anthropological interest, in which the Bible is often only one
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 653