a farewell to the yahwist?

symposium series

Christopher r. Matthews,
editor

Number 34 a farewell to
the yahwist? the Composition
of the Pentateuch in recent
european interpretation

a farewell to the yahwist?

 The Composition of the
Pentateuch in recent
european interpretation

edited by

Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad schmid

society of Biblical
literature atlanta

A fArewell to the yAhwist?

Copyright © 2006 by the society of Biblical literature

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying and recording, or by means of any
information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly
permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher.
requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the rights
and Permissions office, society of Biblical literature, 825 houston Mill
road, Atlanta, GA 30329 UsA.

library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A farewell to the yahwist? : the composition of the Pentateuch in

recent european interpretation / edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and
Konrad schmid.
p. cm. — (society of biblical literature symposium series ; no.
34)
includes bibliographical references and
indexes. isBN-13: 978-1-58983-163-6 (paper
binding : alk. paper) isBN-10: 1-58983-163-
2 (paper binding : alk. paper)
1. J document (Biblical criticism) 2. Bible. o.t. Genesis—Criticism,
interpretation, etc. 3. Bible. o.t. exodus—Criticism, interpretation, etc.
i. Dozeman, Thomas B. ii. schmid, Konrad, 1965– iii. series:
symposium series (society of Biblical literature) ; no. 34. Bs1181.4.f37
2006
222'.106—dc22
2006003095

14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United states of America on acid-free,
recycled paper conforming to ANsi/Niso Z39.48-1992
(r1997) and iso 9706:1994 standards for paper
permanence.

Contents

abbreviations .........................................................................

......................vii introduction
 Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad
Schmid..................................................1

Part 1: Main Papers

the elusive yahwist: a short history of research

Thomas Christian
Römer ..........................................................................9

the so-Called yahwist and the literary Gap between Genesis

and exodus
Konrad
Schmid .............................................................................
..........29

the Jacob story and the Beginning of the formation of the

Pentateuch
Albert de
Pury ..................................................................................
......51

the transition between the Books of Genesis and exodus

Jan Christian
Gertz ................................................................................
73

the literary Connection between the Books of Genesis

and exodus and the end of the Book of Joshua
Erhard
Blum .................................................................................
.........89

the Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis

Thomas B.
Dozeman ...........................................................................
.107

Part 2: responses

the yahwist and the redactional link between Genesis and

exodus
Christoph

Levin ....................................................................................1
31 the report of the yahwist’s Demise has Been Greatly

exaggerated!

John Van
Seters ...............................................................................
......143
vi CoNteNts

what is required to identify Pre-Priestly Narrative

Connections between Genesis and exodus? some
General reflections and specific Cases
David M.
Carr .....................................................................................1
59

Bibliography .........................................................................

......................181

Contributors .........................................................................

.....................187 index of Biblical and related

literature ......................................................189 index of

authors ..................................................................................

......195
 AbbreviAtions
aasf annales academiae scientiarum fennicae

aB anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. edited by D. N. freedman. 6

vols. New

york: Doubleday, 1992.

aoat alter orient und altes testament

ataNt abhandlungen zur theologie des alten und Neuen

testaments

atD Das alte testament Deutsch

BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge

Bet Beiträge zur biblischen exegese und theologie

Betl Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BHH Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch: Landeskunde,

Geschichte,

Religion, Kultur. edited by B. reicke and l. rost. 4 vols. Göt-

tingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1962–66.

Bib Biblica

BK Bibel und Kirche

BN Biblische Notizen

BTS Bible et terre sainte

BwaNt Beiträge zur wissenschaft vom alten und Neuen

testament

BZaw Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche

wissenschaft

CANE C ivilizations of the Ancient Near East. edited by J.

sasson. 4 vols.

New york: scribner, 1995.

CBet Contributions to Biblical exegesis and theology

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBot Coniectanea biblica: old testament series

DBAT D ielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner

Rezeption in

der Alten Kirche

DBat.B D ielheimer Blätter zum alten testament und seiner

rezeption

in der alten Kirche. Beiheft

ETR Etudes théologiques et religieuses

EvT Evangelische Theologie

fat forschungen zum alten testament

fotl forms of the old testament literature

frlaNt forschungen zur religion und literatur des alten und

Neuen

testaments

-vii -

viii aBBreViatioNs

hat handbuch zum alten testament

hKat handkommentar zum alten testament
hsM harvard semitic Monographs
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBs Jerusalem Biblical studies
JBt Jahrbuch für biblische theologie
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JR Journal of Religion
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Jsotsup Journal for the study of the old testament
supplement series
KhC Kurzer hand-Kommentar zum alten testament
lD lectio divina
MdB Le Monde de la Bible
NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible
oBo orbis biblicus et orientalis
otl old testament library
QD Quaestiones disputatae
RB Revue biblique
RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses
RTP Revue de théologie et de philosophie
sBaB stuttgarter biblische aufsatzbände
sBlMs society of Biblical literature Monograph series
sBs stuttgarter Bibelstudien
sBts sources for Biblical and theological study
shaw sitzungsberichte der heidelberger akademie der
wissenschaften
tB theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und
Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert
ThWAT T heologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten
Testament. edited by G. J. Botterweck and h.
ringgren. stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–.
TRE T heologische Realenzyklopädie. edited by G.
Krause and G. Müller. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–.
TRu Theologische Rundschau
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
VF Verkündigung und Forschung
VT Vetus Testamentum
Vtsup supplements to Vetus testamentum
wMaNt wissenschaftliche Monographien zum alten und
Neuen testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
IntroductIon
Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid

The Pentateuch Seminar of the Society of Biblical

Literature provides the context and the point of origin for
our study A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Pentateuch
Seminar was formed in the early 1980s by a small group of
leading researchers in North America, including John Van
Seters, Rolf Knierim, George Coats, Simon De Vries, and
John Gammie. These scholars were drawn together by a
growing uneasiness over the lack of direction in
pentateuchal studies in the wake of the influential synthesis
of Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad, which had provided
creative direction for the field in the early and middle
periods of the century. The aim of the Pentateuch Seminar
was to assess the present state of the field, to explore new
theories of composition, and to reevaluate the organization
and the meaning of pentateuchal literature.
The Pentateuch Seminar quickly attracted many of the
leading Jewish and Christian researchers in the world. Hans
Heinrich Schmid presented his work on the linguistic and
theological affinity of the Yahwistic texts in the Tetrateuch
to Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic literature. Thomas L.
Thompson explored the growth of pentateuchal tradition as
the linking of material through literary chains. Jacob
Milgrom contributed new insights in the composition of the
Priestly tradition, which was undergoing a renaissance in
Jewish scholarship. Rolf Knierim refined his interest in
more conceptually oriented methodology. George Coats
continued to explore the relationship of the Pentateuch to
the
Deuteronomistic History, focusing in particular on the book
of Joshua. John
Van Seters was advancing his research on comparative
historiography. Finally, Rolf Rendtorff joined the
conversation with his theory of “complexes of tradition” in
the literary development of the Pentateuch, a theory of
composition that reevaluated the role of the Yahwist author
in the work of his teacher, Gerhard von Rad.
The Pentateuch Seminar was a moment of enormous
creativity, as the participants explored new directions in the
study of the Pentateuch. As often happens at moments of
such innovation, it was not always easy to relate the new
and emerging methodologies or to see the implications of
the distinct theories

--
 A FAReweLL To THe YAHwiST?

of composition for the broader interpretation of the

Pentateuch. The work of the Pentateuch Seminar continued
to crystallize in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s to the
point where the research of its members now provides the
methodological framework for many who work in
pentateuchal studies in the twenty-first century. A Farewell
to the Yahwist? would not be possible without the
groundbreaking work of the members of the Pentateuch
Seminar.
The present volume carries on Rolf Rendtorff’s theory of
“complexes of tradition” in the growth of the Pentateuch. in
Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch,
Rendtorff raised questions about the combination of
tradition history and source criticism in the research of
Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad.1 Both von Rad and Noth
recognized the existence of smaller, independent units of
tradition in the formation of the Pentateuch, especially in
light of the form-critical work of Hermann Gunkel and Hugo
Gressmann. But von Rad and Noth refashioned form
criticism, with its tendency to identify the smallest units of
tradition, into tradition history by identifying larger
complexes of tradition, including the ancestors, exodus,
Sinai, wilderness wandering, and the acquiring of the land.
Their focus, however, remained on the early stages of
tradition. They judged the combination of the distinct
complexes of tradition to have taken place already in the
oral formation of the historical credo. Thus, what interested
von Rad and Noth most was “the unity of the material as

1 . Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des

Pentateuch (BZAw 147; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1977). For a partial english translation, see The Problem of
the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. J. Scullion;
JSoTSup 89; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990).
. Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in
The Problem of the Hexateuch (London: oliver & Boyd, 1966), 16. Martin
Noth (A History of Pentateuch Traditions [trans. B. A. Anderson; Chico,
Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981], 31 n. 115) shares von Rad’s disinterest in
the literary development of the Pentateuch. He writes that the Sinai
literature had already reached such a “complicated compilation within the
Pentateuchal tradition that today an intelligible analysis can no longer be
successfully undertaken.”
 DoZeMAN AND SCHMiD: iNTRoDuCTioN 3
such rather than its literary unity”; consequently, the
literary development of the separate themes never became
an object of study.
Rendtorff argued that the one-sided focus on early
complexes of tradition left a gap in methodology between
the smaller units of tradition and the final literary
development of the Pentateuch. Von Rad and Noth filled the
gap by assuming the existence of sources in the literary
formation of the Pentateuch, but this presented a
methodological problem for Rendtorff, who concluded that
the literary formation of the Pentateuch had not yet
received enough analysis to support the theory of
continuous and unified literary sources, especially in light of
the insights from tradition history concerning the
independent status of the complexes of tradition. what was
required, according to Rendtorff, was a new study of the
literary reworking of the independent complexes of
tradition and their arrangement in the present form of the
Pentateuch, which von Rad had attributed to the Yahwist
author writing in the early monarchical period and Noth to
a Grundschrift composed even earlier.
Rendtorff sought to fill the gap in methodology between
oral tradition and literary development through a study of
the ancestral stories in Genesis, which were organized
around the theme of the divine promise. His study had two
goals. The first was to investigate the literary development
of the individual elements of the theme of promise,
including land, descendants, blessing, guidance, and divine
self-introduction. Rendtorff was especially interested in
recovering the process of transmission by which the
individual elements of the theme of promise were combined
to create the present form of the text. The methodology
would provide a partial test of whether the composition of
the ancestral complex of tradition supported source
criticism or required a new model. The second goal was to
examine the distribution of the theme of the promise to the
ancestors in other tradition complexes in the Pentateuch,
including the exodus, the wilderness wandering, and the
revelation at Sinai in exodus–Numbers. The distribution
would provide insight into the organic relationship of the
distinct tradition complexes.
 A FAReweLL To THe YAHwiST?
Rendtorff’s study of the tradition complex of the
ancestors provided the basis for his rejection of source
criticism as the methodology that best explained the literary
process of transmission. First, he concluded that the theme
of the promise to the ancestors underwent a multilayered
process of composition in which the combination of the
elements of the promise (e.g., posterity, land, blessing)
served to relate the separate traditions of the individual
ancestors into a larger literary complex. The literary
process favored a theory of supplementation or “planned
theological editing” rather than source criticism. Second,
Rendtorff also noted that the theme of the promise to the
ancestors, so central to the reworking of Genesis, was
nearly absent in exodus–Numbers. He concluded that the
Moses story was reworked from an entirely different point
of view than the ancestral stories and that the few cross-
references to the promise to the ancestors in exodus–
Numbers were late literary developments to relate the two
tradition complexes, which had developed separately and
thus did not belong together in any organic way. This
conclusion also argued against the theory of source
criticism, with its presupposition of an early Yahwistic
source that included literature from Genesis through
Numbers or Joshua. Rendtorff was clear in his rejection of a
Yahwistic author writing in the monarchical period, but he
was less clear on the identity of the author(s) who created
the Pentateuch by linking the separate tradition complexes,
avoiding a decision about whether a Deuteronomistic or a
Priestly layer first brought together the different themes of
the Pentateuch.
4

An important step beyond the initiative taken by

Rendtorff was provided by the studies on the composition of
the Pentateuch by erhard Blum.2 After a thorough literary
analysis, he formulated a proposal on the process of its
compositon that focused on two main subsequent, but
nearly contemporaneous, compositional layers: a

2 . See erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (wMANT

57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984); idem, Studien zur
Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).
 DoZeMAN AND SCHMiD: iNTRoDuCTioN 5
Deuteronomistic one (KD) and a Priestly one (KP). Before
them, the traditions in Genesis, on the one hand, and in
exodus through Numbers/Deuteronomy, on the other,
literarily grew independently from each other. They were,
however, conceptionally linked; that is, the narrative
continuation of Genesis into exodus was already part of a
given intellectual matrix for the literarily still-unconnected
traditions. in a recent contribution Blum has stressed
further the literary gap between Genesis and exodus and
has limited the literary extension of KD from exodus to
Numbers/Deuteronomy.3 Therefore, KP formulated the first
literary connection between Genesis and exodus.
Comparable in this regard, Albert de Pury and Thomas
Römer argued already in the late 1980s and the early 1990s
for the pre-Priestly independence of the stories in Genesis,
on the one hand, and in exodus, on the other. 4 The main line
of their thesis is that the first literary outline of the
Pentateuch was not that of the Yahwist of the monarchical
period or even the pre-Priestly, exilic Yahwist (as stated, for
example, by John Van Seters) but that of the Priestly author
in the postexilic period. A counterpart to this thesis is that
the non-Priestly literature presupposing the same master
narrative of salvation history was the composition of a post-
Priestly redactor who was dependent on the Priestly
material. Before the Priestly author, the ancestral story and
the exodus story most likely existed side by side, presenting
two different and competing views and concepts of israel’s
origins and identity: the ancestral story developed a
geographically autochthonous concept of israel and a
theologically inclusive notion of God, while the exodus story

3 . erhard Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von erzvätern und

exodus: ein Gespräch mit neueren endredaktions-hypothesen,” in
Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten
Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 00), 119–
56. See also his contribution in this volume.
4 . See, e.g., Albert de Pury, “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende
autonome des origines d’israël,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J.
A. emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 78–96; idem, “osée 1 et ses
implications pour le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque,” in Le Pentateuque:
Débats et recherches (ed. P. Haudebert; LD 151; Paris: Cerf, 199), 175–07;
Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im
Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (oBo 99;
Fribourg: universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).
 A FAReweLL To THe YAHwiST?
presented the allochthonous origin of israel in egypt and
advocated an exclusive understanding of God.
A Farewell to the Yahwist? discusses from various
perspectives the thesis of the literary interrelationship
between Genesis and exodus, namely, whether the Priestly
author was the first to combine the tradition of the
ancestors with the story of Moses and the exodus, creating
the master narrative of salvation history as a progression
from the divine promise of land, posterity, and blessing to
the ancestors to the exodus from egypt and the journey to
the promised land. This book has a forerunner in the
German volume Abschied vom Jahwisten, which was
published in 00 and collected papers of some of the major
exponents of this theory.5 The present volume also contains
voices critical to the general literary separation of the pre-
Priestly material in Genesis and exodus, so its title ends,
contrary to its German predecessor, with a question mark.
one of the goals of this volume is to facilitate
communication between european and North American
scholars and to provide a critical discussion of recent
directions of pentateuchal studies in europe.
The essays in A Farewell to the Yahwist? are organized
loosely into three parts. in the opening section Thomas
Römer (university of Lausanne, Switzerland) reviews the
history of research surrounding the identification of the
Yahwist in “The elusive Yahwist: A Short History of
Research.” He catalogues the many modifications that have
taken place in the definition of J throughout the scholarly
constructs in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, taking
the reader through to the recent work of Rolf Rendtorff.
Konrad Schmid (university of Zürich, Switzerland) presents
the thesis of the volume in “The So-Called Yahwist and the
Literary Gap between Genesis and exodus.” He examines
the lack of narrative unity between Genesis and exodus, the
redactional links between the two books, and the literary
connection between the patriarchs and the exodus in
Priestly literature. His essay concludes with a summary of
the implications of attributing the original linking of

5 . Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus witte, eds.,

Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten
Diskussion (BZAw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 00).
 DoZeMAN AND SCHMiD: iNTRoDuCTioN 7
Genesis and exodus to Priestly literature for the study of the
history of religion and for theology.
The middle portion of the volume includes a series of
more narrowly focused exegetical studies on the transition
between Genesis and exodus in Gen 50, exod 1, and the call
of Moses in exod 3–4. Albert de Pury (university of Geneva,
Switzerland) provides the point of departure by
summarizing his research on the separation of the Jacob
story and the story of Moses until the writing of the Priestly
history under the influence of the reign of Cyrus in “The
Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the
Pentateuch.” De Pury explores the independent status of
the Jacob story in the northern kingdom, the tension
between the Jacob legend and the prophetic emphasis on
Moses in Hos 6

1, and the combination of the two origin traditions in the

Priestly history. Jan Christian Gertz (university of
Heidelberg, Germany) provides a close reading of the
literary transition in Gen 50–exod 1 from the patriarchs and
Joseph to Moses in “The Transition between the Books of
Genesis and exodus.” Gertz argues that the transition
between Gen 50 and exod 1 is the decisive thematic
connection within the pentateuchal narrative and that it
was first established by the Priestly author. once it
originated, all succeeding redactors were required to
embrace this connection as the historically accurate and
theologically intended sequence. Thus, for Gertz, “The
string holding the pearls of the non-Priestly pentateuchal
narratives was furnished by P!” erhard Blum (university of
Tübingen, Germany) broadens the study of the literary
connection between Genesis and exodus in “The Literary
Connection between the Books of Genesis and exodus and
the end of the Book of Joshua.” Blum interprets the literary
transition between Gen 50–exod 1 and the call of Moses in
exod 3–4 in conjunction with a series of related texts
stretching from the purchase of Shechem (Gen 35) to the
burial of the bones of Joseph (Josh 4). The compositional
and editorial fabric of the motif of Joseph’s bones creates a
profile of related texts including Gen 50:4–6; exod 1:6, 8;
Judg :6–8; and Josh 4:8–31, which represent a redactional
 A FAReweLL To THe YAHwiST?
stratum by the same author, who sought to fashion a
“Hexateuch” (or, more precisely, the “book of the Torah of
God” [Josh 4:6]). The compositional stratum is dependent on
both pre-Priestly tradition and the Priestly material in the
Pentateuch, which identifies the author as post-Priestly. The
dependence of this author on the Priestly composition of
exod 1:1–5 in composing Gen 50:4–6 and exod 1:6, 8
suggests that the Priestly author was the first to bring
together the major traditions of the Pentateuch, including
the primeval history, the narratives of the patriarchs, and
the exodus narrative. in “The Commission of Moses and the
Book of Genesis,” Thomas B. Dozeman (united Theological
Seminary, Dayton, ohio) compares the commission of Moses
in exod 3–4 to the Priestly version in exod 6–7 to evaluate
whether the composition is pre-Priestly or post-Priestly. A
comparison of the form of the commission in conjunction
with a study of its central motifs suggests that the
commission of Moses in exod 3–4 is a pre-Priestly
composition and that the Priestly version in exod 6–7 is
dependent upon it. The form-critical and literary study leads
to the conclusion that the pre-Priestly author of exod 3–4,
rather than the Priestly author, was the first to relate the
books of Genesis and exodus into the master narrative of
the Pentateuch.
The volume concludes with three responses to the thesis
that the Priestly author was the first to create the master
narrative of the Pentateuch. Christoph Levin (university of
Munich, Germany) underscores areas of agreement with the
thesis of the volume, including the late combination of the
books of Genesis and exodus, the nature of the non-Priestly
texts as not forming a coherent work from the beginning,
and the formation of the narrative of the Tetrateuch in the
postexilic period. But he disagrees that the relationship
between Genesis and exodus is the central problem in the
formation of the Pentateuch, while he also identifies a pre-
Priestly Yahwistic (J) editor as the redactor who first
fashioned the continuous narrative of the Tetrateuch. John
Van Seters (waterloo, Canada) agrees with the criticism of
the early dating of the Yahwist to the monarchical period
but is critical of the emphasis on redaction and complex
editorial processes to account for the formation of the
 DoZeMAN AND SCHMiD: iNTRoDuCTioN 9
Pentateuch. Van Seters argues, instead, for von Rad’s
original understanding of the Yahwist as an author and
historian. He seeks to demonstrate through a study of Gen
50 and exod 1 that the pre-Priestly, exilic Yahwist was the
author who combined the ancestral material in Genesis with
the story of Moses in exodus–Numbers, creating in the
process a historiography of the origin of ancient israel.
David M. Carr (union Theological Seminary, New York)
provides a broad overview of the arguments in the volume.
He clarifies that the debate over the identification of a pre-
Priestly Pentateuch has nothing to do with the J source of
classical source criticism. This holds true even for those
who continue to use the term Yahwist, as in the case of
Christoph Levin and John Van Seters. His response also
surveys the different methodological models employed for
joining the traditions of the ancestors and the exodus in
both Priestly and non-Priestly literature. in addition, Carr
provides a more detailed literary study of Gen 50 and exod
1, distinguishing between Priestly and pre-Priestly tradition.
His response closes by examining the identification of post-
Priestly material in the Pentateuch.
A Farewell to the Yahwist? is the outgrowth of a special
session of the Pentateuch Section held during the Society of
Biblical Literature 004 Annual Meeting in San Antonio. The
session, which was conceived and organized by Thomas B.
Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid, included the
papers by Thomas Römer, Konrad Schmid, Jan Christian
Gertz, Thomas B. Dozeman, Christoph Levin, and David M.
Carr. Because Albert de Pury’s and erhard Blum’s
contributions were not part of that session, the responses in
this volume do not refer to them. The editors thank
Christopher R. Matthews for accepting this work for
publication in the Society of Biblical Literature’s
Symposium Series and for providing advice in the editorial
process.
 The elusive YahwisT: a shorT hisTorY of research
Thomas Christian Römer

1.Introduction
The current scholarly debate on the Torah is
characterized by a quite paradoxical situation. On the one
hand, a growing number of authors, especially in Europe,
have given up the classical Documentary Hypothesis as a
relevant model for explaining the composition of the
Pentateuch, including the theory of a distinct Yahwistic
source or author (J). Even scholars still holding to this
model, such as Horst Seebass, for instance, must concede:
“Among all source critical-theories about the Pentateuch, J
is the most unstable one.”6 On the other hand, recent
textbooks or publications for a larger audience still present
the Documentary Hypothesis as a firmly established result
of source criticism and historical exegesis, and the so-called
“J” source, in particular, continues to play a preeminent role
in the presentation and discussion of the theory.7
Typically such textbooks and introductions will present J
as the oldest document of the Pentateuch, written under the
reign of Solomon, and containing already the narrative
structure of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch), starting with
the creation of humanity and ending with the conquest of
the promised land. In this model J is thus defined as the first
historian or the first theologian in the Hebrew Bible. 8
Although this conception is presented as the traditional
view on J, a critical survey of scholarship on J reveals that it

6 . “Unter den quellenkritischen Hypothesen des Pentateuch ist die

des J die unstabilste” (Horst Seebass, “Jahwist,” TRE 16[1987]: 441–51).
7 . See, for instance, Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien,
Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with
Sources Revealed (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).
8 . Peter F. Ellis, The Yahwist, The Bible’s First Theologian: With the
Jerusalem Bible Text of the Yahwist Saga (Chicago: Fides, 1968).

--
12 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

actually corresponds only to a rather late development of

the theory under the influence of G. von Rad. For this
reason the first part of this paper will be devoted to a brief
state of the question of J. The aim of the paper is not to offer
an exhaustive history of pentateuchal research9 but to focus
on the major modifications occurring in the definition of J in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. After this short
overview the second part of the paper will be devoted to a
closer analysis of the different conceptions connected with
the Yahwist,10 which will demonstrate the elusive character
of this scholarly construct.

2.The life, or lives, of the Yahwist:

From Birth to Death—or to Resurrection?
2.1. The Birth of the Yahwist

The Yahwist was fathered in the eighteenth century

through the work of Henning Bernhard witter (1711) and

9 . Many of those have been written recently, see, for instance, Félix
García lópez, El Pentateuco: Introducción a la lectura de los cinco
primeros libros de la Biblia (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2003); Cees Houtman,
Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung nebst einer
Auswertung (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994); Otto Kaiser, “The Pentateuch
and the Deuteronomistic History,” in Text in Context: Essays by Members
of the Society for Old Testament Studies (ed. A. D. H. Mayes; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000), 289–322; Ernest Nicholson, The
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1998); Thomas Römer, “la formation du Pentateuque:
Histoire de la recherche,” and Christophe Nihan and Thomas Römer, “le
débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque,” in Introduction à l’Ancien
Testament (ed. T. Römer et al.; MdB 49; Genève: labor et Fides, 2004), 67–
84, 85–113; Jean-louis Ska, Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque: Clés
pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (Brussels:
lessius, 2000); John Van Seters, The Pentateuch: A Social Science
Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Erich Zenger,
“Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im wandel der Forschung,”
in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger; 5th ed.; Studienbücher
Theologie 1/1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 74–123.
10 . For presentations of J, see, besides the article of Seebass
mentioned above, Albert de Pury, “Yahwist (“J”) Source,” ABD 6 (1992):
1012–20; Jean-louis Ska, “The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces: A
Chapter in the History of Modern Exegesis,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten:
Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz
et al.; BZAw 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 1–23; and Peter weimar,
“Jahwist,” Neues Bibel Lexikon 1 (2001): 268–71.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 13

Jean Astruc (1753). Both authors, working on the book of

Genesis and trying to explain the different divine names,
came to the conclusion that the Pentateuch was compiled
from different documents.11 Astruc distinguished several
documents, especially a document “A” speaking of God as
“Elohim” and a document “B” using the divine name
“Jehova.” In his 1780 Introduction to the Old Testament,
Eichhorn distinguished, apparently independently from
Astruc, two sources for the book of Genesis: an “Elohim
document” and a “Jehova document.” Both are, according to
Eichhorn, limited to the book of Genesis. The rest of the
Pentateuch consists of various documents from the time of
Moses. In his fourth edition (1823), Eichhorn gave up the
notion of Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch and
attributed the gathering and the grouping of the main
documents of Genesis and of the other books to a compiler. 12
Since he limited the Jehova and Elohist documents to the
book of Genesis and postulated the existence of other
documents for the following books, Eichhorn’s conception
of the formation of the Pentateuch came very close to a
fragmentary theory, such as it was defended by Alexander
Geddes in 1792.13
The next step in the creation of the Yahwist can be found
in the work of Karl David Ilgen on the sources of the
Pentateuch, of which only the first part dealing with the
book of Genesis actually appeared. 14 Ilgen locates the
sources of the Pentateuch in the temple archives of
Jerusalem. He distinguishes seventeen different sources and
attributes these sources to three “compilers” or “writers”

11 . Henning B. witter, Jura Israelitarum in Palestiniam terram

(Hildesheim, 1711); Jean Astruc, Conjectures sur la Genèse (1753):
Introduction et notes de Pierre Gibert (Paris: Noêsis, 1999).
12 . Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament I–III
(1780–83) (4th ed.; Göttingen: Rosenbusch, 1823). In English one may
consult Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament: A Fragment
Translated by G. T. Gollop (from the 3rd German edition; n.p.: privately
published, 1803).
13 . Alexander Geddes, The Holy Bible: Or the Books Accounted
Sacred by Jews and Christians; Otherwise Called the Books of the Old and
New Covenants I (london: Davis, 1792).
14 . Karl David Ilgen, Die Urkunden des jerusalemischen
Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urgestalt, als Beytrag zur Berichtigung der
Geschichte der Religion und Politik (Halle: Hemmerde & Schwetschke,
1798).
14 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

whom he labels according to their use of the divine name:

the first and the second Elohist, and the Jehovist (Ilgen does
not speak of a “Yahwist,” since the usual pronunciation of
the Tetragrammaton in his time was “Jehova”). As Eichhorn
before him, Ilgen was aware that the use of the divine name
was not sufficient to attribute the texts to one of these three
writers. He thus added further criteria such as repetitions
and differences in ideology, style, and vocabulary.15
After de wette’s isolation of Deuteronomy as an
independent source, which could be dated in the seventh
century b.c.e., the work of H. Hupfeld constitutes a major
advance toward the establishment of the “new
Documentary Hypothesis.” In his 1853 book, which deals
again with Genesis, Hupfeld confirms Ilgen’s idea of two
Elohists (an earlier E, which would become later the
Priestly source, and a second, later E) as well as a
“Yahwist” (which he labels “Jhwh-ist”). The Yahwist is for
Hupfeld the youngest document of the three.
The first Elohist is the Urschrift, which the redactor of the
Pentateuch takes as the basis and within which he
incorporates as completely as possible the later Elohist as
well as the Yahwist.

2.2. The Yahwist as Oldest Source of the Documentary

Hypothesis

The transformation of the Yahwist into the oldest source

of the Pentateuch occurred when the so-called first Elohist
was gradually acknowledged to be not the earliest source
but the latest in light of the research of Eduard Reuss and
Karl Heinrich Graf.16 This new paradigm was essentially
taken over by Abraham Kuenen and Julius wellhausen.
Interestingly, Kuenen’s Yahwist is again defined on the basis
of observations made by the Dutch scholar on the book of
Genesis: “we also find in Genesis … another set of
narratives or pericopes, which are connected together, and

15 . On Ilgen, see Bodo Seidel, Karl David Ilgen und die

Pentateuchforschung im Umkreis der sogenannten Älteren
Urkundenhypothese: Studien zur Geschichte der exegetischen
Hermeneutik in der späten Aufklärung (BZAw 213; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1993).
16 . For more details, see Robert J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a
Century of Criticism since Graf (VTSup 19; leiden: Brill, 1970).
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 15

which often run parallel to E in matter, though departing

from it in details and language. This group must be derived
from a single work which we call Yahwistic document.” 17 As
is well known, Kuenen and wellhausen were very close and
influenced each other considerably. In his Composition of
the Hexateuch as well as in his Prolegomena to the History
of Israel,18 wellhausen laid the foundations of the
Documentary Hypothesis for at least the next century.
However, and this point is often overlooked, wellhausen
himself had a limited interest in the Yahwist. He was most
skeptical about the possibility of sorting out this source by
means of literary-critical analysis. On the contrary, one
frequently finds in his work (especially in the Composition
of the Hexateuch) the statement that J and E are so closely
interwoven that it is not only impossible but even
unnecessary to separate both documents.19 He thus prefers
to speak of a “Jehovist,” a term that classically designates
now the combination of the Yahwistic and Elohistic
documents. Yet for wellhausen even this “Jehovist” is not a
coherent work, in contrast to Q (that is, our P source);
rather, it passed through different hands before coming to
its present form. One should therefore distinguish at least
three different editions of J (J 1, J2, J3) and three different
editions of E (E1, E2, E3).20 Interestingly, the problematic
results arising from his analysis of J were used against
wellhausen by those among his contemporaries, such as
August Dillmann, who were critical of the new Documentary
Hypothesis. wellhausen did not attempt to provide a precise
dating for the composition of J. He limited himself instead to

17 . Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan

en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds I (leiden: Engels,
1861); English translation: A Historical-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and
Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. H. P. wicksteed; london: Macmillan,
1886), 140. According to Ska (“The Yahwist,” 9), Kuenen was the first to
create the term “Jahwist.”
18 . Julius wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1899) (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1963); Julius wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (sixth ed.;
1927; repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001); English translation: Prolegomena to
the History of Israel (trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies; 1885; Scholars
Press Reprints and Translations Series; repr., Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1994).
19 . wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 35.
20 . Ibid., 7 and 207.
16 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

locating the Jehovist in the Assyrian period and affirmed:

“One cannot give precise information for a period earlier
than the century before 850–750.… It was only at this time
that literature flourished.”21 In fact, since wellhausen was
primarily interested in reconstructing the evolution of the
Israelite religion from a natural, familiar, and local form of
the cult to a regulated, hierarchical, and priestly controlled
form of worship (with the Deuteronomistic reform as
intermediate state), the Jehovist represented for him the
first real document on the original state of Israelite religion.
The attempt to distinguish systematically between J and E
was, in his eyes, both methodologically unsure and, to a
certain extent, even historically pointless. Finally, it should
also be noted that for wellhausen, as for scholars before
him since witter, Astruc, and Ilgen, Genesis played a major
role in describing the “Jehovistic history book.” wellhausen
concluded: “The story of the patriarchs … characterizes this
document the best.”22
As wellhausen before him, Kuenen often treated J and E
together. He also differentiated further between two major
blocks in the Hexateuch, “the Deuteronomistic-prophetic
sacred history (D + JE)” and “the historico-Priestly work
(P),” both of which existed independently until the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah.23 As a matter of fact, many scholars at
the end of the nineteenth century were not interested in
distinguishing precisely between J and E. This is also the
case, for instance, with willy Staerk, who was one of the
first to emphasize a major tension within the Jehovistic
work. He pointed out two different conceptions of Israel’s
possession of Canaan: a “naive and popular one” (in his own
terms), which is found in the patriarchal narratives; and a
second one, more developed and based on a concept of
salvation history (“eine reflektierte und heilsgeschichtliche
Konzeption”), which can be found in the exodus tradition. 24
Staerk was actually much more interested in this opposition
than in the profile of the Jehovist.
21 . Julius wellhausen, Grundrisse zum Alten Testament (ed. R.
Smend; Munich: Kaiser, 1965), 40.
22 . “Die Patriarchengeschichte … charakterisirt [sic] diese Schrift am
besten” (wellhausen, Prolegomena, 7, German edition).
23 . Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 313.
24 . willy Staerk, Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte des
alten Testaments (2 vols.; Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 1:50–51.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 17

Nevertheless some attempts were also made to describe

the “personality” of the Yahwist, as for instance in the work
of Bernhard luther,25 who praised the Yahwist as a literary
genius and a strong personality.26 luther’s Yahwist comes
very close to the ideals of liberal Protestantism, since he is
opposed to everything cultic and shares the ethical
concerns of the preexilic prophets. Heinrich Holzinger and
Samuel Rolles Driver also tried to establish lexicons of the
Yahwist on the basis of his vocabulary and his style. 27
However, these approaches, which presuppose the unity
and the literary homogeneity of J, were quite at odds with
the results attained by other scholars, such as Charles
Bruston, Karl Budde, and Rudolf Smend senior.28 The latter
scholars followed in general wellhausen concerning the lack
of homogeneity of J, and they tried to identify more
precisely discrete editions of the Yahwistic document, even
to the point of postulating the existence of two more
documents behind J.29 The attempt to identify preJ
documents remained popular during the first half of the
twentieth century
(Otto Eissfeldt; Georg Fohrer; Robert H. Pfeiffer). 30
25 . Bernhard luther, “Die Persönlichkeit des Jahwisten,” in Eduard
Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme: Alttestamentliche
Untersuchungen (Halle, 1906; repr., Darmstadt: wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1967), 106–73.
26 . Ibid., 169.
27 . Heinrich Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch: Mit Tabellen
über die Quellenscheidung (Freiburg: Mohr, 1893); Samuel R. Driver, An
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed.; 1913; repr.,
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960).
28 . Charles Bruston, “les deux Jéhovistes,” RTP 18 (1885): 5–34, 429–
528, 602–37; Karl Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen 1–12,5)
(Giessen: Ricker, 1883); Rudolf Smend Sr., Die Erzählung des Hexateuch
auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin: Reimer, 1912).
29 . See also Cuthbert A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel: A
Critical Analysis of the PreDeuteronomic Narrative of the Hexateuch
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1948).
30 . Otto Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse: Die Erzählung der fünf
Bücher Moses und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches
(leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922; repr., Darmstadt: wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1962 [1987]); see in English: The Old Testament: An
Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965): he distinguishes the
Yahwistic source in J and l (“lay source”); Georg Fohrer, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament (11th ed.; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1969): he speaks of
N (nomadic source) instead of l; Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old
Testament (2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948) separated the
18 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

2.3. The Yahwist and the Formgeschichte

The diachronic differentiation of the Yahwistic source was

also adopted by
Hermann Gunkel in his commentary on Genesis, 26 where he
distinguished two Yahwists for the primeval history (J 31e [a
Yahwist using the divine name elohim] and Jj [a Yahwist
using the Tetragrammaton], as well as no less than three
other Yahwists for the patriarchal narratives (two parallel
sources Ja and Jb, and a Yahwistic redactor J r). This
meticulous distribution of J into numerous Yahwistic
fragments conflicts with Gunkel’s statement that it is
impossible to define more precisely the relation of these
different Yahwists: “It is relatively insignificant what the
individual hands contributed to the whole because they are
very indistinct and can never be identified with certainty.” 32
It is well known that Gunkel was actually not interested in
source criticism and the reconstitution of written
documents. His main concern was the investigation of oral
tradition, which, he believed, generated all the narratives of
the book of Genesis. In contrast to the composition of P,
which Gunkel considered to be the work of an author, the
different Yahwists (as well as the Elohistic school) were just
collectors, very much like the Grimm brothers of his time,
whose work was apparently well known to Gunkel. 33 The
Yahwistic collectors neither organized nor altered the
stories that they transmitted and that, besides, had already

Yahwistic source of the patriarchal narratives into J and S (“Southern

Source”). For more details, see Nicholson, Pentateuch in the Twentieth
Century, 43–45. Today Jacques Vermeylen defends the existence of a
“proto-J” who wrote during the reign of David; see his “les premières
étapes littéraires de la formation du Pentateuque,” in Le Pentateuque en
question (ed. A. de Pury and T. Römer; 3rd ed.; MdB 19; Genève: labor et
Fides, 2002), 149–97.
31 . Hermann Gunkel, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (3rd ed.; HKAT
3/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910); English translation:
Genesis (trans. M. E. Biddle; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997).
32 . Gunkel, Genesis, lxxiii, English edition.
33 . Gunkel was probably unaware of the fact that a great number of
their tales did not stem from storytellers they were listening to; they took
them over from already-existing literary collections; see, for instance,
Ernst Axel Knauf, Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments (Neuer Stuttgarter
Kommentar: Altes Testament 29: Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994),
226.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 19

been gathered into cycles (Sagenkränze). As Gunkel states,

these Yahwistic collectors “were not masters but rather
servants of their subjects.”34

2.4. The Yahwist as Author and Theologian

Gunkel’s notion of several collectors has retained little

influence in the contemporary study of the Yahwist. The
current conception of the Yahwist is for the most part the
invention of Gerhard von Rad. what is more, the Yahwist of
von Rad would probably never have been conceived without
the strong influence of Karl Barth’s dialectical theology. In
his 1938 essay on the formcritical problem of the
Hexateuch,35 von Rad resurrected the Yahwist as an author,
a theologian, and the architect of the Hexateuch. He
conceded that J “was certainly a collector, and as such had
an interest in preserving the ancient religious motives of his
material.”31 Yet von Rad blames Gunkel for his “complete
failure to take into account the co-ordinating power of the
writer’s [= J] overall theological purpose.” 32 Against Gunkel,
and probably against the history of religion school in
general, von Rad wrote: “The Yahwist speaks to his
contemporaries out of concern for the real and living faith,
not as more or less detached story-tellers.” 33 Von Rad is also
the first to find a very precise location for the Yahwist by
associating him with the time of Solomon, which he
characterizes as a period of “enlightenment.” As a writer of
the Solomonic court, J offers a theological legitimation of
the new state created by David and consolidated by
Solomon. But J is not only Israel’s first (and probably
greatest ever) theologian; he is also the creator of the
Hexateuch. As such he takes over the old Israelite creed,
which is attested in Deut 26:5–9, Josh 24:2–13, and
elsewhere. The creed included the motifs of the descent to
Egypt, the liberation from Egyptian oppression, and the
settlement in the land. On the basis of this credo, J
composed the Pentateuch by inserting the Sinai tradition
34 . Gunkel, Genesis, lxiv, English edition.
35 . Gerhard von Rad, “Das formgeschichtliche Problem des
Hexateuch,” in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. R.
Smend; 4th ed.; TB 8; Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 9–86. English translation:
“The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in idem, The Problem of
the
20 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

between the exodus and the settlement and by prefacing his

work with the addition of the primeval history. The creation
of the Hexateuch by J occurred through a further
development, which von Rad considers “perhaps the most
important factor of all,” that is, the “integration of the
patriarchal history as a whole with the idea of settlement.” 34
By this combination of two independent traditions, the
Yahwist altered the purpose of the divine promises to the
patriarchs, which were originally related to the
establishment of the patriarchs in Canaan without a
connection to the exodus-settlement tradition. Von Rad’s
recognition of the original difference between the
patriarchal narratives and the settlement tradition was
based on the work of Kurt Galling, who emphasized the
ideological differences between the two traditions and
attributed their literary combination to l (the so-called “lay”
source) and J.35
Von Rad’s conception of the Yahwist profoundly
influenced M. Noth, whose source-critical identification of J
was to become canonical.36 Yet Noth

Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. w. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh:

Oliver & Boyd, 1966; repr., london: SCM, 1984), 1–78.
31. Von Rad, “Problem,” 69, English edition.
32. Ibid., 51.
33. Ibid., 69.
34. Ibid., 60.
35. Kurt Galling, Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels (BZAw 48;
Giessen: Töpelmann, 1928), see esp. 56–63.
36. Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1948); English translation: A History of Pentateuchal
Traditions (trans. B. w. Anderson; Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 1972; repr., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981).
also differed from von Rad on several major issues. 36 First,
Noth gave up the idea of a Hexateuch: since he considered
the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua as belonging to the
Deuteronomistic History, he claimed that the hand of the
Yahwist was not to be found in Joshua. Therefore Noth had
to postulate that the end of the Yahwist was lost when the
36 . See, for instance, Campbell and O’Brien, Sources of the
Pentateuch, 7–10. Contrarily to Noth, von Rad was not much interested in
the concrete problems of source criticism.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 21

Deuteronomistic History was linked with the pentateuchal

sources.37 Second Noth claimed that the Yahwist as well as
the other sources of the Pentateuch “cannot be regarded as
‘authors.’ ”38 According to Noth, J did not invent the literary
connection between the major themes of the Pentateuch
(guidance out of Egypt, guidance into the arable land,
promise to the patriarchs, guidance in the wilderness,
revelation at Sinai). This connection preexisted in a
common Grundlage (basis), whether oral or written, which
was shared by both J and E. The only creative act of J was
the addition of the primeval history to the themes already
present in this Grundlage. Nevertheless, at the end of his
book Noth himself contradicted this introductory statement
by concluding that all the pentateuchal sources should be
traced to the work of authors instead of being ascribed to
schools.39 In fact, Noth himself appears to have hesitated as
to how the nature of the J source should be precisely
defined.40 He was also aware that the patriarchal tradition
was only poorly connected with the following themes of the
Pentateuch. In this context, Noth even observed that this
connection appears only explicitly in “the traditio-
historically late passage Gen 15.”41 In addition, Noth also
suspected the Joseph story to be a late insertion between
the patriarchal narratives and the exodus story. 42 But since
the themes of the Pentateuch (excepted the primeval
history) had already been combined before the Yahwist,
according to Noth, the different theological profiles of the

37 . Noth, History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 16 and 72.

38 . Ibid., 2.
39 . Ibid., 228.
40 . As John Van Seters argues in a forthcoming book, of which he
kindly communicated me some chapters, Noth astonishingly described the
Yahwist as being very different from the Deuteronomist.
41 . Noth, History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 200. like von Rad, Noth
quotes positively Galling: “the theme of the patriarchal history, as Kurt
Galling has already seen quite correctly, was only secondarily placed
before the following themes” (46). See also the comments of Nicholson,
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 84–85, and Konrad Schmid, Erzväter
und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge
Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (wMANT 81;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 8–10.
42 . History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 202. Noth considers the
Joseph story “a traditio-historically late construction.”
22 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

patriarchal and the exodus traditions were automatically

relegated to the oral prehistory of the Torah.
In North America Noth’s conception of J was further
developed in the work of Frank Moore Cross with his own
conception of the ancient “epic sources” that supposedly
underlie the Hebrew Bible. Cross agreed with Noth that J is
based on older traditions, some of which were already
written. But for Cross the older material could be
characterized more precisely as epic traditions, which the
Yahwist transformed into prose accounts. The story of the
conflict at the sea provides an example. The poem in Exod
15 is part of the epic tradition, according to Cross, which
still reflects the Canaanite mythic pattern of the divine
battle against the sea. The Yahwist transforms this epic into
a prose narrative through the composition of Exod 14.
The conception of the Yahwist that has appeared in
textbooks since the
1950s is mostly a combination of the views of von Rad and
Noth, which, in North America, has been further combined
with Cross’s notion of an old demythologized epic tradition.
Thus, to give only a few examples, Robert Pfeiffer praised
the “superb literary form” of the Yahwist and ascribed to
him the “injection of the future conquest of Canaan into the
patriarchal stories by means of divine promises and
significant itineraries.”43 Peter F. Ellis described J as “the
theological opus of an ancient genius … the earliest
monumental theologian in history.”44 And in a 2003
Commentary on the Bible David Noel Freedman still
“adheres to the common, if somewhat conservative, view
that J dates from the United Monarchy … and finds the
complete fulfillment of the promise to the fathers not in the
original settlement under Joshua but in the conquests and
kingdom of David.”45

2.5. The Death of the Yahwist

43 . Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 156. Ellis also

highlighted J as author and theologian (Yahwist, 23–24).
44 . Ellis, Yahwist, viii.
45 . David Noel Freedman, “The Pentateuch,” in Eerdmans
Commentary on the Bible (ed. J. D. G. Dunn and J. w. Rogerson; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 25–31, 27.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 23

The challenge to the conception of the Yahwist as an

author writing in the tenth century b.c.e., and more broadly
to the whole Documentary Hypothesis in general, rapidly
gained ground by the end of the 1970s. Of course, there
were some important forerunners, such as the Danish
scholar Bentzen, who claimed already in his 1949
introduction: “There is a widespread distrust in the
Documentary Hypothesis.” The reason according to Bentzen
was the “strong tendency to separate Gen. from Ex.–Num.
as originally different complexes of tradition.” 46 Quite
similarly, winnett argued in a 1965 article that the book of
Genesis is the work of a “late J,” who wrote in the early
Persian period and composed the book of Genesis by using
older documents (an “early J” for Abraham and Jacob and
an “E” document for the story of Joseph). According to
winnett, it was P who, still later in the postexilic period,
supplemented the work of the “late J” and prefixed it to the
“Mosaic tradition.” P also separated the book of
Deuteronomy from the Deuteronomistic History and
reworked it as the conclusion for the entire Pentateuch.47
The hiatus between the patriarchs and the exodus story
was also a main argument of Rolf Rendtorff, who claimed in
his 1976 monograph that Old Testament scholars never had
a clear idea about the Yahwist, which led him to the
conclusion that the whole Documentary Hypothesis should
definitely be abandoned.4849 Rendtorff took over Noth’s idea
of independent pentateuchal themes but argued that these
themes and traditions had been put together at a much
later stage by redactors who wer influenced by
Deuteronomistic language and theology. As Staerk before
him, Rendtorff insists on the fact that the Moses story does
not presuppose the theme of the promise of the land made

46 . Aage Bentzen, The Books of the Old Testament (vol. 2 of

Introduction to the Old Testament; (Copenhagen: Gads, 1949), 60.
47 . Frederick V. winnett, “Re-examining the Foundations,” JBL 84
(1965): 1–19.
48 . Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch (BZAw 147; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976); English translation: The
Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. J.
Scullion; JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). See also Rolf
Rendtorff, “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal
Criticism,” JSOT 3 (1977):
49 –10.
24 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

to the patriarchs. Analyzing the story of Moses’ call,

Rendtorff comments: “The land is introduced here as an
unknown land.… there is not a word which mentions that
the patriarchs have already lived a long time in this land
and that God has promised it to them and their descendants
as a permanent possession. Following the terminology of
the land in Genesis, those addressed here would be the
‘seed’ for whom the promise holds good. But they are not
spoken to as such.”50 Rendtorff’s ideas were taken over by
E. Blum, who replaced the Yahwist and the Documentary
Hypothesis by a theory of two main “compositions” (D and
P), which created two different accounts of Israel’s origins
during and after the Babylonian exile, by incorporating into
their work older, originally independent stories and
collections of laws.51
2.6. The Rebirth of the Yahwist

For other scholars, who were equally convinced that the

classical documentary theory had to be abandoned, the “old
Yahwist” had indeed to die, but only to enable a new
Yahwist to rise rejuvenated from his ashes. Martin Rose
followed the observations developed by H. H. Schmid in his
book on the “socalled Yahwist,” where he had pointed out
the Deuteronomistic influence on the vocabulary and
ideology of the texts that Noth had attributed to J. 52 Rose
transformed J into a Deuteronomist of the second or third
generation and considered his work in Genesis to Numbers
as a prologue and—simultaneously—a “theological
amendment” to the Deuteronomistic History. 53 Quite
similarly John Van Seters considered the Yahwist to be a
later expansion of the Deuteronomist’s work. 54 But, in
contrast to Rose, Van Seters’ Yahwist is above all an
50 . Rendtorff, Problem of the Process, 128.
51 . Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (wMANT 57;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984); idem, Studien zur Komposition
des Pentateuch (BZAw 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).
52 . Hans Heinrich Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen
und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag,
1976).
53 . Martin Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den
Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (ATANT 67; Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1981); for the same approach, see in English
Frederick H. Cryer, “On the Relationship between the Yahwistic and the
Deuteronomistic Histories,” BN 29 (1985): 58–74.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 25

antiquarian historian who freely composes his work, rather

than integrating older documents that one could
reconstruct, except in the case of the Jacob and Joseph
stories.55 Following winnett, Van Seters argues that J is a
contemporary of Second Isaiah and shares his universal
perspective. like von Rad, Van Seters attributes the
integration of the patriarchal tradition and the exodus to J, 56
but for Van Seters this development took place only at the
end of the exilic period. In the Deuteronomistic History the
combination of the two traditions is still lacking.57
Christoph levin58 also locates J in the exilic period, later
than the book of Deuteronomy but nevertheless earlier than
the Deuteronomistic History. J

54 . John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in

Genesis (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992); idem, The Life of Moses:
The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (louisville: westminster John
Knox, 1994). For the primeval history, Van Seters suggests that J is
directly dependent on the Babylonian version of the flood, which is
conserved in the Epic of Gilgamesh (see also his Pentateuch, 119–20).
55 . According to Dozeman: “the Yahwist of Van Seters has nothing to
do with the Yahwist of the documentary hypothesis”: Thomas B. Dozeman,
“Geography and Ideology in the wilderness Journey from Kadesh through
the Transjordan,” in Gertz et al., Abschied vom Jahwisten, 173–89, 188.
56 . See Van Seters, Pentateuch, 153–54.
57 . John Van Seters, “Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic
Period,” VT 22 (1972): 448–59.
58 . Christoph levin, Der Jahwist (FRlANT 157; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
26 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

-
represents the perspective of a more popular form of
religion, as well as the con cerns of the Diaspora. For this
reason levin argues that J defends the diversity of the cultic
places where Yhwh may be worshiped, as opposed to the
authors of Deuteronomy, who wish to limit the location of
the cultic site. According to levin, J is foremost a collector
and a redactor; he is the first to combine his older sources
into a narrative, which covers (more or less) the extent of
the Pentateuch.59 levin actually combines a fragmentary
theory with a supplementary theory in his description of the
work of the Yahwist, since more than half of the non-Priestly
texts of the Pentateuch are supplements, which numerous
redactors added to the combined Yahwistic and Priestly
narrative. Finally, alongside the work of scholars such as
Rose, Van Seters, and levin, other authors continue to
advocate the traditional view of J as a work of the
monarchical period (thus, in addition to Freedman, also
Nicholson and Seebass).
This overview already reveals that the current state of
the debate about the Yahwist is rather confused. Several
scholars have buried him; others, on the contrary, remain
loyal to the “old” Yahwist of von Rad and Noth, while still
others have attempted to rejuvenate him. To make things
even more complicated: a closer look at the advocates of
the Yahwist reveals that not everyone defends the same
conception of J; quite the contrary.

3.The Various Identities of the Yahwist

3.1. Redactional Process, School, or Author?

The present survey has already demonstrated that there

has never been any real consensus about the meaning of
the symbol J. For wellhausen, J was not homogeneous but

59 . In a recent article levin still argues, as in his book, that the end of
J may be lost; see Christoph levin, “Das israelitische Nationalepos: Der
Jahwist,” in Große Texte alter Kulturen: Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach
Rom (ed. M. Hose; Darmstadt: wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004),
63–86, 74. In a recent reconstruction of J, which Prof. levin kindly sent to
me, he identifies, however, the end of J in Num 25:1 and Deut 34:5, 6*.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 27

-
had developed through various stages. wellhausen also
argued that in many cases J and E could not be
distinguished clearly from each other, an observation that
prompted him to use the term “Jehowist,” under which he
subsumed virtually almost all pre-Deuteronomic and pre-
Priestly texts of the Hexateuch. Ernest Nicholson currently
defends a quite similar idea about J when he argues: “Not
all that can be attributed to J … was written at one sitting,
so to speak.”60 In a sense, Gunkel extended and made even
more radical wellhausen’s view, since he understood J as a
school of collectors who were inter ested in transmitting
faithfully the oral traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Noth is
rather hesitant to describe the profile of J, an observation
already significant in itself. Nevertheless, he comes very
close to Gunkel in his idea of a common basis (Grundlage)
underlying J and E. Noth concluded that at the time when J
wrote his documents the different themes of the Pentateuch
(excepted the primeval history) had already been combined,
and J merely took over this earlier synthesis of traditions.
This idea of a Yahwistic school (or of different Yahwists)
stands in complete opposition to the conception of J as a
personality (B. luther), a notion that blossomed in the work
of von Rad. with von Rad the Yahwist has become not only
an author but also above all a theologian.61 For Van Seters, J
is also an author, but he lives five centuries later and is
more a historian than a theologian. For levin, J is a
redactor; his Yahwist shares the exilic location with Van
Seters’s Yahwist, but Van Seters would never agree with the
idea of J as a redactor.62 And in addition there continues to
be a bewildering diversity in the historical location of J:
today one may find proposals for virtually each century
between the tenth and the sixth centuries b.c.e. 63

3.2. The Problem of the Yahwist’s Extent and Profile

60 . Nicholson, Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 195. See quite

similarly Otto Kaiser, Die erzählenden Werke (vol. 1 of Grundriß der
Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen
28 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

-
The same diversity of views exists with respect to the
extent and the profile of the Yahwist. For an extended
period of time there was consensus that the Documentary
Hypothesis did not apply to a Pentateuch but to a
Hexateuch. The attempts to locate the end of J in Judges or
even in Samuel and Kings never found much support. 64
However, since the J source emphasized the importance of
the patriarchal narratives and the divine promises of the
land, it was assumed that the J source would end with the
fulfillment of these promises in the book of

Schriften des Alten Testaments; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1992), 63, who

considers “J” as a long redactional process starting in the ninth and
ending in the fifth century b.c.e.
61. See also Hans walter wolff, “Das Kerygma des Jahwisten,” EvT 24
(1964): 70–98.
62. John Van Seters, “The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth
Century Anachronism,” JNSL 29 (2003): 1–19.
63. Tenth century: von Rad (“Solomonic enlightenment”); ninth
century: wellhausen; eighth century: Seebass; seventh century: H. H.
Schmid; Philip J. Budd, Numbers (wBC 5; waco, Tex.: 1984), xxiv–xxv;
sixth century: Van Seters, levin.
64. Karl Budde, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr
Aufbau (Giessen: Ricker, 1890); Immanuel Benzinger, Jahvist und Elohist
in den Königsbüchern (BZAw 21; Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1921); Gustav
Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung in Israel: Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten
und Elohisten (Skrifter utgivna av Kungl. Humanistiska
Vetenskapssamfundet i lund 50; lund: Gleerup, 1952).
Joshua. This is why von Rad was displeased with Noth’s
invention of the Deu teronomistic History, since this theory
deprived the Yahwist of its end. Noth was indeed forced to
claim that this end had been lost, and it is still this position
that is advanced today by levin. Another possibility for the
advocates of an exilic or postexilic Yahwist is to consider his
work as a prologue to the Deuteronomistic History (Rose,
Van Seters). Does this mean, therefore, that J tried to
establish a narrative that begins with Genesis and ends with
Kings? And, if this is the case, who then was responsible for
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 29

-
the concept and/or publication of the Pentateuch as a
discrete document or collection of documents?61
There is also no consensus regarding the definition of J’s
style. Since Hans Heinrich Schmid underscored the close
literary relationship between the Yahwist and the
Deuteronomistic style and theology, some scholars have
proposed that J must be closely related to the
Deuteronomistic school (Rose, Cryer). Others, on the
contrary, claim that the Yahwist has nothing to do with the
language and concerns of this school (levin, Seebass). Thus
for Van Seters, even though J may use some
Deuteronomistic vocabulary and expressions, which he took
over from the Deuteronomistic History, his theology should
definitely not be described as “Deuteronomistic.” 62 Recently
levin has sought to produce a list of J’s favorite
expressions,63 yet one finds in this list words such as x), bw+,
d)m, h)r, and so on. levin argues that these very common
terms appear in typical Yahwistic combinations, but one
may ask if his demonstration is really more convincing than
the ideas of his forerunners.

