Old Testament scholarship in the second half of the 19th century was stirred by the ground-breaking work of Karl Heinrich Graf, Abraham Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen (De Vries 1968:45–86; Smend 1989; Dirksen & Van der Kooij 1993). They and others designed a completely new framework for understanding the emergence of the Hebrew Bible and the development of ancient Israelite religion. Their views were – and to some degree still are – challenged by orthodox and conservative scholars, who are of the opinion that by the approach of the critical scholars the ground under the feet of their belief system is flushed away. The influence of the critical school, however, was not restricted to the small circle of liberal and modernist scholars working at North West European universities, as I hope to make clear in this presentation.

During the period around 1900 Josué Jean Philippe Valeton (1848–1912) was professor of Old Testament Studies at Utrecht University (Valeton 1945; De Vries 1968:94–104; Loader 1984; Aalders 1990; Becking 2012). He was a representative of the ‘ethische richting’. This faction within the Dutch Reformed Church has been in the position of the ‘via media’. This approach in Dutch theology aimed at not dividing critical scholarship and piety, by avoiding the pitfalls of modernism as well as those of orthodoxy. Valeton, for instance, accepted the critical analyses of Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, but meanwhile remained a pious person. In this contribution in honour of James Loader – who himself is more than familiar with the ‘ethische’ approach to Old Testament studies (Loader 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 2004, 2012) – I would like to display Valeton’s position by (1) elaborating on his theological position and (2) giving two examples of his work on Old Testament texts: creation and covenant.

Loader hints at the presence of six dimensions in the more theological reflective works of Valeton, namely, (1) no disguise over differences, (2) the interplay between two kinds of knowledge, (3) revelation as encounter, (4) the preference for fides qua over fides quae, (5) the history of religion and (6) polemics. On the basis of an analysis of these dimensions he arrives at the following conclusion. Valeton – as well as his peers – shared some views with the orthodox theologians that they did not share with the modernists. They however, also accepted views and ideas of the modernists that were unacceptable for the traditionalists. It should be noted that unlike the Vermittlungstheologen, Valeton never attempted to smoothen the impinging poles into some sort of a synthesis, ‘tertium datur’ was his device (Loader 2012).¹ The Vermittlungstheologen were aiming at a synthesis of the domains of ratio and fides by constructing a bricolage of elements. Valeton’s position, on the other hand, can best be summarised by the image of two concentric circles. The innermost circle is the domain of scientific knowledge. This circle is embraced by a second space, the circle of faith (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: Realms and domains of knowledge.

This collection contains an undated cahier entitled ‘Inleiding: Kanon; Pentateuch’.² It is arranged in such a way that each page is inscribed for about 80% with margins of 20%. These margins were later used for additions and remarks when reapplying. In this cahier Valeton discusses the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. He starts off with a survey on contents and composition of the Thora (Valeton Cahier 3:56–62). In a next step, he elaborates the history of research into the emergence and growth of the Pentateuch leading to the four-sources-hypothesis as it had been formulated in the second half of the 19th century using the sigla J, E, D and P (Valeton Cahier 3:62–129). Valeton presents the views of Kuenen, Graf and Wellhausen as hypothetical construction of the past with a high degree of probability. He shows his students that this view is based on strong arguments and that there is an internal coherence in it (see also Valeton 1906). In doing so, he must have confronted his students with views that most probably were construed by them as undermining their faith and subversive to the traditional views of the Dutch Reformed Church. By way of a summary, he ends this section by presenting – in a very reticent mood – his own view (Valeton Cahier 3). He is of the opinion:

dat de Pentateuch uit drie hoofdwerken is samengesteld, welke in karakter, doel, wijze van voorstelling, taal en stijl, duidelijk van elkander onderscheiden zijn, en die men gevoeglijk met de namen Boek der Volksverhalen (V.V), Boek der Wetsherhaling (W.H) en Boek der Priesterwet (P.W) bestempelen kan. (Valeton Cahier 3:131) [That the Pentateuch is composed out of three main sources, that are distinguished form each other in character, aim, religious views, language and style. They can be indicated with names Book of the stories of the people, Book of the Repetition of the Law, and Book of the Priestly Law.] (pp. 131–133, [my translation])

This proposal is in fact a variant to the four-sources hypothesis, albeit with different labels. D and P are recognisable. The Book of the stories of the people resembles JE, but in Valeton’s view this source has elements of what later has been called L (Eissfeldt 1934:224, 1958) or N (Fohrer 1965). He underlines to his students that these sources were not stable entities but part of an on-going scribal tradition.

