It is now 70 years since the University of Pennsylvania sent out the first American archaeological expedition to the Near East. Since that day American scholars have played a prominent role in exploration and excavation; and some of the greatest finds are now to be found in the Museum of the University. Among living American scholars who have engaged in such work, Dr. W. F. Albright, recently retired from Johns Hopkins because of age, occupies a pre-eminent place. Among the younger men, few if any have accomplished more in the wide field of archaeology than Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon, an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania, now professor of Near Eastern Studies at Brandeis University. Like Albright, Gordon is a remarkable linguist. At Dropsie College he was professor of Assyriology and Egyptology. But for a number of years his special interest has been Ugaritic, which many scholars call Canaanite. He published an authoritative edition of the mythological texts discovered at Ugarit (not far from ancient Antioch) about 30 years ago, as well as the first extensive grammar of this new Semitic dialect. He has also interested himself in the Minoan civilization of ancient Crete and Greece, and he has made what is regarded as a promising start in the decipherment of the so-called Linear A script, which he believes reveals a Semitic language related to the Accadian—a very interesting and even surprising discovery since Michael Ventris a few years earlier had proved that the later Linear B script represents an early form of Greek.
THE REVOLT AGAINST WELLHAUSEN
We have said enough to indicate the remarkable versatility of Dr. Gordon. No wonder, then, that he should also be a decidedly independent thinker. In an article in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (NOV. 23 issue), Dr. Gordon challenges the widely accepted Wellhausen hypothesis. He is willing to recognize various sources in the Pentateuch, but he regards the time-honored JEDP analysis as thoroughly inadequate and discredited. He rejects it largely on the ground of archaeological evidence.
It may be well to note that Dr. Gordon is by no means the first Old Testament scholar to raise his voice against this regnant hypothesis. Conservative scholars, Jewish as well as Christian (Dr. Gordon is a Jew), have never accepted it. In recent years it has found opponents even in what may be called “critical” and “scientific” circles. Twenty years ago, Dornseiff, professor at Greifswald, published a series of articles in the Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, a journal founded by the distinguished higher critic Bernhard Stade, in which he boldly declared that no great body of literature such as the Pentateuch was ever put together by such a “scissors and paste method” as the critics claim for the Pentateuch. Pedersen of Copenhagen had already in his Israel declared his independence of the Wellhausen theory; and this attitude has been characteristic of the Scandinavian or Uppsala school ever since. Meek of Toronto, Robinson of Manchester, and others have taken a more or less similar attitude. Among eminent Jewish scholars we may mention Benno Jacobs.
ONE THEORY FOR ANOTHER?
In 1946 in reviewing the last two parts of Pedersen’s Israel, Professor Rowley of Manchester made the following comment: “The Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen view is not a dogma, but a scientific hypothesis, which can be surrendered without tears as a more satisfactory one enters the field. But it must be a more satisfactory one, and not merely a new one.” A number of more or less new hypotheses have in fact been proposed. The principal ones are represented by the Form Critical School, the Myth and Religion School, the Traditio-historical or Uppsala School. While differing in some respects they have a common feature: they all reject the early date and the full trustworthiness of the Pentateuch. Despite the fact that it has now been proved conclusively that writing, even alphabetic writing and several forms of it, was known as early as the time of Moses, they insist that the Pentateuch is late and that it and all the Old Testament books relating to the early period were handed down in oral tradition and were not, except for a few poems, written down until the time of David; some would say, until the time of the Babylonian Captivity.
In this connection a curious fact is to be noted. On the one hand these scholars insist that in the Orient oral tradition was and still is wonderfully dependable, even more so than written documents. On the other hand they are equally insistent that these documents being late are untrustworthy and that the narratives they contain have been so molded and modified in the course of tradition that it becomes the task of the modern critic to free them of the later accretions and get back to the core or kernel, if this is possible. This means in the last analysis that it is up to each critic to decide for himself just how much of the Pentateuch is really dependable and how much is not. Since Dr. Gordon is vigorously opposed to the Wellhausen hypothesis, we may well ask what his attitude is to this important question.
