Joshua Berman, senior lecturer in the Department of Hebrew Bible at Bar-Ilan University, has provided the field of biblical studies with a groundbreaking monograph. Though certain chapters have been published previously (e.g., chap. 3 was previously published as “Histories Twice Told: Deuteronomy 1–3 and the Hittite Treaty Prologue Tradition,” Journal of Biblical Literature 132 [2013]: 229–50), the present volume is seamless in its prose and the argument unfolds without disturbance or strain.
The book comes as a much-needed response to peers in the field engaged in the historical-critical reading of the biblical text. It is a “response” to the extent that, after the major 2013 conference in Israel, Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Israel, North America and Europe, that resulted in the 2016 Mohr Siebeck volume The Formation of the Pentateuch, Berman wishes to offer a further contribution to a model of biblical criticism that was defended at that conference.
Berman argues for an empirical approach toward the Bible's compositional history. Whereas traditional source-critical scholars have “rooted their compositional theories for the growth of the biblical text entirely in their own intuition of what constitutes literary unity [i.e., internal coherence]” (3), Berman advocates for a paradigm change. The shift Berman desires has been made possible because of the vast quantities of extant ancient Near Eastern texts that now can be employed in comparative studies. Questions regarding scribal habits, legal innovation, or what counts as narratival or legal inconsistency can now be answered through the employment of empirical evidence rather than ad hoc theories tested against the biblical text alone. Berman's call for a methodological shift is a response to materials that were not available when the traditional source-critical methodologies were first developed.
The book itself is divided into three parts. In part 1, Berman addresses the issue of internal inconsistency in biblical narrative and in part 2, internal inconsistency in biblical law; in part 3, Berman casts his critical eye at traditional models of literary criticism. Straightaway, part 1 demonstrates the methodological merits of the empirical approach of Berman and others who argue similarly. He begins (chaps. 1 and 2) by comparing the Kadesh Inscription of Ramesses II with the Exodus 13–15 account of the crossing of the sea. Berman uses the Kadesh Inscription because it is widely known to have been commissioned by a singular ruler and composed by a singular scribe. Despite this, a myriad of inconsistencies exist between the prose, poetic, and pictographic accounts that exist side by side on the inscription. By then turning to the crossing of the sea accounts (both prose and poetic) in Exodus, Berman demonstrates that similar inconsistencies exist here as well. The result is clear: the mere existence of inconsistencies in the Exodus accounts need not require different traditions, sources, or even scribes.
Berman then proceeds (chaps. 3 and 4) by comparing several Hittite treaty texts with the retold history in Deuteronomy 1–3. This study draws on the recognized tradition of Hittite kings rewriting accounts of the past to meet the diplomatic needs of the present while not erasing previous (even conflicting) accounts of the past. Indeed, “only by accessing the previous versions of the history between the two kings would the vassal fully grasp the nuance of the new version of those events, and properly digest the diplomatic signalling inherent in the telling” (93). In a similar vein, when Moses is depicted in Deuteronomy 1–3 retelling Israel of the wilderness years, it is with the understanding that past accounts are not to be eliminated, but rather that the needs of the present moment (calling Israel to covenant fidelity) are assisted most by a particular telling of the previous relationship between Israel and the Lord.
In part 2 (chaps. 5–10), Berman turns to ancient Near Eastern law codes. Perhaps most importantly, he distinguishes between two divergent understandings of jurisprudence, namely the statutory and common-law approaches. Berman shows that ancient Near Eastern law codes evidence the common-law approach while the history of modern critical biblical studies began during the rise of the statutory approach. In short, Berman argues that historical critics have been guilty of the anachronism of judging biblical law codes based on the wrong understanding of how legal codes operated in the ancient Near East. Rather than the various law codes replacing or even supplementing each other, the biblical law codes instead are “inherently incomplete, fluid and vague” (110), collections of legal decisions and precedents that together serve as a resource for judges to consult as they make legal decisions. This common-law approach to jurisprudence, therefore, allows for tensions and inconsistencies within and between legal texts. This conclusion, once again, points to a serious deficiency in the dominant critical approaches of biblical studies that make source-critical decisions based on internal evidence, in turn giving too much weight to matters of internal consistency.
In part 3, Berman offers his readers a critical evaluation of the philosophical foundations of historical criticism and responds to two supposed major achievements of that approach, namely the interpretation of Genesis 1–2 and Genesis 6–9. In his final assessment, Berman convincingly argues that the modern historical-critical approach seeking to interpret the original sources fails even by the standards of modern historical scholarship itself, for several reasons. First, these source critics rely too heavily on internal evidence governed by intuition and the desire for overarching narratives that explain the textual development of the Torah. Secondly, the internally derived theories often contradict what is known about ancient Near Eastern textual growth from the significantly older texts of the surrounding cultures. Thirdly, source critics are, according to Berman, entirely too confident in their own findings, since many scholars are unwilling to evaluate “orthodox” source-critical conclusions on their own terms lest they be cast out and not replaced by a better theory. Moreover, Berman also points out that many critical studies of Exodus 2:1–10 completely ignore ancient Near Eastern data that might call their own readings into question.
Many, of course, will welcome Berman's contribution, and others will no doubt reject it, but all will have to grapple with it. Defenders of the traditional source-critical approach may say that seeking an overarching narrative to describe the textual growth of the Bible is a strength rather than a weakness. But perhaps more importantly, they may critique Berman's empirical approach as misunderstanding that the Bible's protracted process of editorial growth and development presents a special case incompatible with contemporary texts. Alternatively, more theologically interested readers may wonder if a new approach to historical criticism is the answer at all. For these interpreters, the aims of an author-oriented hermeneutic are problematic whether it is empirically guided or not.
But these critiques do not undermine the value of Berman's study. This book is too important to ignore, too thorough to dismiss, and too compelling to reject comprehensively. Indeed, this book deserves a wide audience and should become a staple in upper-level graduate courses on modern biblical interpretation. This reviewer dares to hope that Berman's contribution will have a profound impact on the field.
