165 THE CONTINUITY OF THE NON-PRIESTLY NARRATIVE continuous literary whole. Continuity is indicated not by verbal cross-references, but rather by the establishment of and continuing adherence to historical claims regarding what happened, when, where, why, and how. As long as the historical claims of the text are consistent throughout — and, in the special case of the Pentateuch, are also distinct from those of the other texts with which they have been secondarily combined — there is no need to inquire as to its continuity. This is especially so when the text progresses in chrono- logical order, and when, it should not be forgotten, its only known existence is as a continuous historical work. Such is the case with the non-priestly history of the patriarchs and exodus. When we pick up a novel, we know it to be a literary unity not because the author regularly reminds us of what happened earlier in the book (which would in fact be quite tedious); we know it to be a unity because the plot is continuous, because the historical claims made in one place are assumed elsewhere. Thus rather than assume that the patriarchs and exodus were ori- ginally separate in the non-priestly text and then look for some pris- tine explicit verbal link to prove it (one similar to those in the priestly narrative), we ought rather to work from the assumption that the non-priestly text is in fact continuous, and then — entirely in isolation from the priestly text — appreciate the historical claims in the non-priestly text that are consistent across its whole. II. Continuity in non-P We may set aside some of the most obvious, but controversial, passages linking the patriarchs and the exodus: Genesis 15 4, Gen 50,24-25 and Exod 13,19 5, and Gen 12,10-20. As for the non- priestly promises to the patriarchs, made regularly throughout Gen- Although I and some others believe Genesis 15 to be of unified non- 4 priestly origin, much of scholarship seems to have concluded that the chap- ter is in fact a (unified) post-priestly composition, and the refutation of the prevailing view is simply beyond the scope of this paper. These passages were classically, and I think correctly, assigned to the same 5 non-priestly hand; a number of recent scholars have assigned these passages and Josh 24,32, in which Joseph’s bones are actually buried at Shechem, to a “hexa- teuchal” redactor. Again, the concepts of the “Hexateuch” and a “hexateuchal redactor”, though worthy of serious discussion, are too large to engage here. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati