Preferring
P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP
Part
Four:
Mowinckel made an ass of Balaam story
by
Damien
F. Mackey
“Much
of the loss of simhat torah [“Rejoicing
in the Torah”] in Old Testament studies must be attributed to the
atomizing process of critics such as Mowinckel”.
Ronald Barclay Allen
Balaam in the New Testament
Balaam can
come across as a somewhat curious character inasmuch as he, an apparent pagan
soothsayer, will, in the end, utter some true and marvellous prophecies, such
as this one, Balaam’s Fourth Prophesy
(Numbers 24:17):
‘I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near:
a star shall come out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the forehead of Moab
and break down all the sons of Sheth’.
This Balaam will do, however, not of his own accord, but under Divine compulsion.
For Balaam was no willing instrument of Yahweh, but was, according to Joshua
13:22, a “diviner”, who would be slain along with Israel’s other foes: “Balaam also the
son of Beor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword
among them that were slain by them”.
The New Testament
is far more specific about the character and wrongful deeds of the man.
“Which have forsaken the right way,
and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved
the wages of unrighteousness …”.
Jude 1:11
“Woe to them! They have taken the
way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been
destroyed in Korah's rebellion”.
Revelation 2:14
“There are some among you who hold to the teaching of
Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food
sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality”.
The renowned Norwegian
professor, theologian and biblical scholar, Sigmund
Mowinckel (d. 1965), eagerly embracing the Wellhausian
JEDP critical method, will be led by JEDP to a quite different conclusion about
Balaam, who will “now become the
pious man of God”.
Mowinckel’s E
transforms J
Ronald Barclay Allen tells of this ‘amazing’
metamorphosis of Balaam in his dissertation, THE THEOLOGY OF THE BALAAM
ORACLES: A PAGAN DIVINER AND THE WORD OF GOD (pp. 85-87):
Section seven2 of Mowinckel's treatment of the Balaam
saga has to do with the E variant which is used to reshape the J materials. The
variants of the saga which are narrated by the Elohist build entirely and fully
on the Yahwistic materials. But in the E reshaping there is the influence of a
later period in terms of the conception of God and also in other ways of
thinking.
The E variant retains the two trips of Balak after
Balaam and the two blessings that were given instead of cursings. But E varies
from J in that E does not let Balaam speak the two blessings of his own
initiative.
The most characteristic element in the E variant,
according to Mowinckel, however, is the religious. The folk-saga has become
legend. Balaam has now become the pious man of God, whereas he had been no more
than a professional seer. Now, in all matters, he waits for the command of
Elohim.
Another tell-tale sign of E is to be seen in the
preference for dream or semi-awake periods of
revelation in the night. No longer is there the daylight vision of the angel;
in E it is replaced by night visions and dreams.
The disgraceful expedient of the donkey is
dismissed.
So, Mowinckel summarizes, in the E variant
there are no new elements. Rather we are to see in E a "deforming"
[read "demythologizing”] of the J section under the influence of the
religious way of thinking of the later period.1
Mowinckel’s is a kill-joy
approach
Moving on to
pp. 92-95 of Ronald Barclay Allen’s
dissertation, we read of the un-wanted effect of the JEDP method of textual fragmentation:
The
so-called "Documentary Hypothesis," which received its formal
exposition in the writings of Wellhausen, Driver, et al.,2 is felt to be
demonstrated as "beyond all doubt" by Mowinckel in the treatise surveyed
above. His second sentence states confidently this operating pre- mise:
"Es besteht fur mich daruber gar kein Zweifel, dass die von Wellhausen and
Bantsch vorgenommene Scheldung in der Hauptsache das Richtige getroffen
hat."3
This
article may be stated to be "Exhibit A" in the defense of
literary-critical analysis. In opposition to revisionists such as von Gall and
Gressmann, and in ignorance or disregard of critical "heretics" such
as Lohr--Mowinckel methodically sloshes through the quagmire of the reasoning of
source-analysis. After almost forty pages of closely printed text, he concludes
where he began. Wellhausen is indeed correct: "Daraus ergibt sich erstens,
dass die von anderen Kriterien heraus vorgenommene Quellen- schceidung
Wellhausens und anderer . . . die richtige ist.”1
This
is not the place to attempt to present a thoroughgoing refutation of
literary-criticism;2 such has been done well by others.3 It is enough simply to
display the manner of argumentation by Mowinckel in detail (as done above), in
order to exhibit the logical and scientific flaws of the literary-critical
hypothesis.
Presuppositions
of a negative cast are stated, conclusions are drawn, conflicting data are
excised as being "intrusions," premises are proved--and the author
marvels at the result. One example may suffice. Rather than see a progression
and development in the several oracles of Numbers 23 and 24, Mowinckel inverts
their order, excises "intrusions" that conflict with his
presuppositions, and then "proves" that the songs of chapter 24 are
earlier than those of chapter 23 on the basis of presuppositions of historical
context and evolution of religion. As for the employment of the word
"Yahweh" in Numbers 23:2:1--our author says that this proves
"nichts gogen 'E' als Verfasser."1 Yet it was precisely on the basis
of the employment of the divine names that the sources were first identified.
With
these circular reasoning and question-begging techniques, our author may seek
any historical situation he wishes for a given passage. The word
"history" is employed in a very cavalier fashion. It may well be that
the mere presentation of the arguments of Mowinckel serves as a most potent
argument against the system.
However,
the presentation of this material also serves to confirm an observation made in
Chapter I of the present paper. Much of the loss of simhat torah in Old
Testament studies must be attributed to the atomizing process of critics such
as Mowinckel. What delight after all is there in his manner of
approach?1 Further, what his approach does to the authority of the
Word of God in the mind of the reader is a question of prime importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment