What do you think?
Rate this book
The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works
Hardcover, no dust jacket. Light pencil underlining. Boards are edge worn and scuffed.
Paperback
Published January 1, 1981
21 people want to read
About the author
Richard Elliott Friedman
18 books162 followersRICHARD ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN is one of the premier bible scholars in the country. He earned his doctorate at Harvard and was a visiting fellow at Oxford and Cambridge, a Senior Fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Haifa. He is the Ann & Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and the Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus of the University of California, San Diego.
He is the author of Commentary on the Torah, The Disappearance of God, The Hidden Book in the Bible, The Bible with Sources Revealed, The Bible Now, The Exile and Biblical Narrative, the bestselling Who Wrote the Bible?, and his newest book, The Exodus.
He was an American Council of Learned Societies Fellow and was elected to membership in The Biblical Colloquium. His books have been translated into Hebrew, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Polish, Hungarian, Dutch, Portuguese, Czech, Turkish, Korean, and French.
He was a consultant for the Dreamworks film "The Prince of Egypt," for Alice Hoffman's The Dovekeepers, and for NBC, A&E, PBS, and Nova.
He is the author of Commentary on the Torah, The Disappearance of God, The Hidden Book in the Bible, The Bible with Sources Revealed, The Bible Now, The Exile and Biblical Narrative, the bestselling Who Wrote the Bible?, and his newest book, The Exodus.
He was an American Council of Learned Societies Fellow and was elected to membership in The Biblical Colloquium. His books have been translated into Hebrew, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Polish, Hungarian, Dutch, Portuguese, Czech, Turkish, Korean, and French.
He was a consultant for the Dreamworks film "The Prince of Egypt," for Alice Hoffman's The Dovekeepers, and for NBC, A&E, PBS, and Nova.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 23, 2023
The Exile and Biblical Narrative
This book is not for average readers and may not be enjoyable for a lay audience. I really enjoyed most of Friedman's arguments and found them to be persuasive.
Spoilers abound in this review.
Two Editions of the Deuteronomistic History Were Written
Friedman begins his book by explaining that there were essentially two histories composed by the Deuteronomistic historian. He does this by examining the evidence and citing arguments from several scholars including Frank Moore Cross, Jon Levenson, and Martin Noth. Friedman reveals how the Deuteronomist weaves together accounts from different periods in Israel's history, incorporating elements from pre-exilic times before the Babylonian Exile, as well as post-exilic reflections after the return from Babylon. By interweaving these distinct historical layers, the Deuteronomist constructs a comprehensive and cohesive narrative that not only connects Israel's past and present but also conveys essential theological and moral messages that remain relevant to readers across generations. On pages 25-26 he gives his list of exilic texts in the Deuteronomistic History. On page 36 he briefly throws out the possibility that DTR2 is a product of the Egyptian exiles. I would have loved more information on this argument.
He summarizes chapter one powerfully:
The presence of this development in Dtr1 rendered it possible for the Exilic tradent to portray the bitterest of accounts of wrath and chastisement together with the bright promises of a return and bounteous restoration. The Exilic Deuteronomist redirected the received work and was responsible for producing the narrative which we read. The perspective of the Deuteronomistic history is that of this Exilic figure, as is the climax of the work. This monumental literary transformation of the character of the Deuteronomistic history was possible, however, only because the theological and historical traditions which were already present in the received edition were eminently suitable as a foundation upon which to develop the Exilic concerns. Those interests which were common to the two editions yielded a unity which further enhanced the literary merger. Those interests include concern for the Israelite covenant, the establishment of witness concerning the nation's survival and well-being, utter rejection of other gods, Egypt, and Torah. The final product, molded under the impact of Exile, is the story of the middle era of the Biblical account of Israel, from Egypt to Egypt. (p. 43).
Much of P is a response to the Deuteronomistic Historian (DTR)
Friedman writes that the evidence “suggests the likelihood that much of the Priestly work was composed in response to the Josianic events and the Deuteronomistic literature” (p. 70). He relates that the Torah was “anathema” to the Aaronid priesthood, because “the book was tied to the JE sources, quoting them often on matters which could not fail to offend the Aaronids, such as the matter of the golden calf. Indeed, the only references to Aaron in Deuteronomy, as has often been noted, are the two notices of his death and his participation in the calf episode” (p. 70).
