Critique

C. Critique

Theories of pentateuchal sources continue to be revised in modern scholarship, with myriad refinements and counterproposals. Some scholars reject source analysis entirely, arguing that it compromises the literary integrity of the Pentateuch. Still others challenge critical analysis because it is perceived to be inconsistent with a theory of inspiration and a view that God spoke through Moses to deliver the Torah. It is fair to say the field of pentateuchal studies is more unsettled today than it ever was.

 Table D Source Analysis: Revisions and Alternatives

   Still, there seems to be a broad consensus, apart from the most conservative readers, that the Torah is multilayered and that underlying sources of some kind did exist. Whether they were oral or written or a combination of both is not entirely clear. When they arose is not entirely clear either. Still, for many students of the Torah, continuing to view it as having arisen out a combination of basic sources is a productive way to begin thinking about the shape of the literature and the theology of the writers. Reference to sources and their implied background permeates scholarship on the Torah and continues to be actively employed. One cannot join the conversation on the Pentateuch without a knowledge of source analysis.
   The use of source analysis in RTOT does not imply an endorsement of it. It is used alongside other reading techniques, including literary and linguistic analysis, form criticism, and a canonical perspective. All these methods together constitute the toolkit of an informed readership. Our goal is to immerse readers in the text of the Hebrew Bible, and the use of these methods forces the reader into the minutae. This is where the real fun of interpretation begins. If these methods can help us attend closely to the text, then they are worth using.