Yahwist
1:
YAHWIST (“J”) SOURCE. The scholarly designation for one of the alleged sources of the Pentateuch.
———
A. Name and Definition
B. “Birth” of the J Source
1. Beginnings
2. J in the Graf-Wellhausen System
3. Problem of the Unity of J
C. J as the Architect and Theologian of the Pentateuch
1. Von Rad’s Conception
2. Noth’s Reconstruction
3. The Classical Consensus
D. The Calling in Question of J
1. Redating J
2. The Dissolution of J
E. J in the Current Debate
1. Defense of the Classical Conception
2. A Solomonic J with a Reduced Substance
3. An Exilic or Postexilic J
4. Nonexistent J
F. Conclusion
———
A. Name and Definition
In the historico-critical exegesis of the OT, the term “Yahwist” (abbreviated “J”) designates one of the principal literary sources of the Pentateuch. Since these sources are not self-evident but can be reconstructed only by modern literary criticism, it is important to keep in mind that “J,” like the other presumed sources of the Pentateuch, represents in fact, and has always represented, a scientific hypothesis. Its name derives from the fact that the texts attributed to this source resort, when speaking of the God of Israel, almost exclusively to the Tetragrammaton YHWH. According to the classical consensus (see C.3 below)—which in the meantime has been severely shaken (see D below)—“J” was seen as the first source presenting the narrative thread of the whole Pentateuch, its inception starting with the “second” Creation story in Genesis 2. Commonly dated to the 10th or 9th century b.c., “J” has been long regarded as the most ancient historiographic work of the Bible.
B. “Birth” of the J Source
1. Beginnings. The discovery of a Yahwist source in the Pentateuch is linked to the early stages of critical research on the Pentateuch in the 18th century (cf. Kraus 1982: §28; Houtman 1980). The idea that the Pentateuch could be composed of several sources was provoked mainly by the existence of two creation stories in Genesis 1–3. H. B. Witter and J. Astruc had both been struck by the fact that the two stories (Gen 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–3:24) were using different names when speaking of God, ˒ĕlōhı̂m and yhwh. Astruc was led to the conclusion that a “memoir” A had to be distinguished from a “memoir” B. It is the distinctive use of the name YHWH (or, at that time, JHVH) that was soon to accredit the term “Yahwist” (J) to designate Astruc’s memoir B. One century later, the siglum “J” was nearly unanimously accepted among critics, one notable exception being A. Dillmann (Genesis KEHAT), who continued to designate the different sources as A, B, and C. The “Yahwist’s” success came about with the acceptance of the “newer documentary hypothesis” (neuere Urkundenhypothese), which is linked to the names of Hupfeld, Delitzsch, Riehm and others. At that stage, however, “J” was not yet considered the oldest of the sources. Among the three sources he admitted, Hupfeld (1853), for instance, distinguished the “primary elohistic document” (elohistische Urschrift, = the future “P”), the “younger elohistic document” (jüngere elohistische Schrift = the future “E”), and, as the latest source, the “document using the divine name Yhwh.”
2. J in the Graf-Wellhausen System. The reversing of the sources’ chronology was provoked by the discovery, due to Reuss, Graf, and Wellhausen, that the priestly legislation belongs to the latest—and not to the earliest—stage in the development of Pentateuchal law. As a result, Wellhausen’s paradigma of the sources (J-E-D -P, in that chronological order) imposed itself to the majority of scholars, and J came to be regarded as the oldest source of the Pentateuch. The main criterion in attributing texts to the J source remained the distinctive use of the name YHWH, but the existence of doublets or parallel narratives (such as Genesis 15 and 17, or Exodus 3–4 and 6; see the list offered by Seebass [TRE 16: 443–44]) also played a role in the argumentation. Holzinger (1893: 93ff.) and Driver (1913: 116–26) tried to establish a “lexicon of J” (peculiarities of vocabulary, style, and grammar). Often, more general features, such as the “anthropomorphisms” in the presentation of God (as opposed to E and P), were invoked. But a complete and specific description of the linguistic features of J—contrarily as to what became possible for P (McEvenue 1971)—was never attempted, and it is not surprising that for Wellhausen and his pupils, “J” remained without a precise profile and functioned mainly as a scientific siglum to designate the remaining text material once the more easily recognizable layers (such as E, P, and D/Dtr) had been subtracted.
Wellhausen himself did not attempt a precise dating of J and contented himself with the general attribution of J to the monarchic period. Even more telling is that Wellhausen (1899) often did not bother to distinguish between J and E, preferring to speak of JE or of “jehowistic” texts.
3. Problem of the Unity of J. For Gunkel, who was more interested in the literary genres than in the sources, J represented not a single author (Einzelschriftsteller) but a school of narrators (Erzählerschule) (Gunkel 1910: LXXXV; cf. also Smend 1978: 94). Therefore, it may seem only slightly paradoxical that Gunkel joined those scholars who argued for further literary subdivisions within the J source, using such sigla as Ja, Jb, Je, and J4. This trend, launched by Budde (1883: 455–57; cf. also Bruston 1885) who had hoped to subdivide J into J1 and J2, was developed into a full-fledged theory by Smend Sr. (1912) and Eissfeldt (1922; 1974). In later years, the theory was still being defended by Simpson (1948: 31–36), Fohrer (1965: 173–79) and Cazelles (DBSup 7: 770–803). Eissfeldt called his older source (Budde’s and Smend’s J1) “L” (Laienquelle, lay source), whereas Fohrer (1965: 173–79) opted for the siglum “N” (Nomadenquelle, nomadic source). However, Eissfeldt’s 1922 synopsis of the sources of the Hexateuch proved through its sheer complexity to have a discouraging and even self-defeating effect; consequently the theory of two Yahwists did not find many followers in subsequent years. It had become evident that the very real problem of J’s coherence could not find its solution through the subdivision of sources into ever more infinitesimal layers.
