A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis

§ 8. The collective authorship of Yahwist and Elohist.

In Yahwist and Elohist we have, according to what has been said above, the two oldest written recensions of a tradition which had at one time existed in the oral form. When we compare the two documents, the first thing that strikes us is their close correspondence in outline and contents. The only important difference is that Elohist’s narrative does not seem to have embraced the primitive period, but to have commenced with Abraham. But from the point where Elohist strikes into the current of the history (at chapter 20, with a few earlier traces in chapter 15), there are few incidents in the one document to which the other does not contain a parallel.¹. What is much more remarkable, and indeed surprising, is that the manner of narration changes in the two documents pari passu. Thus the transition from the loose connexion of the Abraham legends to the more consecutive biography of Jacob, and then to the artistic unity of the Joseph-stories (see page xxviii f.), is equally noticeable in Yahwist and in Elohist. It is this extraordinarily close parallelism, both in matter and form, which proves that both documents drew from a common body of tradition, and even suggests that that tradition had already been partly reduced to writing.²

¹ The precise extent to which this is true depends, of course, on the validity of the finer processes of analysis, with regard to which there is room for difference of opinion. On the analysis followed in the commentary, the only episodes in Elohist to which there is no trace of a parallel in Yahwist, after chapter 15, are: the sacrifice of Isaac, 22; Esau’s selling of his birthright, 25^29–34 (?); the theophany of Mahanaim, 32^{2. 3}; the purchase of land at Shechem, 33^18–20; and the various incidents in 35^{1–8. 14–20}. Those peculiar to Yahwist are: the theophany at Mamre, 18; the destruction of Sodom, 19^1–28; Lot and his daughters, 19^30–38; the birth of Jacob and Esau, 25^21–28; the Isaac-narratives, 26; Jacob’s meeting with Rachel, 29^2–14; Reuben and the love-apples, 30^14 ff.; the incest of Reuben, 35^{21. 22a}; Judah and Tamar, 38; Joseph’s temptation, 39^7–20; the cup in Benjamin’s sack, 44; Joseph’s agrarian policy, 47^{13–26 (?)}; and the genealogies of 22^20–24 25^1–6.

² One is almost tempted to go further, and say that the facts can be best explained by the hypothesis of literary dependence of one document on the other (so Luther Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 169: “Elohist steht völlig in seinem [Yahwist’s] Banne”). But the present writer is convinced from repeated examination, that the differences are not of a kind that can be accounted for in this way (see Procksch, 305 f.).

Here we come back, from the side of analysis, to a question which was left unsettled in § 5; the question, namely, of the process by which the oral tradition was consolidated and reduced to writing. It has been shown with great probability that both Yahwist and Elohist are composite documents, in which minor legendary cycles have been incorporated, and different strata of tradition are embedded. This presupposes a development of the tradition within the circle represented by each document, and leads eventually to the theory advocated by most recent critics, that the symbols Yahwist and Elohist must be taken to express, not two individual writers but two schools, i.e., two series of narrators, animated by common conceptions, following a common literary method, and transmitting a common form of the tradition from one generation to another.

The phenomena which suggest this hypothesis are fully described in the body of the commentary, and need only be recapitulated here. In Yahwist, composite structure has been most clearly made out in the Primæval History (chapters 1–11), where at least two, and probably more, strands of narrative can be distinguished (pages 1–4). Gunkel seems to have shown that in 12–25 two cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (page 240); also that in 25 ff. the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban legends were originally independent of each other: this last, however, applies to Yahwist and Elohist alike, so that the fusion had probably taken place in the common tradition which lies behind both. Further, chapters 34 and 38 (pages 418, 450) belong to an older stratum of tradition than the main narrative; and the same might be said of chapter 49 (page 512), which may very plausibly be regarded as a traditional poem of the ‘school’ of Yahwist, and the oldest extant specimen of its repertoire.—With regard to Elohist, the proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in the Books of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua; in Genesis, however, we have imperfectly assimilated fragments of a more ancient tradition in 34 (? if Elohist be a component there), 35^1–7 48²² and perhaps some other passages.—The important fact is that these passages exhibit all the literary peculiarities of the main source to which they are assigned; at least, no linguistic differentiæ of any consequence have yet been discovered.¹ The problem is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to their material incongruities and their literary homogeneity.

