Love is the Law

I’ve been waiting all semester for this. The Law of the TaNaK – mainly latter Genesis and Leviticus – is absolutely amazing. I only wish I had more time to address this lush subject.

Joe Frank, formerly weekend host of All Things Considered on National Public Radio (NPR), started creating edgy audio art a few years ago. One of his skits involves a minister praying with an old woman recovering from a stroke. Over the telephone he says: “Repeat after me: Oh, Lord, let me be like a mouse, inside a mouse trap. Feed me bread, wine, hamsters, rats, bullfrogs, African tiger pussy cats. Love me, Oh Father, and pull the cotton my earlobes. Oh Lord, take my soul, and put me over a barrel, and pull my pants down, and slap me with the punishing rod. Forgive me for my sins, and take me to heaven. I'm a muskrat. Let the adversity of my heart stretch up to the high wire, and let me ride the bicycle across Lake Charles. Slap me. Make me a divine procrastinator. Take my conglomeration hole and recircumcize my soul so that I will love the and worthily reperpetrate my soul with shotgun blasts.

In Leviticus we read that Moses took some blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear and on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot, then dashed the rest of the blood against all sides of the altar. From a sacrificial animal he then took the broad tail, the fat around the entrails, the appendage of the liver, the two kidneys, the right thigh, one cake of unleavened bread with oil, and one wafer, and burned them to create a pleasing ordor for God. Moses then took some anointing oil and some blood that was on the altar, and sprinkled them on Aaron and his clothes before locking him in a tent for seven days.

Behind the apparent preposterousness and seeming irrelevance of these and other rituals is a complicated system of rules designed to bind the social contract through the formulation of a divine contract.

It is difficult to believe that all the Laws were passed on to Moses alone, who then remembered them long enough at his advanced age to pass them along to the people. It seems much more likely these laws developed over time, ultimately being redacted many centuries after the time of Moses.

In Darwinian evolutionary theory, we often say something like, “The creature developed spines in order to prevent other animals from eating it.” Such statements imply intent on the part of the organism to alter its structure for a specified goal. The rules of natural selection work differently. When a trait contributes to a living thing’s survival, that trait is more likely to be passed on. The value of these traits change over time according to the environment in which the thing lives. So, if the weather cools, heavy fur will become increasingly necessary for survival. If the temperature trend reverses, the hairiness may become a survival liability.

Importantly, when the need for a particular characteristic disappears, the characteristic itself may or may not go away, hence the vestigial tail and the finger nail. The biblical Laws follow a similar trajectory.

Although attributed to God and Moses, we see within and behind the laws a wide variety of psychological, social, economic and spiritual goals being met. Here is a very short sampling:

Ritual: Sacrificies were performed with specificity – fat goes here, blood goes there, etc. – to impress upon onlookers and participants the eternal permanence the rite. Rituals and rites of passage – marriage, funeral, communion, adulthood, etc. – must be taken seriously for them to have their desired effect. The Jews were not just tossing a dead animal on a fire, they were participating in a formal ritual that would transform them in some important way, witnessed by those to whom they would be held accountable, including God, elders, and the congregation.

Symbols: Symbols frequently are used to reinforce messages. One small example is the use of bronze for holy parts of the Tabernacle and more precious gold for the Holy of Holies.

Community: In terms of social order, transgressors of various laws could be trusted and welcomed back into the community following a “guilt offering.” This is not dissimilar from the social and psychological role of atonement and confession in the Christian tradition.

Justice: Criminal justice was administered in a variety of ways under the Law. The fine for an infraction, for example, might take the form of an unblemished ram “convertible into silver by the sanctuary shekel” as a “guilt offering.” The individual then would “make restitution” and add “one-fifth” to it for the priest. Thus, the priestly caste, which also served as doctors according to Leviticus – were maintained by the sacrifice system, which provided them with funds and food.

Today we say, “Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.” In Leviticus they say, “If any of you sin without knowing it, doing any of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, you have incurred guilt, and are subject to punishment.”

