Elohist

Abstract: "Sinai pericope" is based on the name of the desert in which Israel is sojourning. The section Exod 19-24 is the first part of the Sinai pericope. A widely held opinion, the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis", claims that Exod 19-24 like large parts of the Pentateuch is a compilation of three formerly independent documents: the Yahwist (j), the Elohist (e), and the priestly source (p). In Exod 18-24 there is a plurality of divine-human relations. The chapter traces how the Mountain-of-God pericope developed into the Sinai periscope. The Deuteronomists incorporate the Exodus-Mountain-of-God narrative into the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH); the former Exodus-Mountain-of-God narrative becomes the initial part of the DtrH. The Moses-centered additions of the Torah composition revoke the priestly degradation of the people and once again introduce a new concept of communal-divine interrelation. Keywords: Deuteronomistic history; Exodus; mountain of God; Sinai; Sinai pericope; Torah composition

Abstract: I Once a well-defined source in the minds of literary critics and a powerful intellectual tradition in the opinion of biblical theologians, the Elohist now has slipped into obscurity at the hands of contemporary pentateuchal scholars. Like the mist and the dew of the Palestinian hills, the Elohist tradition has vanished before the scorching sunshine of recent critical scholarship. Increasingly, both the Yahwist and the Elohist have had their very existence denied by critical biblical scholars, the same people who once gave birth to them. The traditional portrayal of the Yahwist has fared poorly in the minds of many since the significant works of Hans Heinrich Schmid, John Van Seters, Rolf Rendtorff, Martin Rose, and others in the 1970s and the1980s,1 but the Elohist has fared far worse than its cousin, even though primary criticism was directed initially at the Yahwist. Recent reconstructions of pentateuchal development have left the Elohist out of the source-critical equation completely. Thus, in very simplified form Van Seters and Rose see the process as one of a DJP sequence, since both the Yahwist and the Priestly traditions are seen to have emerged in the exile, and the Elohist is subsumed into the Yahwist.Z Joseph Blenkinsopp postulates a DPJ sequence, emphasizing the priority of the Priestly narrative, which subsequently was augmented by the Yahwist (and traditional E texts are assigned to J or D).3 Erhard Blum suggests that what we used to call the Elohist is best defined as part of a Deuteronomistic redaction of the texts.4 What has become of the Elohist tradition? Was it truly a minority report on the ancient Israelite traditions as early literary critics before and after Julius Wellhausen suggested? Or was it all along a figment of the scholarly imagination, a dream in the night? Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph suggested as much already in the 1930s. The Elohist texts were well-defined in the minds of literary critics until that first challenge sixty years ago 5 Volz and Rudolph assumed that Elohist texts were only another supplemental variation on the Yahwist tradition and that their origin was in the south, not the north as previously hypothesized by literary critics. As fragmentary traditions they could never have functioned as an independent source ("kein Erzahler"); they were simply later supplements in an ongoing Yahwistic tradition. The rehabilitation of the Elohist was undertaken by Martin Noth in his great overview of the entire pentateuchal tradition and later by Hans Walter Wolff in his special consideration of the Elohist traditions Wolff readily admitted the disconnectedness of Elohistic traditions by describing them as "Elohistic fragments," thus countering critics who took this fragmentation as a reason to deny their existence altogether. Despite our inheritance of only some of the epic with these fragments, Wolff still defended the integrity of the Elohistic intellectual and theological tradition. By his view the Elohist suffered such vicissitudes at the hands of redactors, but the missing plot line could be intuited from the stories that remained and the common themes that united them (especially the motif of the fear of God). Perhaps the best explication of the Elohist epic was provided by Alan Jenks in his dissertation (used by this author), which later was developed into a monograph. He suggested that the Elohist was not a single author but a school of thought and that the tradition emerged in the late tenth and early ninth centuries scE in the north. Jenks boldly explicated Elohist themes and connected them to northern Israelite prophetic traditions in insightful ways that still may be used for new points of departure.? Karl Jaros believed that the Elohist was written in the late ninth or early eighth century BCE, after Elijah and Elisha but before Hosea, to address the issue of Israelite religious identity in the face of the Canaanite religious threats His conclusions are dated in light of the recent opinion of many scholars that Israelites were largely polytheistic and essentially the same as the Canaanites in their religious beliefs and practices until shortly before the exile. …