While the fact of collective authorship of some kind is now generally recognised, there is no agreement as to the interpretation which best explains all the phenomena. Some scholars are impressed (and the impression is certainly very intelligible) by the unity of conception and standpoint and mode of treatment which characterise the two collections, and maintain that (in the case of Yahwist especially) the stamp of a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave much play for the activity of a ‘school.’¹ It is very difficult to hold the balance even between the claims of unity and complexity in the documents; but the theory of single authorship may easily be pressed too far. If we could get through with only a Yahwist¹ and Yahwist², Elohist¹, Elohist² etc.,—i.e., with the theory of one main document supplemented by a few later additions,—it would be absurd to speak of ‘schools.’ And even if the case were considerably more complicated, it might still be possible to rest satisfied (as a majority of critics do) with the idea of literary schools, manipulating written documents under the influence of tendencies and principles which had become traditional within special circles. Gunkel goes, however, much further with his conception of Yahwist and Elohist as first of all guilds of oral narrators, whose stories gradually took written shape within their respective circles, and were ultimately put together in the collections as we now have them. The theory, while not necessarily excluding the action of an outstanding personality in shaping either the oral or the literary phase of the tradition, has the advantage of suggesting a medium in which the traditional material might have assumed its specifically Yahwistic or Elohistic form before being incorporated in the main document of the school. It is at all events a satisfactory working hypothesis; and that is all that can be looked for in so obscure a region of investigation. Whether it is altogether so artificial and unnatural as Professor Orr would have us believe, the reader must judge for himself.

¹ See the lengthy excursus of Luther in Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 107–170, where the thesis is upheld that the Yahwist (i.e. Yahwist¹) is not a stage in the natural process of remodelling the tradition; that he does not mean merely to retail the old stories as he found them, but writes his book with the conscious purpose of enforcing certain ideas and convictions which often run contrary to the prevailing tendencies of his age (108). Luther seems to simplify the problem too much by excluding the primæval tradition from consideration (108), and ignoring the distribution of the Yahwistic material over the various stages of the redaction (155). It makes a considerable difference to the theory if (as seems to be the case) the sections which Luther assigns to Yahwist² (e.g. chapters 34, 38, 19) really represent older phases of tradition than the main document; for if they existed in their Yahwistic colouring prior to the compilation of Yahwist¹, there must have been a Yahwistic circle of some kind to preserve them; and even if they received their literary stamp at a later time, there must still have been something of the nature of a school to impress the Yahwistic character so strongly upon them. His conception of the Yahwist as an Ephraimite, a detached and sympathetic adherent of the prophetic and Rechabite movement of the 9th century, an opponent of the cultus, and an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the drift of the old tradition, seems to go far beyond the evidence adduced, and, indeed, to be hardly reconcilable with the religious tone and spirit of the narratives.—To a similar effect writes Procksch, Sagenbuch, 284–308; although he does justice to the composite structure of the document Yahwist, and describes it in terms which throw a shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of authorship. When we read of an “einheitlichen Grundstock, auf den wie in einen Stamm ♦Geschichten ganz anderer Herkunft gewissermassen aufgepropft sind, jetzt eng damit verwachsen durch die massgebenden Ideen” (294 f.), we cannot help asking where these branches grew before they were engrafted on their present stem. If we are right in distinguishing a strand of narrative in which Yahwe was used from the beginning, and another in which it was introduced in the time of Enosh, it is not easy to account for their fusion on any theory which does not allow a relative independence to the two conceptions.

♦ “Geschicten” replaced with “Geschichten”

§ 9. Characteristics of Yahwist and Elohist—their relation to Literary Prophecy.

It is not the purpose of this section to give an exhaustive characterisation of the literary or general features of the two older documents of Genesis. If Yahwist and Elohist are to be regarded as, in the main, recensions of a common body of oral tradition, and if they are the work of schools rather than of individuals, it is obvious that the search for characteristic differences loses much of its interest; and in point of fact the attempt to delineate two well-defined literary types is apt to be defeated by the widely contrasted features which have to find a place in one and the same picture. Our object here is simply to specify some outstanding differences which justify the separation of sources, and which may assist us later to determine the relative ages of the two documents.

