01_Biblica_Hong_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:54 Pagina 327 01_B 327 ABRAHAM, GENESIS 20–22, AND THE NORTHERN ELOHIST Friedman, have critically demonstrated that in the Jacob-Joseph- Moses section those northern attributes apply exclusively to its Elo- hist stratum. Conversely, all the evidence for J’s southern orientation is conveniently selected from the Abraham section. How the J strands in the Jacob story, despite its northern geographic ori- entation, belong to the south is hardly discussed. In the end, Fried- man must allow the northern affiliation of E’s Jacob-Joseph-Moses sections to speak for its Abraham section. Friedman’s subsequent arguments that pertain to pro-Israel ten- dencies in E are undermined by similar selective and circular argu- ments. For instance, Friedman repeats a popular argument that in E’s Joseph story Reuben tries to save an endangered Joseph, whereas in J it is Judah 23. Yet a closer look reveals that the pro-Judah layer is assigned to J only because J’s southern orientation is presumed. With- out that presumption, there is hardly a reason to take the Judah layer as southern. Noth remarked on the Reuben layer: “here, of course, we have before us a form of the tradition which is traditio-historically more original, but not a non-Judean or even a specifically ‘north-Is- raelite’ form” 24. In the end, none of his arguments for E’s pro-Israel tendency includes E’s Abraham section; no matter how impressive these arguments are, they hardly justify the northern orientation of Genesis 20–22. For source critics like Friedman, this selectiveness posed mini- mal problems because they presumed a continuity of sources. The alleged continuity of sources is, however, what source critics must prove when faced with the tradition historians’ challenge; they can- not presume it in order to defend their model. Traditional source critics would argue that the literary connection within the E corpus is proven by means of demonstrating common Elohistic back- ground. But, after all, E’s alleged continuity remains one of the highly contested elements of the Documentary Hypothesis 25. Carr puts this beautifully: “Analyses of E tend to seek certain textual beachheads, such as Genesis 20–22; 28:10-22*; and 37:3-11, 21-30, and then work outward from them to find the missing Elohistic con- text of these passages. This does not just involve locating passages FRIEDMAN, Who Wrote, 65. 23 NOTH, Pentateuchal Traditions, 230, n. 605. 24 P. VOLZ – W. RUDOLPH, Der Elohist als Erzähler. Ein Irrweg der Pen- 25 tateuchkritik; an der Genesis erläutert (BZAW 63; Giessen 1933). © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati