Friday, February 19, 2021

Joshua Berman on the Kadesh Poem and the Inconsistencies of Biblical Source Critics

 

 

Surveying the Kadesh Poem with an eye toward the types of inconsistencies biblical source-critics see as tell-tale signs of textual growth, we discover a long list of such details:

 

1) Shift in narrational voice: Most egregious of all the inconsistencies in this composition is the shift from third-person narration to first-person narration in line 88 of the poem:

 

(83) So His Majesty went to look around him; (84) he found 2,500 chariot-spans hemming him in, all around him, (85) even all the champion (“runners”) of the Hittite foe, along with the numerous foreign countries who were with them – (86) from Arzawa, Masa and Pidassa; {from Gasgas, Arwanna and Qizzuwanta; from Aleppo, Ugarit Qadesh and Lukka;} (87) they were 3 men to a chariot-span, acting as a unit. (88) But there was no high officer with me, no charioteer (89) no army-soldier, no shield bearer. (90) But my army and my chariotry melted away before them, (91) none could withstand them, to fight with them.

 

2) Inconsistency concerning the pharaoh’s isolation: In line 89, the pharaoh laments his abandonment by his troops: “There was no high officer with me, no charioteer, no army-soldier, no shield-bearer.” Yet, in II.205-219, as Ramesses prepares to charge into the assembled enemy forces he admonishes a figure named Menna, identified as his shield-bearer. And in lines 273-274, Ramesses praises his shield-bearer and household butlers, who remained at his side throughout the ordeal.

 

3) Inconsistent lists of the enemy nations: The beginning of the Poem features a list of the nations that comprised the Hittite confederacy, totaling thirteen groups in all (II.2-6). Yet, when Ramesses engages these groups in battle, we discover seventeen enemy nations in that coalition (II.41-47).

 

4) Inconsistent accounts of Ramesses’s divine paternity: Ramesses’s divine father is identified as Montu at one point (I.37), but as Amun in two others (II.92 and 188).

 

5) Inconsistent references to the Pharaoh’s steed: Ramesses makes reference to his trusted steed, Victory and Thebes in I.78 yet in line 267, the king gives praise to his two mounts. Victory in Thebes and Mut is Content, vowing to assume upon himself ever after their daily feeding responsibilities.

 

6) Doubled reproach of the Pharaoh’s troops: Ramesses offers two separate admonishments to his troops for their cowardice (II.168-203 and II.251-276), with repetitions of many of the themes and tropes.

 

Were biblicists to analyze the Kadesh Poem with the same methodology they use to parse the biblical text, it is inconceivable that they would conclude that the Kadesh Poem was written under the authority of a single agent. And yet, the evidence suggests that this is precisely the case. The fact that a unitary composition can contain so many inconsistencies and doublets suggest a fundamental flaw in source-critical methodology. TO be sure, none of this proves that the prose account of the Exodus sea event is a unitary composition. The evidence from the Kadesh Poem, however, strongly illustrates the need for scholars to attain competence in the conventions and poetics of ancient Near Eastern literature before adducing a methodology, if they are to responsibly retrace the growth of the biblical text. (Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism [New York: Oxford University Press, 2017], 54-55)