Yahwist presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture than Elohist. It is generally allowed to contain the best examples of pure narrative style in the Old Testament; and in Genesis it rarely, if ever, falls below the highest level. But while Elohist hardly attains the same perfection of form, there are whole passages, especially in the more ample narratives, in which it is difficult to assign to the one a superiority over the other. Yahwist excels in picturesque ‘objectivity’ of description,—in the power to paint a scene with few strokes, and in the delineation of life and character: his dialogues, in particular, are inimitable “for the delicacy and truthfulness with which character and emotions find expression in them” (compare Genesis 44^18 ff.).¹ Elohist, on the other hand, frequently strikes a deeper vein of subjective feeling, especially of pathos; as in the account of Isaac’s sacrifice (22), of the expulsion of Hagar (21^8 ff.), the dismay of Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob’s fraud (27^35 ff.), Jacob’s lifelong grief for Rachel (48⁷), or his tenderness towards Joseph’s children (48¹⁴).² But here again no absolute distinction can be drawn; in the history of Joseph, e.g., the vein of pathos is perhaps more marked in Yahwist than in Elohist. Where parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a tendency, it is found in several instances that Yahwist’s objectivity of treatment has succeeded in preserving the archaic spirit of a legend which in Elohist is transformed by the more refined sentiment of a later age. The best example is Yahwist’s picture of Hagar, the intractable, indomitable Bedawi woman (chapater 16), as contrasted with Elohist’s modernised version of the incident (21^8 ff.), with its affecting picture of the mother and child all but perishing in the desert. So again, Elohist (chapter 20) introduces an extenuation of Abraham’s falsehood about his wife which is absent from the older narrative of Yahwist (12^10 ff.).

It is not surprising, considering the immense variety of material comprised in both documents, that the palpable literary differences reduce themselves for the most part to a preference for particular phrases and turns of expression in the one recension or the other. The most important case is, of course, the distinctive use (in the pre-Mosaic period) of Yahwe in Yahwist and Elohim in Elohist.¹ But round this are grouped a number of smaller linguistic differences which, when they occur in any degree of profusion in a consecutive passage, enable us to assign it with confidence to one or other of the sources.

¹ This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology; in the case of Elohist, it is the application of a theory of religious development which connected the revelation of the name Yahwe with the mission of Moses (Exodus 3^13–15). It is now generally held that the original Elohist continued to use Elohim after the revelation to Moses, and that the occurrences of Yahwe in the later history belong to secondary strata of the document. On either view the choice of the general name of deity is difficult to account for. Procksch regards it as due to the influence of the great monotheistic movement headed by Elijah; but that is not probable. The inspiring motive of Elijah’s crusade was precisely jealousy for Yahwe, the national God of Israel. Gunkel, on the other hand, thinks it arose from the fact that the legends were largely of Canaanite and polytheistic origin; and it is certainly the case that in the patriarchal history Elohist contains several strong traces of a polytheistic basis of the narratives (28^10 ff. 32^{2. 3} 35⁷ etc.). But that Elohim had a monotheistic sense to the mind of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (against Eerdmans).

The divine names.—While the possibility of error in the Massoretic textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of inadvertence in the use of יהוה and אלהים are in Genesis singularly few. In Elohist contexts, יהוה occurs 22^{11. 14 bis} 28²¹ 31⁴⁹, where its presence seems due to the intentional action of a redactor. Yahwist has אלהים (a) in 3^1–5 4²⁵ (a special case: see pages 2, 53); (b) where the contrast between the divine and the human is to be emphasised, 32²⁹; (c) in conversations with, or references to, heathen (real or supposed), 9²⁷ 39⁹ 41^32b. 38 43^28. 29 44¹⁶; there are also (d) some doubtful examples which are very probably to be assigned to Elohist, 33^{5b. 10b. 11} 42²⁸. It is only in the last group (if even there), with the possible addition (see page 155) of 8¹, that redactional alteration or scribal error need be suspected.

For the inhabitants of Canaan, Yahwist uses כנעני, 10^18b. 19 12⁶ (? Redactor), 24^3. 37 50¹¹ + (with פרזי, 13⁷ (Redactor?) 34³⁰); Elohist אמרי, 15¹⁶ 48²² +.¹

For the name Jacob, Yahwist substitutes Israel after 35²² (except 46^5b); Elohist consistently uses Jacob (except 46² 48^8. 11. 21 [50²⁵?]).