What are the implications for the interpretation of Genesis 1–3 and his view on the concept of creation? In short, Valeton acknowledges that behind the present text two different and differing traditions should be assumed. The report on the creation in six days is allotted to the Book of the Priestly Law; the Garden story is construed as the opening scene of the Book of the stories of the people. Genesis 2–3 is to be seen as a traditional story from the early period of the monarchy in Israel (see also Valeton 1881). After the exile, a more schematic almost poetic ode on creation was composed.

Another cahier, entitled ‘Genesis I – XXXII:2’ contains a very detailed and precise exegesis on the greater part of the Book of Genesis, including chapters 1–3.³ The first 55 pages present a word-by-word interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:4a. On every page he is in full discussion with other scholars whose view he fairly represents, but always as part of a majeutic discourse. An interesting example are his remarks on the plural in Genesis 1:26; ‘Let us make …’. He discusses the existing opinions: the plural might be a reference to the Trinity – as already in Justin Martyr (Apology 1.59); it might be a reference to a divine council in which God is deliberating with the angels – thus Philo of Alexandria (De Opificio Mundi 72–76); it could be a reference to the Divine majesty and hence the expression of a pluralis majestatis. The options are mentioned, but no decision is made. Valeton wanted his students to think for themselves (Valeton Cahier 37:35–38).

After crawling through the text of Genesis 1:1–2:4a, Valeton presents some summarising and reflective remarks (Valeton Cahier 37:56–57). I will refer to the most important points. Genesis 1 is neither a myth, nor a story, the text is designing a scene. He approvingly quotes the Dutch scholar Van Rhijn that Genesis 1 does not refer to a creatio ex nihilo (Van Rhijn 1881; on the concept of creation ex nihilo see May 1978). Of great importance is Valeton’s remark that the view on nature of the ancients is primitive, and in his eyes defective and insufficient. With this remark, he makes a clear stand in view of the rising discussion on belief, creation, science, and evolution, which was of great importance in the 19th century. Genesis 1 is not to be construed as a report on factual events, but as what he calls retrospective prophecy. Unfortunately, he does not make clear what this label would mean. I understand it as a retro projection of a prophetic ideal into the dawn of history aiming at a dream on the future. In sum, Genesis 1 is not an accurate report on things that happened in a bygone era but the expression of a view on reality. Valeton accepts the scientific explanation on the emergence of the universe. He however, reads Genesis 1 as a religious truth that transcends this analysis as well as the naïve acceptance of Genesis 1 as historically trustworthy.

In his discussion of the Garden story, Genesis 2:4b–3:22, Valeton pursues the same strategy (Valeton Cahier 37:

58–155). No stone is left unturned. Students were informed on the mythic character of the four rivers of Paradise and on the fact that the Hebrew word pardēs, ‘garden; fence’, is to be seen as a Persian loanword. Since the word pardēs does not occur in Genesis 2–3, an emergence of this text from the Persian era is not compelling. As for the anthropology, Valeton rejects a dualistic view, but notes that ‘man’ is seen as a creature with chthonic roots but touched by a hanker after Heaven as a result of the blowing in of the Divine spirit. Eating from the fruits of the tree of good and evil is assessed by him as a trespass (Valeton Cahier 37:110–121). He not only avoids the concept of ‘original sin’, but the language of sin in general thus communicating to his traditional students that views other than a strict Calvinistic one are possible.

His answer to the question whether or not the serpent had spoken is interesting and reminds of the image of the two circles mentioned above. Yes, the serpent had spoken and even with a human voice but only in – what I would call – the world of the narrative. At the level of interpretation or hermeneutics the speech of the serpent should be construed as a symbolic voice. Valeton sees the serpent as a satanic power, but closes all doors that would lead to an allegorical interpretation (adopting the view of his student De Visser 1880).

I would like to summarise his position as follows:

• Genesis 1–3 is built from two separate documents.
• Valeton generally accepts the scholarly world view of his age.
• He is not looking for a model in which religious texts and scholarly views are on par.
• Valeton does not construe Genesis 1–3 as a textbook cosmology, biology et cetera of any value for the 19th century.
• He is in search for the underlying belief system within Genesis 1–3.

A further observation by Valeton regards the absence of the syntagma kārat b^erît, ‘to conclude a covenant’, in P. The expressions that do occur in P indicate that b^erît is a feature that originates in God; it is given or ordinated to humans. Covenantal duties are not referred to in P. In the theological concepts of this source mankind is not bound by all sorts of moral obligations. Two texts and a formulaic expression seem to contradict his view. The first text is Genesis 9:4–6 – the prohibition to consume blood. The second text is Genesis 17:10–14 – on circumcision. The expression šāmar b^erît, [to keep the covenant], at first sight seems to underscore that humans ought to act accordingly. According to Valeton, the two texts mentioned cannot be classified as covenantal duties. He construes the prohibition to consume blood as a curtailment to the blessing for Noah. ‘Circumcision’ is in his view more a symbol – an ’ôt, ‘sign’, – for the b^erît, than a reference to human conduct. His interpretation of the expression šāmar b^erît, [to keep the covenant], is not very clear. He seems to argue that Israel had the responsibility to uphold the signs of the covenant that were present in society.