Poverty: There is accommodation for the poor, as in, “But if you cannot afford a sheep, you shall bring to the Lord, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, two turtle-doves or two pigeons, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering.” Thus, even the less well off may benefit from the spiritual communion of sacrifice.

Farming: On the agricultural front, the Law provides for fields to lay fallow on the seventh year, just as modern farmers let fields lay fallow to maintain their productivity.

Health: Individual and community health, based as it was on a rudimentary understanding of contagion, is addressed in several parts of the Law, including extensive discussion on skin diseases and menstruating women. Ironically, archeological evidence shows that the Jewish ritual bath, or mikveh, was a source of lethal disease propagation.

Food: Primitive concepts also are expressed in the dietary laws, which advise Jews to not eat animals that do not fit easily into a simple understanding of biological diversity, including sea animals without scales and “all winged insects that walk upon all fours,” except “you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground.” [Yum.] Here is a perfect example of a law that addressed to a specific audience in space and time, but which does not readily apply to urban Chicagoans. [Not even Whole Foods here in the Gold Coast had crickets for that special dinner I was preparing the other night.]

So, my basic point is, the Laws address a variety of psychological, social, economic and spiritual needs, these laws probably developed over time because they seemed to work, and laws that were no longer needed did not necessarily disappear. On this last point it’s important to note that even in the United States, with all its legislators and lawyers, old and unenforced laws are discovered on a regular basis.

A few weeks ago I encountered an Orthodox Jew who categorically discounted the JEPD/Documentary Hypothesis. He was adamant, for example, that Moses wrote the entire Book of Genesis (and probably Leviticus, although he didn’t mention it). He said not a single word in the Hebrew Bible has changed since it was passed down from God. One of his arguments was that the different names for God did not indicate different authorship, but rather a different aspect of God’s presence in the lives of people. We didn’t have time to fully develop this subject but I imagine he was saying that sometimes God does enter one’s life as a person, walking along with us in the garden, and sometimes God is omnipotent and remote, creating whole worlds in less than a snap of his fingers.

If the name of God changes according to the intended audience, then quite likely the Biblical lessons themselves change according to the audience. This might explain why some stories in the Hebrew Bible are contradictory; they were not aimed at the same people. All great teachers, like Brooke Lester, tailor their lessons to the student. The most obvious example of this principle is the decision to use English rather than Hebrew when teaching American students. It also is why the Bible has been translated into so many languages; to spread the good word as far and wide as possible.

If one accepts the Documentary Hypothesis and the theory of multiple authorship for the Hebrew Bible, the argument that specific passages were written for specific audiences at specific points in time seems all the more plausible. Ezikeal was written shortly before the Babylonian Exile, Jeremiah was written before the Exile but redacted during and after, Haggai and Zechariah were written for a post-Exilic audience. Using various forms of biblical criticism we can see the hand of the Yahwist (J), the Elohist (E), the Priestly Writer (P), and the Deuteronomistic Historian throughout the Hebrew Bible.

So, here is the big question: Should these laws, which were developed over time to serve a variety of needs for a variety of audiences, apply to us today? Which work and which do not work or may even be harmful? I imagine there are populations on this planet that, if they tried to follow the dietary laws, would starve to death because the permissible animals and plants do not grow where they life. The Hebrew Bible’s dietary laws were not written for people living on small South Pacific islands. I imagine health concerns would prohibit burning animals inside crowded city limits. Bible authors did not foresee the kinds of air pollution and disease problems we have today. I imagine stoning people to death would be considered harsh and undue punishment in most First World countries, just as slavery is considered bad form in the modern world.

My take-away from this class is that if the Bible, New Testament or “Old,” is to have any credibility, it must be considered a living document. That is, God must be allowed to speak with a different name, in a different voice, with a different message, in a different form, to different audiences over time and space. The very structure and content of the Hebrew Bible proves that the way God’s message is heard differs from person to person, writer to writer, audience to audience. Limiting God’s mystery to a few printed words seems like a disservice.