C. J as the Architect and Theologian of the Pentateuch
If the understanding of the Yahwist underwent a major change in the critical exegesis, it was due notably to the work of von Rad and Noth. For Wellhausen, the (however numerous) authors of the sources were seen as Schriftsteller (“writers”). Gunkel (1910: VII–XCII) had shown that the Yahwist and the Elohist had to be understood as collectors of folktales and other oral traditions, and that their work therefore consisted mainly in the writing down and editing of these traditions. Von Rad was the first to ask himself what precisely could be considered as the “personal” contribution of the Yahwist to the inherited tradition, and what was his “theological” purpose in composing such an extensive work. With these questions it was clear that the Yahwist had ceased to be a collective “school,” possibly working over decades or centuries, but had become a person, a unique thinking and organizing mind. To this day the most crucial issue in the debate remains whether or not, behind the J source, there is to be seen a creative personality. Or, to put the question in other terms, in the genesis of what was to become the J source, at what specific point can the intervention of such a personality be perceived, and what are the clearest textual witnesses to that intervention?
1. Von Rad’s Conception. In Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (1938), later published in English as PHOE, von Rad defends the idea that the Pentateuch—or rather, the Hexateuch—is ultimately the work of J. It is J who creates the “history of salvation” that begins with the creation of the world and ends with the entry of Israel into Canaan. As a basis for his construction, the Yahwist could rely on the ancient “Historical Credo” of Deut 26:5–9, which von Rad considers as the archaic kernel of the future Hexateuch. The merit of the Yahwist, according to von Rad, is not only to have given this ancient “Credo” a narrative form, but also to have initiated three decisive developments: (1) the insertion of the primeval history as a “prologue” to the whole; (2) the development and extension of the story of the Patriarchs (three patriarchs instead of one); and (3) the insertion of the Sinai-tradition (see 1961a: 58–75; Genesis OTL).
The Yahwist appeared to von Rad as a man of such creativity and freedom that only one historical period seemed to offer a suitable environment for so remarkable an enterprise: the “enlightened” era of Solomon’s reign (PHOE, 69). That allowed von Rad to date the Yahwist to 950–930 b.c. Furthermore, such a great literary work could not have been undertaken without a specific ideological or theological purpose. That purpose, according to von Rad, was to reinterpret the ancient traditions of tribal Israel in the light of the Davidic monarchy: it was with the establishment of this powerful kingdom (and empire) that the blessing of Abraham and the promises to the fathers found their true fulfillment.
With that, von Rad presented the Yahwist not only as the first “architect” of the Pentateuch, i.e., the first to conceive the history of the origins of Israel with its basic components (primeval history, patriarchal stories, Joseph, Moses, exodus, Sinai, conquest), but also as the theologian par excellence of the early monarchy.
2. Noth’s Reconstruction. Noth also considered that in terms of theology J “contains the most important testimony found in the Pentateuchal narrative as a whole” (HPT, 236), but his main interest was to determine how the traditions, before they came into the hands of the Yahwist, had reached their normative shape, grown together, and found their place in the nascent “hexateuchal” structure. While not resting his case entirely on the “Historical Credo,” Noth agreed with von Rad that Israel’s normative historical traditions had matured in the premonarchic period, i.e., before the Yahwist set out to write his comprehensive account of these traditions. Noth distinguished five main “themes” which had taken shape in oral tradition and which the Yahwist had taken over from that tradition (HPT, 46–62): (1) the leading out of Egypt; (2) the leading into the land of Canaan; (3) the promise to the fathers; (4) the leading in the desert; and (5) the revelation at Sinai.
Noth postulated that some of these originally autonomous themes had already found their way into a structured document which he labeled “G” (Grundlage, the common basis for the Yahwist and the Elohist), leaving open whether this document existed in a written or an oral form (HPT, 38–41). The diversity of themes and the inconsistency of outlooks within J confirmed the fact that J had used (written or oral) sources to compile his great work.
After the attempt of Eissfeldt, Noth (HPT, 28–32) was one of the rare exegetes to propose a complete enumeration of the texts he considered as belonging to J (compare the lists in Eissfeldt 1974 and Noth, HPT, 28–32). It is his reconstruction that served as a basis for all the subsequent discussion on J from the 1950s to the 1970s. Within the general consensus about J as was generated by the work of Noth, the modifications proposed by later authors were of minor importance, the only unresolved issue was where precisely the J source ended (see C.3.e below).
3. The Classical Consensus. Even if the views of von Rad and Noth on J do not always coincide (on the presuppositions of von Rad, see the reservations of Noth [HPT, 40–41]), it is nevertheless on their convergences that the consensus of the following twenty years rests.
a. Text and Content of J. According to the unanimous judgment of mainstream exegesis after Noth and von Rad, the J source begins with the story of the creation of man in Gen 2:4b. The Yahwist then sets out to narrate the origins of humanity up to the episode of the Tower of Babel. This first period—which von Rad had placed under the heading “proliferation of sin”—is marked by a pessimistic, or rather realistic, view of human beings. Then comes, as a positive answer to these calamitous beginnings, the story of Yahweh’s calling of Abraham in Genesis 12 which is J’s starting point in the history of the chosen people. After having dealt with the mythical ancestors in Genesis 12–50, J turns to the birth of the nation starting with Exodus 1: the oppression in Egypt and the liberation through the mediation of Moses. The sojourn in the desert is characterized by the constant murmuring of the people, but its main event is the revelation of Yahweh to his people on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19–24): in spite of Israel’s disobedience, Yahweh will lead his people to the promised land.
The confidence of most authors in the possibility of reconstructing the J source was such that several scholars did not hesitate to offer a continuous translation of the Yahwist source (see Schulte 1967; Smend 1967: 24–87; Resenhöfft 1977). The only major problem still remained the riddle of the end of the J source.
b. Date and Origin of J. With von Rad’s brilliant staging of the “Solomonic enlightenment,” his proposed date of around 930 b.c. was no longer seriously questioned. Some even went so far as to suggest that the priest Abiathar, the companion of David exiled to Anathoth by Solomon (1 Kgs 2:26–27), might be the author of the J source. In fact, the foundations for that early dating were rooted in the vision that Noth (1930; HPT, 252–59) and von Rad had developed of premonarchic Israel. Noth especially had insisted on the fact that all the constitutive “themes” of the Pentateuchal tradition, as well as their integration into a normative sequence, were marked by a “pan-Israelite” outlook (HPT, 42–51). The advent of this pan-Israelite consciousness presupposed, of course, the formation of a tribal league in the mountains of Palestine. But that the Pentateuchal tradition belongs in its essence to the pre-Davidic period appears from the fact that the monarchic institution is remarkably absent and that the center of gravity of Israel still seems to rest with the tribes of central Palestine (Joseph, Benjamin)—especially apparent in the Jacob and Joseph stories of Genesis and in the conquest narratives of Numbers—and not with Judah (HPT, 51, 56, 208–213). The monarchy thus was the necessary condition only for the writing down of the traditions. Symptomatic of Noth’s argumentation is the following statement: “As far as I can see, there is nothing in the original material of the J narrative which would force one to place its composition later than the Davidic-Solomonic period” (HPT, 230). For this 10th-century dating, the following further arguments were adduced: (1) the J material contains no allusions to the Aramean or Assyrian perils which Israel encountered starting with the 9th century b.c.; (2) there is no hint of the division between Israel and Judah; the tribes of the N and S are considered a unity; and (3) the cursing of Canaan in Gen 9:26 (J) reflects the situation of the Davidic and Solomonic empire, as do a number of other texts (e.g., Gen 15:18; 25:23; 27:37, 40a; Num 24:15–19).
The geographic origin of J was located in the south (Judah) rather than in the north for the following reasons: (1) in the primeval history, the tradition of Cain (Genesis 4) points to the Negeb; (2) the cycle of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 12–13) is rooted in Mamre, near Hebron; (3) Judah plays a dominant role in the J strand of the story of Joseph (Gen 37:26; 43:3, 8–10; 44:14–34; 46:28); (4) the peculiar material of Genesis 38 concerns Judah; and (5) in the Exodus narrative, J presents traditions connected mainly with Kadesh and the Midianites (e.g., Exod 3:15–22; 18:1 (J?); Num 13:26; 20:1, 14–16). Finally, the absence of specifically Jerusalemite traditions in the corpus of J led some authors to locate the Yahwist in the rural areas of Judah (see Steck 1971: 553).
c. Theology of J. Interest in J’s “theology,” sparked by von Rad, has grown because the possible kerygma of that source is much less explictly stated than that of P or Dtr (Smend 1978: 91). J’s primeval history, however, which is commonly regarded as freely composed by the Yahwist, allows the careful reader an insight into some of its author’s profound mode of thinking. The major stories in that section (Gen 2:4b–3:24; 4:1–16; chaps. 6–8; 11:1–9) all concern human transgressions, the consequences of which are used to explain the suffering and frustration encountered in life (e.g., hostility between animals and humans, pain of childbirth, aridity of the soil, wearisome work, animosity between brothers). Thus the frustrations of the conditio humana are attributed not to God nor to hostile deities or powers but to the fallibility of human beings. The constant human urge to transgress the limits established by YHWH prompts a reaction of the Creator, but beyond punitive interventions, YHWH evermore takes preservative measures to keep humanity from destruction (see Westermann 1964: 51–58).
This very subtle art of storytelling, which avoids supernatural interference and has forsaken all forms of magical or manichaean thinking, bears a distinctive flavor that brings it close to Wisdom Literature. At the same time, the primeval history of J offers a genuine and coherent theology insofar as it portrays a universal YHWH, at the same time almighty and gracious to man, who declares (Gen 8:21), “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.” Many of these traits can be found again in other parts of the J source (notably in the Jacob cycle, in the Joseph narrative, and in the desert stories) or, for that matter, in the “Succession Narrative” (2 Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1–2) which may come from a similar background. The same message is repeatedly suggested: Whatever good happens to the chosen of YHWH is not due to their own merit, but to the gracious and hidden forbearance of God (see de Pury 1975: 91–116).
Admittedly, the theological intention is less easy to define in the subsequent sections of the J narrative. If, starting with the patriarchal stories, J is not the “inventor” of most of his narrative material, how is it possible to determine the theological purpose of his work? Wolff (1966: 136–37) suggests that there are two areas where the intention of the Yahwist may be recognized: (1) in the “programmatic” passages that are due to his own wording (such as Gen 8:21–22; 12:1–4a; 18:17–18, 22b–33; 32:10–13; 50:20, 24), and (2) in the juxtaposition or rearrangement of previously unconnected narrative units. Very typical of that second possibility might be the insertion of an episode illustrating Abraham’s infidelity in Gen 12:10–20 after the promise of the land in 12:7, or the placing of Gen 32:23–33 [—Eng 32:22–32 as YHWH’s answer to Jacob’s prayer in 32:10–13 (see Stoebe 1954).
For the interpretation of the Yahwist’s theology, the key passage has always been Gen 12:1–3. Here both elements—programmatic statement and linking of narrative units—are present. Von Rad (PHOE, 65) already gave these verses utmost importance:
“In this interlinking of primeval history and history of salvation the Yahwist accounts for the intent and purpose of the salvatory relationship that Yahweh has granted Israel. It is the etiology of all etiologies of Israel.”
