The
difficulty in identifying oral traditions
In the 19th century, Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932) made a major contribution to the study of oral tradition in biblical texts. Gunkel, sometimes described as the father of the generic study of the Bible, was a theologian and Bible scholar, but he was also an avid reader of the German folklore collections, then newly published, by the Brothers Grimm. He noticed how often the primitive oral myths, legends, folktales, and fairy tales of Germany reminded him of the stories in the Hebrew Bible. On this comparative basis, he proposed that much of the Pentateuchal text was not historical in the conventional sense but instead traditional narrative, which included not only historical recollections per se but also a blend of myths, legends, folk tales, and fairy tales. Consequently, he viewed the Pentateuch as the work of a collector of old oral traditions rather than as the product of a fully-fledged author. So, whereas some of his contemporaries inquired about the “book” of Exodus, Gunkel was more interested in the origins and development of the various oral legends that stood behind the book, such as those concerning Israel’s descent into Egypt, Moses, Sinai, the Wilderness, the Passover, and the Exodus event itself. Gunkel’s method for studying the text came to be known as Form Criticism, so-called because it gave careful attention to the “form” or structure of biblical traditions[1].
Gunkel’s approach was based on the assumption that each genre is organically associated with a particular social and/or historical situation. He and his circle believed that this was an improvement upon source criticism. Nineteenth-century source criticism examined the biblical text (especially the Pentateuch) on the basis of style, vocabulary, theology, and other criteria with a view to identifying the basic literary sources used to create the text. Thus the source critics argued that the Pentateuch—the first five books of the Hebrew Bible—was created by combining four basic literary works known as J, E, D, and P, whereas form criticism allowed scholars to go behind these larger literary sources by identifying the smaller and older sources used by their authors[2].
By way of example, Exodus 21:22-25 lays down a law that:
22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage (or gives birth before her time) as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.
23 But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
This verse and others around it, which form part of the Covenant Code of Exodus, was similar to many ancient Near Eastern Law codes, and appeared in the Code of Hammurabi (18th Century BCE), and are therefore illustrative of Gunkel’s methodology. In other words, Israel did not create its own laws. They were simply part of an oral tradition common to the region.
[1] "Genre Criticism”, Kenton L Sparks, in Methods for Exodus - Biblical Interpretation, Ed: Thomas B. Dozeman, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010 at 55, 57.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Gunkel Form criticism, source criticism and genre criticism are each briefly defined in an Appendix to this topic.
Gunkel’s approach was based on the assumption that each genre is organically associated with a particular social and/or historical situation. He and his circle believed that this was an improvement upon source criticism. Nineteenth-century source criticism examined the biblical text (especially the Pentateuch) on the basis of style, vocabulary, theology, and other criteria with a view to identifying the basic literary sources used to create the text. Thus the source critics argued that the Pentateuch—the first five books of the Hebrew Bible—was created by combining four basic literary works known as J, E, D, and P, whereas form criticism allowed scholars to go behind these larger literary sources by identifying the smaller and older sources used by their authors[2].
By way of example, Exodus 21:22-25 lays down a law that:
22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage (or gives birth before her time) as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.
23 But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
This verse and others around it, which form part of the Covenant Code of Exodus, was similar to many ancient Near Eastern Law codes, and appeared in the Code of Hammurabi (18th Century BCE), and are therefore illustrative of Gunkel’s methodology. In other words, Israel did not create its own laws. They were simply part of an oral tradition common to the region.
[1] "Genre Criticism”, Kenton L Sparks, in Methods for Exodus - Biblical Interpretation, Ed: Thomas B. Dozeman, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010 at 55, 57.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Gunkel Form criticism, source criticism and genre criticism are each briefly defined in an Appendix to this topic.