He rejects the rendition of ‘covenant’ as an equivalent for b^erît in P. His proposal is more of a describing definition: ‘Durch die Berît verpflichtet Gott sich dem Menschen gegenüber zu einer bestimmten Handlungsweise’ (Valeton 1892a:5). In other words, b^erît is a Divine act of self-restriction. By entering into a b^erît-relationship, God restricts Himself. This view is clarified by Valeton’s analysis of the ‘sign of the bow’ in Genesis 9. In short: the ‘rainbow’ is a sign for God to remember himself to his self-restrictive promises to mankind that will keep him from destroying the earth and its inhabitants.

I would like to draw some conclusions. In Valeton’s view the noun b^erît is not rooted deeply in the early history of Israel. It is only in the later decades of the monarchic period that an elaborated view on b^erît is developed. We now know that in that time frame the Neo-Assyrian concept of ādê has been formative for the understanding of the relationship between God and Israel in ‘treaty’ terminology. This was, of course, not known to Valeton since he wrote his articles long before the discovery of the Hittite treaties and the publication of the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon. His conclusion, however, that only in the late monarchic period b^erît became a full-blown mental institution to articulate words for the relationship between God and people, has in a way prepared the way to the modern views.

It is interesting to note that Valeton constructs a development in which, after the exile the moral obligations for the people became less important and in which the concept of divine self-restriction was inaugurated. In my view, this was one of the shifts that occurred by the movement of Exile and Return. His remark is of great importance. Operating with a Hegelian view on history, scholars like Wellhausen proposed a scheme on the development of the religion in Ancient Israel in which the post-exilic period was construed as a legalistic phase (Wellhausen 1878; Banks 2006:50–74). Valeton’s position is more open-minded especially towards Judaism although he does not mention that. The roots of that religion are not to be found, according to Valeton, in a legalistic view (Valeton 1885).

In Valeton’s writings – published as well as unpublished – no remarks are made on the conceptual connection between ‘creation’ and ‘covenant’. The question, how he would have reacted to speculations such as by Karl Barth on ‘creation being the external ground for the covenant’ (Barth 1950; Smedema 2009) , or the idea of Gerhard von Rad to whom the concept of creation was subsidiary to theme of election (Von Rad 1936), is unanswerable. The question needs thus to be rephrased. How would a contemporary scholar working along the lines of the ‘ethische richting’ deal with such a position. I hope James Loader will take up this challenge, especially since – in my view – the ideas of Barth and Von Rad do not account for a distinction between ‘knowledge open to faith’ and ‘knowledge open for scientific approach’.⁵

Banks, D., 2006, Writing the history of Israel, T & T Clark, London/New York. (LHB/OTS 438).

Barton, J., 2007, The nature of biblical criticism, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville.

Barth, K., 1950, Die Lehre von der Schöpfung, Theologische Verlag, Zürich. (Kirchliche Dogmatik III/3).

Becking B. (ed.), 2012, J.J.P. Valeton jr. als mens en theoloog: Studies over een ethisch theoloog bij zijn 100^e sterfdag, Departement Religiewetenschappen en Theologie, Utrecht. (MTCVS 2).

De Visser, J.Th., 1880, De daemonologie van het Oude Testament, Blanche, Utrecht.

De Vries, S.J., 1968, Bible and theology in the Netherlands, Veenman, Wageningen.

Dirksen, P.D., & Van der Kooij, A. (eds.), 1993, Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): His major contributions to the study of the Old Testament, Brill, Leiden. (OTS 29).

Eissfeldt, O., 1934, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, Mohr, Tübingen.

Eissfeldt, O., 1958, Die Genesis der Genesis: Vom Werdegang des ersten Buches der Bibel, Mohr, Tübingen.

Fohrer, G., 1965, Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: Eine Analyse von Ex 1–15, Töpelmann, Berlin.

Göckel, M., 2010, ‘Mediating theology in Germany’, in D. Fergusson (ed.), The Blackwell companion to nineteenth-century theology, Wiley Blackwell, Malden/Oxford, pp. 301–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444319972.ch14

Haynes, S.R., & McKenzie, S.L., 1999, To each its own meaning: An introduction to biblical criticisms and their application, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville.

Holte, R., 1964, Die Vermittlungstheologie: ihre theologischen Grundbegriffe kritisch untersucht, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala. (Studia doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia 3).