The problem, though, is to know whether this relatively serene universalistic kerygma, extending the blessing of Abraham not only to his offspring but also to “all the clans of the earth,” may be translated into a “political” message and interpreted in terms of a Davidic “history of salvation.” Von Rad (1961a: 75–81) thought that J had in mind to legitimate the Davidic monarchy as the fulfillment of God’s plan (see also Rost 1956: 5; Amsler 1969: 243–45). Others perceived in the Yahwist’s message a more critical vein, his intent being not only to accept fully the Davidic turn in Israel’s history, but also to lay bare the hubris of the Solomonic court (Henry 1960: 15–20; Wolff 1966: 155; von Soden 1974) and, possibly, to denounce the servitude imposed on “brother” nations like Edom (see Gen 27:40b) or Ammon (on the whole question, see de Pury 1975: 117–65). The second option is more in line with the above reading of Genesis 2–11, but it entails that the Yahwist was not the first narrator to have told the story of Israel’s origins in the wake of the establishment of the Davidic kingdom. That brings us to the question of J’s antecedents.
d. Sources of J. Since the time of Gunkel (1910: VII–XCII), everyone has admitted that the Yahwist did not invent most of what he narrates in his work. J and E are essentially tradents of a lore of tales carried by oral tradition (see also Westermann, Genesis BKAT, 11–51). Yet some of the “incoherences” within the thread of the J narrative may be so sharp that the suspicion arises that the Yahwist is not just retelling old tales, but coping with already formulated earlier narratives. We have mentioned Noth’s hypothesis of “G” as a first pre-J source of the Pentateuch. In later years, some authors thought there were sufficient indications to reconstruct one or several segments of this pre-J strand. Kilian (1966: 1–35, 220–22, 285–94, 301–06), de Pury (1975: 49–58, 130–33) and Otto (1979: 82–88) found pre-J strands in the Abraham and Jacob narratives, Otto (1975: 241–99) in the Sinai pericope, Fritz (1970: 107–34) in the desert stories, and Richter (1986: 29–57) in the primeval history. Recently, Vermeylen (1989) has proposed the reconstruction of a pre-Yahwist, Davidic narrative extending through the whole book of Genesis (suggested siglum: Dv). These attempts are all rooted in the observation that the texts attributed to J often bear traces of a prolonged redactional elaboration. The main question, then, is: does the Yahwist, from the point of view of his method, represent an analogous phenomenon to that of the Deuteronomistic Historian, i.e., besides being occasionally a narrator, could he be first and foremost an “editor.” But in that case, it is not surprising that the arguments invoked for his dating and the determination of his sociohistorical roots call to be reexamined, as will be shown below.
e. Problem of the End of J. In line with his conception of history of salvation, as it had been reconstructed mainly from Gen 12:1–3, J’s work had to include the story of Israel’s entry into Canaan and, most probably, to end with it. That, at least, was the opinion of practically all mainstream authors. Since the conquest of Canaan is told only in the book of Joshua and in Judges 1, some authors (and among them von Rad) traced segments of the J narrative up into the book of Joshua. Noth thought that the end of J had been suppressed when the Pentateuch (or, rather, the Tetrateuch) had been linked up with the Deuteronomistic History (DtrG) (Noth, HPT, 33, n. 127), since that historiographic work already contained an account of the entry into Canaan (for a discussion of that problem, see Auld 1980). But other proposals for the location of the end of J were also defended:
—Num 14:8a (Weimar 1977: 163–64; 1980: 121, 134);
—Joshua 11 (Otto 1975: 95–103);
—Joshua 24 (Seebass, TRE 16: 445);
—Judg 1:26 (Eissfeldt 1922: 83–84, 252);
—1 Kings 2 (Budde 1883);
—1 Kings 12 (Hölscher 1952);
—1 Kgs 14:25 (Resenhöfft 1977).
It thus becomes apparent that even at the time of the consensus, the end of J was perceived as a major problem. It is therefore no surprise that it is precisely at that point that some of the critics of the “J” theory entered with their objections.
D. The Calling in Question of J
Starting with the 1970s, the entire research on the Pentateuch was submitted to a radical critique, and it was quite natural that the “Yahwist” stood from the outset in the first line of the debate. After the premonitory motion launched by Winnett (1965), the decisive works in reopening the discussion on the Yahwist were those of Van Seters (1975), Schmid (1976), and Rendtorff (1976). Without retracing here the antecedents of the discussion (for that, see Whybray 1987; de Pury and Römer 1989), one can say that it is no longer possible today to speak of the “Yahwist” without acknowledging that the former consensus has vanished. The attacks against Noth’s and von Rad’s Yahwist developed along two main lines: either J was radically “re-dated,” or his existence was entirely contested in the course of an overall critique of the Documentary Hypothesis.
1. Redating J. In his Der sogenannte Jahwist, Schmid took as his starting point the Yahwist as defined and delimited by Noth. After examining a number of key J texts (in Exodus 3–4; 7–10; 14; 15; 17; 19; 24; Numbers 11; 12; 21; plus the promise narratives in Genesis), Schmid concluded that these “Yahwist” texts were very closely related to the style and the theological preoccupations of Deuteronomistic literature. The call of Moses (Exod 3–4), for example, presupposes the call of the classical prophets, and the theme of the people’s disobedience in the desert reflects a mode of thinking known mainly from the Deuteronomistic school. Therefore, the historical context of the Yahwist seems to be a time of crisis rather than that of the glorious Solomonic “enlightenment” (which appears to Schmid as an invention of modern exegesis. The approach of Schmid takes its place in the wake of the (re)discovery of Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic influences in the Pentateuch initiated notably by Brekelmans (1966), Perlitt (1969), Reichert (1972), and Fuss (1972).
In the same general line, Rose (1981; 1986) takes Schmid’s intuition one step further. Whereas Schmid refrained from proposing a specific date for J and left open the exact chronological relationship between J and DtrG, Rose submitted certain Deuteronomistic texts in Deuteronomy and Joshua to a minute comparison with the corresponding episodes in the J narrative, and he concluded that J is later than DtrG. That discovery led him to the thesis that J composed his work in order to provide the historiography of DtrG with a “prologue” and perhaps to correct the somewhat too “legalistic” tendency of DtrG. It should be noted that if J never had an autonomous existence, Rose’s thesis would offer an elegant solution to one of the major problems of the “old” J theory: that of its “lost end.” Van Seters (1983; 1986) defends a similar approach. In his eyes, the Yahwist is essentially an “historian”, i.e., an intellectual comparable to the Greek historians of the Persian period, who “conceived” Israel’s prehistory and placed it as an opening of the earlier Deuteronomistic history.
This theory of Rose and Van Seters turns the classical consensus upside down insofar as it considers J, formerly the “oldest” source, now a postexilic work. On the other hand, it preserves unharmed the system of the sources as such (see the critique of Diebner 1985), and it even allows scholars to reclaim some of von Rad’s inspiring theological interpretations (theology of grace, anthropological pessimism, the Historical Credo, etc.) by transposing them into the postexilic context. This theory today seems to rally increasing support (see Cryer 1985; Kaiser 1984: 93–96).
2. The Dissolution of J. In his Überlieferungsgeschichtliches Problem des Pentateuch, Rendtorff proclaimed an irreversible “farewell to the documentary hypothesis” (1976: 148). First and foremost, that meant abandoning the notion that the Yahwist is a continuous source in the Pentateuch (see also Rendtorff 1977). He tried to show that in spite of appearances, “J” is a very fragile construction. The substance of J is traditionally obtained by way of subtraction of the more easily recognizable other sources (see Smend 1978: 86; Seebass, TRE 16: 441), and there are no positive criteria for the attribution of a single text to the J source. Neither is there a consensus on the extension of the Yahwist or on his “theology.” A more promising approach is therefore to liberate oneself from the yoke of the source theory and to explain the composition of the Pentateuch on the basis of the “major unities” recognized by Noth (primeval history, patriarchs, exodus, desert, Sinai, conquest). But contrary to Noth, Rendtorff does not consider these “unities” as themes that were carried only by oral tradition: he sees in them autonomous literary works that were transmitted independently from each other until they were reunited by a redactional enterprise of “Deuteronomistic” type. The “promises to the fathers” that were for von Rad the expression of the ipsissima verba of the Yahwist become, for Rendtorff, the most visible traces of this “Dtr” redaction. In such a system there is no room any more for a continuous Yahwist.
How are these autonomous “unities” to be imagined? Rendtorff’s model was applied to the primeval history by Crüsemann (1981), who tried to show that Genesis 2–11 had not been composed with the intention of serving as an opening for the Yahwist history of salvation, but instead represented an independent reflection on the origins of humanity, reflecting presumably the point of view of Judean peasantry in the time of the early monarchy. Blum (1984), after having shown (among other things) the weakness of the traditional argument based on the distinction between the divine names YHWH and Elohim, ventured to explain that the patriarchal cycle of Genesis 12–50 had grown as an independent unity during a long redactional process (extending from ca. 1000 to 400 b.c.).
An approach comparable to that of Rendtorff and his students is defended by Houtman (1980: 243–45) who refuses a source-system based on a continuous J and who presents the Pentateuch as the conglomerate of three previously independent unities: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
E. J in the Current Debate
After more than a decade of severe attacks against the classical consensus on the Yahwist, there is still no new majority view in sight. Some scholars, perhaps waiting for better days, seem to refrain from writing much on the Pentateuch, and many of those who venture into the field do so with great prudence. In the current publications, four main approaches stand out (see Coote and Ord 1989 for an overview).
1. Defense of the Classical Conception. In spite of all the turbulence, a few scholars maintain categorically their allegiance to the Yahwist of Noth and von Rad. This is the case of exegetes such as L. Schmidt (1977; 1983: 90–95), W. H. Schmidt (1981; 1985: 72–74), Kohata (1986a; 1986b), Scharbert (1986), and Kreuzer (1989: 114–17). Others, like Smend (1978: 92–94), Seebass (TRE 16: 445–47), or Stendebach (1987) continue to believe in the existence of the J source, but do no longer find sufficient evidence for a precise datation—like Wellhausen, they are content with situating it generally during the monarchy. Moreover, they do not consider J to be an individual, but take it, once again, as a siglum for a “school.”
2. A Solomonic J with a Reduced Substance. Taking heed of the current criticism of an ancient date especially concerning the more “theological” passages of J, some authors such as Weimar (1977; 1980), Zenger (1982; 1985), Vermeylen (1981; 1989), and Peckham (1985) seek a solution in the drastic reduction of the J source. These exegetes admit that many texts commonly attributed to J (e.g., Genesis 15; 24; etc.) are evidently much later than the 10th century, but they remain convinced that there is a Solomonic Yahwist comprising at least the primeval story, the Patriarchs, and the exodus, even if the substance of that work may comprise only two or three pages of text. The problem with that position is that it becomes more and more difficult to find palpable arguments to justify the proposed delimitation of the text.
3. An exilic or Postexilic J. As has been shown (see D.1 above), Rose and Van Seters maintain the Yahwist source in its traditional delimitation, but they date it to the Persian period. In the same line, one could mention the studies of Vorländer (1978), who dates the “Jehowist” (he refuses to separate between J and E) to the time of the exile, and Schmitt (1980), who sees in J a postexilic redaction of an earlier “elohistic” version of the Pentateuch. The problem with Rose’s and Van Seters’ conception is that it does not try to account for the depth of the redactional process that may often be recognized behind a J text. Has not the homogeneous Solomonic Yahwist of von Rad simply been replaced by a Yahwist of the Persian era which is equally homogeneous?
