Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch (review)

Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 289 Reviews revelation, inspiration, canon) to geography and archaeology. The latter is a particularly useful addition since it is written by an archaeologist who outlines current archaeological methodology. The writer clearly distinguishes between the biblical archaeology of the past and the Syro-Palestinian archaeology of the present. He goes on to survey (in point form) the following important archaeological sites: Ashkelon, Gezer, Hazor, Heshbon, Jericho, Jerusalem, Lachish, Megiddo, Samaria, and Shechem. It is unfortunate that the authors of the earlier chapters of the book draw almost exclusively on the earlier "biblical archaeology" of the Albright School. Given the intended readership, conservative evangelical, this volume is still serviceable. One wonders, however, whether or not the discussion of older historical critical issues adds a lot of unnecessary bulk. Could one not major on "message" and "form" and minor on "background" (in the sense of authorship and date). On a more substantial level, evangelical biblical scholarship has changed substantially in the last two decades and these changes are not reflected in this volume. I am thinking in particular of the prominence given to literary and sociological approaches as well as more sophisticated reflection on how one might read (and introduce) the biblical text as scripture. My guess is that the second edition of LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush will be the last. Jonathan Dyck Trinity College Dublin, Ireland jedyck@tcd.ie ETHNIC MYTHS AND PENTATEUCHAL FOUNDATIONS: A NEW APPROACH TO THE FORMATION OF THE PENTATEUCH . By E. Theodore Mullen, Jr. SBLSS. Pp ix + 350. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. Cloth, $34.95. Paper, $29.95. The distinctiveness of Mullen's approach-in contrast to present diachronic and synchronic approaches--consists in interpreting the Tetrateuch in terms of how the texts that comprise it might have functioned to create and maintain communal ethnic identity. This is seen to have originally occurred in the context of the restoration community of the early Persian period. This is because not only would formation of a distinctive ethnic identity have been an issue for that community, but also the scribal guilds of the second temple period under the auspices of the Persian politi- Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 290 Reviews cal system would have provided the practicable means for this to occur. For Mullen maintains that not only did the Tetrateuchal materials function to shape ethnic identity, but indeed were produced in effectively their present form in that context for that purpose. Mullen acknowledges that this process of production may have involved the compilation of traditions from diverse groups of people of which the returnees and the people in the land were composed which shows itself in the variety of materials comprising the Tetrateuch. However, he emphasizes more strongly the creation of traditions, and their composition in their present form, by the scribes for this new context. The stress is on the discontinuity between pre-exilic Judah and the restoration community, and hence the discontinuity between the production of the Tetrateuchal texts and any possible pre-exilic traditions. Thus he restricts the creation and production of the Tetrateuch effectively to the Persian period, with any redaction occurring over a few generations into the Hellenistic period, a position that stands in opposition to the traditional documentary hypothesis with its continuous sources formed, supplemented, and redacted over a much longer period comprising pre-exilic and post-exilic times. Indeed, Mullen maintains that the Tetrateuch was composed in the post-exilic period as a supplement to the exilic Deuteronomistic History, to form a "primary history" extending from Genesis through Kings. The Pentateuch was formed later by shifting the death of Moses from the end of the Tetrateuch to the end of Deuteronomy during the process of canonization during which the Pentateuch came to be identified with the Torah. In the context of its original production in the Persian period, however, Mullen sees the diverse Tetrateuchal materials functioning to form the ethnic identity of the restoration community through the public reading and interpretation of selected parts by the scribes for didactic purposes to suit various situations. The Tetrateuch was not composed with the intention of being taken as a continuous whole (compare the presupposition of the documentary hypothesis) and therefore...