1. Doublets.

Doublets are cases of two variations of the same story occurring in the
Pentateuch. The possibility of such an occurrence in a single-author work exists, but the number
of doublets in the Pentateuch is so large as to be an indicator of a more complex history of
composition. These doublets include:
. !reation. "n account of a seven-day creation in #en :$%:& is followed by a different
version of how the creation took place in #en %:'b$%(. The two versions duplicate each
other on some facts )e.g., the creation of plants, animals, and humans* but contradict each
other on other facts )see +.& below*.
%. #enealogy from "dam. #en ':,$%- and (:$%., &/$&% )parallels of names in the 0eth and
!ain genealogies, including !ain1!ainan, 2noch, 3rad14ered, 5ethushael15ethuselah,
6amech*.
&. The flood. Two complete versions of the flood story are intertwined. The first is in #en
-:($.7 ,:$(, ,, /, %, -b$%/, %%$%&7 .:%b$ &a, -, .$%, &b, %/$%%. The second is in
-:8$%%7 ,:.$8, , &$-a, %, %'7 .:$%a, &b$(, ,, &a, '$87 8:$,.
'. #enealogy from 0hem. #en /:%$& and :/$%-.
(. "braham9s migration. #en %:$'a and %:'b$(.
-. :ife1sister. 3n two separate stories "braham identifies his wife 0arah as his sister, a foreign
king takes her )Pharaoh in one version7 "bimelech in another*, the deception becomes
known, the king confronts "braham, 0arah is returned, "braham is rewarded materially:
#en %:/$%/ and %/:$.. 3n a third version a similar scenario is pictured with 3saac,
;ebekah, and "bimelech: %-:-$$'. )This is termed a triplet.*
,. "braham and 6ot part company. #en &:(, ,$a, %b$'7 &:-, b$%a.
.. The "brahamic covenant. #enesis ( and ,.
8. <agar and 3shmael. )Triplet* #en -:$%, '$'7 -:&, ($-7 %:.$8.
/. Prophecy of birth of 3saac. #en ,:-$87 .:/$'.
. =aming of +eer 0heba. #en %:%%$&7 %-:($&&.
%. 4acob, 2sau, and the departure to the east. #en %,:$'(7 %.:/ and %-:&'$&(7 %,:'-7 %.:$
8.
&. 4acob at +eth-2l. )Triplet* #en %.:/, a, &$-, 8 and %.:b$%, ,$., %/$%% and
&(:8$(.
'. 4acob9s name changed to 3srael. #en &%:%($&&:%/7 &(:8$/.
(. 4oseph sold into 2gypt. #en &,:%b, &b, ($, 8$%/, %&, %(b$%,, %.b, &$&(7 &8: and
&,:&a, ', %$., %$%%, %', %(a, %.a, %8$&/.
-. >ahweh summons 5oses. )Triplet* 2xod &:%$'a, (, ,$. and &:, 'b, -, 8$( and -:%$%.
,. 5oses and Pharaoh. 2xod (:$-:7 ,:'$., %/b$%a, %&$%8?@2ng ,:%&$.:'A7 .:&b$a,
-$%.7 8:$,, &$&'7 /:$8, %$%-, %.$%87 :$8 and ,:/$&, 8$%/a, %%b7 .:$&a,
%$(7 8:.$%.
.. The ;ed 0ea. 2xod &:%$%%7 ':(a, -, 8a, /b, &$', 8b, %/b, %b, %', %,b, &/$& and
':$', ., 8b, /a, /c, ($., %a, %c, %%$%&, %-$%,a, %.$%8.
8. 5anna and Buail in the wilderness. 2xod -:%$&, -$&(a7 =um :'$&'.
%/. :ater from a rock at 5eribah. 2xod ,:%$,7 =um %/:%$&.
%. Theophany at 0inai1<oreb. )Triplet* 2xod 8:$%a7 %':(b$.a and 8:%b$ 8, -b$,, 87
%/:.$% and 8:/$-a, ., %/$%(.
%%. The Decalog. )Triplet* 2xod %/:$, and &':/$%. and Deut (:-$..
%&. The spies. =um &:$-, %, %($%-, &%7 ':a, %$&, ($/, %-$%8 and &:,$%/, %%$%', %,$
&, &&7 ':b, ', $%(, &8$'(.
%'. <eresy at Peor. =um %(:$( and %(:-$8 ?2ng %(:-$%-:aA.
%(. "ppointment of 4oshua. =um %,:%$%&7 Deut &:'$(, %&.
%-. !entraliCation of sacrifice. 6eviticus , and Deuteronomy %.
%,. Dorbidden animals. 6eviticus and Deuteronomy '.