3.3. The Problem of the “Message” of J

Finally, there is also considerable disagreement

regarding the problem of the theology or the “message”
proper to J. For wellhausen, J and E reflected the folk
religion of the kingship period; they were witnesses to the
first stage in the evolution of the Israelite faith. levin also
considers J a representative of popular religion, but this
time no longer during the monarchy, since his J now
advocates the concerns and the ideology of the Judean
diaspora during the exilic period. For Noth, J’s only
contribution to the formation of the Pentateuch was the
61 . According to Van Seters, the Torah was produced by the priestly
caste (Pentateuch, 213); on the other hand, he argues that P can also be
found in the book of Joshua (186–87).
62 . John Van Seters, “The So-called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the
Pentateuch,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup
43; leiden: Brill, 1991), 58–77.
63 . levin, Jahwist, 399–408.
30 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

-
addition of the primeval history, to which Noth even
declared: “The entire weight of the theology of J rests upon
the beginning of its narrative.”64 whereas Budde

64 . Noth, History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 238.

 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 31

attributed to the Yahwist a “nomadic ideal,” the Yahwist of

von Rad celebrates on the contrary the accomplishment of
the promise of the land under the reigns of David and
Solomon. Accordingly, one of the most important texts
found in J for von Rad is the blessing of Gen 12:1–3, 65 which
indicates to him that “The Yahwist bears witness to the fact
that history is directed and ordered by God.” He explains,
with “David’s great feats … [came] … almost overnight …
the fulfillment of God’s ancient decrees” formulated in the
land promises made to the patriarchs.66 whereas von Rad
thought that the Yahwist wrote Gen 12:1–3 on the basis of
older accounts, levin argues on the contrary that the
Yahwist was the inventor of the promises to the patriarchs. 67
But unlike von Rad, who saw in the land promises the
legitimation of the “Solomonic empire,” levin’s Yahwist is
legitimating Jewish life outside the land, especially in
presenting the patriarchs as strangers in the land in which
they are living. Van Seters and Rose describe the message
of J as universalistic. In addition, Rose’s J sounds very
Protestant since he insists on God’s absolute sovereignty
and on humankind’s intrinsic sinfulness.68
Yet there is one aspect shared by all of these
descriptions of J’s message or theological program, namely,
the almost systematic tendency to elucidate it primarily, if
not sometimes exclusively, on the basis of the patriarchal
narratives. This observation brings us to one last issue in
the scholarly discussion on J.

4. The Yahwist and the link between Patriarchs and Exodus

It is a well-known fact that the entire Documentary
Hypothesis, including the notion of a Yahwistic document,
was essentially elaborated through analyses of the book of

65 . Noth agrees with von Rad that Gen 12:1–3 is a passage

formulated by J, but he considered this text as much less important for J’s
theology (see History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 237 with n. 622).
66 . Von Rad, “Problem,” 71 and 73, English edition.
67 . levin, Jahwist, 412.
68 . Martin Rose, Une herméneutique de l’Ancien Testament :
Comprendre – se comprendre – faire comprendre (MdB 46; Genève: labor
et Fides, 2003), 376–77.
32 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

Genesis. Significantly, in spite of the various conceptions of

J over the past two centuries that have been surveyed in
this paper, the book of Genesis has remained the basis for
the study of J. The recent reconstruction of the Yahwistic
history by Christoph levin reveals that 82 percent of the J
document is concentrated on Genesis. Given such a
concentration of J, one wonders whether the so-called
Yahwist should not be limited to Genesis, as was already
suggested by winnett and more recently by Kratz. 69 This
alternative did not encounter much success, however, since
the other important feature of J 70on which almost all his
defenders agree is that he was the artisan of the first Penta-
or Hexateuch; more specifically, J is generally seen as the
first document or author who combined the traditions on
the patriarchs with those of Moses. 71 But in this regard, one
should recall that Noth, while writing his commentary on
Numbers, was actually quite aware of this issue. He
admitted that if one were to analyze the composition of the
book of Numbers without the model of the Documentary
Hypothesis, “we would think not so much of ‘continuous’
sources as of an unsystematic collection of innumerable
pieces of tradition of very varied content.”72
As we have already seen, the ideological hiatus between
the patriarchal narratives and the exodus story has been
taken into account from the beginning of historical-critical
exegesis. In 1899 willy Staerk paid attention to the
difference between the patriarchal and the exodus
traditions and demonstrated that outside the Hexateuch
these traditions were not connected before the seventh or
sixth century b.c.e. He also argued that, even if the Jehowist
did combine both traditions, he did not suppress their
different, if not conflicting, conceptions of Israel’s claim to

69 . Reinhard G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des

Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Uni-Taschenbücher 2157;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000),
70 –330. Kratz limits J to Gen 1–36*; he labels “E” the original exodus-
story running from Exod 1* to Josh 12*.
71 . A notable exception is Noth, for whom this blending happened
already before J.
72 . Martin Noth, Numbers (trans. J. D. Martin; OTl; Philadelphia:
westminster, 1968), 4.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 33

the land in Genesis and in the rest of the Hexateuch. 73 Kurt

Galling confirmed the original independence of the exodus
and the patriarchs. He attributed to the first Yahwist (which
he identifies with the “lay document,” or l) the creation of
the patriarchal narratives as a universalistic prologue to the
Moses story. But once J was dated in the tenth century,
scholars became less interested in the gap between the
patriarchs and the exodus. The main concern was to
describe the literary profile or the theology of J; the issue of
the pre- Yahwistic traditions underlying this document was
not a major concern.
However, this issue became significant once again when
the Yahwist of von Rad and Noth came under attack. For
Rendtorff, the hiatus between the two major themes was a
strong argument against the classical documentary theory.
The hiatus was also emphasized by Albert de Pury;
according to him, the Jacob and the Moses stories were two
different origin myths, as can be seen in particular in Hos
12. The combination of both myths was probably later than
the composition of the Deuteronomistic History, which has
no interest in the patriarchal tradition. 74 For these scholars
who relocated the Yahwist from Solomon’s reign to the
Babylonian exile, J was still the one who elaborated the
literary connection between Genesis and Exodus, but in this
new perspective the traditions of the patriarchs and the
exodus were necessarily independent until the sixth
century.
In regard to the current debate about the formation of
the Pentateuch, one should agree with David Carr’s
statement: “The main literary-critical division in the pre-P
Pentateuch materials is not between a J and an E source.…
[It] may be between the Moses story and its backward
extension through the composition of an early form of
Genesis.”78 The importance of this division has recently led
Erhard Blum to modify his theory about the formation of the
Pentateuch, since he envisages now that the Pre-priestly “D
73 . Staerk, Studien I, 50–51.
74 . See especially Albert de Pury, “le cycle de Jacob comme légende
autonome des origines d’Israël,” in Emerton, Congress Volume, 78–96;
idem, “Hosea 12 und die Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels und
seines Gottes,” in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Mono-
34 A FAREwEll TO THE YAHwIST?

composition” did not comprise Genesis and began with the

story of Moses’ birth and call.79 There is indeed a growing
consensus about the relatively “late” origin of the
combination of Genesis and the following books, but the
question of the “author” of this combination is still open.
was the Priestly writer the first to link the patriarchs with
the exodus (see already winnett and now especially K.
Schmid, Gertz, Otto, witte)?80 Did the Deuteronomists
create this link (Ska81)? Or was there a seventh-century
(Zenger) or an exilic (Kratz) “Jehovistic” redactor? 82 Or
should one still retain the traditional solution attributing
this link, and together with it the first edition of the
Pentateuch, to a “Yahwist”? In our view, the last solution is

theismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen

Religionsgeschichte (ed. w. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein; OBO 139;
Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994),
413–39; idem, “le choix de l’ancêtre,” TZ 57 (2001): 105–14. See further
Thomas Römer, “Deuteronomy in Search of Origins,” in Reconsidering
Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic Historsy (ed. G.
N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville; SBTS 8; winona lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2000), 112–38; Bernhard lang, “Väter Israels,” Neues Bibel Lexikon 3
(2001): 989–93; and Folker V. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch’s
Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity (JSOTSup 361;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).
78. David M. Carr, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story:
Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives,” in Studies in the Book of
Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. wénin; BETl 155;
leuven: leuven University Press; Peeters, 2001), 273–95.
79. Erhard Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und
Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Forschungshypothesen,” in Gertz et
al., Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119–56.
80. winnett, “Re-examining the Foundations”; Schmid, Erzväter und
Exodus; Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der
Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch
(FRlANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999); Eckart Otto,
Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur
Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des
Deuteronomiumsrahmen (FAT 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 261–
64; Markus witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und
theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAw 265;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998).
81. Ska, Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque, 280–88.
 RöMER: THE ElUSIVE YAHwIST 35

82. Zenger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 100–105; Kratz,

Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments.
the less attractive one. Nicholson, who defends the
traditional view, argues: “we are bound to ask what idea
pre-exilic Israel can have of its own history if it had not yet
joined together its memories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
with those of Moses and the exodus.”75 To this we respond:
we are first bound to ask if the Pentateuch offers any sort of
indication for a thoroughgoing Yahwistic document
connecting Genesis with Exodus at a pre-Priestly stage.

75 . Nicholson, Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 130.

 The So-Called YahwiST and The liTerarY Gap
BeTween GeneSiS and exoduS*
Konrad Schmid

The Documentary Hypothesis with its four elements J, E,

P, D has reached nearly a canonical status within Hebrew
Bible scholarship in the twentieth century. The
Documentary Hypothesis is based on the assumption that
there are three similar narrative accounts of Israel’s history
between the creation, the ancestors, and the exodus to the
conquest of the land: J, E, and P. The storyline of the
Pentateuch was determined to be very old: the so-called
Yahwist (J) adapted the structure of the narrative from the
creeds of ancient Israel, and the structure of the narrative
accounts of E and P were mere epigones or imitations of J.
However, in the last thirty years serious doubts have arisen
concerning this model.
Since the work of Rolf Rendtorff 1 and others a very
common and simple observation on the narrative structure
of the Pentateuch has gained increasing acceptance: the
different narrative parts of the Pentateuch—the primeval
history, the patriarchal stories, and the exodus story—stand
more or less on their own. They seem to be much more
autonomous literary units in their original form than parts
of a long story from the creation to the conquest of the land.
So one may ask: Did the older sources, J and E, really exist?
The weakness of the so-called Elohistic source (E) has
long been recognized.2 Its different parts do not form a
continuing narrative account. They are mere fragments.
One might think of some texts in Gen 20–22 of something
like

*English translation by Anselm C. Hagedorn (Berlin).

1. Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin:
38 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

de Gruyter, 1977); English translation: The Problem of the Process of

Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. J. Scullion; JSOTSup 89;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
2. Cf. Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein
Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An der Genesis erläutert (BZAW 63; Giessen:
Töpelmann, 1933).

-29 -
an E source, but beyond this it is difficult to postulate an
3

overarching Elohistic work from the ancestors in Genesis to

a conclusion somewhere in the book of Numbers.76
The Yahwist (J) has also come under controversial
discussion as well in the recent years. 77 Which texts should
be assigned to J? Does J belong to the period of the
Solomonic kingdom, to the eighth century, or to the
Babylonian exile? Where is its literary end? This is not the
place to unravel the debate, but it becomes more and more
clear that J as a coherent redactional work can only be
detected in the book of Genesis. The J hypothesis was
developed from the texts in the book of Genesis, and it
never really fit the other books of the Pentateuch. Martin
Noth, for example, wrote at the outset of his commentary on
Numbers: “If one takes the book of Numbers for itself, one
would not explain it by ‘continuing sources.’ ”78 limiting J to
76 . The main argument for E proposed by Axel Graupner, Der
Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der
Geschichte (WMANT 97; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002), 4, 7–8,
is the coincidence of the Yhwh-/Elohim syndrome with textual doublets in
the Pentateuch. The observation as such is true for some evident cases
(e.g,. Gen 1 and 2–3; Gen 6–9;
Gen 15 and 17; Exod 3–4 and 6), but these cases lead to the distinction
between P and non-P-texts (and not between J and E).
77 . See especially Jan Christian Gertz et al., eds., Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion
(BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002).
78 . Martin Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri (3rd ed.; ATD 7;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 7 (translation mine, original
text: “Nimmt man das 4. Mosebuch für sich, so käme man nicht leicht auf
den Gedanken an ‘durchlaufende Quellen’, sondern eher auf den
Gedanken an eine unsystematische Zusammenstellung von zahllosen
Überlieferungsstücken sehr verschiedenen Inhalts, Alters und Charakters
[‘fragmentenhypothese’]. Aber es wäre eben, wie schon bei der
Inhaltsangabe gezeigt wurde, unsachgemäß, das 4. Mosebuch zu
isolieren. Es hat im alttestamentlichen Kanon von Anfang an zu dem
größeren Ganzen des Pentateuch gehört; und auch die wissenschaftliche
Arbeit an diesem Buch hat immer wieder nur bestätigen können, dass es
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 39

the book of Genesis means at the same time that one leaves
the usual definition of J behind, in which J was understood
to be the main ordering thread of the pre-Priestly
Tetrateuch. A Yahwistic work that is limited only to the book
of Genesis no longer matches the fundamental criteria of
this hypothesis. Therefore, it seems appropriate to argue for
a “farewell to J.”79 This

3. However, Gen 22 seems clearly to be a redactional text; see Konrad

Schmid, “Die Rückgabe der Verheißungsgabe: Der ‘heilsgeschichtliche’
Sinn von Genesis 22 im Horizont innerbiblischer Exegese,” in Gott und
Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift O. Kaiser (ed. M. Witte; BZAW 345/1; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2004), 271–300.
might sound radical for some ears, but it is a scholarly fact
that this perception is gaining more and more acceptance at
least in the European context.8081
This paper will address the following three observations
that lead to the abandonment of the J hypothesis in the
sense of a pre-Priestly Tetrateuch. They all have to do with
the literary gap between Genesis and Exodus (1) more
generally, there is a certain lack of narrative affinity
between these two books; (2) more specifically, the sparse
redactional bridges between Genesis and Exodus are mostly
late, that is, presupposing P; (3) the findings in P itself show
quite clearly that the connection of the patriarchal
narratives and exodus is a new creation of its author or
authors.

1. The lack in Narrative Affinity between Genesis and

Exodus
The narrative movement from Genesis to Exodus is clear,
but scholars have long recognized that there is not a
in diesem größeren Zusammenhang gesehen werden muss. Es ist daher
gerechtfertigt, mit den anderwärts gewonnenen Ergebnissen der
Pentateuchanalyse an das 4. Mosebuch heranzutreten und die
durchlaufenden Pentateuch-‘Quellen’ auch in diesem Buche zu erwarten,
selbst wenn, wie gesagt, der Sachverhalt im 4. Mosebuch von sich aus
nicht gerade auf diese Ergebnisse hinführt”).
79 . See Gertz et al., Abschied vom Jahwisten.
80 . See Kenton l. Sparks, The Pentateuch: An Annotated Bibliography
(Grand Rapids: Baker,
81 ), 32.
40 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

smooth transition from one book to the other. Rather, we

encounter a decisive break that cannot simply be explained
by referring to the oral prehistory of the material as
proposed by Gerhard von Rad82 and Martin Noth (who at the
same time clearly recognized the relative independence of
the main themes in the Pentateuch).83 Instead, this break is
of a literary nature and thus requires a literary explanation
within the framework of the formation of the Pentateuch as
a written text. All this is not necessarily new, but the
importance and the depth of this caesura has thus far been
underestimated by assuming that this break was already
bridged by the Yawhist in the tenth century b.c.e. and by
the Elohist in the eighth century b.c.e. The following
observations do not yet prove specifically the lack of a pre-
Priestly connection between Genesis and Exodus, but they
set the stage for the following arguments.
(1) The chronology of the transition from the patriarchal
period to the exodus gives a first hint concerning the
discontinuity between these blocks of literature. P
presupposes and integrates a tradition that reckons with a
stay of the Israelites in Egypt that lasted for centuries (Exod
12:40–41 [P]: 430 years).84 This stands in contrast to the
information in Exod 1:8,12 which mentions a change in
generation after Joseph, and in Exod 2:1 (cf. 6:20), in which
Moses is a grandson of levi on his maternal side—if read in
the light of the Genesis tradition (which originally might not
be presupposed in Exod 2:1). The extended chronology in P
does not reflect a tight literary connection between Genesis
and Exodus but merely the knowledge of a formerly

82 . Gerhard von Rad, “Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs,”

in idem, Gesammelte
Studien zum Alten Testament (TB 8; Munich: Kaiser, 1958), 9–86; English
translation: “The formCritical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in idem, The
Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman
Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966; repr., london: SCM, 1984), 1–78.
83 . Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948); English translation: A History of
Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson; Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 1972; repr., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981).
84 . lxx and Sam. are fully aware of this problem and try to harmonize
Exod 12:40–41 with
Exod 1:8 and 2:1 by stating that the 430 years in Exod 12:40–41 have to
be applied to the staying
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 41

independent exodus story, which would have included the

notion of a very long oppression of the Israelites in Egypt.
(2) The story of Joseph adds further doubts regarding a
continuing Grundschicht in Genesis–Exodus, as the J
hypothesis would suggest. The narrative goes to great pains
to explain why and how Israel ended up in Egypt. However,
it does not succeed in creating a wholly plausible transition
from the patriarchs to the exodus: the book of Genesis
depicts Joseph as an honored man serving at the Egyptian
court under a pharaoh who was favorable to him while also
picturing the Israelites as nomads. Yet the same Israelites
appear in the beginning of the book of Exodus as badly
treated conscript laborers, a status normally reserved for
prisoners of war, under a pharaoh who is now a cruel
despot and who wants to exploit and contain them. This
complete change in circumstances and setting of the
narrative is only explained by a brief transitional note in
Exod 1:6–8 that mentions the death of Joseph and his
generation. This text, moreover, introduces a new pharaoh
who is no longer acquainted with Joseph, even though his
position of leadership had made him the second most
prominent man in the state (Gen 41:37–46). Is that the
narrative style of a continuous story? One gets the
impression that two already-fixed and separate literary
blocks were joined together, rather than a single narrative
in which events moves organically from Genesis to Exodus.
The unevenness of the literary relationship between Genesis
and Exodus leads to the more precise conclusion that the
statement in Exod 1:8, “Now there arose a new king over
Egypt, who did not know Joseph,” is a narrative device that
contextualizes the story of Joseph because otherwise the
story of the exodus cannot be told. This means at the same
time that the Joseph story was not shaped to bridge the gap
between Genesis and Exodus. Only by means of later
redactional insertions could the story of Joseph fulfill this
function, as is evident in Gen 50:14.13 The forefathers of
Israel dwell in the land of Canaan

of Israel in Canaan and Egpyt. See Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times:
Myth and History in Biblical Chronology (JSOTSup 66; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1990), 33–36.
42 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

12. See Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur

doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der
Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; NeukirchenVluyn:
Neukirchener, 1999), 69–73.
13. Cf. Konrad Schmid, “Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch,” in
Gertz et al., Abschied vom Jahwisten, 83–118, 103–4.
in Gen 50, and it is only by means of the one verse (Gen
50:14) that they are brought back to Egypt to set the stage
for the exodus.85
(3) In a comparable way, the several promises to the
patriarchs, which are obviously the most important
redactional pieces of cohesion in Genesis, 86 do not imply
that they originally focused on the exodus. Among the many
promises of the land in Genesis, only one passage (Gen
15:13–16, cf. 50:24) states that the descendants of the
patriarchs would have to leave Canaan before the promise
of the land would be fulfilled in a second immigration. The
other promises in Genesis do not share this view. On the
contrary, it is quite alien to them, as the formulation “to you
and to your descendants” indicates.87
In addition, the non-P texts containing promises (the
traditional J texts) concerning the increase of descendants
do not point to the story of the exodus. The same absence of
a literary connection can be noticed in the non-P story in
Exodus. The statement about Israel becoming a great
people does not refer back to the prominent non-Priestly
promises of increase at the beginning of the patriarchal
narrative (e.g., Gen 12:2; 13:13).88 The comparison of the
promise of descendants to Abraham in Gen 12:2 and the
statement of Pharaoh in Exod 1:9 illustrates the absence of
a clear relationship between the two bodies of literature.
Gen 12:2 Exod 1:9

85 . See the contribution of Jan Christian Gertz in this volume.

86 . See esp. Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte
(WMANT 57; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1984).
87 . Cf. the chart in Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche
Problem, 42.
88 . Christoph levin, Der Jahwist (fRlANT 157; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 45–46 regards Exod 1:9 ( lwdg ywg) as
the fulfillment of Gen 12:2 ( Mwc(w br […] M() despite the incongruencies
in the formulations.
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 43

And I will make you into a great And he [Pharaoh] spoke to his
people (lwdg ywgl). people: “Behold, the people (M() of
the children of Israel are more
(br) and mightier (Mwc(w)
than we.”

On the other hand, it is all the more remarkable that the

connections on the P-level are very tight.
Gen 1:28 Exod 1:7

Be fruitful (wrp), and multiply And the children of Israel were

fruit(wbrw), and fill (w)lmw) the earth ful (wrp), and increased
abundantly
(Cr)h t)). (wcr#y$ w), and multiplied (wbryw), and waxed
(wmc(yw) exceeding mighty Gen 9:7 ( d)m d)mb); and the land
(Cr)hw)
was filled ()lmtw) with them.
And you, be fruitful (wrp),
and multiply (wbrw);
increase abundantly (wcr#$)
in the earth, and multiply
(wbrw) therein.

Gen 17:2

And I will multiply (hbr)w) you

exceedingly (d)m d)mb).

If the non-Priestly substance of the patriarchal and

exodus narrative was really written by the same author, it
would be very difficult to explain why he did not correlate
the promise to become a great people with its fulfillment, as
it is done in P. Therefore it is much more likely that Gen
12:2 and Exod 1:9 were written by different authors rather
than to assume that we have here a Yahwistic bridge
between Genesis and Exodus.
(4) finally, literature outside the Pentateuch also points
to the fundamental separation between the patriarchs and
the exodus. The Psalms provide especially strong evidence
for the separation between the patriarchs and the exodus.
In his research on the historical motifs in the Psalms, Aare
44 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

lauha realized already in 1945 that the sequence

patriarchs–exodus is not presupposed.89 Johannes Kühlewein
has come to the same conclusion in 1973, writing:

Außer im späten Ps 105 finden die Väter in keiner

Geschichtsreihe des Psalters Erwähnung. Vergleichen wir
Ps 80,9–12; 135,8–12 oder anerkannt späte Reihen wie Ps
78 oder 106, ja selbst 136, der mit dem Bericht von der
Erschaffung der Welt einsetzt, nirgendwo ist die
Geschichte der Erzväter auch nur angedeutet. Das ist
gewiß nicht zufällig und auch nicht allein daraus zu
erklären, daß es sich bei den genannten Texten um
“freiere Abwandlungen der Gattung (des geschichtlichen
Credo)” handelt. Sehr viel näher legt sich die Annahme,
daß der urspr. Einsatz der Geschichtsreihen die Exodus-
oder die Schilfmeertradition war, während die
Überlieferung von den Vätern erst im laufe der Zeit damit
verbunden und dem bereits Bestehenden vorgeschaltet
wurde.90

The prophetic books reinforce the conclusion from the

Psalms. Hosea 12 places Jacob and Moses (“a prophet”) in
opposition to each other. The contrast is especially striking,
and the chapter has been interpreted in detail by Albert de
Pury with results that support the assumption of a
fundamental separation of the Jacob and the Moses story. 91
furthermore, one could mention texts such as Amos 3:11;
Mic 7:20; Ezek 20:5; 33:24, which seem to imply the same
thing, but limited space does not allow a detailed discussion
here.92

89 . Die Geschichtsmotive in den alttestamentlichen Psalmen (AASf

Series B 16/1; Helsinki: Helsinki university Press, 1945), 34–35.
90 . Johannes Kühlewein, Geschichte in den Psalmen (Calwer
theologische Monographien 2; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1973), 158.
91 . See “Osée 12 et ses implications pour le débat actuel sur le
Pentateuque, ” in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches (ed. P.
Haudebert; lD 151; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 175–207; idem, “Erwägungen zu
einem vorexilischen Stämmejahwismus: Hosea 12 und die
Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels und seines Gottes,” in Ein
Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext
der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (ed. W.
Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein; OBO 139; fribourg: universitätsverlag;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 413–39; and the summary in
Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 82–84.
92 . See Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 84–89.
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 45

2. The Redactional links between Genesis and Exodus

Thus far the general remarks have shown only what
appears to be quite obvious, namely, that the current
connection between Genesis and Exodus is not of an
organic nature but rather a secondary construction. On the
basis of these observations, one can already argue the case
for a different main redaction of the pre-Priestly material in
Genesis, on the one hand, and in Exodus, on the other hand.
In other words: J in Genesis and J in Exodus are different
J’s.
for the more strict version of the thesis of a “farewell” to
the Yahwist that assumes that there has never been a pre-
Priestly connection between Genesis and Exodus, we must
look closer at the concrete redactional connections between
Genesis and Exodus and investigate their exact literary-
historical place and date.
If one limits the study to the explicit literary connections
that refer either backwards or forwards within the two
books, only a few texts deserve closer consideration.
Besides the fringes of the books in Gen 50–Exod 1, one has
mainly to examine Gen 15:13–16 in the book Genesis and
Exod 3:1–4:18 in the book of Exodus.93
David Carr has, furthermore, detected linguistic and factual
allusions to Exodus— similar “patterns” in Genesis and Exodus, so
to speak—in texts such as Gen 12:10–20; 16; and 18. He argues
for a literary continuation of the patriarchal narrative into the
story of Moses before P on the basis of such common literary
patterns.94 Of course, it is quite obvious that Gen 12:10–20 and
16:1–1695 reflect the story of the exodus (the case of Gen 18 is
more difficult to decide). However, such references do not
constitute obvious cross-references within the same literary work
—as is the case with texts such as Gen 15:13–16 and 50:24, which
explicitly point ahead to the exodus—but can equally be allusions
93 . See in more detail ibid., 56–78.
94 . David M. Carr, “Review of Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus,”
Bib 81 (2000): 579–83; idem, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story:
Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives,” in Studies in the Book of
Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. Wénin; BETl 155;
leuven: leuven university Press; Peeters, 2001), 273–95, 274 n. 4; see also,
idem, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary
Approaches (louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 185–87, 192–94.
95 . See, e.g., Thomas Römer, “Isaac et Ismaël, concurrents ou
cohéritiers de la promesse? une lecture de Genèse 16,” ETR 74 (1999):
161–72.
46 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

to or between different “books” (or, more precisely, “scrolls”). On

the basis of this argument, I limit my study to explicit cross-
references in order to address the question of the history of
redaction of the literary connections between the patriarchs and
the exodus.
On the other hand, the methodological inquiry that I am
proposing has been criticized by Christoph levin. His redactional
interpretation of the Yahwist admittedly has clarified the literary-
historical understanding of the relation between tradition and
redaction in the book of Genesis, but levin lets his Yahwist
continue far beyond Genesis into the book of Numbers (although
in a very limited number of texts [only ca. 17 percent of his J]). He
also disputes whether the explicit cross-references between
Genesis and Exodus (which he generally regards as late) have to
be interpreted as the work of a post-P author:

[D]ie späten Querverbindungen, auf die man sich bezieht,

sind nur der Stuck auf dem längst vorhandenen Gebäude,
nicht die Tragbalken, die die Konstruktion
zusammenhalten. Der Stuck liegt außen und fällt ins Auge.
Das verleiht den Beobachtungen die Evidenz. für die
Statik kommt es indessen auf die Tragbalken an. Sie sieht
man nicht auf den ersten Blick. Man muß das ganze
Gebäude vermessen.”96

It is possible, of course, that later cross-references accentuate

already-existing connections. However, if one follows levin’s
assumption (which tends to violate the principle of Ockham’s
razor), then the circumstantial evidence for the “supporting
beams” identified would need to be very clear. In the case of
levin’s J that remains doubtful: levin focuses on four overarching
“signs of systematic closure” (“Merkmale … planvoller
Geschlossenheit”): (1) the selection of the sources used by levin’s
J (“Alle Erzählungen mit einer Ausnahme spielen außerhalb des
landes Israel und Juda” [73]); (2) language; (3) the
perception/picture of history; and (4) the theme of blessing. Now,
already the open-endedness of levin’s Yahwist (“Ein regelrechter
Abschluß fehlt” [65]) implies a problem for any proof of a
systematic conception. In addition, the characteristic features for
identifying the “supporting beams” are without exception not of a
stringent but of a tentative nature. Most problematic is the first

96 . Christoph levin, “Das israelitische Nationalepos: Der Jahwist,” in

Große Texte alter Kulturen: Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom (ed.
M. Hose; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004), 63–85,
here 72–73.
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 47

sign, since the important exception, namely, the narrative of

Abraham, which obviously plays on Israelite and Judean territory
(73), now must be regarded as the exception to prove the rule.
According to levin, the land of Israel had been artificially
transformed into foreign territory by the distinction between
Israelites and Canaanites in Gen 12:6 [levin: J]) so that now even
Abraham lives in a foreign land. The assumption that the
Yahwistic work narrates the story of an existence as strangers
(“Geschichte einer fremdlingherrschaft” [73]) seems a rather
forced interpretation of the pre-Priestly account of Abraham and
does not recognize that the perspective of the patriarchs as
strangers in the land is a distinguishing feature of the Priestly
source (see §3[2] below). The overarching sign of “language”
addresses an important point, but in the case of levin’s J it cannot
be used as a “supporting beam” for his redactional-historical
reconstruction (cf. levin himself: “Allerdings darf man das
Kriterium des sprachlichen Stils nicht mechanisch handhaben; die
Redaktion hängt einerseits von ihren Quellen ab und hat
andererseits den später noch hinzugekommenen Text beeinflusst”
[75–76]). Similarly problematic is the argument focusing on the
perception of history and the topic of blessing: considerations
concerning those topics may be used to illustrate levin’s synthesis
of his J hypothesis, but to use them as support for this hypothesis
makes the argument circular. In addition, already the
Documentary Hypothesis had to admit that the theological
program of J, developed in Gen 12:1–3, does not really reoccur in
the following text of J: “Im folgenden hat er [der Jahwist] sich
dann fast ausschließlich an das überkommene Gut der
Pentateucherzählung gehalten, ohne ändernd oder erweiternd in
dessen Substanz einzugreifen. Es genügte ihm, im Eingang
eindeutig gesagt zu haben, wie er alles weitere verstanden wissen
wollte.”97 The topic of blessing is not really helpful to prove the
redactional unity of J from Genesis to Numbers.
If, then, the possibilities considered for a closer determination
of the author do not yield any clear results (“Was läßt sich über
den Verfasser feststellen, der das jahwistische Werk geschaffen
hat? Es gibt eine Reihe von Indizien. Sie ergeben indessen kein
einheitliches Bild” [81]), the initial suspicion seems to be justified:
the supporting beams identfied cannot support the building.

I will refrain from discussing the texts in great detail,

since this will be done in other contributions by Jan
Christian Gertz (on Gen 50–Exod 1) and Thomas Dozeman
(on Exod 3–4), and limit myself to the most evident
97 . Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 258.
48 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

observations on Gen 15 and Exod 3–4, which seem to

support a post-P date for these texts.
Traditional scholarship on the Pentateuch has long
recognized that Gen 15 is a text sui generis.27 Some label
the text as the beginning of the Elohistic source. Already
within the Documentary Hypothesis this assumption is
hardly convincing, since Gen 15 never uses “Elohim” but
always speaks of Yhwh. Others decided to split the text in
Yahwistic and Elohistic parts, but that remained equally
unconvincing. Thus, suspicion arose that Gen 15 has
nothing to do with either J or E. However, due to the
doublet in Gen 17, it cannot be part of P either.
A number of recent studies regard the whole of Gen 15
as a post-Priestly document (Thomas Römer; 28 John Ha;29
Konrad Schmid;30 Christoph levin;98 Eckart Otto;99 see also
Erhard Blum100), although this conclusion is not without

98 . Der Jahwist, 151; idem, “Jahwe und Abraham im Dialog: Gen 15,”
in Witte, Gott und Mensch im Dialog, 237–57.
99 . Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch (fAT 30;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 219–20.
100 . “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein
Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Gertz et al.,
Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119–56, 143–44.
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 49

debate.101 Older scholarship already recognized that Gen

15:13–16, which

27. See Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 172 n. 6–10.

28. “Gen 15 und Gen 17: Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem
Dogma der ‘neueren’ und ‘neuesten’ Pentateuchkritik,” DBAT 26
(1989/90): 32–47.
29. Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History
(BZAW 181; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).
30. Erzväter und Exodus, 172–86.
looks ahead to the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt and
the exodus, presupposes P based on its language: #$kr
(“possession”) in Gen 15:14 and hbw+ hby#& (“good old
age”) in 15:15 are quite typical expressions of P’s
language.102

101 . See Jan Christian Gertz, “Abraham, Mose und der Exodus:
Beobachtungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Gen 15,” in idem et al.,
Abschied vom Jahwisten, 63–81. He detects a basic layer in Gen 15:1*, 2a,
4–10, 17–18 that contains critical allusions to the exodus and Sinai (esp.
vv. 7, 17–18) and has most likely been written within the frame of a
patriarchal narrative that stands in competition with the Exodus tradition.
By inserting Gen 15:11, 13–16, a post-P redaction later transformed
Genesis into a prologue to Exodus. Gertz’s literary and theological
analysis is certainly possible even if the connection of vv. 10, 12 is not
very elegant and the priestly allusions in vv. 7, 17–18 either have to be
qualified (Gertz thinks it is possible that Gen 15:7 is not influenced by
11:28 but vice versa that the place name “ur-Kasdim” has been added to
11:27–32 because of 15:7 [“Abraham, Mose und der Exodus,” 72–73]) or
neglected (the qualification of the promise of the land as covenant is
otherwise only known to P; see Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 182 with n.
66). In addition to that, we have to ask whether the complexity of Gen 15
—rightly stressed by Gertz—and here especially the “addition” of vv. 13–
16 cannot be explained without using literarycritical operations; rather,
the verses seem to show the attempt to harmonize quite disparate blocks
of tradition with equally disparate theologies within the frame of a new
concept. Tensions within the text not only indicate literary growth but can
also be determined by the matter of things; especially in Gen 15, a text
that now clearly links Genesis and Exodus, we can expect a complex train
of thoughts within a single text.
102 . #k$ r occurs next to Gen 15:14 in Gen 12:5; 13:6; 31:18; 46:6 (all
P); cf. also Gen 14:11– 12, 16, 21; Num 16:32; 35:5; Ezra 1:4, 6; 8:21;
10:8; 2 Chr 21:14, 17; 32:29; hbw+ hby#& occurs next to Gen 15:15 in 25:8
(P; cf. also Judg 8:32; 1 Chr 29:28); cf. Ha, Genesis 15, 94–95; levin,
“Jahwe und Abraham im Dialog,” 249–50.
50 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

15:13–15: Then Yhwh said to Abram: “Know for certain

that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not
theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted
for four hundred years. (14) But I will bring judgment on
the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come
out with great possessions (#$kr). (15) As for yourself, you
shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a
good old age (hbw+ hby#&).”

If the only explicit reference in Genesis that looks ahead to

Exodus is a post-P text, what, one may ask, forces us to
assume a pre-Priestly connection of Genesis and Exodus? In
the light of the fundamental divergence of the material in
the two books, such an assumption does not seem very
likely.
The findings in Exod 3–4 point in a similar direction.
Here also traditional source criticism realized that Exod
3:1–4:18 interrupts the flow of the narrative of the exodus
story. Noth, for example, regarded the chapters as an
addition to J.103 The reason for that was both simple and
obvious. Prior to Noth, Wellhausen and Rudolph already
saw that there is a close connection between Exod 2:23a α
and 4:19,104 a connection that is now interrupted by the P
insertion in Exod 2:23aβ–25 and the call of Moses in 3:1–
4:18. like Exod 2:15–23aα, Exod 4:19 is situated in Midian
and originally seems to have followed 2:23a β immediately.105
The Septuagint explicitly stresses this connection of 2:23a α
and 4:19, since it repeats 2:23aα again before 4:19:

And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of

Egypt died (< mt). And Yhwh said to Moses in Midian,
“Go, return into Egypt, for all the men are dead who
sought your life.” (Exod 4:19 lxx)
In addition, the name used for Moses’ father-in-law
distinguishes Exod 3:1– 4:18 from its context: in 3:1 and
4:18 he is called Jethro, while in 2:18 his name is Reguël.
103 . Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 31–32 n. 103.
104 . Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1899),
71; Volz and Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler, 6–7 (W. Rudolph); for more
recent views, see Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 189 n. 112.
105 . for older opinions disputing such findings, see Schmid, Erzväter
und Exodus, 189 n. 114; for more recent ones, see Blum, “Die literarische
Verbindung,” 123 n. 20.
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 51

That this addition either in whole or in part must be

dated after P seems the most likely option to me. The same
has been argued by Hans-Christoph Schmitt, 106 Eckart
Otto,107 Jan Christian Gertz,108 and (for Exod 4) Erhard
Blum.109 In Exod 3 it is remarkable that the crying of the
Israelites in Exod 3:7, 9 to which Yhwh hearkens has
previously only been reported in Exod 2:23b (P) and that
this passage seems to be presupposed here. 110 If we move on
to Exod 6, the priestly counterpart to the call of Moses in
Exod 3–4, we realize that this text does not seem to know
Exod 3–4,111 a fact that is surprising only if one clings to a
pre-Priestly dating of Exod 3–4. Rather, Exod 3–4 integrates
the problems that Exod 6 unfolds in a narrative way after
the call of Moses: the narrative account of the Israelite
people not listening to Moses in Exod 6 is stated as a
problem by Moses in Exod 3, even though he has not yet
talked to the Israelites. In addition, Exod 3 changes the
location of the call of Moses to the holy mountain, which
appears to be a secondary setting for the commission of
Moses from its given setting in the land of Egypt in Exod 6.
If the explicit connection of Genesis and Exodus in Gen
15 and Exod 3–4 is a post-Priestly composition, the
assumption is not far that Genesis and Exodus were not
connected on a pre-Priestly level. looking at P itself further
supports this view. P indicates that significant conceptual
work was undertaken to join these two blocks of tradition.
106 . “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie,” VT 32 (1982):
170–89, 186–89.
107 . “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch
Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—
Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne; BETl 126; leuven: leuven university
Press; Peeters, 1996), 61–111, 101–11.
108 . Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung:
Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (fRlANT 186;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 233–327.
109 . Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 123–27.
110 . The references to Gen 16:11; 18:20–21; 19:13—passages
showing that the hearkening of Yhwh can be reported without previously
narrating the crying—only demonstrate the possibility of an alternative,
but more complicated explanation; see Rainer Kessler, “Die Querverweise
im Pentateuch: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche untersuchung der expliziten
Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs” (Th.D.
diss., university of Heidelberg, 1972), 183; Gertz, Tradition und
Redaktion, 186–87; Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 124–25.
111 . See Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 198 n. 156–58.
52 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

3. The Connection of the Patriarchs with the Exodus in P

It is commonly accepted that the Priestly source remains
a well-defined body of literature in pentateuchal criticism
and that the source extends into the books of Genesis and
Exodus. The extent of the Priestly source can clearly be
demonstrated by its special language, its overall structure,
and the manifold literary references between its texts. We
can neglect the question of the literary character of P—
source or redaction112—as well as the problem of its literary
end, since it is only important for our current enterprise to
state that P runs from the book of Genesis into the book of
Exodus. To the best of my knowledge, this is not disputed by
any of the scholars who accept the hypothesis of Priestly
literature in the Pentateuch.
Within the framework of traditional source criticism,
the extension of P in Genesis, Exodus, and beyond has not
been a point of debate—because the presentation of history
in P was thought to be an imitation of both J and E. But this
assumption seems highly unlikely. As its inner
argumentation shows quite clearly, P could not take over
the connection of the patriarchal narrative to the story of
the exodus from an older tradition but obviously placed two
originally independent corpora of tradition for the first time
in a logical sequence.
(1) first and foremost, we must look at the crucial
passage in the Priestly report of the call of Moses in Exod
6:2–8:113

112 . See ibid., 54 with n. 33 (bibliography).

113 . The grammatical problems of the verse have frequently been
discussed (see especially W. Randall Garr, “The Grammar and
Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111 [1992]: 385–408); generally the
half-verse 3b is interpreted as a sentence with a double subject
(hwhy/ym#$w). I think a simpler solution should be preferred according to
the parallelism in 6:2–3 as identified above (A, B, A', B') and as indicated
by the accentuation (zaqeph qaton after hwhy ym#$w) probably also
preferred by the Masoretes: “My name is Yhwh; I did not reveal myself to
them.” Most likely the use of the language was influenced by Ezekiel ( (dy
niphal in the first-person singular in the Hebrew Bible only used of God
[except in Exod 6:3, only Ezek 20:5, 9; 35:11; 38:23]; Exod 6 shows
further references to Ezekiel [see Bernard Gosse, “Exode 6,8 comme
réponse à Ézéchiel 33,24,” RHPR 74 (1994): 241–47; Erhard Blum,
Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1990), 236 n. 31]); this would add further support to the proposed
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 53

A I am Yhwh
B A nd I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob, as El
Shadday
A' But my name is Yhwh
B' I have not revealed myself to them

According to this statement, P advocates a progressive

theory of revelation that distinguishes between two stages.
God has revealed himself to the patriarchs as El Shadday,
but now he announces that his name is Yhwh. This theory is
strictly retained in the whole text of the Priestly source with
the notable and much debated exception in Gen 17:1, a text
that most likely serves to provide additional information for
the reader and does not concern Abraham. for the
patriarchs God introduces himself as El Shadday; for Moses
and his generation he is Yhwh.
This theory is so well known among exegetes that one
hardly ever bothers to ask why P makes such a distinction.
Sometimes it has been argued that P adopts the theological
concept of E, since E uses a similar change from Elohim to
Yhwh in Exod 3, but this does not explain the use of El
Shadday. And on a methodological level it is hardly
convincing to use a problematic hypothesis such as E to
explain literary problems of other texts.
If we ask about the internal logic of P, there is little
reason to separate the period of the patriarchs from the one
of the exodus. for P, the time of Moses is that of the
fulfilment of the promises to Abraham,114 and a qualitative
separation of the two is far from natural for P. Admittedly,
the revelation of the name of Yhwh becomes necessary for
the cult that originates with Moses.115 The name Yhwh
serves the purpose of cultic address and so forth. But at the
same time this theory of a progressive revelation of God’s

translation.
114 . See already Walther Zimmerli, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund:
Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift,” TZ 16 (1960): 268–80;
repr. in idem, Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten
Testament (TB 19; Munich: Kaiser, 1963), 205–17, here 212; following him
Bernd Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und
religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur priesterschriftlichen Sühnetheologie
(2nd ed.; WMANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000), 9.
115 . See Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 295–96.
54 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

name in stages also becomes obviously necessary to

combine two divergent blocks of tradition. So P still shows
that it regarded the patriarchal narrative as something like
the “Old Testament of the Old Testament.”116
Thus, Exod 6:2–8 supports the view already found in the
non-P material of Genesis–Exodus: in its concept of history
P newly combines two blocks of tradition that have a quite
different literary and theological origin and profile. This
combination needs a new logical and theological argument,
which P provides in Exod 6:2–8. This shows quite clearly
that P was unable to utilize an already-known sequence of
the epochs of the history of Israel that could simply be
reproduced with a slightly different focus; rather, P had to
create this sequence from scratch. The fusing of the
divergent concepts of God is a remarkable accomplishment
by P.
(2) Equally remarkable is P’s introduction and
qualification of the patriarchs as “strangers” in the land of
Canaan: Only in the Priestly texts of Genesis are the
Patriarchs labeled “strangers” (Myrg)50 (Gen 17:8; 23:4;117
28:4; 35:27; 36:7; 37:1; cf. the retrospective in Exod 6:4).
This was already noted by Gerhard von Rad, but he
concluded that the same concept was already present in J,
even though J did not use the same terminology. 118 This is,
however, simply eisegesis. Rather, it becomes apparent that
the labeling of the patriarchs as “strangers” ( Myrg) who
could not acquire any land119 is only necessary if—in

116 . Robert W. l. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament:

Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (OBT; Minneapolis: fortress,
1992).
117 . On the discussion whether Gen 23 belongs to P, see Blum, Die
Komposition der Vätergeschichte, 441–46 (differently, Thomas Pola, Die
ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zu Literarkritik und
Traditionsgeschichte von P g [WMANT 70; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1995], 308–09). Gerhard von Rad concluded as far as Gen
23 was concerned that at the time of their death the patriarchs were
already heirs and no longer strangers (Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch:
Literarisch untersucht und theologisch gewertet [BWANT 65; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1934], 51; see also Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift,
309).
118 . Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch, 69.
119 . See ThWAT 1:985 (ulrich Kellermann); on the legal status of the
rg, see 983–90; Christoph Bultmann, Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 55

contrast to the non-Priestly promise of the land—the

descendants of the patriarchs had to leave the holy land
first in order to take possession of it again after the exodus
from Egypt several centuries later. The depiction of the
patriarchs as strangers in Canaan and its literary
confinement to the Priestly texts is clear only within the
assumption that Genesis and Exodus were distinct bodies of
literature before P.

50. The substantive Myrg is only found in P in Genesis–Exodus (cf.

THAT 1:409 [Robert Martin-Achard]); on the expression Myrgm Cr) in P
and its translation, see Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, 443;
Matthias Köckert, “Das land in der priesterlichen Komposition des
Pentateuch,” in Von Gott reden: Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des
Alten Testaments: Festschrift S. Wagner (eds. D. Vieweger and E.-J.
Waschke; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995), 147–62, 156 with n. 30
(see also Michaela Bauks, “Die Begriffe h#$rwm und hzwx) in Pg:
Überlegungen zur landkonzeption der Priestergrundschrift,” ZAW 116
[2004]: 171–88). A bit more differentiated but not necessarily opposing is
the findings regarding the verb rwg. It occurs in Genesis in Priestly and
non-Priestly texts (Gen 12:10; 19:9; 20:1; 21:23; 26:3; 32:5; 35:27; 47:4).
Here 35:5 belongs to P, 19:9 refers to lot in Sodom, 20:1 refers to Abraham
in Gerar, 35:2 refers to Jacob at laban’s place; 47:4 refers to Joseph’s
brother in Egypt, and in 21:23 Abimelech is talking to Abraham. Only Gen
26:3 is a non-Priestly statement; here God states that Isaac has “dwelled
as a stranger” in Gerar, but Gerar was foreign territory during the period
of monarchy (see, e.g., BHH 1:547–48 [Karl Elliger]).

Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff ‘ger’ und seinem

Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung (fRlANT 153;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 17–22, 34–212, who
describes the status according to the different legal corpora in the
Hebrew Bible; Markus Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und
Assyrien: Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie des “Fremden” im Licht antiker
Quellen (BWANT 168; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005).
56 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

(3) finally, we must examine the concrete literary form

of the Priestly transition from the period of the patriarchs to
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 57

the exodus.54 There is a considerable consensus about what

texts in Gen 37–50 have to be attributed to P.
At the same time, there seems to be a similar consensus
that we can find nothing but fragments of the original
Priestly presentation of the story of Joseph. 68 This opinion is
mainly based on the attribution of the full verse of Gen 37:2
to P.

54. There are several problems with the study of the priestly texts in
Gen 37–50 by Rüdiger lux, to this point the most detailed (“Geschichte als
Erfahrung: Erinnerung und Erzählung in der priesterschriftlichen
Rezeption der Josefsnovelle,” in Erzählte Geschichte: Beiträge zur
narrativen Kultur im alten Israel [ed. R. lux; BTS 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 2000], 147–80). He introduces a textual basis that he calls
a critically secured minimum (“kritisch gesichertes Minimum”), which is
surprising since we simply do not have—on a methodological level—either
critical secured minima or maxima. Even a minimalist set of texts (in
comparison to other exegetes, lux’s text is certainly no minimalist) can
contain wrong attributions. lux remarks on these texts: “Die
Durchmusterung der Stellen legt den Schluß nahe, dass es sich hier nicht
um fragmente einer ursprünglich eigenständigen Josefserzählung handelt,
sondern eher um eine redaktionelle Bearbeitung derselben im Geiste von
P” (151). Tertium non datur? He states on such a third possibility: “Der
fragmentarische Charakter von P in der Josefsnovelle ist allerdings noch
kein hinreichender Grund, P insgesamt den Status einer selbständigen
Quellenschrift abzusprechen und in ihr eine redaktionelle
Bearbeitungsschicht zu sehen” (151 n. 14). However, it is exactly that
which his observations seem to imply.
55. Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 51–52.
56. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 18.
57. “Sinn und ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung,” ZTK
49 (1952): 121–43 in idem, Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (ed. H.
Gese and O. Kaiser; TB 32; Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 174–98, 174.
58. Norbert lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in
Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 29; leiden:
Brill, 1978), 183–225 = idem, Studien zum Pentateuch (SBAB 4; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 213–53, 222 n. 29.
59. Der Jahwist, 262, 271, 285, 305, 309, 315.
60. Herbert Donner, Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen
Josephsgeschichte (SHAW; Heidelberg: Winter, 1976), 7 n. 3 = idem,
Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten (BZAW 224; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1994), 76–120, 77 n. 3.
61. Albert de Pury, “le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des
origines d’Israël,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton;
VTSup 43; leiden: Brill, 1991), 78–96, 82.
62. Reading the Fractures of Genesis, 271.
58 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

63. Horst Seebass, Genesis III: Josephsgeschichte (37,1–50,26)

(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000), 211.
64. Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher
des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (uni-Taschenbücher
2157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 243, 281.
65. “Geschichte als Erfahrung,” 147–80, 150–51.
66. Missing on page 211 but not disputed on page 122 as P (on page
117: 5b–7).
67. Missing in the chart on page 271.
68. See Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 13–14; levin,
Der Jahwist, 271.
These are the generations of Jacob ( bq(y twdlt hl)). Joseph,
being seventeen years old, was pasturing the flock with
his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and
Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought a bad report
of them to their father.

This is the only specific mention of Joseph in the common P

texts in Gen 37–50. If, however, one follows the proposal by
Albert de Pury and limits the Priestly parts of this verse to
bq(y twdlt hl), one arrives at an acceptable and complete
description of the eisodos within P without an account of
Joseph69 but with an Israelite stay in Egypt of 430 years
summarized later in Exod 12:40–41.120

(37:1–2) Jacob lived in the land of his father’s sojournings, in

the land of Canaan. (2) These are the generations of Jacob.

(46:6–7) And they took their livestock and their goods,

which they had gained in the land of Canaan, and came
into Egypt—Jacob and all his offspring with him, (7) his
sons, and his sons’ sons with him, his daughters, and his
sons’ daughters. All his offspring he brought with him into
Egypt.

69. Cf. also Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 113–

15. John Van Seters in his response to this contribution has raised severe
criticism against such a hypothesis. This criticism, however, does not
address the central issues. (1) There are some minor corrections to be
made concerning Van Seters’s objections. He writes: “following the
introduction in 37:1–2aα, ‘Jacob lived in the land of his father’s sojourning,

120 . See recently Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 58 with n. 126

(bibliography).
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 59

in the land of Canaan. These are the generations of Jacob,’ we expect

some narrative account of Jacob’s sons in Canaan” [see below, 148]. An
examination of the toledot-formula, for example, in Gen 2:4a and 36:1
shows that such an expectation is unwarranted. In addition, Van Seters
also objects to the continuation of Gen 37:1–2aα in the plural formulation
of 46:6–7. The syntax in 46:6–7 is unusual but by no means impossible; the
plural subject is explicitly given in 46:6b: “Jacob and all his offspring with
him.” finally, Van Seters makes the reader believe that I am not attributing
Exod 1:1–5 to P (with reference to my Erzväter und Exodus, 30) and that
therefore in my reconstruction of P Exod 1:13–14 would have immediately
followed Gen 50:13, with the result that an eisodos account would be
lacking in P. This is a misreading of the argumentation in Erzväter und
Exodus, 30 n. 177, where I am pointing to the difficulties of considering
Exod 1:1–5 as a P text without concluding that Exod 1:1–5 could not be
attributed to P. In the meantime, I would be ready to follow Jan Christian
Gertz’s argument to identify Gen 50:14 as P (see the contribution of Gertz
in this volume), despite Van Seters’s criticism of Gertz. (2) Van Seters’s
interpretation of the P texts in Gen 37 to Exod 1 assumes his notion of P as
a redactional layer and not as an independent source. Although this
hypothesis has become attractive to many recent interpreters, the theory
is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Already the sequence in Gen
1–3 or in Gen 6–9 indicates clearly that P cannot be conceived purely as a
redaction. I must refrain from pointing out further arguments here, and I
refer instead to Klaus Koch, “P—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei
Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung,” VT 37 (1987): 446–67, and more
recently to Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion.
(47:27–28) Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the
land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and
were fruitful and multiplied greatly. (28) And Jacob lived in
the land of Egypt seventeen years. So the days of Jacob,
the years of his life, were 147 years.

(49:1a) Then Jacob called his sons (49:29–33) and he

commanded them and said to them, “I am to be gathered
to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is
in the field of Ephron the Hittite, (30) in the cave that is in
the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, in the land of
Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from
Ephron the Hittite to possess as a burying place. (31)
There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife. There they
buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife, and there I buried leah
—(32) the field and the cave that is in it were bought from
the Hittites.” (33) When Jacob finished commanding his
sons, he drew up his feet into the bed and breathed his
last and was gathered to his people.

(50:12–13) Thus his sons did for him as he had

commanded them, (13) for his sons carried him to the land
60 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

of Canaan and buried him in the cave of the field at

Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, which Abraham bought
with the field from Ephron the Hittite to possess as a
burying place.

The assumption of such a small literary bridge between

the patriarchs and the exodus in P converges now with a
generally recognized aspect of the internal analysis of the
Joseph story, namely, that it was not composed—as argued
by Martin Noth—as the literary joint between patriarchs
and exodus. Rather, the plot and the connecting literary
devices show that the story was originally attached to the
patriarchal narrative before it was transformed into the
connecting link, as a secondary literary development. 121
Thus the connection of the patriarchs and the exodus made
by P—without an elaborated Joseph story— indicates that it
does not presuppose a pre-Priestly connection of the
patriarchs and the exodus in an earlier composition of the
story of Joseph. Otherwise, one would have to expect that P
also had a Joseph story.

4. Conclusion
How can one summarize these observations and
considerations? (1) The history of research aptly
demonstrates that the hiatus between Genesis and Exodus
was always recognized (see esp. Kurt Galling72 and Martin
Noth122) but only fully utilized after the classic theory of an
old Hexateuch (J) started to dissolve in the 1970s.
(2) Both the narrative substance of the book of Genesis
as well as its reception outside the Pentateuch supports the
suspicion that this text was not written from the beginning
as a prelude to the book of Exodus.
(3) Explicit literary connections between Genesis and
Exodus appear only in Priestly texts or texts that
presuppose P.
(4) P itself shows that it creates something new by
joining the patriarchal narrative with the exodus. This is
accomplished with a progressive revelation by stages of the
121 . See Schmid, “Die Josephsgeschichte im
Pentateuch.” 72. Die Erwählungstraditionen
Israels (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1928).
122 . Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch.
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 61

divine name and the newly created qualification of the

patriarchs as “strangers.” In addition, P does not seem to
know the Joseph story as a bridge between Genesis and
Exodus.
(5) A pre-Priestly connection between Genesis and
Exodus cannot be proven and does not seem likely.