4. A Nonexistent J. As we have seen (see D.2 above), Rendtorff, Blum, and others hold that there are, comprised within what was commonly attributed to J, relatively ancient literary unities, but that a continuous J source never existed. If these views should finally prevail, critical exegesis would either have to renounce entirely the use of the siglum “J” or give that name to the (late) compiler/redactor who integrated the different unities into a coherent—and theologically assertive—whole. That second possibility would bring us again into the vicinity of the solutions of Rose and Van Seters, but with the recovery of an interest for the pre-“Dtr” literary history of each individual unity. The problem with Rendtorff’s approach is that the very obvious (and secondary) “Dtr” passages in the Tetrateuch (e.g., Gen 22:15–18; 26:3b–5) are not sufficiently distinguished from the supposed “Yahwist” redaction.
F. Conclusion
The debate on the Yahwist obviously is not closed. No new scholarly consensus is yet in sight. And new research, discoveries, and points of view may bring about yet another turn in the appreciation of this complex literary corpus.
What currently seems to have been most severely shaken is the hypothesis of an extensive J historiography in the time of Solomon as von Rad and Noth had conceived it. In spite of the diversity of expressed opinions, the debate of the last two decades has shown some convergence in drawing the attention of exegetes to two related problems: (1) the apparent autonomy of the major components of the traditional J source, and (2) the apparent fragility of the links that bind together these major components. On these two aspects, a few final remarks are in order.
First, the main components of the traditional J source—the primeval history, the patriarchal saga, and the “national” saga (the birth of Israel in Egypt, exodus, entry into the land, etc.)—are too different from each other, and too autonomous in their outlook and scope, to have been conceived for the purpose of a single historiographic work. Each of these components can stand on its own. The patriarchal saga (and more specifically the Jacob cycle) and the story of the exodus/conquest even offer two rival etiologies for the presence of Israel in Canaan (they are still perceived as such in Hosea 12). There are good chances that these autonomous developments not only belong to the preliterary levels of the traditions, but that they also marked the first stages of their growth as literary works.
Second, the links that explicitly bind together the three components of the traditional J source are rather tenuous, and some of them are manifestly late. That is the case most notably of the story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50), which links the exodus story to the patriarchal narratives. The story itself, held by von Rad (1961b) to be a literary gem of the Solomonic Yahwist, the purest expression of that enlightened era, tends to be considered today by some scholars as a postexilic Jewish diaspora novel (Redford 1970; Meinhold 1975/76). Its function as a bridge between the Jacob and exodus stories might be even later. The P source knows of a descent of Jacob and his sons to Egypt but tells nothing of Joseph (Gen 37:1–2; 46:6–7, 8–27; 47:27b–28; 49:29–33; 50:12–13, Exod 1:1–5a, 13). The same can be said of the Dtr and post-Dtr Credos (Deut 10:22; 26:5; Josh 24:4; 1 Sam 12:8). The only text that mentions the story of Joseph is Ps 105:18–23, a very late psalm that presupposes the final redaction of the Pentateuch (Römer 1987). It is less easy to determine the age of the descent of Jacob to Egypt, but it likewise has all the appearances of a redactional link.
If one considers the question from the side of DtrG, the connection between patriarchs and exodus does not appear before the final redaction of the Pentateuch. As Römer (1988) has shown (after Van Seters 1972), the “fathers” frequently referred to in Deuteronomistic literature never designate the patriarchs but have in mind the successive collective generations of ancestors that came out of Egypt. It seems that DtrG ignores—or intentionally omits—the whole “prehistory” told in Genesis.
There remains the problem of Gen 12:1–3 and of the link between primeval history and patriarchal narratives. That link is evidently older than P, since P also connects a primeval tradition with the story of the patriarchs, but even if it should be relatively old, it does not necessitate a continuation of the patriarchal story in the exodus story. The only few explicit cross-references between the exodus and patriarchal stories (e.g., Gen 15:13–16; Exod 3:6aβ) most probably belong to the final phases of the redaction of the Pentateuch. Thus, if one decides to define the Yahwist as the author of Gen 12:1–3—to whatever period that may lead—one still does not get a corpus that extends beyond the book of Genesis.
What remains to be determined is the precise nature of the connection between the Genesis and the Exodus narratives. Were there any links prior to P? If not, does that make P the true “inventor” of the Pentateuch as a literary project combining the two rival stories of Israel’s origins? If the “Yahwist” is defined with Rose as the provider of a prologue to DtrG, did his prologue begin with Genesis 2 or with Exodus 1? In that case, does one have to expect a second Yahwist for the inclusion of Genesis, or was this inclusion brought about by P or RP? These and many other questions will undoubtedly have to be faced by those who hope to know a little more about that elusive “Yahwist” who has fascinated biblical scholarship for so long.
Bibliography
Amsler, S. 1969. Les deux sources de la théologie de l’histoire dans l’Ancien Testament. RTP 102: 235–46.
Auld, G. A. 1980. Joshua, Moses and the Land. Edinburgh.
Blum, E. 1984. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen.
Brekelmans, C. A. 1966. Die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Elemente in Gen.-Num. VTSup 15: 90–96.
Bruston, C. 1885. Les deux Jéhovistes. RTP 18: 5–34, 429–528, 602–637.
Budde, K. 1883. Die Biblische Urgeschichte. Giessen.
Coote, R. and Ord, D. 1989. The Bible’s First History. Philadelphia.
Crüsemann, F. 1981. Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den ‘Jahwisten’. Pp. 11–29 in Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift H. W. Wolff, ed. J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Cryer, F. H. 1985. On the relationship between the Yahwistic and the Deuteronomistic Histories. BN 29: 58–74.
Diebner, B. J. 1985. Einige Anmerkungen zu John Van Seters methodischen Skizze ‘The Yahwist as Historian. Part I, Part II’. Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament 22: 36–57.
Driver, S. R. 1913. Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. Edinburgh.
Eissfeldt, O. 1922. Hexateuchsynopse. Leipzig.
———. 1974. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Trans. P. R. Ackroyd. Oxford.
Ellis, P. F. 1968. The Yahwist. The Bible’s First Theologian. Notre Dame.
Fohrer, G. 1965. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Heidelberg.
Fritz, V. 1970. Israel in der Wüste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten. MTS 7. Marburg.
Fuss, W. 1972. Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3–17. BZAW 126. Berlin/New York.
Gunkel, H. 1910. Genesis übersetzt und erklärt. 3d ed. Göttingen.
Henry, M.-L. 1960. Jahwist und Priesterschrift. ArbT 11/3. Stuttgart.
Hölscher, G. 1952. Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Jahwisten und Elohisten. SHVL 50. Lund.
Holzinger, H. 1893. Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig.
Houtman, C. 1980. Inleiding in de Pentateuch. Kampen.
Hupfeld, H. 1853. Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung. Berlin.
Kaiser, O. 1984. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 5th ed. Gütersloh. ET-Introduction to the Old Testament. 1975. Oxford.
Kilian, R. 1966. Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BBB 24. Bonn.
Kohata, F. 1986a. Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14. BZAW 166. Berlin/New York.
———. 1986b. Quellenschriften im Pentateuch? Konsequenzen aus Textbeobachtungen in Exodus 3–14. AJBI 12: 3–28.
Kraus, H. J. 1982. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments. 3d ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Kreuzer, S. 1989. Die Frühgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkündigung des Alten Testaments. BZAW 178. Berlin/New York.
McEvenue, S. E. 1971. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. AnBib 50. Rome.
Meinhold, A. 1975/76. Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diaspora-novelle. ZAW 87: 306–324; ZAW 88: 72–93.
Noth, M. 1930. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. BWANT 4/1. Stuttgart.
Otto, E. 1975. Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal. BWANT 107. Stuttgart.
———. 1979. Jakob in Sichem. BWANT 110. Stuttgart.
Peckham, B. 1985. The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 35. Atlanta.
Perlitt, L. 1969. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 56. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Pury, A. de. 1975. Promesse divine et légende culturelle dans le cycle de Jacob. Paris.
Pury, A. de, and Römer, T. 1989. Le Pentateuque en question. Position du problème et brève histoire de la recherche. Pp. 9–80 in Le Pentateuque en question. Ed. A. de Pury. Geneva.
Rad, G. von. 1961a. Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch. Pp. 9–86 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, ed. G. von Rad. TBü 8 (Eng = PHOE).
———. 1961b. Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma. Pp. 272–80 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament.
Redford, D. B. 1970. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. VTSup 20. Leiden.
Reichert, A. 1972. Der Jehowist im Buch Exodus und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen im Buch Exodus. Diss., Tübingen.
Rendtorff, R. 1976. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin/New York.
———. 1977. The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism. JSOT 3: 2–32.
Resenhöfft, W. 1977. Die Geschichte Alt-Israels. I. Der Jahwist. Bern-Frankfurt-Las Vegas.
Richter, H. F. 1986. Zur Urgeschichte des Jahwisten. BN 34: 39–57.
Römer, T. 1987. Le cycle de Joseph. Sources, corpus, unité. Foi et Vie 86/3: 2–15.
———. 1988. Israels Väter. Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. Diss., Geneva.
Rose, M. 1981. Deuteronomist und Jahwist. Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. ATANT 67. Zürich.
———. 1986. La croissance du corpus historiographique de la Bible—une proposition. RTP 118: 217–26.
Rost, L. 1956. Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pentateuchquellen. ZTK 53: 1–10.
Scharbert, J. 1983. Genesis 1–11. Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg.
———. 1986. Genesis 12–50. Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg.
Schmid, H. H. 1976. Der sogenannte Jahwist. Zurich.
Schmidt, L. 1977. Überlegungen zum Jahwisten. EvT 37: 230–47.
———. 1983. Pentateuch. Pp. 80–101 in Altes Testament, eds. H. J. Boecker, et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Schmidt, W. H. 1981. Ein Theologe in salomonischer Zeit? Plädoyer für den Jahwisten. BZ 25: 82–102.
———. 1985. Einführung in das Alte Testament. 3d ed. Berlin/New York.
Schmitt, H. 1980. Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte. BZAW 154. Berlin/New York.
———. 1985. Die Hintergründe der “neuesten Pentateuchkritik” und der literarische Befund der Josephsgeschichte Gen 37–50. ZAW 97: 161–79.
Schulte, H. 1967. “. . . bis auf diesen Tag.” Der Text des Jahwisten, des ältesten Geschichtsschreibers der Bibel. Hamburg-Bergstedt.
———. 1972. Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel. BZAW 128. Berlin/New York.
Seebass, H. 1989. Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de l’Elohiste? Pp. 199–214 in Le Pentateuque en question, ed. A. de Pury. Geneva.
Simpson, C. A. 1948. The Early Traditions of Israel. Oxford and New York.
Smend, R. (Sr.) 1912. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin.
Smend, R. (Jr.) 1967. Biblische Zeugnisse. Literatur des Alten Israel. Frankfurt.
———. 1978. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart.
Soden, W. von. 1974. Verschlüsselte Kritik an Salomo in der Urgeschichte des Jahwisten? WO 7: 228–40.
Steck, O. H. 1971. Genesis 12,1–3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten. Pp. 525–54 in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich.
Stendebach, F. J. 1987. Das Menschenbild des Jahwisten. BK 42: 15–20.
Stoebe, H.-J. 1954. Der heilsgeschichtliche Bezug der Jabbok-Perikope. EvT 14: 466–474.
Van Seters, J. 1972. Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period. VT 22: 448–59.
———. 1975. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven.