Since Jeremiah is in agreement with DTR, he is, according to Friedman, against the version of history told by the Priestly authors. Friedman explains:
The Dtr1 portrayal of history could thus hardly have pleased the Aaronids. Composition of their own Torah documents, portraying the Mosaic age from their perspective, lending to their position the legitimacy which their rivals were achieving, was natural, advantageous, and perhaps critical. Composition of Priestly Torah was, further, not a new endeavor for this school; they certainly possessed documents which even pre-dated Deuteronomistic writings. And now they had reason to produce more.
The presence of alternative torot in the priestly houses of Judah between the time of Josiah and the Exile is witnessed in several passages in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel which have long been perplexing. In Jer. 8:8, the priest/prophet of Anathoth challenges the people thus:
How do you say 'We are wise, and the Torah of YHWH is with us'? Behold it was made for a lie, the lying pen of scribes.
Jeremiah cannot possibly refer here to the Torah of the Deuteronomists. Its language pervades his own book, its conceptions are his own, it was promulgated by his friends and supporters, and he lauds Josiah (Jer. 22:15f.). Further, Jeremiah is a staunch defender of the Torah, regularly attacking those who have forsaken it (Jer. 6:19; 9:12; 16:11; 26:4; 32:23). Scholars have nonetheless assumed that at that particular historical moment Jeremiah could only be referring to Deuteronomy… Jeremiah knows this Priestly account and reverses it in criticism of apparently the same parties whom he criticizes in Jer. 8:8 (p. 71-73).
Jeremiah blasts P in his writings
In his book, Richard Friedman compellingly presents evidence that Jeremiah, a prophetic figure in ancient Judah, crafted an argument that aligned with the Deuteronomist's viewpoint. Jeremiah disagreed with the Priestly source (P) and its insistence on adhering strictly to the detailed legislation regarding sacrifices found in Leviticus 1-7. Instead, Jeremiah advocated for a more profound and heartfelt approach to worship, emphasizing the importance of inner devotion and spiritual sincerity over rigid adherence to ritualistic practices. By doing so, Jeremiah aligned his perspective with the Deuteronomist's call for a return to the central ethical and moral principles of the covenant, rather than a narrow focus on ritualistic observances. Friedman's analysis sheds light on how these two figures, Jeremiah and the Deuteronomist, shared a common vision for the religious life of ancient Israel, while challenging the dogmatic and legalistic views propagated by the Priestly source.
Friedman explains:
The conclusion of the Priestly manual of offerings (Lev. 1-7) states:
This is the Torah of offering, grain offering, sin offering, trespass offering, installation offerings, sacrifice, and peace offerings which YHWH commanded Moses in Mount Sinai in the day that he commanded the Israelites to offer their sacrifices to YHWH in the wilderness of Sinai. (Lev. 7:37f.)
Jeremiah directly attacks this statement, thus:
For I did not speak with your fathers and I did not command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt about matters of offering and sacrifice. But rather I commanded them this thing, saying: Listen to my voice, and I shall be your God and you will be my people; and you shall walk in all the way which I shall command you, so that it will be good for you. (Jer. 7:22f.)…
He challenges here the specific claim of the Aaronids that their Torah of offerings was divinely ordained in the wilderness. One should take special note of the alternative which Jeremiah juxtaposes to the challenge. It is specifically the wording of Deuteronomy which Jeremiah opposes to the sacrificial laws of P. When he quotes YHWH as having commanded Israel to "listen to my voice," he is using precisely the command which introduces the blessings (Deut. 28:1) and the curses (28:15) of the Deuteronomic covenant. The promise "so that it will be good for you" is likewise a common Deuteronomic component, and the entire expression "you shall walk in all the way which I shall command you, so that it will be good for you" appears in Deut. 5:30. The language of these pericopes from the book of Jeremiah argues most strongly that the priestly houses of Judah were each engaged in the composition of Torah literature and that the writings of each received a less-than-cordial welcome from the other (p. 74-75).
Why was P combined with D/JE?
In his exploration of the combination of the JE (Jahwist and Elohist) and P (Priestly) sources in the Hebrew Bible, Richard Friedman presents several possible reasons, yet the exact cause for the combination remains elusive, leaving the question open to speculation. One plausible explanation could be that the redactors sought a compromise between the factions responsible for creating the P and JE sources. These factions may have held distinct theological and historical perspectives, and merging the sources could have been a diplomatic solution to avoid potential conflicts within the community. Additionally, both the JE and P sources were well-known and significant in their own right, making it challenging to reject one while preserving the other without facing resistance from the people. The decision to combine the textual strains could have been driven by a desire to preserve the rich heritage of both sources, recognizing their value and contributions to the collective identity and religious traditions of ancient Israel.
The issue of authorship was also problematic, as tradition emphasized Moses’ authorship. Friedman explains:
The alternative torot, meanwhile, could not simply be arranged e.g., in the manner of the Gospels in the New Testament-Le., side by side, each preserved complete-because the torot were all attributed to the same author, Moses himself. Thus a complex design would be required in which alternative torot could merge satisfactorily… The juxtaposition of the JE and Priestly Creation accounts, first, precipitated a narrative synthesis with exegetical possibilities which neither of the original documents possessed independently (p. 120).
Putting JED and P Together Created New Conceptions
In his analysis of the combination of JE/D and P, Friedman illuminates how this merging of traditions gave rise to new and profound conceptions of God, presenting Yahweh as a deity who is both universal and personal in nature. The JE source, with its focus on human-like interactions and emotions of God, depicted a personal and relatable deity who engaged intimately with individuals and the Israelite nation. On the other hand, the P source, with its emphasis on ritual and order, portrayed a more universal and transcendent God, concerned with the cosmic governance of the world. Through skillful redaction, these two distinct portrayals were harmonized, creating a dynamic and multifaceted understanding of Yahweh. This synthesis not only presented a God who cared for the individual but also held authority over the entirety of creation. The combination of JE/D and P sources thus provided a more nuanced and comprehensive view of the divine, emphasizing both the personal relationship with believers and the universal significance of Yahweh in the grand tapestry of existence.
He explains:
It is no oversimplification to characterize P as a more clearly cosmic portrayal of the deity, and JE as a more personal conception. But, again, the merging of the two portrayals in the unified work of the Exilic Priestly tradent yielded a new formula, i.e. a synthesis in which the cosmic and the personal aspects of God stood in a balance which was unlike that of either of the component compositions. It is this theological synthesis, in which YHWH appears as both universal and personal Creator and "the God of your father," that has seeded Jewish and Christian conceptions of God for millennia. Yet it was neither the conception of JE nor of P- but rather something new, a product of the union of the two at the hand of the Exilic trident (p. 122-123).
No Hesed/Lovingkindness in P
In his analysis of the Priestly (P) source in the Hebrew Bible, Friedman demonstrates that the concept of hesed, often translated as compassion or lovingkindness, is entirely absent from P. While other sources in the Hebrew Bible, such as the Deuteronomistic and Prophetic texts, frequently emphasize God's compassionate and merciful nature, P presents a different theological perspective. Instead of focusing on Yahweh's emotional qualities and loving relationship with humanity, P predominantly emphasizes ritual and legalistic matters, such as the precise observance of laws and regulations pertaining to the priesthood, sacrifices, and the Tabernacle. This lack of emphasis on God's hesed in P sets it apart from other sources and reveals a distinctive theological orientation that centers on the proper conduct of religious practices and the establishment of divine order. By highlighting the absence of hesed in P, Friedman underscores how this source contributes to the broader tapestry of the Hebrew Bible, presenting a unique portrayal of Yahweh that contrasts with the compassionate and loving God depicted in other biblical traditions.
He explains:
The fundamental vocabulary of the category of mercy, formalized in the divine formula of Exodus 34, is completely missing in the pre-Exilic Priestly compositions. All forms of the root rhm are missing, as are all forms of hnn. There is not a single reference to the hesed of YHWH…The absence of concern with mercy, grace, hesed, and repentance in P is itself a valuable datum for exegesis, and for dating was well (p. 123-124).
To Friedman, by combining P with D/JE, the redactors were making something that neither JED or P had considered, something bigger than the parts could have ever conceived:
Quite simply, the uniting of the JE and Priestly texts within the single Priestly work resulted in a new theological formula of justice and mercy which corresponded neither to that of JE nor to that of P. The proportional ratio of these qualities to one another within the character of YHWH in the Priestly work bore no resemblance to that of either of its components. The portrayal of YHWH in the united Torah therefore depicts the deity as embodying a quality of compassion which the pre-Exilic Priestly writer(s) never intended to emphasize so, while it develops the reverse constituent of the divine character far beyond the original portrayal thereof in JE texts. A new view of the tension between the divine traits of mercy and justice was thus born in the design of the Exilic tradent (p. 124, emphasis added).
