Guest post by Daniel Abraham
Previous posts on the subject of Biblical Criticism – like the Judaism Reclaimed book itself – have focused primarily on how Jewish tradition and rabbinic commentaries have addressed phenomena, such as repetition and inconsistencies, which biblical scholars interpret as indications of multiple authorship of the Torah. While Judaism Reclaimed presents broader challenges from scholars such as Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman to theories of multiple authorship, it generally avoids addressing these theories in specific detail.
This week we are delighted to feature a more detailed critique of a central pillar of the Documentary Hypothesis – the claim that the use of multiple names of God in the Torah is indicative of multiple authors (as presented in Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman). Readers interested in how Jewish tradition addresses the subject of multiple names of God can visit our post here.
A CRITIQUE OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP: THE NAMES OF GOD AS EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP
Richard Elliot Friedman popularized the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) with his 1987 book Who Wrote the Bible? followed by his 2003 book The Bible with Sources Revealed. Since then, a number of new, competing models have arisen that challenge Friedman's claims. Yet Friedman still holds firm to his JEPD model which claims that each of J, E, P, and D represent a distinct author with the four sources subsequently having been woven together by Redactors.
Background
In his 2017 book Exodus, he repeats the claim that the names of God can be used as evidence for his version of the DH. The theory claims that the name YHWH does not appear in the "E" or "P" source until God reveals His name to Moses in "E" (Ex. 3:15) and in "P" (Ex. 6:3). The theory also claims that the names "Elohim" or "El" do not appear even once in the "J" source. Friedman describes how this fits so neatly with his division of the sources because these three names of God, "occur two thousand times in the Torah, and there are just three exceptions out of the two thousand."
It is crucial to bear in mind that recent years have seen a major collapse in consensus among source critics – Friedman himself concedes the broad range of competing models in the field of source criticism. As Professor David Carr explained, there was an "emergence of a debate surrounding virtually every aspect in it over the last four decades. This debate no longer is confined to questions of the date of 'J' or the existence of 'E'." Obviously, when there is a broad consensus among academics around one model, it gives much more credence to a theory than when academics' opinions are divided among a plethora of contradictory models.
An Accounting of God’s Names
Even though Friedman correctly notes that the names of God appear over 2000 times in the Pentateuch, what he fails to explain is that not all of these instances are relevant to his theory. Because the theory allows for the name YHWH to be used in "E" and "P" after the third and sixth chapter of Exodus respectively, one can eliminate from his count the approximately 1,655 times that YHWH appears in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. What's more, Friedman has a peculiar rule that the name "Elohim" and “El” cannot appear in the narrative portions of "J" though it can appear in dialogue. He doesn't explain this rather arbitrary rule that he came up with which eliminates the approximately 135 instances that the name "Elohim" and 59 instances that the name "El" appear in dialogue. So rather than over 2,000 instances of the name of God fitting in his theory, what we are left with is approximately 165 instances of YHWH and 134 instances of Elohim and El in narrative portions that need to be explained.
In Genesis, where YHWH cannot appear in "E" or "P", Friedman happens to assign over half the book--approximately 821 verses--to "J" out of 1,533 total verses in Genesis. On the other hand, the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are 3,360 verses, yet Friedman allots only 189 verses to "J", thus ensuring that "Elohim" does not appear in a narrative portion of "J". It's a very convenient division of the text to ensure God's names appear in the proper sources.
Broader Difficulties with the Documentary Hypothesis
One of the odd features of the DH is that you can make rules as you go along if they're needed to make the verses fit the theory. So, for example, Genesis 2 and 3--which Friedman labels as almost entirely "J"--have 20 instances of the phrase "YHWH Elohim" being used in narration. Yet he simply dismisses the fact that "Elohim" is being used in a narrative portion of a "J" source and says that these instances of God's name simply don't count. He explains that because the phrase "YHWH Elohim" is unique to these chapters, he's justified in making this assumption.
In the DH, there are a number of tools to always ensure the text fits the theory. One can simply cut out a word, a phrase, half a sentence, and whole sentences. Difficulties can be explained as the combination of "J" and "E" or as the hidden work of "R" the redactor who they say made changes to the text, even when there's no evidence backing up the division of the text in this way. And as a final resort, one you can simply say the model's rules are not working, but it must be because something happened in the editing process. Friedman does this with his claim that there are only three instances in which YHWH appears in the wrong source. However, a count reveals five instances that YHWH appears in a "E" and "P" source before Exodus 3 and 6. What's more, there are so many times that a verse with YHWH is simply excised from the middle of a "P" or "E" paragraph in order to make the theory work. The same practice occurs with removing "Elohim" from the middle of a "J" paragraph. In most cases, there's no evident reason within the rules of the theory to justify why these individual verses are removed. It's done simply to make the verses fit the model. This happens with the names of God in Genesis 19:29, 22:16, 28:12, 30:24, 31:3, 43:14, Exodus 3:4, and 19:19. A strong case can also be made against Friedman's excising five instances of YHWH from Genesis 22 as well.
Another issue is in the story of the Deluge, where the name YHWH and Elohim appear in consecutive verses a number of times. One of the prize examples of the DH is the separation of this flood story in a "P" source and a "J" source. At first glance it looks impressive. However. in Joshua Berman's recent book "Ani Maamin," he does a very convincing job showing eight major problems in dividing the story of the flood between "P" and "J" (or as he refers to it "non-P"). There's also the fact that the "J" flood story includes a number of words that are never found anywhere in "J" but which are found all over "P." This is never properly addressed. All this casts further doubt on Friedman's division of God's names into different sources.
Some Specific Challenges and Responses
There is one rather peculiar element of Genesis that provides apparent support for this theory of God's names. Throughout the Pentateuch, almost every single chapter mentions the name YHWH. Yet from Genesis 40 through Exodus 2, there is not a single mention of YHWH save for one reference in Jacob's blessing in Chapter 49. One might think this anomaly could be some sort of indication of multiple authorship of the text. Yet Friedman assigns "J", "E", and "P" sources throughout these chapters with no mention or notice of this glaring omission of the name YHWH. This lack of YHWH in these chapters makes the task of avoiding YHWH in "E" and "P" a lot easier for Friedman, as this means that around one fifth of Genesis omits YHWH.
However, this twelve chapter omission of the name YHWH can help counter another part of Friedman's theory. There is a legitimate question to be asked as to why Moses asks God what His name is, and God answers, "“Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, This My appellation for all eternity." According to Friedman, appointing this section to "E" can give a possible explanation as to why God makes this grand declaration that his name is YHWH. Friedman's answer here is that "E" has never mentioned YHWH before, and now God is finally making his name known.
However, I would suggest a different answer. The omission of YHWH for these twelve chapters does not seem to be an accident. Perhaps the Torah is conveying a gradual concealment of the divine presence as the Israelites descended into Egypt and were eventually enslaved. They may have become so enmeshed with idolatry, that the name YHWH becomes all but forgotten amongst much of the population. And this could then explain why God declares to Moses that YHWH is His name.
But then another question arises. God once again declares in Exodus 6, “I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name YHWH. (Ex. 6:2-3)." Why does God once again make this declaration that YHWH is his name? Friedman would answer that this proclamation of the name YHWH is due to the fact that the original "P" source had not yet revealed the name YHWH, and thus a second announcement was necessary.
However, I would suggest a different answer that is supported by the text itself. When God appears to Moses in Exodus 6, the wording in Hebrew is, " וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם׃"--I did not make my name known to them. What exactly does נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי"I made known" mean in this context? Ezekiel 20:19 answers this question:
"אֲשֶׁ֨ר נוֹדַ֤עְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶם֙ לְעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם לְהוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃..." "For it was before their eyes that I had made Myself known to Israel to bring them out of the land of Egypt."
The exact same word "נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי "--"I made known"-- appears in both these verses in conjunction with the Exodus. And what this verse is likely telling us is that the Israelites were made known the meaning of God's name "before their eyes." In other words, it wasn't just hearing and learning about a new name of God. It was a deeper understanding and manifestation of this name of God that the Israelites witnessed unfolding with their very own eyes during their redemption from Egypt. Friedman's attempt to pin the meaning of this verse in Exodus on some "P" source is weak when read in context of this verse from Ezekiel.
In conclusion, Friedman's originally impressive sounding claim loses much of its credibility. Rather than the names fitting neatly into divided sources that require very little editing of the text and few exceptions to the rule, what we instead have is quite the opposite. Instead of Friedman's original claim that 2000 names of God fit his division of the text, we end up with hardly any examples of God's name that can be used to back up his claims.
Daniel Abraham is a writer and editor who has spent the last 15 years researching and answering challenges to Orthodox Judaism.
First posted to Facebook 5 July 2020, here.