Houtman, C., 1993, ‘Die Wirkung der Arbeit Kuenens in den Niederlanden’, in P.B. Dirksen & A. van der Kooij (eds.), Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): His major contributions to the study of the Old Testament, pp. 29–48, Brill, Leiden. (OTS).

Koch, J.P.M, 2006, Abraham Kuyper: Een biografie, Boom, Apeldoorn.

Kuyper, A., 1954, Principles of sacred theology, transl. J.H. de Vries, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. PMid:13134272

Loader, J.A., 1984, ‘Die Etiese Ou-Testamentici in Nederland tussen 1870 en 1914‘, DTh proefskrif, Departement Kerkgeskiedenis, Universiteit van Suid-Afrika.

Loader, J.A., 1985a, ‘The concept of revelation in Dutch ethical theology: Its implications for Old Testament scholarship’, Old Testament Essays 3, 18−32.

Loader, J.A., 1985b, ‘J.J.P. Valeton jr as godsdienshistorikus’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 41(2) 233–251.

Loader, J.A., 1987, ‘Tertium datur – Oor die etiese waarheidsbegrip’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 43, 47−56.

Loader, J.A., 2004, ‘Begegnung mit Gott als Zentralbegriff der niederländischen “Ethischen Theologie”’, in M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW 345/I-II), pp. 1037–1051, De Gruyter, Berlin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110910001.1037

Loader, J.A., 2012, ‘J.J.Ph. Valeton Jr. en de ‘Vermittlungstheologie’, in B. Becking (ed.), J.J.P. Valeton jr. als mens en theoloog: Studies over een ethisch theoloog bij zijn 100^e sterfdag, pp. 165–180, Departement Religiewetenschappen en Theologie, Utrecht. (MTCVS 2).

May, G., 1978, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts: Die Entstehung der Lehre von der Creatio Ex Nihilo, De Gruyter, Berlin. (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 48). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110853896

Noth, M., 1943, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen.

Smedema, I.J., 2009, Grond onder de voeten, Karl Barths scheppingsleer in KD III/1 opnieuw gelezen, Boekencentrum Academic, Zoetermeer.

Smend, R., 1989, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen.

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1881, ‘De hof van Eden’, Studiën, Theologisch Tijdschrift 7, 365–388.

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1885, ‘Jodendom en Christendom’, De Gids 49, 88–102.

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1887, ‘Schulddelging voor God in het Oude Testament’, Studiën 3, 159–177.

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1889, ‘De Israëlitische Godsnaam’, Theologische Studiën 7, 173–221.

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1891, ‘Beteekenis en gebruik van het woord Thora in het O.T’, Theologische Studiën 9, 101–156.

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1892a, ‘Bedeutung und Stellung des Wortes תירב im Priestercodex’, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 12, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zatw.1892.12.1.1

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1892b, ‘Das Wort תירב in den Jehovistischen und Deuteronomischen Stücken des Hexateuchs, sowie in den verwandten historischen Büchern’, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 12, 224–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zatw.1892.12.1.224

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1893, ‘Das Wort תירב bei der Profeten und in der Ketubim – Resultat’, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 13, 245–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zatw.1893.13.1.245

Valeton, J.J.P. Jr, 1906, Het Oude Testament en ‘de critiek’ Hollandia, Baarn. (Levensvragen, 1/2).

Valeton, J.J.P., 1945, ‘Valeton’, Nederlands Patriciaat 31, 299–310.

Valeton, J.J.P., n.d., ‘Introduction: Canon and Pentateuch’, Cahier 3, Archief, Universiteit Utrecht.

Valeton, J.J.P., n.d., ‘Genesis I – XXXII:2’, Cahier 37, Archief, Universiteit Utrecht.

Van den Brom, L.J., 2003, ‘Niederlande, Theologie’, in H.D. Betz e.a. (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 4, pp. 303–306.

Van den Hoorn, W., 1980, ‘De collectie Valeton’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis 7, 55.

Van Rhijn, C.H., 1881, ‘De beteekenis van het Bijbelsche Scheppingsverhaal’, Studiën 6, 211–235.

Von Rad, G., 1936, ‘Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen Schöpfungsglaubens’, in Wesen und Wirken des Alten Testaments, pp. 138–146, Töpelmann, Berlin. (BZAW 66).

Vorster, J.H., 2010, ‘Exploring similarities between the German and the Dutch ethical traditions: Possibilities of the history of religion for a theological approach to Old Testament studies in South Africa’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 66(1), Art. #428, 12 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v66i1.428

Wellhausen, J., 1878, Geschichte Israels, Reimer, Berlin.

3. ‘Genesis I – XXXII:2’, Archief Valeton, Cahier 37.

5. For the time being see Vorster (2010).