In sum, Richard Friedman skillfully demonstrates that the pre-exilic and post-exilic priestly author, through a process of skillful combination and reaction to the Deuteronomistic historian, crafted a Hebrew Bible that transcended the individual sources of D (Deuteronomistic) and P (Priestly). By deftly weaving together their unique perspectives and theological standpoints, the priestly author created a work that stood apart from both D and P while also surpassing them in its significance and impact. Through this masterful amalgamation, the priestly author produced a new and cohesive narrative that held a deeper and richer theological meaning, elevating the Hebrew Bible to become a cohesive and powerful testament to the history, spirituality, and identity of the ancient Israelites.
This book is not for average readers and may not be enjoyable for a lay audience. I really enjoyed most of Friedman's arguments and found them to be persuasive.
Spoilers abound in this review.
Two Editions of the Deuteronomistic History Were Written
Friedman begins his book by explaining that there were essentially two histories composed by the Deuteronomistic historian. He does this by examining the evidence and citing arguments from several scholars including Frank Moore Cross, Jon Levenson, and Martin Noth. Friedman reveals how the Deuteronomist weaves together accounts from different periods in Israel's history, incorporating elements from pre-exilic times before the Babylonian Exile, as well as post-exilic reflections after the return from Babylon. By interweaving these distinct historical layers, the Deuteronomist constructs a comprehensive and cohesive narrative that not only connects Israel's past and present but also conveys essential theological and moral messages that remain relevant to readers across generations. On pages 25-26 he gives his list of exilic texts in the Deuteronomistic History. On page 36 he briefly throws out the possibility that DTR2 is a product of the Egyptian exiles. I would have loved more information on this argument.
He summarizes chapter one powerfully:
The presence of this development in Dtr1 rendered it possible for the Exilic tradent to portray the bitterest of accounts of wrath and chastisement together with the bright promises of a return and bounteous restoration. The Exilic Deuteronomist redirected the received work and was responsible for producing the narrative which we read. The perspective of the Deuteronomistic history is that of this Exilic figure, as is the climax of the work. This monumental literary transformation of the character of the Deuteronomistic history was possible, however, only because the theological and historical traditions which were already present in the received edition were eminently suitable as a foundation upon which to develop the Exilic concerns. Those interests which were common to the two editions yielded a unity which further enhanced the literary merger. Those interests include concern for the Israelite covenant, the establishment of witness concerning the nation's survival and well-being, utter rejection of other gods, Egypt, and Torah. The final product, molded under the impact of Exile, is the story of the middle era of the Biblical account of Israel, from Egypt to Egypt. (p. 43).
Much of P is a response to the Deuteronomistic Historian (DTR)
Friedman writes that the evidence “suggests the likelihood that much of the Priestly work was composed in response to the Josianic events and the Deuteronomistic literature” (p. 70). He relates that the Torah was “anathema” to the Aaronid priesthood, because “the book was tied to the JE sources, quoting them often on matters which could not fail to offend the Aaronids, such as the matter of the golden calf. Indeed, the only references to Aaron in Deuteronomy, as has often been noted, are the two notices of his death and his participation in the calf episode” (p. 70).
Since Jeremiah is in agreement with DTR, he is, according to Friedman, against the version of history told by the Priestly authors. Friedman explains:
The Dtr1 portrayal of history could thus hardly have pleased the Aaronids. Composition of their own Torah documents, portraying the Mosaic age from their perspective, lending to their position the legitimacy which their rivals were achieving, was natural, advantageous, and perhaps critical. Composition of Priestly Torah was, further, not a new endeavor for this school; they certainly possessed documents which even pre-dated Deuteronomistic writings. And now they had reason to produce more.
The presence of alternative torot in the priestly houses of Judah between the time of Josiah and the Exile is witnessed in several passages in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel which have long been perplexing. In Jer. 8:8, the priest/prophet of Anathoth challenges the people thus:
How do you say 'We are wise, and the Torah of YHWH is with us'? Behold it was made for a lie, the lying pen of scribes.
