Old Testament Paper on Form Criticism

Old Testament
Form Criticism
Form criticism, which was pioneered by German scholar Hermann Gunkel, is a method that identifies and classifies smaller textual units and determines the social setting within which these units were originally used. In addition, one must also consider the theme, structure, and vocabulary of the textual unit to come to a greater understanding of its purpose. The focus of form criticism is on the repeated use of the text, not the particular events that led to its creation. I will focus on the triplet stories of Abraham and Isaac told in Gen 12, 20, and 26 in order to demonstrate how one can use form criticism to evaluate textual units.
Many common themes emerge among these three stories. One of these common themes is the promise of an heir to Abraham. One interpretation of the two versions of the story involving Abraham is that he did not have faith in God to fulfill his promise. Abraham lies in an attempt to save his life because he is fearful of his own life and inability to produce an heir. Abraham did this because he thought that if he did not produce an heir, then he was letting God down so he would do anything he could to produce an heir. The stories of Abraham and Isaac do not show any concern for the well-being of Sarah and Rebekah. By pretending to be the brother of their wives, Sarah and Rebekah, both Abraham and Isaac are opening up their wives to the possibility of marriage and sexual advancement from the respective rulers. This is not a concern of Abraham or Isaac, nor is it necessarily a concern of the authors. However, each of the stories makes careful mention that Sarah and Rebekah were not molested in any way. This further proves that God was acting in protection of his chosen line because he intervenes just before the point impurity.
Another common theme is deception. In Gen 12:10-20, Abraham tells his wife to say that she is his sister when they enter the land of Egypt. Similarly, in Gen 20:1-7, Abraham lies to Abimelech, saying of Sarah, “She is my sister.” Finally, in Gen 26:6-11, Isaac says the same thing to Abimelech that Abraham said to him in Gen 20. In all three cases, either Abraham or Isaac lies about his respective wife. The results of these lies are most interesting when considering these are biblical stories because nothing bad happens to Abraham or Isaac. In fact, they are actually blessed after their actions. This seems quite contradictory to what we typically find in the Bible. A common theme throughout Genesis that surfaces in all three tales is the conclusion that God is protecting his chosen line. We would expect to see Abraham and Isaac to be killed once the ruler in each story found out about the lie which is what they expected if it was discovered that Sarah and Rebekah were not their sisters.
The thought that God is protecting his chosen line, makes it is also noteworthy to examine the ways in which he intervenes in each story. In Gen 12:10-20, God strikes the Pharaoh’s house with the ten plagues. God did this because he did not want the Pharaoh to commit adultery with Sarah. This stopped Pharaoh from sinning and also made Abraham have to continue to try to continue his line on his own just like God had intended for. Although we are not told how Pharaoh knew that the plagues were related to Sarah, but we can assume that God led him to this conclusion. In Gen 20:1-7, God appears to Abimelech in a dream. “But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, ‘You are about to die because of the woman you have taken, for she has a husband.’” He then confronts Abraham about the lie he has told. In Gen 26, God again intervenes more subtly. Here, Abimelech looks out his window and happens to see Isaac fondling Rebekah and realizes that she must be his wife and not his sister. In each story the ruler finds out about the lie in different ways, but the outcome is the same. In the stories of Abraham and Isaac, they are blessed and given gifts, backing up the idea that even when there is overwhelming reason to curse his chosen line, God will protect his people.
Another point of comparison between the three stories is the structure. All three stories have six distinct structural elements. The first element is of the stories of Abraham and Isaac is them entering a foreign land. In Gen 12, Abraham and Sarah enter Egypt; while in Gen 20 and 26 Abraham and Isaac enter Gerar. The second major component of the stories of Abraham and Isaac is them lying about their wives being their sister. This component is the one that most readers notice because it stands out the most. The third element is Sarah and Rebekah being taken by Pharaoh and Abimelech to be their wives. The fourth component is that each ruler finds out that Abraham and Isaac are married to Sarah and Rebekah, even though they find out differently in each case. A source critical approach would use this difference to attribute the three passages to different sources and probably claim they originated from the same story. The fifth element of each story is the ruler that punishes Abraham and Isaac for lying about their wives being their sister. Finally, the sixth component is good fortune being bestowed upon Abraham and Isaac. This component makes one think why God blessed Abraham and Isaac for lying about their wives rather than punishing them. These six major plot developments indicate that all three stories are following a similar structure and originated from an oral tradition that emphasized the same six elements of the story.