Krista Tippett Interview

In light of our recent class discussions regarding Christian perspectives on Judaism, the Law, Covenants, etc., I thought I would share the following down and dirty summary of Eboo Patel’s interview of Krista Tippett at Fourth Prespiterian last week. Patel is Executive Director of the Interfaith Youth Core. Tippett is anchorwoman for Speaking of Faith, which can be heard Sundays at 7 a.m. on Chicago Public Radio at 91.5 WBEZ. [After the on-stage interview I met with her personally to gush over her contributions to civil discourse and enlightenment.]

You might imagine what kind of challenge it was to create a show about religion for public radio. Part of the fuel for this program was gross misunderstanding about the spirituality of others, particularly Muslims, she said.

The diverse group of past guests on SOF includes Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, author Karen Armstrong, and spiritual leader Eckhart Tolle.

Tippett noted that news traditionally is an account of what goes wrong in the world (what is unexpected) but SOF is about nurishig and edifying. She specializes in the spiritual perspective of people within a theological tradition. She uses a gentle hand and elicits amazing results.

Tippett grew up with a Southern Baptist preacher for a father but noticed a difference between what he said on the pulpit and how he lived his life. She came to understand that spirituality is bigger than any one form of expression, e.g., scripture. During a period of spiritual indifference while working as a diplomat, Tippett became more attentive to the tension between life and death, knowledge and integrity, etc. She returned to school for a divinity degree. She is particularly interested in the work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Tippett believes this generation is particularly interested in authenticity. She finds and believes theology can be intellectually “thrilling.”

Voices like Falwell and Robertson have been loud, and NPR programmers were afraid to discuss faith. Tippett argued for a “public theology” discussion. So, SOF is about how faith informs daily life, not about religion per se. She is big on what she calls “armature theologians,” taking the word “amature” from the root “lover.”

As with pastoral counseling, Tippett likes to create “quiet inviting spaces.” She spoke of questions emerging naturally from the discussion as a product of compassionate curiosity. She noted how important it is to understand how different faiths find expression. For example, she said Islam is a “lived” faith that is not easily quoted from scripture. This means that understanding it requires watching how a Muslim lives their life, not what they read, adding that Muslims are as diverse as Christians. (Just to clarify, Tippett is a Christian-like person while the interviewer, Patel, is Muslim.)

She mentioned “reframing an issue” as a way to gain new perspective, again much like a counseling technique, only the goal is to inform the interviewer, not change the interviewee.

As you can imagine, ideas came fast and furious at an event like this, so here is a list of some themes that caught my attention during the interview: Importance of not demonizing an entire group for the extreme views of a few; hatred not a Christian value; “More important to be right in the heart than in the head”; science v religion not a valid debate; religion, spirit and faith in constant state of fluid interplay; we tend to look for spirituality (God) in times of crisis but we are vulnerable all the time and could find a greater role for spirituality if we lowered our defenses; importance of exercising compassion toward the “religious other,” whether of our own faith or a different faith; importance of meeting in a “human place” to discuss theology; virtue of patience as spiritual change is slow; money as embodiment of human endeavor, and the relationship between money and religion; importance of reference for the mystery of life; importance of looking for hope (not optimism but hope); faith is not just a “head thing” but a full connection through mind, body and spirit (somatic spirituality should be considered); importance of experiencing our selves as creatures and not as abstractions.

Incest is Best, but Only if You Keep It in the Family

Several lines in Genesis attracted the attention of my innate prurience. Some acts of human sexuality are explicitly referenced in the Hebrew Bible, as in the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34.2. At other times sex is cloaked or even ambiguous.