2. Terminology. Different passages in the Torah reflect different terminology,
including proper names. 0ome passages use a particular name for the deity, for example, while
other passages use another name. 0ome use a particular name for a person in the story while
others use a different name for the same person. This is of interest in itself, but, most importantly,
these differences of terminology fall consistently into one or another group of the doublets. That
is, when there is a doublet of a story, one of the two versions uses one set of names and terms,
and the other version uses a different set. The doublets then line up into consistent groups of
stories, each with its own characteristic language. Dor example, in the doublet of the creation
account, one of the versions )#en :$%:&* consistently identifies the deity as E#odF )thirty-five
times*7 and the other version consistently identifies the deity as E>ahweh #odF )eleven times*.
Then in the doublet of the flood account, one version likewise consistently says E#od,F and the
other consistently says E>ahweh.F :hen we divide the full text of the Pentateuch along these
lines of consistent language, we find that virtually all of the doublets divide along these lines into
one group or another. Thus the two bodies of evidence converge to point toward a common
explanation.
"s collected and refined during the last two centuries of scholarship, these divisions of the text
have come to be identified. There are four maGor divisions and some smaller passages Goined to
them. The four maGor texts are classified as follows: J )4ahwistic*, a group of passages so named
because they consistently identify the deity in narration )not in dialogue* as >ahweh )the siglum
4 following the #erman spelling*7 E )2lohistic*, a group of passages that identify the deity only as
#od )<ebrew oe o o or o* until the time of 5oses, at which time the name
>ahweh is revealed )2xod &:&$(* and is used in this group thereafter7 P )Priestly*, a group that
also identifies the deity as 2l or 2lohim until the name >ahweh is revealed )2xod -:%$&*, the
siglum P reflecting its exceptional interest in priestly matters7 D )Deuteronomic*, comprising
nearly all of the book of Deuteronomy, whose bank of terminology is blatantly different from the
other three divisions. 0ee also 26H<30T )E2F* 0HI;!27 P;320T6> )EPF* 0HI;!2 7
>"<:30T ) E4F* 0HI;!2 7 D2IT2;H=H5>, +HHJ HD. The cases of characteristic terms
and names that can be disproportionately or even unexceptionally identified with a particular
division include:
. The names of the deity. Though periodically challenged in scholarship, this remains a
strong indication of authorship. 4 excludes the word E#odF in narration, with perhaps one
or two exceptions out of all the occurrences in the Pentateuch7 P maintains its distinction of
the divine names with one possible exception in hundreds of occurrences7 2 maintains the
distinction with two possible exceptions. )The 6KK and 0amaritan Pentateuch have
minimal differences from the 5T in divine names and have been shown by 0kinner to
confirm these authorial identifications.*
%. 0inai is the name of the mountain where the theophany and covenant occur in 4 and P.
<oreb and Ethe 5ountain of #odF are the terms used in 2 and D.
&. The expression Ethe place where >ahweh sets his nameF or Ethe place where >ahweh
causes his name to dwellF or Ethe place where >ahweh causes his name to be mentionedF
occurs in D and 2, never in 4 or P.
'. > o @to die@eleven occurrences in the Torah, all in P.
(. ngp@plague@fifteen occurrences in the Torah, fourteen of them in P.
-. > .o@congregation@over one hundred occurrences, all in P.
,. < qo : @tribal leader@one occurrence in 4, one in 27 but sixty-seven in P.
.. rk@property@all occurrences except those in #enesis ' )an independent text, not
identified with 4, 2, P, or D* are in P. )#en (:'L;7 see below.*
8. lwn@to complain )also in nominal form, _ o_ qe _ *@twenty-two of twenty-
three occurrences are in P.
/. <oo@cubit@two occurrences in D, one in 2, but fifty-six in P.
. kb@to lie with@of thirteen occurrences of this term as a euphemism for sex, eleven are in
4. )The other two are in a single case in 2@#en &/:($-.*
%. >s\b@to be sad@seven occurrences, all in 4.
&. The expression Egathered unto his peopleF as a euphemism for death is characteristic of P
)all of eleven occurrences*.
'. The expression Efire went out from before >ahwehF is characteristic of P.
(. The expression Eand he ?or theyA fell on his faceF is characteristic of P.
-. The expression Ebe fruitful and multiplyF is characteristic of P.
,. The phrase x oe . :oo@>ahweh9s glory@occurs thirteen times, twelve of which are
in P.
.. 3n the plagues narrative in 2xodus, the hardening of Pharaoh9s heart is consistently
expressed by the term \ o c )or qh* in P but by the term kbd in 2.