For an answer we turn to his recent book, The World of the Old Testament (1958). Dr. Gordon tells us that down to the tenth century B.C. we are dealing with the “epic precursors” of history (p. 144). He tells us further: “To what extent the patriarchal institutions are those of actual life, and to what extent they reflect epic tradition, can now be outlined by the Nuzu (for real society) and Ugaritic (for epic) parallels respectively” (p. 119). As an example of what this means, we may cite the case of the name “Isaac.” Dr. Gordon recognizes that the name, which means “laughs,” is explained in the Bible as due to the laughter of Abraham or Sarah because the birth of a child “seemed ridiculous.” But he declares that it is more probable that it refers to the laughter of God, because “God (expressed or understood) figures frequently in Hebrew names” and also because “the Ugaritic texts refer to the good-natured laughter of El.” So for this and the added reason that “in the Homeric poems the laughter of the gods is jovial,” he feels justified in holding that “God laughs” makes Isaac “a congenial personal name” (p. 119).
Commenting on Genesis 25:25, which states that Esau was born “red all over like a hairy garment,” he tells us that this “has a purpose”: “Frequently in Cretan and Egyptian art, the men (but not the women) are colored reddish brown. In the [Ugaritic] Legend of Kret, the hero is told by El to redden himself to become ceremonially fit. Obviously such was the color that males assumed for heroic or ceremonial purposes. Esau’s being born red presaged his heroic stature. The only other person in the Bible who was of that color by nature is David (1 Sam. 16:12): significantly the hero par excellence” (p. 125).
Here the implication is clearly that Esau was not born “red all over,” but is so described to make him of “heroic size.” And while David is said to have been “of that color by nature,” the fact that Gordon mentions him in this connection seems clearly to imply that the Ugaritic explanation of Esau holds good also of David, since even in narratives dealing with the time of David we are still dealing with epic literature for which we are to find explanatory parallels in Ugaritic. Dr. Gordon assures us that “The historical kernel of the patriarchal narratives is no more to be doubted than the historical kernel of the Trojan War in the Iliad.” But if this historical kernel is to be determined not by what the Bible says but by the imperfectly understood customs and traditions of the Canaanites, if Ugaritic is to be the standard for determining the amount of historical accuracy of the patriarchal narratives, are we really much better off than under Wellhausen?
RULES FOR BIBLE INTERPRETATION
When the writer was a theological student, his professor of Old Testament exegesis at Princeton Seminary, Dr. John D. Davis, was accustomed to give his students three rules for interpreting the Bible. They may be stated thus: (1) Exhaust the possibilities, that is, get all the light you can from every available source; (2) Sift the possibilities; (3) Distinguish carefully between possibility, probability, and proof. They were good rules 50 years ago. They are equally good today. Tested by them we submit that Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the name Isaac and of Esau’s redness is not proved; it is not probable; it becomes possible only if the biblical narrative is regarded as a garbled and inaccurate account of the actual facts.
Coming down to the time of Moses and the giving of the Law, with which four of the five books of the Pentateuch are concerned, we observe that in his treatment of the career of Moses, Gordon makes no mention of the Law, except to claim that the Decalogue teaches only henotheism not monotheism (p. 145). He is not willing to treat Deuteronomy as a forgery. He insists that laws and codes were usually forgotten or ignored. So he tells us: “The significance of 621 is not that a great forgery was foisted on a gullible world. The significance of that date is that for the first time in human history a written document was actually adopted for all time and without interruption as the permanent guide of a nation” (pp. 247 f.). Does this mean that the account of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai is simply “epic” and is not to be taken at its face value? As to the Book of the Law discovered by Hilkiah, Gordon is not certain as to its extent, but thinks “one of the most applicable parts” is Deuteronomy 17 and 18. If so, in what respect is Dr. Gordon’s hypothesis an improvement on that of Wellhausen? The most regrettable feature of the emphasis now placed on Ugaritic (Canaanite) by many archaelogists and biblical scholars is that their intense interest in archaeology and in comparative religion, with its emphasis on similarities, has blinded them to a dangerous degree to the utter difference between the religion of Israel and that of the Canaanites. The Old Testament writers knew this cult at first hand and they denounced the practices of the Canaanites as “abominations.” Their estimate has been fully confirmed by the excavations. Dr. Albright, realizing this, has said: “The sedentary culture which they [the Israelites] encountered in the thirteenth century seems to have reflected the lowest religious level in all Canaanite history, just as it represented the lowest point in the history of Canaanite art” (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 94).