In Genesis 9.22 we read about a drunken Noah passes out naked in his tent. One of his sons, Ham, “saw the nakedness of his father” and told his brothers, who covered Noah up with a garment. We read in Coogan, “On the surface, Ham was guilty of not treating his father with appropriate respect, but there may be a sexual innuendo here, as is frequently the case in J.” He notes that in Leviticus 18.6; 20.11 and 17 that the expression “to uncover [or to see] the nakedness” of someone means to have sex with them. We also note that in Genesis 19.30-38, drunkenness leads to incest. Put the two together and you have a son molesting his drunken father. [I admire Coogan for using relatively nonjudgmental around this rather disturbing image.]

Importantly, Noah curses not Ham but his son Canaan, who goes on to father a nation of Canaanites. Note, these are not God’s chosen people.

Parallels to the Noah story are found in Genesis 19.26-36, in which Lot’s two daughters get him drunk and seduce him. Their pregnancies lead to the small nations of Ammonites and Moabites. These also are not God’s chosen people.

Contrast the Noah and Lot drunken incest stories with what we read in Genesis 21.8-10. Here, Sarah sees her step-son Ishmael making her son Isaac “laugh." She subsequently persuades her husband, Abraham, to send the other wife, Hagar, and her son, Ishmael, away. We learn from Coogan that making someone laugh is a euphemism for having sex, as when Abimelech sees Isaac "making Rebecca laugh" and immediately knows Rebecca is not Isaac’s sister. Unlike the Noah and Lot stories, both Ishmael and Isaac go on to sire large broods of God’s chosen people, eventually leading to the David Dynasty.

So, while drunken incest can lead to eternal damnation in the manifestation of non-Jewish lineages, sober incest in the form of two boys playing doctor can launch a nation of chosen people. Are there conclusions to be drawn from these stories or is this just another case of the wonderfully ambiguous relationship with God that permeates the Hebrew Bible?

Messiah, מָשִׁיחַ, Mašíaḥ, Māšîªḥ, Moshiach, משיחא, Μεσσίας, Məšîḥā, المسيح‎, al-Masīḥ, Messias, מלך המשיח, Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ, Khristós, Χριστός, Μεσσίας, Messias, Masih

I am a bit out of my element here but I'll give it a try:

If the Sinai Covenant rests on obedience, then falling out of obedience through sin would lead to ejection and leave a person filled with existential angst. This would be the supersessionist view of the Sinai Covenant.

If, on the other hand, the Sinai Covenant rests on grace, expressed through God’s selfless gift of Exodus, then it should be possible to remain within the covenant even when we sin. This would be the covenantal view. This concept of remaining perpetually within the context of a covenant with God, even when we sin, is likewise articulated in the covenant through Christ.

So, if the role of Christ is not to establish a covenant that will not reject us when we sin (because such a thing already exists), what was or is his purpose? Does the covenantal view of the Sinai Covenant lead to a different expectation of the Messiah?

The Messiah is mentioned roughly 39 times in the Hebrew Bible, usually in the sense of the “anointed.” [There is an interesting blurb on the etymology of the word “Messiah” at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=messiah.]

The Hebrew Bible uses the concept of an anointed one as the individual who will deliver the Jewish nation, the future king of Israel from the Davidic line and herald in the Messianic Age of global peace. That concept of deliverer, however, is largely different from the Christian notion of deliverer.

The Jews already had sacrifice and other vehicles for repenting following sin. And they did not fear being dropped from God’s covenant, according to the covenantal view as articulated by Lester. For Christians, however, there appears to be a popular view that God’s covenant with the people was not secure until Jesus was born, lived, died and was resurrected.

If Christians were to fully accept the Jewish covenantal view, in particular that another sacrificial lamb really was not needed for redemption, then what should Christians seek from Jesus?

I think this is about where our lecture left off. I can imagine a million additional gifts that Jesus and the Gospels brought, but the permanent forgiveness of sin may not be one of them. Thoughts?

Hebrew Bible Genogram

Can I Get a Witness?

Although witnesses are not usually charged with covenant, treaty or contract enforcement, they are expected to be honest brokers, as in, “Yes, your honor, I did see these two parties promise to do X, Y and Z in exchange for A, B and C.”

But who is to witness a Suzerainty covenant between God and God’s people? In the Sinai covenant situation, we would not look to a third party, such as lesser gods or unchosen people. The natural assumption is that the more powerful partner, the Suzerain, will decide whether the contract is being kept.

Although there are no defined witnesses as part of God’s covenant with the Jews under Moses, there are witnesses during Joshua’s renewal ceremony.

In Joshua 24.22, we read, “Then Joshua said to the people, ‘You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him.’ And they said, ‘We are witnesses.’” Placing responsibility directly on the people for monitoring contract adherence must have been hugely empowering for the people. This particular topic deserves further exploration. When juxtaposed against the chronic rejoinder that God decides everything, this act of empowering the populous could have tremendous theological implications.

Ironically (and disappointingly), we read just a few lines later, “Joshua said to all the people, ‘See, this stone shall be a witness against us; for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us; therefore it shall be a witness against you, if you deal falsely with your God.’” The use of stones as witnesses is not unprecedented, as we read in Genesis 43.48.

I am mystified as to why the power of witness was given to the people, then taken away, so quickly, unless the intent was to say that the witness of the people should be as permanent and immovable as the stone upon which the laws were written.

It is interesting to note that this same passage from Joshua seems to confirm the existence of other gods if not a divine counsel. We read that God is jealous of foreign gods, but these gods are not called upon to play witness, probably because the nature of the contract itself calls for the people to ignore them.

A Tank of Tetra(grammaton)

I’m confused: Why can’t E, not P, be credited with writing the first creation story?

The word Yahweh (יהוה) first appears in the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 2.4, where it is translated in the NSRV as “LORD God.” This is the second creation story. The tetragrammaton Yahweh is said to appear in the Hebrew Bible almost 7,000 times. 

The preceding reference to a divine creator, in the first creation story, is the word Elohim (אלהים), which the NSRV translates simply as “God.”

The rather enigmatic word Yahweh was introduced to Moses in Exodus 3.13-15. Ironically, however, Genesis 4.26 tells us that the word Yahweh came into popular parlance around the time of Adam’s great grandson Enosh.

The Exodus itself may have happened in the 15^th century BCE, well later than the 41^st century BCE when the Earth may have been created by God, according to Coogan’s biblical chronology. [It’s worth noting that other estimates for the age of Earth by biblical standards range quite widely.]

The idea the word Yahweh was not known to humans before the time of Moses implies the second creation story in Genesis 2.4b-24 could not have been written before the 15th century BCE and most probably was written in the 5^th century BCE, about the time Exodus was written. [At least that's what some scholars contend.]

What does this say about the so-called first creation story in Genesis 1.1-2.4a?

We understand from Coogan and other sources that the J source, identified in part by its use of the word Yahweh, dates back to the mid 10^th century BCE while the E source, identified in part by its use of the word Elohim, dates back to the mid 9^th century. Their respective attractions to the words Yahweh and Elohim would seem to indicate that E wrote the first creation story and J wrote the second creation story. So far, so good.

But the P source, also known for using the word Elohim and which also dates to the time of Exile, is credited by Coogan and others with crafting the first creation story. On what basis does P get credit and not E?

God is a remote character for both P and E. The argument that northern E source material was truncated when it was merged with southern J material also does not explain why E cannot be credited with authorship of the first creation story.

The following statement by Coogan does nothing to answer the question: “Because P was the final editor of the already existing sources, the first chapter of the Pentateuch (Gen 1) is P, and its last chapter (Deut 34) is also largely P; P has thus framed the Torah.” This statement takes a priori P's authorship.

It has been noted that one difference between P and E is that P uses other words for God, especially words compounded with El such as El Shadday, El Elyon, El Olam, El Roi and El Bethel. But, yet again, that observation is not applicable to the creation stories.

Somewhere I’m missing a piece. There must be something about the first creation story that necessarily links it to the Priestly source and not the Elohim source, but I don’t see what it is.