5. Consequences for the History of Religion and Theology

The redaction-historical separation of Genesis and
Exodus before P has fundamental consequences for our
understanding of the history of religion and theology of the
Hebrew Bible. first, it is obvious that a farewell to the
Yahwist has to abandon the thesis so popular in the
twentieth century that the religion of ancient Israel was
based on salvation history (Heilsgeschichte). That such a
view can no longer be maintained has been made clear by
the numerous archaeological finds discovered and
published in the past years. 123 One must envisage the
religion of Israel differently than the biblical picture
suggests. The polemics of the Deuteronomists are probably
closer to the preexilic reality in ancient Israel than the
normative-orthodox statements in the Bible that promulgate
a monotheism based on salvation history.124
Without the Yahwist, the paradigm of a clear
discontinuity between ancient Israel and its neighbors can
no longer be maintained. This paradigm of discontinuity
developed in the wake of dialectical theology. It
presupposed that Israel occupied from the beginning a very
special place in the ancient Near East. But if there has been

123 . See, e.g., Othmar Keel and Christoph uehlinger, Göttinnen,

Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte
Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer
Quellen (5th ed.; QD 134; freiburg: Herder, 2001); and Christoph
Hardmeier, ed., Steine—Bilder—Texte: Historische Evidenz
außerbiblischer und biblischer Quellen (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer
Geschichte 5; leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001); friedhelm
Hartenstein, “Religionsgeschichte Israels—ein Überblick über die
forschung seit 1990,” VF 48 (2003): 2–28.
124 . See Manfred Weippert, “Synkretismus und Monotheismus:
Religionsinterne Konfliktbewältigung im alten Israel,” in idem, Jahwe und
die anderen Götter: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel in
ihrem syrisch-palästinischen Kontext (fAT 18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1997), 1–24.
62 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

no early (i.e., Solomonic) or at least monarchic (Josiah)

conception of a salvation history that began with the
creation and ends with the conquest of the land—be it as a
detailed historical work or simply as a short creed 125—Israel
must be seen in continuity rather than discontinuity with its
neighbors. The paradigm of discontinuity is not a peculiarity
of ancient Israel but rather a characteristic feature of
Judaism of the Persian period, which projected its ideals
back into the Hebrew Bible. This insight is not really new
and also remains possible if one advocates a late dating of
the Yahwist (or its equivalents) closer to the environment of
the Deuteronomistic literature.
We arrive at a new perspective, however, if we realize
that the patriarchal narrative and the story of the exodus
stood next to each other as two competing concepts
containing two traditions of the origin of Israel with
different theological profiles. Even behind the carefully
crafted final form of the Pentateuch the different
conceptions remain apparent:126 the patriarchal narrative is
constructed mainly autochthonous and inclusive, while the
story of the exodus is allochthonous and exclusive. 127 Of
course, such a polar opposition can only serve as a model,
but it points nevertheless to a basic difference between the
two blocks of tradition. To be more precise, the patriarchal
narrative constructs a picture of the origin of Israel in its
own land—a fact that is especially prominent in the specific
formulations of the promises of the land that do not
presuppose that there will be several centuries between
promise and fulfilment.128 At the same time, the patriarchal
story is both theologically and politically inclusive: the
different gods can—without any problems—be identified
with Yhwh, and the patriarchs dwell together with the
inhabitants of the land and make treaties with them. In
125 . See Jan Christian Gertz, “Die Stellung des kleinen
geschichtlichen Credos in der Redaktionsgeschichte von Deuteronomium
und Pentateuch,” in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium:
Festschrift L. Perlitt (ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; fRlANT 190;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 30–45.
126 . See Albert de Pury, “le cycle de Jacob,” 78–96; idem, “Osée 12;”
idem, “Erwägungen zu einem vorexilischen Stämmejahwismus.”
127 . In more detail Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 122–29, 159–64.
128 . The promise is addressed to the patriarch himself and to his
descendants. See the chart in Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche
Problem, 42.
 SCHMID: lITERARY GAP BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODuS 63

contrast, the story of the exodus stresses Israel’s origin

abroad in Egypt and puts forward an exclusive theological
argument: Yhwh is a jealous god who does not tolerate any
other gods besides him, and the Israelites shall not make
peace with the inhabitants of the land.
These divergent concepts cannot be fully grasped
theologically if one regards them from the beginning as part
of the same logical literary order—an
50 A fAREWEll TO THE YAHWIST?

order that, to my mind, is secondary. Rather, the patriarchal

narrative and the story of the exodus existed next to each
other (and not following each other) as two competing
stories of the origin of Israel.
 The Jacob STory and The beginning
of The formaTion of The PenTaTeuch
Albert de Pury
The Jacob story—as it is preserved, grosso modo, in Gen
25–35—does not play a very obvious role in the structure of
the present Pentateuch. Surely, the Pentateuch mentions
Jacob as the ancestor who first can claim the name of
“Israel” (Gen 32:29; 35:10) and it acknowleges him as the
father of the twelve eponymous tribes of Israel. Both facts
are narrated, but barely reflected upon, except perhaps in
the Joseph story, and the father Jacob looks like a somewhat
minor figure, jammed as he is between such giants as
Abraham and Moses. Moreover, in spite of the presence of
two intriguing theophanies, his story is deprived of major
theological landmarks comparable to the convenants with
Abraham (Gen 15; 17) or Moses (Exod 3–4; 6; 19–24).
Finally, Jacob appears ever again as trickster, and he does
not reach the spiritual and moral grandeur of the other two
dominating figures. At first sight, it is difficult to see what
has been the role, place, and function of the Jacob story in
the formation of the Pentateuch, both in structural and
genetic perspective. Yet there are, as we shall see, some
important insights to be gained if the birth of the
Pentateuch is questioned from this angle. First, let us just
recall some of the major stages in history of research.

1. The Jacob Story in Twentieth-Century Research

In the debate around the formation of the Pentateuch,
the Jacob story of Gen 25–35 has never played a prominent
role.129 During the nineteenth century, artisans of the
Documentary Hypothesis, including Wellhausen, were
interested mainly in determining and separating the literary
strands—J, E, and P—and in establishing between them a
relative chronology. And in this respect, the Jacob story did
not pose any particular problems: it was very easy to
129 . For a more detailed presentation, see Albert de Pury, “Situer le
cycle de Jacob: Quelques réflexions, vingt-cinq ans plus tard,” in Studies
in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. Wénin;
BETL 155; Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 2001), 213–41, here
213–21.

-51 -
66 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

separate the P-version from the JE-version, and even within

the remaining bulk of the cycle, the critics were quite
confident they could separate J from E when it came to such
episodes as Gen 27; 28:10–22; 30–31; 32–33; and 35. The
chronological order did not raise any difficulty either: P was
manifestly a shortened, moralized,130 and streamlined
version of the long and colorful JE version! Genesis 25–35
indeed served as a welcome pillar to the emerging
Documentary Hypothesis.
What strikes us when we look back at these late-
nineteenth-century inquiries is that the questions that today
would seem paramount to us were not asked, and
apparently could not be asked. one did not try, for instance,
to know what could have been the literary project of this or
that author, or what his literary horizon was. Nor did one
ask where the author might have found the matters he was
setting up in his story. The presupposition was that each
“author” of a literary strand, each “writer,” was simply
reproducing in his particular way the global pentateuchal
narrative that in some sense was just thought to be in
existence “somewhere out there.” The problem was not so
much the historicity of the patriarchal tales, since many
critics did not hide their general skepticism as to the
historical content of these tales. What could not be grasped
was that the entire history and prehistory of Israel’s origins
had to be understood—whatever its historical content—as a
construct of the mind, as the purposeful and expanding
founding legend of a collective identity, and that this
construct as such was the historical phenomenon that had
to be investigated and historically situated. As the
commentaries of August Dillmann131 or Heinrich Holzinger132
illustrate it, nineteenth-century commentators on Genesis
thought they had finished their task when they had
attributed the last verse of the biblical text to one of the
extant sources or subsources of the Documentary
Hypothesis.

130 . The change of motivation for Jacob’s departure to Haran

between Gen 27:41–45 JE and Gen 26:34–35; 27:46; 28:1–5 P was indeed
used as a “textbook case” demonstrating the validity of
Welhausen’s “Newer Documentary Hypothesis.”
131 . August Dillmann, Die Genesis (6th ed.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892).
132 . Heinrich Holzinger, Genesis (KHC 1; Leipzig: Mohr Siebeck,
1898).
 In the beginning of the twentieth century, one important
step forward was taken by Hermann Gunkel. 133 He
suggested that behind the episodes of the Jacob cycle, as of
the rest of Genesis, one still could see the raw material
from which it had been made of: folk tales, fairy tales, local
anecdotes, or etiologies. As a consequence, he concluded
that the cycle (Sagenkranz) as a whole had been
secondarily crafted and assembled from previously self-
contained Einzelsagen and

133 . Hermann Gunkel, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (6th ed.; HKAT
1/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964; repr., 1977); English
translation: Genesis (trans. M-E. Biddle; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1997); idem, “Jacob,” Preussische Jahrbücher 176 (1919): 339–62.
68 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

Märchen. He thought that thematic groupings of small units

—for example, an anthology of Jacob/Esau stories, a cycle of
transjordanian Jacob stories, or a cycle of Cisjordanian
“cultic legends”—could probably be construed as
intermediary stages on the way to the full cycle of Jacob.
With Gunkel, the focus thus had shifted from the literary to
the preliterary level of the stories. This perspective was to
be taken up in the 1930s by Albrecht Alt 134 and Martin
Noth.135 Alt was the first to point out that the geographical
contexts of the Abraham and the Jacob stories were not the
same, and he concluded that the roots of the Abraham
tradition were to be sought in southern Palestine, whereas
the Jacob tradition was anchored rather in the Ephraimite
north and in Transjordan.136 That divergence as to their
geographical setting showed that these two patriarchal
cycles had different local orgins (Haftpunkte) and therefore
came probably from different groups or were, at least,
transmitted by different circles. And this observation paved
the way to understand the patriarchal cycles as tribal
traditions that did possibly not concern the whole of Israel
from the beginning. Gerhard von Rad, for his part,
concentrated his interest on the writer whom he considered
as the main collector and editor of patriarchal lore: the
Yahwist, whom he dated in the Solomonic era. 137 The
Yahwist was credited with conceiving a narrative tradition
beginning with the creation and early history of humankind
(Gen 2–11*), leading to an elaborate history of the promise
to the patriarchs (Gen 12–50*), and finding its climax in the

134 . Cf. in particular Albrecht Alt, “Der Gott der Väter: Ein Beitrag
zur Vorgeschichte der israelitischen Religion” (1929), in idem, Kleine
Schriften zur Geschichte Israels (Munich: Beck, 1959), 1:1–78.
135 . Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948; repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1960).
136 . Alt, “Gott der Väter,” 48–61.
137 . Gerhard von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des
Hexateuch (BWANT 4/13 ; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938), reprinted in G.
von Rad, ed., Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Tesament (2nd ed.; TB 8;
Munich: Kaiser, 1961), 9–86. English translation: “The Form-Critical
Problem of the Hexateuch,” in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: oliver & Boyd,
1966; repr., London: SCM, 1984), 1–78.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 69

story of the Israelites brought out of Egypt under Moses

and conquering the land (Exodus*; Numbers*; Joshua*).
In my doctoral thesis, written between 1969 and 1972
but published in 1975,138 I concentrated on the problem of
the coherence or noncoherence of the Jacob cycle and, first
and foremost, of the story of Gen 28:10–22, which seemed
to constitute its nodal point. I tried to show, for instance,
that in Gen 28 the promise of the land, understood as a
promise of sedentarization, and the local cult etiology were
not necessarily heterogeneous elements that had to be
attributed to different stages of the story’s diachronic
development and that the Jacob cycle as a whole was best
explained not as the progressive redactional agglutination
of unconnected anecdotes but rather as a narrative gesta
that had its own logic and its own dynamic. The Jacob cycle
thus appeared to me as a structure whose basic outline was
given from the outset, in spite of the admitted variability of
its components, a process somewhat alike to what we can
observe in the transmission history of the Gilgamesh Epic or
the Odyssey. The Jacob cycle, thus, had to be read as the
founding saga of the “sons of Jacob” or “sons of Israel,”
which I presumed to be some kind of proto-Israelite Recent
Bronze or early Iron I tribal conglomerate in the mountains
of Ephraim and in Transjordan.139 But in my analysis and
dating of the texts, I remained completely dependent on the
still prevailing Documentary Hypothesis: a tenth-century
Yahwist, a ninth- or eighth-century Elohist, and a sixth-
century Priestly writer.
By the time my thesis appeared in print, the
Documentary Hypothesis had practically collapsed. Critics
such as John Van Seters,140 Hans Heinrich Schmid,141 and
138 . Albert de Pury, Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le
cycle de Jacob: Genèse 28 et les traditions patriarcales (ÉB; Paris:
Gabalda, 1975).
139 . See also my review of Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of
the Patriarchal Narratives (1974) and John Van Seters, Abraham in
History and Tradition (1975), RB 85 (1978): 589–618.
140 . John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1975).
141 . Hans Heinrich Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen
und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag,
1976).
70 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

Rolf Rendtorff 142 had shown the unlikelihood of a Solomonic

Yahwist and, even more basically, of a preexilic emergence
of a pentateuchal project.143 of course, especially in the line
of Rendtorff, that did not signal the end of all preexilic
narrative, and Erhard Blum144 produced, in 1984, an
imposing analysis

142 . Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des

Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1977); English translation: The Problem of the Process of
Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. J. Scullion; JSoTSup 89;
Sheffield: JSoT Press, 1990).
143 . For an overview of that “crisis,” see the contributions of Albert
de Pury and Thomas Römer in Le Pentateuque en question (ed. A. de Pury
and T. Römer; 3rd ed.; MdB 19; Genève: Labor et Fides 2002), 9–80, and
especially of Thomas Römer, vii–xxxix. See also Albert de Pury, “Yahwist
(‘J’) Source,” ABD 6 (1992): 1012–20; and Römer’s analysis in
Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (ed. Thomas Römer et al.; MdB 49;
Genève: Labor et Fides 2004), 63–113.
144 . Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984). At the origin of the Jacob
tradition, Blum sees some isolated stories (Gen 28* [without promise or
vow]; 25:27–28*; 27*; 31:46–53*). The first Jacob cycle (die
“Jakoberzählung,” comprising Gen 25:21–24*; 27*; 28*; 29:2–30*; 30:25–
43*; 31:17–32*, 44–53* but not the encounter at Penuel nor the second
meeting with Esau, would have been composed under the reign of David
or Solomon. That ensemble would have undergone an important
reinterpretation and extension under Jeroboam I, the vow now being
added to the Bethel story, as well as the second meeting with Esau and
the Penuel episode. That “Kompositionsschicht” would then have led to a
third phase, the “Jakobsgeschichte,” which would have integrated a first
version of the Joseph story and thus established the link with the Moses
story.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 71

of the patriarchal narratives that maintained the attribution

to the Davidic era of the first stages of the literary growth
of a Jacob story yet unconnected with the Moses story.
Blum, however, did not enter into the perspective of the
Jacob story as a tribal gesta and remained under the spell of
the priority of the Gunkelian Einzelsage.
For me, the turning point came, partly at least, with
Thomas Römer: he became my assistant in 1984, and I had
to chaperone his doctoral thesis in which he took up John
Van Seter’s suggestion of 1972 that the fathers (the twb)) in
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic literature did not
refer to the patriarchs of the book of Genesis—in spite of
the seven passages in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 7;
29:12; 30:20; 34:4) that explicitely, but secondarily, identify
the twb) with the patriarchal triad. In his thesis, Israels
Väter, which appeared in 1990, Thomas Römer showed
convincingly that for Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic
literature, Israel’s history began in Egypt.17
Initially, Römer believed that this could and would prove
that there existed no preexilic Jacob story at all and that
consquently the Jacob cycle was, as was already being
suggested by other authors (Bernd Diebner18 and Martin
Rose19), a postexilic construction reflecting the experiences
of the Judean returnee community having to import their
wives from the Golah. But when I asked him whether the
Deuteronomists’ apparent absence of knowledge could not
be decoded as a very obvious refusal of knowledge, Römer
agreed that that possibility, still remote in his eyes, could
not be completely ruled out.
There were several signs, as I saw it, that pointed to the
conclusion that the Deuteronomists—at least those who
were behind Deuteronomy, Joshua, and 1–2 Kings—not only
had very well known the Jacob tradition, but that they had
vehemently rejected it, to the point of excluding and
silencing it absolutely. There is only one passage in which
the Deuteronomists obviously refer back to Jacob: Deut
26:5–9. When offering the firstfruit, the Israelite is
instructed to say:
72 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

17. Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik

im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (oBo 99;
Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).
18. Bernd J. Diebner and Hermann Schult, “Die Ehen der Erzväter,”
DBAT 8 (1975): 2–10; idem, “Alter und geschichtlicher Hintergrund von
Gen 24,” DBAT 10 (1975): 10–17.
19. Martin Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den
Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (ATANT 67; Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1981); idem “L’itinérance du Iacobus pentateuchus:
Réflexions sur Genèse 35, 1–15,” in Lectio Difficilior Probabilior?
L’exégèse comme expérience de décloisonnement: Mélanges offerts à
Françoise Smyth-Florentin (ed. T. Römer; DBAT.B 12; Heidelberg: Wiss.-
theol. Seminar, 1991), 113–26.
My father was an Aramaean about to perish [ yb) db) ymr)].
He went down into Egypt with a few people and lived
there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous!
(Deut 26:5)

There is no trace of romanticism in this allusion to Jacob: no

one is evoking here a wandering nomad! It is rather the
exact expression of this “not-wantingto-know” that
characterizes the Deuteronomist’s attitude toward Jacob:
(1) this father is not mentioned by name, probably because
his name is detestable; (2) this father is not an Israelite but
an Aramaean, in other words, a foreigner; (3) this father is
about to perish; he has no future; and (4) it is his offspring
only, the offspring that has come to Egypt, that will become
“Israel.”145 For the Deuteronomy/Deuteronomistic tradition,
the history of Israel thus indeed begins in Egypt. This is not
because the bearers of that tradition did not know of the
existence of a Jacob ancestry but because for them Israel’s
real “ancestor” is not the father (Jacob) but the prophet
(Moses).
That scenario became for me the point of departure of a
new inquiry. The story of a mere literary persona does not
provoke such a negative and even violent reaction unless it
is perceived as a danger or a menace to something held
dear. Could it not be—that was my next question—that the
Jacob cycle represented in fact, not just a saga relating the
origins of some proto-Israelite group, as I had suggested in
145 . See Albert de Pury, “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome
des origines d’Israël,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A.
Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 78–96, 83.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 73

my thesis, but an autonomous legend of Israel’s origins,

that is, a legend that was meant to stand for itself as a
founding story of Israel and that required neither a
prehistory (Abraham) nor a posthistory (Moses and the
exodus)?

2. The Jacob Story as an Autonomous Legend of origins

Did the Jacob story originally function as an autonomous
founding legend of the people of Israel? That thesis can be
construed, it seems to me, on the basis of four different
literary compositions: (1) the non-Priestly account of the
Jacob stories as preserved in the non-P sections of Gen 25–
35; (2) the poem of Hos 12; (3) the Jacob story in its P
version; and (4) the analogy of the Moses legend (Exod 2–4,
non-P).

2.1. The non-P Jacob Story in Genesis 25–35

The non-P (previously called J/E) version of the Jacob

story is structured as a triptych, followed by an epilogue
that combines various endings and beginnings. Summarily,
the Jacob story can be presented in the following way:
1. Jacob and Esau (first
act)
The origin of the conflict and its consequences
Gen 25:19–26 B irth of Jacob and Esau. They struggle
within the womb of their mother.
Gen 25:27–34 Esau sells his birthright to Jacob.
Gen 27:1–40 T he blessing destined for Esau is
fraudulently acquired by Jacob.
Gn 27:41–45 Esau vows revenge. Jacob flees.
Gn 28:10–22 Jacob’s encounter with Yhwh (or ’El?) in
Bethel (Jacob’s Dream)
2. Jacob and Laban The
rise of Jacob
Gen 29:1–14 Jacob arrives at Laban’s abode
Gen 29:15–30 Jacob’s marriages
Gen 29:31–30:24 Birth of Jacob’s
children Gen 30:25–43 Jacob
acquires wealth
74 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

Jacob’s struggle for the independence of his clan

Gen 31:1–21 Deliberations and departure of Jacob
and his clan. Gen 31:22–42 Laban catches up with
them; argument
Gen 31:43–32:1 The conflict is resolved. A treaty is concluded.

3. Jacob and Esau (second

act) Solving the conflict
with Esau
Gen 32:2–22 Preparing for the confrontation with Esau
Gen 32:23–33 N ightly struggle with an Myhl) at the
Jabbok. Jacob is blessed and bestowed with the name
Israel. Gen 33:1–17 Meeting Esau; reconciliation.

Epilogue: The ending(s) of the Jacob story and the

beginning(s) of the story of the sons of Jacob
Gen 33:18–20 J acob’s arrival in Shechem; altar-building;
recognition of
l)r#&y yhl) l) (= ending 1)
Gen 34:1–31 D inah sequestered. Raid against the
Shechemites (beginning 1)
Gen 35:1–5, 7 J acob and his clan return from Shechem
to Bethel (originally to settle there; see v.
1); altar-building; recognition of l) tyb l) (=
ending 2).
Gen 35:16–20 Birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel
(beginning 2)
Gen 35:21–22 Incest of Rueben (beginning 3)
The core of the Jacob story lies evidently in part 2 (Gen
29–31), but these chapters presuppose or announce at least
some elements of both parts 1 and
3. The hero is an outcast, a refugee who has been admitted
to a foreign clan.
Elements of part 1 are necessary to explain why the hero is
on the run. Thanks to his charm and talents, thanks also to
his astuteness, the hero gets to marry the daughters of the
sheikh, becomes the father of those who will engender the
eponymous tribes of Israel, acquires great wealth, and,
finally, with the complicity of his wives, succeeds—and that
is the decisive breakthrough!– to break loose from the
Aramean’s clan and to be recognized solemnly as a
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 75

separate, autonomous clan. After that, there remain only

the various obstacles that the hero will have to overcome
before reaching his destination—be it Shechem (Gen 33:20)
or Bethel (Gen 35:1–5.7)—and installing his clan or nation-
to-be in its legitimate northern Israelite territory!
The legend is autonomous in so far as it defines
everything a founding legend has to define: the group’s
origins and complex composition (four mothers of different
status), its relationships with its “brothers” or neighbors
(Esau/Edom, Laban/Aram, perhaps the Shechemites, etc.),
its territorial claims, its cult places (Shechem and/or Bethel,
perhaps also Mahanaim and Penuel), its genealogical
hierarchy.
The milieu, the chronological setting, and the historical
context of such a group remains to be determined. What
kind of groups, political entities, or ethnical communities
are likely to define their identity through a genealogical
legend, such as we have in Gen 25–35*? Is it a tribal society
at a prestate level, could it be a kingdom such as the
kingdom of Israel (but where is the king?), or is it, after all,
a religious community such as the emerging Judaism in
postexilic times? We can, of course, make suppositions
about the original provenance of the Jacob legend, or of the
Moses legend, but it will be difficult to go beyond
suppositions. What we should be able to ascertain, however,
is at what historical period, and perhaps in what circles,
these legends were still alive and functioning as
autonomous legends. We are thus looking for traces of a
possible precanonical life of these legends; we are calling
for witnesses.
So far, we have founded our argument mainly on the
internal logic of the non-P Jacob story. But are there some
other witnesses that would allow us to corroborate, from
the outside, the existence of the Jacob story as an
autonomous legend of origin? As I have tried to show
elsewhere,146 there can be adduced three separate witnesses
to the existence, in preexilic times, of an autonomous Jacob

146 . See mainly “Situer le cycle de Jacob: Quelques réflexions, vingt-

cinq ans plus tard,” in Wénin, ed., Studies in the Book of Genesis, 213–41.
76 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

story and to its function. The first, and the most striking, of
these witnesses is the poem of Hos 12.
2.2. The Jacob Story as It Is Reflected in Hosea 12

The interpretation of Hos 12 is a complex and much-

discussed topic, and there is no room here to go into many
details.147 A few points can, nevertheless, rapidly be made:
(1) In this poem, Hosea—or the presumed author of Hos
12—reproaches his (presumed) listerners/readers of
northern Israel (or “Ephraim,” the remnant of it after the
debacle of 734) to be the close and naive reincarnation of
their ancestor Jacob. Evoking quite a few episodes of the
ancestor’s life, the poet underlines Jacob/Ephraim’s
instability,148 his quarrelsome and violent nature,149 his fake
toughness (Jacob/Ephraim takes aggressive postures but
begs and weeps as soon as he is confronted150), or his
hypocrisy—in fact Jacob/Ephraim is even more corrupt than
the Canaanite, that is, the Phoenician merchant proverbially
known for his biased scales!151 Jacob is seen in Hos 12 as a

147 . on that subject, see my following articles: Albert de Pury, “osée

12 et ses implications pour le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque,” in Le
Pentateuque: Débats et recherches, XIVe Congrès de l’ACFEB (Angers
1991) (ed. P. Haudebert; LD 151; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 175–207; idem, “Las
dos leyendas sobre el origen de Israel (Jacob y Moisés) y la elaboración
del Pentateuco,” Estudios Biblicos 52 (1994): 95–131; idem, “Erwägungen
zu einem vorexilischen Stämmejahwismus: Hosea 12 und die
Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels und seines Gottes,” in Ein
Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext
der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (eds. W.
Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein; oBo 139; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 413–39.
148 . Hos 12:2a, 13a.
149 . Hos 12:2a, 4a, 4b.
150 . Hos 12:5 (reading wl Nnxtyw hkeb@o lkyw [ ] l)' r#&a%y%iw; “But El
[ ] imposed himself /and
(only by) weeping did he (Jacob) ‘make it’ / and he (Jacob) begged for his
mercy!”).
151 . Hos 12:8–9 (“8: Canaan holds in his hands dishonest scales; he
loves to defraud. 9a: But Ephraim says: ‘I only enriched myself! I found
myself a fortune! 9b: And in all my acquisitions one will not (be able to)
find with me (i. e. to prove) (one instance of) crookedness that would be a
transgression!’ ”).
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 77

pitiful character who, although having been “found” by ’El

in Bethel, remains to the end a bitter failure.
(2) The author of Hos 12 progressively builds up a
contrast between the ancestor (Jacob) and the prophet
(Moses). The climax comes in verses 13–14:

rm#$ t#)bw h#$)b l)r#&y db(yw Mr) hd#& bq(y xrbyw (13)
rm#$n )ybnbw Myrcmm l)r#&y t) hwhy hl(h )ybnbw
(14)

13: Jacob fled to the plains of Aram / Israel served for a

woman / Yes, for a woman he had made himself a
keeper!
14: But through a prophet has Yhwh brought Israel up
from Egypt / Yes, through a prophet has it (Israel)
been kept!

The prophet, of course, is Moses, but if he is designated by

his function and not by his name, it can only mean that it is
the function that here is at stake. Hosea, himself a prophet
and affirming his belonging to the line of prophets (see v.
11), does not oppose two personalities of Israel’s past but
two conceptions of Israel’s identity. The first conception,
quite conventional and symbolized by the “woman,” is
genealogical: Israel/the Israelite is born from the tribal
ancestor. The other conception could be called prophetical
or “vocational”: Israel/the Israelite is the one who has been
called by Moses, who has listened to Moses’s voice and has
followed him out of Egypt. The “woman” of verse 13,
therefore, does not present Jacob as a “womanizer” but as a
“patriarch”: she is the mother of the tribes. But for Hos 12,
the only real “ancestor” is the prophet, the one who has
called Israel into existence. No other biblical passage
illustrates it more clearly: the Jacob story and the Moses
story originally represent not two consecutive chapters in
Israel’s history but two rival legends of Israel’s origins! The
poem of Hos 12 as a whole must be understood as a plea for
the legitimate legend, for the right “ancestor,” for Israel’s
78 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

true identity: in other words, Israel is invited to choose its

ancestor!152
(3) In the course of his poem, the author of Hos 12
alludes to quite a series of episodes in Jacob’s life. It has
been much debated how these allusions relate to the Jacob
stories as we know them from Gen 25–35. Some think that
Hos 12 presupposes a completely different story of Jacob,
and William D. Whitt has gone so far as to say that it is
Genesis that depends on Hos12 and that the Jacob cycle has
been spun out of the prophetic poem.153 Whitt suspects, for
example, that the motif of Jacob’s two wives—Leah and
Rachel—is based on an erroneous understanding of the
double h#$)b in Hos 12:13b. In that verse, says Whitt, we
have only one woman, as in verse 14 we have only one
prophet. I have tried to look at the matter from all angles
and have come to the conclusion that in its substance, the
Hosean allusions presuppose a Jacob story quite close to the
one we know from Genesis.154 In fact, it is quite surprising
that the five verses of Hos 12 that are concerned with Jacob
are able to allude to more than a dozen episodes or features
we know from the Genesis Jacob:

F the twin birth (v. 4a; Gen 25:21–26)

F the etymology of the name Jacob (v. 4a; Gen 25:26;
27:36)
F the pushing aside of the brother (v. 4a; Gen 25:21–26;
25:29–34;
27:1–45)
F the struggle with a divine adversary (v. 4b; Gen 32:23–
33)
F the etymology of the name Israel (v. 5a; Gen 32:19)
F the ambiguous victory of the patriarch (v. 5a; Gen
32:27, 30–31)
152 . Albert de Pury, “Le choix de l’ancêtre,” TZ 57 (2001): 105–14;
idem, “Choisir l’ancêtre. Jacob, Moïse et Abraham comme figures d’une
identité collective dans l’Ancien Testament,” in Le fait religieux: Cours de
la chaire UNESCO de religions comparées 1999–2002 (ed. A. Charfi;
Tunis: Edition Sahar, 2005), 39–59.
153 . William D. Whitt, “The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and their
Relation to Genesis,” ZAW 103 (1991): 18–43.
154 . De Pury, “Situer le cycle de Jacob,” 227–35.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 79

F the unsolicited theophany in Bethel (v. 5b; Gen 28:10–

22; 35:1, 7)
F the promise of safe return and of divine protection (v.
7; Gen 28:15, 21; 31:13)
F the acquisition of wealth by doubtful means (v. 9; Gen
30:25–
31:19)
F the cairns of stones in Galeed (v. 12b; Gen 31:46–54)
F Jacob’s flight to Aram (v. 13a; Gen 27:43–45; 29:1; in
P: Gen 28:2,
6–7)
F the voluntary service for a woman (v. 13b; Gen 29:15–
30)
F the keeping of herds for a woman (v. 13b; Gen 30:25–
42)

All parts of the Jacob story, including the two theophanies,

find themselves reflected in Hos 12. The evocation of the
various episodes obviously does not follow the chronological
order of the Genesis story, but, as we shall see, that does
not imply a reference to a differently structured narrative.
(4) Much of the debate has been aimed at the date of the
oracle collections of the book of Hosea and of Hos 12 in
particular. Martti Nissinen155 and others have proposed to
bring that date down to postexilic times. 156 of course, in the
absence of material evidence and of Carbon-14 dates,
anything is conceivable in biblical exegesis. But if the
substance of Hosean tradition is removed from the preexilic
period, nothing is explicable any longer. To me, a strong
argument for the antiquity of the Hosean oracle collections
has been formulated by Grace I. Emmerson: 157 the Judaean
annotations—in Hos 12, they are easily identified in verses
1b and 6, especially in 1b!—are themselves quite obviously

155 . Martti Nissinen, Prophetie, Redaktion und Fortschreibung im

Hoseabuch: Studien zum Werdegang eines Prophetenbuches im Lichte
von Hos 4 und 11 (AoAT 231; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991).
156 . Cf. along the same lines, Thomas Römer, “osée,” in idem et al.,
Introduction à l’Ancien Testament, 383–98.
157 . Grace I. Emmerson, Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean
Perspective (JSoTSup 28; Sheffield: JSoT Press, 1984), 56–116, 158–59.
80 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

preexilic. That feature of a still preexilic Judaean rereading

practically locks up the whole of the Hosean collections in
the time of the monarchy. The book of Hosea, in its
substance, has probably been put to writing soon after the
fall of the kingdom of Israel, perhaps in conjunction with
the book of Amos.158
That means that between 720 and 700 b.c.e. the Jacob
cycle also must have had an (at least) oral existence. It may
also have existed in written form, but Hos 12 shows that the
Jacob stories were present in the minds and memory of the
poet’s listeners or readers. Hosea 12 is indeed one of the
only biblical texts that allow us to observe directly the
functioning of oral tradition. The Jacob story does not have
to be retold by the Hosean poet, and the allusions to that
story do not have to respect the sequential order of the
episodes in the narrative: obviously it suffices for his
audience to hear one word or one allusion to make the
connexion, immediately, with the well-known story.

2.3. The Jacob story as Told in the Work of Pg

The Priestly Work (Pg159) is the only element of the

Wellhausen system to have survived the storm that has
struck pentateuchal studies since the 1970s. Even if some
important scholars such as Rendtorff and Van Seters
consider P a redactional layer, reworking and reinterpreting
an older text without suppressing it, the mere fact that the
P elements can be isolated rather easily and then joined
together without practically any loss suggests very strongly
that Pg was originally indeed an independent and

158 . See Jörg Jeremias, “Die Anfänge des Dodekapropheton: Hosea

und Amos,” in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 61;
Leiden: Brill, 1995), 87–106; idem, Hosea and Amos: Studien zu den
Anfängen des Dodekapropheton (FAT 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).
159 . By the siglum Pg, we designate the Priestergrundschrift, the
original work before its junction with other pentateuchal material (or,
more precisely, the introduction into the frame formed by P g, of other
material, be it older or younger) and before its supplementation by
secondary material (narrative or legislative) redacted in the priestly style
or thematic.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 81

autonomous work, standing for itself (so David Carr, 160

Eckart otto, Thomas Pola, and many others). The well-
known and much-discussed problem pertains to the
question of the work’s end. Does P g extend to the death of
Moses (Deut 34:1, 5, 7–9) or even to the death of Joshua
(Josh 18:1; 24:29b)? Thomas Pola, 161 Erich Zenger,162 and
Eckart otto163 have given very strong arguments to opt for a
short original Priestly work (Pg) extending only to the
building of the sanctuary in the desert. Pola sees its end in
Exod 15:22; 16:1; 19:1; 24:15b–18a; 25:1, 8a, 9; 29:45–46;
40:16, 17a, 33b. For the part of Pg in Genesis, the
attributions are subject to much less controversy. There is,
it seems to me, an emerging consensus that P g at least—that
is, the original Priestergrundschrift —was an independent,
well structured, and carefully crafted literary work. As
Konrad Schmid has argued, Pg may even represent the first
“history of the origins” that set out to englobe in its project
the creation of the universe and humankind (Adam to Noah
and his sons), the history of the patriarchs (Abraham to
Jacob), and the history of the birth of the people of Israel
and of Moses’ call (Moses to Sinai). 164 As far as Pg’s Jacob
story is concerned, we will again have to limit ourselves to a
few remarks:165The structure of Pg is as follows:

Part 1: History of Humankind

Gen 1:1–2:4a Creation of heaven and earth and humankind

160 . David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and
Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 43–140.
161 . Thomas Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen
zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von P g (WMANT 70;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995).
162 . Erich Zenger, “Priesterschrift,” TRE 27 (1997): 435–46.
163 . Eckart otto, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” TRu 62 (1997):
1–50.
164 . Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur
doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der
Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; NeukirchenVluyn:
Neukirchener, 1999).
165 . For a more extensive treatment of that matter, see Albert de
Pury, “Der priesterschriftliche Umgang mit der Jakobsgeschichte,” in
Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift O.H. Steck (ed. R. G. Kratz et
al.; BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 33–60.
82 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

Gen 5:1–32 Linear genealogy from Adam to Noah

Gen 6:9, 11–22; The flood
7:6, 11, 13–
16abα, 17–21,
24
Gen 9:1–17, 28–29 God’s berit in favor or Noah, humanity,
and all living beings Gen 10:1–7, 20, Segmented genealogy
of the sons of Noah: Table of Nations
22–23, 31–32

Part 2: History of the Abrahamides

Gen 11:10–28a. Linear genealogy from Shem to Abra(ha)m

Gen 11:29–32; Transmigration of the Abrahamic clan to Harran
and Canaan
12:4b, 5
Gen 13:6, 11b, 12 Separation from Lot
Gen 16:3, 15–16 Birth of Ishmael
Gen 17:1–13, 15–27 Th eophany to Abra(ha)m of Yhwh under
the name El Shaddai. Institution of a double
tyrb: first in favor of Abraham
and his multinational descendants (vv. 1–14.
“a mass [Nwmh] of peoples,” v. 5). The land of
Canaan is given to them, and they all must
have their sons circumcised on the eighth day;
then in favor of the yet-to-be-born son of
Sarah and of his particular descendants (vv.
15–21): they are called to “live before the face
of ‘Yhwh’” (cf. v. 18!). The circumcision is
accomplished by Abraham and Ishmael (vv.
23–27).
Gen 19:29 Salvaging Lot
Gen 21:1b–5 Birth of Isaac
Gen 23:1–20 Death of Sarah; acquisition of the cave of
Machpelah
Gen 25:7–10 Death of Abraham; his burial by Ishmael and Isaac
Gen 25:13–17 List of the twelve sons of Ishmael
Gen 25:20 Marriage of Isaac and Rebekah
Gen 26:20 Birth of <Jacob and Esau>
Gen 26:34–35; Esau’s marriages with the daughters of Het;
disappointment of Rebekah. Jacob sent to
Laban to get a wife for himself; marriage of
Esau with a daughter of Ishmael.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 83

Gen 35:6aα, 11–15 Jacob arrives in Luz (Bethel) and receives

promise of numerous descendants (“an assembly [lhq] of
peoples”) and of the
land. He raises a massebah. (…)

[lacuna] Jacob’s stay with Laban and marriage to

Laban’s daughters; birth of the sons of Jacob
[These elements were probably left out
because the non-P Jacob story told them much
along the same lines.]
Gen 31:18*; The return of Jacob and his family. While he is
on his way,
35:9–10 God gives him the name Israel.
Gen 35:27–29 Arrival of Jacob in Mamre; death of Isaac;
burial of Isaac by Esau and Jacob in the cave of
Machpelah
Gen 36:40–43 List of the eleven chiefs of Esau
Gen 37:1 Jacob settles in Canaan.
Gen 46:6–7; Jacob and his sons descend to Egypt [no
47:27b–28 Joseph story!]
Gen 49:1a, Jacob blesses his sons and asks them to bury
28bb, him in the cave
29–33 of Machpelah. Death of Jacob.
Gen 50:12–12 Jacob’s sons bury him in the cave of
Machpelah.
Part 3: History of the vocation of the sons of Israel

Exod 1:1–5a List of the twelve sons of Israel who came to

Egypt with their father [one must reinstitute
the mention of Joseph]
Exod 1:7–2:25* The oppression of Israel in Egypt
Exod 6:2–12 The call of Moses; the revelation of the
name of Yhwh Exod 7:1–5 Aaron is adjoined to Moses.
Exod 7:6–11:10* Pleading before Pharaoh; the plagues of Egypt
Exod 12:37a–13:20* Leaving Egypt
Exod 14:1–29* Crossing the sea; Pharaoh’s army is engulfed
into the sea.
Exod 15:22; 16:1; Arrival at Sinai; Yhwh calls Moses from the
mountain.
19:1; 24:15b–18a
Exod 25:1, 8a, 9; Y hwh orders Moses to build a sanctuary.
Moses completes the
84 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

29, 45–46; 40:16, work.166

17a, 33b

If, within Pg’s global project, we single out the sequence

that corresponds to the life of Jacob, we notice that P g’s
Jacob story has the same skeletal structure as the non-P
Jacob cycle, although with a completely different narrative
substance, all “problematic” episodes having disappeared.
The birth of Jacob and Esau engenders no conflict between
the twins, and the departure of Jacob is motivated only by
his parents’ fear that he might follow Esau’s example in
marrying a daughter of Het. The stay of Jacob in Paddan-
Aram is alluded to, but its actual recounting is missing.
These few verses, apparently, have been lost when the non-
P story was introduced into the P g matrix. The verses telling
the return of Jacob from Paddan-Aram to his father’s abode
in Canaan have been preserved, but in an obviously
perturbed state. As Gunkel already had argued in his
commentary of 1910,167 the scene of Gen 35:6.9–15 in the
Masoretic Text results from the conflation of two different
theophanies: the theophany of Bethel (Gen 35:6a a, 11–15);
and the divine encounter at Penuel (31:18; 35:9–10). In the
original Pg text, the first theophany (v. 6aa, 11–15) had its
place before the lacuna and the second one after the
lacuna. When we replace the verses in their original order
(as has been done in the above outline), we see that P g’s
Jacob story bears the same strucure as the older, non-P
story.
We can conclude from these observations that the author
of Pg knew the Jacob story well but deliberately purged it of
all that seemed incompatible with his understanding of the
behavior of God’s chosen partners. For our purpose, that
means that Pg does indeed attest the existence of an older
Jacob story that included at least one episode about Jacob
and Esau, the theophany in Bethel, the stay with Laban, the
encounter at Penuel, and Jacob’s return to his father. But
that does not mean that Pg knew the Jacob story as already
166 . The end of Pg, according to the proposal of Pola, Die
ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 213–98.
167 . Gunkel, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, 384–87; cf. de Pury, “Der
priesterschriftliche Umgang,” 46–48.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 85

connected to stories about Abraham and Isaac or as serving

as prelude to the story of Israel in Egypt. In the time of P g,
the Jacob story still could have had its autonomous status.
2.4. The Jacob Story as Reflected in the Story of Moses’ Youth
(Exodus 2–4)

In 1987 Ronald Hendel drew attention to the fact that

the story of Moses’ youth has surprising similarities to the
Jacob story.168 Both Moses and Jacob are forced to flee after
a transgression committed during a conflict. Both seek
refuge outside their land and end up meeting girls at the
well. Both find shelter in the families of these girls, and
both become the sons-in-law of the sheikh who has
welcomed them to his abode. In both cases, the decision to
come back— brought about by, among other factors, an
intervention of God—is a turning point in the mission of the
hero. From that point on, both Moses and Jacob have to
confront various ordeals and overcome countless obstacles
before they finally reach home and can start with their
mission proper. Among the ordeals, the hero in both stories
is attacked during the night by his divine patron (Gen
32:23–33; Exod 4:24–26).
These similarities suggest that the story of Exod 2–4 may
have been influenced in part by the Jacob story. If indeed
there was a rivalry between the Jacob and the Moses stories
as the founding legend of Israel, the aim of the Exodus
narrator could have been to present Moses as a kind of new
Jacob. of course, there also are in the story of Moses’ birth
and youth elements that fully belong to the situation of the
qualification of a prophet or that reflect the credentials of a
charismatic leader: the endangered birth, the education
received in the very seraglio of the enemy court, the
discovery of the people’s oppression, the solitude in the
desert, the call and the prophet’s numerous objections, the
ordeal. But the irony is that the very feature that is
constitutive of the Jacob story and makes it into a
genealogical legend of origins—the hero getting a wife or
wives and begetting a son or sons—remains a blind motif in
168 . Ronald S. Hendel, The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle
and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel (HSM 42; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1987).
86 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

the Moses story. Moses begets a son, of course, but this son
plays no role whatsoever in the subsequent story or in the
definition of Mosaic Israel’s collective identity. This is a
clear sign that the structure shown by Hendel is “natural”
or primary in the Jacob story, whereas it is “artificial” or
secondary in the Moses story. It is in that sense that the
Moses legend, which has often been dated to the Assyrian
period,169 can serve as a witness to the existence of an old
and autonomous Jacob story and, probably, to its rival status
as founding legend of Israel.
What Hos 12 shows us, too, is that the Moses legend of
origins was carried, within eighth-century Israelite society,
by prophetic circles. Even in its definitive literary
elaboration, the story of “Mosaic Israel” bears the traits of a
prophetic Utopia. The antitribal and antigenealogical taint
of the Moses story, manifest in the evocation of the archaic
Levites in Exod 32:25–29; Deut 33:8–11 or, in adverse
perspective, Gen 49:5–7, suggests that some of the
prophetic guilds functioned as brotherhoods. For the
sociological roots of “Jacobian Israel,” represented by the
Jacob legend, they must be sought, most probably, in the
tribal elites, that is, in the formerly feudal land aristocracy
of northern Israel and Transjordan.
How long did these rival legends remain separate, both
on the conceptual and on the literary level? That remains an
open question. The Deuteronomists of Deut 26:5–9
apparently know that those who will become the actors of
the Mosaic legend of origins are the descendants of that
wretched Aramean they refuse to name, of Jacob.170 So it is
probable that the idea that the Israelites called into being
by Moses were none other than the descendants of Jacob
had already made its way and was not an invention of P g.

169 . See Thomas L. Thompson, The Literary Formation of Genesis

and Exodus 1–23 (vol. 1 of The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel; JSoTSup
55; Sheffield: JSoT Press, 1988).
170 . The descent of Jacob and his retinue to Egypt (without mention
of the story of Joseph) is mentioned also in 1 Sam 12:8 and Josh 24:4. In
Gen 46:27, the descendants of Jacob are numbered seventy, which is also
the number of the “fathers” arriving in Egypt according to Deut 10:22. All
these passages are recognized to be later than the first Deuteronomist,
and also later than Pg.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 87

But that does not preclude the possibility, and indeed the
probability, that Pg was the first writer to have ventured to
link together both stories on a literary level and to make out
of the Jacob legend a prelude to the Moses story within a
comprehensive literary project, thus in a way reconciling
two stories that had been considered incompatible by
prophetic and Deuteronomistic circles.

3. Pg, the Jacob Story, and the Formation of the Pentateuch

If we come back to the the work of P g as a whole, as it
appears in the synopsis above, two further remarks must be
made. First, for Pg—compared with the
Deuteronomy/Deuteronomistic tradition—history does not
begin in Egypt but starts with the creation of heaven and
earth, at the beginning of time and space. Whereas the
animal world in all its variety and the human species, with
its unique, kingly vocation, appear on the stage of the
universe in the first act, and whereas all nations—the
offspring of Shem (representing, probably, in the eyes of P g
the inhabitants of the Achaemenid Empire), but also the
offspring of Ham (in the south) and of Japheth (in the north
and the west), settle the entire surface of the earth and the
isles of the sea, each “according to their clans, their
languages, their countries, and their nations” (Gen 10:5,
20–21, 31, 32a) in the final scene of part 1, the people of
Israel appear on the stage only in the final act, at the
beginning of part 3!171 This alone shows that in the world of
humans the sons of Israel are not meant to be just another
nation but that they will have a mission of their own within
the community of nations. Israel’s fundamental and perhaps
only mission is to build and keep the sanctuary ( #$dqm and
Nk#$m, Exod 25:8a, 9) that will allow Yhwh to reside among
the sons of Israel and, through them, among humankind.
Second, Pg’s Jacob story is completely embedded in the
story of the Abrahamides and does not bear its own
theological weight. With the exception of the change of

171 . on Pg and the table of nations, see Albert de Pury, “Sem, Cham
et Japhet: De la fraternité à l’esclavage?” in Koryphaiô andri: Mélanges
offerts à André Hurst (ed. A. Kolde et al.; Genève: Droz, 2005), 495–508.
88 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

name (Gen 35:10), the words spoken by God to Jacob (Gen

35:11–12; cf. 28:3–4) are a mere repetition of those
addressed to Abraham. The tyrb, with all its inherent
promises (Gen 17:1–8: the multinational offspring, begetting
kings [i.e., forming states], the right to live in the land of
Canaan, the promise to be “their God”) and obligations (Gen
17:9–13: the circumcision), is founded with the
multinational Abraham, not with the “national” ancestor
Jacob. For the final, canonical book of Genesis, as well as
for traditional Jewish and Christian exegesis, these
promises are understood, of course, to have been
“refocused” at each generation on a specific branch of the
genealogical tree— Isaac and not Ishmael, Jacob and not
Esau!—but within Pg there is not a single text that would
found, justify, or even presuppose this progressive
narrowing of the list of beneficiaries of the tyrb. Pg knows of
no expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, of no phasing out of
Esau. In his view, both Ishmael and Esau remain in the land,
and quite legitimately so: they are present at their father’s
burial in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 25:9; 35:29), and their
descendants doubtlessly share the task with the
descendants of Jacob of maintaining in Hebron the
patriarchal mausoleum as a place of common pilgrimage.
Again, the only specific task of the sons of Israel will be to
“live before the face of ‘Yhwh,’ ” that is, to take care of the
cult and to be the “priests of humanity,” since that is the
only role denied by God to Ishmael (Gen 17:18). 172 In the
project of Pg, the specific vocation of the sons of Israel
unfolds in part 3, starting in Exod 1:1. Within part 2, Jacob
and his sons have as their only, modest function to be the
link between the Abrahamic community of nations and the
“sons of Israel” who finally emerge to their proper destiny
in the Moses story. on that point at least, P g stays in some
sense close to the Deuteronomistic view: for him, too,
Israel’s specific history starts in Egypt!

172 . For that interpretation of Gen 17 and the role of Abraham for P g,
see Albert de Pury, “Abraham, the Priestly Writer’s ‘Ecumenical’
Ancestor,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient
World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. S. L.
McKenzie and T. Römer; BZAW 294; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 163–81.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 89

These observations should lead us, if I see it correctly, to

the following conclusions.
(1) The author of Pg is not a minor redactor trying to
correct or emend, or even to reformulate, an existing
literary work: he is a conceptor, an architect, and a creator.
He, the first, has conceived the project to write, not so
much a history of the origins of Israel, but a history of God’s
universal project. The role of Israel in this project is pivotal
but also surprisingly discreet: Israel will allow Yhwh to take
his abode among humankind, in a location and according to
a model that are not even defined yet. For the time being,
that Nk#$m has a virtual existence, somewhere out there in
the Sinai, but the aim—not yet formulated—is to rebuild the
temple and therewith to guarantee the permanence of the
wonderful world order founded in Gen 1 and 9 and the
regional order inaugurated in Gen 17. The author of P g is
definitely an individual and not a school, even though the
later elaboration of the so-called Priestly legislation is
surely the work of a school.
(2) What is the date or the historical insertion of P g? It
has been recognized for over a century that P g is not
imaginable before the exile. As a growing number of
scholars see it, he is not imaginable before the beginning of
the Persian era either. Just like Deutero-Isaiah, he
manifestly has been touched by the “euphoria” of the
advent of Cyrus. Many traits of his work could be shown to
be in “dialogue” with the ideology of Cyrus, most notably
his favorable view of the diversity of nations, cultures, …
and forms of religion. Pg is the one biblical author who
admits some kind of history and geography of religion:
according to him, Yhwh has not revealed his name—that is,
his intimate name, his cult name—to others than the sons of
Israel through Moses (Exod 6:2–3), but that does not mean
that the great ancestors of humankind (or of parts of
humankind) like Noah or Abraham did not know the real,
true, and only God. Geographically, that implies that the
other contemporary humans—Ishmaelites, Edomites, …
even these sons of Het (Gen 23:6!) whose daughters one
should not marry!—recognize the one and only God. That
novel theological paradigm, so different from the
90 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

Deuteronomists’ conventions and even from

DeuteroIsaiah’s, is a direct adaptation of the Achaemenid
doctrine (perceptible already in the Cyrus Cylinder). P g is
also the author who seems to have “invented” the linguistic
convention to use the appellative “god” as a divine name
(i.e., without article or determinative), that is, to designate
the universal god as Myhl), or to call “the god” “God” (with
a majuscule initial).173 Genesis 1, which could be read as the
charter of the new worldview bears as a whole the mark of
the Cyrus era.174
That gives us for Pg a terminus a quo of 539 b.c.e., the
entry of Cyrus into Babylon. For the terminus ad quem, we
cannot, in my view, go beyond the end of Cyrus’s reign, and
that for several reasons: the pharaoh remains in the work of
Pg the only real enemy. Egypt was indeed the only major
power to have stayed outside the huge empire Cyrus had
just founded. Cyrus had planned to conquer Egypt, but the
task was carried out, five years after his death, by his
successor Cambysses (530–522), between 525 and 522.
Starting with Darius (522–486), the Persian king invested
himself so thoroughly into his new role of pharaoh 175 that a
hostile portrait of the pharaoh could no longer have been
envisaged by a pro-Persian author. Another telling sign
could be the extraordinary concern of Pg for the formation
of a kind of fraternity or “ecumenism” between the
populations of southern Palestine by their inclusion into an
Abrahamic genealogy. When one knows that the Edomites
and Ishmaelites had profited from the collapse of the
Assyrian and Babylonian Empires to penetrate and settle

173 . See Albert de Pury, “Gottesname, Gottesbezeichnung und

Gottesbegriff: ’Elohim als Indiz zur Entstehungsgeschichte des
Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des
Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAW 315;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 25–47.
174 . See Albert de Pury, “Genesis 1 in Its Historical Context and
Today’s Ecological Concerns,” in Listening to Creation Groaning (ed. L.
Vischer; John Knox Series 16; Geneva: Centre International Réformé John
Knox, 2004), 61–74.
175 . Cf. Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse: De Cyrus à
Alexandre (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 490–93; English translation: From Cyrus
to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (trans. P. T.
Daniels; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 481–84.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 91

precisely these southern marshes of Palestine at the end of

the seventh and beginning of the sixth century, one cannot
but wonder to see them treated with such benevolence. The
reason is probably that as long as Egypt was not integrated
into the Persian commonwealth, the south of Palestine
remained a “sensitive border region.” Cultivating an
Edomite-Ishmaelite-Judean entente must have responded to
Persian interests, and Pg is manifestly playing into the
Persians’ hands. The last argument pertains to the
perspectives of the reconstruction or reinstallation of the
temple of Yhwh in Jerusalem. Many commentators have
been intrigued by Pg’s vagueness about any concrete
measures in that sense: neither the model—Pola is certainly
right in considering the transformation of the #$dqm of
Exod 25:8–9 into a transportable tabernacle as a secondary,
post-Pg development176—nor the location are elaborated in
any way. This can only mean that great precautions still had
to be taken not to rush the Persian authorities nor to
provoke Samaritan opposition. Such precautions would no
longer have been necessary after 520. We are therefore led
to situate Pg’s work under the reign of Cyrus, let us say
between 535 and 530,177 a span of a decade at most, which
is, for biblical standards, a surprisingly narrow window.
(3) This setting of a fairly early date, considering today’s
more radical tendencies, for the composition of P g enables
us to understand the huge impact that this, as such rather
concise, work was to have on the start of the processus that
led to the formation of the Pentateuch. In the books of
Genesis and Exodus, the often meager thread of the Priestly
narrative constitutes a sort of watershed, at which the
exegete will have to determine what is earlier and what is
later than Pg. Every time the question will be: What does P g
presuppose; on what does he look back? And to what does
Pg give rise? What reaction does he provoke? It seems to
me, as we have seen, that P g does presuppose both the
Jacob and the Moses story, but in a still unconnected state.

176 . Cf. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 312–18.

177 . These arguments have been brought forward in de Pury, “Der
priesterschriftliche Umgang,” 39–40 but with an unfortunate slip in the
dates of the end of the reign of Cyrus. Read 535–30 instead of 530–525!
92 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

Pg of course does not reproduce these literary works, but he

formulates them anew and, by integrating them into his big
project, gives both of them a new turn. For the rest, notably
for the Urgeschichte (Gen 1–11*)178 and for the Abraham
story (Gen 12–25*),179 the situation is different: all extant
non-P text material seems to presuppose P, or even to have
been provoked by it.
The figure of Abraham as such was probably that of a
local intertribal and intercommunal ancestor, hero, or saint,
linked to his “cave” or “rock”180 in Hebron, a genius loci that
enjoyed great popularity not only among Judeans but also
among the inhabitants of the desert fringes who visited the
Hebron market. If Pg chose this interethnic figure of the
local folklore to make out of him the father of all the desert
and mountain people of southern Palestine, he doubtless
responded not only to Persian interests but also to local
demand. But let us remember that for the circle of Ezekiel,
the Abrahamic “melting pot” had provoked only anger and
disgust!181 Here again Pg acts as creator. Before him
Abraham had not yet been integrated into a unified
genealogy of Israel’s ancestors. It is clear also that the
motif of Abraham’s immigration from Mesopotamia has
been taken from the Jacob tradition and imposed on
Abraham by Pg. All the non-P stories of Gen 12–25
presuppose the framework created by Pg.
Let us conclude by coming back, one last time, to the
Jacob story and its fate at the outset of the formation of the
Pentateuch. We can propose the following scenario. (a) The
extant non-P Jacob story in Gen 25–35* is, in its substance,
a preexilic and originally north Israelite patriarchal gesta,
representing one of ancient Israel’s major legends of
178 . See, e.g., Eckart otto, “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: eine
nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen
Kontext,” in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit…”: Studien zur israelitischen und
altorientalischen Weisheit. Festschrift D. Michel (ed. A. A. Diesel et al.;
BZAW 241; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), 167–92; Markus Witte, Die biblische
Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu
Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAW 265; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998).
179 . See de Pury, “Genèse 12–36,” in Römer et al., Introduction à
l’Ancien Testament, 134–56, 150–53.
180 . See Isa 51:1.
181 . See Ezek 33:23–39.
 DE PURY: THE JACoB SToRY 93

origins. Notwithstanding this claim, it may very well be that

some elements or whole episodes of today’s Genesis Jacob
story are less old or have replaced older versions of that
particular episode. Doubts have been voiced concerning the
“Bethel layer” or the birth story of Jacob’s sons: Do they
belong in their present form to the oldest form of the Jacob
gesta?182 Perhaps not. But the possible lateness of this or
that feature of the present non-P Jacob story does not
invalidate, however, the claim that the Jacob gesta, as a
whole, is old and functioned as a tribal or national legend of
origin.
(b) In the wake of the rejection by prophetic circles of
the Jacob tradition, as illustrated by the poem of Hos 12,
the Jacob legend of origin has been subjected to what
amounts to a damnatio memoriae. The Deuteronomists do
not want to know the Jacob legend and do not mention it in
their historical works, with the notable exception of Deut
26:5–9, a passage that precisely confirms the will to silence
the Jacob tradition.
(c) Conceiving and building his own work, P g sets out to
situate the founding of Israel’s mission within a history of
God’s work in the world, where history of humankind and
the history of the regional Abrahamic oikoumene play a
major role. Within that project, Pg takes over the mere
structure of the old Jacob story and uses it as a narrative
and genealogical link between parts 2 and 3 of his work.
However, he does not take over the narrative substance of
the old Jacob story, which he surely dislikes as much as the
Deuteronomists do. Nevertheless, thanks to his symbolic
reintegration of the contested father figure, he sets the
stage for a later reintegration of the full and unadulterated
old Jacob story.
(d) In the wake of the choice of the P g work as blueprint
and framework for the Pentateuch-to-be, the redactors
responsible for the compilation, enriching, and completion
of the successive editions of the Pentateuch will introduce
in it countless new stories or other elements. But in a few
cases, some of these “new” stories may in fact have been
traditional, recuperated stories, older than P g. This is

182 . on that question, see de Pury, “Situer le cycle de Jacob,” 237–40.

94 A FAREWELL To THE YAHWIST?

certainly the case with the non-P Jacob story. Here, thanks
to these redactors, one of the really old—and for the
afterworld unforgettable—Israelite legends was saved from
damnatio and oblivion. Why was that old story recuperated?
We do not know. It may have been antiquarian interest. But
it may also be that very soon in the fifth century, the
theological climate turned away from Pg’s peaceful
“humanism” and readopted a more nationalistic and
combative view of Israel’s place in the world. In that
context, the scenes of Jacob despoiling Esau or cheating on
Laban might have been considered much less offensive. And
in any case, from an emotional and esthetic point of view,
the non-P Jacob makes for better literature than the P g
Jacob: the Pentateuch would not have been the same
without it!
 The TransiTion beTween The

books of Genesis and exodus*

Jan Christian Gertz

I realize I am not saying anything new when I describe

the recent discussion about saying farewell to the Yahwist
as multifaceted—almost so multifaceted as the various
Yahwists presented by scholars of the last decades. The
points disputed by the advocates of the Yahwist hypothesis
are familiar. Texts ascribed to the Yahwist are generally
considered to be multilayered, yet a consensus in explaining
this widely acknowledged point is, however, not in sight.
Disunity surrounds also the extent and dating of the
Yahwist’s work, and it is perhaps here that the differences
are the most apparent. A similar polyphony in past research
surrounds the characterizations of the Yahwist and his
work. On the one end, there are those who still speak of a
salvation-historical account drafted by a theologian from
Solomonic times; on the other end, there are those who
argue for a work composed by an anti-Deuteronomic
redactor in the exilic period who aimed to explain the
origins of the Diaspora. Still others describe the work as an
account of Israel’s history written by a post-
Deuteronomistic author. With respect to all the disputed
points, we are not dealing with peripheral details. To the
contrary, the debate concerns our fundamental
understanding of the nature of the literary work.
Yet it is perhaps fairer and more helpful for the ongoing
discussion when one focuses on the minimal consensus
among the proponents of the thesis of the Yahwist, rather
than emphasizing the dissension. This minimal consensus
consists in the basic agreement that there is a running
narrative thread of pre-Priestly material in the Tetrateuch. 1
By way of this thread, the Yahwist purportedly con-
96 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

*The original wording of the lecture has been maintained. In order to

respond to at least some of the responses, I have added “5. The First
Connection between the Patriarchal Cycles and the Exodus Narrative in P.”
I am grateful to Dr. Jacob Wright for help in translating the manuscript.
1. What follows does not relate to a specific version of the Yahwist
thesis but rather to the minimal consensus specified above—regardless of
the question whether the respective advocate of the thesis subsumes the
pre-Priestly Pentateuch under the term “Yahwist.”

-73 -
nected the essential components of the various accounts
into the transmitted sequence of historical events. 183
Although the end of the pre-Priestly narrative is disputed,
there is a consensus that the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch
created by the Yahwist comprised at least three sections:
the primordial history in Gen 1–11; the patriarchal cycles
(including the story of Joseph); and the exodus narrative. 184
A good place to begin testing the thesis of the Yahwist is
thus in the literary seams between these three sections of
texts.

1. Explicit or Implicit Cross-references: how Does One

Establish the Unity of the Yahwist?
One can investigate the connections between the various
sections of the pentateuchal narrative on various levels.
Opponents of the Yahwist thesis like to focus on the explicit
cross-references between the narrative sections.185 here the
situation is fortunately very clear. For some texts, like the
final form of Gen 15, there is no room for doubt that they
have the entire Pentateuch in view and that they
secondarily integrate larger narrative units that originally

183 . See Christoph levin, Der Jahwist (FrlANT 157; Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1993), 9: “Es muß im vorpriesterschriftlichen
Material des Tetrateuchs ein redaktioneller Faden vorhanden sein, der
einen beträchtlichen Teil des unterschiedlichen Stoffs erstmals zu der
vorliegenden Abfolge des heilsgeschichtlichen Geschehens verknüpft hat.”
184 . representative is the view of Otto Kaiser, Die erzählenden Werke
(vol. 1 of Grundriss der Einleitung in die kanonischen und
deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments; Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992), 63.
185 . Thus Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur
doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der
Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; NeukirchenVluyn:
Neukirchener, 1999).
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 97

did not belong together. Yet all in all there is a very small
number of these redactional passages, and an increasing
number of scholars consider them to be the youngest
additions to the Pentateuch. Thus, I would accept the
widespread view that the prolepsis of the exodus in Gen
15:13–16 represents a post-Priestly supplement to the
primary stratum of Gen 15, which itself is very late. 186 An
analysis of the explicit cross- references produces,
therefore, unfavorable results for the thesis of the Yahwist.
Consequently, proponents of the thesis of the Yahwist
prefer an alternative approach. They treat the explicit
cross-references as late attempts to augment the coherency
of the preexistent narrative.187 In order to maintain the
thesis, they emphasize the implicit cross-references as well
as conceptual and linguistic characteristics that represent
the point of departure for postulating a unified literary
work. To be sure, the discussion shows that it is much more
difficult to attain unanimity in interpreting this textual
evidence. Thus, the way one assesses the linguistic
peculiarities of the Yahwist, which have often been
catalogued,7 depends upon one’s general approach. This
applies even for the way one interprets the allusions in the
motifs. I would like to mention at least one example: Gen
12:10–20 evinces a strong similarity to the accounts of the
plagues in Exod 7–11.8 Does this text constitute a prolepsis
of the exodus within a literary work comprising the
patriarchal narratives and the exodus account,9 or does it
represent an attempt to reclaim the exodus tradition for an
independent corpus of patriarchal narrative?
The difficulties are due not least to a procedure in which
a thesis—in this case, the existence of the Yahwist—is
postulated experimentally in order to verify or—less often—
to falsify it on the basis of its heuristic value for extremely
complex literary evidence. Such a procedure seems

186 . For further bibliographical references, see Jan Christian Gertz,

“Abraham, Mose und der Exodus: Beobachtungen zur redaktions-
geschichte von Gen 15,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des
Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAW 315;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 63–81.
187 . See David M. Carr, “Genesis in relation to the Moses Story:
Diachronic and Synchronic
Perspectives,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction
and History (ed. A. Wénin;
98 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

unavoidable, yet it requires a cross-examination that does

not presuppose the thesis in question. In our case, this
means that the Yahwist thesis must prove its validity in the
literary seams connecting the various sections of the
pentateuchal narrative. In consideration of the emphases in
current research, I will concentrate my attention on the
transition from the patriarchal narratives to the exodus
account.

BETl 155; leuven: leuven University Press; Peters, 2001), 273–95, esp.
276–83; Christoph levin, “Das israelitische Nationalepos: Der Jahwist,” in
Große Texte alter Kulturen: Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom (ed. M.
hose; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004), 63–85. See
these works for the following discussion.
7. A prominent example is the “lexikon des Jahwisten” in levin,
Jahwist, 399–408.
8. Gen 12:17 shares the term (gn (“stroke”) in common with Exod
11:1. The paragraph Exod 11:1–3 presupposes the integration of the
Priestly document into the non-Priestly exodus narrative. See levin,
Jahwist, 335–39; Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der
Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch
(FrlANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2000), 176–77. If Gen
12:17 depends upon Exod 11:1, then it also presupposes the integration of
P into the non-Priestly exodus narrative. See levin, Jahwist, 141–42. It is,
however, conceivable that author of Exod 11:1 drew upon (gn, which is not
used elsewhere in the account of the plagues in Exod 7–11, from Gen
12:17 in order to refer the reader back to Gen 12:10–20.
9. Carr, “Genesis in relation,” 278–79, and levin, Jahwist, 141–42,
view Gen 12:10–20 as a prolepsis of the exodus. Carr ascribes Gen 12:10–
20 to the texts that combine Genesis and the Moses story at the pre-
Priestly level, whereas the text is, according to levin, later than the
connection between P and the Yahwist. That Abraham, in the present form
of the text, anticipates the path taken by God’s people is quite evident.
Nevertheless, this may not have been always the intended interpretation,
inasmuch as Gen 12:10–20 is part of a series of texts that relegate the
historical importance of Moses and the exodus in favor of Abraham.
2.The Transition from the Patriarchs and Joseph to Moses
in the Priestly Document
On the level of P, the patriarchal narratives and the
exodus account are connected by means of a tight and well-
formed link. This is demonstrated by a glance at the
commission of Moses in Exod 2:23a b–25; 6:2–7:7*: God’s
revelation to Moses is explicitly placed in continuity with
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 99

the patriarchal period. According to P, God’s intervention in

Egypt to save his people is the direct consequence of his
“covenant” with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Simultaneously,
this text singles out the promise of an enduring divine
relationship from the various pledges to the patriarchs in
Gen 17*, and this promise is then honored in the
announcement of Yhwh’s dwelling amidst Israel in Exod
29:45–46 (P). Insofar as it has correlated the creation
account and the beginning of the Sinai pericope, 188 P has
interwoven the themes of creation, the patriarchs, the
exodus, and Sinai into an intricate fabric.
For the sections of the pentateuchal narrative that P has
so masterfully integrated, it appears that P presupposed the
basic substance of the non-Priestly material. however, it
does not follow from this generally accepted conclusion that
the sequence and connection of the material already existed
in the sense of a pre-Priestly Tetrateuch—unless one cannot
imagine P being capable of such a profound intellectual
accomplishment.
I would like to elaborate on this point by briefly
examining the Joseph story. According to the usual division
of the sources, P does not provide a version of the non-
Priestly novella of Joseph and his brothers as we know it
today. Instead, the succinct narrative in P concentrates on
the eisodos of the clan of Jacob. Although this story is told
quite succinctly, it is much more detailed than the non-
Priestly Joseph novella. It seems, therefore, that P was
cognizant of the connection between Joseph and Egypt. The
extent and purpose of this connection is, however, an
unsettled issue.

3.The Joseph Novella and the Post-Priestly Supplements to

Genesis 50
In examining the non-Priestly texts, we are voyaging into
terra incognita. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged
that the patriarchal narratives and the story of the exodus

188 . For the structural parallels between Gen 1:1–2:3 and Exod
24:15b–18aa; 25–31; 35– 40, see Jon D. levenson, “The Temple and the
World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–98, 286–89; Bernd Janowski, “Tempel und
Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen
heiligtumskonzeption,” JBT 5 (1990): 37–69, 46–67.
100 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

were originally transmitted separately.189 This also applies to

the Joseph novella. Already Martin Noth argued that the
latter was conceived specifically for the transition from the
patriarchal narrative to the story of the exodus.12 Yet this
thesis is undermined not only by the often noted friction
between the Joseph novella and the story of the exodus but
also by the problem that the Joseph novella does not
concentrate single-mindedly enough on the eisodos, which
supposedly represents this work’s overarching theme.
Indeed, the theme appears at times to constitute a
subsidiary objective of the novella. The approaching exodus
is the subject of only several passages: the paragraph in
Gen 46:1–5*, which is usually ascribed to a redactional
hand;13 the conclusion of the book in 50:22–26; and the
notice in 48:21, which depends upon this conclusion.
The actual eisodos is portrayed only in one verse in the
Joseph novella: Gen
50:14. One cannot help but notice that after this verse the
narrative in 50:15– 21 switches gears, so to speak, by
depicting the reconciliation of Joseph and his brothers. The
presentation of the brothers finding out about the death of
their father in verse 15 is simply out of place directly after
the presentation of Joseph and his brothers returning to
Egypt at the conclusion of the extended funeral ceremonies.
Verse 15 “seems to envisage a different situation at the
death of Jacob from the preceding verse.” 14 Thus, verse 14b
attempts to resolve the chronological confusion with the
gloss “after he buried his father,” which is absent in the lxx.
In order to account for the literary evidence, scholars have
argued that the entire reconciliation scene in Gen 50:15–21
or the burial of Jacob in Canaan has been added. 15 The
problem with this radical solution is that both of these
paragraphs are inseparably integrated into the rest of the
Joseph novella. The same cannot be said for Gen 50:14*.
Within the non-Priestly text,

the Foundations,” JBL 84 (1965): 1–19; John Van Seters, “Confessional

reformulation in the Exilic Period,” VT 22 (1972): 448–59; Norman E.

189 . For older English literature, see, e.g., Frederick V. Winnett, The
Mosaic Tradition (Near and Middle East Studies 1; Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1949); idem, “re-examining
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 101

Wagner, “Pentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future,” Canadian Journal of

Theology 13 (1967): 225–32.
12. Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (3rd ed.;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966), 226–32.
13. For a different take on this text, see hermann Gunkel, Genesis
(hKAT 1/1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1901), 481–82; Erhard
Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein
Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Gertz et al.,
Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119–56, here 131–32; Schmid, Erzväter und
Exodus, 62–63. These scholars do not see a reference to the exodus here.
For a diachronic analysis of Gen 46:1–5*, see Gertz, Tradition und
Redaktion, 273–81.
14. Donald B. redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Gen
37–50) (VTSup 20; leiden: Brill, 1970), 31.
15. See, e.g., levin, Jahwist, 310–11, as well as ludwig Schmidt,
Literarische Studien zur Josephsgeschichte (BZAW 167; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1986), 212–13, who ascribes Gen 50:1–11, 14* to the Yahwist and
Gen 50:15–21* to the Elohist.
the return is connected to the narrative progression solely—
and poorly—by means of Gen 50:8b. Whereas verse 8a
speaks of the “all the household of Joseph and his brothers
and the house of his father,” the notice in verse 8b presents
the little ones and the cattle remaining in Egypt. It appears
to be a secondary and rather unsuccessful attempt to
provide a reason for the repeated trip to Egypt. On the
basis of these observations, Konrad Schmid has recently
proposed that Gen 50:14a (as well as 50:7b, 8b) is
redactional. According to his thesis, the reconciliation scene
in 50:15–21 originally followed directly after 50:11 (50:12–
13 belongs to P).190 The second part of this solution seems to
me quite plausible. It is undeniable that the depiction of the
brothers becoming aware of their father’s death and the
consequences of it, as well as the reconciliation of the
brothers, is well suited to the situation of a burial. If Gen
50:14* does not belong to the primary stratum of the Joseph
novella, then this work originally concluded with an account
of the clan of Jacob back in Canaan.

190 . See Konrad Schmid, “Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch,” in

Gertz et al., Abschied vom Jahwisten, 83–118. For a critical assessment of
the isolation of v. 14, see John Van Seters, review of Konrad Schmid,
Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der
Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments,
Review of Biblical Literature (2000), n.p. Online:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/231_245.pdf; and his contribution in this
volume.
102 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

Who, then, is responsible for Gen 50:14*? The friction

between verses 14a and 15 as well as the attempt to smooth
out this friction by means of the gloss in 14b indicate that
the Joseph novella has undergone expansions. In general,
redactors adapt themselves to the traditions that they are
transmitting; we would thus expect a purely redactional
notice of return after verse 21. Accordingly, Gen 50:14*
belongs to a source. Because this verse is isolated within
the nonPriestly text, I would assign it to P, in which a
corresponding notice is missing after verses 12–13. 191 There
are no linguistic reasons to reject this proposal. 192 On the
other hand, it would be strange if precisely the Priestly
Joseph story, which treats solely the eisodos, did not contain
such a notice. Moreover, the redactional process in Gen 50
becomes much clearer if verse 14* is ascribed to P.
We may now turn to Gen 50:14, 15–22. The information
with respect to the place of Joseph and his father’s house in
Egypt as well as Joseph’s age in verse 22 has been ascribed
to P by an increasing number of scholars, who point out the
correspondence of this information to Gen 47:27–28. 193 As
far as the notice on Joseph’s age is concerned, this
conclusion is merited. Yet for verse 22a one should consider
whether it does not represent a graphic Wiederaufnahme of
14a connecting it to Gen 50:15–21.

14a wyb)-t) rbql wt) Myl(h-lkw wyx)w )wh hmyrcm Pswy

b#$yw
22a wyb) tybw )wh Myrcmb Pswy b#$yw
If so, verse 22a would be part of the redaction responsible
for the integration of P and the non-Priestly Joseph novella.
This redaction would have attached the original end of the
non-Priestly Joseph novella to the eisodos notice of P and

191 . See Walter Dietrich, Die Josephserzählung als Novelle und

Geschichtsschreibung: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchfrage (BTS 14;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1989), 44 n. 118.
192 . This applies especially for the change from “his (Jacob’s) sons”
(vv. 12–13) to “Joseph…, he and his brothers” (v. 14a), which provides a
segue from the burial of the father to death notice in v. 22b that
necessarily concentrates on Joseph.
193 . See Dietrich, Josephserzählung als Novelle und
Geschichtsschreibung, 44 n. 118; Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition
des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 364 n. 14.
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 103

woven it together with P by means of the Wiederaufnahme

of verse 14a (P) in verse 22a. In this manner, the important
finale of the non-Priestly Joseph novella would take place in
Egypt and would function in the final redaction of the text—
just as it is already in P—as the transition to the exodus
narrative.
The evidence in Gen 50:22b–26 substantiates our
findings. As already mentioned, verse 22b belongs to P.
From the information on Joseph’s age, a later redactor drew
the conclusion in verse 23 that Joseph lived to see the third
generation of his descendants.20 In verse 26a, the original
narrative strand of P resumes with the notice on Joseph’s
death.21 Whether 26a belongs to P is still an open question.
The problem is complicated by the slight aberrations in the
formulation of the notice on Joseph’s age and the repetition
in the conclusion to the notice of his death. We can easily
explain both on the assumption that non-Priestly material is
once again to be read together with P. 22 however, in contrast
to the preceding paragraph, this text does not represent a
piece of the non-Priestly Joseph novella but rather purely
redactional material. Although the paragraph in Gen 50:24–
26 is a mixture of Priestly (v. 26a) and non-Priestly texts (vv.
24–25, 26b), on the level of the transmitted context it seems
to be unified. This text reports not only Joseph’s final words
to his brothers but also his death, age, and (preliminary)
burial. With regard to its form, we notice a chiastic
correspondence of the essential statements; this structure
would topple if even one of these statements were
removed:23

David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary

Approaches (louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 109–10, includes v.
26a. rudolf Smend Sr., Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen
untersucht (Berlin: reimer, 1912), 108–9, argued that only the age notice
in v. 22b stems from P. levin, Jahwist, 315, adopts Smend’s approach.
20. levin, Jahwist, 316.
21. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 364, n. 14; Carr,
Reading the Fractures of Genesis, 109–10.
22. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 364 and n. 14.
23. Following Norbert lohfink, Die Landverheißung als Eid: Eine
Studie zu Gn 15, (SBS
28; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967), Erhard Blum, Die
Komposition der Vätergeschichte
104 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

50:24 die/ visit twm/dqpy dqp + hl(/(b#$ niphal + bring up /

swear
50:25, 26a swear /visit (b#$ hiphil /dqpy dqp + hl(/twm
+ bring up/die

Insofar as the author of this artistically composed

paragraph employs the notice of Joseph’s death in verse
26a, he is to be identified with the hand that reworked P in
this passage. The paragraph has been composed verse for
verse with a continuation in the exodus narrative and thus
functions to bridge the time of Joseph to that of Moses.
From all this, it follows that the text is post-Priestly.
Other observations support this conclusion; here there is
space to mention only several of them. 24 After Gen 50:25,
Joseph makes the Israelites swear to take his bones when
they leave Egypt to settle in the promised land. Genesis
50:26b describes the necessary preparations for the
fulfillment of the oath. The oath is then fulfilled in Exod
13:19 and Josh 24:32 with explicit references to Gen 50:25–
26. Additionally, the notice in Josh 24:32 refers with the
same wording to Gen 33:19, which reports that Jacob
bought a piece of land in Shechem. Genesis 50:25–26 thus
emerges in a literary complex whose two central features—
the possession of land in Shechem and the transportation of
Joseph’s bones—are combined in Josh 24:32 and
simultaneously have their point of departure there. One
finds it difficult to deny the priority of this combination of
the burial and the purchase of land, especially if Josh 24:32
presupposes an older burial tradition. Genesis 50:25–26.
and Exod 13:19 treat the secondary technical problem of
how the death of Joseph, which is certainly not original, is
connected to the burial tradition in Shechem. Genesis
50:25–26 (and probably also 33:19) is thus formulated with
Josh 24:32 in view. Moreover, the Old Testament often
reports the fulfillment of pronouncements like Joseph’s in
Gen 50:25. It is therefore difficult to attribute Josh 24:32 to
a late addition that depends upon Gen 33:19; 50:25–26; and
Exod 13:19. Indeed, on the basis of their close conceptual
and literary ties, these passages can be assigned to one and
the same literary layer, or (Gen 33:19;) Gen 50:25-26; and
Exod 13:19 may be dated after Josh 24:32. The fulfillment of
Gen 50:25–26 in Exod 13:19 has been identified by
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 105

(WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 256 (recently he

has adopted a different approach; see his Studien zur Komposition des
Pentateuch, 363, as well as “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern
und Exodus”); hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Die Josephsgeschichte und das
Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk” (1997), in idem, Theologie in
Prophetie und Pentateuch (BZAW 310; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 295–308,
here 296–97. More arguments for the unity of Gen 50:24–26 are provided
by Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 361–63.
24. On this point, see Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch,
363–64; Schmitt, “Die Josephsgeschichte,” 295–300; Gertz, Tradition und
Redaktion, 364.
various scholars as post-Priestly.194 Since M. Noth, most
scholars have viewed the conceptual goal and literary point
of departure, Josh 24:32, as a post-Deuteronomistic
supplement. V. Fritz has demonstrated the dependency of
this verse on the burial traditions for Abraham in Gen 25:9
and Jacob in 50:13 as well as the depiction of Abraham
purchasing the cave of Machpelah in Gen 23. These texts
belong to P.195 Accordingly, we should probably posit a post-
Priestly origin for Gen 50:25–26—and presumably also for
33:19. The transition from the Joseph story to the exodus
narrative in 50:24–26 proves to be a redactional supplement
postdating the integration of the Joseph novella into P.
Now, it is of course conceivable that not only fragments
of P but also nonPriestly remains of the Joseph novella have
been transmitted in the post-Priestly paragraph Gen 50:24–
26. In considering the various possibilities, Joseph’s
announcement of his death in Gen 50:24 appears as the
only candidate. This notice demands a corresponding death
notice. The line in verse 26a belongs, however, to P. Aside
194 . See Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 207–9 (and the further
bibliographical references there).
195 . Of course one could argue that the idea of claiming land by
burying ancestors in it is a widespread, cross-cultural idea. See Brian B.
Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in
Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (FAT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1994). Nonetheless, it is difficult to deny that the relevant texts in the
hexateuch must be assigned to P or an even younger stratum. Yet even
when one does not follow Fritz in ascribing Josh 24:32 to a post-Priestly
redaction, one must at least identify the verse with a redactional
expansion of Josh 24, a Deuteronomistic text. This means that the verse
must be a post-Deuteronomistic expansion. Thus one has achieved little
for the attempt to ascribe Gen 50:25 to a Yahwist. What remains is only
the necessity of claiming a hexateuch perspective for this Yahwist.
106 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

from this, verse 26 in its present form cannot be separated

from the post-Priestly verse 25. Within a possible pre-
Priestly context, verse 26 is accordingly precluded as a
continuation to verse 24. What remains is the death notice
in Exod 1:6, which has been repeatedly claimed for a
prePriestly seguence from Joseph to Moses.196 Yet Exod 1:6
connects better to the Priestly—if not post-Priestly—
genealogy in Exod 1:1–5. The information on the death of
Joseph and his brothers as well as the entire generation in
Exod 1:6 presupposes their enumeration in Exod 1:1–5.
That is also demonstrated by the likelihood that the
generalizing statement on the death of the entire
generation (wyx)-lkw Pswy) in Exod 1:6 has received its
information from Exod 1:1b and 5a.197 Conversely, the
postulated direct sequence of Gen 50:24 (Joseph announces
his death to his brothers and their exodus from Egypt) and
Exod 1:6 (Joseph and his brothers die) does not lack a
certain tragicomedy.

4. The Exodus-Narrative and the Post-Priestly Supplements

to Exodus 1
Since we cannot discover a pre-Priestly bridge to the
narrative of the exodus in Gen 50, we turn our attention in
conclusion to the opposite bank, namely, Exod 1:6, 8–10.
The repetition of the death notice for Joseph in Exod 1:6, as
well as the genealogy of Israel’s son in Exod 1:1–5, may be
due to the division of the books. Yet it is also conceivable—
in analogy to the transition from the time of conquest to the
period of the judges (Josh 24:29 and Judg 2:8–10)—that the
repetition of the death notice together with Gen 50:26 and
Exod 1:8 marks the epochal transition from the patriarchal
period to the time of Moses. Whatever the case may be,
even here the genealogy in Exod 1:1–5 is presupposed by
Exod 1:6, since it is difficult to imagine a direct sequence of

196 . Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 364, sees this
connection in Gen 50:24 and Exod 1:6, 7*, 8. (A fundamental revision of
his own position is provided in Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von
Erzvätern und Exodus” 145–51.) Carr, “Genesis in relation,” 291–93,
isolates the pre-Priestly link in 50:24–25 and Exod 1:6, 8.
197 . See Schmitt, Literarische Studien zur Josephsgeschichte, 297, as
well as Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 360 (with n. 42 and the
bibliographical references provided there).
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 107

both death notices.198 Furthermore, verse 6 refers directly to

1b and 5a, as observed above.
With respect to Exod 1:8, one observes first that
together with verse 6 the memory of the Joseph story and
its drammatis personae has been consistently eradicated.
The respect enjoyed by Joseph in Egypt and the servitude of
the Israelites are mutually exclusive, and thus Joseph was
removed with one stroke of the pen. regardless of the
redaction to which one ascribes this editorial activity, it
constitutes solid evidence that the connection between the
narratives in the books of Genesis and Exodus postdates the
primary literary stratum of the texts. No one would dispute
that Exod 1:8 belongs inseparably to Gen 50:24–26 (and
possibly also Exod 1:[1–5,] 6). Genesis 50:24–26 has been
formulated verse for verse for a continuation of the
narrative in the book of Exodus. Conversely, Exod 1:8
presupposes a notice regarding Joseph’s death, as indicated
not least by the introduction of a new ruler as one “who did
not know Joseph” (r#$) Pswy-t) (dy-)l, v. 8b). We have
classified Gen 50:24–26 as post-Priestly. It follows that Exod
1:8 is also post-Priestly, and this conclusion is confirmed by
Exod 1:9–10. That the new Egyptian ruler notices the
dangers posed by the Israelites connects smoothly to Exod
1:8, yet this depiction also refers beyond this verse.
Conceptually, the fear on the part of the new ruler about the
increasing numbers of the Israelites requires that Israel had
already become a great nation. This is reported, however,
solely in Exod 1:7—a verse (or at least it oldest layer) that
clearly belongs to P. Accordingly, Exod 1:9–10 presupposes
P.
Against this argument, D. M. Carr has objected that an
author or narrator can also present new information on the
lips of the dramatis personae.199 Exodus 1:8–10 would then
make sense without the help of P. Although that is certainly
correct, it does not take the terminological parallels
between verses 9 and 7 (P) seriously enough. Whereas the
depiction of the servitude in verses 11–12 describes the
growth of the Israelites with hbr “to become many” and Crp

198 . For a different view, see John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The
Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1994), 16–19.
199 . Carr, “Genesis in relation,” 291.
108 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

“to spread” (v. 12), the Egyptian ruler refers in verse 9 to a

“numerous and mighty” (Mwc(w br) people. This statement
is anticipated in verse 7 (P), and that is hardly coincidental.
Scholars have treated the line “and they increased and
became mighty” (wmc(yw wbryw) in verse 7 as secondary
because of the evident correspondence to verse 9, which is
usually attributed to the Yahwist. Yet the reasons presented
for isolating a supplement within verse 7 are, in my view,
unconvincing.200 Another observation should be given
greater weight: verse 9 plays a significant role for the thesis
of the Yahwist. It is supposed to function as a hinge
between the patriarchal promises and the exodus. here
Exod 1:9 is read as the fulfillment of the promise to
Abraham in Gen 12:2, according to which he would become
a great nation. For the present context, this reading is
certainly possible and probably also intended, yet it is
hardly Yahwistic. The connection between Gen 12:2 and
Exod 1:9 is at most conceptual, since the formulation of
Exod 1:9 Mwc(w br M( is not the expected correspondence
to the promise of a lwdg ywg in Gen 12:2. For the only
Yahwistic link between the patriarchal promises and the
exodus from Egypt, one would have wished for a more
explicit reference.
Our findings in Exod 1:1–10 confirm our interpretation
of the evidence in Gen 50. This literary bridge between
Genesis and Exodus has been built by P (Exod 1:[1–5,] 7,

200 . For the arguments, see Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 366–67.
Scholars who eliminate wmc(yw wbryw base their decisions on the fact
that this expression is not typical for P. One, however, overlooks that after
the removal of these two words the language does not completely comport
with the rest of P’s notices for the growth of Israel. Perhaps P is not so
monotonous as has been claimed. Whatever the case may be, if one treats
these two words as secondary (even when there are not strong formal
literary-critical arguments for this approach), one has still not achieved
anything for the transition from the Yahwist to the exodus narrative. The
relevant references for the putative expression are found in late
Deuteronomistic passages (see Deut 7:1; 9:1; 26:5). Those who deny that
the verse in its present form is the work of P must concede that it appears
to be a composite of Priestly and Deuteronomistic language, which
happens to be characteristic for those redactional layers that combined
the Priestly document with the non-Priestly material. For a defense of this
thesis, see levin, Jahwist, 315, who ascribes v. 7 to a post-Priestly
redactor.
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 109

13–14) and a younger hand (Exod 1:6, 8–10). Whether the

beginning of the formerly independent non-Priestly
narrative of the exodus is to be found in Exod 1:11 (J. C.
Gertz), Exod 2:1 (D. M. Carr; C. levin;
K. Schmid), or Exod 3:1 (F. V. Winnett) 201 is a problem for
itself and is not directly related to the discussion of the
existence or nonexistence of a Yahwist.

5. The First Connection of the Patriarchal Cycles to the

Exodus Narrative in P
In questioning the minimal consensus that there is a
running thread in the pre-Priestly material of the Tetrateuch
that included at least the primordial history, the patriarchal
cycles (with the Joseph story), and the narrative of the
exodus, many proponents of the thesis of the Yahwist raise
the question whether P represents the first comprehensive
literary source of the Tetrateuch. I have embraced the
popular assumption that P presented an account extending
from the primordial history to the Sinai pericope and have
demonstrated in my study of the transitional texts Gen 50–
Exod 1 that the oldest literary connection between the
patriarchs/Joseph and Moses was constructed by P. Thus, as
far as one can ascertain, P deserves the recognition for the
intellectual feat of both sequentially arranging the
patriarchal accounts and the story of the exodus into one
and the same literary context and providing a conceptual
basis for the sequence. In what follows, I will attempt to add
precision to the thesis as a way of response to a
methodological objection and several misunderstandings.
First, according to the methodological objection I have
transferred the minimal consensus of the proponents of the
hypothesis of the Yahwist to the P source. My proposal is
said to be the petitio principii that “[t]here must be a
Priestly thread in the Pentateuch to have created the
coherence of the whole.”202 With respect to my assignment
of the eisodos notice in Gen 50:14* to P, this disagreement
201 . See Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 381; Carr, “Genesis in
relation,” 293–94; levin, Jahwist, 317–20; Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus,
152–57; Winnett, Mosaic Tradition, 27–28; “reExamining the
Foundations,” 18–19.
202 . This approach has been taken by levin in his very prudent
response. See also n. 2 above.
110 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

cannot be immediately dismissed. Indeed, I have attributed

the verse, which certainly appears to stem from some
source, to P because it lacks a fitting place within the non-
Priestly material and a similar notice is missing in P. 203 One
may designate this argumentation as “highly speculative,”
yet in contrast to the hypothesis of the Yahwist no one
would deny that the explicit cross-references in P indicate
that this stratum includes both the patriarchal cycles and
the exodus narrative. To be sure, the well-known
correspondence between creation and Sinai, as well as the
covenant theology as an overall concept from Noah to
Moses by way of Abraham and Jacob, requires the
assumption of a Priestly sequence from the
patriarchs/Joseph to Moses. For this reason, I would also
refer to my suggestions for the Priestly texts in Gen 50 and
Exod 1 as “controlled speculation,” a discipline that has
characterized (literary-) historical research from its
inception.
Second, it is necessary to refine our thesis, especially
when it comes to understanding the degree of originality of
P’s presentation of Israel’s history. What we observe
elsewhere applies also to literary history: powerful ideas,
insights, and conceptions did not develop ex nihilo in ivory
towers and then later take hold in the general
consciousness. Even when their origins are occasionally
difficult or impossible to determine, they represent the
products of various ideas and discourses, which presuppose
specific historical conditions, and they also establish
themselves under contingent conditions and in
unpredictable ways. here I cannot elaborate on this basic
conviction either in general or as it pertains to P; important
is rather that we acknowledge a significant intellectual
prehistory for P’s arrangement of the patriarchs and Moses.
With respect to the general historical and intellectual
background, it suffices to point out that the subsequent
formation of Judaism between the exile that began with the
downfall of Samaria and the early Second Temple period, on
the one hand, and the formation of the earlier Pentateuch,
on the other, coincide both chronologically and conceptually
and are mutually dependent. (Those who propose a late

203 . See §3 above.

 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 111

date for the Yahwist or who dismiss the thesis of the

Yahwist altogether agree on this point.)
Intellectual discourses from formative Judaism have
made themselves felt in the various conceptions of Israel’s
identity as the people of God. As prominent examples, one
could cite the patriarchal cycles and narrative of the
exodus, which were transmitted independently of each
other, as well as (from a later time) the Priestly unified
presentation of Israel’s origins. Because of the paucity of
our sources, we cannot reconstruct all the particulars of
these discourses. Nevertheless, one observes that the
historical sequence of the patriarchs and Moses was a hotly
disputed topic in the exilic and postexilic periods. This is
explicitly the case in those texts that are cognizant of the
controversial conception in P as this source was still
independently transmitted. Examples of these texts are “das
kleine geschichtliche Credo” in Deut 26:1–11204 as well as
those non-Priestly passages in Genesis that transfer the
central importance of Moses and the exodus to Abraham
and the patriarchal period, such as Gen 15*205 and perhaps
also Gen 12:10–20. Other texts such as Gen 16:1–11* 37
grapple in a similar way with the story of the exodus, but
they do not yet appear to be familiar with the Priestly
conception. They belong to the prehistory of the connection
between the patriarchal cycles and the narrative of the
exodus just as much as the sharp contrast between the
Jacob story and the tradition of the exodus in hos 12 38 as
well as the juxtaposition and mingling of the patriarchs and
the exodus in Second Isaiah.39 Against the background of
this discussion, one must refine the thesis that P was the
first to connect the patriarchal and the exodus stories
inasmuch as P’s contribution is restricted to the first
literary work presenting the patriarchal story and the

204 . Jan Christian Gertz, “Die Stellung des kleinen geschichtlichen

Credos in der redaktionsgeschichte von Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,”
in Liebe und Gebot: Festschrift for Lothar Perlitt, (ed. r. G. Kratz and h.
Spieckermann; FrlANT 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2000),
30–45.
205 . For Gen 12:10–20, see nn. 8–9 above. For Gen 15, see Gertz,
“Abraham, Mose und der
Exodus.” It should be emphasized, however, that allusions to P within the
pre-Priestly substratum in
112 A FArEWEll TO ThE YAhWIST?

narrative of the exodus as successive episodes in the history

of Israel’s origins.

6. Summary
The non-Priestly Joseph novella originally concluded
with the reconciliation of the brothers at the grave of their
father in the land of Canaan (Gen 50:1–5a, 5b*, 6–7a, 8a, 9–
11, 15–21). At this stage of the text’s literary development,
there is no connection to the story of the exodus. P does not
offer a parallel version to the Joseph novella as we know it;
instead, the succinct narrative focuses on the eisodos of
Jacob’s sons to Egypt. Similarly, the depiction of the exodus
in P resumes this narrative strand and embeds it into the
encompassing presentation of Israel’s history (Gen 50:12–
14a, 22b, 26a; Exod 1:[1–5,] 7, 13–14; 2:23a b–25; 6:2–7:7*).
In this way, P provides the earliest (and almost
uninterrupted?40) literary transition from the patriarchs and
Joseph to Moses. The connection between the patriarchal
stories and the narrative of the exodus was first introduced
and conceptually established by P, a literary innovation that

Gen 15 should not be played down (see vv. 7, 17–18). If Gen 15* belonged
to the latest material in the patriarchal narrative as it was still
independently transmitted, its author was very probably familiar with the
Priestly conception. The difference is that this author was writing for a
different literary work.
37. Thomas römer, “Isaac et Ismaël, concurrents ou cohéritiers de la
promesse? Une lecture de Genèse 16,” ETR 74 (1999): 161–72.
38. Albert de Pury, “le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des
origines d’Israël,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton;
VTSup 43; leiden: Brill, 1991), 78–96; and idem, “Osée 12 et ses
implications pour le débat acuel sur le Pentateuque,” in Le Pentateuque:
Débats et recherches, XIVe Congrès de l’ACFEB (Angers 1991) (ed. P.
haudebert; lD 151; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 175–207; reinhard G. Kratz,
“Erkenntnis Gottes im hoseabuch,” ZTK 94 (1997): 1–24, esp. 16–17, 22–
23.
39. Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 266–70.
40. That P’s introduction of Moses may have been lost is considered
by Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 251–52 with n. 84 (bibliography).
won the day in the subsequent traditions. Once it
originated, all succeeding redactors were required to
embrace this connection as the historically accurate and
 GErTZ: TrANSITION BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS 113

theologically intended sequence. Thus, the transition was

embellished as P was integrated with the non-Priestly
Joseph novella and the non-Priestly narrative of the exodus
(Gen 50:8b, 22–26*; Exod 1:6, 8–10). This was necessitated
not least by the failure of the independently transmitted
non-Priestly stories to compete with a unified and
continuous historical portrayal. To state our conclusion
differently, the string holding the pearls of the non-Priestly
pentateuchal narratives was furnished by P!
 The LiTerary ConneCTion beTween

The books of Genesis and exodus

and The end of The book of

Joshua*
Erhard Blum

The Documentary Hypothesis, which has been a

hallmark in pentateuchal research for generations, has in
the last thirty years been losing ground, especially in
German research, where the hypothesis had originally been
established in the early nineteenth century. Only one of its
elements is still valid: the differentiation between Priestly
(P) and non-Priestly material. All other components of the
classical hypothesis now are controversial. This holds true
regarding the differentiation between J and E as well as for
the basic supposition of the existence of a non-Priestly
source, starting with Gen 2 and ending either in the book of
Numbers or in the first chapter of Judges.
To some extent this process of breakdown has been
concealed, since there are scholars who still designate
certain texts as J, even though they do not mean the Yahwist
as posited by the Documentary Hypothesis. A prominent
example is the Yahwist of Van Seters. 1 This work has no
counterpart in an Elohistic source nor in an independent P-
document (he considers the Priestly material a redac-

*This article was first published in Hebrew in Zipora Talshir and Dalia
Amara, eds., On the Border Line: Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of
Alexander Rofé On the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Hebrew)
(Beer-Sheva 18; Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press,
2005), 13–32. My thanks go to Mrs. Judith Seeligmann, Jerusalem, for the
translation into English; to my colleague Prof. David Carr, New York, for
additional assistance in editing; and to the editors for the publishing
permission. See also Erhard Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von
Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren
Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition
116 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAW

315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 119–56.
1. John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1975); idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as
Historian in Genesis (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992; idem, The Life
of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numeri (CBET 10; Kampen:
Kok Pharos, 1994).

-89 -
tional addition to what he designates as J). in fact, the
Yahwist (J) of Van Seters contains all the texts that
J.Wellhausen attributed to the combined J and E, that is to
say, to the Jehovist (rJE). Nevertheless, its character differs
altogether from the older JE, since Van Seters regards his J
as a uniform composition, the work of a single author, very
similar to the Histories of Herodotus. Another example of a
“new” J is the Yahwist as postulated by C. levin, 206 who
refers by this designation to a redactional stratum
originating during the Babylonian exile. On the one hand,
levin’s J holds texts from the book of Genesis previously
attributed to E (e.g., Gen 22). On the other hand, this J
contains only few passages from the books of Exodus and
Numbers. in my opinion, these labelings are misleading,
since they blur discontinuities with traditional research. 207
in a way it was already H. Gunkel who unintentionally
prepared the ground
for the disintegration of J.208 Gunkel observed that within the
stories of the ancestors there are separate “story cycles,”
such as the story of Jacob-Esau-laban or the novella about
Joseph and his brothers, which in the main are self-
contained, each of them having its own prehistory. He saw
the origin of these narratives in an oral tradition existing
before the documents of J and E. However, it can be argued
that these cycles reflect units that existed in writing. it is

206 . Christoph levin, Der Jahwist (frlANT 157; Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1993).
207 . Even more misleading must be the labeling in reinhard G. Kratz,
Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments:
Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Uni-Taschenbücher 2157; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2000), where “J” is used to indicate the pre-
Priestly stratum in the book of Genesis and “E” for the pre-Dtr stratum in
Exod 2–Josh 12 (“E” for “Exodus”!).
208 . Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (3rd ed.; HKAT 1/1; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1910).
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
117

for this reason that we can still delineate their outlines,

whereas it is hardly ever feasible to reconstruct the
contours of oral traditions. Moreover, evidence can be
adduced that most of the pre-Priestly traditions concerning
the patriarchs were collated into an independent (written)
composition, having no primary connection with the exodus
narratives.209 in my opinion, this composition came into
being during the days of the exile. f. Crüsemann has
analogously demonstrated the literary independence of a
pre-Priestly Urgeschichte (Gen 2–11), a hypothesis that has
gained wide support.210 it seems to me that in the books of
Exodus and Numbers as well one can outline a basic and
independent story cycle—a kind of Vita Mosis.211
The essential tenets of this model are supported in a
number of new studies.212 Among them we find those who go
so far as to claim that the ancestral narratives and the
exodus narrative were first set side by side in the Persian
era by the last main redactor of the Pentateuch. 213 We
should, therefore, reexamine the question of how and when
the main traditions in Genesis and Exodus came together as
part of a continuous literary unit. When looking into this
matter, special attention should be paid to the seam
between the last chapter in the book of Genesis and the
opening one of the book of Exodus. However, prior to this

209 . Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57;

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984).
210 . frank Crüsemann, “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein
Beitrag zur Diskussion um den ‘Jahwisten,’ ” in Die Botschaft und die
Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff (ed. Jörg Jeremias and lothar Perlitt;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 11–29.
211 . Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW
189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 215–18.
212 . Cf. Matthias Köckert, Vätergott und Väterverheißungen: Eine
Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (frlANT 142;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1988); David M. Carr, Reading the
Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1996); Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus:
Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels
innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81;
NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1999); Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition
und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur
Endredaktion des Pentateuch (frlANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
ruprecht, 2000).
213 . So Schmid and Gertz (see n. 8). They believe substantial parts to
be the work of this redactor, among them the book of Exodus.
118 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

we should start by scrutinizing the call narrative of Moses

in Exod 3–4, a section that, in the opinion of many, functions
as a connecting link between the stories of the patriarchs
and the exodus.

1.
The story in Exod 3–4 that relates the call of Moses by
Yhwh at the mountain of God is the first pericope in the
book of Exodus evincing an explicit theological program.
Inter alia, it outlines the events about to take place during
the exodus from Egypt (mainly Exod 3:18–22) and also
states their goal: the eisodos of the israelites to the land of
Canaan (3:8, 17). The text even foretells the “worship of
God on this mountain” as a significant event in the future
(3:12).
in the realm of the Documentary Hypothesis, this
passage in particular served as a paradigm for separating
interwoven narrative strands of J and E in a single
episode.214 However, already W. rudolph, M. Noth, and
others215 have pointed to elements in this very pericope that
indicate that the entire narrative of the revelation to Moses
at the mountain of God was interpolated into an early pre-
Priestly context. This is the evidence.
(1) A number of flaws in the literary sequence in Exod
4:18–19 are conspicuous: in verse 18 Moses takes his leave
from his father-in-law: “Moses went back to his father-in-
law Jether and said to him, ‘let me go back to my kinsmen in
Egypt and see how they are faring.’ And Jethro said to
Moses, ‘Go in peace.’ ” The exchange between Moses and

214 . See, for example, Werner H. Schmidt, Exodus (BK 1/1;

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988), and recently his pupil Axel
Graupner, Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten
Gottes in der Geschichte (WMANT 97; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
2002). However, it should be stressed that Wellhausen took care to stress
the uniformity of these chapters in which there are no visible “seams”
between the parallel sources. in his opinion, JE here was the author, not
the editor; Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: reimer, 1899),
70–71.
215 . Wilhelm rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Joshua (BZAW
68; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938), 6–7; Martin Noth,
Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948),
31–32; and also Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 20–22.
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
119

Jethro in verse 18 is in tension with the command of Yhwh

in verse 19: “Yhwh said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to
Egypt for all the men who sought to kill you are dead.’ ”
More than that, the command in verse 19 does not show
any acquaintance with Moses’ mission at the mountain of
God.
(2)Exodus 4:19 follows smoothly on the first sentence of
2:23, creating a flawless literary sequence: “A long time
after that the king of Egypt died” (Exod 2:23a α). “And Yhwh
said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt for all the men
who sought to kill you are dead’ ” (Exod 4:19).
(3) The reason for the return of Moses to Egypt in 4:19,
“for all the people who sought to kill you are dead,”
corresponds with the phraseology and the situation
described in Exod 2: “When Pharaoh learned of the matter,
he sought to kill Moses” (Exod 2:19).
(4) Corresponding to the seam between Exod 4:18, 19
there is also the trace of a diachronic seam between Exod 2
and 3: Moses’ father-in-law is called “reuel” in Exod 2:18,
yet in the first and the concluding verses of 3:1–4:18 he is
called “Jethro”/“Jether.” These difficulties are explained
quite easily by hypothesizing that the passage in Exod 3:1–
4:18 is a late interpolation into an existing literary
context.216
(5) This supposition is corroborated by textual evidence.
in Exod 4:19 the lxx reads:

μετὰ δὲ τὰς ἡμέρας τὰς πολλὰς ἐκείνας ἐτελεύτησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου

εἶπεν δὲ κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐν Μαδιαμ βάδιζε ἄπελθε εἰς Αἴγυπτον
τεθνήκασιν γὰρ πάντες οἱ ζητοῦντές σου τὴν ψυξήν

During those many days the king of Egypt died.

And the lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for
all the men who were seeking your life are dead.”
The underlined “plus” at the opening of the verse in the
Septuagint repeats verbatim the phrasing used in Exod
2:23aα, skipping over the exact same passage 3:1–4:18,
which according to the literary-critical analysis proved an
addition. Thus, what we have here is a classical example of
Wiederaufnahme, which in our case cannot be considered
an original literary device, seeing that against the inner

216 . Except for the Priestly verses Exod 2:23aβ–25.

120 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

dynamics of the story it takes us back to the situation

before the revelation at Mount Horeb. instead, we are
dealing with an editorial device by which a
composer/redactor tried to embed the story of the burning
bush in a given literary context. At some later point the
Wiederaufnahme was expunged from part of the traditions
due to its clumsiness.217
The evidence for Exod 3:1–4:18 as an interpolation
stands in the way of those who want to see J and E as
continuous, parallel “sources” throughout Exod 2–4, 218 yet at
the same time it opens the way to a variety of different
conjectures. Thus we recently witness a tendency to argue
that Exod 3:1–4:18 is based on the Priestly literature and
that its aim is to bridge between Priestly and non-Priestly
material. for Exod 3 there is no real evidence to bear out
such an assertion.219 However, the situation is different in
Exod 4. it has long been claimed that the nomination of
Aaron as Moses’ spokesman in our story is fashioned on the
Priestly model in Exod 6–7. 220 And, indeed, the figure of
217 . The other way around, it would be difficult to explain why any
copyist should add such a problematic repetition.
218 . Anyone who will, for example, try to attribute the interpolation
to the history of J before its being united with E would have to explain
how the redactor (rJE), who made a greater effort to blend E into J
harmoniously, making substantial changes in the text of J, left such
obvious traces witnessing to Exod 3–4 being secondary, including the
Wiederaufnahme of Exod 4:19 (lxx).
219 . Detailed arguments are offered by Gertz and Schmid. One of the
arguments is that Exod 3:6–7:9. depend on Exod 2:23. for full discussion
of the adduced evidence, see Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 124–33.
220 . Heinrich Valentin, Aaron: Eine Studie zur vorpriesterlichen
Aaron-Überlieferung (OBO 18; fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 1978), 82–116; Hans-Christoph Schmitt,
“redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtung zur
Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des
Pentateuch,” VT 32 (1982): 170–89, here 184; idem, “Tradition der
Prophetenbücher in den Schichten der Plagenerzählung Ex 7,1–11,10,” in
Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift O. Kaiser (ed. V. fritz et al.; BZAW
185; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 196–216, here 213; Van Seters, Life of
Moses, 53 n. 55; recently Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 315–16. in Exod
6–7 Moses is God to Pharaoh and Aaron is Moses’ prophet (7:1–2); in Exod
4 Moses is God to Aaron and Aaron is spokesman to Moses with the
israelites (4:16–17). Our story foreshadows what is to come and already
here attributes to Aaron the function that he is to have later in P; the
reason for Moses’ refusal and Aaron’s appointment are also taken from
Exod 7: Moses’ lack of rhetorical skills. The appellation of Aaron, peculiar
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
121

Aaron is not well rooted in the non-Priestly context: in 3:18

Moses is commanded to go to Pharaoh with the elders of
israel, but according to 5:2 Aaron accompanies him instead
of the elders; yet Pharaoh’s reaction in 5:4 is more
appropriate to the elders: “Why do you distract the people
from their tasks? Get to your labors!” it may well be that
the figure of Aaron was integrated into Exod 4–5 at a later
stage by a post-Priestly hand.
This supposition is supported by additional
considerations: the first and the third signs given to Moses
(4:3–9) to convince the israelites seem to be molded on the
plagues according to their Priestly version: the rod turning
into a serpent (#$xn/Nynt) (7:8–13) and the Nile’s water
turning into blood (7:19–20).
last but not least, in the Priestly version, the israelites’ lack
of faith is indi-
cated by the people’s actual reaction to Moses’ mission
(6:9), whereas in Exod 4 the lack of faith is presented as an
anticipated potential problem that is averted by “signs and
portents.” furthermore, the issue of the potential reaction of
the israelites leads to a second round of questions and
answers after Moses’ appointment had already reached its
appropriate conclusion at the end of Exod 3. The main aim
of this second round—in addition to bringing Aaron into the
picture221—is to forestall the lack of faith of the people as
expressed in Exod 6. Thus we read in 4:30: “And he
performed the signs in the sight of the people, and the
people believed.”222 it cannot be a mere coincidence that in
the stories of the patriarchs we find an exact parallel to this

to Exod 4:14 (“Aaron the levite”), could be explained in this context as a

notion mediating between the representative of Second Temple priesthood
and the levites.
221 . Among other things, the redactor was partial to making Aaron
participate in the first encounter at the mountain of the lord (Exod 4:27).
222 . What is told in Exod 4:27–31 cannot be severed from the
stratum of Exod 4:1–17. furthermore, there is a close proximity between
Exod 4:27–28 and 18:1–12, which may serve as an important additional
support for the surmised profile of this diachronic stratum: from various
indicators we can deduce that the episode with israel at the mountain of
God in Exod 18 was inserted only after the priestly editors had finished
the beginning of the Sinai pericope in Exod 19. for a more detailed
discussion, see Erhard Blum, “Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?” in
Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; leiden:
Brill, 1991), 54–56.
122 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

phenomenon: the story relating Abraham’s faith and

complete trust in Yhwh as told in Gen 15 (post-Priestly
material223) anticipates and aims at redressing the story
relating Abraham’s laughter in Gen 17 (P). let us sum up
the profile of Exod 3–4 as it has emerged thus far: the data
culled from both textual and literary criticism show that the
programmatic pericope Exod 3:1–4:18 has been embedded
in a pre-Priestly story in which Exod 4:19 was the direct
continuation of 2:23aα. At the same time, there are signs
that the second part of the revelation at Mount Horeb in
Exod 4:1–17 and further elements that are connected with
this narrative224 were added by a post-Priestly redactor.
What is the significance of these diachronic assessments
regarding the literary connection between the books of
Genesis and Exodus? i would maintain that it is only in the
stratum of Exod 4:1–17 that we discern some links with our
tradition in the book of Genesis.225 To my mind this is not the
case in the call narrative in Exod 3, and this in spite of the
common opinion according to which Exod 3 forms the
narrative bridge between the ancestors and the exodus. A
close reading of the passage, however, reveals that it makes
no reference to the patriarchs except in the self-
presentation of the Deity revealing himself to Moses. Even
if we assume that the mention of the names “Abraham,
isaac, and Jacob” in Exod 3:6, (15,) 16 is original (although
it seems very likely that the text initially only referred to
“the God of your father/fathers”226), this would not witness
to any literary connection, since it presupposes only the
knowledge of the patriarchs’ names.
Moreover, if the call narrative of Moses were primarily
part of a literary context that included the ancestral
tradition, we would expect to find the topics central to this
223 . At least in its present form; see, e.g., Alexander rofé,
Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (Hebrew) (Jerusalem:
Academon, 1994), 78; Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 142–45.
224 . i assign to this redactional stratum at least the following texts:
Exod 4:1–17, *27–31; 7:15b, 17b, 20aβb; 12:12–27; 14:31; 18:1–12. in
most of these passages there are clear but divergent signs to their being
secondary from a diachronic point of view (Blum, “Die literarische
Verbindung,” 134–35).
225 . Mainly through the topic of faith/disbelief dealt with above.
226 . Attention should be paid to the Wiederaufnahme in v. 15 and to
the formulation in the singular of “the God of your father” in verse 6. for a
detailed discussion, see Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 139–40.
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
123

tradition. in any case, these very topics would be most

relevant in the first divine speech in which the Deity
expresses the intention to free the israelites from their
bondage in Egypt and to lead them into the land of Canaan.
indeed, this is what we find in Priestly passages such as
Exod 6:3–8:

(3) i appeared to Abraham, isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai,

but i did not make myself known to them by my name
Yhwh. (4) I also established my covenant with them, to
give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived
as sojourners.… (5) i have now heard the moaning of the
israelites because the Egyptians are holding them in
bondage, and I have remembered my covenant. (6) Say,
therefore, to the israelite people: “i am Yhwh. i will free
you from your labors of the Egyptians.… (8) I will bring
you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob.”

in Exod 3:16–17, however, Moses is commanded to tell the

elders of israel
the following:
(16) … i have taken note of you and of what is being done
to you in Egypt, (17) and i have declared: i will take you
out of the misery of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites,
the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and
the Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey.