Jeremiah cannot possibly refer here to the Torah of the Deuteronomists. Its language pervades his own book, its conceptions are his own, it was promulgated by his friends and supporters, and he lauds Josiah (Jer. 22:15f.). Further, Jeremiah is a staunch defender of the Torah, regularly attacking those who have forsaken it (Jer. 6:19; 9:12; 16:11; 26:4; 32:23). Scholars have nonetheless assumed that at that particular historical moment Jeremiah could only be referring to Deuteronomy… Jeremiah knows this Priestly account and reverses it in criticism of apparently the same parties whom he criticizes in Jer. 8:8 (p. 71-73).
Jeremiah blasts P in his writings
In his book, Richard Friedman compellingly presents evidence that Jeremiah, a prophetic figure in ancient Judah, crafted an argument that aligned with the Deuteronomist's viewpoint. Jeremiah disagreed with the Priestly source (P) and its insistence on adhering strictly to the detailed legislation regarding sacrifices found in Leviticus 1-7. Instead, Jeremiah advocated for a more profound and heartfelt approach to worship, emphasizing the importance of inner devotion and spiritual sincerity over rigid adherence to ritualistic practices. By doing so, Jeremiah aligned his perspective with the Deuteronomist's call for a return to the central ethical and moral principles of the covenant, rather than a narrow focus on ritualistic observances. Friedman's analysis sheds light on how these two figures, Jeremiah and the Deuteronomist, shared a common vision for the religious life of ancient Israel, while challenging the dogmatic and legalistic views propagated by the Priestly source.
Friedman explains:
The conclusion of the Priestly manual of offerings (Lev. 1-7) states:
This is the Torah of offering, grain offering, sin offering, trespass offering, installation offerings, sacrifice, and peace offerings which YHWH commanded Moses in Mount Sinai in the day that he commanded the Israelites to offer their sacrifices to YHWH in the wilderness of Sinai. (Lev. 7:37f.)
Jeremiah directly attacks this statement, thus:
For I did not speak with your fathers and I did not command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt about matters of offering and sacrifice. But rather I commanded them this thing, saying: Listen to my voice, and I shall be your God and you will be my people; and you shall walk in all the way which I shall command you, so that it will be good for you. (Jer. 7:22f.)…
He challenges here the specific claim of the Aaronids that their Torah of offerings was divinely ordained in the wilderness. One should take special note of the alternative which Jeremiah juxtaposes to the challenge. It is specifically the wording of Deuteronomy which Jeremiah opposes to the sacrificial laws of P. When he quotes YHWH as having commanded Israel to "listen to my voice," he is using precisely the command which introduces the blessings (Deut. 28:1) and the curses (28:15) of the Deuteronomic covenant. The promise "so that it will be good for you" is likewise a common Deuteronomic component, and the entire expression "you shall walk in all the way which I shall command you, so that it will be good for you" appears in Deut. 5:30. The language of these pericopes from the book of Jeremiah argues most strongly that the priestly houses of Judah were each engaged in the composition of Torah literature and that the writings of each received a less-than-cordial welcome from the other (p. 74-75).
Why was P combined with D/JE?
In his exploration of the combination of the JE (Jahwist and Elohist) and P (Priestly) sources in the Hebrew Bible, Richard Friedman presents several possible reasons, yet the exact cause for the combination remains elusive, leaving the question open to speculation. One plausible explanation could be that the redactors sought a compromise between the factions responsible for creating the P and JE sources. These factions may have held distinct theological and historical perspectives, and merging the sources could have been a diplomatic solution to avoid potential conflicts within the community. Additionally, both the JE and P sources were well-known and significant in their own right, making it challenging to reject one while preserving the other without facing resistance from the people. The decision to combine the textual strains could have been driven by a desire to preserve the rich heritage of both sources, recognizing their value and contributions to the collective identity and religious traditions of ancient Israel.
The issue of authorship was also problematic, as tradition emphasized Moses’ authorship. Friedman explains:
The alternative torot, meanwhile, could not simply be arranged e.g., in the manner of the Gospels in the New Testament-Le., side by side, each preserved complete-because the torot were all attributed to the same author, Moses himself. Thus a complex design would be required in which alternative torot could merge satisfactorily… The juxtaposition of the JE and Priestly Creation accounts, first, precipitated a narrative synthesis with exegetical possibilities which neither of the original documents possessed independently (p. 120).