The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis) highly characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively:

Yahwist: אבי and ושם אחיו in genealogies: the former, 4^20. 21 10²¹ 11²⁹ 22²¹; the latter, 4²¹ 10²⁵ (compare 22²¹ 25²⁶ 38^29 f.).—זְקֻנִים (in connexion with a late-born child), 21^2a. 7 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰.—מצא חן, 6⁸ 18³ 19¹⁹ 30²⁷ 32⁶ 33^8. 10. 15 34¹¹ 39⁴ 47^25. 29 50⁴ +.—טרם (without ב), 2⁵ 19⁴ 24^15. 45 +.—ידע (in sexual sense), 4^1. 17. 25 19^5. 8 24¹⁶ 38²⁶ (also in Priestly-Code).—ילד (= ‘beget’), 4¹⁸ 10^{8. 13. 15. 26} 22²³ 25³.—יש, 24^23. 42. 49 28¹⁶ 39^4. 5. 8 42² 43^4. 7 44^19. 20. 26 47^6b + (42¹ Elohist?).—Derivatives of √ עצב, ♦3^16. 17 5²⁹ 6⁶ 45^5a.—הפעם, 2²³ 18³² 29^34. 35 30^20b 46³⁰ +.—צעיר, צעירה (for the younger of two brothers or sisters), 19^{31. 34. 35. 38} 25²³ 29²⁶ 43³³ 48¹⁴.—קרא בשם י׳, 4²⁶ 12⁸ 13⁴ 21³³ 26²⁵ +.—רוץ לקראת, 18² [19¹] 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴.—שפחה, 12¹⁶ 16^{1. 5. 6. 8} 24³⁵ 30^{7. 10. 12. 43} 32^6. 23 33^1. 2. 6 (20¹⁴ 30¹⁸ Redactor: also common in Priestly-Code); see on אמה below.—השקיף, 18¹⁶ 19²⁸ 26⁸ +.—מעט with following genitive, 18⁴ 24^17. 43 43^2. 11 44²⁵.—Particles: בעבור, 3¹⁷ 8²¹ 12^13. 16 18^{26. 29. 31. 32} 21³⁰ 26²⁴ 27^{4. 10. 19. 31} 46³⁴.—כי־על־כן, 18⁵ 19⁸ 33¹⁰ 38²⁶ +.—לבלתי, 3¹¹ 4¹⁵ 19²¹ 38⁹ + (in Elohist and Priestly-Code once each).—נא, in Yahwist about 40 times, in Elohist about 6 times (in Genesis).

Elohist: אמה, 20¹⁷ 21^10. 12. 13 30³ 31³³ + (see שפחה above).—גדול and קטן (‘elder’ and ‘younger’), 29^16. 18 42^{13. 15. 20. 32. 34} (compare 41^51 f.).—כלכל, 45¹¹ 47¹² 50²¹.—משכרת, 29¹⁵ 31^7. 41.—A very characteristic idiom of Elohist is the vocative (sometimes doubled: 22¹¹ 46², Exodus 3⁴, [1 Samuel 3⁴ LXX] +) with the answer הנני: 22^1. 7. 11 27^1b. 18 31¹¹ 37¹³ 46² +.—Elohist is further distinguished by a number of rare or archaic words or phrases: אמנה, 20¹² + Joshua 7²⁰; דגה, 48¹⁶ +; זבד, 30²⁰; חמת, 21^14. 15. 19 +; טחה, 21¹⁶ +; כן (‘honest’), 42^{11. 19. 31. 33. 34}; מנים, 31^7. 41 +; נין ונכד, 21²³ (compare Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹ +); עקד, 22⁹ +; פלל, 48¹¹; פתר, 40^8 ff. 41^8 ff. +; פתרון, 40^5 ff. 41¹¹ +; צנום, 41²³; קשיטה, 33¹⁹ + Joshua 24³² [Job 42¹¹] +; by a partiality for rare infinitive forms (31²⁸ 46³ 50²⁰ 48¹¹ +), and the occasional use of long forms of the nominal suffix (21²⁹ [31⁶] 41²¹ 42³⁶).