8. 3n the plagues narrative, tannn is the term used in P and \ qoo o: in 2 for the snake
before Pharaoh.
%/. The word prophet is foreign to P. The single occurrence )2xod ,:* uses the term
figuratively.
%. The expression Ewith all your heart and with all your soulF is characteristic of D )all of nine
occurrences in the Torah*.
%%. The expression Elengthen your days in the landF is characteristic of D )eleven of twelve
occurrences*.
%&. The expressions Eto go after other godsF or Eto turn to other godsF or Eto worship other
godsF are characteristic of D )all of thirteen occurrences*.
%'. The expression : o oco :oo@Elisten to the voice of >ahwehF is characteristic of D
)all of twelve occurrences*.
The number of cases of characteristic language beyond this sampling is substantial. Driver ).8:
&$&(* listed fifty examples of language characteristic of P. :einfeld )8,%: &%/$-(* provides
an extensive list of language characteristic of D and other works of Deuteronomistic literature.
3. Contradictions. =umerous contradictions appear in the text of the Torah which are
explained by the fact that they are the result of the combination of the originally independent
groups of stories. The contradictions fall along the same lines identified by doublets and
terminology. They include:
. The order of creation in the P account is plants, then animals, then man and woman7 but in
the 4 creation account the order is man, then plants, then animals, then woman.
%. The number of animals taken on the ark in the flood account is seven pairs of clean and one
pair of unclean animals in #en ,:%, & )4*7 but it is only two of each in -:87 ,:., 8, ( )P*.
&. The deity limits the lifespan of humans to %/ years in #en -:& )4*7 but many persons are
reported thereafter to have lived longer than this )8:%87 :/$%&, &% ?PA*. )3n 4 only 5oses
lives to the full age of %/7 Deut &':,.*
'. "braham9s homeland. "braham moves from Ir to <aran, and from <aran to !anaan )P*.
:hen "braham is already in Haran, the deity tells him to E6eave your land and your
birthplace . . .F but "braham has already left his land and birthplace, viC. Ir. "lso,
"braham later sends his servant Eto my land and my birthplaceF to get 3saac a wife )%':'*,
and the servant goes to Haran. )0ee also (:,, referring to "braham9s coming from Ir.*
(. +enGamin9s birthplace is +ethlehem in #en &(:-$8 )2*, but it is Paddan "ram in &(:%&$
%- )P*.
-. The sale of 4oseph. 4oseph9s brothers plan to kill him, ;euben persuades them not to do
this, they cast him into a pit, ;euben plans to save him, but 5idianites take him from the
pit and sell him as a slave in 2gypt )2*. +ut, at the same time, it is reported that the brothers
plan to kill him, udah persuades them not to, and they sell him to !shmaelites, who sell
him as a slave in 2gypt )4*. )0ee +.( below.*
,. 5oses9 father-in-law is the priest of 5idian 4ethro in 2xod &:, .7 .:$%, )2*7 but his
father-in-law is the priest of 5idian ;euel in 2xod %:-$.7 =um /:%8 )4*.
.. The name of the deity. >ahweh tells 5oses in 2xod -:& )P* that his divine name was
unknown to the patriarchs, but the patriarchs do know the name )#en .:'7 %':&7 %-:%%7
%,:%/, %,7 %.:-7 and see #en ':%-@all 4*.
8. The construction and location of the Tent of 5eeting. 5oses moves the tent outside the
camp in 2xod &&:,$ )2*, but the Tent is not built until 2xodus &- )P*. The tabernacle is
erected inside the camp in =umbers % )P*, but it is still outside the camp in =um %:'$(
)2*.
/. The Decalog. :hen 5oses Buotes the Ten !ommandments in Deuteronomy there are
numerous small differences in wording from the text of the Ten !ommandments in 2xodus
%/, most strikingly the different reason given for the sabbath commandment in 2xod %/:
)P* and Deut (:( )D*. 5eanwhile the text of the Ten !ommandments in 2xodus &':'$%-
)4* has seven of the ten commandments completely different, and the wording is different
even on the three comparable commandments.
. 3n =umbers )2* the people are tired of eating only manna, and so they are fed birds7 but
in 2xodus - )P* it is reported that they had been getting birds along with the manna from
the beginning.
%. The faithful spies. !aleb alone stands against the spies who give a discouraging report in
=um &:&/7 ':%' )4*, but it is both !aleb and 4oshua in ':-$8, &. )P*.
&. The location of the "malekites. The "malekites reside with the !anaanites in the land in
=um ':%(, '( )4*7 but they reside in the wilderness in 2xod ,:.$-.