We find no mention here of God’s covenant with the

patriarchs nor of the promise of the land. Could it be that
an author who has just dealt with these very matters would
not reiterate them when describing the first revelation of
the Deity, thereby sanctioning Moses’ mission as well as
creating a firm literary sequence? Such an omission seems
most unlikely after witnessing to the narrator’s theological
and literary skill in the story of the burning bush.
We should therefore deduce that the entire interpolated
story in Exod 3 with its abundant divine rhetoric is either
not familiar with the narrative cycle of the ancestors or
ignores it. Moreover, we must establish that the pre-Priestly
literary narrative about the exodus from Egypt formed an
autonomous tradition that did not presuppose the literary
context of the patriarchal narratives as its introduction.
124 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

2.
Thus the question is to be asked: What was the literary
context within whose framework the narratives of the
patriarchs and the narratives about Moses were put side by
side? in order to provide an answer we should first examine
the passages connecting the books of Genesis and Exodus.
Genesis 50:21 concludes the narrative about Joseph and
his brothers. The Documentary Hypothesis attributed the
last verses of Gen 50 (24–26) to E, mainly due to its use of
the title ’elohim. Yet in this case again that hypothesis faces
a problem: Gen 50:24 shows a striking similarity to Exod
3:16–17, verses that hitherto were attributed to J:

Gen 50:24: Mkt) dqpy dqp Myhl)w

Exod 3:16: Mkt) ytdqp dqp rm)l … yl) h)rn …
hwhy Gen 50:24: … Cr)h-l) t)zh Cr)h-Nm Mkt)

hl(hw
Exod 3:17: … Cr)-l) Myrcm yn(m Mkt) hl()
Two possible explanations can be given to the literary
parallel: either one author is responsible for both Gen 50:24
and Exod 3:16–17, or the passages are dependent on each
other. Various reasons, into which we will go at a later
stage, suggest that Gen 50:24 is based on Yhwh’s words in
Exod 3 and serves as a preparatory comment; indeed, in
Gen 50:24 we have the promise to the patriarchs so
conspicuously absent from Exod 3.
Crucial to our discussion are verses 25–26, which
conclude the book of Genesis. On the one hand, they are a
continuation of verse 24, with which they form a closed,
identifiable, literary unit. On the other hand, they belong to
an intricate contextual fabric, the strands of which are
traceable throughout Gen 33 up to Josh 24:
(1) Joseph’s bones: in Gen 50:25–26 Joseph asks to have
his bones carried up from Egypt to the promised land; in
Exod 13:19 Moses takes Joseph’s bones with him; in Josh
24:32 we read that the israelites bury Joseph’s bones, which
they had brought up from Egypt, in a piece of land Jacob
had bought for a hundred kesitah from the children of
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
125

Hamor, Shechem’s father; this takes us back to Gen 33:19,

which tells about the purchase of that parcel of land. in
addition, Joseph is associated with Shechem already in Gen
48:21–22 in israel’s blessing. The blessing of israel in Gen
48:21–22 is parallel in form and in subject matter to the
speech of Joseph in Gen 50:24. Both speeches focus on the
imminent death of the hero. The speech of Joseph leads into
his request in verses 25–26 concerning the burial of his
bones:
Gen 50:24 –26 Gen 48:21–22
wyx)-l) Pswy rm)yw 24 Pswy-l) l)r#&y rm)yw 21 tm
ykn) tm ykn) hnh
Mkt) dqpy dqp Myhl)w Mkm( Myhl) hyhw
Cr)h-Nm Mkt) hl(hw .Mkytb) Cr)-l) Mkt) by#&hw
Cr)h-l) t)zh
qxcyl Mhrb)l (b#$n r#$)
.bq(ylw
Kyx)-l( dx) Mke#$; Kl
yttn yn)w 22 ybrxb yrm)h
dym ytxql
r#$) .yt#$qbw
ynb-t)
Pswy (b#$yw 25 Josh 24:32
rm)l l)r#&y
Mkt) Myhl) dqpy dqp
.hzm ytmc(-t) Mtl(hw
MynI#$ r#&(w h)m-Nb Pswy tmyw 26
.Myrcmb Nwr)b M#&yyw wt) w+nxyw

(2) There is a typological connection between the ritual

acts of Jacob/israel and his household in Shechem under the
terebinth (Gen 35:1–7) and the deeds of the israelites at
that same place (Josh 24). The elements common to the two
include the preservation in the way and over against the
cities/peoples around, the removal of the foreign gods, the
place Shechem, the terebinth, and the altar/ sanctuary.
Some of the parallels occur in the very same language in
the two texts. The parallels create a typological
126 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

correspondence: “like fathers like sons” ( Mynbl Nmys twb)).

These observations are, of course, well known, yet it is
important to stress that what we have here are not only
intertextual phenomena, nor a one-sided dependence of one
literary unit on another. rather they are elements of a
common redactional stratum. The evidence is as follows.
(a) Jacob’s buying of the land from the children of
Hamor, Shechem’s father, is the act that opens his sojourn
in Shechem (ending in Gen 35!) and is referred to at the
conclusion of Josh 24. Thus this reference forms a kind of
inclusio.
(b) The mention of Joseph’s bones in several instances in
the Pentateuch (Gen 50:25–26; Exod 13:19) are meaningless
without the deed of burial in Josh 24; by the same token, the
prolepsis in Gen 35:1–7 has no significance without its
parallel in Josh 24.
(c) Meanwhile, Josh 24 is based on the prolepsis in Gen
35 at least in regard to one matter: the motif of the gods
that the forefathers had worshiped when living beyond the
Euphrates (Josh 24:2, 14; Gen 35). This is a tradition unique
to Josh 24, never mentioned in the narratives about
Abraham. What is the origin of this tradition? The answer
lies in the narrative context of the redactional fabric we
have described. The whole idea is anchored in a late
innerbiblical midrash on the ancient narrative-cycle about
Jacob: those “foreign gods” in the possession of Jacob’s
household, which he buried “under the terebinth at
Shechem,” were none other than “the gods of laban”
(mentioned in Gen 31:30, 32), that is, the teraphim that
rachel carried away from her father’s house. These
teraphim had not been objectionable to Jacob nor to the
ancient narrators. The author-exegete of Gen 35:1–7 and of
Josh 24 was the one to identify them as the foreign gods
that had been worshiped by Terah the father of Nahor
father of Bethuel father of laban beyond the Euphrates.227

227 . The link in Gen 31:19, 21 of “and rachel stole her father’s
household idols” with “and he arose and crossed the river” may well have
contributed to the coming into being of the summarizing comment: “in
olden times, your forefathers—Terah, father of Abraham and father of
Nahor—lived across the river and worshiped other gods” of Josh 24:2,
though it could be that the sentence “and he crossed the river” (Gen
31:21) was added in order to accommodate such a commentary. in any
case, the “river,” the Euphrates, does not fit the original geographical
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
127

Joshua 24, however, is not only a key component in the

compositionaleditorial fabric that goes back to the
narratives of the patriarchs. The chapter in its own right is
a summary of the story told in the book of Genesis up to the
book of Joshua, or, to quote G. von rad, “Ein Hexateuch in
kleinster form.” in many ways Josh 24 can be considered as
a “younger brother” of the book of
Deuteronomy.228like the book of Deuteronomy, so also Josh
24 is a leave-taking speech uttered by a national leader;
Joshua, as had Moses in the book of Deuteronomy, sums up
all God’s mighty deeds with his people israel up to his own
days. Joshua, too, “gave statutes and rules for them”
(24:25), although there is no explication of these rules.
Joshua, like Moses, demanded that the people make a
decision, and he also made a covenant with them. in sum,
M. Anbar is right in stating that Joshua is depicted here
according to the figure of Moses in the book of
Deuteronomy. last but not least, there is an additional motif
that fits this depiction:
Joshua’s recording of a divine torah in writing (cf. Deut
31:9, 24). The remarkable statement Myhl) trwt rpsb hl)h
Myrbdh t) (#$why btkyw (Josh
24:26) is commented on with utmost reticence by many
exegetes. An outstanding commentator such as M. Noth, for
example, ignores it completely; other commentators
postulate that a law codex has been lost or that there may,
at a certain point, have existed a “law of Joshua,” never
mentioned anywhere except in our chapter. A. rofé
maintains that the very fact that in Josh 24 no mention is
made of “the Torah of Moses” points to an essential
difference between this chapter and the Deuteronomistic
tradition.229 in his opinion, the author of Josh 24 was not yet
familiar with the term ‘“the Torah of Moses.” Should we

space of the Jacob story. The details that Jacob, with his children and the
livestock in his possession, reaches the Gilead within nine days (Gen
31:22–23) and that the hill country of Gilead was considered the
borderline between the household of Jacob and that of laban witness to
the fact that Jacob sojourned with laban in “the land of the bne qedem” (=
Hauran?), not in Aram-Naharaim, and that laban actually does represent
the Arameans of Damascus.
228 . Here i go back to ideas Moshe Anbar expressed in Josué et
l’alliance de Sichem (Josué 24:1–28) (BETl 25; frankfurt: lang, 1992), 7–
22.
128 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

thus suppose that Joshua did not act as a “second Moses”

but Moses as a “first Joshua”?
The decisive question here is the following: What is
meant by the expression hl)h Myrbdh in Josh 24:26a? in my
opinion, it cannot be read as a reference back to the words
+p#$mw qwx in the previous verse.230 The expression Myrbdh
with a demonstrative (or a semantic equivalent) may refer
either to previously spoken words, or to occurrences
explicitly described, as for example in Exod 34:27; Jer
36:17–18; Exod 17:14, or as a self-reference to the text
itself, as for instance in Jer 45:1; 51:60–61. if the meaning
were that Joshua wrote down the +p#$mw qwx we would
expect a phrasing similar to that in 1 Sam 10:25a.
Therefore, we should conclude that Josh 24:26a refers
either to Joshua’s recording in writing the events of the
meeting in Shechem or to the chapter itself. Thus, if the
phrase means either of these two, it obviously does not
refer to the Torah of Moses. At the same time, it cannot be
separated entirely from the Torah of Moses. for, on the one
hand, the concept of a “Torah-book” did not exist before
Deuteronomy (i.e., before the “Torah of Moses”); on the
other hand, the stratum to which Josh 24 belongs is based
on an extensive composition comprising not only pre-
Priestly material in the books of Genesis, Exodus, and
Joshua (cf. the “contextual fabric” described above) but
probably also its expansion by the Priestly material. 231in
sum, the hrwth rps of Josh 24 is not called h#$m trwt rps,
seeing that it also contains the narrative of the conquest of
the land in Joshua’s days; neither is it called (#$why trwt rps,
as it also holds the “Torah of Moses” from the book of
Genesis onward. Actually, it is a sort of “version of the Torah
of Moses expanded by Joshua,” and therefore its title is
229 . Alexander rofé, “Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History,” in
Storia e tradizioni di Israel: Festschrift J. A. Soggin (ed. D. Garrone and f.
israel; Brescia: Paideia, 1991), 233–34; idem, Introduction to the
Historical Literature in the Hebrew Bible (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Carmel,
2001), 47.
230 . See, e.g., Shmuel Achituv, Joshua: Introduction and Commentary
(Miqra leYisrael; Tel Aviv:
Am Oved, 1995), 371.
231 . See below; in Josh 24 itself there are not many hints to Priestly
material, yet it seems that verse 6, at least, is familiar with the Priestly
version of Exod 13–14.
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
129

Myhl) trwt rps, “the book of the Torah of God” (an expression
used once more in Neh 8:8). That is the self-nomenclature
of the opus starting in the first chapter of Genesis up to the
end of the book of Joshua. Joshua 24 stands as its solemn
finale. if this is the case, the “book of the Torah of God” is a
redactional “Hexateuch,” which forms an expansion or
alternative to the book of Moses. in the end, however, the
canonical authority of the Torah of Moses took pride of
place.
With this interpretation my position differs from that of
my teacher Alexander rofé, who does not see Josh 24 as the
conclusion of a unit but instead as an introduction to a pre-
Deuteronomistic composition: “the Ephraimite
composition.”232 This is not the place to discuss the
hypothesis of the Ephraimite composition; i shall mention
only two weighty assertions that he adduces regarding Josh
24.
His first argument is a text-critical one. According to the
Septuagint, the end of Josh 24 evinces several pluses over
the mt.233 One of them is a concluding remark pertaining to
israel’s worship of idols as a punishment for which the lord
delivered them into the hands of Eglon, king of Moab:

24:33[2] οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἀπήλθοσαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς
τὴν ἑαυτῶν πόλιν καὶ ἐσέβοντο οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν ̕Αστάρτην καὶ Ασταρωθ καὶ
τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν κύκλῳ αὐτῶν καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς κύριος εἰς
χεῖρας Εγλωμ τῴ βασιλεῖ Μωαβ καὶ ἐκυρίευσεν αὐτῶν ἔτη δέκα ὀκτώ
And the israelites went back each to their place and their
city; and they worshiped the Ashtoreth and Ashtarot and
the gods of the nations surrounding them; and the lord
delivered them into the hands of Eglon, king of Moab, and
he ruled over them for eighteen years.

in rofé’s opinion the Septuagint here preserves an

original literary sequence, which did not yet know the
sections making up Judg 1:1–3:13. This, no doubt, is a
daring assumption indeed. its main difficulty lies in the fact
that the introduction to the book of Judges comprises
various elements that still betray the fingerprints of several

232 . Cf. rofé, “Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History”; idem,

Introduction to the Historical Literature.
233 . See the detailed discussion in A. rofé, “The End of the Book of
Joshua according to the Septuagint,” Shnaton 2 (1977), 217–27.
130 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

scribes including Deuteronomistic redactors, who are inter

alia responsible for the shaping of Josh 23.234
This means that we must posit that the lxx witnesses to the
given
Deuteronomistic book of Joshua and at the same time
preserves an ancient preDeuteronomistic connecting
passage (Josh 24:33 lxx + Judg 3:15) diverging substantially
from the Deuteronomistic sequence. Therefore, i prefer to
see the Septuagint version of the end of the book of Joshua
as a short anticipation of events to come, which were
written on some separate scroll of Joshua.235
The second argument is indispensable to those who
claim Josh 24 to be pre-Deuteronomistic in any case. What
we are alluding to is, of course, the location of the
congregation—the temple of Yhwh in Shechem. 236 Would it
be feasible for such a detail to show in a late narrative,
which is already familiar with “the law of Moses”? in my
opinion, there are indeed a number of reasons for Shechem
in particular to be mentioned in our context; i will mention
only the most relevant ones.237

234 . Cf., for example, Judg 2:20 with Josh 23:16 and Judg 2:21 with
Josh 23:13.
235 . A different issue is the question whether the story about Othniel
the Kenizzite, brother of Caleb, was already part of the Vorlage of that
copyist.
236 . Achituv, Joshua, 366, stresses the place of the sanctuary at
Shechem, which, in his opinion, goes against both trends, the
Deuteronomistic and the Priestly. One should remember, however, that
there are also late traditions that tell about various places of cult, at least
concerning the era preceding the temple in Jerusalem; in Priestly writings
obtaining in the book of Joshua, the place of the tabernacle is in Shiloh;
according to the late appendix in Judg 19–20, the people assemble in
Mizpah and later on in Bethel “before the lord/God.” The pseudepigraphic
book of Jubilees sees no difficulty in having Abraham offer sacrifices in
Shechem, near Bethel, or in Hebron (Jub. 13–14), whereas in Gen 12–13
these places—apparently not without reason—only serve as places for
revelation and prayer. As to Josh 24, it should be noted that any offering of
sacrifices is absent from the described ceremony (and so from Gen 35:1–
7).
237 . See also Erhard Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten am
Übergang von Josua zu richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag,” in
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W.
Brekelmans (ed. M. Vervenne and J. lust; BETl 133; leuven: leuven
University Press; Peeters, 1997), 181–212, 204–5, and literature cited
there.
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
131

(1) The narrator-exegete of Gen 35 could not have had a

more opportune anchorage for his prolepsis than in
between two ancient etiologies about a masseba and/or an
altar in Shechem and Bethel (Gen 33:20 and Gen 35:6– 7): 238
“the terebinth that was near Shechem” of Gen 35:4 refers
to a consecrated space, and the root Nm+, which may be
surprising when used in connection with strange gods,
actually makes sense in the context of putting away cult
objects at such a place.239
(2) The author who wanted to ascribe to Joshua an
augmented version of the “Torah of Moses” could not have
found a better place than Shechem, since “the only places
of worship which are explicitly mentioned in the book of
Deuteronomy are in the vicinity of Shechem.”240 There—near
Shechem—the words of the Torah were to be inscribed upon
large stones and read out loud (Deut 27; Josh 8:30–35), and
that is where “the terebinths of Moreh” are (Gen 12:6; Deut
11:30).
(3) At the same time, there are still questions that
require an explanation: What is it that makes our author
emphasize the “foreign gods that your forefathers served
beyond the Euphrates” (Josh 24:14–15)? And why does he
put into Joshua’s mouth the demand to choose between
those gods and Yhwh? And what makes him in the very
same breath predict that the people will fail?

You will not be able to serve Yhwh, for he is a holy God. He is

a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions and
your sins. if you forsake Yhwh and serve foreign gods, he will
turn and deal harshly with you and make an end of you, after
having been gracious to you. (Josh 24:19–20)

238 . regarding these etiologies, see Blum, Die Komposition der

Vätergeschichte, 61–65, 204–9.
239 . Jacob’s action follows the custom of burying idols or cult
utensils in a holy place; see Othmar Keel, “Das Vergraben der ‘fremden
Götter’ in Genesis xxxv 4b,” VT 23 (1973): 305–36. The tension between
the use of Nm+ and “put away the foreign gods” may be rooted also in the
midrashic character of the passage, for it points to the problem that the
“foreign gods” are actually the family gods of rachel and leah.
240 . Alexander rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy: Part I and Further
Chapters (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Aqademôn, 1988), 19.
132 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

This prediction can give a first hint: Can there be any

doubt that this speech is formulated ex eventu after israel’s
and Judah’s destruction? And what are the “gods beyond
the Euphrates” in this context if not a code for the gods
worshiped in the north, the idols that, according to the
tendentious tradition of 2 Kgs 17:24–41, the forefathers
brought from Aram Naharaim, from beyond the
Euphrates?241 Yet, opposing the separatist-Judean outlook of
2 Kgs 17, our author presents a pan-israelite outlook; he
does not make any distinction between israel and the
people of Samaria. The placement of the assembly in
Shechem, the major interest the story evinces in Joseph,
and the explicit reference to Jacob—all these, as it were,
proffer a single common heritage for the citizens of Samaria
and Judea. At the same time our story endeavors to make its
readers, among them the tribes dwelling in the north,
choose between the gods of “beyond the Euphrates,” the
gods of the Amorites, and Yhwh.242
Here too the exegetical conclusion is strengthened by
text-critical evidence, although not from Josh 24 but from a
passage closer to it than any other in the former Prophets:
Judg 6:7–10.243
Scholars have long since recognized, on grounds of
literary-critical analysis of the context, that Judg 6:7–10
forms a late interpolation into the Deuteronomistic
context.244 Typologically these verses may be compared with
241 . it may well be that verse 14 throws light on an additional
dimension pertaining to the forefathers and their gods; in this verse the
Mesopotamian gods are linked with the gods of Egypt.
242 . for a more detailed discussion of the matter, see Blum, Die
Komposition der Vätergeschichte, 45–61; more recently Blum, “Der
kompositionelle Knoten,” 194–204.
243 . Compare Judg 6:8b with Josh 24:17a; Judg 6:9b with Josh
24:18a; Judg 6:10a with Josh 24:15a, and Judg 6:10b with Josh 24:24b.
244 . See especially Alexander rofé, The Book of Bileam (Numbers
22:2– 24:25) (Hebrew) (JBS 1; Jerusalem: Simor, 1979), 56; he sees this
addition as what he calls a “related expansion.” i will sum up here the
main arguments in favor of seeing the passage as secondary. (1) Vv. 7–10
are coupled to v. 6 by means of the repetition “and the israelites cried out
to the lord.” (2) Vv. 8–10 give an answer (in advance) to the question to be
asked by Gideon in v. 13: “and why has all this befallen us.” The
anticipated answer explains the aim of the passage on the one hand,
whereas on the other it causes a disruption in the continuity of the story.
(3) The prophet’s words are only very loosely connected with the situation:
the scenic background of the speech is never given (such as the place,
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
133

the warnings of the prophets in the Chronicles. And, indeed,

the verses are absent from a fragment of a Judges
manuscript found in Qumran—4QJudga. To my mind there is
no probability for a technical error or an intentional
omission in this case. if so, we should assume that the short
version of 4QJudga represents a textual tradition into which
the prophetic warning had not been inserted. This find is, in
an

in a postexilic context this could hardly fail to be seen as an allusion to the

two main centers of the Jewish Diaspora. if so, the demand to remove the
foreign gods was (also) addressed to the returnees from the exile. Keeping
in mind the pan-israelite view of the author, this should not be seen as an
alternative to the supposed appeal to the northern israelites.
indirect way, of significance also for Josh 24, seeing that the
unique proximity between these texts points to a common
author or at least to the same circle of tradents. 245 At the
same time, we cannot draw from 4QJudg a any conclusions
regarding the textual history of Josh 24. let us now go back
to the literary connection between the books of Genesis
and Exodus, keeping in mind the transition between Joshua
and Judges. following the analysis i have presented so far,
the verses concluding the book of Genesis are the product
of the same postexilic redactional stratum to which Josh 24
belongs. Yet there is an additional link between the two
transitory passages: a considerable similarity exists
between Exod 1 and Judg 2:
time, the participating characters, the reason); moreover, the prophet’s
appearance is cut off without coming to a conclusion. (4) The passage
does not continue the plot but forms a programmatic-theological
explanation of the events against the backdrop of the Heilsgeschichte. (5)
in the passage we encounter expressions and conceptions such as #$rg,
“the gods of the Amorites,” “in whose land you dwell,” all typical of Josh
24 but differing from DtrG. (6) The appearance of the prophet is
reminiscent of the warning or reprimanding prophets in the book of
Chronicles (as in, e.g., 2 Chr 11:2–4; 15:1–7; 16:7–10). (4) The close
literary relation between v. 11 and vv. 1–6, which fits a prevalent
Deuteronomistic pattern, renders the conclusion plausible that Judg 6:7–
10 is a post-Deuteronomistic interpolation.
245 . This hypothesis does not contradict our supposition that the
same redactor(s)/tradent(s) tried to create a kind of “Hexateuch” that was
to end with Josh 24, for the “books” of former Prophets were (in such
Gestalt or another) at their disposal, and they could make additions in
these writings (beyond their own “Torah-composition”).
134 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

Exod 1:6, 8 Judg 2:8, 10

wrx)-lkw Pswy tmyw … Nwn-Nb (#$why tmyw

.)whh rwdh lkw wytwb)-l) wps)n )whh rwdh-lk Mgw
Myrcm-l( #$dx-K7lm Mqyw Mhyrx) rx) rwd Mqyw
.Pswy-t) (dy-)l r#$) … hwhy-t) w(dy-)l r#$)

Such verbatim agreement cannot be accidental.

furthermore, in the present case there is little doubt about
who borrowed from whom: Exod 1 imitates Judg 2 by
changing the perfect word coupling of the parallel “all that
generation” and “another generation” of Judg 2:10 into the
asymmetric contrast consisting of the phrases “all that
generation” and “a new king” of Exod 1.
There is a general consensus that Judg 2:6–10 forms the
transition from the Deuteronomistic book of Joshua to the
Deuteronomistic introduction to the period of the judges. if,
indeed, Exod 1:6, 8 are based on the pattern of Judg 2, the
question begs to be asked: What is the correlation between
these texts and the stratum of Josh 24, to which we
assigned the concluding verses of the last chapter of the
book of Genesis, which is the transition to the opening of
Exodus.
Here we should mention that the verses that serve as a
summary for the book of Joshua (24:28–30) follow the
pattern of Judg 2:6–10.
Judg 2:6–10 Josh 24:28–31

M(h-t) (#$why xl#$yw 6 wtlxnl #y$ ) M(h-t) (#w$ hy xl#y$

w 28 wtlxnl #$y) l)r#&y-ynb wklyw hl)h Myrbdh yrx) yhyw 29
(#$why ymy lk … Nb hwhy
hwhy-t) M(h db( Nwn-Nb
wdb(yw 7 (#$why tmyw 8
Mymy wkyr)h r#$) Mynqzh … wtlxn lwbgb wtw)
ymy lkw wrbqyw 9
(w#$why yrx) -l)
lwdgh hwhy wps)n )whh
h#&(m-lk t) rwdh-lk Mgw
w)r 10 Mhyrx)
r#$) .l)r#&yl rx) rwd
h#&( r#$) Mqyw
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
135

wytwb) -t) ymy lk hwhy-t)

Mgw hwhy-t) l)r#&y db(yw 31
w(dy-)l
wkyr)h r#$) Mynqzh
r#$) .l)r#&yl
h#&( r#$) ymy lkw (#$why
h#&(mh (#$why yrx)
… Nb hwhy db( Nwn-Nb Mymy hwhy
h#&(m-lk t)
(#$why tmyw
w(dy
… wtlxn r#$)w .l)r#&
lwbgb wt) yl h#&( r#$)
wrbqyw 30
The passage Judg 2:6–8, marking the transition from
Joshua to Judges, has been transformed by the redaction of
Josh 24:28–31 to form the conclusion of the days of Joshua
as well of an entire opus,246 that is, of the late “Hexateuch”
composition. Since we have found the redactional stratum
of Josh 24 in the last verses of the book of Genesis as well
(50:24–26), we find a parallel diachronic profile in both
transition sections.247 This renders it probable that Exod 1:6,
8—which imitate Judg 2:8, 10—were formulated by the
same tradent(s) (of Josh 24).
Are we, finally, detecting traces of the editors/authors
who were responsible for the primary transition between
Genesis and Exodus? The answer must be negative, seeing
that it is not feasible to connect directly between Exod 1:6
and Gen 50:24–26, nor is a direct linkage of Gen 50:25 and
Exod 1:6 convincing from a literary point of view. 248 We
must, therefore, deduce that we cannot read these
redactional elements without the intervening Priestly
passages, including the list in Exod 1:1–5.

246 . A full comparison shows that neither were Judg 2:6–10 phrased
as Wiederaufnahme nor were Josh 24:28–31 formulated as a prolepsis but
as a concluding remark; see Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten,” 184,
206.
247 . it is worth noting the possibility that the lifespans of Joseph and
Joshua—both lived 110 years—may have been adjusted to agree with each
other as well.
248 . in Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch i advanced the
assumption that in Gen 50:24 + Exod 1:6, 8 is to be found a pre-Priestly
transition from the ancestral narratives to the exodus narrative. Yet, J. C.
Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 360, has rightly argued against this, that
the literary sequence resulting from the linkage of Exod 1:6 and Gen
50:24 would have something of a tragic-comic effect.
136 A fArEWEll TO THE YAHWiST?

This find is not really surprising. it actually corroborates

our previous conjecture that the redactional/compositional
stratum of Josh 24 is already based on the Pentateuch,
including the bulk of the Priestly material.
And indeed, following this assumption two details in
Exod 1:5 and 6 may be explained easily. first, the sentence
“and Joseph was in Egypt”—which already in the lxx has
been moved after verse 4—was from the start meant as a
transition between verses 5a and 6. Second, the words “and
all his brothers” of verse 6 go back to the previous list of
Joseph’s brothers (Exod 1:1–5). furthermore, the Priestly
materials in Gen 50:22–23 and Exod 1:1a–5, 7 form a
perfect transition from the family sagas in the book of
Genesis to the narrative of the great and populous nation in
the book of Exodus:

Gen 50:22–23: So Joseph and his father’s family remained

in Egypt. Joseph lived one hundred and ten years. Joseph
lived to see children of the third generation of Ephraim;
the children of Machir son of Manasseh were likewise
born on Joseph’s knees.
Exod 1:1–7: And these are the names of the sons of israel
who came to Egypt with Jacob, each coming with his
family: reuben, Simeon, levi, and Judah; issachar, Zebulun,
and Benjamin; Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. The total
number of persons that were of Jacob’s issue came to
seventy ... And the israelites were fertile and prolific; they
multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was
filled with them’.

let us bring our discussion to an end with two far-

reaching conclusions following from our analysis. (1) The
stratum of Josh 24, which aimed at forming some sort of a
“Hexateuch” (or more precisely the “book of the Torah of
God” mentioned in 24:26), was composed after the
completion of that huge pentateuchal work, a work that
comprised the pre-Priestly traditions as well as the main of
the Priestly material. (2) it seems that the Priestly
editor(s)/author(s) was (were) the first to bring together
into one continuous literary opus the three major traditions
of the Pentateuch: the primeval history, the narratives of the
patriarchs, and the exodus narrative.
 BlUM: GENESiS AND ExODUS AND THE END Of JOSHUA
137

On the basis of these conclusions there is, of course, no

longer room for J and E of the traditional Documentary
Hypothesis. Moreover, to some extent, some newer
assumptions regarding the composition of the Torah that
were suggested inter alia in previous publications of mine
should be reexamined as well.249

249 . This is not the place to dwell upon it, but there can be no doubt
that the findings and deliberations of Alexander rofé (see, e.g., “An
Enquiry into the Betrothal of rebekah,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre
zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff [ed. E. Blum et al.;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990], 27–39) will be milestones in any
such reexamination. for the time being, see Blum, “Die literarische
Verbindung,” 140–45, 151–56.
 The Commission of moses and The Book of
Genesis Thomas B. Dozeman
1. The Books of Genesis and Exodus and the
Composition of the Pentateuch
The literary relationship between Exodus and Genesis
has not played a significant role in modern research on the
composition of the Pentateuch. Interpreters have focused
instead on the relationship of Exodus to Deuteronomy or to
the Deuteronomistic History, giving rise to the terms
Tetrateuch, Hextateuch, and Enneateuch in contemporary
theories of composition. Many have noted the problems of
narrative unity and style between Genesis and Exodus and
the abrupt transition in subject matter from family stories
to a national epic.250 But the tendency is to read the stories
of the ancestors and the exodus as a single narrative by the
same author(s) from the early development of the
literature.251 And this judgment has held firm even in the
wake of tradition-historical studies to the contrary, such as
Kurt Galling’s conclusion that the story of the ancestors and
the exodus are separate traditions of election 252 or the more
recent argument of Albert de Pury that the separation of the
election traditions is still evident in the book of Hosea,
where the prophet uses the exodus tradition to evaluate
critically the Jacob tradition of origin.253

250 . See already Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs

und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testament (3rd ed.; Berlin: Reimer,
1899), 61.
251 . See the overview by Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus:
Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels
innerhalb des Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testament (WMANT 81;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 5–18.
252 . Kurt Galling, Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels (BZAW 48;
Giessen: Töpelmann, 1928).
253 . Albert de Pury, “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des
origins d’Israël,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton;
VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 78–96. See the caution by Erhard Blum,
“Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit
neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die
Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et
al.; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 122.

-107 -
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 139

The insights from tradition history are beginning to

influence theories of composition, prompting interpreters to
reexamine the literary relationship between Genesis and
Exodus. John Van Seters, followed by Rolf Rendtorff,
established the framework for interpretation in separate
studies on the related themes, God of the fathers and the
promise to the ancestors. In the early 1970s Van Seters
recognized that the ancestors in Ezekiel, Jeremiah,
Deuteronomy, and the Deuteronomistic History are, for the
most part, the generation of the exodus, not the patriarchs
from the book of Genesis, while the earliest reference to the
patriarch Abraham in the prophetic corpus is in the exilic
writings of Ezekiel and Second Isaiah. 254 Van Seters
concluded that the merging of the generation of the exodus
and the patriarchal ancestors was a literary innovation by
the yahwist historian in the wake of confessional
reformulation in the exilic period.255 The commission of
Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18 was a central text in this new
historiography of origins.
Rendtorff came to a similar conclusion as Van Seters at
the close of the 1970s, working in the opposite direction,
from Genesis to Exodus.256 Rendtorff noted that the theme,
promise of land to the ancestors, was central to the
formation of the book of Genesis but nearly absent in the
book of Exodus, where it is clustered at the outset, mainly
in the commission of Moses: three times in the Priestly
history (Exod 2:24; 6:3, 8); four times in the non-P version
(Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5); with only two additional references
later in the book (Exod 33:1; 32:13). He, too, concluded that
the identification of the divine promise to the patriarchal
ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with the exodus
generation was a late development. for Rendtorff, the
literary process was the work of a Deuteronomistic editor
who sought to relate the previously separate literary

254 . John Van Seters, “Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period,”

VT 22 (1972): 448–59.
255 . Ibid., 459.
256 . Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1977); English translation: The Problem of the Process of
Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. J. Scullion; JSoTSup 89;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).
140 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

traditions (“complexes”) of the patriarchs in Genesis to the

story of the exodus.257
Subsequent interpreters have built on the research of
Van Seters and Rendtorff, raising new questions about the
literary formation of Genesis and Exodus and the authorship
of the commission of Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18. Erhard Blum
supported the thesis of Rendtorff, arguing that the call of
Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18 is a key text in the D-Komposition
(KD), a postexilic literary composition linking the
patriarchal stories with the salvation from Egypt. 258 The
Priestly version of the commission of Moses (Exod 6:2–7:7)
represents the later P-Komposition (KP), according to Blum,
thus affirming the pre-Priestly authorship Exod 3:1–4:18. 259
But when Thomas Römer extended the work of Van Seters
on the ancestors in Deuteronomy and related literature, he
located the literary combination of Genesis with Exodus in
the Priestly author’s version of the commission of Moses
(Exod 6:2–7:7), leading to the further conclusion that the
present form of Exod 3:1–4:18 is a post-Priestly
composition.260
The post-Priestly authorship of all or part of Exod 3:1–
4:18 has been further developed in a number of recent
studies, including those of Eckart otto, Konrad Schmid, and
Jan Christian Gertz.261 Schmid and Gertz advocate a new
hypothesis of pentateuchal composition in which the
Priestly author is the first historian to combine the origin
stories of the patriarchal ancestors and the exodus. The
literary combination is achieved in the divine notice of the
Israelite oppression (Exod 2:23a β–25) and in the

257 . Rendtorff, Problem, 88.

258 . Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW
189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 9–37, esp. 22–28.
259 . Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 232–42.
260 . Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur
Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen
Tradition (oBo 99; fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1990), 344–52, 552–54.
261 . Eckart otto, “Die nachpriesterschrifliche Pentateuchredaktion
im Buch Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception
—Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University
Press; Peeters, 1996), 61–111; Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus; and Jan
Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung:
Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (fRLANT 186;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000).
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 141

commission of Moses (6:2–7:7).262 Exodus 3:1–4:18 is a

reinterpretation, either in part (Gertz)263 or in whole
(Schmid),264 of the Priestly version of the commission of
Moses by the final redactor of the Pentateuch. The
hypothesis has prompted Blum to identify two authors in
Exod 3:1–4:18, the pre-Priestly author of the KD (Exod 3)
and a post-Priestly author (Exod 4:1–17). Blum also restricts
the literary boundaries of the pre-Priestly KD to Exodus–2
Kings, thus separating Genesis from Exodus until the
composition of KP.265
My aim is to evaluate this emerging trend of research, in
which the composition of Exod 3:1–4:18 is attributed to a
post-Priestly redactor of the final form of the Pentaeuch,
who is reinterpreting the Priestly version of Moses’
commission in Exod 6:2–7:7. I will begin by comparing the
present form of the two commissions of Moses, before
evaluating the composition of Exod 3:1–4:18 and its
function in the literary context of the Pentateuch.
2. The Two Commissions of Moses
Konrad Schmid concluded that Exod 3:1–4:18
reinterprets Exod 6:2–7:7. This conclusion is based in a
large part on the comparison of shared motifs and an
evaluation of the literary design of the text. 266 The motifs of
“hearing” ((m#) and “faith” (Nm)) are especially important
for determining the direction of literary dependence.
Schmid argues that there is no reason for the Israelites not
“to heed” the message of Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18. 267 The
Priestly version in Exod 6:2–9 provides a better context for
interpreting the motif, since it presents a clear linear
development: God speaks to Moses (6:2–8), Moses conveys
the message (6:9a), and the Israelites do not listen to his
message (6:9b). The central role of “listening/hearing” in
Exod 3:1–4:18 is more understandable as a reinterpretation
of the Priestly version. The objections of Moses in
conjunction with the “faith” of the Israelites thematize the

262 . Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 237–54.

263 . Ibid., 255–328.
264 . Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 190–92.
265 . Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 119–56.
266 . Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 199.
267 . Schmid notes that Exod 3:18 even states the opposite, namely,
that the elders would listen to Moses (ibid., 199).
142 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

motif of “not listening.” The distinct geographical settings

of the two commissions reinforce the literary dependence of
Exod 3:1–4:18 on 6:2–7:7.268 The setting of Egypt in the
Priestly version presents no problem when read as the first
account of the commission of Moses. It corresponds to Ezek
20:5–26. But if the Priestly version were later than Exod
3:1–4:18, the author would have corrected the setting of the
divine mountain, Horeb, to Sinai, the mountain of revelation
in the Priestly history.269
The comparison of shared motifs is important for
identifying the innerbiblical relationship between texts. yet
it is difficult to judge the direction of literary dependence
through a narrow comparison of motifs alone, especially
when there is shared subject matter, as with the two
commissions of Moses. Michael fishbane notes that the
direction of innerbiblical interpretation requires an analysis
of both motifs and structure.270 The latter text, he notes,
often reorganizes its parent text in order to rethematize the
topic. I will compare the present structure of the two
commissions of Moses, utilizing past form-critical research
on the genre of the prophetic commission and the
innerbiblical methodology described by fishbane. I will
begin with the wilderness commission in Exod 3:1–4:18,
before evaluating the literary design of the Priestly
commission in Exod 6:2–7:7.
2.1. The Commission of Moses in Exodus 3:1–4:18

The commission of Moses in the wilderness separates

into two parts, 3:1–15 and 3:16–4:18. 22 Each section is
organized around the motif of divine commission. In the
first section (3:1–15) the Deity commands Moses in Exod
3:10: “And now, go, and I will send you to Pharaoh. Bring
out my people, the Israelites, from Egypt.” There are two
additional commissions in the second section (3:16–4:18).
The first, in Exod 3:16, marks the transition between the
two sections: “Go and gather the elders, and you will say to
them.” The second commission is in Exod 4:12: “Now go,
and I will be with you as you speak and will instruct you

268 . Ibid., 200–2.

269 . Ibid., 202–9.
270 . Michael fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (oxford:
Clarendon, 1985), 285.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 143

what to say.”271 The two sections, Exod 3:1–15 and 3:16–

4:18, are interwoven by the repeated resistance of Moses to
the divine commission (Exod 3:11; 4:1, 10, 13), 272 suggesting
that Exod 3:1–4:18 has been fashioned into a literary unit,
regardless of the history of composition.273 Both sections
explore the related themes of divine identity and Mosaic
authority. Exodus 3:1–15 focuses more on the identity of the
Deity, and Exod 3:16–4:18 defines the authority of Moses.
Exodus 3:1–15 addresses the problem of the divine identity
after the break in tradition from the time of the patriarchal
ancestors (Exod 1:6).274 The

22. The identification of the literary structure of Exod 3:1–4:18 is often

obscured by a preoccupation with identifying the sources. yet v. 16 is
frequently noted as a point of transition in the literary structure, signifying
the separation of the E (vv. 13–15) and the J (vv. 16ff.) sources. See, for
example, Werner H. Schmidt, Exodus 1–6 (BK 2/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1988), 109, 120; and compare William H. C. Propp, who
notes the transition in the narrative but assigns Exod 3:16ff. to the E
source (Exodus 1–18 [AB 2; New york: Doubleday, 1999], 193). for stylistic
evaluation of the transition at v. 16, see Georg fischer, Jahwe unser Gott:
Sprache, Aufbau und Erzähltechnik in der Berufung des Moses (Ex 3–4)
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 89–91, 154–55; and Umberto

271 . See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical,

Theological Commentary (oTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974),
70–71.
272 . Benno Jacob adds an additional objection in Exod 3:13 yielding a
five-part structure of objection and divine reassurance, consisting of Exod
3:7–10; 13–22; 4:1–9, 10–12, 13–17 (The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus
[trans. W. Jacob; Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1992], 48).
273 . for discussion of the literary boundaries of Exod 3:1–4:18, see
Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson;
Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press, 1981), 203 n. 549; frederick V. Winnett, The
Mosaic Tradition (Near and Middle East Studies 1; Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1949), 20–29; with additional literature in Childs, Book of
Exodus, 51–55. for more recent discussion, see Blum, Studien zur
Komposition des Pentateuch, 22–29; Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist
(fRLANT 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 326, 329;
Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 186–89; and Gertz, Tradition und
Redaktion, 254–56 with bibliography.
274 . for the interpretation of Exod 1:6 as indicating a transition in
generations and its parallel in Judg 2:10, see Theodor Christian Vriezen,
“Exodusstudien: Exodus 1,” VT 17 (1967): 334–53. for comparison of the
larger context, see John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as
Historian
144 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes,

1967), 30–52.
section also explores the ability of God to be present with
the Israelite people during their slavery in Egypt. 27 Exodus
3:16–4:18 raises the related problem of the authority of
Moses in proclaiming yhwh’s imminent salvation, especially
when the experience of the Israelites is of slavery,
suggesting divine abandonment, not salvation.
Many interpreters have recognized a commissioning
form in Exod 3:1–15. Werner H. Schmidt identifies the
central features of the form in Exod 3:10–12 to include: the
commission (v. 10), the objection (v. 11), the reassurance (v.
12a), and the sign (v. 12b). 28 This form repeats in a wide
variety of literature recounting the commission of
charismatic and prophetic heroes such as Gideon (Judg
6:14–17), Saul (1 Sam 9–10), and Jeremiah (Jer 1:4–10). 29
The commission could be expanded to include verse 9, since
this verse provides the circumstances giving rise to Moses’
task.30 Norman Habel extended the literary pattern even
further to include Exod 3:1–12,31 but the repetition of the
motif of divine presence in verses 12a, “I will be with you”
(Km( hyh) yk), and 14, “I will be who I will be” ( hyh) r#) hyh)),
indicates that the section must be extended beyond verse
12 through the revelation of the name, yhwh, in Exod 3:15. 32
The genre of the commission is important for the
interpretation of Exod
3:1–15. Brevard Childs pointed out that the form indicates
an identification

in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 17–18. for

recent debates on dating Exod 1:6, see Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion,
358–60; and Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 152–53.
27. Many interpreters have clarified the theme of divine presence in
Exod 3:1–15. See already Hugo Gressmann, who sought to identify an
early form of divine appearance in a cult legend (Mose und seine Zeit
[fRLANT 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913], 21–30). See
more recently Levin, Der Jahwist, 326; and fischer, Jahwe unser Gott, 99–
122. for review of the scholarship, see Schmidt, Exodus 1–6, 110–23; and
Childs, Book of Exodus, 52–70.
28. Schmidt, Exodus 1–6, 123–30, with bibliography.
29. In addition to Schmidt, see Wolfgang Richter, Die sogenannten
vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche
Studie zu 1 Sam 9,1–10, 16, Ex 3f und Ri 6,11b–17 (fRLANT 101;
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 145

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); Hans-Christoph Schmitt,

“Das sogenannte vorprophetische Berufungsschema: Zur ‘geistigen
Heimat’ des Berufungsformulars von Ex 3, 9–12; Jdc 6,11–24 und 1 Sam
9,1–10,16,” ZAW 104 (1992): 202–16; and Van Seters, Life of Moses, 41–
46.
30. The repetition between vv. 7 and 9 has been argued by many
interpreters to be a strong illustration of two sources (see Schmidt,
Exodus 1–6, 109). See, however, Moshe Greenberg (Understanding
Exodus [Melton Research Center Series 2; New york: Behrman House,
1969], 99) and Blum (Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 11) for
discussion of the literary function of the repetition based on a comparison
of Exod 3:6–10; Josh 14:6–12; and 2 Sam 7:27–29.
31. Norman Habel, “The form and Significance of the Call
Narratives,” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323.
32. Interpreters debate the placement of the revelation of the divine
name in Exod 3:13–15 within the literary context of the commission of
Moses. Schmidt notes a series of motifs linking Exod 3:9–12 and 13–14
(Exodus 1–6, 131–32).
of Moses with the prophetic office, 275 accentuating his role
as a charismatic leader, not as a priest. 276 This imagery will
be carried through in the presentation of Aaron (Exod 4:13–
16), who also functions in a prophetic role. But the genre of
the commission does not adequately describe the opening
encounter between God and Moses, since Exod 3:9–12 is
framed by accounts of divine self-revelation in Exod 3:1–8
and 13–15.277 Exodus 3:6 includes a divine selfidentification
to Moses: “I am the God of your father.” Exodus 3:13–15
carries the theme through to the introduction of the divine
name, yhwh. The mixing of genres in Exod 3:1–15 indicates
that the commission of Moses (Exod 3:9– 12) is at the heart
of the episode, but the point of focus is the identity of the
Deity, yhwh (Exod 3:1–8 and 13–15).
The wilderness commission of Moses changes in
emphasis from the identity of the Deity (3:1–15) to the
authority of Moses (3:16–4:18). The change is signaled in
the second commission (3:16), where the point of focus is
on the authenticity of Moses’ experience, not the identity of
275 . Childs, Book of Exodus, 55.
276 . See Schmid for discussion of the idealization of Moses as a
prophet and its possible relationship to Abraham in Gen 15 and to Joshua
in Josh 24 (Erzväter und Exodus, 180, 196, 224).
277 . for discussion of the genre of divine self-revelation in general,
see Walther Zimmerli, “I Am yahweh,” in I Am Yahweh (trans. D. W. Stott;
Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 1–28. for interpretation of Exod 3:1–8, see
Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 130–33; and George W. Coats, Exodus
1–18 (foTL 2A; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 34–42, with bibliography.
146 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

God per se. Moses is to inform the elders: “yhwh, the God of
your fathers appeared to me (yl) h)rn).” And it is the need to
persuade the elders of the authenticity of his experience
that prompts Moses to object in Exod 4:1: “They will say,
‘yhwh did not appear to you (Kyl) h)rn-)l).’” The objection
calls forth the divine response in Exod 4:5: “They will
believe that yhwh appeared to you (Kyl) h)rn).”278
Mosaic authority in the wilderness commission is
developed in two scenes with different characters, Exod
3:16–4:9 and 4:10–18. The separate commissions of Moses,
Exod 3:16 and 4:12, signal the division. Exodus 3:16–4:9
explores the authority of Moses in relation to the elders. 279
Exodus 4:10–18 shifts to the character of Aaron as Moses’
assistant in a prophetic role. In each section Moses objects
to the divine commission (4:1, 10–12), an expected feature
of the genre of the prophetic commission, since the hero
must persuade the audience of the authenticity of the divine
call.
The first scene (3:16–4:9) confirms the absence of
Mosaic authority and the need to equip Moses with signs.
Exodus 3:16 states the need for Moses to confirm the
authenticity of his experience. The objection of Moses is
stated in Exod 4:1: “But suppose they do not believe me or
listen to my voice.” The objection of Moses introduces the
central theme of faith (Nm)) in Moses, which means
listening ((m#) to his voice (lq). The phrase “listening to the
voice” is a reference to the law in the book of Deuteronomy
(e.g., 5:22; 15:5; 26:17; 28:1, 45, 62; 30:20), and the same
meaning is present in this text. The motif will reappear at
the outset of the wilderness journey in Exod 15:26
signifying God’s voice as law. But it will become
increasingly intermingled with Moses’ voice in the
experience of theophany, when the people appoint him to
mediate law for them (Exod

278 . Gertz also notes the shift to Mosaic authority but locates the
transition at Exod 4:1 (Tradition und Redaktion, 261).
279 . The elders are named in Exod 3:16–22 (see vv. 16 and 18) but
not in Exod 4:1–9, suggesting a possible expansion of the wilderness
commission. yet, there is no change in characters to mark a clear
separation. Thus I read Exod 3:16–22 and 4:1–9 as a single scene in the
present structure of the wilderness commission.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 147

19:9, 19; 20:18–20).280

The second scene (4:10–18) introduces the theme of
eloquence in the charismatic hero, when Moses doubts his
ability to speak persuasively (4:10–12). The second
objection allows for a divine speech of disputation,
underscoring the power of God to create persuasive speech,
recalling the commission of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 1:4–
10).281 The introduction of Aaron (4:13–17) underscores the
unique status of Moses. He will function as a god over
against Aaron’s prophetic role.282

2.2. The Commission of Moses in Exodus 6:2–7:7

The Priestly account of the commission of Moses (6:2–

7:7) follows the structure of the wilderness version (3:1–
4:18). It, too, separates between sections focused on the
identity of God (6:2–9; cf. 3:1–15) and the authority of
Moses (6:10–7:7; cf. 3:16–4:18). Mosaic authority in the
Priestly version is also developed through the objections of
Moses to the commission (6:10–12 and 28–30).283 The
similar structure is illustrated in the following diagram.
The Commission of Moses in the The Commission of Moses in
Wilderness: Exod 3:1–4:18 Egypt: Exod 6:2–7:7

The Identify of yhwh

280 . See otto, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,”

61–100; and Thomas B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of
Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24 (SBLMS 37; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988), 37–86.
281 . See Schmidt, Exodus 1–6, 200–2. for discussion of disputation
speech in Second Isaiah, see Joachim Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja
(2nd ed.; TB 20; Munich: Kaiser, 1963), 48–53. for a more general
description, see Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to
Prophetic Literature (foTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 28, 519.
282 . Propp rightly concludes that, although Moses is compared to
prophets, he is in a class apart (Exodus 1–18, 230–31). Propp supports the
conclusion by relating the commission of Moses to Num 11–12. See below
for a similar comparison.
283 . Most agree that the beginning of the Priestly commission is
Exod 6:2. There is more debate over its ending. for discussion, see
Schmidt, Exodus 1–6, 269–312.
148 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

Exod 3:1–15 Exod 6:2–8

Self-Revelation: 3:1– Self-Revelation: 6:2–5
8 Commission: 3:9– Commission: 6:6–9
10 objection: 3:11
Reassurance: 3:12
Self-Revelation:
3:13–15
Exod 3:16–4:9
3:1 The Authority of Moses
6–
4:1 Exod 6:10–7:7
8 Moses
Mo and
ses Phin
and ehas
the :
Eld 6:10
ers: –13
[14–
27]
Moses and Aaron: 4:10–17 Moses and Aaron: 6:28–7:7

The Priestly account identifies the Deity by mixing the

genres of divine self-revelation (6:2–5; cf. 3:1–8, 13–15) with
the divine commission of Moses (6:6–9; cf. 3:9–12), 284 now
fashioned into the structure of command (4:6–8) and
fulfillment (4:9)—a common pattern in the Priestly history. 285
The mixing of genres in both versions of Moses’ commission
allows for the identification of the God of the exodus, the
God of the fathers, and the patriarchal ancestors,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (3:6 and 6:3), thus linking the
books of Genesis and Exodus. The Priestly version adds the
theme of covenant as the theological basis for the
relationship of the patriarchal ancestors and the exodus
generation.286

284 . for commentary (with bibliography) on the structure and form,

see Johan Lust, “Exodus 6,2–8 and Ezekiel,” in Vervenne, Studies in the
Book of Exodus, 211–12.
285 . See Thomas B. Dozeman, “Numbers,” NIB 2:31–32, 47–48, 60,
82.
286 . Blum highlights the problem of interpreting the commission of
Moses in Exod 3 as a reinterpretation of Exod 6, when the former lacks
the motif of covenant, which is so central to the Priestly version (“Die
literarische Verbindung,” 131).
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 149

The Priestly account of Moses’ commission also changes

in emphasis from the identity of God (6:2–9) to the authority
of Moses (6:10–7:7). The transition is signaled by Moses’
statement that he is not a persuasive speaker, creating a
repetition between Exod 4:10 and 6:10–13, 28–30. In the
Priestly version, Moses’ objection is stated twice (6:10–12
and 28–30). The repetition indicates that Mosaic authority
is developed in two scenes, which follows the pattern of his
wilderness commission, where his authority was defined in
relation to the elders (3:16–4:9) and Aaron (4:10–18). The
first objection of Moses (6:12) introduces the genealogy of
Phinehas as the representative of Mosaic authority (6:14–
27), as compared to the elders (3:16–4:9). The second
objection (6:28) allows for the repetition of Aaron as the
prophet of Moses (7:1–2) to Pharaoh and the Egyptians
(7:5), as compared to the Israelite people (4:10–18). The
parallel structure reinforces Schmid’s conclusion of literary
dependence, based on his comparison of motifs.
The comparison of the structure of the two commissions
suggests that the Priestly account (6:2–7:7) is dependent on
the wilderness version (3:1–4:18). The genre of the
commission is rooted in the prophetic office. It explores the
authority of charismatic leadership, not the priest. The
genre requires the audience to encounter the hero’s power
directly. They must be persuaded through experience. The
interplay of objection and divine reassurance is equally
crucial to the genre, qualifying charismatic power as
originating with God and not residing in the personal
strength of the hero. Exodus 3:1–4:18 fulfills these
expectations. The motif of faith requires the Israelites to
experience first hand Moses’ signs of authority (4:1–9). And
the objections of Moses underscore that his charismatic
power derives from God, not from his personal strength.
The Priestly author follows the form of the prophetic
commission in fashioning Exod 6:2–7:7 around the
objections of Moses. But the commission lacks the essential
characteristics of the genre. The authority of Moses is not
rooted in the prophetic office. It is not affirmed
experientially through signs. It does not require the faith of
the Israelite people. And the important interplay between
objection and reassurance is absent. The objection of Moses
to the divine commission is prominent (6:12, 30), but it is
150 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

not about charismatic authority or the fear of fulfilling a

mission. The initial objection (6:12) is embedded, rather, in
a statement about past actions: “The Israelites would not
listen to me; how then should Pharaoh heed me?”287 The
second objection (6:30) allows for a reinterpretation of
Aaron’s prophetic role as Moses’ messenger to the
Egyptians (7:1–2) rather than to the Israelite people.
The objections of Moses in the Priestly version of his
commission fulfill the form of the genre, but not the
function. This is most evident by the absence of any
reassurance of the divine presence: “I will be with you.” The
interplay between the objection and the divine reassurance
in the prophetic commission, as well as the need for
experiential signs to instill “faith,” give way to the
genealogy of Phinehas in the Priestly version of Moses’
commission. The genealogy signals a noncharismatic view
of Mosaic authority, transmitted as a right of birth, not as
an act of faith.
The Priestly author is not the originator of the
commission of Moses. The Priestly author is following the
prophetic genre of Exod 3:1–4:18, even though it conflicts
with the noncharismatic view of Mosaic authority. The
wilderness commission of Moses, therefore, is a pre-Priestly
composition. The comparison indicates that the Priestly
author has used the genre in a “lexically reorganized and
topically rethematized way.”288 The result is an innerbiblical
interpretation in which the Priestly author designates the
Aaronide priesthood as the representatives of Mosaic
authority, while defining their prophetic authority in the
larger setting of the nations.

3. The Composition and Literary Context of Exod 3:1–

4:18
The innerbiblical relationship between the two
commissions of Moses is complicated by debate over the
composition of Exod 3:1–4:18. The story is filled with
literary tensions, raising questions of coherence and

287 . In Priestly tradition Moses does not fear future inadequacy; in

fact, his sin in Num 20:2–13 is that he is too self-confident and acts
independently of God. See Dozeman, “Numbers,” 159–61.
288 . fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 285.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 151

authorship.289 A thorough interpretation of the literary

problems is not possible.290 I will limit my study to the
recent identification of the post-Priestly authorship in Exod
3:1–4:18. Even here I will narrow my interpretation to three
motifs that play an important role in the identification of the
post-Priestly composition: the signs given to Moses (4:1–9);
the insertion of Aaron into the commission of Moses (4:10–
18); and the identification of the God of the exodus with the
patriarchal ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (3:6, 15,
16; 4:5, focusing especially on 3:1–6). The study will begin
with the problems of authorship in Exod 4, and it will
conclude with an interpretation of the motif of the “God of
the fathers” in Exod 3:1–6, focusing in particular on the
relationship of the books of Genesis and Exodus.

