01_VanSeters_copiaaaa_01_25 28/04/15 11:15 Pagina 2 2 JOHN VAN SETERS and this in turn was supplemented by the author of P, without the need of any redactors. Yet this left in limbo how D was related to Genesis-Numbers. A third literary model of analysis was the “frag- mentary hypothesis”, which largely dispensed with sources and re- garded the Pentateuch as a collection of fragments or traditions, assembled over the course of time, much like collections of folklore in modern times. This view, since the time of Hermann Gunkel, un- derstands the early non-P sources as mere collections of folklore, compiled by editors. However, a major shift took place in the mid- 1970s when the Yahwist was re-dated to the exilic period and later than Deuteronomy. This changed the whole nature of Pentateuchal studies in general and the “supplementary hypothesis” in particular, because J could now be viewed as a direct addition to D. Some Eu- ropean scholars, however, did away with the Yahwist altogether and replaced this author with multiple redactors of older traditions, which is a new version of the “fragmentary hypothesis”. I was among those who retained J as an author and tried to understand this work in its new historical context. Therefore let me briefly sum- marize my own position: the Yahwist is the basic non-P source of the Pentateuch in Genesis to Numbers, which made quite creative use of older traditions in order to construct a history from the cre- ation of humanity and the Patriarchs to their sojourn in Egypt, and from the exodus of the Israelite descendants to their entrance into the Promised Land. This was written as a prologue and extension of D and the Dtr History. To this combined history the Priestly writer made major additions in support of the priesthood and the institution of the Temple. This later Priestly development will not be our concern here. Instead, the focus will be entirely on the new dating of J as an author in the exilic period. In addition, to under- stand J’s use of older traditions in the construction of his history, the model should not be that of modern edited collections of folk- lore, but rather that of the Greek historians, such as Hecataeus of Miletus 5 or Dionysius of Halicarnassus 6. liche Problem des Hexateuch (BWANT 26; Stuttgart 1938), gives his entire at- tention to J and suggests that E has nothing of significance to add to this history. 5 L. PEARSON, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford 1939) 25-106. 6 E. GABBA, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley, CA 1991).