'. Jorah9s congregation is swallowed by the earth, which closes over them, along with
Dathan and "biram in =um -:&$&& )4*7 but they are consumed by fire two verses later in
-:&( )P*.
(. The seduction of 3srael at Peor. 5oabite women seduce the 3sraelites in =um %(: )4*, but
they are 5idianite women in %(:-7 &:$- )P*.
4. Consistent Characteristics of Each Grou of Te!ts.
. There are no angels in P.
%. There are no talking animals in P.
&. There are no dreams in P.
'. +latant anthropomorphisms such as #od9s walking in the garden of 2den )4*, making
"dam9s and 2ve9s clothes )4*, closing =oah9s ark )4*, smelling =oah9s sacrifice )4*,
wrestling with 4acob )2*, standing on the rock at 5eribah )2*, and being seen by 5oses at
0inai1<oreb )4 and 2* are absent in P.
(. The word mercy1merciful )<ebrew \ xo o* never occurs in P.
-. The word grace1gracious )<ebrew \ o qq* never occurs in P.
,. The word repent1repentance )<ebrew wb* never occurs in P.
.. The word faithfulness )<ebrew \ o :.* never occurs in P.
8. 0acrifices are never portrayed in P prior to the consecration of the tabernacle and
priesthood in 2xodus '/.
/. 3n P only descendants of "aron are priests, while all other 6evites are designated as lower
level clergy. 3n the other accounts, all 6evites are priests.
. P regularly adds two maGor autumn holidays )6ev -:%8$&'7 %&:%&$&%7 =um %8:$* to
the standard list of three seasonal holidays contained in the other groups of texts.
%. 3n P "aron and 5iriam are identified as the brother and sister of 5oses )2xod -:%/7 =um
%-:(8*, but they are never identified as his siblings in 4, 2, or D. 3ndeed, the identification
of "aron as 5oses9 E6evite brotherF in 2xod ':' )2* and the identification of 5iriam only
as Ethe sister of "aronF in 2xod (:%/ )2* indicate that "aron and 5iriam are not his
siblings in these texts.
&. The tabernacle is mentioned three times in 2 and never in 4 or D, but it is of central
importance, mentioned over two hundred times, in P.
'. 3n the plagues narrative, the P version develops the role of the 2gyptian magicians7 the 2
version does not.
(. 3n the plagues narrative, the 2 version develops a process of negotiations between 5oses
and the Pharaoh7 the P version does not.
-. 3n the plagues account in P the signs are performed with the rod of "aron7 in 2 they are
performed with the rod of 5oses.
,. 3n the creation account in P, the deity creates a giant vault )firmament* that holds back
waters that are above it7 there are also waters below the dry ground. The world is thus, in
this conception, a habitable air space surrounded by water. This same conception is
assumed in the P account of the flood, in which the Ewindows of the heavensF and the
Efountains of the deepF are broken up so that the waters flow in. The 4 creation account has
no such picture, and in the 4 flood story it merely rains.
.. 5atters such as ages, dates, measurements, numbers, and precise instructions are a
substantial and continuing interest in P, with nothing to a remotely comparable degree
appearing in 4, 2, or D.
8. 3n the 4 version of the spies story, 5oses Buotes the divine formula )=um ':,$.* that
had been revealed to him in the 4 version of his revelation at 0inai )2xod &':-$,*.
%/. Paronomasia occurs relatively freBuently in 4 and 2 but is very rare in P and D.
". #arrati$e %lo&.
. The story of Dathan9s and "biram9s rebellion against 5oses )4* flows as a complete story
when separated from the story of Jorah9s rebellion )P* with which it is intertwined. The
Jorah story also flows complete. 2ither can be read as a continuous story, with no
intolerable gaps in wording or action. )4 L -:b$%a, %$', %($%-, %,b$&%a, &&$&'. P L
a, %b$, ($%', %,a, &%b, &(*. The only two clauses that merge the two stories@and
which thus break the flow@are editorial additions )=um -:%', %,*, as evidenced by the
fact that the extra words do not occur in the 6KK. Hther intertwined accounts that each
flow complete, with virtually no breaks in the flow of the narrative include:
%. The flood story )4 L #en -:($.7 ,:$(, ,, /, %, -b$%/, %%$%&7 .:%b$ &a, -, .$%, &b,
%/$%%. P L -:8$%%7 ,:.$/, , &$-a, %, %'7 .:$%a, &b$(, ,, &a, '$87 8:$,*.
&. <agar and 3shmael )4 L #en $%, '$'. PL-:&, ($-*.
'. 4acob and 2sau )4 L #en %(:%$&'7 %,:$'(7 %.:/. P L %-:&'$&(7 %,:'-7 %.:$8*.