The vocabulary also leads one to believe that these stories are really one story told several times. For example, one of the Hebrew words for relative is sister. “The ancient traditions on which this story and the parallel ones in Gn 20, 1-18 and 26, 6-11 are based, probably come from the Hurrian custom of wife-sister marriage” (Collins 22). According to the Hurrians, a man had the option of “adopting” his wife as his sister to give her a higher status in society. This word for sister appears in all three versions of the story. This shows the relationship between the triplet stories by way of form criticism. Another word that appears in all three stories is “kill.” The stories of Abraham and Isaac are afraid for their lives and are sure that they are going to be killed if the rulers find out that Sarah and Rebekah are their wives. The central belief that the stories revolve around is thought to be wrong. It is confusing why the rulers change from being upset to respectful once Abraham and Isaac explain their intentions. It may be that the rulers think that they were clever in their deception, or it could possibly be God further protecting them from the possibility of the rulers’ harsh punishment. Regardless, Abraham and Isaac and Sarah and Rebekah remain unscathed throughout their ordeals in each story. Where we expect to see irony, Abraham and Isaac being killed for their deceit, we instead see generosity. This is in sharp contrast to the vocabulary of being killed that is used by each of the patriarchs. Form criticism focuses on the different sources of the Bible in order to help compare and contrast stories. This is proven because form criticism looks at the earlier units and traditions that the Pentateuchal sources adapted and incorporated into their narratives. “The critical analysis started from the peculiar use of the divine names in Genesis, and the most successful demonstration of its propriety and utility has been in Genesis” (Fullerton 22). Also, “form criticism recognizes that the Pentateuchal sources were not constructed out of nothing, as it were; they used preexisting traditions” (Coogan 47). For example, Gen 20 uses the ‘E’ source because it “combines elements found in the two very similar but distinct stories of the Yahwist source in Gn 12, 10-20 and 26, 6-11” (Collins 30). For Gen 26:6-11, “the Yahwist’s version of the wife-sister episode at Gerar; the Elohist’s version (Gn 20, 1-18) is connected with Abraham and Sarah” (Collins 38). This shows that these three stories in Genesis mostly use the ‘J’ and the ‘E’ accounts. The etiological narrative focuses on the origin of a name, geographical feature, or religious custom. The “etymological legend” is very similar to the etiological narrative. This is seen many times throughout the book of Genesis with the use of both ‘J’ and ‘E.’ This can be noticed with the shrine at Beer-sheba and also when Abram’s name is changed to Abraham. All of these things are explained within the part of the Bible that the stories are told. The sitz im leben, or situation in life, was first used by Hermann Gunkel in order to determine how an oral tradition or story may have been used in ancient life. Several possible uses for this triplet are told in Genesis. They very well could have been used to illustrate the foolishness of trying to intervene in God’s work. God promised protection and an heir for Abraham, yet he took measures of his own in an attempt to save his life. God then revealed their deception to the rulers to teach them a lesson. In essence, God was trying to saying that he did not need help with his plan. Abraham was supposed to carry on his line on his own, not by deceiving someone else to sleep with his wife. A second possible explanation of how the stories functioned was to show that God will always fulfill his promises. God continued to provide protection for Abraham and Isaac even after their deceitful actions. A third explanation is that God was actually protecting the rulers. Both the Pharaoh and Abimelech find out that they are about to commit a grave sin if they have sexual relations with Sarah and Rebekah. The proof of this is in the fact that God warns each of the rulers at the moment before they are going to sin. In Gen 20 the Lord reveals to Abimelech in a dream that he is about to sin and Abimelech claims innocence because he did not know. “God answered him in the dream: ‘Yes, I know you did it in good faith. In fact, it was I who kept you from sinning against me; that is why I did not let you touch her’” (Gen 20:6). The Lord goes on to say that he must return Sarah to Abraham and that if he does not do so he “will certainly die.” From the word of God himself it appears that he was acting in favor of Abimelech just as much, if not more, as he was acting in favor of Abraham/Sarah. Gunkel also studied the stories of Genesis as legends, not as history. History-writing, according to Gunkel, was more public, whereas legends were more private and personal. “Gunkel’s theory is that the older legends are brief because they represent the oral tradition of preliterate people and would have been told in ‘not much over half an hour’” (Linsley). “Gunkel identifies the following categories of legends: aetiological legends, ethnological legends, etymological legends, ceremonial legends, geological legends, and mixed legends. Aetiological legends explain something, like why the serpent crawls on his belly. Ethnological legends speak of tribal identity and claims, such as why the well at Beer-sheba belongs to Judah, not to Gerar. Etymological legends make a linguistic connection between the older and the newer. Ceremonial legends explain ceremonies and prohibitions, such as why Israel may not eat the thigh muscle. Geological legends explain how the landscape came to be a certain way. Mixed legends have elements of several legend types” (Linsley). All of these legends are types of form criticism found throughout different points of the Bible. A form critical analysis of the Pentateuch can reveal a great deal about pre-biblical tradition and the function of oral stories. Through an evaluation of Gen 12:10-20, 20:1-7, and 26:6-11 using the sitz im leben, theme, structure, and vocabulary, the purpose of the stories can be defined. Three possible interpretations of the purpose these stories served in biblical and pre-biblical times are, first, the foolishness of doubting God’s plan, second, God always fulfills his promises, or, lastly, God protects and guides his rulers. These explanations are not exhaustive, and it is likely that these stories actually served more than one, if not all of the purposes highlighted in this discussion. The New Testament is the best example of where form criticism can be used because that is when all the parables start.