The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction

Written by David M. Carr Reviewed By Andrew Giorgetti

Carr’s monograph both synthesizes and builds upon his previous works (especially Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008]), using documented cases of transmission history as a methodological control to reconstruct growth in biblical texts. Carr works through a historical-critical framework that gives central attention to orality, memory, scribal traditions, and development of later material around previous “blocks” of material (e.g., an Abraham tradition that was later bridged to independent traditions of origins in Gen 1–11). His work consists of three parts: a methodological discussion (chs. 1–4), an analysis of the transmission history of the Hebrew Bible from the Hasmonean to the Neo-Assyrian periods (chs. 5–11), and an investigation into the possibility of textuality in the early monarchical period, that is, the time of David and Solomon (chs. 12–17). His discussions regarding the importance of the Neo-Assyrian era for textuality and potential existence of early monarchical texts distinguish him from a large number of scholars (mainly European) who assume that most of the Hebrew Bible was written no earlier than the Persian period. Carr’s methodology and arguments represent a balanced and credible position within critical scholarship for the Hebrew Bible’s formation, which broadly evangelical readers can approach, mine, and weigh with rich results, even when they might disagree with Carr’s dating or reconstruction of texts. .

In Part I, Carr provides evidence of a writing-supported process of memorization and performance for the transmission of the Hebrew Bible. Not all texts were facilitated through writing-supported memorization, only “long-duration literature . . . deemed by a certain group to be a heritage to be transmitted from one generation to another by performance and memory” (p. 34). The results of previous studies of variants in “long-duration texts” (e.g., Homeric epic, Gilgamesh, lexical lists, Egyptian instructions, and biblical texts) revealed that oral-written transmission produces “non-graphic” variants different from purely oral or “graphic copying” processes (e.g., semantic substitutions, shifts in order, presence or absence of conjunctions and minor modifiers [pp. 26–34]).

For Carr, the implications of a writing-supported memorization process for the Hebrew Bible illuminate the difficulty of identifying authorial intention in many variants and thereby results in “far less data” in the extant text(s) for any “hypothetical reconstruction” of its pre-history (p. 36). This calls into question the reliability of certain criteria used to identify sources within the Pentateuch/Hexateuch (e.g., traditional/neo-Documentarians and the multi-layer approach of European scholarship), as well as the ability to linguistically date portions of the biblical text using diachronic markers of “early Biblical Hebrew” versus “late Biblical Hebrew” (pp. 103–44). Rejecting both extremes of total reconstruction or complete abandonment of the critical enterprise, Carr seeks a “methodologically modest form of transmission history” for the Hebrew Bible that focuses more broadly around “partial hints” of textual production grouped into historical periods (i.e., Hasmonean/Hellenistic, Persian, Neo-Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian). These profiles can only provide an incomplete outline of the Hebrew Bible’s formation (pp. 144–49).

In Part II, Carr moves backwards from the earliest documented stage for the formation of the Hebrew Bible, the Hasmonean period (i.e., the era for which actual manuscript evidence exists for its various books), to earlier and more conjectural periods (where textual boundaries become increasingly blurred through the material’s transmission history). Carr finds that the Hasmonean monarchy promoted itself as “defenders, collectors, and restorers” of ancient texts and had the power and means to establish a scribal center oriented toward transmission of pre-Hellenistic Hebrew writings (e.g., by expanding sections of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Ezra, Esther, Judges); however, they did not create new authoritative texts (pp. 153–67). The profile of Hellenistic textuality tended toward “Priestly” concerns which coordinated sections of the Pentateuch, Qohelet, Psalms, and diaspora tales (e.g., Aramaic Daniel, Tobit, Esther, and Dan 7–12). Also, structural arrangement of material in prophetic books appears detectable (e.g., Isa 1–39; the Hebrew precursor of LXX Jeremiah; the Twelve; Ezekiel). Looking further back, the Persian period was characterized by a scribal impetus toward promoting the past “prophets” and the Pentateuch. This was achieved through various combinations of Priestly and non-Priestly compositions of Pentateuchal traditions, expansions of Haggai, Zech 1–8, and the edges of Isaiah, along with additions to the Nehemiah and Ezra rebuilding narratives.

Strikingly and against scholarly trends, Carr does not see strong evidence of much creation of literature during the Persian period. The beginnings of textual creation, though, can be glimpsed in the breakdown of state-sponsored institutions (e.g., the Temple, palace scribes) in the Babylonian exile. Carr draws on trauma studies to buttress his argument that the exile was the impetus for development of pre-monarchical stories of origins as found in a post-Deuteronomistic Hexateuch and a Priestly “counterwork” to it (pp. 255–303). However, this period exhibits more scribal coordination of earlier texts than direct creation of new ones. Moving further into the pre-exilic period, Carr settles on the Neo-Assyrian period as the most likely location for major swathes of text production. Here, Israelite engagement with Neo-Assyrian dominion—whether explaining reasons for dominion (e.g., portions of Amos, Micah, Hosea, Isaiah), subverting royal ideology (e.g., Deut 13; 28; Exod 2; Gen 11:1–9), or celebrating its demise (e.g., Nahum, “Josianic” portions of Deuteronomy–Kings)—is a major marker of text production in the eighth–seventh centuries BC.

Part III extends the discussion into the possibility of early monarchical textuality. Carr believes that early monarchical material exists in the Writings portion of the Hebrew Bible. Since non-Torah/Prophets material (e.g., royal Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs and perhaps Qohelet) was marginalized in the exilic/post-exilic period, they were less stabilized and more prone to forms of updating. While Carr has no theological stake in dating texts to the early monarchy (p. 8), his reconstructions present a challenge to scholars who contend that most or all of the Hebrew Bible was produced largely whole cloth in the Persian or Hellenistic periods. He also creates greater room for discussion of early monarchical material in texts traditionally linked with David and Solomon—though with the caveat that the greater the distance from the final text tradition, the more uncertain such reconstructions become.

To be sure, Carr’s work is an erudite synthesis of scholarly work from across continents and disciplines. Methodologically, one of its greatest strengths is the attempt to provide a control on the reconstruction of a text’s pre-history. Carr provides a much-needed corrective to Documentarians and multi-layer non-Documentarians who seek to use a divine epithet, keyword, or phrase as the main criterion for delineating strands or determining textual dependence between texts. If his picture of memory-facilitated scribal transmission is accurate, then each diachronic method should refine its procedures to account for this reality.

Carr’s contribution is an initial synthesis of his previous research, and it remains to be seen how well his transmission-historical method or his empirical test cases relate to the unique formation of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, Carr’s well-researched book is essential curriculum for advanced students of Hebrew Bible/OT as well as scholars across multiple specializations.


Andrew Giorgetti

Andrew Giorgetti
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, California, USA

Other Articles in this Issue

Jesus and the authors of the New Testament consistently link how Jesus’ followers are to live (ethics) with when they live (eschatology)...

Possessing a helpful explanation of the slowness of spiritual change can be encouraging to Christians who are not growing spiritually as quickly or consistently as they might have hoped...

Many have written on the difficulties of pastoral ministry, backed by research into the demise of those who become discouraged in the work...

In light of John A. D’Elia’s A Place at the Table and Stanley E...

A trio of recent books raises important questions on how Scripture is handled in halls of (certain kinds of) learning and how such handling affects Scripture’s perceived truth and message...