3.1. The Signs of Mosaic Authority

The signs of Mosaic authority develop from the divine

commission to Moses in Exod 3:16: “Go and assemble the
elders of Israel and say to them, ‘Yhwh … has appeared to
me.’” In Exod 4:1 Moses repeats aspects of the commission
as an objection, relating the motif of faith and Mosaic
authority: “What if they do not believe me and do not listen
to my voice, but say, ‘Yhwh did not appear to you?’” In Exod
4:2–9 yhwh responds to the objection, giving Moses three
signs (t)) to confirm his authority: (1) the transforming of
Moses’ staff into a snake (4:2–5); (2) the changing of the
healthy hand of Moses into a leprous one (4:6–7); (3) and
the instructions for turning the water of the Nile into blood
(4:9).291 The absence of a specific reference to the elders,
who are the intended audience for Moses’ commission in
Exod 3:16, raises the question of whether Exod 4:1–9 is a
literary addition to the commission of Moses in Exod 3. And
the literary parallels between the first and third signs and
the first two plagues in the Priestly history raise a further

289 . See the summary of literary problems by Sean McEvenue, “The

Speaker(s) in Ex 1–15,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher
Wandel: Festschrift Norbert Lohfink, S. J. (ed. G. Braulik et al.; freiburg:
Herder, 1993), 220–36.
290 . See most recently Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 254–350
291 . Schmidt notes the interplay between the motifs of action (Exod
4:2–4, 6) and interpretation (Exod 4:1, 5, 8–9) in the present structure of
Exod 4:1–9 (Exodus 1–6, 188).
152 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

question concerning the post-Priestly composition of Exod

4:1–9.
The literary parallels between the signs of Moses and
the Priestly plagues include (1) the turning of a staff into a
snake (4:2–5 = 7:8–13) (2) and the changing of the Nile
River into blood (4:9 = 7:14–24; see esp. vv. 20–21a, where
Aaron is the protagonist).292 The debate over the authorship
of Exod 4:1–9 centers on the direction of the literary
dependence between the signs given to Moses and the
Priestly plague cycle. Some interpreters detect the
influence of Priestly literature in the signs, suggesting post-
Priestly authorship (e.g., Schmid, Blum, Gertz, and otto).
The reasons are varied. The order of the signs given to
Moses follows the order of the plagues in the present form
of the text, suggesting the dependence of Exod 4:1–9 on the
Priestly history. The motif of faith is a late addition to the
Pentateuch, relating prophetic presentations of Abraham
(Gen 15), Moses (Exod 3–4), and Joshua (Josh 24). And
shared motifs suggests that Exod 4:1–9 is reinterpreting the
Priestly plague cycle: the underworld snake, Nynt (7:8–13)
is reinterpreted as a local creature, #xn (4:2–4); the turning
of water into blood fits the setting of Egypt (7:14–24) but is
out of place in the wilderness (4:9); and the motif of dry
ground (h#by) is a late addition to the story of the exodus. 293
others argue that the Priestly author has reinterpreted Exod
4:1–9, empha-
sizing the role of Aaron in the plagues (e.g., Noth, Propp,
Schmidt, Van Seters). They note differences between the
Priestly account of the plagues and the signs to Moses.
Exodus 4:1–9 focuses on the authority of Moses and the
faith of the elders, as compared to the focus on Aaron and
Pharaoh in the Priestly history. Moses’ staff becomes a
snake (#xn), not a water serpent (Nynt), as is the case in

292 . The parallels are interwoven with specific motifs. The first sign
and the first Priestly plague employ the motifs of the staff ( h+m), the act
of throwing it (xl# in the hiphil), and its transformation into a snake. The
third sign and the second plague include the motifs of blood, water, and
the Nile River. See Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 312–13.
293 . for more detailed interpretation, see Schmid, Erzväter und
Exodus, 203–5; Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 313–15; Blum, “Die
literarische Verbindung,” 134; and especially otto, “Die
nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 103–6.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 153

Exod 7:8–13; the leprosy of Moses’ hand does not repeat in

the plague cycle; and the acts of power are called signs ( t))
in Exod 4:1–9, as compared to wonders (tpwm) in the
Priestly version of the plagues (e.g., 7:3, 9). 294
This review of interpretation indicates that the
comparison of motifs has reached an impasse in resolving
the direction of literary dependence between Exod 4:1–9
and the Priestly plague cycle. The different form of the
signs, however, and their sequence provide additional clues
for identifying the author of Exod 4:1–9. The first two signs
are in a different form than the third sign. Moses acts out
the first two signs, as compared to the third sign, which
consists of a divine prediction. The staff of Moses is
changed into a snake (4:2–5) in the first sign, and his
healthy hand becomes leprous (4:6–8) in the second sign.
The changing of the water of the Nile into blood (4:9) is not
acted out in the third sign. It remains simply a divine
prediction about a future event.
The difference in the form of the signs is carried over
into their meaning. The first two signs convey a distinct
message from the third. The snake/staff of the first sign
likely indicates healing, a symbolic meaning of the snake in
the ancient Near East.295 The source of healing, however, is
not in the snake. Moses is presented as fleeing from its
danger. The power to heal is in Moses’ ability to reverse the
sign and change the snake back into his staff, an action he
performs before the Israelite people in Num 21:4–9. The
second sign conveys the same message. Mosaic authority
resides in the reversal of the leprosy, underscoring once
again the power of Moses to heal, which he illustrates
publicly in curing Miriam in Num 12. The emphasis on a
reversal in the first two signs idealizes Moses as a healer,
not as a wonder-worker. But the third sign departs from the

294 . See Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (oTL; Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1962), 45– 46; Schmidt, Exodus 1–6, 195–96, Van Seters,
Life of Moses, 55–58.
295 . See, for example, Joris frans Borghouts, “Witchcraft, Magic and
Divination in Ancient Egypt,” CANE 3:1775–85. for evaluation of the
Israelite cult, see Norbert Lohfink, “ ‘I Am yahweh, your Physician’
(Exodus 15:26): God, Society and Human Health in a Postexilic Revision
of the Pentateuch (Exod. 15:25b, 26),” in Theology of the Pentateuch:
Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. L. M. Maloney;
Minneapolis, fortress, 1994), 35–95, esp. 63–71.
154 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

previous two. The power of Moses is not in a reversal,

signifying healing, but in a destructive action when Moses
will pollute the Nile River into blood (4:9). In this sign
Moses is a wonder-worker who transforms nature 296 rather
than a healer who reverses a dangerous circumstance.
There are three problems with interpreting the signs to
Moses in Exod 4:1– 9 as a post-Priestly composition that is
dependent on the Priestly plague cycle. The first is the
absence of the motif of leprosy in the Priestly plague cycle.
Why would a post-Priestly author include the sign of
leprosy, if the intention is to reinterpret the Priestly plagues
in Exod 4:1–9? The second problem is that the changing of
the Nile River into blood is not restricted to the Priestly
version of the plague cycle. It is also the first plague in the
pre-Priestly history.297 The presence of this sign in Exod 4:1–
9 does not necessarily indicate a post-Priestly author. The
author may just as well be associated with the pre-Priestly
version of the plague cycle. The third problem is that Aaron
is a wonder-worker in the Priestly plague cycle, not a
healer, as is the case in the first two signs given to Moses.
Thus the characterization of Moses in Exod 4:1–9 departs
from the role of Aaron in the Priestly version of the plague
cycle. The three problems are an obstacle for interpreting
the Priestly account of the plague cycle as the literary
source for the signs to Moses.
It is possible to account for the form, the number, and
the sequence of the signs to Moses in the pre-Priestly
history. The signs in Exod 4:1–9 are acted out in reverse
order in the pre-Priestly version of the exodus and the
wilderness journey. The last sign given to Moses is the first
sign to be fulfilled. The third sign, the turning of water into
blood (4:9), is demonstrated in the story of the exodus
(Exod 1–14), specifically in the first plague of the pre-
Priestly history (Exod 7:14–24*). The second and third signs
reach beyond the exodus to the wilderness journey of the

296 . Van Seters describes such action as “metamorphoses,” referring

to ovid, Metamorphoses (Life of Moses, 57 n. 68).
297 . The pre-Priestly version of the transformation of water into
blood in Exod 7:14–24 includes Exod 7:14–16a, 17a α, b, 18, 20aβ–21a,
22bα, 23–24. The Priestly version includes Exod 7:16b, 17a β, 19–20aα,
21b, 22abβ. See Thomas B. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus
Tradition (New york: oxford University Press, 1996), 15–18, 43–46, 110–
17.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 155

Israelite people (Exod 15–18; Num 11–21). The second sign,

Moses’ power over leprosy (4:6–7), is demonstrated in the
story of Miriam’s leprosy (Num 12). And the first sign, the
snake (4:2–5), is associated with Nehoshet, at the close of
the wilderness journey (Num 21:4–9). The distribution
indicates that the three signs to Moses in Exod 4:1–9
provide the organization to the exodus and the wilderness
journey in the pre-Priestly history.
The separate form of the signs acquires clarity in the
larger narrative context of the pre-Priestly history. The form
of the third sign, when compared to the first two signs, led
to the conclusion that it illustrated the destructive power of
Moses, who works wonders against Pharaoh and the
Egyptians, not his ability to heal the Israelite people. The
public demonstration of the sign reinforces this
interpretation. The display of the sign in the first plague of
the pre-Priestly history (Exod 7:14–24*) begins a sequence
of events that culminate in the destruction of Pharaoh and
the Egyptian army at the Red Sea (Exod 14*). The context
clarifies the reason for the absence of a reversal in the third
sign. The sign indicates the power of God and the authority
of Moses to save through the destruction of the enemy, not
through the healing of the Israelite people. And the
idealization of Moses as a wonder-worker is underscored
throughout the events of the exodus. yet the destruction of
the Egyptians is not the point of focus in the pre-Priestly
history. The events of the exodus return to the Israelite
people, underscoring their faith in Moses and in yhwh
(14:31).
The first and second signs change in form to explore the
healing power of Moses in the wilderness journey of the
Israelite people, as compared to the events of the exodus.
The theme of healing is introduced in the opening story of
the wilderness journey, when the Israelites are promised
health at Marah as a reward for obedience to the law (Exod
15:25b–26).298 The promise of health is communicated
through the divine self-revelation: “I am yhwh, your healer.”
298 . on the authorship and the history of composition in Exod 15:22–
26, see Noth, Exodus, 127; Norbert Lohfink, “I Am yahweh, your
Physician,” 51–62; Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 144–
46; and Erik Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im
Alten Testament (ConBoT 27; Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988), 153–56,
173–74.
156 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

The healing power of Moses is demonstrated in the second

half of the wilderness journey (Num 11–21), after the
revelation of law (Exod 19–34), when Moses acts out the
signs of healing from his commission. Moses performs the
second sign by curing the leprosy of Miriam (Num 12).299
And he demonstrates the first sign by reversing the deadly
bite of the seraphim with the construction of Nehoshet, the
copper snake, at the conclusion of the wilderness journey
(Num 21:4–9).300 The mediation of Moses takes place in both
stories through intercessory prayer, which Erik Aurelius has
argued is crucial in the characterization of
Moses as a healer in Deuteronomistic tradition.301
The signs given to Moses in Exod 4:1–9 may be an
addition to his wilderness commission, but they do not
appear to be a post-Priestly composition that arises from
the Priestly version of the first two plagues. The signs to
Moses provide an outline of the structure of the exodus and
the wilderness journey in the pre-Priestly history. The
idealization of Moses as a wonder-worker (4:9) is
demonstrated in the first plague (7:14–24) of the pre-
Priestly plague cycle. The demonstration of power over the
Egyptians leads eventually to the “faith” of the people in
Moses and in yhwh (14:31) at the conclusion of the exodus.
The idealization of Moses as a healer (4:2–8) is
demonstrated in the second half of the pre-Priestly
wilderness journey (Num 12 and 21:4–9).
The Priestly author reinterprets the signs of Moses to
accentuate the role of Aaron in the plague cycle, and the
reinterpretation is similar in both cases. Aaron performs the
signs before Pharaoh, not the Israelite people, while the
299 . for discussion concerning the pre-Priestly authorship of Num
11–12, see Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (oTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1968), 92–93; Levin, Der Jahwist, 375; Van Seters, Life of
Moses, 234–39; and Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 76–
85). Compare Thomas Römer, who identifies the author of Num 11–12 as
post-Priestly (“Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten Anfragen
zur ‘Quellenscheidung’ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch,” in Gertz et al.,
Abschied vom Jahwisten, 215–31, esp. 225–27; and “Nombres 11–12 et la
question d’une redaction deutéronomique dans le Pentateuque,” in
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W.
Brekelmans [BETL 133; Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 1997],
481–98).
300 . See Thomas B. Dozeman, “Numbers,” NIB 2:157–68.
301 . Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels, 141–53.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 157

meaning of the signs is no longer a unique act of healing

but a demonstration of power. The action of Aaron advances
the central theme of the Priestly commission of Moses: to
bring Pharaoh and the Egyptians to knowledge of yhwh
(7:5). The demonstrations of power by Aaron are not unique
but are repeated by the Egyptian magicians.

3.2. The Role of Aaron

The debate over Priestly authorship is even more acute

in Exod 4:10–18 because of the sudden appearance of Aaron
in the wilderness (4:13–16, 27–31) and in the initial
confrontation with Pharaoh (5:1–6:1). The Priestly author
fashions the commission of Moses to accentuate the
importance of Aaron (6:2– 7:7), while also including him in
the plague cycle. And most references to Aaron in the
Pentateuch occur in the Priestly history, where his portrayal
as high priest is developed in detail. 302 Thus, the question
arises whether the sudden appearance of Aaron in the
wilderness is evidence of post-Priestly authorship to expand
the role of Aaron from priest to prophetic teacher and to
include him in the initial confrontation with Pharaoh (e.g.,
Valentin, Blum, Schmid, otto, and Gertz).
Heinrich Valentin identifies the description of Aaron as
“brother” (x)) of Moses and as “the Levite” ( ywlh) as
evidence for the influence of Priestly tradition in the
composition of Exod 4:10–18. The identification of Aaron as
“brother” suggests upon first reading a direct link to the
Priestly history, where Moses and Aaron are fashioned into
a nuclear family. The interpretation of “brother” as “sibling”
would point to a post-Priestly author, who is building on the
familial relationship of Aaron and Moses from the Priestly
history. The aim of a post-Priestly author, according to
Valentin, is to accentuate the teaching office of the Aaronide
priesthood in the postexilic period (see Lev 10:10).
But the term “brother” also plays a role in the pre-
Priestly history, where it has a more general meaning,
302 . The problem with attributing Exod 4:10–18 to a Priestly or post-
Priestly author is that Aaron appears in texts that have no relationship to
Priestly literature. The clearest example is the war against the Amalekites
in Exod 18:8–16, where Aaron and Hur assist Moses. for discussion, see
Aelred Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 150 and passim.
158 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

signifying the entire Israelite nation, as opposed to the

Egyptians. Moses identifies the Israelite people as
“brothers” in Exod 2:11, and he employs the same term at
the conclusion of his wilderness commission, announcing to
Jethro in Exod 4:18: “I must go and return to my brothers
(yx)), who are in Egypt.”303 The initial description of Aaron
as “brother” in Exod 4:14, only four verses before Moses’
announcement to Jethro in verse 18, is likely the same
general meaning, suggesting the pre-Priestly authorship of
Exod 4:10–18.
The point of emphasis in the description of Aaron is not
that he is a “brother” to Moses but that he is “the Levite.”
The title conflicts with the view of Aaron in the Priestly
history, where Levites are separated from the Aaronide
priests, as subordinate assistants in the cult (Num 3–4; 8).
In Exod 4:10–16 the title “the Levite” designates an office of
teaching. Aaron speaks the words that yhwh teaches ( hry)
Moses (Exod 4:15). Werner H. Schmidt points to parallels in
Deuteronomy (33:10), in Chronicles (2 Chr 17:8), and in
Nehemiah (8:7).304 The book of Deuteronomy provides more
detail on the teaching function of the Levitical priests (Deut
24:8–9), their care of Torah (Deut 31:9–13, 25), and their
ability to convey the covenant curses (Deut 27:1–26). The
description of Aaron as “brother” and “the Levite” favors
the pre-Priestly authorship of Exod 4:10–18.
The literary context of the appearance of Aaron provides
further clarity on his function in the pre-Priestly history. The
interpretation of Moses’ wilderness commission (Exod 3:1–
4:18) indicated that the Levites, represented by Aaron, are
separated from the elders. The two groups are introduced
in the second half of the commission, when the theme of
Mosaic authority is developed (Exod 3:16–4:18). The elders
are the point of focus in Exod 3:16–4:9, where the central
theme is their need to have faith in Moses’ authority,
requiring a direct and an experiential encounter with his
303 . Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 257–58.
304 . Schmidt, Exodus 1–6, 204. See also Heinrich Valentin, Aaron:
Eine Studie zur vor-priesterschriftlichen Aaron-Überlieferung (oBo 18;
fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978),
128–29; Van Seters, Life of Moses, 62. See Propp (Exodus 1–18, 214) for
an early date to the composition of this section; and Gertz (Tradition und
Redaktion, 321–28) for arguments supporting the post-Priestly
authorship.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 159

power. The introduction of Aaron, the Levite, is contained in

Exod 4:10–18, where the theme is no longer belief in
Mosaic authority but the need to convey it to the people
through teaching.
The distinction between the elders and Aaron is
developed further in the pre-Priestly history, when the
theme of Mosaic authority returns in Num 11– 12, after the
revelation of the law and the establishment of the tent of
meeting (Exod 19–34). The structure of Num 11–12
parallels the wilderness commission of Moses, with the
elders the point of focus in Num 11:4–35 (= Exod 3:16–4:9)
and Aaron in Num 12 (= Exod 4:10–18). In Num 11 the
elders acquire an office of leadership when they receive
Mosaic authority directly from God in the tent of meeting.
They even acquire momentarily the charismatic power of
Moses to become prophets (Num 11:25).
Numbers 12 separates Aaron (and Miriam) from Moses,
underscoring the latter’s unique status before God as the
only person to speak directly to the Deity. The clairvoyance
of Aaron in the tent of meeting is indirect at best, arising
from visions and dreams (Num 12:6–8). 305 Aaron does not
receive the direct infusion of Mosaic authority, as was the
case with the elders. The limitation of Aaron’s authority in
Num 12 corresponds to his introduction in Exod 4:10–18,
where the Deity first appointed Aaron to assist Moses.
Aaron is singled out for his eloquence in speaking, but he
functions in a subordinate role to Moses as teacher. yhwh
speaks only through Moses, who functions as a god to
Aaron. Aaron, in turn, will be Moses’ spokesperson to the
Israelites, conveying the divine instruction (hry, v. 16), a
reference to law in the pre-Priestly history (see Exod 15:25;
24:12).

3.3. yhwh of the Exodus and the God of the Patriarchs

The central theme in Exod 3:1–15 is the identification of

yhwh, the God of the exodus, with the God of the patriarchs,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The interweaving of the themes

305 . Miriam may represent other competing prophetic groups in the

postexilic period (see Ursula Rapp, Mirjam: Eine feministisch-rhetorische
Lektüre der Mirjamtexte in der hebräischen Bibel [BZAW 317; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2002], 31–193).
160 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

forms a literary relationship between the books of Genesis

and Exodus. Both Van Seters and Rendtorff noted tradition-
historical and literary tensions surrounding the themes, the
God of the fathers and the promise to the ancestors. And as
noted at the outset, the problems have received more
detailed investigation in recent scholarship, leading to the
conclusion that the merging of the themes in Exod 3:1–15 is
the work of a post-Priestly author. The author is building on
the composition of the Priestly history, where the God of the
ancestors is first identified with yhwh, the God of the
exodus (Exod 6:2–8).
The post-Priestly authorship of Exod 3:1–6 leads to the
larger hypothesis that the Priestly history is the first
composition to relate the books of Genesis and Exodus. A
thorough interpretation of this innovative hypothesis is
neither possible nor necessary to evaluate the literary
relationship between Genesis and Exodus and the post-
Priestly authorship of the wilderness commission of
Moses.306 The issues converge in the divine self-revelation to
Moses in Exod 3:6, when yhwh is identified as both the God
of Moses’ father and the God of the patriarchal ancestors,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. My interpretation will be
restricted for the most part to this text, even though a
similar identification repeats throughout the wilderness
commission (Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:2). Is there a literary
relationship between the divine self-revelation to Moses in
Exod 3:1–6 and the book of Genesis? And, if so, who is the
author, and what criteria do interpreters use to reach their
conclusion?
Jan Christian Gertz argues for a literary relationship
between the divine self-revelation to Moses (Exod 3:1–12*)
and the book of Genesis by the postPriestly redactor of the
final form of the Pentateuch. The identity of the author
emerges in the composition of Exod 3:1–6. The pre-Priestly
form of the cultic legend includes Exod 3:1–4a, 5, and 6b. It
recounts an initial event in the life of Moses without
connection to the book of Genesis.
The literary relationship to Genesis is forged with the
addition of Exod 3:4b, 6a. The divine statement, “Moses,
Moses,” with the response, “Here I am,” in verse 4b is an
interruption of verses 4a and 5, accentuated by the change

306 . See most recently Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 254–350.

 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 161

in divine names from yhwh (v. 4a) to Elohim (v. 4b). The
post-Priestly identity of the author is evident with the
phrase “and God called ()rq) to him from (Nm) the bush,”
suggesting the influence of Priestly style (see Lev 1:1). The
divine self-identification, “I am the God of your father, the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” in
Exod 3: 6a is separated from verse 5 with its own
introduction, “and he said,” while lacking continuity in
content and in language.307 The post-Priestly identity of the
author is based, for the most part, on the limitation and
concentration of the references to the three patriarchs to
Exod 3:1–4:18,308 the prior presence of the three patriarchs
in the Priestly tradition (Exod 2:24; 6:2, 8), 309 and the
limited and late distribution of references to the three
patriarchs in the Deuteronomistic History and in
Chronicles.310
The post-Priestly redaction in Exod 3:4b, 6a forges a
literary tie to the divine address to Jacob in Beersheba in
Gen 46:1aα–5a. The literary connections include the
repetition of the person’s name in the divine call (“Moses,
Moses” [Exod 3:4b] and “Jacob, Jacob” [Gen 46:2a β]), the
response “Here I am” (ynnh, Exod 3:4b; Gen 46:2b), and the
identification of the Deity as “the God of your father” (Exod
3:6a; Gen 46:3a). other less explicit indications of literary
dependence reinforce the innerbiblical connection,
including the combination of the “God of the father” with
the motif of the divine promise of salvation (Exod 3:6a; Gen
46:3), the reference to the exodus with the phrase “I will
bring you up [from the land]” (Exod 3:8a; Gen 46:4), and
the motif of divine presence (Exod 3:12a; Gen 46:4).
A comparison of motifs in Gen 46:1aα–5a to other
instances of divine self-revelation in the book of Genesis
suggests an overarching literary design including the
address to Abram (Gen 12:1–4a), Isaac (Gen 26:2–6), and
307 . Gertz concedes that the syntax of vv. 5–6a could simply be a
literary transition, (1) if v. 6a continued the same thought of v. 5, merely
shifting point of view; or (2) if v. 6a introduced a new section. But he
concludes that these criteria are not fulfilled, thus indicating the
redactional character of the verses (ibid., 270 n. 167). See the comments
by Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 137–38 n. 85.
308 . Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 280.
309 . for discussion of Priestly tradition, see ibid., 237–54.
310 . Ibid., 280; see also Römer, Israels Väter, 384–86.
162 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

Jacob (Gen 28:13–15). Genesis 46:1a α–5a may be a later

addition to this sequence by the same post-Priestly redactor
of Exod 3:4b and 6a, suggesting a more diachronic profile
than a simple literary development. 311 Its function is to
bridge the patriarchal literature to the exodus.312 The self-
revelation of yhwh to Moses in Exod 3:6a, as both the “God
of your father” and “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob,” is the culmination of the literary
sequence, according to Gertz, allowing for the explicit
identification of the God of the patriarchs with yhwh of the
exodus.
Erhard Blum notes the literary problems that result from
the identification of a pre-Priestly and a post-Priestly
composition of Exod 3:1–6. The most notable is the lack of
narrative logic in the pre-Priestly version of the story, with
the absence of any identification of the Deity to Moses. The
reaction of Moses to the Deity in verse 6b makes no sense,
according to Blum, with the absence of the divine address
(v. 4b) or the self-introduction (v. 6a). Moses could not know
that the Deity was speaking to him. 313 And, in view of this,
Blum argues against the identification of a separate author
for Exod 3:4b, 6a, attributing the whole of Exod 3:1–6 to the
pre-Priestly KD.
Blum does agree with Gertz that the pre-Priestly version
of Moses’ commission in Exod 3 is limited in scope to an
initial event in the life of Moses, without connection to the
book of Genesis. But this point of agreement leads to the
further rejection of the literary parallels between Gen
46:1aα–5a and Exod 3:1–6 cited by Gertz. for Blum the
repetition of the person’s name in the divine address and
the response “Here I am” (ynnh) are simply idiomatic
speech in biblical narrative and not a sign of a more specific
innerbiblical relationship.314 The self-identification of the
Deity in both texts is also unrelated. Genesis 46:3 is tied to
Gen 31:13, according to Blum, while Exod 3:6a is grounded

311 . Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 277–83.

312 . Ibid., 279.
313 . Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 137–38. See also the more
detailed arguments on )rq in v. 4b as not presupposing Priestly tradition;
the literary function of the change in divine names in v. 4b; and the
literary relationship between vv. 5 and 6a (138 n. 85).
314 . Ibid., 137–38.
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 163

in the specific call of Moses.315 Thus, Exod 3:1–6 does not

presupposes Gen 46:1aα–5, nor does the latter text provide
a bridge to the exodus. The reference to the three
patriarchs in Exod 3:6a cannot be used to indicate a literary
relationship between Genesis and Exodus, according to
Blum, because Exod 3:6a cannot be attached or related to a
specific text in Genesis.316 The reference to the three
ancestors may simply indicate a general knowledge of the
patriarchs, independent of a literary connection between
Genesis and Exodus.317
Blum is correct, in my judgment, that the isolation of a
post-Priestly redactor in Exod 3:4b, 6a is not strongly
supported by the literary structure of Exod 3:1–6. yet the
literary parallels between Gen 46:1a α–5a and Exod 3:1–6,
cited by Gertz, do suggest an innerbiblical relationship.
These text share “multiple and sustained linkages” in motifs
and in form, to use the language of Michael fishbane,
extending beyond simple idiomatic speech in biblical
narrative. There appears to be a “network of connections,”
in the words of David Carr, including the role of setting,
which suggest a profile or horizon of meaning that
encompasses both texts.318

4. The Conclusion
My comparison of the two commissions of Moses
suggests that the Priestly version in Exod 6:2–7:7 is
dependent on the wilderness account in Exod 3:1– 4:18. In
addition to evaluating the relationship between the two
commissions of Moses, my brief examination of Exod 3:1–6
has also explored the relationship between the wilderness
315 . for discussion of Gen 46:2–4, see Erhard Blum, Die Komposition
der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1984), 246–49; and idem, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 131–32 n. 61.
316 . Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 130.
317 . Blum leaves open the possibility that the specific references to
the three patriarchs in Exod 3:6 might be redactional (ibid., 139).
318 . David M. Carr, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story:
Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives,” in Studies in the Book of
Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. Wénin; BETL 155;
Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 2001), 273–95, esp. 279. for
his interpretation of Gen 46:2–4, see Reading the Fractures of Genesis:
Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1996), 211–13.
164 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

commission of Moses and the book of Genesis in a pre-

Priestly narrative. The literary study has led to my
conclusion that the wilderness commission of Moses in Exod
3:1–4:18 is a pre-Priestly composition and that the pre-
Priestly history includes a version of Genesis and Exodus.
The study also raises a series of methodological
questions about the composition of the Pentateuch. The
shift in methodology from source criticism to supplemental
or redaction-critical theories of composition introduces a
host of problems concerning the identification of literary
dependence in the composition of the Pentateuch that are
presently unresolved. The criteria for judging innerbiblical
relationships varies widely in different authors, ranging
from a more limited study of syntax and motifs to the
analysis of forms and even branching out to include the
broader literary design of more extended narratives. The
different criteria for judging literary dependence require
further evaluation. There also remains a lack of agreement
with regard to the identification of the genre of
pentateuchal literature. further research is required to
clarify the difference for example between a Komposition,
an origin tradition, and ancient historiography. How might
these large distinctions in genre influence the criteria for
evaluating coherence in biblical narratives, as well as the
innerbiblical relationship and literary dependence between
texts? The literary evaluation of Priestly tradition also looms
in the background of any study of non-Priestly literature,
whether it is evaluated as pre- or post-Priestly. The recent
emphasis on a post-Priestly redaction of the Pentateuch
rests in a large part on the evaluation of Priestly literature
as an independent source or history, since the Priestly
author is the first to combine the stories of Genesis and
Exodus into a new master narrative of origins. yet there are
strong indications that the Priestly literature is
supplemental and dependent on a pre-Priestly version. The
recent arguments for a post-Priestly redaction make the
evaluation of Priestly tradition a pressing problem in the
study of the composition of the Pentateuch.
The theological implications of the late merging of the
ancestor stories and the exodus are significant. The
research by Schmid, Gertz, and Römer suggests that the
relationship between the books of Genesis and Exodus is far
 DoZEMAN: THE CoMMISSIoN of MoSES AND GENESIS 165

more important than has been recognized in previous

hypotheses of the composition of the Pentateuch. They have
underscored the discontinuity between the ancestral stories
and the narrative of the exodus, as competing traditions of
origin with distinct conceptions of yahwism. Schmid
summarizes the different outlook of the two traditions at the
close of his article in this volume with the following points
of contrast:
Separate origin origin Tradition of
Tradition of the Moses/Exodus
Ancestors
1. Central Theme: Land
1.Central Theme: Land Possession
Possession 2. Promise-fulfillment:
2.Promise: Present Life in Land Conquest of Land
3.Indigenous to Land 3. outsiders to Land
4.Inclusive to other Peoples in 4. Exclusive to other Peoples
the Land in Land
5.Peaceful 5. Holy War
6.Israelite Identity: Genealogy 6. Israelite Identity: The
7.focus Is on Abraham Exodus
8.Southern Point of View 7. focus Is on Moses
9.Bearers of Tradition: People 8. Northern Point of View
of the Land 9. Bearers of Tradition: The
10. Literary Boundaries: DTR school
Ancestor CycleSeparate 10. Literary Boundaries:
Exodus–2 Kings
The implications of this insight require further research
for interpreting the theology of the Pentateuch. The past
models for interpreting the Pentateuch have tended to
harmonize the two traditions into one story of salvation
history. The result has been the subordination of the
ancestral stories to the ideology of holy war in the story of
the exodus. The hypothesis of the late formation of two
origin traditions provides a new way of reading the
canonical Pentateuch as two competing ideologies of land
possession, one exclusive and violent and the other
inclusive and peaceful. The insight conforms well to B. S.
Childs’s insight into the formation of canon as often
consisting of the juxtaposition of traditions, rather than
their harmonization. A new reading of the Pentateuch as the
juxtaposition of two competing origin traditions may
provide a way to loosen the stranglehold that the ideology
166 A fAREWELL To THE yAHWIST?

of holy war has had on contemporary appropriations of the

Pentateuch. I have identified a pre-Priestly author to be
responsible for relating the story of the ancestors to the
exodus. But this minor debate over authorship does not
lessen the impact of recognizing two competing origin
traditions in the formation of the Pentateuch.
 The YahwisT and The RedacTional
link beTween Genesis and exodus*
Christoph Levin

In our dispute about the transition between the books of

Genesis and Exodus, we concur on four basic decisions.
(1) Genesis and Exodus as books were separated at a
secondary stage. Since the existence of the Priestly source
has recently again become generally accepted,1 and since
the threads of this source run through Genesis and Exodus
at least, these books must have once formed a literary unity.
Genesis and Exodus did not yet exist as separate literary
entities at the stage under discussion. 2 The focus here is the
connection between the primeval history (Gen 1–11), the
history of the patriarchs (Gen 12–36), and the Joseph story
(Gen 37–50), on the one hand, and the Moses (Exod 2–4),
exodus, and wilderness narratives (Exod 12—Num 20), on
the other. To maintain that the transition between the books
of Genesis and Exodus is decisive for theories about the
Pentateuch goes too far.
(2) The non-Priestly narratives did not originally form a
coherent composition. The hypothesis that there was a
unified narrative composition extending from the creation of
the world through to the conquest of Canaan cannot be
maintained. In his contribution, Thomas Römer reminds us
that this was already recognized by earlier research. Those
aspects of the patriarchal narratives that connect to the
national history cannot be reconciled with the narrative

*Translation of the original response by Margaret Kohl. The edited

article has been revised by Bernard Levinson. Many thanks to both!
1. In recent research the serious doubts of Rolf Rendtorff and Erhard
Blum have been overlooked. See Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the
Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. J. Scullion; JSOTSup
89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der
Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984);
 LEVIN: REDACTIONAL LINK BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS
169

and idem, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1990).
2. This is especially true if the Priestly source is seen as the basic
document.

-131 -
about the exodus from Egypt, as Albert de Pury has
demonstrated.3 The literary genre and narrative design of
the Joseph story makes its original independence clear. 319
The Balaam narratives are also an independent
composition. As regards the independence of the primeval
history, I agree with frank Crüsemann and Markus Witte,
with some reservations.320
The idea that the yahwist was a narrator must be
abandoned. But we do not need to stress this over and over
again. This is not a case of “farewell to the yahwist,” as
Konrad Schmid sees it.321 he, together with others, has
failed to take account of the evidence that I have presented.
I have shown that the yahwist was not a narrator but an
editor—let us call him the “editor J”—who brought the non-
Priestly narrative compositions into the literary cohesion we
have today.322
(3) The third point on which we agree is the dating. The
integration of the separate blocks of tradition represented

319 . See, for example, herbert Donner, “Die literarische Gestalt der
alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte,” in idem, Aufsätze zum Alten
Testament (BZAW 224; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 76–120.
320 . frank Crüsemann, “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte,” in
Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift Hans Walter Wolff (ed. J.
Jeremias and L. Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 11–29;
and Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und
theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAW 265;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998).
321 . Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der
jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter,
2002); and my review of this volume: “Abschied vom Jahwisten?” TRu 69
(2004): 329–44.
322 . Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist (fRLANT 157; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). for the English-speaking readership,
Ernest W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The
Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 161–65, presents
a fine outline of the thesis. however, Nicholson misses the basic
argument: the redaction-critical distinction between the pre-yahwistic
narrative sources, on the one hand, and editorial additions, on the other
(165–67).
170 A fAREWELL TO ThE yAhWIST?

by the Tetrateuch narrative as a whole was only possible at

a later period. In my opinion, the yahwist has in view the
beginning of the Jewish Diaspora. 323 This can be seen from
his choice of narrative sources, as well as from his
worldwide perspective and his concept of the God yhwh. As
Schmid has stressed, the late date has serious
consequences for our

3. See Albert de Pury, Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le

cycle de Jacob: Genèse 28 et les traditions patriarcales (ÉB; Paris:
Gabalda, 1975), and his numerous other articles on this subject. See also
Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im
Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99;
fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990);
and Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten
Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des
Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999).
view of the religious history of Israel and Judah. About this
there is no disagreement between us. If I still adhere to the
hypothesis of a yahwist, this is only a matter of literary
history in particular, which is not decisive for the history of
Israelite religion nor can be decided by the history of
Israelite religion.
(4) The fourth point on which we agree—at least some of
us—is the enduring importance of the Documentary
hypothesis. Römer reports that among limited groups of
German-speaking scholars it has become the fashion to call
the Documentary hypothesis into doubt. But in his
monograph about the final redaction, Jan Christian Gertz
shows very clearly that two accounts are present alongside
one another in Exod 1–14, which have subsequently been
linked together.324 his results, however, cannot be reconciled
with Schmid’s view that the call of Moses in Exod 3 is
dependent on the Priestly source.325 The arguments that

323 . See Levin, Der Jahwist, 414–35 (“Die Botschaft des Jahwisten”);
idem, The Old Testament: A Brief Introduction (trans. M. Kohl; Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2005), 61–70; and idem, “The yahwist: The
Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch” (forthcoming).
324 . Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der
Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch
(fRLANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000).
325 . See also the strong arguments of Erhard Blum: “To sum up, in
Exodus 3 there is no one single detail to make sure or at least probable
 LEVIN: REDACTIONAL LINK BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS
171

Schmid and others offer contradict the nature of the

material, which is essentially narrative, not redactional.
here I emphatically agree with Thomas
Dozeman.326
Römer has stressed that the Documentary hypothesis
was developed on the basis of the book of Genesis and was
only extended to the other books from that point. It is
therefore particularly interesting that Gertz based his proof
on the book of Exodus. Earlier research did not find the
dominance of the book of Genesis problematic. It is easy to
see why. The Documentary hypothesis can be developed
only on the basis of the narratives, and it applies prima
facie only to the narrative material. By far the greatest part
of the laws in the Pentateuch, beginning with Exod 12, were
added later. In the first chapters of Exodus, the narrative
style is quite similar to that of Genesis. If there is a caesura,
we have to look for it not between Genesis and Exodus but
somewhere after Exod 14.
If we really come down to it, the controversy between us
has to do merely with the redactional linking of the
narrative blocks. Schmid and Gertz attribute this to the P
source. By doing so, they resurrect a form of the
Supplementary hypothesis that prevailed during the first
half of the nineteenth century. According to this model, P is
the earliest literary foundation of the Pentateuch, while the
non-P material was added subsequently. In contrast, I
maintain that there was a separate redaction within the
non-P material.
Römer, Schmid, and Gertz point out that explicit links
between the books of Genesis and Exodus were added only
later, after the Priestly source. This argument from silence
goes back to Rainer Kessler.327 But it is untenable. It is
certain that texts such as Gen 15 and 46:2–4 are later than

that the text is diachronically dependent on the Priestly Pentateuch

tradition” (“Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus,” in
Gertz et al., Abschied vom Jahwisten, 127 n. 5; my translation).
326 . See also the appendix to this article: “The yahwist as Editor in
Exodus 3: The Evidence of Language.”
327 . Rainer Kessler, “Die Querverweise im Pentateuch:
überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten
Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs” (Th.D.
diss., University of heidelberg, 1972).
172 A fAREWELL TO ThE yAhWIST?

P.328 The same is true of most of the promises to the

patriarchs, beginning with the key text of Gen 13:15–17. 329
The promises to the patriarchs presuppose the link between
Genesis and Exodus. Consequently, they cannot be used as
evidence to argue that the link did not previously exist. All
these texts are irrelevant for our question. With regard to
the relationship of Gen 46 to Exod 3, Dozeman has raised
the necessary critical questions.
Gertz falls back upon the famous image with which
Wellhausen described the procedure of the Pentateuch
redaction: “It is as if Q [i.e., P] were the scarlet thread on
which the pearls of JE are hung.” 330 But Wellhausen was
wrong. Everyone who considers the role of the Priestly
source in the history of the patriarchs is familiar with the
problem: that a continuous thread is in fact lacking. Rolf
Rendtorff has emphatically pointed this out.331 Even if we
accept Schmid’s suggestion that the Priestly source did not
include a Joseph story, the problems about the Priestly
presentation of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remain unsolved.
Moreover, Moses is never introduced by the Priestly source.
It is significant that Schmid’s reconstruction breaks off at
the crucial point: the transition to the story of the exodus.
Gertz, despite his concentration on the transition, is forced
into highly speculative assignments as regards Gen 50. In
his analysis there is a significant petitio principii, which can
be described as: “There must be a Priestly thread in the
Pentateuch to have created the coherence of the whole.” he
himself admits that the only text in Gen 50 that is certainly

328 . Christoph Levin, “Jahwe und Abraham im Dialog: Genesis 15,”

in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift Otto Kaiser (ed. M. Witte; 2
vols.; BZAW 345/1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 237–57.
329 . It is essential that the promise of Gen 13:15–17 is pronounced
at Bethel, i.e., in the very same place where Abraham’s tent previously
had been (see 12:8). The return to Bethel (see 13:3) was necessary only
because in 12:10–20 Abraham went to Egypt. This excursus causes
Abraham to anticipate the fate of the later people of Israel. Gen 12:17, 20
verbally foreshadows the story of the plagues in Egypt—in a form
composed already of P and non-P. See my “Jahwe und Abraham im
Dialog,” 240–41.
330 . Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel
(trans. J. S. Black and A.
Menzies; Edinburgh: Black, 1885; repr., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994),
332 (my addition).
331 . See Rendtorff, Problem.
 LEVIN: REDACTIONAL LINK BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS
173

P consists of verses 12–13 and 22b. This follows the general

consensus of research, as Schmid’s list shows. When Gertz
assigns verse 14 to the Priestly source, because it is
indispensable as a bridge, the result is a crass contradiction
to verses 12–13. There are sound reasons, therefore, why I
have attributed the redactional bridge formed by Gen 50:14
and 26a, as well as Exod 1:8, to the editor J. 332
The textual gap in the Priestly source, which Gertz tries
in vain to close, does not speak against the literary unity of
the P document. That unity is indicated by the well-known
correspondence between creation and Sinai, as well as by
the covenant theology that extends from Noah to Moses,
through Abraham and Jacob.333 But P has not come down to
us unscathed.334 It therefore cannot simply be understood as
the basic document. The fact that the sequence of the whole
narrative as we have it today holds together is due to the
existence of a second continuous source parallel to P. from
Gen 12 it took over the literary lead, just as P took the lead
in the primeval history.335 Besides the document P, the
document J also existed. The Tetrateuch thus does not hang
on a single thread but on a cord plaited together from two
strands. This cord makes it possible for the work as a whole
to avoid falling apart when one of the two threads is torn, or
missing, which is several times the case. If Gertz had
undertaken his investigation of the final redaction on the
basis of the patriarchal narratives, he would have arrived at
different basic assumptions.
To come back to Römer’s survey of the research history:
Kuenen was right when he stated that parts of the non-
Priestly text “must … be derived from a single work which
we may call the Yahwistic document … and which we may
332 . The argument is to be found in my Der Jahwist, 297–321.
333 . Levin, Old Testament, 101–9 (“The Priestly Source”).
334 . In most parts of the patriarchal narratives only fragments of the
former P source have survived; see Gen 16:3aβγ, 16; 21:2b, 4–5; 25:19–
20, 26b; 30:22a; 31:18*; 37:2aα, b; 41:46a; 46:6–7. Traces of the thread of
the source can be found in Gen 11:27, 31–32; 12:4b–5; 13:6, 11b–12aα;
19:29abα; also in Gen 26:34–35; 28:1–9; also in Gen 47:28; 49:1a, 29–32,
33aα, b; 50:12–13.
335 . In Gen 12–50, the fragments of the Priestly thread (see previous
note) have been woven into the tapestry of the yahwistic narratives. By
contrast, in Gen 1–11 the yahwistic text has been fitted into the closely
structured Priestly framework. See Levin, Old Testament, 110–14 (“The
Pentateuch Redaction”).
174 A fAREWELL TO ThE yAhWIST?

indicate by the letter J.”336 Wellhausen, Budde, Smend,

fohrer, and others were right in differentiating literary
strata within this document.337 Gunkel was also right when
he ascribed the collecting of the material to several
yahwists, who follow one another in today’s text. 338 Noth
was right when, along the same lines, he stressed the
existence of different blocks of tradition. 339 Von Rad, not
least, was right in seeing the yahwist as an author and
theologian,340 for the J source has a clearly detectible
kerygma, in spite of the diversity of the narrative material.
The method by which to integrate all these insights is
redaction criticism, which distinguishes within the J
document between the given narrative cycles on the one
hand and the editor J on the other. As everywhere else, the
theology does not emerge on the level of the ancient
tradition but can be traced back to the literary intention of
an editor. Von Rad himself saw the yahwist as a theologian
belonging to the “late” period—influenced, however, by the
biblical presentation of history, he defined this late period
as the early monarchy.341 Von Rad also neglected to
distinguish clearly between tradition and redaction: 342 he
336 . Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin
and Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. P. h. Wicksteed; London:
Macmillan, 1886), 140.
337 . Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der
historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1963), esp. 207; Karl Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Giessen: Ricker,
1883), esp. 244–47; Rudolf Smend, Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre
Quellen untersucht (Berlin: Reimer, 1912), 16–30 and passim; and Georg
fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. D. E. Green; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1968).
338 . See hermann Gunkel, Genesis (trans. M. E. Biddle from the 3rd
ed., 1910; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997).
339 . Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W.
Anderson; Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice hall, 1972).
340 . Gerhard von Rad, “The form-Critical Problem of the hexateuch,”
in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W.
Trueman Dicken; New york: McGraw, 1966), 1–78.
341 . Ibid., 68.
342 . This is also the problem with the “yahwist” of John Van Seters.
See, for example, his In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient
World and the Origins of Biblical History (New haven: yale University
Press, 1983). Van Seters sees the yahwist not as an editor but as a history
writer using traditions. he makes no clear distiction between traditional
and editorial text. Therefore, the editorial profile is rather indistinct,
including a lot of material that earlier research rightly viewed as being
 LEVIN: REDACTIONAL LINK BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS
175

overestimated the possibility of oral tradition, as did the

transmission-historical research then dominant. When in
1961 his pupil hans Walter Wolff focused on the question
about the kerygma of the yahwist, he inadvertently
demonstrated that the results require a redaction-historical
approach instead.343 This solution has been pursued step by
step since the 1960s, beginning with the work of Rudolf
Kilian in 1966344 and Volkmar fritz in 1970. 345 I myself have
succeeded since 1978 in extending this investigation to the
whole of the Tetrateuch and have been able to describe the
editorial profile of the editor J, his language, his method, his
sources, his audience, and his theology.346 So let us
understand the J document as the work of an editor. In this
way justice is done to earlier research, and there is no need
for clumsy expedients. Welcome back, yahwist!

Appendix
The yahwist as Editor in Exodus 3: The Evidence of
Language
The pre-Priestly continuity between the books of Genesis
and Exodus is best seen from the perspective of Exod 3. The
narrative of the burning bush and the divine speech that
commissions Moses includes numerous cross-references to
the book of Genesis, on the one hand, and to the narratives
about the crossing of the Sea of Reeds and the wandering of
the Israelites in the desert, on the other. One must first, of
course, cut out the many late expansions of the chapter. 347

non-yahwistic, such as “Elohistic” and Deuteronomistic texts.

343 . hans Walter Wolff, “Das Kerygma des Jahwisten,” in idem,
Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TB 22; Munich: Kaiser, 1973),
345–73.
344 . Rudolf Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen
literarkritisch und traditionskritisch untersucht (BBB 24; Bonn: hanstein,
1966).
345 . Volkmar fritz, Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten (Marburg: Elwert,
1970).
346 . See my Der Jahwist, esp. 389–98 (“Die Quellen des Jahwisten”),
399–413 (“Die Sprache des Jahwisten”), and 414–35 (“Die Botschaft des
Jahwisten”).
347 . See the analysis of Exod 3 in my Der Jahwist, 326–33. It is
indispensable to make this distinction quite clear. One should not argue
with the many late additions of the chapter, some of which are obviously
176 A fAREWELL TO ThE yAhWIST?

The remaining text then bears striking linguistic and

stylistic similarities to the editorial expansions that the
editor J has added to both the non-Priestly primeval history
and the patriarchal narratives. Therefore, it is highly
probable that the editor J wrote this text, too.
The narrative of the call of Moses obviously disrupts the
oldest thread of the Moses-stories, which begin with Exod
2:1. With Moses’ return to Egypt, the narrative of his flight
to Moab comes to an end, thus forming what can be seen as
a perfect literary join: “In the course of those many days the
king of Egypt died. So Moses took his wife and his sons and
set them on an ass, and went back to the land of Egypt”
(Exod 2:23aα; 4:20).348 This narrative sequence is now
disconnected. Probably the interpolation goes back to the
editor J.
As often in Genesis, the editor J used a given tradition to
put his message on stage. The story of the finding of a cultic
place, which forms the core of Exodus 3, originally formed a
literary fragment of its own. The original shape may have
been as follows:

(1) Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law,

Jethro…, and he led the flock to the west side of the
wilderness, and came … into the desert. (2) … And he
looked, and lo, a bush was burning, yet the bush was not
consumed…. (4) … God called to him out of the bush,
“Moses, Moses!” And he said, “here am I.” (5) Then he said,
“Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the
place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
Because the cultic place is not given a name, the origin of
this tradition remains uncertain. Maybe some part of the
original text has broken off.
The literary additions that make the text as we have it
start with the editor J. he shaped the chapter like one of the
well-known scenes of encounter with God to be found in the
patriarchal narratives (e.g., Gen 16; 18; 28; 32), thus
making it one of the key scenes of his outline of history. The
oldest expanded form reads as follows (the editorial text of J
given in italics):

influenced by Deuteronomistic theology and some of which may be

younger than P.
348 . Translation following rsv.
 LEVIN: REDACTIONAL LINK BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS
177

(1) Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law,

Jethro, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the
west side of the wilderness, and came … 349 into the desert.
(2) And the angel of Y hwh appeared to him in a flame of
fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and lo, a
bush was burning, yet the bush was not consumed. (3)
And Moses said, “I will turn aside and see this great sight,
why the bush is not burning.” (4) When Yhwh saw that he
turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush,
“Moses, Moses!” And he said, “here am I.” (5) Then he
said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet,
for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” …
(7) Then Yhwh said, “I have seen the affliction of my people
who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry … (8) and I
have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the
Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good
and broad land … (16) Go and gather the elders of Israel
together, and say to them, Y hwh the God of your fathers
has appeared to me, … saying, … (17) … I will bring you
up out of the affliction of Egypt, … to a land flowing with
milk and honey…. (18) … And you and the elders of Israel
shall go to the king of Egypt and say to him, Y hwh, the God
of the Hebrews, has met with us; and now, we pray you,
let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, that
we may sacrifice to Yhwh our God. … (21) And I will give
this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and when
you go, you shall not go empty, (22) but each woman shall
ask of her neighbor, and of her who sojourns in her house,
jewelry of silver and of gold, and clothing, and you shall
put them on your sons and on your daughters; thus you
shall despoil the Egyptians.” … (4:18) Moses went back to
Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, “Let me go back, I
pray, to my kinsmen in Egypt and see whether they are
still alive.” And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.”

The editorial offspring of the expansion is evidenced by

language. There are quite a number of striking similarities
with the narratives of the books of Genesis as well as with
some narrative parts of the books of Exodus and Numbers.
What is important is that those parallels are also editorial.
This makes it highly probable that one and the same hand
has been writing. here are the examples:

349 . The later, non-yahwistic expansions are marked by ellipses. See

further Levin, Der Jahwist, 330–32.
178 A fAREWELL TO ThE yAhWIST?

(1) Exod 3:2: “And the angel of yhwh appeared to him

(hwhy K)lm )ryw wyl)).” Compare Gen 12:7: “Then yhwh
appeared to (-l) hwhy )ryw) Abram, and said, ‘To your
descendants I will give this land’ ”; Gen 16:7: “The angel of
yhwh (hwhy K)lm) found her [hagar] by a spring of water in
the wilderness”; Gen 18:1: “And yhwh appeared to him
(hwhy wyl) )ryw) [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre”; and Gen
26:2: “And yhwh appeared to him (wyl) )ryw hwhy) [Isaac],
and said, ‘Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and
will bless you.’ ”
(2) Exod 3:3: “And Moses said, ‘I will turn aside and see
this great sight, why the bush is not burning.’ ” This kind of
monologue counts as a stylistic device of the editor J. 350
Compare Gen 18:12: “So Sarah laughed to herself, saying,
‘After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have
pleasure?’ ”; Gen 21:7: “And she [Sarah] said, ‘Who would
have said to Abraham that Sarah would suckle children? yet
I have borne him a son in his old age’ ”; Gen 28:16: “Then
Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, ‘Surely yhwh is in this
place; and I did not know it’”; and Gen 32:21: “for he
[Jacob] thought, ‘I may appease him with the present that
goes before me.’ ”
(3) Exod 3:4: “When yhwh saw that (yk hwhy )ryw) he
turned aside to see.” Compare Gen 6:5: “yhwh saw that ( yk
hwhy )ryw) the wickedness of man was great in the earth”;
and Gen 29:31: “When yhwh saw that (yk hwhy )ryw) Leah
was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.”
(4) Exod 3:7: “Then yhwh said, ‘I have seen the affliction
(yty)r h)r yn(-t)) of my people who are in Egypt, and have
heard their cry (yt(m# Mtq(c)’ ”; also v. 17: “I will bring you
up out of the affliction (yn(m) of Egypt, to a land flowing
with milk and honey.” Compare Gen 4:10: “And yhwh said
[to Cain], ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother’s
blood is crying (Myq(c) to me from the ground’ ”; Gen 16:11:
“And the angel of yhwh said to her [hagar], ‘Behold, you are
with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name
Ishmael; because yhwh has given heed to your affliction

350 . Except for the editorial stratum of the yahwist, monologues of

this kind are very rare in the Old Testament. On this point, see ibid., 411.
 LEVIN: REDACTIONAL LINK BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS
179

(hwhy (m# Kyn(-l))’ ”; Gen 18:20–21: “Then yhwh said,

‘Because the outcry (tq(z) against Sodom and Gomorrah is
great, I will go down to see ( h)r)w) whether they have done
altogether according to the outcry ( htq(ckh) which has come
to me; and if not, I will know’ ”; Gen 19:13: [The angels to
Lot,] “Because the outcry (Mtq(c) against its people has
become great before yhwh”; Gen 29:32: “for she [Leah]
said, ‘Because yhwh has looked upon my affliction ( hwhy h)r
yyn(b); surely now my husband will love me’ ”; Gen 29:33:
“And [Leah] said, ‘Because yhwh has heard ( hwhy (m#) that I
am hated, he has given me this son also’”; Exod 1:11–12:
“Therefore they [the Egyptians] set taskmasters over them
to afflict them (wtn() with heavy burdens. But the more they
were oppressed (wn(y), the more they multiplied and the
more they spread abroad”; and Exod 14:10: “And the people
of Israel cried out (wq(cyw) to yhwh” (cf. 15:24–25; 17:4;
Num 11:2).
(5) Exod 3:8: “I have come down ( dr)w) to deliver them
out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out
of that land to a good and broad land ( hbxrw hbw+ Cr)).”
Compare Gen 11:5: “And yhwh came down to see ( t)rl hwhy
dryw) the city and the tower, which the sons of men had
built”; Gen 18:21: “I will go down to see ( h)r)w )n-hdr))
whether they have done altogether according to the outcry
which has come to me; and if not, I will know”; Gen 26:22:
“And he moved from there and dug another well, and over
that they did not quarrel; so he called its name Rehoboth
(twbxr), saying, ‘for now yhwh has made room ( hwhy byxrh)
for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land ( Cr)b)’ ”; and Exod
34:5: “And yhwh descended (hwhy dryw) in the cloud and
stood with him [Moses] there. And he proclaimed the name
of yhwh.”
(6) Exod 3:16: “Go and gather the elders of Israel
together, and say to them, ‘yhwh the God of your fathers
(Mkytb) yhl) hwhy) has appeared to me (yl) h)rn)’” (cf. v. 2);
also v. 18: “yhwh, the God of the hebrews ( hwhy Myyrb(h
yhl)), has met with us (hrqn).” Compare Gen 24:12: “And he
180 A fAREWELL TO ThE yAhWIST?

[Abraham’s servant] said, ‘O yhwh, God of my master

Abraham (yhl) hwhy
Mhrb) ynd)), grant me success ()n-hrqh) today, I pray you’”
(cf. vv. 27, 48); Gen 27:20: “he answered, ‘Because yhwh
your God (Kyhl) hwhy) granted me success (hrFq;hi)’”; and
Gen 28:13: “And behold, yhwh stood above it and said, ‘I am
yhwh, the God of Abraham your father ( Kyb) Mhrb) yhl) hwhy)
and the God of Isaac.’ ”
(7) Exod 3:21–22: “And I will give this people favor in the
sight of (yttnw yny(b Nx) the Egyptians; and when you go,
you shall not go empty, but each woman shall ask of her
neighbor, and of her who sojourns in her house, jewelry of
silver and of gold, and clothing, and you shall put them on
your sons and on your daughters; thus you shall despoil the
Egyptians.” Compare Gen 6:8: “But Noah found favor in the
eyes of (yny(b Nx )cm) yhwh” (cf. Gen 19:19);
Gen 18:3: [Abraham to yhwh,] “If I have found favor in your
sight (Nx yt)cm
Kyny(b), do not pass by your servant” (cf. Gen 30:27; 32:6;
33:8, 10, 15; 47:29; Exod 34:9; Num 11:11); Gen 24:35:
[Abraham’s servant to Betuel and Laban,] “yhwh has greatly
blessed my master, and he has become great; he has given
him flocks and herds, silver and gold, menservants and
maidservants, camels and asses”; Gen 26:14: “he [Isaac]
had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great household,
so that the Philistines envied him”; Gen 30:43: “Thus the
man [Jacob] grew exceedingly rich, and had large flocks,
maidservants and menservants, and camels and asses”; Gen
39:4: “Joseph found favor in his [master’s] sight ( wyny(b Nx
Pswy )cmyw) and attended him”; Gen 39:21: “But yhwh was
with Joseph and gave him favor in the sight of ( yny(b wnx
Ntyw) the keeper of the prison”; and Exod 12:36: “And yhwh
had given the people favor in the sight of ( yny(b M(h Nx-t)
Ntn hwhyw) the Egyptians, so that they let them have what
they asked. Thus they despoiled the Egyptians.”
(8) Exod 4:18: “Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-
law and said to him, ‘Let me go back, I pray, to my kinsmen
(yx)) in Egypt (Myrcmb-r#), cf.
 LEVIN: REDACTIONAL LINK BETWEEN GENESIS AND ExODUS
181

v. 7) and see whether they are still alive ( Myyx Mdw(h)’ ”;

see Gen 4:9: “[Cain to yhwh,] ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’
(ykn) yx) rm#h)”; Gen 13:18: “Then Abraham said to Lot, ‘Let
there be no strife between you and me, and between your
herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are kinsmen ( wnxn)
Myh) My#n))’ ”; Gen 29:15: “Then Laban said to Jacob,
‘Because you are my kinsman (yx) ht)), should you therefore
serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?’ ”
(cf. Gen 33:9); Gen 37:26–27: “Then Judah said to his
brothers, ‘What profit is it if we slay our brother ( wnyx)) and
conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites,
and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our
own flesh ()wh wnr#b wnyx)).’ And his brothers heeded him”;
Gen 45:26: “And they [the brothers] told him [Jacob],
‘Joseph is still alive ( dw( yx Pswy)’ ”; Gen 45:28: “And Israel
said, ‘It is enough; Joseph my son is still alive ( yx ynb Pswy
dw(); I will go and see him before I die’ ”; Gen 46:30: “Israel
said to Joseph, ‘Now let me die, since I have seen your face
and know that you are still alive (yx Kdw()’ ”; and Exod 2:11:
“When Moses had grown up, he went out to his people
(wyx)) and looked on their burdens.”

