Criticism of Document Hypothesis and the Problem of Pentateuch’s Origin in Rolf Randtorff’s Theoretical Developments
https://doi.org/10.31802/BCA.2020.8.4.006
Abstract
This paper focuses on the range of issues which affect isagogical study of the Pentateuchal texts namely the issues of origin and formation of Torah corpus. In this regard we discuss a range of investigative methods and theories developed within the western biblical criticism among which Documental Hypothesis, form and tradition criticism have assumed a special significance in the past century. The present study explicates and analyzes the Documental Hypothesis’ criticism carried out by german Old Testament scholar Rolf Rendtorff in the 1970s. Alternative views on the origin and formation of the Pentateuch proposed by Randtorff, as well as those practical developments of the scientist, which clearly demonstrate the nature of his methodology, are identified and discussed. The article suggests an attempt to discuss and comprehend the theoretical and practical points of Randtorff’s works — and together with them the intentions of all Western biblical critical science — from the orthodox position.
About the Author
A. V. Lavrentiev
First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University);
St. John the Evangelist Russian Orthodox University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey V. Lavrentiev, PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor at the Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication of the First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University); Associate professor of St. John the Evangelist Russian Orthodox University
3/1 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya Str., Moscow 123242
References
1. Dozeman Th., Schmid K. (eds.) (2006) A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Resent European Interpretation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2. Fridman I. A. (2019) “Umberto Kassuto kak kritik dokumental’noj gipotezy proishozhdenija Pjatiknizhija” [“Umberto Cassuto as a Critic of the Documentary Hypothesis of the Origin of the Pentateuch”]. Theological Herald, № 4 (35), pp. 17–37 (in Russian).
3. Hangireev I. A. (2020, in Press) “Dokumental’naja gipoteza proishozhdenija Pjatiknizhija v tvorchestve Gerharda fon Rada” [“Documental Hypothesis of the Origin of Pentateuch in the Works of Gerhard von Rad”]. Theological Herald, № 3 (38) (in Russian).
4. Houlden J. L. (ed.) (1995) The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. London: SMC.
5. Iannuarij (Ivliev) (2010) “Vlast’ Cerkvi i tolkovanie Biblii. Pravoslavnaja tochka zrenija” [“The Power of Church and Interpretation of the Bible. Orthodox Point of View”], in A. A. Alekseev (ed.) Biblija v Cerkvi. Tolkovanie Novogo Zaveta na Vostoke i Zapade [Bible in the Church. Interpretation of New Testament in the East and West]. Moscow: BBI, pp. 76– 80 (in Russian).
6. Karavidopulos I. (2010) “Otkrovennost’ i bogodukhnovennost’ Pisanija: tolkovanie Novogo Zaveta v Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi” [“Revelatory Power and Inspiration of Scripture: Interpretation of New Testament in Orthodox Church”], in A. A. Alekseev (ed.) Biblija v Cerkvi. Tolkovanie Novogo Zaveta na Vostoke i Zapade [Bible in the Church. Interpretation of New Testament in the East and West]. Moscow, BBI, pp. 148–158 (in Russian).
7. Kessler R. (2015) Querverweise im Pentateuch. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
8. Lavrent’ev A. V. (2020) “Nasledie M. Nota v ramkah tekstologicheskih i literaturno-kriticheskih issledovanij Pjatiknizhija” [“Martin Noth’s Heritage within the Framework of Textual, Literary and Critical Studies of Pentateuch”]. St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies, issue 89, pp. 29–47 (in Russian).
9. Men’ A. (2003) Isagogika. Kurs po izucheniju Svjashchennogo Pisanija. Vetkhij Zavet [Isagogics. Scripture Study. Old Testament]. Moscow: Fond im. Aleksandra Menja (in Russian).
10. Nicholson E. (1998) The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century. The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon Press .
11. Noth M. (1948) Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
12. Oeming M. (ed.) (2019) Im Spanningsfeld von Universität und Politik, Kirche und Israel. Studien zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung von Rolf Rendtorff. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht.
13. Rad G., von. (1938) Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
14. Rendtorff R. (1975) “Der ‘Jahwist’ als Theologe. Zum Dilemma der Pentatuechkritik” in Congress Volume: Edinburgh 1974. Leiden: Brill (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum; 28), pp. 65–75.
15. Rendtorff R. (1976) Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
16. Römer Th. (2019) “Rolf Rendtorff und das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problemdes Pentateuch”, in M. Oeming M. (ed.) Im Spanningsfeld von Universität und Politik, Kirche und Israel. Studien zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung von Rolf Rendtorff. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 59–73.
17. Schmid H. H. (1976) Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung.Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.
18. Skobelev M. A. (2019) “Proishozhdenie Pjatiknizhija: tradicija i Dokumental’naja gipoteza” [“Origin of Pentateuch: Tradition and Document Hypothesis]. Theological Herald, № 1 (32), pp. 39–51 (in Russian).
19. Skobelev M. A., Hangireev I. A. (2019) “Julius Vell’gauzen i German Gunkel’: metodologija biblejskogo issledovanija” [“Julius Wellhausen and Hermann Gunkel: Methodology of Biblical Study]. Theological Herald, № 2 (33), pp. 17–37 (in Russian).
20. Van Seters J., van (1975) Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
21. Vinogradov M. V. (2021, in Press) “Izuchenie Pjatiknizhija i Novaja gipoteza dopolnenij Dzhona van Setersa” [“Study of Pentateuch and New Supplementary Hypothesis by J. van Seters”]. Bulletin of the Ekaterinburg Theological Seminary, № 1 (33) (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Lavrentiev A.V. Criticism of Document Hypothesis and the Problem of Pentateuch’s Origin in Rolf Randtorff’s Theoretical Developments. Bible and Christian Antiquity. 2020;(4):118-137. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31802/BCA.2020.8.4.006
Views:
67
JATS XML
Email this article 