Putting JED and P Together Created New Conceptions
In his analysis of the combination of JE/D and P, Friedman illuminates how this merging of traditions gave rise to new and profound conceptions of God, presenting Yahweh as a deity who is both universal and personal in nature. The JE source, with its focus on human-like interactions and emotions of God, depicted a personal and relatable deity who engaged intimately with individuals and the Israelite nation. On the other hand, the P source, with its emphasis on ritual and order, portrayed a more universal and transcendent God, concerned with the cosmic governance of the world. Through skillful redaction, these two distinct portrayals were harmonized, creating a dynamic and multifaceted understanding of Yahweh. This synthesis not only presented a God who cared for the individual but also held authority over the entirety of creation. The combination of JE/D and P sources thus provided a more nuanced and comprehensive view of the divine, emphasizing both the personal relationship with believers and the universal significance of Yahweh in the grand tapestry of existence.
He explains:
It is no oversimplification to characterize P as a more clearly cosmic portrayal of the deity, and JE as a more personal conception. But, again, the merging of the two portrayals in the unified work of the Exilic Priestly tradent yielded a new formula, i.e. a synthesis in which the cosmic and the personal aspects of God stood in a balance which was unlike that of either of the component compositions. It is this theological synthesis, in which YHWH appears as both universal and personal Creator and "the God of your father," that has seeded Jewish and Christian conceptions of God for millennia. Yet it was neither the conception of JE nor of P- but rather something new, a product of the union of the two at the hand of the Exilic trident (p. 122-123).
No Hesed/Lovingkindness in P
In his analysis of the Priestly (P) source in the Hebrew Bible, Friedman demonstrates that the concept of hesed, often translated as compassion or lovingkindness, is entirely absent from P. While other sources in the Hebrew Bible, such as the Deuteronomistic and Prophetic texts, frequently emphasize God's compassionate and merciful nature, P presents a different theological perspective. Instead of focusing on Yahweh's emotional qualities and loving relationship with humanity, P predominantly emphasizes ritual and legalistic matters, such as the precise observance of laws and regulations pertaining to the priesthood, sacrifices, and the Tabernacle. This lack of emphasis on God's hesed in P sets it apart from other sources and reveals a distinctive theological orientation that centers on the proper conduct of religious practices and the establishment of divine order. By highlighting the absence of hesed in P, Friedman underscores how this source contributes to the broader tapestry of the Hebrew Bible, presenting a unique portrayal of Yahweh that contrasts with the compassionate and loving God depicted in other biblical traditions.
He explains:
The fundamental vocabulary of the category of mercy, formalized in the divine formula of Exodus 34, is completely missing in the pre-Exilic Priestly compositions. All forms of the root rhm are missing, as are all forms of hnn. There is not a single reference to the hesed of YHWH…The absence of concern with mercy, grace, hesed, and repentance in P is itself a valuable datum for exegesis, and for dating was well (p. 123-124).
To Friedman, by combining P with D/JE, the redactors were making something that neither JED or P had considered, something bigger than the parts could have ever conceived:
Quite simply, the uniting of the JE and Priestly texts within the single Priestly work resulted in a new theological formula of justice and mercy which corresponded neither to that of JE nor to that of P. The proportional ratio of these qualities to one another within the character of YHWH in the Priestly work bore no resemblance to that of either of its components. The portrayal of YHWH in the united Torah therefore depicts the deity as embodying a quality of compassion which the pre-Exilic Priestly writer(s) never intended to emphasize so, while it develops the reverse constituent of the divine character far beyond the original portrayal thereof in JE texts. A new view of the tension between the divine traits of mercy and justice was thus born in the design of the Exilic tradent (p. 124, emphasis added).
In sum, Richard Friedman skillfully demonstrates that the pre-exilic and post-exilic priestly author, through a process of skillful combination and reaction to the Deuteronomistic historian, crafted a Hebrew Bible that transcended the individual sources of D (Deuteronomistic) and P (Priestly). By deftly weaving together their unique perspectives and theological standpoints, the priestly author created a work that stood apart from both D and P while also surpassing them in its significance and impact. Through this masterful amalgamation, the priestly author produced a new and cohesive narrative that held a deeper and richer theological meaning, elevating the Hebrew Bible to become a cohesive and powerful testament to the history, spirituality, and identity of the ancient Israelites.
Displaying 1 of 1 review