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny

In both Genesis creation stories (Genesis 1.1-2.4a and 2.4b-24), God creates the heaven and Earth from the starting point. In the first version, the starting point was Earth as a “formless void,” and in the second Earth was a baron rock. Both creation stories presume the prior existence of matter.

Speaking personally, this is a huge revelation. Most of my anti-creationist contemporaries attack the Bible for attributing to God the ability to create something from nothing; in particular, with God doing what cosmologists now say happened according to the Big Bang Theory. The common refrain is, “If God created everything, what created God?”

The question is moot because the Bible does not ascribe to God the ability to create everything, only the cosmos called Earth.

I also am fascinated by the development of mankind’s creation myth from one of battling gods as seen in the Enûma Eliš, to allusion to a divine council in Genesis 1.26 by use of the plural “us” as creator, and eventually to the pure monotheism expressed later in the Hebrew Bible.

There exist shadowy parallels between the shift from polytheism to monotheism and the shift from widely disparate scientific theories (Classical Physics, Astronomical Physics, Quantum Physics, etc.) to unifying String and Quantum Gravity Theories. It is the migration from many to one, as we see in the over-arching trend from chaos to order. (Or, do we see order shifting to chaos?) At the same time, in Genesis we see the creation of inanimate objects, then fish and birds, then mammals, then humans, much as we see in Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I wonder whether Recapitulation Theory (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny) can be applied to concepts as well as biology, and, if so, can it be applied to development of the creation story vis a vis evolution or creation itself.

Another way of putting it is: Does our changing image of God reflect the changing order of the universe?

++++

On a tangentially related topic, but one for which time prohibits full explication, I find it suspicious that two huge acts of creation are ascribed to God on the sixth day whereas only one act of creation is ascribed to God on the preceding days. There exist parallels between the creation of Light on Day 1 and Heavenly Bodies on Day 4, and between creation of the Dome on Day 2 and fish and birds on Day 5. On Day 3 God created Land and Plants then on Day 6 God created Land Animals and Humans. Why break the one-creation-per-day rhythm?

The humanitarian motivation for mandating at least one day off per week is emphasized in Exodus and Deuteronomy. It seems highly possible that two acts of creation were crammed into Days 3 and 6 to make room for a day of rest. It's notable that a shabbat was not indicated in the second Genesis creation story, all the more alluding to the possibility it was an afterthought of the redactors working in the troubling times of Babylonian Exile.

Beating Around the Bush of Knowledge

In Genesis 19.31, 38:16, and 30:16 the expression "come in to" means to have sex.

Although aspects of the Genesis narrative are no doubt ancient, perhaps even tied to Gilgamesh from the third century BCE,  we understand most of the document was redacted much later around the Babylonian Exile in 586 BCE. The words "come in to" only appear one other time in the NRSV Hebrew Bible, which is in Esther 4:11. This book likely dates to Mordecai and the third or fourth century BCE,  or even to the late second or early first century, according to Jewish tradition.

So what are we to make of the words "come into" in Genesis 6:20? Should the expression be interpreted in the same way as it is elsewhere in Genesis under the guiding hand of J, E, D and P, or should it receive the much more contemporary meaning conveyed in Esther?

As we used to hear on Laugh-In, "Very interesting, but stupid."

This Essay Brought to You by the Letters J, E, D and P

INTRODUCTION

It would be easy to dedicate an entire semester to studying Julius Wellhausen. Just one look at the index to Prolegomena to the History of Israel proves his own self-assessment: “The literary and historical investigation on which we thus enter is both wide and difficult.” The version I examined dated from 1885 and included an Encyclopedia Britannica article by Wellhausen.[1]

Not only does this tomb address the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, but stretches well beyond the Pentateuch. He dedicates explicit discussion to Scripture all the way through the Book of Kings and goes on to make remarkable observations about Jewish theology almost up to present times.

Just look at these chapter headings: The Place of Worship; Sacrifice; The Sacred Feasts; The Priests and the Levites; The Endowment of the Clergy; Chronicles; Judges, Samuel, and Kings; The Narrative of the Hexateuch; Conclusion of the Criticism of the Law; The Oral and the Written Torah; and The Theocracy as Idea and as Institution. As you can see, Prolegomena could well act as a jumping off point for exploring the entire Hebrew Bible.

HOW D AND P SAVED JUDAISM

I am going to go out on a limb and argue that Document Hypothesis standard bearer Julius Wellhausen not only maintains grudging respect for the Priestly and Deuteronomistic Sources but attributes to their harmonizing redactions preservation of Judaism. Writing in Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Wellhausen seems to indicate that  literary coherency within the Pentateuch and beyond, as contributed before, during and after the Babylonian Exile, helped protect Judaism from heathenism and allowed it to survive over subsequent centuries, even in the Diaspora.

Jewish unity was accomplished, even before the Exile, by the “reform of the theocracy, demanded by the prophets and begun in the cult,” Wellhausen wrote. “After the exile, this tendency could not fail to be persisted in.” Eventually, “The restoration of Judaism took place in the form of a restoration of the cult,” he said, noting that following the Exile, Jews did not “relapse into the heathen ways which the prophets had attacked.”

I see Wellhausen as arguing that, with festivals and sacrifices long past, the cult used D- and P-influenced scriptural language as a “shield” behind which Judaism retreated to be safe from “heathenism.” He wrote that the cult was “nothing more than a means to that end. It was the shell around the faith and practice of the fathers, around the religion of moral monotheism, which it alone preserved until it could become the common property of the world.”

Public worship gave the new theocracy, which I understand to have derived in part from the priorities and values advanced by D and P, a firm and undivided center. With guidance and influence offered through D and P, pious exercises served to Judaize the whole life of every individual.

“[T]he center of gravity of Judaism was in the individual,” Wellhausen wrote. “Judaism was gathered from scattered elements, and it depended on the labor of the individual to make himself a Jew. This is the secret of the persistence of Judaism, even in the diaspora.”

A coherent scripture, with its observance of laws of purity, provided a guard against sin. “For what holiness required was not to do good, but to avoid sin.  By the sin and trespass offerings, and by the great day of atonement, this private cult was connected with that of the temple; hence it was that all these institutions fitted so admirably into the system,” he wrote. It is worth noting the Priestly Source played a key role in shaping Yom Kippur celebrations. These rituals, whether performed in the Tabernacle or the Temple, were important components of Jewish identity and alignment with Yahweh.

“The whole of life was directed in a definite sacred path; every moment there was a divine command to fulfill, and this kept a man from following too much the thoughts and desires of his own heart,” Wellhausen wrote.

Wellhausen noted that the new theology, again, shaped in large part by D and P, separated the new period from the old. “The aim was universal culture by the law.” As post-Exilic time went on, “The ever-growing body of regulations even came to be felt as a sort of emancipation from self.” The Torah not only contained ceremonial guidance, but offered a moral sentiment that resonated with the fact religion was no longer just a custom of the people but the work of the individual.

The effect D and P had on the Pentateuch was to stitch a variety of stories together into a more or less streamlined story of individual responsibility. Wellhausen seems to be arguing that the effect of this was to create a new type of covenant and the rise of a new wisdom as seen expressed in Book of Job, in the Proverbs of Solomon and of the Son of Sirach, and in Ecclesiastes. “This wisdom flourished not only in Judah, but also at the same time in Edom; it had the universalistic tendency which is natural to reflection.”

Given his spiritual perspective, one would not expect Wellhausen to be all that sympathetic to D and especially P, but we read, “Even the sacrificial practice of the priests was made subjective, being incorporated in the Torah, i.e., made a matter for every one to learn.”

Ultimately, the individual responsibility cultivated through the new theology helped Jews survive in coming centuries, especially after the introduction of Christianity. “The Jews had no historical life, and therefore painted the old time according to their ideas, and framed the time to come according to their wishes, Wellhausen wrote.

---

[1] Wellwausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel (with a repreint of the article “Israel” from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black (1885).