Summary
These cases prove that Exod 3 forms an integral part of
the outline of the history of the people of God. That outline
starts with the primeval history and includes both the
history of the patriarchs and the history of the exodus. It is
highly probable that the common language points to
common authorship: to the editor J who has chosen,
connected, and commented upon the individual narratives
that would eventually form the fundamental document of
the Tetrateuch. Redaction criticism allows us to recognize
that earlier scholarship was correct after all. The core of
the non-Priestly narrative material forms an independent
literary document (in the sense of the Documentary
hypothesis): the so-called “yahwist.”
 The RepoRT of The YahwisT’s
Demise has Been GReaTlY
exaGGeRaTeD! John Van Seters
1. Introduction
As a champion of the Yahwist for many years, 351 I have
been asked to respond to the essays in this volume that
seek to get rid of the Yahwist as a reminder of traditional
source analysis, as reflected in the Documentary
Hypothesis, and to replace it with a “new” and more
sophisticated methodology, that of redaction criticism. For
some inexplicable reason the source P is retained, as well
as the distinction between P and non-P. The P source is
regarded as providing the basic form and shape of the
Pentateuch, with non-P considered as filler or postP
redactional expansion. This looks like the pre-Wellhausian
source analysis of Ewald in a slightly different form and
displaced from his early dates into the all-inclusive “Persian
period.”
However, it is the non-P corpus, traditionally associated
with J (and E), that is at the heart of the debate. Now we
must be very clear about what is at issue in this discussion
because the matter has often been obscured by details that
have nothing to do with the current status of the debate and
by the use of jargon, such as the “Yahwist hypothesis,”
which is meant to suggest, I suppose, that the Yahwist is the
real culprit in the Documentary Hypothesis. This seems to
be the point of the historical survey of Thomas Römer, “The
351 . John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1975); idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker
(Theologische Studien 134; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987); idem,
Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992); idem, The
Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox; Kampen: Kok-Pharos, 1994); idem, The
Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999); idem, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of
the Covenant Code (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). It seems
pointless to cite all of my articles dealing with the Yahwist, although in
some of the essays in the volume little or no attention is paid to any of
this corpus of work.

-143 -
184 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

Elusive Yahwist.” For the most part I have little difficulty

with the facts as he has laid them out, which have also been
pointed out in my own publications. Our difference has to
do with the viewpoint taken toward these facts and on a few
important details to which we will return below. However,
the point of his survey and of the remarks by Konrad
Schmid, Jan Christian Gertz, and others is to suggest that
this Yahwist comes in so many different forms that it is
difficult to deal with all of them and one must therefore
generalize by the use of such a term as “Yahwist
hypothesis.”352 All of this I consider a smoke screen. It may
be observed that there are many different understandings
of P, whether as source or supplement, with different limits
producing as many P’s as there are J’s. The dating of P has
been changed more radically than J, from being the earliest
source to the latest. Yet these scholars seem to have no
difficulty with the acceptance of P, which was as important
to the Documentary Hypothesis as J. Consequently, the
great diversity of opinion about J has nothing to do with the
present proclamation of the Yahwist’s dismissal.
In point of fact, the Yahwist, whose demise is being
prematurely mourned, is a quite particular Yahwist, namely,
von Rad’s Yahwist as articulated in his Das
formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (1938).353 It was
specifically this Yahwist that was attacked by Rolf Rendtorff
as the fundamental problem of the Documentary
Hypothesis, which he then sought to replace by a quite
different literary process, following Martin Noth, and which
in turn has transmuted into the current form of redaction
history. All the recent discussion of the replacement of the
Yahwist with editors goes back to Rolf Rendtorff’s Das
überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch
(BZAW 147; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), of course ignoring

352 . See also Jean Louis Ska, “The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand
Faces,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in
der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAW 315; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2002), 1–23.
353 . Gerhard von Rad, “Das formgeschichtliche Problem des
Hexateuch,” in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. R.
Smend; 4th ed.; TB 8; Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 9–86. English translation:
“The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in idem, The Problem of
the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken;
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966, repr., London: SCM, 1984), 1–78.
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 185

any of the subsequent criticism that was leveled against

Rendtorff’s position. In his historical survey Römer fails to
mention my own critique of pentateuchal studies in
Abraham in History and Tradition (1975), which appeared
before the works of Hans Heinrich Schmid and Rendtorff. 354
My critique of the Documentary Hypothesis was
fundamentally different from that of Rendtorff. It was not
directed at source criticism, which remains basic to all
historical criticism. Instead, it was directed at tradition
history, especially the block model of Martin Noth, adopted
by Rendtorff, and the use of the redactor in literary
criticism.
So let us focus on the real issue. Simply stated, von
Rad’s Yahwist was understood as an author and historian
who used an old liturgical confession of God’s deliverance
from Egypt, as reflected in Deut 26:5–9, as the basic
structure of his historical work and who then combined this
with other older traditions about the giving of the law at
Sinai, the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis, and the
stories of the primeval history, in order to produce a
remarkable history of the people from the creation of
humans down to the conquest of the land of Canaan—the
basic story that underlies the Hexateuch. This
understanding of the Yahwist was seriously undermined by
Noth, who relegated most of J’s work to a preliterary stage
of tradition development in the nature of numerous blocks
of tradition that were already combined in some vague way
before J inherited them. From this demolition of J by Noth it
was but a small step for Rendtorff to dismiss the existence
of J altogether.
There is, however, a major problem with all of this. It is
true that questions were raised against an early date for
von Rad’s “little credo” of Deut 26:5–9, but this also meant
that the whole basis for Noth’s confessional blocks of
tradition was likewise placed in doubt. Furthermore, my
own work and that of Hans Heinrich Schmid (Der
sogenannte Jahwist [Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976])
made it clear that much of the material within the “so-
called” J corpus must be viewed as much later in date than

354 . For my review of Hans Heinrich Schmid and Rolf Rendtorff, see
John Van Seters, “Recent Studies on Pentateuchal Criticism: A Crisis in
Method,” JAOS 99 (1980): 663–73.
186 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

was previously thought. Out of this came two competing

proposals. The one, my position, was to affirm von Rad’s
Yahwist as indeed an author and historian, 355 who was
responsible for the great literary work as he claimed but
who belonged to a quite different era from the one proposed
by von Rad. The other, Rendtorff’s view, was to affirm
Noth’s block theory of tradition growth, completely
disregarding his grand scheme of tradition history in a
preliterary “amphictyonic age,” but instead assigning the
process of their amalgamation and integration of diverse
traditions to Deuteronomistic, Priestly, and other
redactors.356 The author becomes completely superfluous.
Thus, the question over the existence of the Yahwist (by
whatever name one wishes to call him or her) boils down to
this one issue: Is the non-P corpus of the Pentateuch or
Hexateuch (excluding D and Dtr) to be regarded as the
work of an author and historian, or is it to be viewed as the
result of a complex editorial process?
One argument of the redaction critics is to say that the
Yahwist is simply an unfortunate carryover from the defunct
Documentary Hypothesis. The same, of course, could be
said for P, which still remains fundamental to their analysis.
However, the problem with the Documentary Hypothesis is
not source analysis, dividing the text into P and non-P,
which remains basic to any literary criticism of the
Pentateuch. The real problem was always the redactor
355 . Rolf Rendtorff, in both his Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche
Problem des Pentateuch and in his earlier article “Der ‘Jahwist’ als
Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik,” in Congress Volume:
Edinburgh, 1974 (VTSup 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 158–66, ignored von
Rad’s claim that the Yahwist was a historian and persisted in suggesting
that von Rad spoke primarily of J as a theologian. This was a serious
misrepresentation of von Rad’s intention in Das formgeschichtliche
Problem des Hexateuch. See my earlier critique of this in John Van
Seters, “The Yahwist as Theologian? A Response,” JSOT 3 (1977): 15–19;
also idem, “The Pentateuch as Torah and History: In Defense of G. von
Rad,” in Das Alte Testament—Ein Geschichtsbuch? (ed. E. Blum et al.;
Altes Testament und Moderne 10; Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005), 47–63.
Unfortunately, Römer has continued to repeat Rendtorff’s view and
consequently suggests that my characterization of the Yahwist as a
historian was something new, but I was merely following von Rad’s clear
position on this question of literary genre.
356 . Rendtorff himself is uncomfortable with the term “redactor”
because he admits that it is derived directly from the Documentary
Hypothesis, but he and his followers use it anyway.
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 187

whose characterization and use for solving literary

problems seems so completely arbitrary, and I have spoken
against this quite arbitrary deus ex machina for thirty
years.357 It is the redactor that is the most characteristic
feature of the Documentary Hypothesis! Lest it be
suggested that this method of redaction criticism is
something new, let me point out that it goes back to
Friedrich Wolf and his Prolegomena ad Homerum of 1795,
in which the various blocks of tradition and songs in the
Iliad and the Odyssey were put together by editors in the
sixth century b.c.e. and which continued to be modified by
editors until their “final form” was reached by the greatest
editor of all, Aristarchus, in the second century b.c.e. This
approach to the transmission history of Homer was very
influential in the development of the Documentary
Hypothesis in biblical studies. The notion of editors and
redactional criticism was always at the heart of this shared
methodology, and it took classical studies 150 years to
finally see the error of its ways and abandon this “redactor
theory” in favor of the “author-poet.” One German scholar
who led the battle against it made the following
characterization of redaction analysis among German
classical scholarship of his day:

Es ist ganz unvermeidlich, sich alle diese Redaktoren mit

geschriebenen Texten in der Hand vorzustellen, da
streichend, dort einsetzend und verschiedene
Schnittstellen aneinanderpassend. Von Schreibtisch,
Schere and Kleister zu sprechen, ist natürlich ein
boshafter Anachronismus, aber die Richtung, in der alle
Annahmen dieser Art liegen, scheint mir treffend zu
bezeichnen. Buchphilologen haben diese Theorien
erdacht, und Arbeit an und mit Büchern ist für sie die
Voraussetzung geblieben.358
In biblical studies, however, such imagined redactors still
persist in spite of all evidence to the contrary.9

357 . See especially my remarks in Abraham in History and Tradition,

129–31.
358 . Albin Lesky, “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Homerischen
Epos,” reprinted in Homer: Tradition und Neuerung (ed. J. Latacz;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979), 299.
Latacz’s own comment on Lesky’s critique of the Wolf position was that
Lesky remained for two
188 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

So we return to the question: Is the compositional

character of the non-P corpus of the Pentateuch, the body of
text usually assigned to J, to be viewed as the work of
editors or as the work of an ancient historian, as suggested
by von Rad? It is my conviction, based upon the
comparative material from classical examples of “archaic
history” that the mark of such author-historians is the
development, out of a body of quite diverse traditions, of a
continuous and coherent account of the past with themes
and interconnections to unite its various parts. 10 So far as I
can see, the ancient “editor,” such as Aristarchus, never
engaged in such activity but instead tried to restore the
classical texts to their purest form and to stigmatize as
corruptions any late additions that he might find or suspect
within the text. To identify the use of particular themes and
other techniques of interconnections in the text as
“editorial” is, to my mind, completely without justification
either in antiquity or in modern times.

2. P as the Link between Genesis and Exodus

With this introduction let me take up a few selected
examples from the positions set forth above as space
permits.11 Let us first look briefly at the thesis, as set forth
by Konrad Schmid, that it was the Priestly writer who first
made the connection between the patriarchal stories and
the exodus story and that in doing so P had no knowledge of
the Joseph story. To support this view, Schmid attributes a
minimal number of texts to P within Gen 37–50, and those
Priestly texts that do occur within the Joseph story are then
merely assigned to a Priestly redactor. That, of course, is
just special pleading. Let us then examine his
reconstruction of this P source. It is usual for scholars to
regard Gen 37:1–2 as belonging to P, since there is a clear
break after verse 2. However, this would not fit Schmid’s
thesis, so he discards verse 2. Yet the remark about
Joseph’s age in verse 2a is a regular feature of P in the
patriarchal stories, and it also

decades as a voice crying in the wilderness (“Rufer in der Wüste”); see

Latacz, “Einführung,” in idem, Homer, 12.
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 189

9. The full case for this view will be set forth in my forthcoming
book, The Edited Bible.
10. See John Van Seters, Prologue to History; idem, “Is There Any
Historiography in the Hebrew Bible? A Hebrew-Greek Comparison,” JNSL
28 (2002): 1–25.
11. I will not comment on Christoph Levin’s response to the papers
(“The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus”),
which would require a detailed discussion about our quite different
understanding of the Yahwist, except to say that his characterizing the
Yahwist as an editor greatly confuses the issue of the debate. There is
nothing editorial about the compositional activity that he attributes to J. I
also cannot comment on those papers that I did not receive in time for this
response.
occurs again in 41:46a. Of course, that too would speak
against Schmid’s thesis. Furthermore, he must also discard
the genealogy in 46:8–27 because it makes a clear
reference to Joseph’s prior period in Egypt. Schmid accepts
47:27–28, which contains the remarks about the age of
Jacob at his death and the length of time he spent in Egypt,
but he rejects the statement in 47:9 about Jacob’s age when
he arrived in Egypt and the rest of the audience with
Pharaoh in 47:7–11, which accounts for their settlement in
Goshen, mentioned again in verse 27. Genesis 48:3–6 is
regularly assigned to P because it recapitulates the
language and themes of P so closely, but this again would
manifest clear dependence of P on the Joseph story, so it
must also be reckoned as secondary. Thus, the only way that
Schmid can support his literary theory is to invoke a
Priestly redactor who uses precisely the same literary
techniques, language, and themes as P but who cannot be
viewed as independent from the non-P context in which his
words are found, in this case the Joseph story. Even
Wellhausen admitted that he could not find any significant
differences between P and Rp.359
What we have left of P in Schmid’s view is Gen 37:1–2aα;
46:6–7; 47:27– 28; 49:1a, 29–33; 50:12–13, which he
characterizes as “an acceptable and complete description of
the eisodos within P without an account of Joseph.”360
However, any unprejudiced reading of the text that remains,
359 . Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the history of Ancient Israel
(trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh: Black, 1885; repr., Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1994), 384–85. It should be noted that Rendtorff regarded
P in Genesis as a supplement, not an independent source, and therefore
had no trouble with the verses that Schmid excludes.
360 . See above p. 46, emphasis added.
190 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

even with this careful surgery, reveals the most glaring

gaps in narrative continuity and coherence. Following the
introduction in 37:1–2aα: “Jacob lived in the land of his
father’s sojourning, in the land of Canaan. These are the
generations of Jacob,” we expect some narrative account of
Jacob’s sons in Canaan. But instead we are told that what
follows after 37:2aα is the statement in 46:6: “And they took
their livestock and their goods, which they had gained in
the land of Canaan, and they came into Egypt, Jacob and all
his offspring with him.” There is no explanation for why
Jacob and his family should leave Canaan, the promised
land, and make this great migration to Egypt with all their
extensive possessions. Even grammatically it is problematic
to understand why verse 6 suddenly begins with a plural
verb. The recapitulation of the subject in verses 6b–7a is
surely intended as an introduction to the genealogy that
follows in verses 8–27. Furthermore, there is no reference
to Jacob’s departure from Canaan, only his arrival in Egypt.
If, however, we look at the preceding verse 5, “Then Jacob
set out from Beersheba, and the sons of Israel carried their
father, their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons that
Pharaoh had sent to carry him,” the continuation in verse 6
makes perfectly good sense as an extension of this earlier
presentation. We have exactly the same phenomenon in
other places in which P has added to, and embellished, the
earlier J account. Note especially Gen 31:17–18, which
begins in a very similar fashion, “So Jacob arose, and set his
sons and his wives on camels” (v. 17), followed in verse 18
by a rather confusing mixture of J with P embellishments
(see also Gen 12:4b–5a). But if Gen 47:6 depends upon
verse 5, then the whole position of Schmid falls apart. 361
Following Schmid’s P corpus we next have the statement
that Israel settled in Goshen (Gen 47:27–28), without any
explanation of why they chose this region in particular or
why it should even be noted, since in the exodus story P
pays no attention whatever to this special location and even
seems to contradict it. So Goshen is not a connective in P as

361 . David M. Carr (Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical

and Literary Approaches [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 106–
7) sees the problem and assigns 46:5 to P, which then means that 45:19–
21 must also be P as well as the whole of Gen 31:17–18. Such a solution,
however, would be disastrous to Schmid’s position.
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 191

it is in J. In this region of Goshen they apparently prospered

greatly. The period of Jacob’s sojourn in Egypt is given (17
years) and his total age at 147 years (cf 47:9). This in turn
is followed by the account of Jacob’s death, preceded by his
injunction to his sons to bury him in Machpelah (49:1a, 29–
33) and the subsequent carrying out of this injunction
(50:12–13). At this point, however, there is another serious
gap in that it places the whole family in Canaan with no
suggestion that they returned to Egypt. Gertz tries to solve
this problem by adding verse 14 to the P account, but this is
an act of desperation. Verse 14 reads: “After he had buried
his father, Joseph returned to Egypt with his brothers and
all who had gone up with him to bury his father.” This
obviously refers to the Joseph story in 50:1–11 in which it is
Joseph who is primarily responsible for the burial. Gertz
disputes this latter connection, and we will need to take this
question up below. His one reason for attributing it to P is
that it is necessary in order to make his understanding of P
work. But that is no argument at all. If all the brothers with
all their families and goods returned to Canaan, since
Schmid regards 50:8b as a post-P addition, then why should
they have made the arduous trip back to Egypt again? This
P reconstruction as an independent work makes little sense.
Schmid does not comment above on what follows in
Exod 1 after Gen 50:13, but in another publication he
makes it clear that Exod 1:1–5 (since it obviously
presupposes the Joseph story) belongs to his Priestly
redactor,362 which for him would mean that Exod 1:7
continued from Gen 50:13. With this sequence, however,
one would get the impression that this proliferation and
great prosperity took place after their return to Canaan to
bury their father. Nothing suggests that they are still in
Egypt. And if this is immediately followed by Exod 1:13–14,
then the gaps and confusion only become worse. Why have
the fortunes of the Israelites changed so drastically? Where
is this taking place, and who are their oppressors? And
what happened to the brothers? Even Exod 2:23a β,b–25
does not help to answer these questions, because without

362 . Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur

doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der
Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; NeukirchenVluyn:
Neukirchener, 1999), 30.
192 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

verse 23aα there is still no mention of Egypt. It is simply

impossible to read these bits and pieces of the P account
separate from their present context. I rest my case.
Schmid’s conclusions do not address my presentation of the
Yahwist in a single detail and need no further comment.

3. The Yahwist as the Link between the

Patriarchs and Exodus Traditions
The essay by Jan Christian Gertz builds directly upon the
earlier work of Konrad Schmid, with some modifications.
The heart of his paper has to do with the “post-Priestly
supplements” to Gen 50 and Exod 1. It is suggested by both
Schmid and Gertz that 50:14 does not really belong to the
Joseph story in 50:1–11 but is either a redactional addition
(Schmid) or belongs to P (Gertz). The argument to support
this is the assertion that the discourse between Joseph and
his brothers is not appropriate after verse 14 and should
come much earlier, that is, after verse 11. This is part of
Schmid’s larger thesis in which he sees the whole family
returning permanently to Canaan, so that 50:7b and 8b, as
well as verse 14, must all be redactional (and for him, post-
P).363 But does this scheme make any sense? Joseph gives no
hint in his request to Pharaoh that his return to Canaan is
permanent but only that it is for the purpose of burying
Jacob and for this reason he receives a large military escort.
This is also suggested in verses 9 and 11; the reaction of the
local population only makes sense if the whole large
company was viewed as predominantly Egyptian. Without
verse 14 this large Egyptian contingent must also remain in
Canaan. Secondly, why should the brothers be afraid of
Joseph in their homeland? Joseph, without the Egyptian
escort, would now simply be one of them and would no
longer have any special status. Canaan is not regarded as
part of the Egyptian Empire in this story. Only after they
have returned to Egypt would his brothers need to be
concerned about their safety. So the passage in verses 15–
21 makes the best sense right where it is. Joseph’s
continued provision and care for his brothers and their
families must reflect a location in Egypt, not in Canaan,
where they would go their separate ways. I have argued

363 . Ibid., 59–60.

 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 193

elsewhere that 50:15–21 is an addition by J that is parallel

to the earlier reconciliation scene in 45:1–15. 364 Its purpose
here is to anticipate the sojourn in Exod 1 with the word
play on the br-M( “numerous people” (50:20; cf. Exod 1:8–
12). However, this still means that this unit is pre-P along
with the rest. The only text that belongs to P in this chapter
is the burial notice in verses 12–13. It is entirely possible
that 50:22–23 belongs to the original Joseph story, since it
harks back to the earlier birth of the two sons in Gen 41:50–
52.
At any rate, 50:24–26 is non-P and in my view belongs to
J. The argument for making these verses post-P is because
they have a clear connection with Exod 13:19 and Josh
24:32, which are also reckoned as post-P. But this is just
circular reasoning. I have argued that they are all J,
although my case for this is never discussed. 365 But why
should an editor take it upon himself to construct all of
these interconnections in the text as if he were the author
of the text? This is extremely unlikely. The interconnections
are exactly what one would expect an author, the Yahwist,
to do if he were composing a comprehensive history. The
prediction that we have in 50:24–26 has its parallel in the
predictions to Jacob in Gen 46:3–4 and to Abraham in
15:13–16. This is a well-known historiographic technique in
classical literature and one that is also employed here.
We come now to Gertz’s treatment of the “post-Priestly
supplements” in Exod 1. The bald statement that Exod 1:6
presupposes the enumeration of the brothers in verses 1–5
may be disregarded. Joseph and his brothers are the
subjects of the prior unit in 50:24–26. The purpose of
repeating the death notice of Joseph is clear from the
structure of the unit. As I have shown elsewhere, the author
(J) constructs this unit on the parallel transition episode in
Judg 2:6– 10.366 So close are the similarities between this
unit and the one in Gen 50:26; Exod 1:6, 8 that one cannot
doubt a direct literary dependence of the latter on the
former. It is obvious that the whole of Exod 1:1–5 is
secondary to this construction. In order to use this scheme,
the author felt it necessary to repeat the mention of

364 . Van Seters, Prologue to History, 323–24.

365 . Ibid.; also idem, Life of Moses, 18–19.
366 . Van Seters, Life of Moses, 16–19.
194 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

Joseph’s death so as to include “his brothers” and the whole

generation as well.
What are we to make of Exod 1:7, however, which is
widely attributed to P?367 If we must exclude verse 6 as a
later addition, then we end up with a statement that is
nonsense. Who are the “sons of Israel” in verse 7? If this
follows immediately after verse 5, then it suggests a period
during the lifetime of these brothers, for there is no hint
that they have died and whatever follows takes place during
this time. But that is absurd, and verse 6 is certainly
presupposed.
The reason for the attribution of verse 7 to P is the obvious
P terminology. Yet it is clear that verses 9–12 also
presuppose some knowledge of verse 7. This leads to the
view that verses 8–12 must be later than P. Yet the unit in
verses 8–12 plays upon only two terms br and Mwc( and
their verbal equivalents. The theme is also basic to the
following unit in verses 15–22, where the same language is
repeated in verse 20. The verb hbr is common to both J and
P, but the term Mc( never occurs in any of its forms in P,
although it does occur elsewhere in J and is common also in
D. It seems to me obvious that J originally had a statement
in verse 7: wmc(yw wbr l)r#y ynbw “The Israelites increased
in number and grew strong.”368 This is followed by the
statement that the new king, at some later date, regarded
this development as a serious threat. P has merely
embellished the original statement with his own jargon,
which somewhat obscures the point that follows. This
reconstruction of the original text may be confirmed by the
fact that in the earliest version of the descent into Egypt
and their sojourn there, in Deut 26:5–9, we have the famous
statement in verse 5: “A wandering Aramean was my father;
and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, few in
number; and there he became a great, strong and populous

367 . See my treatment, ibid., 19–21, which has been ignored by

Gertz.
368 . See also Frederick V. Winnett, The Mosaic Tradition (Near and
Middle East Studies 1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1949), 16.
However, Winnett’s notion that in Exod 1–2 there is an old document
independent of the original J that P used and appended to the story of
Moses to connect it to Genesis seems farfetched and against all the
evidence set forth here.
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 195

nation (lwdg ywg brw Mwc().”369 On the basis of this text it is

not hard to reconstruct the original version of Exod 1:7, as I
have done. However, nowhere in Deuteronomy is this great
population expansion related to any promise to the
patriarchs. This was completely unknown to D, and it is not
even clear that the “father” refers to Jacob. It was left to a
post-D author, the Yahwist, to combine this theme of
becoming a great nation by making it a promise to the
patriarchs, along with the land promise. In the patriarchal
promises, the phrase lwdg ywg is preferred, but in some
other places J also uses Mwc(/Mc( and br/hbr, as he does
here. P, developing his own characteristic terminology,
extends the motif back to the time of creation. So it is not
hard to see the line of development in the concept.
Nevertheless, Gertz tries to turn this whole argument
around and make the P version primary, which cannot be
made to render any kind of narrative coherence and
continuity, and to make the non-P secondary, even when it is
the non-P material that provides a completely consistence
and coherent story, and the latter is attributed to the
“editor”! He ignores the use of the terminology of br M( and
Mwc( in J as a precedent for what we have here. We have
already pointed to the use of br M( in 50:20. The theme of
the numerous people as a threat to the king is picked up
again in Exod 5, the occasion of the first encounter between
Moses (and Aaron) and Pharaoh. After the king dismisses
Moses and Aaron we have the statement (v. 5): “Pharaoh
thought, ‘they [the Israelites] are now more numerous
(Mybr) than the people of the land….’ ”370 This would agree
exactly with chapter 1. Both in terms of language and
369 . Gertz’s statement (p. 83 above): “The connection between Gen
12:2 and Exod 1:9 is at most conceptual, since the formulation of Exod
1:9 Mwc(w br M( is not the expected correspondence to the promise of a
lwdg ywg in Gen 12:2” is completely overturned by this earlier
combination of terms in Deuteronomy and in Gen 18:18 and 26:12–16. In
fact, J draws on a wide range of terminology to express the promise
theme.
370 . This reading and interpretation of the text follows Martin Noth,
Exodus (OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 53, who emends the defective mt text,
based on the SamP reading. See also Brevard S. Childs, The Book of
Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 93, 105; Van Seters, Life
of Moses, 74–75.
196 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

perspective, this unit fits very well with Exod 1:8–12, 15–22.
The use of Mwc( is even more instructive. In the Abraham
story of J in Gen 18:18 the Deity says in a divine soliloquy
that Abraham is to become “a nation great and strong”
(Mwc(w lwdg ywgl). This same phrase is repeated in exactly
this form in another context. In Num 14:12 Yhwh threatens
to destroy the people as a whole, because of their lack of
faith in him, and in their place to make of Moses “a nation
greater and stronger than they” (wnmm Mwc(w lwdg ywgl).
The connection with the patriarchal promise is obvious. In
the Isaac story, Gen 26:12–16, we read that Isaac prospered
in the foreign territory of Gerar and became very great ( ldg,
verb) and that he also had a “large household of servants”
(hbr hdb() and as a consequence the king felt threatened
and asked him to leave “because you are much stronger
(Mc(, verb) than we are.” Here is an obvious parallel to the
Egyptian situation within the J corpus. This, in turn, is
paralleled in another text in the Balaam story. In Num 22
the Moabites are in great dread of the Israelites because
they are numerous (br, v. 3), so Balak calls upon the prophet
Balaam to curse “this people because they are stronger
than us” (wnmm )wh Mwc(-yk hzh M(h). All these texts belong
to J, and the language and themes expressed are completely
consistent throughout. There is nothing comparable in P.
Furthermore, as stated above, it was von Rad who
pointed to the Yahwist’s dependence on Deut 26:5–9 for the
structure of his literary work, and in spite of the redating of
both the “little credo” and the Yahwist, the basic scheme of
von Rad still fits the facts. It is not hard to see how an exilic
J could make this statement in Deut 26:5 the basis of his
connection between the patriarchs, represented by Jacob’s
descent into Egypt with his family, and the exodus tradition.
Furthermore, the particular selection of terminology in
Exod 1:7*, 8–12 is directly suggested by D’s text. Since I
have long argued for the heavy dependence of J upon
Deuteronomy, none of this should cause any surprise. And
an exilic date long before P is quite appropriate for all this
literary development to take place.
Gertz likewise passes lightly over the use of Crp in
combination with hbr in Exod 1:12: Crpy Nk hbry Nk wt) wn(y
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 197

r#$)kw “The more they oppressed them, the more they

increased in number and the more they expanded.” This
certainly does not reflect the P terminology in verse 7,
which uses the more usual P term Cr#$, “to proliferate.” The
term Crp, in the sense of bursting the limits of one’s
territory, is rather distinctive of J, and this is the sense in
which it is used in Exod 1:12. It also has a very similar
sense in the divine promise of numerous offspring to Jacob
in the Bethel theophany in Gen 28:14: “Your offspring shall
be like the dust of the earth and you shall burst your limits
(tcrpw) to the west and to the east and to the north and to
the south.” Again in Gen 30:30 Jacob says to Laban: “For
you had little before I arrived, and it has burst forth into
abundance (brl Crpyw) and God has blessed you wherever I
went.”
This also relates the term to the same theme of divine
promise of blessing.371
Second Isaiah, in the Song of the Barren Woman, Isa
54:1–5, which is clearly an image that is taken from the
patriarchal stories, makes direct allusion to the theme of
the promise of great population growth with the statement:
“For you shall break out of your boundaries ( ycrpt) right and
left, your descendents shall disposses nations and resettle
deserted cities” (v. 3). In the light of the repeated use of this
term by J in connection with precisely this same theme, as
noted above, it is hard to resist the conclusion that Second
Isaiah is quoting J and his special language at this point.
This means further that the use of this terminology in Exod
1:12 is probably by the same author, J, as in the Genesis
texts and that it is deliberately used to recall this theme of
the promises in the patriarchal stories. And since Second
Isaiah, whom I have long argued is a contemporary of the
Yahwist,372 already knows of this usage, it must be prior to P
and not dependent upon P, as the “new” redactional
criticism suggests.
371 . See also Gen 30:43.
372 . See most recently, John Van Seters, “In the Babylonian Exile
with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation in Second Isaiah,” in
The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in
Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel; OTS 42;
Leiden:
Brill, 1999), 71–89.
198 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

What we have seen in our analysis is that it is not P but

the earlier non-P Yahwist who is the author of this
historiographic interconnection between the patriarchal
and exodus traditions, precisely as von Rad proposed. J
does this by modeling the transition between the era of
Joseph and his brothers and the later period of the
oppression (Gen 50:26; Exod 1:6–8) upon the transition
from the age of Joshua and his generation to the following
period of apostasy (Judg 2:8–10). He combines with this the
description of the sojourn from Deut 26:5, which mentions
the great population growth, and then uses this as the
motive for the oppression by the Egyptians. At the same
time, his language makes constant allusion back to the time
of the patriarchs and the theme of the divine promises so
that a careful reader cannot miss the interconnection
between the two. The Priestly writer adds little to this
continuity; in fact, his embellishments tend to obscure what
is so obvious without them. This literary artistry, which von
Rad rightly attributed to the Yahwist as author and
historian, should not be relegated in piecemeal fashion to
innumerable hypothetical editors. They never existed!
The next level of interconnection between the patriarchs
and the exodus has to do with the patriarchal promises. It is
often asserted that P is the one responsible for this
interconnection by means of the texts in Exod 2:23a βb–25;
6:2–8, which refer back to the P texts in Gen 17; 28:1–4;
35:9–13. There can be no doubt about the importance of
this interconnection for the P scheme of divine revelation,
as Wellhausen clearly recognized. And yet it is remarkable
that P feels no need to make any further reference to the
patriarchal covenant and blessing in the subsequent
narration and laws. By contrast, J (the non-P corpus) makes
repeated reference to the patriarchal promises, but these
are dismissed by Rendtorff and his followers as
“redactional” and of little consequence for the whole. This
seems to me highly prejudicial to the discussion. We will
therefore look briefly at the J interconnection in Gen 46:2–4
and Exod 3:6. It may be useful to
set them down, side by God spoke to Israel
side: in a vision by night
and said, “Jacob!
Gen 46:2–4 Jacob!” He
answered, “Here I
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 199

am.” Then he said, “I God called to him out of

am El, the god of your the bush, and he said,
father (l)h ykn) Kyb) yhl)), “Moses! Moses!” He
do not be afraid of going answered, “Here I am.”
down to Egypt, for I will … Then he said, “I am
make you into a great the god of your father
nation (lwdg ywgl) there. (yhl) ykn) Kyb)), the god
I will go down with you of Abraham, the god of
to Egypt and I will also Isaac, and the god of
bring you up again, and Jacob.” And Moses hid
Joseph’s hand will close his face because he was
your eyes.” afraid to look at the
Exod 3:4b, 6 deity.
The similarity and interconnection between these two
accounts are obvious. The setting for the first revelation is
the journey by Jacob and his family to Egypt and the
temporary halt at Beer-sheba, where Jacob offers sacrifices
to “the god of Isaac his father.” This, in turn, links the text
with the Isaac story in Gen 26 and the revelations there,
including the one at Beer-sheba in 26:24, which is of a very
similar form: “I am the god of Abraham, your father.” This is
then linked to the revelations to Jacob in 28:13 and 32:10 as
“the god of Isaac, your father.” The use of the term “god of
your father” with the meaning “god of Jacob” is used by the
brothers of Joseph in their appeal to Joseph for his
forgiveness in 50:17 as the deity of the Israelites in Egypt.
The use of the designation l)h is likewise linked to the
special revelation of the god of Bethel (31:13; 35:1). There
can be no doubt that all these texts are part of the same
non-P corpus, J. The Yahwist has embedded his theme of the
patriarchal promises within the Joseph story with the
specific intention of making a connection with the exodus
theme. The reference to becoming a “great nation” ( lwdg
ywgl) not only picks up on the theme of the patriarchal
promises typical of J, but it also uses the same language as
in Deut 26:5: lwdg ywgl M#$-yhyw.
Once the whole pattern of interconnections among the
passages in the J corpus of Genesis becomes clear, there is
no reason left to dissociate the text of Exod 3:6 from these
other texts.373 It is only J who uses the term “god of your
373 . See my earlier treatment of Exod 3:1–6 in Life of Moses, 36–41;
also Thomas Dozeman, in “The Commission of Moses and the Book of
200 A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST?

father,” and what he means by this is the god of the three

patriarchs. It certainly does not mean the god of Moses’
father. Furthermore, there is simply no divine revelation, no
announcement of the deity in the unit 3:1–6 without this
declaration. What has created some confusion is that the
author of the unit in 3:1–6 has combined two different
models for his revelation, the one taken from Josh 5:13–15,
the other from Gen 46:2–4, and it is the interweaving of
these two that has created the impression of a combination
of independent sources. Nevertheless, the whole unit in
Exod 3:1–6 belongs to the same hand. Once it is admitted
that 3:6 is integral to the unit, there is no need to see any of
the references to the god of the patriarchs in the rest of the
chapter as secondary. To do so is quite arbitrary.
I do not need to examine the rest of the call narrative in
Exod 3–4, since it has been treated by Thomas Dozeman,
who has given considerable space to my views and who
appears to be in substantial agreement with them. Yet
Dozeman, who regards the story of the commission of
Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18 as a pre-P composition closely
connected to Genesis, is reluctant to call this work J
because of its associations with the Documentary
Hypothesis, although he has no such qualms about the use
of P. Instead, he prefers to follow the example of Blum and
use a term such as “D History” because it has a “similar
outlook to the Book of Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomistic History, although each body of literature
undergoes a distinct history of composition.”374 But surely
this terminology becomes more confusing than helpful,
because it could easily be taken as part of D or Dtr, which it
is not. The very fact that it incorporates into the history of
Israel the patriarchal traditions, creating a whole new
understanding of Israelite-Jewish identity, demands that it
be recognized as a distinct literary work. The term Yahwist
and its former equivalents have a long pedigree in historical
criticism as a way of recognizing a corpus of texts distinct
from P, and I see no good reason for replacing it with
Genesis” above, p. 124 [§3.3].
374 . Quoted from his discussion of the “D History” in his
forthcoming commentary on Exodus, which he has shared with me. See
also idem, “Geography and Ideology in the Wilderness Journey from
Kadesh through the Transjordan,” in Gertz et al., Abschied vom
Jahwisten, 173–89.
 VAN SETERS: REPORT OF THE YAHWIST’S DEMISE 201

another designation, such as KD or D History, which to my

mind creates greater misunderstanding and confusion. The
Yahwist, as a quite exceptional author and historian within
the biblical texts, remains well and strong and will endure
for some time to come.
 What Is RequIRed to IdentIfy PRe-PRIestly
naRRatIve ConneCtIons betWeen GenesIs and

exodus? some GeneRal RefleCtIons and sPeCIfIC

Cases*
David M. Carr

The essays under consideration here deal with one of the

most interesting and significant problems in pentateuchal
scholarship: the question of when and how the ancestral
and Moses-exodus traditions were joined into a single
literary whole. In the past, scholars have focused overly
much on subtle distinctions between purported J and E
documents interwoven with each other throughout the
Pentateuch, distinctions so subtle, in fact, that many, if not
most, pentateuchal specialists no longer see them.
Meanwhile, thanks in large part to work by scholars such as
Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard Blum, Konrad Schmid, Thomas
Römer, and more recent authors surveyed by Thomas
Römer and Thomas Dozeman in this volume, it is becoming
increasingly clear that there is another more obvious and
important set of divisions between sources of the
Pentateuch, that is, the divisions separating the major non-
Priestly sections from each other: primeval history, Jacob,
Joseph and Moses-exodus stories.
Of course, older transmission-historical studies also
talked of these divisions between blocks of the Pentateuch,
but most such earlier studies (e.g., Noth) argued that the
marked difference between, say, the Jacob traditions and
the Moses traditions resulted from their oral prehistory. The
contribution of more recent studies is to suggest that many
dimensions of the present Pentateuch, particularly the non-
Priestly materials, are best explained through hypotheses
about the joining of more fixed, probably written versions of
these separate sections of
204 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

*As is true for several other essays in this volume, this one was
presented in abbreviated form in the Pentateuch Section at the 2004
Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting. I thank the panelists and
participants in that section for their comments. In addition, I am grateful
to Erhard Blum for providing extensive, very helpful critical feedback on
my earlier work on this essay.

-159 -
the Pentateuch. Thus Jan Christian Gertz can report in his
essay, and not with out reason, that “it is widely
acknowledged that the patriarchal narratives and exodus
story were originally transmitted separately.”
That said, let us be clear on what is under discussion
here. Jan Christian Gertz cites me (and Christoph Levin) as
“proponents of the yahwist thesis.” But I am not the
proponent of any “yahwist” that would have been
recognizable as such to wellhausen, Gunkel, Noth, or
others. After all, I, like many, if not most, specialists
working on pentateuchal formation now, do not recognize
an “Elohist” counterpart to the older “yahwist.” 375 whatever
pre-Priestly proto-Pentateuch I would consider would be
one that contains texts once assigned to J and E.
furthermore, I am inclined to date any non-P proto-
Pentateuch no earlier than the late preexilic or (more likely)
exilic period. My pre-Priestly “proto-Pentateuch” is close to
the older J neither in contents or context. The only way I am
a proponent of a “yahwist” is if one reduces the definition of
such a document as Jan Christian Gertz does to those who
posit a “running strand of pre-Priestly material in the
tetrateuch.” That definition, however, makes the term
“yahwist” so different from the older use of the term as to
make it functionally nonusable. In fact, no one on this panel,
so far as I know, advocates a yahwist recognizably like the J
of studies up through the 1970s.376 The question under

375 . though a few scholars continue to maintain the existence of an

“E” of some sort (e.g., horst Seebass, werner h. Schmidt, and Axel
Graupner in Bonn, Germany; Richard Elliott friedman and Robert Coote
in the U.S.A.; Sean McEvenue in Canada; and Ernest Nicholson in
Britain), the contents of this E (aside from a few key texts, e.g., Gen 20–
22* and parts of 28:10–22) are so varied as to make use of the common
term E relatively meaningless.
376 . though John Van Seters still claims the term “yahwist” for such
a non-J document (and Christoph Levin has used the term “Jahwist” for a
substantially different body of material), I think it is misleading to
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 205

discussion here is whether there once was some kind of pre-

Priestly Pentateuch. But then “farewell to the pre-Priestly
Pentateuch?” does not have the ring to it that “farewell to
the yahwist?” does, so I will move on.

1. Parallels and Differences between the Papers

Looking at the group of essays, the most prominent
division is that between the paper by Dozeman and those by
Römer, Schmid, Gertz, and Blum. The latter four summarize
central arguments against the idea of a pre-Priestly
Pentateuch, while Dozeman provides arguments for that
idea.
I turn first to similarities and differences between the
essays by Blum,
Römer, Schmid, and Gertz. These essays raise a number of
observations that will be familiar to those who have
followed french- and German-language pen tateuchal
scholarship in recent years but may be unfamiliar to others.
In this context, the essay by Römer, along with the first
major subsection of Dozeman’s essay, provides a useful
overview of the diversity of past depictions of the yahwist,
along with some early precursors to the idea that the
ancestral and Moses traditions only came together at a late
point.
Meanwhile, the papers by Blum, Schmid, and Gertz
summarize some of the textual arguments against the idea
of a pre-Priestly Pentateuch. Blum’s essay both summarizes
and revises some earlier proposals he made regarding the
extent of the pre-P Pentateuch. whereas in his earlier
Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch he argued for the
idea that Exod 3:1–4:18 (except for a post-P insertion
regarding Aaron in 4:13–18) were an insertion by a “KD”
author who worked across both Genesis and the Moses
story, this essay represents his more recent views (already
expressed in his 2002 Abschied vom Jahwisten essay) that
only Exod 3 can be assigned to the KD author (4:1–18 is
now all a post-P insertion) and this KD author was
exclusively focused on the Moses story. his arguments for
the post-Priestly character of 4:1–18 are quite similar to

conduct the discussion under the heading of advocates or critics of the

idea of a “yahwist.”
206 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

those advanced by Schmid, Gertz, and others, as Blum

acknowledges. he diverges from them on two main points:
his contention that Exod 3 is pre-Priestly (Gertz and Schmid
take it as post-Priestly) and that it is focused exclusively on
the Moses story (Gertz and Schmid take it as focused on
both Genesis and the Moses story).
Then he goes on to focus on the transition between Genesis
and Exodus, arguing (following Gertz and diverging from
his own earlier work) that Gen 50:25–26 is the only possible
non-Priestly transition from Genesis to Exodus and that
these verses are inextricably connected to the transition
from Joshua to Judges in Josh 24 and Judg 2:6–10, a
transition that in turn is post-Priestly. Blum’s arguments
throughout are focused on the internal connections and
cross-references within the passages themselves.
Central to Schmid and Gertz’s arguments is the (older)
observation of a sharp divide in conceptuality and ideology
surrounding Egypt in the Joseph and Exodus stories: in
Genesis the land of Egypt is a place of relative refuge, while
in Exodus it becomes a place of genocide and oppression.
Indeed, they argue that the biblical tradents themselves
saw this divide and felt a need to bridge it by adding the
comment in Exod 1:8 that the pharaoh of Moses’s time was
different from that of Joseph’s. furthermore, Schmid and
Gertz argue that the other texts that link the ancestors and
exodus materials are very few (e.g., Gen 15:13–16; 46:1–5;
Exod 1:6, 8; also Gen 33:19; 50:25–26; Exod 13:19; Josh
24:32) and that all these texts are post-Priestly. They reject
other proposed links between the ancestor and Moses
stories as insufficiently explicit, particularly when compared
with the highly systematic Priestly coordination of those
periods. Indeed, P is the orientation point for both analyses:
setting the standard by which non-Priestly cross-references
qualify or fall short of qualifying as suf ficient to establish a
connection between these portions of the Pentateuch. for
example, both Gertz and Schmid argue that Priestly
promises of multiplication and reports of multiplication
correspond far more closely with each other than the non-
Priestly promise of multiplication in Gen 12:2 corresponds
with the report of multiplication (in Pharaoh’s speech) in
Exod 1:9. They take this lack of a Priestly-level of
correspondence as evidence that Gen 12:2 and Exod 1:9 are
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 207

part of quite different literary levels. In sum, for Schmid

and Gertz, P is the standard against which potential non-P
connections between the ancestors and Moses are
measured, and both find the non-P connections either are
datable to a post-Priestly layer or fail to be as explicit as P.
yet despite the similarities between these two essays, there
are some dif-
ferences. Schmid’s essay provides more of an overview of
the chief arguments for these shared positions, and it
makes more claims about the implications of this model for
the history of Israelite religion. Gertz’s essay explores the
join between Genesis and Exodus in more detail,
reconstructing the transition in P and critiquing attempts by
me and others to argue that there was a pre-Priestly bridge.
Notably, Gertz’s P still has a concluding Joseph story, while
Schmid’s essay attempts, building on a proposal by de Pury,
to reconstruct a version of P that lacked such a Joseph story.
Schmid’s “P” moved directly from the Jacob story (including
his descent into Egypt) to the story of Moses. This results
for Schmid in a reconstruction of the Priestly bridge
between Genesis and Exodus that is significantly different
from that seen in Gertz.
Meanwhile, Dozeman’s paper compares the genre and
motifs of the non-P and P versions of Moses’s call, arguing
that—contra Schmid and Gertz in particular—the non-P
version of Moses’ call predates the P version rather than
vice versa. If Dozeman is further correct in arguing that the
non-P version of Moses’ call links to the ancestral tradition
(cf. Blum’s essay translated in this volume), then this would
represent a major piece of evidence for the idea of a pre-
Priestly Pentateuch and we would not be saying “farewell to
this [so-called] yahwist” after all. Dozeman, however, is
cautious in making broader claims on the basis of his
analysis of the call of Moses (along with some comments on
the Red Sea narrative). Rather, he raises some thoughtful
questions toward the end of his paper, particularly one
regarding distinctions in genre that is akin to concerns I
have about using P as the standard against which non-P is
measured.

2. P and Different Models for the Joining of traditions

208 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

Schmid and Gertz agree that the linkage between

different blocks can only be established by explicit forward-
and back-references within a given stratum of biblical
tradition. for them, the starting point is that the texts are
separate
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 209

until “proven combined” (to echo the famous “innocent until

proven guilty” dictim). yet we do not, in fact, have separate
texts but combined texts in our present Bible, and nothing
else is documented in manuscripts. Indeed, even once one
has distinguished P and non-P texts, there is, at minimum,
some narrative continuity in non-P texts, conceptual shifts
regarding Egypt (cf. Exod 1:8) notwithstanding. The
ancestors succeed one another living in the land, with
Jacob-Israel eventually descending into Egypt (though cf.
Schmid on this latter point), and the Moses-exodus story
picks up with a people of “Israel” who start on their way
back to the land. we have non-P materials that move from
the one epoch to the other. Therefore, one could respond,
the texts of the given non-P stratum are “connected until
proven separate.” Neither approach per se is preferable
(assuming connection or disconnection), except insofar as
we happen to have the combined pentateuchal traditions in
hand, rather than the separate ones.
But say we grant, as I would, that the ancestral
traditions were once separate from the Moses traditions,
how do we conceptualize their joining? Schmid and Gertz
conceive of the movement being from (1) separate
traditions to (2) P’s systematic coordination of them to (3)
various post-Priestly traditions that sometimes provide
additional, explicit cross-references. I suggest, on the
contrary, that the movement was from (1) separate non-P
compositions, to (2) a limited compositional connection of
them with each other, to (3) P’s systematic coordination and
connection of these blocks of tradition with each other. This
latter sequence of gradual movement toward coordination, I
maintain, makes more sense, particularly in light of what
we know about textual growth. This would be an early
correlate to a widespread phenomenon we see in later,
documented redactions of the Pentateuch, where the
tradents that produced the Temple Scroll, 4qRP, and the so-
called “Proto-Samaritan” manuscripts coordinated the
divergent parts of an existing legal corpus with each
other.377 This move toward coordination and harmonization

377 . I discuss this phenomenon and others in semipentateuchal

traditions in David M. Carr, “Method in Determination of Direction of
210 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

of disparate traditions is a characteristic of a time when

such materials have become part of a common Scriptural
corpus, a corpus whose parts must be coordinated. we see a
similar move in the harmonizations and coordinations of
diverse biblical traditions by later interpreters. In this case,
I am suggesting an accelerating process of such
coordination and harmonization in the formation of the
Pentateuch: starting with limited redactional linkage of
originally separate compositions, and accelerating with the
more systematic Priestly joins.
This proposed sequence recognizes that the Priestly
stratum is not typical of other layers of biblical tradition in
crucial respects. This is highlighted by Schmid’s work in
particular. for example, in the Priestly version of Moses’ call
we see explicit linkage to the patriarchs and coordination of
their period with the Mosaic period. So also, he suggests
that in the Priestly concept of the ancestors as “sojourners”
we see an attempt to bridge between the apparent promise
of the land to them and their descendants and the delay of
that promise that is produced when their story is prefixed to
that of the exodus and wilderness. And I have already
mentioned how Gertz and Schmid’s essays both find that
the mention of Israel’s multiplication in Exod 1:9 is
insufficiently similar in wording to the promise of
multiplication in Gen 12:2, especially when compared with
the close agreement of the Priestly report of multiplication
(Exod 1:7) and various Priestly mentions of multiplication in
Genesis (1:28; 9:7; 17:2). Overall, the Priestly tradents
appear to have been far more concerned than others in
establishing symmetry and terminological correspondence
between different parts. whether one understands the non-P
materials as part of a pre-Priestly or post-Priestly
Pentateuch, the Priestly tradents contrast with them in
showing an unusually high level of concern for periodization
of early Israelite history and coordination of parts with it.

Dependence: An Empirical test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26

and Its Parallels,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34
und Dtn 9–10 (ed. M. Köckert and E. Blum; Veröffentlichungen der
wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für theologie 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 2001), 107–40.
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 211

Therefore, precisely building on these insights by

Schmid and others, we should be wary of using connections
in the Priestly material as our norm for evaluating
connections in non-P biblical traditions. Indeed, if it were
true that the joining of these traditions was gradual, then
we would not be surprised to find a more systematic joining
of ancestor and Moses-exodus stories in P than in a
prePriestly Pentateuch that preceded it, especially if that
pre-Priestly Pentateuch was itself the product of a late
combination of ancestral and exodus traditions.

3. Potential Pre-Priestly Connections between the

Ancestral and Moses Stories
Let us turn now to look at potential pre-Priestly links of
the ancestral and Moses-exodus stories. for now I will avoid
focusing on those texts, such as Gen 15:13–16, that many in
the current debate agree are post-Priestly. Moreover, I will
not review potential connections to the exodus in texts such
as the hagarIshmael story in Gen 16:1–14*, partly because
it is not clear how these links require a literary continuation
of the story into the non-Priestly tetrateuch. Rather,
following on work in my book Reading the Fractures of
Genesis and an essay in a Leuven Conference volume, I
want briefly to point to several elements, particularly
concentrated in the Abraham story, that appear to be
shaped to lead into the non-Priestly exodus story found in
Exodus.378 These linkages are not of the character of P’s
explicit coordination of different periods. Neither are they
explicit cross-references of the sort seen in Gen 15 or
strings of connected texts such as the notices about
Joseph’s bones (Gen 33:19; 50:25–26; Exod 13:19; Josh
24:32). Nevertheless, the Abraham and exodus portions of

378 . David M. Carr, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story:

Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives,” in Studies in the Book of
Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. wénin; BEtL 155;
Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 2001), 273–95. the
contributions to this volume by Schmid and Gertz both focus primarily on
critiquing my treatment in this Leuven essay of Gen 12:10–20 and 16:1–
14*, by-passing the arguments regarding travel commands summarized
below.
212 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

the non-Priestly Pentateuch are linked by more than mere

similarities in yahwistic vocabulary or the like. I will focus
on two sets of connections here.
One example is a network of travel commands and
promises spanning Genesis that link Gen 46:1–5 to the story
of Moses and the Israelites in Egypt. Each of these speeches
is a divine speech relating to travel into or out of the
promised land. Their similarities and differences are
indicated in the following table:

table 1: the Network of travel Commands

(brackets indicate placement out of order)
Gen 12:1–2 Gen 26:2–3 Gen Gen 46:3b–4
31:3aβb
)ryt-l) hdrm
Kl-Kl drt-l) hmyrcm hmyrcm
Kcr)m Cr)-l) bw#
Cr)b Nk# Kytwb)
Ktdlwmmw Kyl) rm) r#) t)zh
Kyb) tybmw Cr)b rwg Ktdlwmlw
Km( hyh)w Km( dr) ykn)]
Cr)h-l) [hmyrxm
K)r) r#) Km( hyh)w lwdg ywgl-
yk
K#()w Kkrb)w M# Kmy#)
lwdg ywgl
Kkrb)w
Km# K(rzlw Kl-yk
hldg)w .hkrb -t) Nt) Kl() ykn)w hl(-
hyhw l)h tcr)h-lk Mg
Note the particular parallels in the above table between
the commands to Abraham and Jacob to travel into the land
(Gen 12:1–2//31:3aβb), and the commands to Isaac and
Jacob about travel out of the land (Gen 26:2–3//46:3b– 4).
Although these commands and associated promises often
have been assigned to different layers—especially Gen
46:1–5 versus the others—they represent a remarkably
cohesive and balanced system leading from the patriarchs
outside of Egypt to the stay in Egypt and the trip back out. I
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 213

will return to the case of Gen 46:1–5 toward the end of this
response.
The other set of links between the non-Priestly
narratives of the patriarchs and the Moses story is a set of
terminologically linked stories of destruction in Genesis that
build on God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 12:2–3 and
correspond to two texts in Exodus: the commissioning of
Moses to initiate the exodus in Exod 3:1–4:18 and the final
stage of the exodus out of Egypt at the
Non-P flood Sodom Exodus
Sections (*) (Gen 6–8*) (Gen 18:16– (Exod 3–
19:38*) 4*, 14*)
God 6:5 18:20 3:7, 9
sees/hears
that suffering
or evil is
6:5 13:13; 19:7, 9
“great” hbr
Problem is
“evil” (h(r; and 18:20–21; 19:13 3:9
related roots)
God hears “cry” 18:21 3:8
(hq(z)
7:1–4 19:13 3:1–4:17
God descends
God tells 7:1–4 19:11–12 3:16–4:17
righteous (14:13–14)
God provides
escape 7:7 (cf. 7:1) 19:15–23 14:21–27
instructions
Righteous are 7:22–23aα (cf. 19:24 (“rain” 14:21–27
saved 7:4) of fire)
Destruction (by
water)
Red Sea (Exod 14:1–31).
214 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

One could explain away the above network of similar

themes and motifs in the three stories as chance overlaps.
Nevertheless, when read together, these stories of
destruction and rescue show a strikingly similar theological
innovation: the extension of ideas of a god’s triumph over
waters (or watery monsters) at creation (e.g., Job 38:8–11;
Pss 89:9–10; 104:5–9; 146:5–6; cf. re-creation in Gen 6–8*)
to encompass traditions surrounding the origins of Israel
(e.g., Abraham and exodus). The other place where we see
this sequence of motifs established is in Second Isaiah (e.g.,
Isa 51:9–11), and there is a good chance that the non-P
pentateuchal connections under discussion here are from a
similar time.
to be sure, the above-outlined networks of thematically and
terminologi-
cally connected narratives are not explicit cross-references
as in the P materials. Nevertheless, they are central ways in
which the existing non-Priestly pentateuchal narratives
connect the ancestral stories to the exodus. These networks
of connections go beyond isolated parallels in terminology
(e.g,. lexica of a “yahwist”) or exodus-like structure (e.g.,
Gen 16:1–14*). Instead, they reflect a compositional
sequence that leads from Abraham to the exodus under
Moses. Contra Gertz, they cannot be explained away as
attempts to reclaim the exodus tradition for the patriarchs.
Rather, they are proto-exodus elements whose full import is
not grasped until one gets to the exodus narrative itself.
Only there does the Jacob/Israel who hears about Egypt in
Genesis become a people. Only there is the God with salvific
power over waters conclusively revealed in a triumph that
uses the waters of the Red Sea.

