|
The Elohist (or simply E) is identified through textual criticism as one of four sources of the Torah,〔McDermott, John J., "Reading the Pentateuch: a historical introduction" (Pauline Press, 2002) p. 21. Books.google.com.au. October 2002. ISBN 978-0-8091-4082-4. Retrieved 2010-10-03.〕 together with the Yahwist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly source. Its name comes from Elohim, the term used in the Hebrew and Canaanite languages for ''the Gods''. It is characterized by, among other things, an abstract view of God, using Horeb instead of Sinai for the mountain where Moses received the laws of Israel and the use of the phrase "fear of God".〔Kugler & Hartin, p. 48〕 It habitually locates ancestral stories in the north, especially Ephraim, and the documentary hypothesis holds that it must have been composed in that region, possibly in the second half of the 9th century BCE.〔 Some recent reconstructions leave out the Elohist altogether, proposing a Deuteronomist-Jahwist-Priestly sequence for the Torah written from the reign of Josiah into post-exilic times.〔Gnuse, Robert K. (2000), "Redefining the Elohist" (''Journal of Biblical Literature'', Vol. 119, No. 2 (Summer, 2000)), pp. 201–220〕 == Background == Modern scholars agree that separate sources and multiple authors underlie the Pentateuch, but there is much disagreement on how these sources were used to write the first five books of the bible.〔Van Seters, pp. 13–14〕 This documentary hypothesis dominated much of the 20th century, but the 20th-century consensus surrounding this hypothesis has now broken down. Those who uphold it now tend to do so in a strongly modified form, giving a much larger role to the redactors (editors), who are now seen as adding much material of their own rather than as simply passive combiners of documents.〔Van Seters, p. 13〕 Among those who reject the documentary approach altogether, the most significant revisions have been to combine E with J as a single source, and to see the Priestly source as a series of editorial revisions to that text.〔Kugler & Hartin, p. 49〕 The alternatives to the documentary approach can be broadly divided between "fragmentary" and "supplementary" theories. Fragmentary hypotheses, seen notably in the work of Rolf Rendtorff and Erhard Blum, see the Pentateuch as growing through the gradual accretion of material into larger and larger blocks before being joined together, first by a Deuteronomic writer ("Deuteronomic" means related to the Book of Deuteronomy, which was composed in the late 7th century BCE), and then by a Priestly writer (6th/5th century), who also added his own material.〔 The "supplementary" approach is exemplified in the work of John Van Seters, who places the composition of J (which he, unlike the "fragmentists", sees as a complete document) in the 6th century as an introduction to the Deuteronomistic history (the history of Israel that takes up the series of books from Joshua to Kings). The Priestly writers later added their supplements to this, and these expansions continued down to the end of the 4th century BCE.〔Kugler & Hartin,〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Elohist」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|