John Van Seters, «Dating the Yahwist’s History: Principles and Perspectives.», Vol. 96 (2015) 1-25
In order to date the Yahwist, understood as the history of Israelite origins in Genesis to Numbers, comparison is made between J and the treatment of the patriarchs and the exodus-wilderness traditions in the pre-exilic prophets and Ezekiel, all of which prove to be earlier than J. By contrast, Second Isaiah reveals a close verbal association with J’s treatments of creation, the Abraham story and the exodus from Egypt. This suggests that they were contemporaries in Babylon in the late exilic period, which is confirmed by clear allusions in both authors to Babylonian sources dealing with the time of Nabonidus.
01_VanSeters_copiaaaa_01_25 28/04/15 11:15 Pagina 25
DATING THE YAHWIST’S HISTORY: PRINCIPLES AND PERSPECTIVES 25
ple came together to offer their laments and prayers, and that Second
Isaiah, with the text of the Yahwist in hand, addressed with words
of comfort and encouragement 42.
70-139 Father David Bauer Dr. John VAN SETERS
Waterloo, ON N2L 6L1
Canada
SUMMARY
In order to date the Yahwist, understood as the history of Israelite ori-
gins in Genesis to Numbers, comparison is made between J and the treat-
ment of the patriarchs and the exodus-wilderness traditions in the
pre-exilic prophets and Ezekiel, all of which prove to be earlier than J.
By contrast, Second Isaiah reveals a close verbal association with J’s treat-
ments of creation, the Abraham story and the exodus from Egypt. This
suggests that they were contemporaries in Babylon in the late exilic pe-
riod, which is confirmed by clear allusions in both authors to Babylonian
sources dealing with the time of Nabonidus.
42
After this article was sent to this journal and accepted for publication I
received an email from Nadav Na’aman on the Jacob story in Genesis in
which he likewise supports the view that the Yahwist was an author and his-
torian who was to be dated to the exilic period (cf. N. NA’AMAN, “The Jacob
Story and the Formation of Biblical Israel”, Tel Aviv 41 [2014] 95-125). This,
in my view, is an important historical study relevant to the issues raised in
this article, although I cannot comment further on the details of Na’aman’s
study at this time.