4.A Pre-Priestly Bridge between Genesis and Exodus

Schmid, Gertz, and Blum devote significant attention to
disproving the idea of a non-Priestly bridge between
Genesis and Exodus, so in fairness to them, I will also
address these arguments.
Prior to detailed engagement with individual cases, the
first thing to be remembered is that it is easily possible that
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 215

the conflation of this portion of two proto-Pentateuchs could

have preserved material from one transition and completely
eliminated the transition in the other. All documented cases
of conflation involve selective use of both source traditions,
and it appears in Genesis as if the R p redactor did eliminate
non-Priestly transitions between the patriarchs in favor of
Priestly ones. In light of this, anyone who assumes that
there must be both P and non-P elements in the transition
between Genesis and Exodus is mistaken about the literary
process of conflation. This kind of consideration becomes a
factor in Gertz’s argumentation when he argues that
Joseph’s announcement of his death in Gen 50:24 cannot be
pre-Priestly because he cannot find a corresponding pre-
Priestly death notice. Generally, people only die once in
narratives, including in biblical narratives, so it would be
the exception rather than the rule for a conflation to include
both a Priestly and non-Priestly report of Joseph’s death.
That said, I will argue here that there are indications of
a pre-Priestly bridge between the non-Priestly Joseph story
and the non-Priestly Moses-exodus story. Like Schmid and
Gertz, I take the following to be P or post-P materials: Gen
50:12–13, 22–23, 26a; Exod 1:1–5a, 7; I agree that Gen
50:15–21 probably is part of the conclusion to an earlier
non-P Joseph story (though cf. Schmid on the latter point).
My main points of disagreement with Schmid, Gertz, and
Blum are the following: whether the notice of Joseph’s
return to Egypt in Gen 50:14a is a fragment of P and
whether all of Gen 50:24–25 and Exod 1:6, 8 must be part of
the post-P redactional layer.

5.Genesis 50:14
Genesis 50:14 is important in this discussion because it
is usually treated as part of the pre-Priestly conclusion to
the Joseph story, a conclusion that moves Joseph and his
brothers back to Egypt after burying their father in Canaan:
“and Joseph returned to Egypt, he and his brothers and all
who went up to bury his father, after burying his father.”
Though a narrative about the exodus out of Egypt is not
required as a follow-up to this return to Egypt, Gen 50:14
216 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

does create room for one to happen. yet if Gen 50:14 is

identified as Priestly or later, then a form of the non-Priestly
Joseph story ends with all the brothers in Canaan. They
need not leave Egypt for the land because they are already
there.
yet neither Schmid nor Gertz is able to marshal
persuasive arguments for identifying Gen 50:14 as a later
addition. The primary datum with which they work is a
putative conflict between references to Jacob’s burial in
Gen 50:(12–13 P)14 and the brothers’ “seeing” that their
father is dead in 50:15. Gertz argues that the brothers
would not just be realizing that their father was dead if they
recently had completed an extended trip to Canaan to bury
him. Since Gen 50:15 is generally agreed to be part of the
early conclusion to the Joseph story, Gen 50:14 must be
later (so Schmid and Gertz). yet there is no need to follow
this argumentation. within the narrative world of Gen 50,
there is no reason why the brothers would not “see,” in the
wake of Jacob’s burial, that their father was dead and
attempt to protect themselves by making claims to Joseph
about Jacob’s last wishes (50:15–18). In addition, the
narrator may presuppose that such an interaction would be
unlikely before the time of mourning and burial was
complete. In any case, although there are signs in the
manuscript tradition that parts of 50:14 may be later
(50:14b is missing in the Old Greek), there is no reason to
suppose that the beginning of the verse comes from a layer
other than that of Gen 50:15–21, which is part of the
nonPriestly Joseph story.
Even if Schmid and Gertz are right in supposing that
Gen 50:14 is later than the surrounding non-Priestly texts,
there is no reason to conclude that it is Priestly or later.
Gertz assigns 50:14 to P because he assumes that someone
expanding the non-Priestly narrative would have added
such a notice of return to the end of the Joseph story, not
earlier in the story’s conclusion. The unusual position of
Gen 50:14a, Gertz maintains, is a result of it being a part of
the Priestly burial report that begins in 50:12 and concludes
with a notice of the return in 50:14a. According to Gertz,
this Priestly section (Gen 50:12–14a) was inserted as a
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 217

block into the surrounding non-Priestly material, with

50:14b added later to smooth the transition. yet contra
Gertz, we see many occasions in which redactors add
notices in the middle (not end) of sections—including his
own supposition of a post-Priestly addition in 50:14b.
Therefore, even if 50:14a was later, it still could be a pre-
Priestly expansion of the Joseph narrative. Moreover,
Gertz’s assignment of 50:14a to P creates its own problems.
It means that P now has a strange transition from a focus
on all the brothers in 50:12–13 to Joseph in 50:14a. This
clash was noticed by previous source critics. Indeed, this
clash is part of what prompted them to assign 50:12–13 to P
and 50:14a to non-Priestly sources.
In sum, the report of Joseph and his brothers’ return to
Egypt in Gen 50:14a is probably part of the early Joseph
story, and even if it were not, there is no sign it was once
part of P or a later layer.

6. Genesis 50:24–25
Gertz and Schmid are in more company in assigning
50:24–25 to a post-P redactor. Gertz asserts: “V. fritz has
demonstrated the dependency of this verse on the burial
traditions for Abraham in Gen 25:9 and Jacob in Gen 50:13
as well as the depiction of Abraham purchasing the cave of
Machpelah in Gen 23.” yet fritz himself in his commentary
on Joshua actually assigns 50:24–25 and related
pentateuchal notices to E, and he merely suggests that the
final burial notice for Joseph in Josh 24:32 “could be traced
to the interests of a post-Priestly redactor” (“könnte die
Anfügung von 32 auf das Interesse des
nachpriesterschriftlichen Redaktors zurückgehen”).379 why
does fritz suggest this? Because he thinks that it is in the P
tradition of Machpelah that we first see the idea of the
burial of the patriarchs in land that is purchased. This
reasoning by fritz, however, is weak. If there is a direction
of dependence, it could as easily move in the reverse
direction: dependence of P on the non-P traditions

379 . Volkmar fritz, Das Buch Josua (hAt 1/7; tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1994), 251.
218 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

surrounding burial at Shechem beginning in Gen 33:19 and

concluding with Josh 24:32. Nevertheless, such a
relationship of dependence is highly unclear in any case,
since there are no specific connections between the
tradition about Joseph’s bones and the P traditions of burial
at Machpelah.380
Gertz argues further that Gen 50:24–25, which starts
with a reference to Joseph’s death, must be post-Priestly
because that reference to Joseph’s death now stands in a
chiastic relation with a Priestly death notice for Joseph in
50:26a. Gertz outlines the chiastically related elements as
follows:381

A tm ykn) 50:24aβ (non-P)

B t)zh Cr)h-Nm Mkt) hl(hw Mkt) dqpy dqp

Myhl)w
50:24bα (non-P)

C bq(ylw qxcyl Mhrb)l (b#n r#) Cr)h-l)

50:24bβ (non-P)

B hzm ytmc(-t) Mtl(hw Mkt) Myhl) dqpy dqp

50:25b (non-P)

A Pswy tmyw 50:26aα (P)

380 . the idea of claiming land through burial of ancestors in it that is

found in both texts is a widespread, cross-culturally attested idea. for
discussion of reflection of these practices in the later D and P traditions
of ancient Israel, see Brian Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor
Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (fAt 11;
tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 278–80, 291. Cross-cultural theories
regarding claims to land through burial of ancestors go back to the
classic nineteenth-century work, fustel de Coulanges, La cité antique
(Paris: Librairie hachette, 1883) [thanks to Brian Schmidt for this
reference].
381 . Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der
Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch
(fRLANt 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 261.
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 219

As is evident from the diagram, the elements that

correspond between nonP (Gen 50:24) and P (Gen 50:26)
are quite slight (Pswy tmyw/tm ykn)), and these texts link
different sorts of materials: Joseph’s prediction of his death
and the narrator’s report of it. In contrast, the most specific
and extensive chiastic connections occur exclusively within
the speech of Gen 50:24–25, binding Joseph’s speech in 24
with his oath in 25.382 So why would there now be both
correspondences within Joseph’s two speeches and one
between Joseph’s prediction of his death (non-P) and the
report of it (Gen 50:26a, P)? Perhaps the latter phenomenon
is best explained as a result of the confluence toward the
end of the Joseph story of various traditions surrounding
Joseph’s death: the prediction of it, preparations, and the
death itself. Indeed, it is hard to know where else the R p
redactor could or would have placed a Priestly death notice
for Joseph (50:26aα) other than after Joseph’s chiastically
bound speeches in 50:24–25 anticipating his death,
especially since the verses are constructed as a chiasm.
That such placement extended the Gen 50:24–25 chiasm a
bit further would have been an added benefit.383
The discussion of Gen 50:24–25 would not be complete
without addressing Erhard Blum’s somewhat different
arguments in recent publications, including the essay for
this volume, for the post-Priestly character of 50:24–25.
Earlier he had assigned these verses to a pre-Priestly
Deuteronomistic compositional layer,384 but in 1990 he
argued for the post-Priestly character of 50:25, 385 and in his
most recent publications he has assigned 50:24–26 as a

382 . See Norbert Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid: Eine Studie
zu Gn 15 (SBS 28; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967), 23 n. 43. Cf.
Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Väter-geschichte (wMANt 57;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 255, who saw a chiastic link
within these speeches between Joseph’s announcement of his death in
50:24ab and his reference toward the end of 50:25 to his “bones” (ytmc().
383 . Below I argue that Exod 1:6a is a probable pre-Priestly death
notice for Joseph, so the 50:24–25 chiasm may have concluded with that
one before the Rp redactor’s intervention.
384 . Blum, Vätergeschichte, 255–57, 392.
385 . Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAw
189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 363–65.
220 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

whole to a postPriestly hexateuchal redaction, which

developed parallel transitions from the patriarchal period to
the exodus generation (Gen 50:24–25; Exod 1:6, 8; the
latter modeled on Judg 2:6–8) and from the time of Joshua
to that of the Judges (Josh 24:29–32; a text also modeled on
Judg 2:6–8).386 yet building on Gertz’s observation about the
potentially “tragikomik” character of a transition that leads
straight from Joseph’s announcement of his own death to
his brothers (Gen 50:24–25) to the death of both Joseph and
his brothers (Exod 1:6),387 Blum concludes that Gen 50:24–
25; Exod 1:6, 8 presuppose the intervening Priestly material
in Exod 1:1–5a, 7*. This concurs with his conclusions that
Josh 24 also presupposes the entire P/non-P Pentateuch,
with the wording in Josh
24:6 paralleling that of the Priestly account of the Reed Sea
in Exod 12:23.388 Much depends here, however, on two
elements: the mention of the death of Joseph’s brothers in
Exod 1:6aα and the question of whether Josh 24:6 is a
sufficient basis for a post-Priestly dating of the chapter as a
whole. I will return to the topic of Exod 1:6a α shortly. for
now, I would simply note that Josh 24:6 is a weak hook on
which to hang a post-Priestly dating of Josh 24 and
associated texts. As fritz notes, Josh 24:6–7a α diverges from
the rest of Joshua’s speech in speaking of those in history
not as “you” (plural; see 24:5, 8, 9, 10, 11, etc.) but in the
third person as “your fathers,” an indicator that suggests
that this section may be a later expansion of Josh 24, an
expansion harmonizing this part of Josh 24 with the existing
P/non-P narrative of the Reed Sea.389

386 . See, for example, his “Die literarische Verbindung von

Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren
Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition
des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAw
315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 150–51; idem, “Der kompositionelle
Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag,”
in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W.
Brekelmans (ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BEtL 133; Leuven: Leuven
University Press; Peeters, 1997), 202, and his essay within the current
volume.
387 . Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 360.
388 . Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten,” 197.
389 . fritz, Das Buch Josua, 238.
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 221

In sum, there is little to establish that Joseph’s

anticipation of the exodus in Gen 50:24–25 is post-Priestly.
It could be a later addition to the non-Priestly transition
between Genesis and Exodus, but no one has yet given
decisive reasons for identifying this section as Priestly or
later. It remains a possible prePriestly link between the
ancestral and Moses stories.

7. Exodus 1:8(–9)
Exodus 1:8 is also a potential pre-Priestly bridge
between Genesis and Exodus. It is particularly important,
because it appears crafted to explain the massive shift in
the picture of Egypt from Genesis to Exodus: “A new king
arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph.” Schmid and
Gertz argue that the verse is post-Priestly primarily because
its continuation, the pharaoh’s speech in Exod 1:9 ( wnmm
Mwc(w br l)r#y ynb M( hnh) presupposes the narrator’s report
of multiplication in Exod 1:7 and supposedly appropriates
Priestly language of multiplication from that verse ( d)mb
wmc(yw wbryw wcr#yw wrp l)r#y ynbw d)m ) while deviating
considerably from the original non-Priestly promise of
multiplication to Abraham in Gen 12:2 ( lwdg ywgl K#()w). yet
here again the arguments do not hold up under scrutiny. In
another context I have pointed out that Pharaoh’s report of
multiplication in Exod 1:9 need not be preceded by a
narrator’s report of such multiplication in Exod 1:7. Biblical
narrators often communicate information by way of
character speeches, and Exod 1:9 could be an example of
that.390 furthermore, as Blum has pointed out, the wording
of Exod 1:7 is not typically Priestly, but a combination of
non-Priestly wording from Exod 1:9 and Priestly wording
known elsewhere.391 This can be seen through a comparison
of Exod 1:7 with Priestly and nonPriestly contexts:

P
Gen 1:28 Cr)h-t) w)lmw wbrw wrp

390 . Carr, “Genesis and Moses,” 291.

391 . Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 148.
222 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

Gen 9:7 hb-wbrw Cr)b wcr# wbrw wrp

Gen 17:2 d)m d)mb Ktw) hbr)w
D/Non-P
Exod 1:9 wnmm Mwc(w br l)r#y ynb M( hnh
Deut 7:1 Kmm Mymwc(w Mybr Mywg … l#nw Deut
9:14 wnmm brw Mwc(-ywgl Ktw) h#()w
Deut 26:5 brw Mwc( lwdg ywgl M#-yhyw
Exod 1:7
d)m d)mb wmc(yw wbryw wcr#yw wrp Mt)
Cr)h )lmtw
As this comparison shows, the use of Mc( in Exod 1:7
distinguishes it from its Priestly parallels and links it to
Exod 1:9 and other non-Priestly texts. If there is any
direction of influence, it would appear to be from the typical
non-P description of multiplication in Exod 1:9 to the
blended P/non-P-like description of multiplication in Exod
1:7, not the other way around. Exodus 1:9 is closely linked
to non-Priestly parallels and distinguished from its Priestly
analogues in its use of Mc( and its use of br as an adjective
(rather than the verbal br).
In sum, Exod 1:9 shows no signs of post-Priestly
authorship, nor does the crucial transition under discussion
in Exod 1:8. Contra Schmid and Gertz, Exod 1:9 does not
presuppose or borrow from Exod 1:7. Rather the
expressions in Exod 1:7 represent a melding of non-Priestly
language of the sort seen in Exod 1:9 with more typically
priestly language such as that seen in Gen 1:28; 9:7. In this
sense, we probably do see in Exod 1:7 a sign of Priestly
“redaction.”

Exodus 1:6
The last potential pre-Priestly bridge from ancestors to
Moses is Exod 1:6, the notice of the death of Joseph, his
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 223

brothers, and their entire generation. In the past, Nöldeke’s

classic discussion of P along with several other studies
identified all of Exod 1:6 as part of the pre-Priestly
transition from Genesis to Exodus. Nevertheless, over the
years, a number of scholars, such as M. Noth, have
assigned the verse or part of it to P or R p. This approach
was given an added impetus in 1997 by h.-C. Schmitt, who
argued in detail that the notice of the death of Joseph and
all his brothers in Exod 1:6 linked far better to the Priestly
listing of Joseph and his brothers in Exod 1:1–5 than to the
preceding non-P material,392 and Jan Christian Gertz
expanded on and affirmed this argumentation in his 1990
book, pointing out, as mentioned above, the incongruity of
having Joseph’s brothers die (Exod 1:6) immediately after
promising to bring Joseph’s bones up from Egypt (Gen
50:25).393 Nevertheless, as many have observed before,
there are problems with assigning Exod 1:6 to P as well. 394
Rather, it is probable that Exod 1:6, apart from the mention
of Joseph’s brothers (which links to Priestly elements in
Exod 1:1–5), preserves an earlier notice of the death of
Joseph and his generation. Aside from the mention of
Joseph’s brothers, the notice in Exod 1:6, 8 is parallel to
similar material in Judg 2:8–10:
Exod 1:6, 8 Judg 2:8–10

Pswy tmyw hwhy db( Nwn-Nb (#why tmyw

(6) (8) Myn# r#(w h)m-Nb

[wyx)-lkw] )whh rwdh lkw wytwb)-l) wps)n )whh rwdh-lk Mgw

Myrcm-l( #dx-Kml Mqyw (10) Mhyrx) rx) rwd Mqyw hwhy-t)
(8) Pswy-t) (dy-)l r#) w(dy-)l r#) l)r#yl h#( r#) h#(mh-t)
Mgw
This set of close verbal parallels—with a divergence in
the mention of Joseph’s brothers in Exod 1:6—provides
392 . hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Die Josephsgeschichte und das
deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Genesis 38 und 48–50,” in Vervenne
and Lust, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 393.
393 . Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 360.
394 . for discussion and citations of earlier literature, see werner h.
Schmidt, Exodus (BK 2/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988), 10–11.
224 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

some weight for identifying parts of Exod 1:6 as once being

part of a pre-Priestly transition from ancestors to Moses,
even if the death notice in 1:6 appears to have been
modified through the addition of Joseph’s brothers, thus
linking the verse to the list of them in Exod 1:1–5. however
much writers in the Priestly style have augmented these
transitions in both Genesis-Exodus and Joshua-Judges, the
parallels across Joseph/Joshua’s final speeches (Gen
50:24//Josh 24:1–24), oath ceremonies (Gen 50:25//Josh
24:25–27), deaths (Exod 1:6a*//Judg 2:8a), deaths of their
generation (Exod 1:6b//Judg 2:10a), and rise of a
subsequent generation who does not “know” (Exod
1:8//Judg 2:10b) suggest a pre-Priestly core.395 Indeed, they
are related to each other by way of Joseph’s provisions for
his burial in Gen 50:25 and the execution of it in Josh 24:32,
a linkage that suggests that some of the parallels may have
been created by the same pre-Priestly author—albeit a late
pre-Priestly author—intervening in both loci. On this point,
as well as the links between the Jacob and Joshua Shechem
narratives, the essay by Blum in the present volume is very
helpful, even if I do not agree with him on the post-Priestly
character of these connections.
In the final analysis, however, the argumentation here
does not depend on the acceptance of each part of the pre-
Priestly transition outlined above. It is also possible, of
course, that the Rp redactor—or a post-Priestly “hexateuchal
redactor”—completely eliminated a pre-Priestly transition
from ancestors to Moses, as apparently happened in the
case of some transitions between the patriarchs in Genesis.
Nevertheless, I have attempted to show that the arguments
for the postPriestly authorship of sections such as Gen
50:24–25 and Exod 1:8–9 are not compelling. Instead, at
least some of the non-Priestly verses linking Genesis and
Exodus (Gen 50:24–25; Exod 1:6*, 8–9) were probably part
of a pre-Priestly link between ancestral and Moses
traditions.396
395 . See Blum’s brief discussion of a similar alternative in note 137
of his “Die literarische Verbindung,” 148–49.
396 . Gen 50:14 is not included in this list because it does not
necessarily link literary compositions. It would be easily possible for an
independent Joseph story to end with the return of him and his brothers
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 225

8. Identification of Post-Priestly Material

The above cases are examples of a broader phenomenon
in pentateuchal scholarship where contemporary scholars
too easily have identified swaths of non-Priestly material as
post-Priestly. This is a place where I find Thomas Dozeman’s
contribution to this volume particularly helpful. he provides
good generic grounds for refuting Schmid’s, Gertz’s, and
others’ identification of Exod 3:1–4:17 as post-Priestly.
Responding to Schmid and Gertz, Erhard Blum had already
provided some arguments for regarding the bulk of Exod 3
as prePriestly, even as he moved to assign 4:1–17 to a post-
Priestly layer seen also in Exod 4:27–31 and 18. 397
Nevertheless, Dozeman provides grounds for the
identification of the call narrative in Exod 3:1–4:17 as a
whole as pre-Priestly.
This does not mean, of course, that Exod 3:1–4:17 is of a
piece with the surrounding material. On the contrary, one of
Blum’s main contributions, one picked up by Schmid and
Gertz in different ways, is his expansion of Noth’s
argumentation that Exod 3:1–4:18 represents an insertion
into the surrounding context.398 If (Noth and) Blum is right
about this, we should not be surprised to find that ideas in
3:1–4:18 are not reflected in that context or are reflected
only partially. Moreover, even more than its context, the
insertion could reflect relatively late elements of Israelite
language and ideology. Nevertheless, once one grants the
special character of Exod 3:1–4:18, the arguments for the
postPriestly character of 3:1–4:9 and even 4:10–17 are not
as strong as they first appear. Disjunctions between the
conceptuality of 3:1–4:18 and surrounding non-P material
can be explained by the fact that this insertion represents a
partially executed reconceptualization of the Moses story.
yet as Dozeman has shown, this is not a post-Priestly
reconceptualization. Instead, in every instance where Exod

to Egypt, with the author assuming a knowledge on the part of his

readers of the subsequent Exodus from Egypt.
397 . Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 124–30, and the essay in
the present volume.
398 . Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 20–22, and see
the helpful summary of his arguments in the essay for the present volume.
226 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

3:1–4:18 shows affinities with P, it diverges from it. Though

P picks up on and develops some ideas found in Exod 3:1–
4:18 in distinctive ways (e.g., signs, Aaron), this insertion
into the non-P context, as treated by Dozeman, is probably
prior to P.399
This is significant because parts of this insertion appear
to link the Moses story with the preceding ancestral stories.
Building on earlier studies, Gertz outlined specific parallels
between God’s theophanic appearance to Jacob (Gen 46:2–
4) and the same God’s appearance to Moses (Exod 3:4–8).
These parallels extend beyond mere formal similarities,
such as God’s double address to Jacob and Moses and the
response “here I am” (ynnh; Gen 46:2aβ//Exod 3:4b), God’s
self-introduction as the “god of your father” (Gen
46:3a//Exod 3:6aα), and the generic promise to “go down”
to Egypt and “bring up” Israel from there. 400 what is
important is that these formal parallels occur along with
connections in content. Contra Blum and with Gertz, the
theophany to Jacob in Gen 46:1–5 represents a crucial
anticipation of the exodus story in the ancestral narratives.
It moves in chiastic fashion, from an initial command to the
elderly Jacob not to be afraid of going down into Egypt
(46:3bα) to a final promise that the Joseph he has just heard
about (45:26–28) will close his eyes (46:4b). In between,
God makes a promise of nationhood in 46:3bβ: “I will make
you into a great nation there.” That this promise anticipates

399 . Cf. arguments for the post-P character of Exod 3:1–4:18 in

heinrich Valentin, Aaron: Eine Studie zur vor-priesterschriftlichen Aaron-
Überlieferung (OBO 18; fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 75–81, 96, 101–6; ferdinand Ahuis, Der
klagende Gerichtsprophet: Studien zur Klage in der Überlieferung von
den alttestamentlichen Gerichtspropheten (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1982), 44–
49; Peter weimar, Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche
Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5 (OBO 32; fribourg: Universitätsverlag;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 350–57; Konrad Schmid,
Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten
Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des
Alten Testaments (wMANt 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999),
197–209; Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 27–28; Gertz,
Tradition und Redaktion, 315–18, among others discussed in this essay.
400 . See Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 278–79. In attempting to
refute Gertz, Blum focuses on these in “Die literarische Verbindung,” 232.
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 227

the distant story of the exodus and not Jacob’s own story is
seen from the fact that the Jacob story does not narrate his
becoming a great nation (cf. 46:3b β). Rather, the story of
the exodus develops the divine promise to Jacob in Exod 1:9
with the notice that his family became “a numerous and
great people” (Mwc(w br … M(). furthermore, 46:3bβ is
elaborated—as signalled by asyndesis—by God’s dual
promise in 46:4a to “go down with” Jacob and “bring [him]
up” (hiphil hl(). Once again, the latter part of this promise
relates to a more distant future; God does not bring Jacob
up out of Egypt in Genesis. Instead, this language,
particularly the description of God “bringing up” (hiphil hl()
“from Egypt” is associated with the exodus (e.g., Exod 3:17;
17:3; 32:1–8, 23; 33:1; Lev 11:45; Num 20:5; 21:5; Deut
20:1;
Josh 24:17; 24:32; Judg 2:1; 6:8; Jer 2:6; 11:7; Amos 2:10;
3:1; 9:7; Mic 6:4). Such language in 46:4aβ signals to the
reader that the “bringing up” of “Jacob” will go far beyond
Joseph’s obligation to “bring up” his bones from Egypt (cf.
Gen 50:7–11, 14), and it encompasses God’s “bringing up”
the “great people” that Jacob is to become. In sum, the
speech in Gen 46:3b–4 moves in the following way from
command to two reassuring promises:

I. Command: Do not be afraid of going down to Egypt

46:3bα
II. Reassuring Promises to Reinforce Command
46:3bβ–4
A. Promise 1: Distant future into Exodus
46:3bβ–4a
1. Initial Statement: will make “you” into “great
nation” there 46:3bβ
[Thus: “Jacob” and “the great nation” are made
equivalent]
2. Asyndetically Connected Elaboration: 46:4a a.
“will go down with you” [you=Jacob] 46:4aα
b. “will certainly bring you up” [you=great
nation] 46:4aβ
B. Promise 2: Immediate future of Command—Joseph
46:4b
228 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

In these ways, the core of the promise of Gen 46:1–4

concludes the Genesis series of travel commands and
promises, sharing with all of them a focus on “going into”
and“ coming out of” Egypt, but now linking in more direct
ways with the following story of the exodus.
Meanwhile, the theophany to Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18
implicitly links to promises such as Gen 46:1–4 (and others)
by identifying the God who appears to Moses as the God “of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exod 3:6, 16; 4:5; see also the
insertion in 3:15). Elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Deut 1:8;
6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:20; 34:24; 2 Kgs 13:23; Jer 33:26;
Ps 105:9; 1 Chr 16:16), these three figures are joined
together by one thing: the inheritance of the promise. 401
Moreover, two of the three contexts (outside Exod 3–4)
where the expression “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob” is mentioned (cf. Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5) are in
Chronicles, a composition that clearly presupposes a
completed Pentateuch (1 Chr 29:18; 2 Chr 30:6; cf. also 1
Kgs 18:36).402 whatever the separate history of the
traditions regarding these figures and the relative dating of
the various references to the patriarchs (e.g., Genesis and
Deuteronomy), the indicators both inside and outside of
Genesis suggest that the coordination of these three
personages was built around the idea of a promise that was
shared by them. As a result, the promise is implicitly in play
in the call of Moses in Exod 3:1–4:18, even if it is not
mentioned explicitly. to be sure, God promises in this
narrative to “go down” and “bring up” Israel from Egypt,
having heard their cry (Exod 3:7–8; see also 3:9), but this is
not an alternative explanation for God’s intervention. It
does not stand in place of the promises given to these
figures. Rather, the promise is invoked already through the
mention of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (e.g., Exod 3:16). The
references in Exod 3:7, 9 to God’s perception of Israel’s

401 . their biological-genealogical connection is not unique to them,

since several genealogical sidelines are presupposed as well, e.g., Ishmael
and Esau.
402 . Note that the expression, yhl) … yhl) … yhl) is unique to Exod
3:6, 15, while the other occurences of this phrase all have just one yhl)
(Exod 3:16; 1 Kgs 18:36; 1 Chr 29:18; 2 Chr 30:6).
 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 229

suffering function to explain why God is intervening on

Israel’s behalf at that particular point.
The only way one could take Exod 3:1–22 as not building
on and explicitly linking to narratives such as Gen 46:1–5
would be to treat formal and content elements separately,
as Blum does. But the fact is that these elements occur
together in Exod 3:1–4:17. The combination of verbal,
formal, and substantial connections between the insertion
in Exod 3:1–4:18 and the preceding narratives, especially
Gen 46:1–5 and 50:24, make it quite likely that these texts
in Genesis and Exodus were once part of a common pre-
Priestly narrative that included both ancestors and Moses.
that said, at least something should be said about Gen 46:1–
5, since Gertz and some others would assign it, like many
texts discussed above, to a post-Priestly layer. Gertz does
this based on the argument that Gen 46:1–5 is dependent
on and later than Gen 26:1–5, 24, texts that in turn are
dated by him (building on weimar and Levin) to a post-
Priestly Endredaktion. This dating is based on a supposed
mixture of Priestly and non-Priestly language in Gen 26:3b–
5, especially the expanded description of Abraham’s
obedience in 26:5b, and on affinities between Gen 26:3b–5
and another late addition to the Abraham story, Gen 22:15–
18.403 yet on closer examination, the terminological
indicators of a post-Priestly dating of Gen 26:3b–5, 24 and
46:1–5 are slight and not decisive. The mere presence of a
common word or phrase between a text in Genesis and one
in Chronicles or a portion of P is hardly a basis for
postPriestly dating of the Genesis text.404 Post-Priestly
403 . See Peter weimar, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte
des Pentateuch (BZAw 146; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 82–84 (who adds
some weaker arguments regarding wording in 26:3b, 4b); and Christoph
Levin, Der Jahwist (fRLANt 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993), 205–6 (who finds that the reference to Abraham as “servant of
yhwh” and the rest of 26:24 sounds “Deutero-Isaianic”). In actuality,
though cited in support by Gertz (277 n. 203), Claus westermann only
identifies one word in Gen 46:3, t)or:ma (“visions”), as late, hardly a basis
for dating any section of text (Genesis 37–50 [BK 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1992], 170–71).
404 . for extensive and detailed discussion of problems with such
isolated lexical arguments, see now the essays in Biblical Hebrew:
Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. I. young; JSOtSup 369; New
230 A fAREwELL tO thE yAhwISt?

dating is always possible, but it needs to be established on

the basis of disciplined use of well-documented, extensive,
and reliable criteria.
Unfortunately, many contemporary identifications of
texts as post-Priestly do not depend on such reliable
criteria. Instead, such identifications all too often are based
on a combination of methodologically problematic uses of
vocabulary and/or tenuous links of certain texts with a
tissue of other non-P texts likewise identified on equally
problematic grounds as post-Priestly. And, as we have seen,
once one set of texts is so identified on weak grounds as
post-Priestly, it often brings with it a train of other
connected texts as post-Priestly as well. This is not the locus
for discussion of the full range of texts where this has
occurred, so I have focused here on texts particularly
crucial to the question of a pre-Priestly literary linkage of
ancestral and Moses traditions.

9. Conclusion
Let me conclude not on a note of disagreement but
agreement. Schmid’s contribution concludes with a
discussion of how discarding the hypothesis of a pre-
Priestly “yahwist” would alter the way the history of
Israelite religion is done, linking it more integrally with
cultures around it. yet, as they acknowledge, most of these
insights would also be compatible with the idea of the
relatively late combination of ancestral and exodus
traditions in a pre-Priestly Pentateuch. whether one agrees
with Schmid, Gertz, and Römer that P was the first to join
ancestors and Moses in a literary whole or agrees with me
and others that a late pre-Priestly author/editor created the
first proto-Pentateuch, there is agreement that the joining
of the ancestral and the Moses traditions came relatively
late and—outside the Abraham story—is reflected primarily
in insertions such as Gen 46:1–5 or Exod 3:1–4:18. Thus we
agree that the interpretation of the history of the literature
and the religion of ancient Israel should presuppose that
the ancestral and the exodus traditions were separate most

york: t&t Clark, 2003).

 CARR: whAt IS REqUIRED? 231

of the preexilic period, if not also through much of the exilic

period as well.
Thus, although the essays in the volume debate the
existence of a pre-Priestly Pentateuch, they reflect a
remarkably strong emerging consensus with regard to the
dating of the literature among many contemporary
pentateuchal scholars of varying methodological
backgrounds. we share the idea that the non-Priestly
ancestral and Moses-exodus traditions were separate in the
monarchical period. No one in the present volume works
with the idea of an early preexilic “yahwistic” proto-
Pentateuch nor with an E source. furthermore, most essays
share the judgment that texts such as Gen 46:1–5, the non-P
bridge between Genesis and Exodus (e.g., Gen 50:24–25;
Exod 1:6, 8–9), and Exod 3:1–4:18 are later additions to
their contexts, whether they are pre- or post-P insertions.
Scholars such as Thomas Römer, Konrad Schmid, Jan
Christian Gertz, Erhard Blum, and others have been helpful
in forming this new consensus, particularly in sharpening
our sense of the separation of ancestral and Mosaic
traditions and the lateness of their literary connection with
each other. And for this major contribution, as well as their
stimulating essays, we can be grateful.
232

BiBliography

Anbar, Moshé. Josué et l’alliance de Sichem (Josué 24:1–

28). BET 25. Frankfurt: Lang, 1992.
Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte.
WMANT 57. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1984.
———. “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von
Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag.” Pages
181–212, 204–5 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by
Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust. BETL 133. Leuven:
Leuven University Press; Peeters, 1997.
———. “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und
Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren
Forschungshypothesen.” Pages 119–56 in Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der
jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz,
Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2002.
———. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.
Campbell, Antony F., and Mark A. O’Brien. Sources of the
Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Carr, David M. “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story.
Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives.” Pages 273–95
in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction
and History. Edited by André Wénin. BETL 155.
Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 2001.
———. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and
Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1996.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical,
Theological Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1974.
Crüsemann, Frank. “Die Eigenständigkeit der
Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den
‘Jahwisten.’ ” Pages 11–29 in Die Botschaft und die
Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff. Edited by Jörg Jeremias
and Lothar Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1981.
Dietrich, Walter. Die Josephserzählung als Novelle und
Geschichtsschreibung: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur
Pentateuchfrage. BTS 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1989.

-181 -
A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

Dozeman, Thomas B. God at War: Power in the Exodus

Tradition. New york: Oxford University Press, 1996.
———. God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction,
Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24. SBLMS 37.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources
Revealed. San Francisco: harperSanFrancisco, 2003.
Galling, Kurt. Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels. BZAW 48.
Giessen: Töpelmann, 1928.
Gertz, Jan Christian, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte,
eds. Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des
Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. BZAW 315.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
Gertz, Jan Christian. “Die Stellung des kleinen
geschichtlichen Credos in der Redaktionsgeschichte von
Deuteronomium und Pentateuch.” Pages 30–45 in Liebe
und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Festschrift
Lothar Perlitt. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and hermann
Spieckermann. FRLANT 190. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2000.
———. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung:
Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch.
FRLANT 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.
ha, John. Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of
Pentateuchal History. BZAW 181. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.
hendel, Ronald S. The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob
Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel.
hSM 42. Atlanta: Scholars Press 1987.
houtman, Cees. Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner
Erforschung nebst einer Auswertung. Kampen: Kok
Pharos, 1994.
Koch, Klaus. “P—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei
Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung.” VT 37 (1987): 446–67.
Kaiser, Otto. Die erzählenden Werke. Vol. 1 of Grundriss
der Einleitung in die kanonischen und
234

deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments.

Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992.
Kessler, Rainer. “Die Querverweise im Pentateuch:
Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der
expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des
vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs.” Th.D. diss., University of
heidelberg, 1972.
Kratz, Reinhard G. Die Komposition der erzählenden
Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der
Bibelkritik. Uni-Taschenbücher 2157. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
Levin, Christoph. “Das israelitische Nationalepos: Der
Jahwist.” Pages 63–86 in Große Texte alter Kulturen:
Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom. Edited by
Martin hose. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 2004.
———. Der Jahwist. FRLANT 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1993.
BiBLiOGRAPhy 183

Moberly, Robert W. L. The Old Testament of the Old

Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism.
OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Nicholson, Ernest. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth
Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998.
Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948. English translation: A
History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. W.
Anderson. Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice hall, 1972.
Repr., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981.
Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und
Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von
Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des
Deuteronomiumsrahmen. FAT 30. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2000.
———. “Die nachpriesterschrifliche Pentateuchredaktion im
Buch Exodus.” Pages 61–111 in Studies in the Book of
Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation. Edited
by Marc Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven
University Press; Peeters, 1996.
Pola, Thomas. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift:
Beobachtungen zu Literarkritik und
 Traditionsgeschichte von Pg. WMANT 70. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995.
Pury, Albert de, and Thomas Römer eds. Le Pentateuque en
question: Les origines et la composition des cinq
premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches
récentes. MdB 19. Geneva: Labor et Fides 32002.
Pury, Albert de. “Le choix de l’ancêtre.” TZ 57 (2001): 105–
14.
———. “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des
origines d’israël.” Pages 78–96 in Congress Volume:
Leuven, 1989. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 43.
Leiden: Brill, 1991.
———. “hosea 12 und die Auseinandersetzung um die
identität israels und seines Gottes.” Pages 413–39 in Ein
Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer
Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und
altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Walter
Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Fribourg:
Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1994.
———. “Der priesterschriftliche Umgang mit der
Jakobsgeschichte.” Pages
33–60 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift
O.H. Steck. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas
Krüger, and Konrad Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2000.
———. Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle
de Jacob: Genèse 28 et les traditions patriarcales. ÉB.
Paris: Gabalda, 1975.
Rad, Gerhard von. “Das formgeschichtliche Problem des
hexateuch.” Pages 9–86 in idem, Gesammelte Studien
zum Alten Testament. Edited by Rudolf Smend. 4th ed.
ThB 8. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. English translation: “The
Form-Critical Problem of the hexateuch.” Pages 1–78 in The
Problem of the
A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W.

Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966.
Repr., London: SCM, 1984.
Redford, Donald B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph
(Gen 37–50). VTSup
20. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
236

Rendtorff, Rolf. “Der ‘Jahwist’ als Theologe? Zum Dilemma

der Pentateuchkritik,” Pages 158–66 in Congress
Volume: Edinburgh, 1974. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
English translation: “The ‘yahwist’ as Theologian? The
Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism.” JSOT 3 (1977): 2–
10.
———. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977.
English translation: The Problem of the Process of
Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated by J. J.
Scullion. JSOTSup 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Rofé, Alexander. Introduction to the Composition of the
Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Academon, 1994.
Römer, Thomas. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur
Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der
deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Fribourg:
Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1990.
Rose, Martin. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen
zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke.
ATANT 67. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Joshua.
BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938.
Schmid, hans heinrich. Der sogenannte Jahwist:
Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung.
Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976.
Schmid, Konrad. Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen
zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels
innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments.
WMANT 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999.
———. “Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch.” Pages 83–
118 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des
Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan
Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte.
BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
Schmitt, hans-Christoph. “Die Josephsgeschichte und das
Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk.” Pages 295–308 in
idem, Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch. BZAW
310. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001.
———. “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie:
Beobachtung zur Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik
innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch.” VT 32 (1982):
170–89 = pages 220–237 in idem, Theologie in
 Prophetie und Pentateuch. BZAW 310. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2001.
Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque:
Clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la
Bible. Bruxelles: Lessius, 2000.
BiBLiOGRAPhy 185

Sparks, Kenton L. The Pentateuch. An Annotated

Bibliography. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New
haven: yale University Press. 1975.
———. “Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period.”
VT 22 (1972): 448–59.
———. Der Jahwist als Historiker. Theologische Studien
134. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987.
———. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in
Exodus-Numbers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1994.
———. The Pentateuch: A Social Science Commentary.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
———. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in
Genesis. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und
der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1963.
———. Grundrisse zum Alten Testament. Edited by Rudolf
Smend. Munich: Kaiser, 1965.
———. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 6th ed. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1927. English translation: Prolegomena to
the History of Israel. Translated by J. S. Black and A.
Menzies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.
Winnett, Frederick V. The Mosaic Tradition. Near and
Middle East Studies 1.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1949.
———. “Re-examining the Foundations.” JBL 84 (1965): 1–
19.
Witte, Markus. Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions-
und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis
1,1–11,26. BZAW 265. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998.
 ContriButors

Erhard Blum, University of Tübingen, Germany

David M. Carr, Union Theological Seminary, New york

Thomas B. Dozeman, United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio

Jan Christian Gertz, University of heidelberg, Germany

Christoph Levin, University of Munich, Germany

Albert de Pury, University of Geneva, Switzerland

Thomas Römer, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Konrad Schmid, University of Zurich, Switzerland

John Van Seters, Waterloo, Canada

-187 -
 index of BiBliCal and related literature
hebrew Bible/Old 10:31
Testament
10:32a
Genesis
11:5
1 30, 69

1–3 11:27–32

1–11 71, 74, 131, 135 12

1–36 12–13

1:1–2:3 12–25

1:15–22 12–36

1:28 34, 164, 173 12–50

2 89 12:1–3

2–3 12:1–4

2–11 12:2 33–34, 83,

152, 162,
2:4 164– 68, 172
12:4–5 135, 149
4:10
12:5
6–8
12:6
6–9
12:7
6:5
12:10
6:8
12:10–20 36, 75, 85–
9 86, 134
9:7 34, 164, 173
12:17
10:5 13:6 39, 135
10:20–21
 242 A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

13:11–12 17, 30, 51, 68–69, 76,

94, 155
- 17:1 42
17:2 34,
189
164, 173
- 17:8
36, 138 18:3 140
13:13
18:12 139 Genesis
13:15–17 (cont.)
18:16–19:38 166
13:18 18:18 152–53
18:20–21
14:11–12
40
14:16 19:9
19:13
14:21 19:19
19:29
15 30, 38, 40, 51, 74, 85–
86, 94, 134, 165 20–22
15:13–16 35–36, 38–39, 20:1 43
74, 151, 161, 164 21:2 135
15:14 21:4–5 135
21:23
15:15 90 22:15–18 179
43, 169
16 138 23:6
16:1–11 23:24 43
24:12 140
16:1–14 24:27
24:35
16:3 24:48 140
16:7 25–35 51–52, 56–
58, 61, 71
16:7–16 25:8

16:11 40, 139 25:9

16:16 25:19–20

25:21–24
 25:26 28:1–9

25:27–28 28:3–4

26:1–5 28:4

26:2–3 28:10–22
165–66 52–53, 160

26:2–6 28:13 140, 156

26:3–5 28:13–15

26:3 28:14 154 29–31

57
26:12–16 152–5329:2–30 54
29:15 141
26:14
29:31
26:22 29:33
30–31
26:24 30:25–43 54
30:22 135
26:34–35 52, 135
30:27
27 5 30:30
2 31:3 165–66 31:13
, 127, 156
5 31:17 149 31:17–22
4 54
31:18 39, 65, 135
27:20 31:19–22
31:44–53
27:41–45
31:46–53
27:46 32
32–33
28 5 32:5 43 32:6
4 140
, 32:10
1 32:23–33
3 32:29 51 33:8
8 140
33:9
28:1–5 52, 155
244 A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

33:10 140 46:6

33:15 140
33:19 80, 97, 161, 165, 46:6–7 46, 135, 148
169 46:7–28
33:20 58, 102
35 6, 52, 65, 97, 102 46:27
35:1 156
35:1–5 58 35:1–7 46:30
97–98, 101–02 47:4
35:5
35:7 47:6
35:9–15
35:9–13 47:9

35:10 47:14

35:10–12 47:22

35:27 47:27–28

35:29 47:28

iNDEx TO BiBLiCAL AND RELATED LiTERATURE 191

36:1 47:29
36:7 43 37–50 44–50,
131, 147 48:3–6
37:1 43 37:2 48:21
45–46, 135
37:26–27 48:21–22
39:21 141 41:37–46 32
41:46 135, 148 41:50– 49:1 97, 135, 148–49
52 151 45:1–15 49:5–7
151
45:26–28 141, 177 49:29–33 47, 135,
46:1–5 77, 126– 148–49
27, 161, 165–66,
177–80 50 5–8, 33, 35, 37,
46:2–4 134, 155–56, 176 82–84, 86
46:3–4 151, 165–66 50:1–11 77–78, 149
50:2–3 47 50:7– 1–14
11 177
50:8 87, 150 50:12–13 1:1
78, 134–35, 148–49, 168 1:1–5
50:12–15 86, 105, 174
50:13–14 1:1–7
50:14 32–33, 77–78,151–52, 168, 171
84, 177 1:1–12 83 1:6
111
50:15–21 77–78, 150–
1:6–8 6, 8, 32, 81–82,
51, 168 87, 104,
154, 161,
50:15–22 168, 173–
50:21 76
1:7
50:22–23 106, 134, 1:7–9
168 1:8 31–32, 135
1:8–10 82–83
50:22–26 79–81, 87,
1:8–12 151–
151
53
50:24 33, 36, 167, 1:9 33–34, 162,
178 164
1:12
50:24–25 168–171, 1:13–14
175, 180 2–4 56, 66–67,
92–93, 131
50:24–26 6, 82, 96–
2–Josh 12
97, 105, 154
2:1 31–32, 137
50:25 2:11 123, 141
2:15–23 39
50:25–26 161, 165
2:18 40 2:23–25
39, 76, 86, 109, 137,
50:26 135, 170–71
150, 155
Exodus 2:23 40, 92–94
2:24 108, 124
1 5–7, 35, 37, 44, 3
84
246 A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

Exodus (cont.) 15 18 3–4 5–6, 30, 35, 38–39, 40,

51, 15–18 120 91–96, 108–10, 117–20, 133–
15:22 63
34, 156, 161, 166, 176–80 15:22–26
3:4 135 15:25 124, 140 3:6 95, 108, 135 16:1
63 3:6–7:9 93 17:3 177
3:15–16 95, 108 17:4 140 3:16–17 95–96 17:14
99 4:3–9 94 18 94–95 4:5 118 19 94 4:14 93
19–24 51
4:16–17 93 19–34 121, 124 4:18–19 92–93, 138
19:1 63
4:20 137 19:19 114
4:24–26 66 20:18–20 114 4:27–28 94 24:12 124
5:1–6:1 122 24:15–18 63, 76 6 30, 40 24:25–31
76 6–7 6, 93 24:35–40 76
6:2–7:7 76, 86, 109–11, 114–16, 25:1
127 25:8 63 6:2–8 41–42, 95, 124–25, 155
25:8–9 65, 70
6:3 108 29:45–46
76
6:4 43 32:1–8
6:8 108 32:13 108 6:9 94
32:23 177
6:20 31, 51 32:25–29 67 7–11 75 33:1 108, 177
7:8–13 94, 118–19 34:5 140 7:14–24 118, 120,
122 34:9 140
7:15 95 34:27
7:19–20 94 40:16–17 63 7:20 95 40:33 63
12 133
12–Num 20 131 Leviticus
12:12–27 95 10:10 123 12:23 171 11:45 177
12:36 141
12:40–41 31, 46 Numbers
13–14 100 3–4
13:19 80, 97, 151, 161, 165 8
14 18, 121, 166 11–12 124 14:10 140 11–21
120–21 14:31 95, 121–22 11:2 140 iNDEx
 12 119, 121
12:6–8 124
14:12 153
16:32 39
20:5 177
21:4–9 119–20, 122
21:5 177
22:3 153
25:1 21
35:5 39

Deuteronomy
1:8 55, 178
4:30 102
5:22 114
6:10 55, 178
7:1 83, 173
9:1 83 TO BiBLiCAL AND
9:5 55, 178 RELATED
9:7 55 LiTERATURE
9:27 178 193
10:22 67 24 97–100, 103–4,
15:5 114161, 175
20:1 177 24:2
24:8–9 123
26:1–11 85 24:2–13
26:5 83, 155–56
24:4
26:5–9 16, 55–56,
67, 72, 145, 24:5
153, 173
26:17 114 27:1–26 24:6 6, 171–72
123 28:1
24:8–21
114
28:45 24:14–15
28:62
29:12 24:17
30:20 55, 114, 178
24:19–20
31:9
31:9–13 24:26
31:24 99 31:25
123 33:8–11 24:28–31 104–05
67 33:10
123 34:1 24:29–32
62 24:29
34:4
34:5 62 34:5–6 24:32 80–81, 97, 161,
21 165, 169,
34:7–9 177
24:33 100–1, 169, 177
Joshua
5:13–15 Judges
8:30–35 1:1–3:13
14:6–12 2:1
18:1 62 23
101
248 A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

2:6–8 6 2:6– 6:11–24

10 104–05, 161,
171 2:8–10 82, 8:32
154, 174
1 Samuel
2:20
9:1–10:16
3:15
12:8
6:1–10

6:8
2 Samuel 146:5–6 167
7:27–29 112
isaiah
1 Kings51:1 71
13:23 178 51:9–11
18:36 178 54:1–5

2 KingsJeremiah
17:24–41 102 1:4–10
114
2:6
1 Chronicles 11:7 177
16:16 178 33:26 176 29:18 178 36:17–18 99
29:28 39 45:1
51:60–61
2 Chronicles
17:8 123 Ezekiel
21:14 39 20:5–26 110
21:17 39 20:5 35, 41 30:6 178 20:9 41
32:29 39 33:23–39
35:11
Ezra 38:23
1:4 39
1:4 39 hosea
8:21 39 12 5–6, 25, 35, 56,
58–60, 66, 72
10:8 39
Amos
Nehemiah 2:1 177 8:7 123 3:1 177
8:8 100 3:11
9:7
Job
38:8–11 167 Micah
6:4
Psalms 7:20
78 34
80:9–12 34 Extrabiblical
Literature
89:9–10 167
104:5–9 167 Jubilees
105 34 13–14 101
105:9 178
106 34 Qumran
135:8–12 34 4QJudga
136 34 4QRP
index of authors
Achituv, Shmuel Biddle, Mark E.

Ahuis, Ferdinand Black, Sutherland J.

148
Alt, Albrecht
Blum, Erhard 4–7, 19,
Anbar, Moshé 26, 33, 38–40,
Anderson, Bernhard W. 41–43, 54–55, 77–81,
89–90, 91– 95, 101–
2, 16, 111
6, 107–9, 111–12,
Astruc, Jean 118–27,
131–33, 145, 159–62,
Aurelius, Erik 163, 167–68,
Barth, Karl 171, 172, 175–78,
180
Bauks, Michaela Borghouts, Joris Frans

Bentzen, Aage

Benziger, immanuel
250 A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

Braulik, Georg Dietrich, Walter 26, 35,

117 Briant, 59, 78
Pierre 70
Bruston, Charles 14 Dillmann, August
Budd, Philip J. 22 Donner, herbert 45, 132
Budde, Karl 14, 22–23,
135 Dozeman, Thomas B.
Bultmann, Christoph 43 7, 20, 38,
Campbell, Antony F. 9,
16 115–16, 120–21, 133,
Carr, David M. 7, 156, 159–62,
26, 36, 62, 74– 75, 79– 175–76
81, 83–84, 89–91, 127, Driver, Samuel R.
149, Eichmann, Johann G.
163–65, 172 10–11 Ellies,
Cassuto, Umberto Peter F. 9, 18
Childs, Brevard S. Emerton, John A.
13, 129, 153 45, 62, 94
Coats, George 1, 113 Emmerson, Grace i. 61
Cody, Aelred 122 Eissfeld, Otto 14 Ewald,
Coote, Robert heinrich 143
160 Fischer, Georg 111–112
Coulanges, Fustel de Fishbane, Michael
116, 127
Cross, Frank Moore Fohrer, Georg 14, 135
Crüsemann, Frank Freedman, David Noel
132 18, 21 Friedman,
Richard Elliott 9,
Cryer, Frederick h. 160
23 Fritz, Volkmar 81, 91,
136, 169, 172
Daniels, Peter D.
Galling, Kurt 16, 47, 107
De Vries, Simon Gammie, John 1
Garr, Randall 41
Dicken, Trueman E.W. Geddes, Alexander
16, 31, 53, 144 Jan Christian 4–7,
Gertz,
10, 20, 26, 30, 33–
Diebner, Bernd
40, 46, 49, 69, 74–
Diesel, Anja A. 81, 83–84, 85–86,
 91–93, 105, 109, houtman, Cees
111–13, 117–27,
128, 133–35, 144, hughes, Jeremy
149–57, hupfeld, herrmann
161–80
Gese, hartmut 45 illgen, Karl David
Gollop, George T. 11
Jacob, Benno
-
195
- Jacob, Walter
Graf, Karl heinrich 12
Graupner, Axel 30, 91,
Janowski, Bernd
160
Green, David E. Jeremias, Jörg
Greenberg, Moshe 112–
113 Gressmann, hugo 2, Kaiser, Otto 10, 45, 74
112
Keel, Othmar 48, 102
Gunkel, hermann 2, 14–
16, 52–55, 65, 77, Kellermann, Ulrich
90, 135–36, 160
ha, John Kessler, Rainer 40, 134

habel, Norman Kilian, Rudolf

hagedorn, Anselm C. Klopfenstein, Martin A.

26, 35, 59
hardmeier, Christoph
Knauf, Ernst Axel
hartenstein, Friedhelm
Knierim, Rolf

haudebert, Pierre Knoppers, Gary N.

hendel, Ronald S. Koch, Klaus

hölscher, Gustav Köckert, Matthias

90, 163
holzinger, heinrich
52 Kohl, Margaret

hose, Martin Kolde, Antje

252 A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

Kratz, Reinhard G. 24– Noth, Martin 1–2, 16–18,

26, 45, 85–86 Kuenen, 22–24, 25, 29–30,
Abraham 12, 13, 135 31, 37–39, 45–47,
Kühlewein, Johannes 35– 53, 77, 81, 91, 118–
36 21, 136, 145, 159–
Lang, Bernhard 26 60,
Lauha, Aare 34 Lesky, 174, 176
Albin 146 O’Brian, Marc 9,
Levenson, John D. 17 Ockham, William of
Levin, Christoph 6, 7, 36
20–21, 22–24, 33, Otto, Eckart 26, 38–40,
36–38, 74–75, 77–79, 62, 71, 109, 114,
83–84, 118–22
90, 111–12, 121, Pfeiffer, Robert h.
132–37, 147, 160 Pola, Thomas 43, 62–63,
Lohfink, Norbert 7079,
45,
119–21, 170 Propp, William h. C.
López, Félix García 11 114, 118
Lust, Johan 115, 171 Pury, Albert de 4–7, 10,
Luther, Bernhard 14, 14, 25, 35, 46, 49,
22 51–56, 59–60, 67–72,
Lux, Rüdiger 86, 107, 132
Martin-Achard, Robert Rad, Gerhard von 1–3, 9,
43 Matthews, 15–18, 22– 24, 25,
Christopher R. 7 Mayes, 31, 43, 53, 136, 144–
Andrew D. h. 10 47,
McConville, J. Gordon 144–46, 153–56
26 McEvenue, Sean 117, Rapp, Ursula
160 Redford, Donald B.
McKenzie, Steven L. 68 Rendtorff, Rolf 1–2, 3–5,
Menzies, Allan 19, 25, 29, 33, 46,
12, 148
Milgrom, Jacob 54, 62, 108, 124,
Moberly, Robert W. 131–34,
Nicholson, Ernest 144–46, 148, 155,
21, 27, 132, 160 159
Nihan, Christophe 10 Reuss, Eduard
Nissinen, Martti 61
 iNDEx OF AUThORS 197
Richter, Wolfgang Ska, Jean-Louis 10, 26
Rofé, Alexander Smend, Rudolf
106 144 Smend,
Römer, Thomas 4–7,Rudolf,
10, Sr. 13, 14, 15,
14, 26, 36– 135
38, 54–55, 61, 68, Sparks, Kenton L.
71, 86, 109, 121– 25,
128, 131–35, 143– Spieckermann, hermann
45, 159–60,
179–80 Staerk, Willi 13, 19, 25
Rose, Martin 20–21,
23–24, 55 Rudolph, Stott, Douglas W.
Wilhelm 29, 39, 91
Schmid, hans heinrich 1, Sweeney, Marvin A.
20, 22–23, 54, 144 Thompson, Thomas L.
Schmid, Konrad 5–7, 17, 54, 66
26, 30, 32, 35–40,
47, 49, 62, 74, 77– Uehlinger, Christoph
78, 84, 86, 91–93, Valentin, heinrich
107–9, 110–16, 118, 122–123
128, 132–34, 144, Van Seters, John 1, 7,
147–50, 159–80 10, 20–21, 22– 24,
Schmidt, Brian B. 46, 54–55, 62, 77,
170 89–90, 93, 108, 118–
Schmidt, Ludwig 77 24, 136, 143–47,
Schmidt, Werner h. 91, 151–56,
111–14, 118– 23, 160, 160
174 Vervenne, Marc 115,
Schmitt, hans-Christoph 171
40, 80–81, 112, 174 Vieweger, Dieter
Schult, hermann Vischer, Lukas
Scullion, John J. Volz, Paul
Seebass, horst 9–10, 21,
Vriezen, Theodor C.
23, 45, 160 Wagner, Norman E.
Seeligmann, Judith Waschke, Ernst-Joachim
Seidel, Bodo 43 Weimar, Peter 10,
176
254 A FAREWELL TO ThE yAhWiST?

Weippert, Manfred 48
Wellhausen, Julius 12–
14, 21–23, 39, 51–
52, 62, 91, 107, 134–
35, 143,
148, 155, 160
Wénin, André 74, 127
Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de

Whitt, William D. 60
Wicksteed, Philip h. 12
Winnett, Frederick V. 19,
20, 24, 26, 76, 84,
111, 152
Witte, Markus 5, 26, 38,
71, 132 Witter, henning
B. 10, 13 Wolf, Friedrich
146
Wolff, Walter 22, 136
Wright, Jacob 73
Zehnder, Markus
Zenger, Erich 10, 26, 62
Zimmerli, Walter 42, 113