Old Testament and Higher Criticism: Understanding the "J" and "E" Sources

 * This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch.  

UNDERSTANDING “J” AND “E” SOURCES

2014

 

The articles in The Anchor Bible Dictionary on the “Yahwist (‘J’) Source” and the “Elohist” source are basic overviews of critical scholarship regarding sources for the Pentateuch.[1]  This paper will summarize both of these articles as well as provide some brief comments of critical interaction.

            The Yahwist (J) and Elohist are considered both the anonymous author(s) and the sources developed by these author(s). The J and E sources are considered literary hypotheses that seek to explain both the phenomena and history of the Old Testament.[2]  The contemporary understanding of these sources is founded in the work of those scholars in the early 19^th-century who noticed that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 utilize different names for God—Yahweh and Elohim.  Based on this it was thought that this was the result of two different sources. Besides the use of different names for God these sources were also thought to have different styles and theological emphases.

            The J source was originally thought to be the oldest source but the least discernable among all the sources. The main components of J were considered to be (a) the primeval history, (b) the patriarchal saga, and (c) the “national saga” which consisted of the birth of Israel, the exodus, and the entry into the land.  “J” eventually came to “designate the remaining text material once the more easily recognizable layers… been subtracted.”[3]  Later von Rad would develop the idea of J and date it during the Solomonic reign (c. 950-930 BC).  Subsequent to this scholars such as Rose and Van Seters would date J during the post-exilic time period.  

            The source J is said to contain distinctive theological elements.  Yahweh is presented as a universal Lord and yet at the same time gracious to humanity.  “Whatever good happens to the chosen of YHWH is not due to their own merit, but to the gracious and hidden forbearance of God.”[4]  

            The understanding of J has undergone change from its original inception in the early 18^th-century. Rendtorff argued:

“J” is a very fragile construction.  The substance of J is traditionally obtained by way of subtraction of the more easily recognizable other sources, and there are no positive criteria for the attribution of a single text to the J source.[5]

 

De Pury highlights the current situation when he asserts that, “No new scholarly consensus is yet in sight.”[6]

            Similar to J the scholarly understanding of the Elohist (E) source has undergone development and modification. Originally dated to the 8^thcentury, this dating is still held to by many but other dates from the 9^thand 10^thcenturies also are considered by some. There has been debate as to how to delineate E from other sources—especially the J source. One of the ways offered to specify the E source as well as to ascertain its theological features is by noticing the “double narratives” in Genesis: Gen 12.10-21//20.1-18; 16.4-14//21.8-21; 26.26-33//21.22-34.  In each of the pairings listed the second is considered to have come from the E source.  Jenks summarizes the importance of these narrative parallels:

These parallel narratives constitute the most important source information about the characteristic traits of E, for here the E narratives can be analyzed in contrast to similar J traditions.  Characteristically, the E versions of these triple and double narratives use Elohim instead of Yahweh; they focus on the nature of divine revelations or disclosures to humanity, which in E generally occur in dreams; they include reflections on problems of sin, guilt, and innocence; and they emphasize the “fear of God.”[7]

 

            These characteristics culled from the double narratives are then used to isolate other sections of the Pentateuch, which also belong to E.  This, in turn, allows for an even greater reconstruction of the overall theological perspectives and emphases of E.  Jenks mentions four such themes: prophetic leadership, the fear of God, covenant, and a theology of history.  These perspectives all serve to push forward a prophetic agenda that seeks to correct Israel and her leaders.  “E’s urgent plea in time of decision is not only for a correct institutional balance between kings and prophets, but for a deeply-felt religious response to loyalty and awe before God.”[8]

            The positing of multiple sources for the Pentateuch, of which J and E are a part, disallows for the traditional view of an essentially Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. Although these sources have become standard fare among critical scholars they are not above criticism.  First, it will be remembered that the entire idea of multiple sources finds its beginnings in the use of the different names for God found in Genesis 1 and 2.  This has always been a dubious method as Gleason Archer argues:

The documentarians assume that Hebrew authors differ from any other writers known in the history of literature in that they alone were incapable of using more than one name for God; more than one style of writing, no matter what the difference in subject matter; more than one of several possible synonyms for a single idea; more than one theme-type or circle of interest… The whole structure of source division has been erected upon exclusivist assumptions demonstrable for the literature of no other nation or period.[9]

 

Even some critical scholars recognize the “weakness of the traditional argument based on the distinction between the divine names YHWH and Elohim.”[10]

            Second, the multiple source hypothesis rests upon crucial assumptions about oral tradition.  Jenks argues, “The most important development in 20^th-century Pentateuchal criticism has been the realization that the Pentateuchal sources derive from oral traditions, and that oral traditions continued to play a part in the development of narratives until a relatively late date.”[11]  This understanding of oral tradition has been called into question by Bruce Waltke in his analysis of ANE writings.[12]  He concludes that there is little evidence for a flexible oral tradition. Furthermore, in light of the literacy levels displayed in these ANE cultures there is little reason to believe that Israel would not keep its history in a stable written form.

            The division of the Pentateuch into multiple sources is common understanding within critical Old Testament scholarship. Once certain assumptions are made regarding the basis of division then the process of dividing the text into various sources begins.  Critical scholarship shows very little interest in critically probing its foundational presuppositions about the text.  Conservative evangelical scholars have looked at this critical methodology and have offered various avenues of response.

SOURCES CITED

 

Archer Jr. Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament, rev. ed. Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1974.

de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source.” Pages 1012-1020 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 

vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.            

 

Jenks, Alan W. “Elohist.” Pages 478-482 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 

vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

 

Waltke, Bruce K. “Oral Tradition.” Pages 17-34 in A Tribute to Gleason Archer.  Edited by 

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986.

---

     [1]Albert de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” ABD 6:1012-1020; Alan W. Jenks, “Elohist,” ABD2:478-482.  

     [2]de Pury refers to these sources as “a scientific hypothesis” (p. 1013) but this is surely a misnomer.  The canons of scientific methodologies are not in play in understanding or testing the J and E sources.

     [3]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1013.

     [4]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1015.

     [5]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1017.

     [6]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1018.

     [7]Jenks, “Elohist,” 479.

     [8]Jenks, “Elohist,” 482.

     [9]Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament, rev. ed. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1974), 110.

     [10]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1017.

     [11]Jenks, “Elohist,” 479.

     [12]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.