Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures

by Philip R. Davies

Philip R. Davies investigates the ways that the ancient world produced canons and textual collections, with special attention to the social practices embodied by scribes, schools, archives, and libraries. The result is a constructive proposal for how the Old Testament arose in its many parts and grew to status as an accepted document, even as a religious object. This book is a significant contribution to the understanding of scribal activity and its effect on Israel's texts, and it is sure to be as controversial as it is elucidating.

Hardcover

First published March 1, 1998

Reviews

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Expanding on a casual discussion from "In Search of 'Ancient Israel,'" Davies asks what type of societies develop a professional scribal class -- the infrastructure, you might call it, that allows the creation of a religious canon. Fans and foes of biblical minimalism will not be surprised that he finds the conditions met only in the centuries after the exile, during the Persian, Greek and Hasmonean periods, and not under the monarchies of Judah and Israel. More than that: He believes the biblical books themselves were written during this era, with Deuteronomy likely being the first (mainstream scholars' forehead veins start bulging at this point).

A clear, forceful argument for Davies' brand of scholarship, drawing on archaeology, internal textual evidence, the Qumran scrolls and what non-biblical writers in the late 1st millennium BCE knew about Jewish history (the story as told in the Pentateuch hadn't reached them, or perhaps hadn't been composed yet). I may have to re-read John Van Seters' "The Edited Bible," though, since these two minimalists seem to have little common ground when it comes to the role of editors (next to nonexistent, according to Van Seters) in the ancient world.

One question I assume can't be settled with the current state of our knowledge: Davies, arguing that the stories of the Pentateuch are post-exilic, thinks that in the effort to forge (in both senses of the word) a national identity, two opposing accounts of how the Isralites entered Canaan -- the patriarchal tales and the Exodus -- were rather crudely grafted together. Joseph's rise to power in Egypt, according to this view, is the bit of obvious folklore that was pressed into service to provide a transition. How do you judge that against the idea, which gets a sympathetic hearing from some scholars, that Joseph's rise and Israel's subsequent enslavement and escape are dim and distant memories of the Hyksos' takeover of, and expulsion from, Lower Egypt? I want an answer in time to annoy my relatives at the next seder.

Endlessly interesting stuff, if you're me.