Koog P. Hong, «Abraham, Genesis 20–22, and the Northern Elohist», Vol. 94 (2013) 321-339
This article addresses the provenance of the Elohistic Abraham section (Genesis 20–22) in order to clarify the divergence between the source and tradition-historical models in pentateuchal criticism. Examining arguments for E’s northern provenance demonstrates that none of them applies directly to E’s Abraham section. The lack of Abraham tradition in early biblical literature further undermines the source model’s assumption of Israel and Judah’s common memory of the past. The southern provenance of Genesis 20–22 is more likely, and the current combination of Abraham and Jacob traditions is probably a result of the Judeans’ revision of Israelite tradition.
01_Biblica_Hong_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:54 Pagina 322
322 KOOG P. HONG
hausen model. These include R.E. Friedman and E. Nicholson 5. There
are “revisionistsâ€, most notably John Van Seters and H.H. Schmid 6,
who essentially transform the Yahwist into an exilic writer. Recently,
another group, now called “Neo-Documentarians†7, a group of Israeli
and American scholars led by Baruch Schwartz, attempts to revitalize
the source model by promoting source criticism as a purely literary en-
deavor, saving it from Wellhausenian historical abuse 8. Finally, there
is a group of scholars who build their source model upon a tradition-
historical framework, with E as a northern base tradition and J as its
southern revision 9.
In this essay, I intend to clarify the dispute and identify the con-
vergences between these two models. So how does asking about
R.E. FRIEDMAN, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York 1987); ID., “The Re-
5
cession of Biblical Source Criticismâ€, The Future of Biblical Studies: The
Hebrew Scriptures (eds. R.E. FRIEDMAN – H.G.M. WILLIAMSON) (SemeiaSt;
Atlanta, GA 1987) 81-101; ID., The Bible with Sources Revealed. A New View
into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco, CA 2003); ID., “Three Major
Redactors of the Torahâ€, Birkat Shalom. Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near
Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on
the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (eds. C. COHEN – S.M. PAUL)
(Winona Lake, IN 2008) 3-44; E.W. NICHOLSON, The Pentateuch in the Twen-
tieth Century. The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford 1998).
E.g. J. VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT
6
1975); ID., In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the
Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, CT 1983); ID., Prologue to History.
The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, KY 1992); ID., The Life of
Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville, KY 1994);
H.H. SCHMID, Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pen-
tateuchforschung (Zürich 1976). Also, C. LEVIN, Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157;
Göttingen 1993).
For this designation, see T.B. DOZEMAN – B.J. SCHWARTZ – K. SCHMID
7
(eds.) The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT
78; Tübingen 2011) 208, n. 2; 370, n. 3.
J.S. BADEN, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen
8
2009); B.J. SCHWARTZ, “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documen-
tary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection?â€, The Pentateuch: In-
ternational Perspectives on Current Research, 12-14.
Z. WEISMAN, From Jacob to Israel. The Cycle of Jacob’s Stories and its
9
Incorporation within the History of the Patriarchs (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem
1986); ID., “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative: The-
ological Criteriaâ€, ZAW 104 (1992) 177-197; T.L. YOREH, The First Book of
God (BZAW 402; Berlin 2010).
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati
FOLLOW US