———. 1983. In Search of History. New Haven.
———. 1986. The Yahwist as Historian. Pp. 37–55 in SBLSP 25. Atlanta.
———. 1987. Der Jahwist als Historiker. Trans. H. H. Schmid. ThStud 134. Zürich.
Vermeylen, J. 1981. La formation du Pentateuque à la lumière de l’exégèse historico-critique. RTL 12: 324–46.
———. 1989. Les premières étapes littéraires de la formation du Pentateuque. Pp. 149–97 in Le Pentateuque en question, ed. A. de Pury. Geneva.
Vorländer, H. 1978. Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes. Bern/Frankfurt/Las Vegas.
Weimar, P. 1977. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch. BZAW 146. Berlin/New York.
———. 1980. Die Berufung des Mose. OBO 32. Fribourg and Göttingen.
———. 1985. Die Meerwundererzählung. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse von Ex 13,17–14,31. Wiesbaden.
Weimar, P., and Zenger, E. 1975. Exodus. SBS 75. Stuttgart.
Wellhausen, J. 1899. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 3d ed. Berlin.
Westermann, C. 1964. Arten der Erzählung in der Genesis. Pp. 9–91 in Forschung am Alten Testament. Gesammelte Studien, ed. C. Westermann. Munich.
Whybray, R. N. 1987. The Making of the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield.
Winnett, F. V. 1965. Re-Examining the Foundations. JBL 84: 1–19.
Wolff, H. W. 1966. The Kerygma of the Yahwist. Int 20: 129–158.
Zenger, E. 1982. Auf der Suche nach einem Weg aus der Pentateuchkrise. TRev 78: 353–62.
———. 1985. Israel am Sinai. Analysen und Interpretationen zu Exodus 17–34. 2d ed. Altenberge.
———. 1989. Le thème de la “sortie d’Égypte” et la naissance du Pentateuque. Pp. 301–331 in Le Pentateuque en question, ed. A. de Pury. Geneva.
Albert de Pury
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:1012). New York: Doubleday.
2:
Yahwist, the name given the earliest literary source underlying the books of Genesis through Numbers. The siglum given the source is ‘J,’ which is derived from the German spelling of the name of God, Jahveh (in English usually spelled Yahweh), used throughout this source. The Yahwist source is usually dated around 950 b.c. Among its characteristics are bold anthropomorphisms; positive attitudes toward agricultural civilization, the state, and kingship; a mixture of nationalistic and universalistic concerns; and a style that exudes charm, simplicity, and clarity. The anonymous writer wove together the oral and written stories to assist a people in discovering not only the outer history of names and places but also the inner story of God’s work among them. Examples of the Yahwist writing are found in Gen. 2:4b-4:26; 32:22-32; Exod. 1-22; and Num. 24:1-25. See also Sources of the Pentateuch. K.H.R.
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (1152). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
3:
Yahwist
One of the literary sources which many scholars discern as comprising the Pentateuch or Torah. Though the hypothesis of a composite text has dominated the last 200 years of scholarly pentateuchal study, substantial disagreement remains about virtually every facet of any Yahwist hypothesis. Still, a heuristic sketch may be offered.
The Yahwist, abbreviated by the siglum “J” (from Ger. Jahweh), is typically recognized as the most brilliant of the pentateuchal storytellers, responsible for much of the material in Genesis and substantial portions of narrative in Exodus and Numbers. Hence J carries the story line from the origins of human existence to the eve of entrance into the Promised Land, a span composed of 22 generations: primeval episodes, adventures of the founding ancestors of Israel, journeys of Moses and the Exodus-wilderness group. The Yahwist may be presumed to have been active in the Davidic court, hence writing ca. the 10th century b.c.e. Since the interest of the materials is southern, the presumed location of the writer is Judah, specifically Jerusalem. The Jerusalem location and early date suggest to some that the Yahwist is an apologist for the Davidic monarchy and enterprise, the epic recounting the tribal roots of the emergent state.
Though it is not clear whether the Yahwist is best seen as a composer, a collector, or a compiler, some persistent characteristics of both style and content mark texts commonly attributed to J. Early noted was a tendency to name the deity as Yahweh, a fondness for puns and etiologies, a set of vivid characters who act boldly, dialogue pungently, and soliloquize revealingly; J uses a technique of singling an individual out from a larger group, providing a matrix of minor players while giving one primary focus. The Yahwist stories are rich in imagery. The deity in the J narrative is not quite so omnipotent and competent as in other sources, and the humans that emerge from J are often very flawed but highly memorable. The key opponent in the Yahwist story is Egypt, with its oppressive ways. Some major longitudinal themes seen in J include furtherance of blessing, the accomplishment of divine purposes, and the establishment of key cultural institutions. There is substantial resonance between extrabiblical material (e.g., Sumerian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic epic material that features the entanglements of deities and human beings) and many structural elements and smaller motifs in J.
Major dissent to the position sketched here includes the likely identity of J (a woman has been suggested, or a popular bard), the genre (history or theology rather than apology), the date (ranging from Solomonic to exilic), and the purposes (often described more theologically and generally than socially). Since any discussion of the Yahwist is embedded in conversations about pentateuchal studies, those who doubt the usefulness of the standard strata or source hypothesis will view the “Yahwist” texts very differently than those for whom it remains a viable model of authorship.
Bibliography. R. B. Coote and D. R. Ord, The Bible’s First History (Philadelphia, 1989); R. Rendtorff, “The Yahwist as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism,” JSOT 3 (1977): 2–10 and responses, 11–32; J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, 1992); H. W. Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Yahwist,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, ed. W. Brueggemenn and Wolff, 2nd ed. (Atlanta, 1982), 41–66.
Barbara Green, O.P.
Freedman, D. N., Myers, A. C., & Beck, A. B. (2000). Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (1402). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
