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 4
4 JOHN VAN SETERS
1. Hosea and Amos, the Patriarchs and Exodus
In the field of biblical scholarship it has long been recognized that
the traditions of the patriarchs and the story of the sojourn from Egypt
were originally two quite separate bodies of origin traditions, al-
though when and how they came together is still a matter of vigorous
debate. In Hosea there is reference to the stories of Jacob and Esau
and the divine encounter at Bethel (Hos 12,3-4) and Jacob’s sojourn
in Aram (v. 12). In Amos the patriarch Isaac is mentioned merely as
a parallel term for Israel (Amos 7,9) 8. In contrast to these patriarchal
traditions of origin, Hosea suggests a quite distinct form of Israelite
origin in Egypt (Hos 11,1). And Amos parallels the migration of the
Israelites from Egypt with the Philistines from Caphtor (Crete?), and
the Syrians from Kir (Amos 9,7), all of them distinctive migration
traditions of origin 9. Furthermore, there is no indication in Hosea
and Amos that the term Israel also includes Judah, so that the origin
in and migration from Egypt was an entirely northern tradition during
this period. In a similar fashion the origin of the Ammonites and
Moabites as sons of Lot (Gen 19,30-38), and Esau (Edom) as the son
of Isaac (Gen 25,19-34) all reflect the idea that the ancestors were
firmly established in the regions in which their offspring were lo-
cated. These ancestral traditions are quite different from those re-
flected in Deuteronomy 2–3, which present the nations of Moab,
Edom and Ammon as all gaining their land by means of invasion and
displacement of the indigenous population, similar to Israel’s inva-
sion of its future homeland. This distinction in the two types of tra-
dition, the migration of an ancestor to a new land versus a large group
migration and military invasion, would also seem to be reflected in
the account of Judah’s permanent settlement as an ancestor in the
south separate from his brothers, i.e. the Israelites (Genesis 38), and
not part of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus and conquest tradition.
2. The Prophet Ezekiel, the Yahwist and Deuteronomy
Furthermore, as late as the time of Ezekiel, the prophet makes
quite clear that YHWH revealed himself for the first time to the
8
The alternate form of the spelling of Isaac (with f in place of c) may in-
dicate that both Israel and Judah had their own versions of the Isaac tradition.
9
See also Amos 2,10; 3,1.