The Undead Hypothesis: Why the is the Frankenstein of Duane Garrett

Duane Garrett is a professor of Old A stock feature of the classic “grade B” established result of biblical scholarship Testament at Gordon Conwell Theologi- horror movie is the undead creature who in universities and theological schools cal Seminary. He has served the Inter- relentlessly stalks innocent people and around the world. Books and mono- national Mission Board by teaching in terrorizes an otherwise quiet village. graphs rooted in it still frequently appear. Southern Baptist seminaries in both Whether it be Frankenstein, the Mummy, Laughably, some of these books are Korea and Canada. Dr. Garrett is the Dracula, or simply crude, grotesque zom- touted for their “startling new interpre- author of many articles and books, bies with rotting flesh falling off their tations” of the history of the while including two commen- limbs and faces, these villains share a in fact doing little more than repackaging taries in the New American Commen- common trait. They all have already died old ideas.1 If the sheer volume of litera- tary series. He is currently working on a and usually have already been buried. But ture on a hypothesis were a demonstra- commentary on the Song of then, either through the blunder of some tion of its veracity, the documentary for the Word Biblical Commentary investigator or the work of some evil hypothesis would indeed be well estab- series. genius, they rise and walk again. The lished.2 Nevertheless, while the dead dilemma posed by these undead mon- hand of the documentary hypothesis still sters is obvious: How do you kill some- dominates Old Testament scholarship as one who is already dead? its official orthodoxy, the cutting edge A similar creature stalks the halls of research of recent years has typically been biblical studies. It is routinely raised up highly critical of the theory.3 from the grave in classrooms and it In 1991 I published Rethinking Genesis,4 haunts textbooks and monographs that which was one of a number of books pub- deal with the Hebrew Scriptures. Wher- lished within about a decade to challenge ever it roams, it distorts the analysis of the the documentary hypothesis and suggest text of the Bible, confounds readers, and a new approach to the background of produces strange and irrational interpre- Genesis. Notwithstanding the fact that tations. This undead creature sometimes this work and several major challenges to goes by the quasi-mystical sounding the hypothesis from established critical sobriquet “the JEDP theory,” but it is bet- scholars received some significant atten- ter known by its formal name, the docu- tion—but virtually no rebuttals speaking mentary hypothesis. in favor of the documentary hypothesis The time has come for scholars to rec- —J, E, D, and P continue to be paraded ognize that the documentary hypothesis before university students as the original is dead. The arguments that support it documents behind the Pentateuch. have been dismantled by scholars of Evangelical readers should not be san- many stripes—many of whom have no guine about this fact. Despite the assur- theological commitment to the Bible. The ances of some quasi-confessional scholars theory is, however, still taught as an that it really does not matter where Gen- 28 esis comes from, the documentary after K. H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen, hypothesis is fundamentally incompatible who gave it its classic expression.5 In the with belief in even a minimal historical English-speaking world, the theory was core of the Pentateuch. If the hypothesis popularized especially by S. R. Driver. is true, then the Pentateuch is essentially fiction. Worse than that, it is a confused, The Documentary Hypothesis self-contradictory fiction with no unified Briefly Described theological message. It is with this in The theory asserts that behind the mind that I return to this topic and seek Pentateuch are four source documents, to make readers of this journal aware of called J (Yahwist), E (), D (Deu- the basic issues. teronomist), and P (). J, the oldest, begins at Genesis 2:4b and The Background of the includes large portions of Genesis as well Documentary Hypothesis as portions of Exodus and Numbers and The documentary hypothesis began a few short texts in Deuteronomy. It is with the speculations of Jean Astruc often dated to the early monarchy period (1684–1766), who suggested that he could and is thought to have its provenance in uncover the sources of the Pentateuch by . In Genesis, J refers to God as using the divine names (“the Yahweh for, according to the hypothesis, LORD”) and (“God”) as a guide. He J believed that people began using the placed passages that use the name Elohim name Yahweh early in the antediluvian in one column (A), those that use Yahweh period (Gen 4:26, a J text). As a theologi- in another (B), and passages with “repeti- cal statement, J is often regarded as the tions” in a third column (C), and inter- work of a great, original thinker who gave polations in a fourth column (D). His shape to the Old Testament idea of the suggestion led scholars to believe that the history of salvation. distinction in the divine names—that is, E is somewhat later than J but follows whether a given text calls the Deity the same basic story line as J. Genesis 15 “Yahweh” or Elohim—was the primary is the first extant E text. E comes from the marker of the origin of that text. Using northern kingdom. In Genesis, E refers this basic criterion, scholars accounted for to God as Elohim rather than Yahweh the development of the Pentateuch as it because, according to E, the name Yahweh exists today in various ways. Some sug- was not revealed until the exodus period gested a “fragmentary hypothesis” (Exod 3:15, an E text). E is more sensitive (which asserts that the Pentateuch was to moral issues than J but it views God as compiled from a mass of fragmentary somewhat more distant from man. J and sources) while others postulated a “sup- E were subsequently redacted into a plemental hypothesis” (which asserts that single document by RJE (R = “redactor”). a single document lies at the core of the In the redaction, much of the E material Pentateuch, but that many fragmentary was edited out and thus lost to posterity. sources have been added to it). But the D was written at the time of ’s triumphant theory of Pentateuchal origins reformation and is essentially the book of was the documentary hypothesis, often Deuteronomy. According to 2 Kings 22, called the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis Hilkiah the priest found a copy of the law 29 of Moses when the temple was being and the ancient Near Eastern world of the restored. In the documentary hypothesis, text itself. In addition, scholars were however, Deuteronomy was actually willing to tolerate a glaring inconsistency written at this time as a kind of pious in their approach to the problem. They fraud to justify Josiah’s reformation. D assumed that each document writer (such does not have a characteristic divine name as J) aimed to produce a single, con- but uses both Yahweh and Elohim. The tinuous history but would tolerate no redactor RD subsequently combined the inconsistency, repetition, or narrative texts JE and D. digressions. They believed that the redac- P was written in the postexilic period. tors, however, were oblivious to con- It begins at Genesis 1:1 and includes large tradiction and repetition when they portions of Genesis, Exodus, and Num- combined the documents. bers and all of Leviticus. It is said to Stylistic differences enable scholars to dis- represent the triumph of the postexilic tinguish one source text from another. Early priesthood and it attempts to justify their advocates of the documentary hypothesis form of worship and codify their religion. felt they could easily separate one text In Genesis, P refers to God as Elohim since, from another on the basis of style. P, for like E, it assumes that the divine name example, is said to have a formal, seg- Yahweh was first revealed at the exodus mented, and rather aloof style while J is (Exod 6:3, a P text). It is dominated by supposed to have written in a flowing and genealogies, priestly regulations, and a dramatic narrative style. This perception very formal manner of narration. P was is reinforced by the fact that formal texts soon redacted into JED by RP. The (such as Genesis 1, descriptions of the tab- Pentateuch was thus formed.6 ernacle and its offerings, and genealogies) are routinely assigned to P while texts Defining Principles of the such as Genesis 2—4 are for the most part Documentary Hypothesis assigned to J. But this is more a matter of One must recognize that according to content than of style. The whole Penta- this theory the four documents were each teuch is in standard (albeit somewhat composed first of all as independent, con- lofty) biblical Hebrew. tinuous, single narrations and only later Ancient editors (redactors) simply were brought together and edited into the conflated their source documents without present work. The scholars who devel- attempting to correct obvious contradictions oped the documentary hypothesis either or smooth out problems created by joining the explicitly or implicitly followed a number documents together. That is, the redactors of basic principles in their research. simply merged the texts at hand by the It is easy to determine the purposes and “scissors-and-paste” method of cutting methods behind the documents and redactions. up each document and then joining the The early framers of the documentary whole into a continuous narrative. This is, hypothesis thought they could deduce the of course, a questionable and peculiar purposes and methods of the redactors, assumption. despite the fact that enormous cultural Israelite history and religion developed in differences existed between the (mostly a simple, evolutionary manner. In the docu- German) scholars who studied Genesis mentary hypothesis, Israelite religion is 30 supposed to have moved from a primi- the name Yahweh was not revealed until tive tribal religion to the advanced mono- the Exodus. theism of postexilic Israel. Israelite social Genesis contains some duplicate stories institutions that reflect a sophisticated, and repetitions. This is because each source monotheistic religion with a central document often contained its own version priesthood (such as the institutions of the of a single tradition. Thus 12:10–20 (J) and Aaronic priesthood and the regulated sys- 20:1–18 (E) contain variants of a single tra- tems of offerings described in Exodus and dition of a patriarch passing off his wife Leviticus) are said to be retrojections from as his sister.7 Sometimes the two variant the postexilic period onto the (largely versions were redacted into a single nar- mythical) era of Moses and the Exodus. rative, yet the documents behind the Wellhausen built his theory on an evolu- single redaction are still apparent. J and tionary philosophy with its roots in the P each had a version of the Flood story, idealism of G. W. F. Hegel. In Wellhausen, for example, but these have been com- Old Testament scholarship is dominated bined in the present text. by an outdated and discarded approach Contradictions within Genesis indicate to historical analysis. the existence of the separate documents. The implication is that one document had one The Arguments for the version of a tradition, but a second docu- Documentary Hypothesis ment had another version of the same As scholars have continued to study story that contradicted the first in some the texts, they have proposed many modi- details. fications to the original documentary The language and style of the documents hypothesis. Some scholars have made the vary. J is said to have been a masterful theory more complex by dividing the four storyteller, but P is regarded as formal and sources into even smaller sources (e.g., wordy. Each document also has its own J1 and J2 ), whereas others reduced the preferred vocabulary. number of sources, especially by rejecting Each document, when extracted from the the existence of E altogether. Neverthe- present text of the Pentateuch, shows itself to less, the basic documentary hypothesis have been originally a continuous, theologi- from which all refinements come is the cally meaningful piece of literature. Some simplest point at which the theory can be have argued that it is possible to see a spe- analyzed. In addition, the book of Gen- cific literary and theological purpose esis is the true focus of the debate. The behind each document.8 If this argument central arguments for the hypothesis are is established, then it obviously suggests as follows. that there actually were separate docu- Some texts in Genesis refer to God as ments behind the present text. Yahweh, whereas others call him Elohim. Pas- Even on a superficial reading, some texts sages in Genesis that call God Yahweh are obviously involve more than one source. The assigned to J, who thought the name best example is Genesis 1–2. Genesis 1:1– Yahweh was revealed to humanity well 2:3 and Genesis 2:4ff. seem to differ in before the patriarchal age began. Those many details in regard to the sequence of texts that refer to God as Elohim may be creation (for example, whether the ani- assigned to E or P, both of whom thought mals were made before or after the cre- 31 ation of the first man). of Moses, there is no reason for them to The confused history of the Israelite priest- avoid using the name in patriarchal hood found in the Pentateuch is best explained stories except when they were directly by the documentary hypothesis. In some texts quoting a character whom they believed (e.g., Deuteronomy), all Levites are did not yet know the name.10 If anything, priests. In other texts (the P portions of we might have expected P to use Yahweh Exodus and Leviticus), only the Aaronites in his patriarchal narrative in order to are priests and the rest of the Levites are establish continuity with the God of the mere temple workers without priestly Exodus. privileges. The Pentateuch, therefore, can- Fourth, the interchange of Yahweh and not be a unified work from a single hand. Elohim can be explained without resort to Rather, documents D and P come from postulating different sources. Umberto different perspectives and different ages. Cassuto makes the point that the two names bring out different aspects of the An Analysis of the Arguments for character of God. Yahweh is the the Documentary Hypothesis name of God, which emphasizes his spe- The Names of God cial relationship to Israel. Elohim speaks The criterion of the divine names for of God universally as God of all earth.11 source analysis is very weak. First, the cri- Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who terion cannot be applied consistently. At he is. More precisely, one can say that the the beginning of the Pentateuch we read terms Yahweh and Elohim have semantic not simply “Yahweh” in the J source (Gen- overlap. In a context that emphasizes God esis 2-4) but the unusual Yahweh Elohim as universal deity (e.g., Genesis 1), Elohim (“the LORD God”). Genesis 22:11, an E text, is used. In a text that speaks more of God uses the name Yahweh. M. H. Segal notes as covenant savior (Exodus 6), Yahweh is that the divine names are often used more likely to be found. Otherwise, if interchangeably in texts that cannot have neither aspect is particularly stressed, the different sources, which begs the question names may be alternated for variety or for of why Genesis should be treated excep- no perceivable reason. tionally.9 Fifth, the assumption that the J text Second, use of the divine names as a thought the patriarchs knew the name source criterion is contrary to all ancient Yahweh but that E and P texts claim they Near Eastern analogies. No Egyptologist, did not is based on faulty . Gen- for example, would use divine names for esis 4:26, “Then people began to call on source criticism in an Egyptian text. the name of Yahweh,” is often taken as an Third, the rationale for the avoidance assertion by J that the name Yahweh was of Yahweh in E and P sources in Genesis revealed at this moment in history. E and is specious. There is no reason that J P, on the other hand, are said to have should ever avoid Elohim; no one suggests believed that the name Yahweh was first that he did not know the word or had revealed in the period of the Exodus. The theological reasons to exclude it from his relevant texts are Exodus 3:13–15 (E) and texts. And even if the E and P writers Exodus 6:24 (P). thought that the Israelites did not know Genesis 4:26 has nothing to do with the of the divine name Yahweh until the time question of when the name Yahweh was 32 revealed. Even , an B And I made myself known to adherent of the documentary hypothesis, Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob says that it has been misunderstood. Gen- as Shaddai. esis 4:26 gives an optimistic closure to the A’ And my name is Yahweh; sad history of Genesis 3-4 and says that B’ Did I not make myself known to the God his readers know as Yahweh is them? the one true God whom people have wor- shiped from earliest times. The text insists that God revealed him- In Exodus 3:1–15, Moses asks God his self to the patriarchs. It does not say that name, and is told first that God is the “I they had never heard of Yahweh or that am,” and then that he should tell the they only knew of , although it Israelites that Yahweh, the God of their does say that God showed them the fathers, had sent Moses to them. God meaning of his name El Shaddai. Ander- adds that Yahweh is the name by which sen’s comments are to the point: “There he is to be worshiped forever. The text is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a does not say that no one had ever heard new name revealed first to Moses. On the name Yahweh before this time. Were the contrary, the success of his mission that the case, one would find something depended on the use of the familiar name like, “No longer will you call me the God for validation by the Israelites.”14 of your fathers; from now on my name is In short, the criterion of divine names, Yahweh,” similar to Genesis 17:5, 15. the historical and evidential starting point Instead, the text asserts that the name for the documentary hypothesis, is com- Yahweh will have new significance pletely specious. It is based on misinter- because of the Exodus. The people will pretation, mistranslation, and lack of now see that Yahweh is present with attention to extrabiblical sources. them.12 Exodus 6:2c–3 appears to be a straight- Repetition, Parallel Accounts forward assertion that the patriarchs did (Doublets), and Redundancy not know the name Yahweh. Most trans- The use of repetition as evidence for lations are similar to the following: “I am multiple documents in Genesis is perhaps Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, and to the most persuasive argument for the Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but modern student, while in fact it is the by my name Yahweh I did not make most misleading of all. It seems to the myself known to them.” But the Hebrew, modern reader that Genesis 12:10–20 as Francis I. Andersen points out, contains and 20:1–18 must be variants of a single a case of noncontiguous parallelism that tradition. How else could one explain translators have not recognized: “I am the presence of two stories that seem so Yahweh . . . and my name is Yahweh”. The remarkably similar—a patriarch who negative (“not”) is part of a rhetorical seeks to avoid trouble by claiming that his question and not a simple negative.13 The wife is his sister? The variants (Pharaoh’s whole text is set in a poetic, parallel struc- house in Genesis 12, Abimelech’s house ture, as follows: in Genesis 20) appear to be examples of how a single tradition has been handed AI am Yahweh. down in different forms in different com- 33 munities. But this assumption is an logical point to make, would not employ entirely modern reading of the text and this technique. ignores ancient principles of rhetoric. In The parallels between Genesis 12:10– an ancient text, there is no stronger indi- 20 and 20:1–18, when analyzed by ancient cation that only a single document is literary standards, strongly indicate that present than parallel accounts. Doublets, the two accounts are from the same that is, two separate stories that closely source. That is, when judged according to parallel one another, are the very stuff of the narrative techniques of an ancient ancient narrative. They are what the dis- storyteller, the repetition is evidence that criminating listener sought in a story. we have a single author giving us paral- Simple repetition is common in ancient lel but distinct episodes in his story. Near Eastern literature. In the Ugaritic Epic In contrast to the phenomenon of dou- of Keret, for example, large portions of the blets, redundancy within a single text text are repeated verbatim (albeit from dif- occurs when, according to the documen- ferent perspectives). This technique is tary hypothesis, a redactor combines (for employed in the Bible as well. In Genesis example) a J version and a P version of a 24, a great deal of vv. 12–27 is repeated in tradition into a single narrative. The flood vv. 34–48, although in the latter text it is narrative is the classic example of two from the servant’s perspective. accounts having been joined in a scissors- In an analogous manner, if two or more and-paste method. As evidence for the separate events were perceived to be simi- conflation, advocates of the hypothesis lar to one another, ancient writers tended cite the redundancies and argue that a to give accounts of the events in parallel single author would not have repeated fashion. To do this, they would highlight himself so much. Thus, for example, Gen- similarities in the episodes. A narrator esis 6:9–22 is said to be P but 7:1–5 is J. As might put into the same form all the the text reads, however, the two passages accounts that he wants to present as par- have repetition but are not fully redun- allel; he would also select material that fit dant; they are consecutive. The P mate- the parallel he seeks to establish and per- rial is prior to the building of the ark and haps leave out some of the differences. For the J material is a speech of God after its this reason the author of Kings, in sum- completion but just prior to the beginning marizing the reigns of each king of Israel of the flood. The repetition heightens the and Judah, tends to employ a number of dramatic anticipation of the deluge to fol- formulas. He gives the date a king came low and is not indicative of two separate into power, the length of his reign, an documents having been combined. evaluation, a reference indicating where Similarly, Genesis 7:21–22 is cited as a the reader can find more information, and redundancy in the flood story. The docu- a statement of the king’s death and burial. mentary hypothesis assigns verse 21 to P By employing this technique, he estab- and verse 22 to J,15 but Andersen has shown lishes the same pattern for every king and that the two verses are chiastic and are not emphasizes the evil done by Israel’s kings the product of two separate writers.16 through the frequent repetition of “and he did evil in the sight of the Lord.” A mod- A They perished ern writer, even one with the same theo- B Every living thing that moves on 34 earth . . . Studies in the Pentateuch written in the B’ Everything that has the breath of early twentieth century from the perspec- the living spirit . . . tive of the documentary hypothesis A’ They died tended to contain lengthy lists of what was supposed to be the characteristic Andersen argues that when the text vocabulary of each document. One rarely is left as it stands rather than arbitrarily sees in modern studies lists of this kind.19 divided into sources and doublets, the The criterion is itself quite artificial; we artistic unity of the whole gives the know nothing of the common speech of impression of having been formed as a the people of ancient Israel, and we can- single, unified narration.17 not be sure that the words cited as syn- onymous pairs are really synonymous. Contradictions in the Text One word may have been chosen over Apparent contradictions in Genesis are another for the sake of a special nuance often cited as markers to the different in a given circumstance, or indeed sim- documents behind the text. A simple ply for the sake of variety. example in the flood account concerns the number of animals to be brought on board The Unity of Each Document the ark (6:20 says to bring one pair of The argument that each document (J, every kind of animal, but 7:2 says to bring E, or P) is a self-contained and complete seven pairs of clean animals). The expla- narrative when separated from its context nation is simply that 7:1–2 is a precise fig- in Genesis is simply absurd, although ure given immediately before the flood demonstrating the absurdity of it will but that 6:20 is a general figure given require us to examine a text in some before the ark was built. Provision had to detail. For example, if one looks at Gen- be made to ensure that there would be esis 28:10-30:7 as it is analyzed in a sufficient livestock after the flood, and standard text (Driver’s Introduction), the thus the higher number of clean animals. internal confusion of each document is Of course, contradictions have to be self-evident. Below is the text as separated examined on a case-by-case basis, but into its J and E components along with apparent contradictions hardly sustain additional, extraneous material.20 the documentary hypothesis. J Text The Criterion of Style 28:10 So Jacob departed from Beersheba As already indicated, the idea that J and headed toward Haran. 28:13 And there and P have different styles is a result of was Yahweh who stood above it and said, artificially dividing the text. The “arid” “I am Yahweh, the God of your father style of the genealogies of P is simply a Abraham and the God of Isaac; I will give by–product of the fact that they are the land on which you lie to you and to genealogies—it has nothing to do with your descendants. 28:14 Also, your descen- their being written in a different style. dants will be like the dust of the earth, and Whybray points out that the genealogies you will spread out toward the west and ascribed to J “have precisely the same toward the east and toward the north and ‘arid’ character as those attributed to P.”18 toward the south; and all the families of 35 the earth will be blessed in you and in mother’s brother. 29:11 Then Jacob kissed your descendants. 28:15 And look, I am with Rachel, and lifted his voice and wept. 29:12 you, and will keep you wherever you Then Jacob told Rachel that he was a go, and will bring you back to this land; relative of her father and that he was for I will not leave you until I have done Rebekah’s son. She ran and told her what I have promised you.” 28:16 Then father. 29:13 Then this happened: when Jacob woke up from his sleep and said, Laban heard the news of Jacob his sister’s “Yahweh is definitely in this place, but I son, he ran to meet him and embraced did not know it.” 28:19 He called that place him and kissed him and brought him to Bethel although the city used to be called his house. Then he told Laban about all Luz. 29:2 And he looked and saw a well in these things. 29:14 And Laban said to him, the field, and there were three flocks of “For sure you are my bone and my flesh.” sheep lying there beside it, for they And he stayed with him a month. 29:31 watered the flocks from that well. Now Now Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved the stone on the mouth of the well was and he opened her womb; but Rachel was large. 29:3 When all the flocks were gath- barren. 29:32 And Leah became pregnant ered there, they would roll the stone from and bore a son and named him Reuben, the mouth of the well and water the for she said, “Because Yahweh has seen sheep, and then put the stone back in its my affliction; certainly my husband will place on the mouth of the well. 29:4 So love me now.” 29:33 Then she became Jacob said to them, “My brothers, where pregnant again and bore a son and said, are you from?” And they said, “We are “Because Yahweh has heard that I am from Haran.” 29:5 Then he said to them, unloved, he has given me this son, too.” “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” So she named him Simeon. 29:34 And she And they said, “We do know him.” 29:6 So became pregnant again and bore a son he said to them, “Is all well with him?” and said, “Now this time my husband And they said, “All is well; look, there is will be attached to me, because I have Rachel his daughter coming with the borne him three sons.” Therefore he was sheep.” 29:7 Then he said, “You know, it is named Levi. 29:35 And she became preg- still the middle of the day; it is not time nant again and bore a son and said, “This for the livestock to be gathered. Water the time I will praise Yahweh.” Therefore she sheep and go pasture them.” 29:8 But they named him Judah. Then she stopped hav- said, “We cannot until all the flocks are ing children. 30:3b “I too may have children gathered and the stone is rolled from the by her.” 30:4 So she gave him her slave girl mouth of the well; then we water the Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. sheep.” 29:9 While he was still speaking 30:5 And Bilhah became pregnant and bore with them, Rachel came with her father’s Jacob a son. 30:7 And Bilhah Rachel’s slave sheep (for she was a shepherdess). 29:10 girl became pregnant again, and bore And this is what happened: when Jacob Jacob a second son. saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban E Text his mother’s brother, Jacob went up and 28:11 Then he came to a certain place and rolled the stone from the mouth of the spent the night there, because the sun had well and watered the flock of Laban his set; and he took one of the stones of the 36 place and put it under his head, and lay place and made a feast. 29:23 But this is down in that place. 28:12 And he had a what happened: in the night he took his dream, and it was like this: a ladder was daughter Leah and brought her to him set on the earth with its top reaching to and Jacob went in to her. 29:25 So the morn- heaven; and the angels of God were ing came and there was Leah! So he said actually ascending and descending on it. to Laban, “What is this you have done to 28:17 So he was afraid and said, “How awe- me? Didn’t I serve you for Rachel? Why some is this place! This is none other than then have you cheated me?” 29:26 But the house of God (Bethel)! This is the gate Laban said, “It is not the tradition here in of heaven!” 28:18 So Jacob got up early in our place to marry off the younger before the morning and took the stone that he the first-born. 29:27 “Fulfill the week of this had put under his head and set it up as a one, and we will give you the other also pillar and he poured oil on its top. 28:20 for your service—you will serve with me Then Jacob made a vow: “If God will be for another seven years.” 29:28 So Jacob did with me and will keep me on this jour- that and completed her week, and he gave ney that I am making, and if he will give him his daughter Rachel as his wife. 29:30 me food to eat and garments to wear, 28:21 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he and if I return safely to my father’s house, loved Rachel in fact more than Leah, and then Yahweh will be my God. 28:22 “And he served with Laban for another seven this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, years. 30:1 But when Rachel saw that she will be God’s house; and I will indeed bore Jacob no children, she became jeal- give a tenth to you of all that you give ous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, me.” 29:1 Then Jacob went along on his “Give me children, or I will die!” 30:2 Then journey and came to the land of the Jacob got angry with Rachel and said, easterners. 29:15 Then Laban said to Jacob, “Am I in the place of God, who has with- “Since you are my relative, should you for held the fruit of the womb from you?” 30:3a that reason serve me for nothing? Tell me, So she said, “Here is my slave girl Bilhah! what will your wages be?” 29:16 Now Go in to her so that she may bear on my Laban had two daughters; the name of the knees!” 30:6 And Rachel said, “God has older was Leah, and the name of the judged me, and has also heard my voice, younger was Rachel. 29:17 And Leah’s eyes and has given me a son: therefore called were tender, but Rachel was beautiful of she his name Dan.” form and face. 29:18 But Jacob loved Rachel, so he said, “I will serve you seven years Later editorial additions 29:24 for your younger daughter Rachel.” 29:19 Laban also gave his slave girl Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a So Laban said, “It is better that I give her slave girl. to you than that I should give her to 29:29 Laban also gave his slave girl another man; stay with me.” 29:20 So Jacob Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her slave girl. served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days on account Read by itself, the J version makes no of his love for her. 29:21 Then Jacob said to sense at all. It indicates that Jacob had a Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is vision of Yahweh when he arrived at completed, so that I may go in to her.” 29:22 Haran and that he built a shrine there And Laban got together all the men of the (note the jump from 28:19 to 29:2, which 37 implies he is in Haran). In 28:19 he calls was jealous of Leah. This is strange since the place Bethel, but a reader who had in E’s version the reader does not know only J would be confused about whether anything about Leah having children; this is the Bethel in Canaan or if Jacob was all he or she knows is that Rachel was naming some site at Haran “Bethel.” The beloved and Leah unloved! Also, the story then leaps without any transition at reader can infer from what she says that all from Jacob’s dream to his encounter Rachel has been unable to bear children with the shepherds and with Laban’s fam- (it is actually J who tells the reader that ily. Then it abruptly tells us that Leah gave Rachel was infertile). But in 30:6 Rachel birth to four children but was distressed is suddenly praising God for giving her a because Jacob did not love her. Bear in son and she names him Dan. But from mind that the reader of J has no idea who where did Dan come? Who is Dan’s Leah is, much less that she is Jacob’s mother, Rachel or Bilhah? The reader who unloved wife, because this is the first time only has E cannot tell. One should recall she appears in J. In 30:3b somebody (iden- that even though E was supposed to have tity not given) says she wants to have chil- been written after J, it is altogether inde- dren by “her,” and only in the next verse pendent of J. The early readers of E would does the reader learn that the surrogate know nothing of J. mother is Bilhah, who is also otherwise Of course, a standard response is that unknown to the reader. But for whom is details that would make the J and E ver- Bilhah acting as a surrogate mother —for sions more coherent have been sup- Leah? Only in 30:7 is the reader told in pressed in the redactional process. Such passing that Bilhah is Rachel’s slave. But a response, however, only concedes the of course, up until this moment the only point that we are making: J and E, as we thing the reader knows about Rachel is have them, are incoherent. One cannot that she is the daughter of Laban whom claim that the coherence of J and E estab- Jacob met at the well. How is the reader lish the validity of the documentary to know that Rachel is his second wife? hypothesis. E, by contrast, tells us that Jacob had a Also, one can hardly claim that the dream of a stairway to heaven at Bethel, supposed theological vision of each docu- but in this version Jacob receives no cov- ment supports the documentary hypoth- enantal promise. Jacob simply deduces esis. The assertion is based on the that the deity he saw in the dream was assumption that the hypothesis is true; it Yahweh. He makes a vow to Yahweh is not an independent argument for the despite the fact that Yahweh (in E’s ver- theory. Scholars once routinely spoke of sion) has not given him any covenantal the “theology of J” or of “P.” One has the promise that would give Jacob the right sense that, even among scholars trained to consider Yahweh bound by an oath to in the documentary hypothesis, an him (note also the divine name “Yahweh” increasing number have difficulty taking in 28:21, an E text). He then goes to the seriously analyses like those by Walter land of the easterners where Laban enters Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff (see the narrative abruptly and without intro- note 8) as presentations of the theologi- duction. After the story of the marriages cal background of Genesis. Thomas L. of Jacob, we are suddenly told that Rachel Thompson notes that, in more recent 38 analysis, the Elohist has disappeared from rival groups vying for priestly power. view entirely and the Yahwist is fast fad- ing from existence, even as P grows larger Where Do We Go from Here? and larger. The hypothesis has no value The documentary hypothesis is a zom- as a guide for continued research.21 bie; it is dead but still roaming the halls Whybray, too, in outlining especially the of Old Testament scholarship seeking its recent contributions by Rolf Rendtorff22 next victim. What can account for this? and H. H. Schmid, demonstrates that the The only answer can be that no paradigm notion of a “theology of the Yahwist” is has arisen to replace the documentary vanishing among scholars.23 hypothesis as an explanation for the prob- lem of the origin of the Pentateuch. Thus, The Hypothesis Proven by Some professors of Old Testament persist in Specific Texts teaching it, even though a large number, Many scholars recognize that the argu- one suspects, know that it is not true. ments as such for the documentary Sadly, when confronted with the docu- hypothesis have been exploded, but they mentary hypothesis, many students and appear to hold to the hypothesis because lay readers are dazzled by the apparent a few key passages seem persuasive. In sophistication of the scholarship, and are particular, Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis especially captivated by the fact that “J” 2:4ff. appear to come from separate seems much more interesting than stodgy sources. They lack both logic and a sense old Genesis with all its genealogies. of balance. If the arguments for the Many believing Christians may rise to hypothesis are shown to be worthless, assert that the ruling paradigm should be then the differences in Genesis 1-3 must that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. This is be explained in some other way. The mere true but inadequate, at least in the case of presence of problems in the early Genesis Genesis. It is inadequate because Moses narrative is not sufficient to establish the lived hundreds of years after all the char- documentary hypothesis.24 acters of Genesis had died. One could suggest that he received all his knowledge The Hypothesis Verified by the of the history of the patriarchs directly History of the Priesthood from God, but we do not make this claim It appears that many scholars continue about any other historical book. To the to support the hypothesis because of contrary, we assert that the writers of questions regarding the history of Israel. Joshua, Judges, , Kings, Luke, and In particular, the hypothesis seems to every other historical book in the Bible offer the best explanation of why the term used sources where the author himself Levite is used inconsistently in the Old was not a witness to the events. Testament. But the solution to the prob- In Rethinking Genesis, I suggest that lem of the history of the priesthood is best there are sources behind Genesis but that explained within the context of the his- these sources are compatible with the idea tory of Israel as it is traditionally and of . In addition, I sug- canonically understood.25 The documen- gest that these sources had real ancient tary hypothesis only exacerbates the prob- Near Eastern analogues (unlike J, E, D, lem with its competing theologies from and P, which are completely without par- 39 allel). Finally, I argue that these sources Westermann, Genesis 1-11, trans. John can be said to have had a real significance J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg/ for Israel in Egypt and that the collection Fortress, 1984); Werner H. Schmidt, of these sources into the present book of Introduction to the Old Testament, trans. Genesis during the exodus is the most Matthew J. O’Connell (London: SCM, satisfactory explanation for the writing of 1984). the book. I will leave it to the reader to 33R. N. Whybray, The Making of the decide whether Rethinking Genesis makes Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); for a persuasive solution to the problem. , Das überlieferungsges- But we can only hope that some paradigm chichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, that is not opposed to Scripture will Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttesta- finally put the documentary hypothesis in mentliche Wissenschaft 147 (Berlin: de the grave once and for all. Gruyter, 1977); Brevard S. Childs, Intro- duction to the Old Testament as Scripture ENDNOTES (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 119ff.; and 11Thus Richard Elliot Friedman, The Hid- Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word den Book in the Bible / Restored, Translated, Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, and Introduced (San Francisco: Harper, 1987) xxxiv-xxxv. 1998). 44Duane Garrett, Rethinking Genesis (Grand 22A few of the major works are S. R. Driver, Rapids: Baker, 1991; reprint, Ross-shire, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2000). Testament (1897; reprint, Gloucester, MA: 55For a history of Old Testament criticism, Peter Smith, 1972); John Skinner, A Criti- see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old cal and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2d ed., International Critical Commen- 1969) 3-82. See also R. J. Thompson, tary (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1930); Moses and the Law in a Century of Criti- Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old cism Since Graf (Leiden: Brill, 1970); also Testament (New York: Harper and Broth- Fohrer, 23-32, 106-113; and Soggin, 79-98. ers, 1941); , Genesis, 66A few fragments not related to any of the trans. John H. Marks (Philadelphia: four source documents (e.g., Genesis 14) Westminster, 1961); E. A. Speiser, Genesis, are also to be found in the Penta-teuch. Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, See also the summary in Whybray, 20-21. 1964); Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: For a detailed presentation of the classic An Introduction, trans. Peter Ackroyd form of the hypothesis, see Driver, 1-159. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965); For a presentation of the hypothesis in a Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old more complex, evolved form, see Fohrer, Testament, trans. David E. Green (Nash- 120-195. For a survey of the hypothesis ville: Abingdon, 1968); J. Alberto Soggin, in the context of some more recent de- Introduction to the Old Testament, Old velopments, see Soggin, 99-160, and Testament Library (Philadelphia: West- Wenham, Genesis 1-15, xxv-xlv. minster, 1976); George W. Coats, Genesis: 77See Speiser, 150-152. with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, 88Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Forms of the Old Testament Literature Wolff, The Vitality of Old Testament Tradi- (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); Claus tions (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975). 40 99M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch: Its Com- position and Authorship (: Magnes, 1967) 11-14. 10Whybray, 64-65. 11Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1941) 15-41. 12Cf. John Durham, Exodus, Word Bib- lical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1987) 39-41. 13Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (The Hague: Mou- ton, 1974) 102. 14Andersen, 102. 15Speiser, 49; Skinner, 153, 165. 16Andersen, 39-40. 17Andersen, 40. 18Whybray, 60. 19See Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Penta- teuch, trans. Johns Scullion, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplementary Series 89 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 146-150. 20Driver, 16. 21Thompson, 49. 22Rendtorff, Problem, 119-136. 23Whybray, 93-108. He especially summarizes arguments developed in Rendtorff, Pentateuch, and H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976). 24For a more complete analysis of this problem, see my Rethinking Genesis, chapter 10 (pp. 185-197 in the Chris- tian Focus edition). 25For a more complete analysis of this problem, see my Rethinking Genesis, chapter 11 (pp. 198-234 in the Chris- tian Focus edition).

41