The mythological texts from Ugarit illustrate this statement to the full. They reveal a polytheism which is gross, grotesque, and vile. Its worst feature is bestiality, which it affirms even of the gods themselves. The Law of Moses took cognizance of this sin and punished it with death (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:24). Dr. Gordon points out that “the Hebrew is to a great extent a conscious reaction against the Canaanite milieu.” He adds: “This is illustrated by the fact that bestiality far from being looked at askance in Ugarit, was practiced by the adored Baal, who copulates with a heifer as is celebrated in the religious texts.… If it be argued that Baal assumes the shape of a bull for the act, the same cannot be said for his priests who re-enacted his mythological career cultically” (p. 99). As to this he tells us “Apparently no moral issue was made of bestiality in Ugarit. Or, to state it differently, bestiality had no significance in Ugaritic criminology. In Israel (whose attitude we inherit), however, it was a heinous crime” (Ibid). This serves, we think, to show in a most striking way the utter depravity of the religion of the Canaanites.
Elsewhere in speaking of that “perfect world” in Isaiah 11, when “all the beasts shall live together in peace with a little child leading,” he tells us: “This reconciliation of man and beast fits into a pervasive aspect of the Bible World, where beasts were accorded almost human status.” He supports this statement by referring to such passages as Genesis 9:9; 9:5; Exodus 20:10; Jonah 3:7–8; 4:11; Exodus 11:5; 12:29, and adds the following: “While the Hebrews forbade carnal relations between man and any kind of animal, the Hittite Code permits human copulation with certain animals but not with others. Thus some of the people in the Bible World felt varying degrees of kinship with the different animal species; some degrees ruled out but others permitted carnal relations with animals; much as our laws of incest spell out the permitted and forbidden degrees in terms of human kinship” (p. 242).
That the beautiful picture of the Messiah’s reign in Isaiah and such other biblical passages as the ones mentioned should be appealed to as in any sense suggesting, not to say excusing or justifying, the abominations of the Canaanites is an amazing illustration of the lengths to which able archaeologists and students of comparative religion are prepared to go in seeking parallels between the religion of Israel and the practices, even the abominations, of the Canaanites and the other nations which were Israel’s neighbors.
We would not have it thought for a moment that in offering these severe criticisms of Dr. Gordon’s position we are attacking him personally or suggesting that he approves or condones such abominations as have been mentioned. We think of him as a very able representative of a theory or hypothesis widely accepted by archaeologists and other scientists today, according to which the solution of the problem of the origin, nature, and development of the religion of Israel is to be found in relating it to and deriving it from the ethnic religions by a process which stresses superficial similarities and minimizes or ignores basic and essential differences.
Dr. Gordon is opposed to the Wellhausen hypothesis. He believes that by means of archaeology and comparative study he can furnish what Dr. Rowley demands—a new hypothesis which is “more satisfactory” than the old. We submit that the more satisfactory hypothesis, in fact the only really satisfactory one, is not to be sought among the Canaanites or other ancient peoples but where the Psalmist found it when after recounting the blessings of God which are shared by man and beast, he cries out: “He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them.”
The Shade of Lincoln Walks
The shade of Lincoln upon these streets
Looking with longing at the passing men;
He yearns to speak something to those he meets,
For here he feels the ancient pain again.
Fear plants a furrow on their countenance,
Dread casts a darkness on their tortured path:
They walk in fetters who were born to dance,
Languish in bondage who were meant to laugh.
KENDIG BRUBAKER CULLY
Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.