Abstract: The intent of this essay is to argue that the story of Abraham, as an important segment of the Priestly History in the Hexateuch (Genesis to Joshua),1 was composed with the purpose of providing those who survived the disaster of 586 b.c.e. with a religious basis on which they could rebuild their lives. More specifically, the component of the History dealing with Abraham was intended to provide a paradigm or model for those who aspired to return, or actually did return, to Judah once this became possible after the fall of the Babylonian empire in 539 b.c.e. I am aware that the considerable amount of ritual law in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers associated with or in secondary derivation from this narrative source is an important aspect of the theological profile of P. But since all biblical law is presented in the context of an unfolding historical process, an understanding of the function and intent of the legal material will require, or at least be greatly facilitated by, a prior understanding of the History. I therefore propose to deal with the legal material only where it impinges directly on the understanding of the History and the Abraham segment of the History in particular. I. THE P HISTORY A critical consensus now exists that the P History was composed after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 and subsequent deportations. This preliminary conclusion, which will call for further definition in due course, goes back to the early pioneers of the critical study of the Pentateuch- Eduard Reuss, Karl Heinrich Graf, A. Kuenen, and Julius Wellhausen, in particular- and will be confirmed by a glance at the standard introductions.2 The task of disengaging this source from the other narrative strands with which it has been combined is rendered less arduous than it might otherwise be on account of P's distinctive style, idiom, vocabulary, and theological orientation. The P historian makes generous use of lists and genealogies, which generate narrative in their own way, and for the most part the narrative itself is succinct and descriptively economical. The author has no great interest either in populating his narrative with an abundance of minor characters, as is the case, for example, in the account of intrigues at the court of David in 2 Samuel, or in developing the characters of the principal dramatis personae- Sarah, Lot, Hagar, Ishmael, and Abraham himself. The focus throughout is on the unfolding drama of divine-human interaction and the destiny of Abraham.3 All the more striking, then, are the two junctures in the Abraham narrative at which we are given an extensive account complete with human interest and dialogue: the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:1-27) and Abraham's purchase of a burial plot (23:1-20). Here and elsewhere in P- the dispositions for the new world following the deluge (Gen 9:1-27) and the call of Moses (Exod 6:2-7:7) - such expansive accounts mark defining moments in the History with notable consequences for the future. The further question, which has proved not so easy to answer, is whether the History is an independent source or a redactional layer added to existing narrative; whether, in other words, it is meant to be read together with an existing narrative line to which it has been added, or is fully intelligible when read on its own as a self-standing text. In his Prolegomena, Wellhausen described P (for which he used the siglum Q) as concerned primarily with narrative links and articulations rather than content. It is, he continued, "as if Q were the scarlet thread on which the pearls of JE (the Yahwist and Elohist sources combined) are hung." It is, therefore, little more than "a genealogy with explanations."4 This reading was accepted by many scholars, often without argument. One of these was Frank Moore Cross, who read P as a systematic reworking of traditional source material available at the time of writing. If, therefore, we find no explicit reference to a Sinai covenant in P, the reason must be - since it is incredible that P would not have a covenant at Sinai-that the author assumed it to be known from the JE form of the Sinai story which P took over. …

Abstract: Preface Acknowledgments Part I. The Canonization of Moses 1. The Face of Moses 2. OThe Voice of the WordsO: The Moses of Deuteronomy Part II. The Text of the Law 3. The Broken Law-Book 4. The Book of the Covenant 5. The Two Tables, and the Morality That Legislates Part III. Moralia in Exodum 6. The Birth of the Life of Moses A. The Birth of Moses, and the Divine Sponsorsh B. The Career of Moses, and the History of Israel from Joseph to Joshua 7. Sojouner in Midian 8. Delivering Justice: The Prehistory of Mosaic Intervention 9. OThus I am to Be Remembered O: Sinai and the Name 10. Prophet unto PHaraoh 11. The Burden of Egypt 12. The Genesis of the Exodus 13. The Creation of Israel (I): The Exodus and the Numbering of Israel 14. The Creation of Israel (II): The Exodus and the OVisitingO of Israel Part IV: Allegories of Scripture 15. OLike unto MosesO: The Text of History A. Mosaic History B. The Mosaic Revolution and the Northern Kingship C. The Mosaic Revolution and the Kingship in Judah 16. Like unto Aaron: The Golden Calf and the History of the Priestly Revelation to Israel A. Idolatry and Duality B. Exodus and Terminus in IsraelOs Pre-Exilic Cultic Leadership 17. Supplementary Originals A. The House of Imram: The Preservation of a Monotheistic Leadership B. Keeping the Name upon a Priestly Site in Israel C. The Localization of the Burden of Egypt in the Canaan and Israel of 1 Samuel: A Heterodox Exodus Narrative Notes General Index Scriptural Index