The religious and theological conceptions of the two documents are in the main identical, though a certain difference of standpoint appears in one or two features. Both evince towards the popular cultus an attitude of friendly toleration, with a disposition to ignore its cruder aspects; and this tendency is carried somewhat further in Yahwist than in Elohist. Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah, or sacred pole, Elohist alludes, without offence, to the Maẓẓebah, or sacred pillar (28^18. 22 31^{13. 45 ff.} 35²⁰); whereas Yahwist nowhere allows to the maẓẓebah a legitimate function in the worship of Yahwe. A very singular circumstance is that while both frequently record the erection of altars by the patriarchs, they are remarkably reticent as to the actual offering of sacrifice: Elohist refers to it only twice (22. 46¹), and Yahwist never at all in the patriarchal history (contrast 4^3 ff. 8^20 ff.). It is difficult to imagine that the omission is other than accidental: the idea that it indicates an indifference (Gunkel), or a conscious opposition (Luther), to the cultus, can hardly be entertained; for after all the altar had no use or significance except as a means of sacrifice.—The most striking diversity appears in the representation of the Deity, and especially of the manner of His revelation to men. The antique form of the theophany, in which Yahwe (or the Angel of Yahwe) appears visibly in human form, and in broad daylight, is peculiar to Yahwist (chapters 16. 18. 19), and corresponds to the highly anthropomorphic language which is observed in other parts of the document (chapters 2. 3. 7. 8. 11^5. 7). Elohist, on the contrary, records no daylight theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms of revelation,—the dream or night-vision (15¹ 20^3. 6 21¹² [compare ¹⁴] 22^1 ff. 28^10 ff. 31^11. 24 46²),¹ or the voice of the angel from heaven (21¹⁷). In this respect Elohist undoubtedly represents a more advanced stage of theological reflexion than Yahwist.—The national feeling in both sources is buoyant and hopeful: the ‘scheue heidnische Stimmung,’ the sombre and melancholy view of life which marks the primæval history of Yahwist disappears absolutely when the history of the immediate ancestors of Israel is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which some writers note as characteristic of Elohist finds no expression whatever in Genesis; and so far as it exists at all (Joshua 24), it belongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we are not here concerned.

Here we touch on a question of great importance, and one fortunately capable of being brought to a definite issue: viz., the relation of Yahwist and Elohist to the literary prophecy of the 8th and following centuries. It is usual to speak of the combined Jehovist as the Prophetical narrative of the Pentateuch, in distinction from Priestly-Code, the Priestly narrative; and in so far as the name is employed (as, e.g., by Driver An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament⁸, 117) to emphasise that contrast, it is sufficiently appropriate. As used, however, by many writers, it carries the implication that the documents—or that one to which the epithet is applied—show unmistakable traces of the influence of the later prophets from Amos downwards. That view seems to us entirely erroneous. It is undoubtedly the case that both Yahwist and Elohist are pervaded by ideas and convictions which they share in common with the writing prophets: such as, the monotheistic conception of God, the ethical view of His providential government, and perhaps a conscious opposition to certain emblems of popular cultus (asheras, maẓẓebas, teraphim, etc.). But that these and similar principles were first enunciated by the prophets of the 8th century, we have no reason to suppose. Nor does the fact that Abraham, as a man of God, is called Nābî’ (20⁷, compare Deuteronomy 34¹⁰) necessarily imply that the figure of an Amos or an Isaiah was before the mind of the writers. We must bear in mind that the 9th century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement which, commencing in Northern Israel, extended into Judah; and that any prophetic influences discoverable in Genesis are as likely to have come from the impulse of that movement as from the later development which is so much better known to us. But in truth it is questionable if any prophetic impulse at all, other than those inherent in the religion from its foundation by Moses, is necessary to account for the religious tone of the narratives of Genesis. The decisive fact is that the really distinctive ideas of written prophecy find no echo in those parts of Yahwist and Elohist with which we have to do. These are: the presentiment of the impending overthrow of the Israelitish nationality, together with the perception of its moral necessity, the polemic against foreign deities, the denunciation of prevalent oppression and social wrong, and the absolute repudiation of cultus as a means of recovering Yahwe’s favour. Not only are these conceptions absent from our documents, but it is difficult to conceive that they should have been in the air in the age when the documents were composed. For, though it is true that very different religious ideas may exist side by side in the same community, it is scarcely credible that Yahwist and Elohist could have maintained their confident hope for the future of the nation intact against the tremendous arraignment of prophecy. This consideration gains in force from the fact that the secondary strata of Elohist, and the redactional additions to Jehovist, which do come within the sweep of the later prophetic movement, clearly show that the circles from which these writings emanated were sensitively responsive to the sterner message of the prophets.