Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: One or two covenants in the OT?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: One or two covenants in the OT?
  • Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:31:20 -0400


> From: Jon Peter: Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 1:49 AM

>
> Liz wrote:
>
> >
> > The Jew views them as the same covenant, and the bible testifies that
> > historically they were so viewed. In Ex. 3:23 we read "The Israelites
> > groaned under their slavery and cried out. Out of the slavery their cry
> for
> > help rose up to God. God heard their groaning, and God remembered his
> > covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God looked upon the Israelites,
> and
> > God took notice of them."
> >
>
> At that point in the narrative, only 1 co. did exist, the 1 from Genesis.
> Beginning in Ex 6, God begins to alter the terms significantly.
> Priests are
> added. Laws and ritual obligations are required. God refers to this new
> stuff as a "covenant" in Ex 19.5 and 34.27-28, and many times in Lev. The
> revision process goes on through much of the Pentateuch. At the end God's
> cov with Moses and Israel is altogether different from the one
> with Abraham,
> Isaac and Jacob.

I can see how you would read it that way. OT scholars do not believe that
it was written to be read that way however. Biblical scholars assign
Genesis 17 to P, the author of most of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. The
covenant with Abraham in Gen. 17 should be placed to the Persian period, the
same time as the writing of the laws. In fact, most likely the laws were
indigenous to Israel much prior to the Exile, the priestly writers writing
down what had been the practice. The covenantal passages were then added by
the priestly writer later when the priestly portions were being written.

>
> All of this can be viewed as "one" covenant that is radically expanded --
> or, to be more technical about it, as 2+ covenant events. The Pentateuch
> redactors create a smooth transition to make them "one."

You assume the Genesis passages were written first, and the section of the
laws written later. The truth is more likely the other way. The laws were
most likely part of Israel's cult and social mores since deepest antiquity.
Israel Finkelstein has shown that in Bronze Age villages of the Highland the
people were eating sheep and goats, with an occasional cow thrown in. No
pigs. On either side of these mountains pigs were eaten along with goats
and sheep. There is also indication from pictures of naked Jewish captives
(pre-Exilic) that they were circumcising themselves. I am of the opinion
the pre-Exilic temple in Jerusalem practiced its cult pretty much as is
described in Chronicles. I may be alone in this, but the description in
Chronicles is too similar to the description of Hittite and Canaanite cult
pracitices - and so different from Mesopotamian cult practices -- to be
tossed off.

>
> Again, the key features are different for CovA and CovB. Respectively they
> are: CovA, no law or cultus vs. CovB, with law and cultus. Participants in
> CovA are Most High+Abraham . In CovB they are YHWH + Moses.

The priestly writer was concerned to show two things: 1) the bringing out
from Exodus was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, and 2) to show
the laws being given before the whole people and the whole people assenting.
He also wanted to place the giving of the law in a dramatic context.


>
> Besides these covenants there are others: Gen 9, Noah+God; with
> Phineas for
> the priesthood in Num 25; with the monarchy in 2Sam25, and renewal
> ceremonies in 2Chron.
All these are P (except for 2 Sam 25 and of course Chron.) but all are
assigned by most OT scholars to the Persian period.

>
> [Liz's helpful summary of covenant theology noted, snipped]
>
> >
> > When you look at the relevant passages in the OT you must ask
> yourself who
> > wrote them, when, and why. It must be kept in mind that Jewish priests
> > wrote all these passages. They wrote them to explain their history, and
> why
> > they were now in Exile in Babylon. They were written to show that God
> > remembered his covenant with Abraham. He brought their ancestors out of
> > Egypt and will bring them out of Babylon.
> >
>
> All true. However, the deeper issue to be worked-out in the literature
> concerned the question, "Where did we go wrong to deserve this captivity?"
> Hence, we see the Bible's and clergys' increased emphasis on lawkeeping,
> purification & atonement coming along at this post-Exilic time.
> If you study
> the HB you see that the Israelites for the previous half-millenium did not
> show a signficant awareness of ritual cleanness laws or much of the Torah.
> Musta come later

This is the old Wellhausen view which is not accepted any more. Wellhausen
did not have access to the literature of other peoples of the surrounding
area. If you read the Hittite material, the Canaanite and Phoenician
material, even Egyptian material from Bronze and early Iron Age, you will
see the exact same preoccupation with purity and atonement. You will see
the exact same devotion to the meticulous details of ritual and law. The
preoccupation with purity and impurity is definitely not unique to Israel.
I had a chance to look at atonement rituals for the birth of a child. You
would think it weird to atone for the birth of a child, wouldn't you?
Wellhausen would speak of some overwhelming guilt complex. Yet, these same
type of atonement rites were part of Hittite and Canaanite tradition. The
purity rites surrounding spillage of blood, semen, etc. are very old, very
ancient, and very much at home in the Levantine area of the Ancient Near
East.

>
>
> > How Paul wanted to interpret these passages for his purposes is
> up to him.
> > That his interpretation is contrary to the intent of the Biblical author
> > (and I think there is such a thing as authorial intent) was not
> something
> to
> > bother Paul.
> >
>
> Paul was a rabbi arguing with other rabbis over 'authorial intent.' The
> boundaries, status and legitimacy of the Torah, the Prophets, the
> traditions, were unsettled in this period. Paulines weren't the only Jews
> questioning "works of the law." All of this disorder yielded diverse views
> and sects, all of which were only thinly documented.

The boundaries of the law was being argued vociferously in this period. The
status and the legitimacy of Torah is never argued -- except by Paul. If
you notice the disagreements are all over points not explained fully in
torah. This is shown even in the Gospels. Jesus does not attempt to
abrogate the sabbath laws themselves, he only disagrees about what is
permitted and what is not. He argues over points of law, he doesn't abolish
the law.


>
> In the end Rabbinical Judaism won. The Rabbis then fixed the
> canon, declared
> what was "in" and "out" ideologically, taught in the synagogues
> and ran the
> publishing office. Had a different group taken control, who knows how
> Judaism would have come out looking?

There is a misconception about the rabbis and when they "took control." This
misconception is perpetrated by the rabbis themselves. The rabbis only
"took control" in the + 7th century with the advent of Islam. Prior to that
time there were numerous strong and thriving Jewish communities throughout
the Roman and Persian worlds -- all without benefit of the rabbis and their
laws. They had Torah laws tho, and these they kept.

All the best,
Liz
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
Lisbeth S. Fried
Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
51 Washington Sq. S.
New York, NY 10012
lqf9256 AT is3.nyu.edu
lizfried AT umich.edu





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page