(. 4acob at +eth-2l )4 L #en %.:a, &$-, 8. 2 L %.:b$%, ,$., %/$%%*.
-. 4oseph and his brothers )4 L #en &,:%b, &b, ($, 8$%/, %&, %(b$%,, %.b, &$&(7 &8:. 2
L &,:&a, ', %$., %$%%, %', %(a, %.a, %8, &-*.
,. >ahweh summons 5oses )4 L 2xod &:%$'a, (, ,$.. 2L&:, 'b, -, 8$(*.
.. 5oses and Pharaoh )2 L 2xod (:&$-:7 ,:'$., %/b$ %a, %&$%8 ?2ng ,:%&$.:'7 .:&b$
a, -$%.7 8:$,, &$&'7 /:$8, %$%-, %.$%87 :$8. P L ,:/$&, 8$%/a, %b$%%7
.:$&a, %$(7 8:.$%*.
8. The ;ed 0ea )4 L 2xod &:%$%%7 ':(a, -a, 8a, /b, &$', 8b, %/b, %b, %', %(b, %,b,
&/$&. P L ':$', ., 8b, /a, /c, ($., %a, %c, %%$%&, %-$%,a, %.$%8*.
/. The spies )4 L &:,$%/, %%$%', %,$&, &&7 ':b, ', $%(, &8$'(. P L &:$-, %, %($
%-, &%7 ':a, %$&, ($/, %-$%8*.
. Peor. The P account )=um %(:-$8 ?2ng %(:-$%-:aA* appears to begin in medias res, with
the 3sraelite man and 5idianite woman acting in the sight of 5oses and the people, who
Ewere weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting.F The weeping appears to be
unexplained, but if we turn back to the preceding P account and eliminate the intervening 4
and 2 material we find that this last P account, the death of "aron, ends with the people
weeping for "aron in the last verse )%/:%8*. The P narrative flow thus appears to be
consistent and intact.
'. (istorical )eferents. 2ach of the four component texts of the Torah contains a number
of elements that reflect the place and time in history in which it was composed. The 4 and 2 texts
contain elements whose historical referents lie in the period of the divided kingdoms of 3srael and
4udah, ca. 8%%$,%% +.!. The historical referents of 4 indicate derivation from the 0 kingdom,
4udah. The historical referents of 2 reflect the conditions and interests of the = kingdom, 3srael.
The elements of 4 that indicate a 4udean provenance are:
. 3n 4 "braham resides in <ebron15amre )#en &:.7 .:*. <ebron was the capital of
4udah, the home city of Madok, the 4udean high priest of David and 0olomon.
%. 3n 4 the "brahamic covenant promises the land Efrom the river of 2gypt to the great river,
the river 2uphrates )#en (:.*. These were the boundaries of the empire of David, the
founding king of the 4udean dynasty.
&. The 4 account of 3srael9s acBuisition of 0hechem is derogatory, involving the taking of
Dinah by 0hechem and the massacre of the city by 0imeon and 6evi )#enesis &'*.
0hechem was the capital city of = 3srael, built by 4eroboam 3, the king who had rebelled
against 4udah7 and its background is here deprecated.
'. The 4 birth accounts of the eponymous ancestors of the tribes include: ;euben, 0imeon,
6evi, and 4udah. )a* Hnly 4udah, among these tribes, existed with a territorial identity in the
era of the monarchy. )b* 4 includes the story of ;euben9s taking 4acob9s concubine and the
story of 0imeon9s and 6evi9s massacre of 0hechem. "s confirmed in 4acob9s deathbed
blessing in #enesis '8@a poetic text embedded in 4@these acts result in the preeminence
passing to the fourth son, 4udah.
(. 3n the 4 story of 4oseph, 4udah is the brother who saves 4oseph from the other brothers9
plans to kill him )#en &,:%-$%,7 '%:%%*.
-. 3n the 4 4oseph story it is 4udah who promises 4acob that +enGamin will survive the Gourney
to 2gypt )#en '&:.$8*.
,. 4 alone includes a lengthy story from the life of 4udah )#enesis &.*, culminating in the birth
of Peres, the eponymous ancestor of the clan from which the 4udean royal family was
traced. 4udah9s wife is identified as >, oo_: _ o a name so similar to the name of
David9s wife > oo_: oo that the two are interchanged in !hr &:(.
.. 3n the 4 spies story, the scouts whom 5oses sends spy out only the territory of 4udah )=um
,$%/, %%$%'*.
8. 3n the 4 spies story, the one favorable spy is !aleb. The !alebite territory was located in
4udah and included <ebron.
/. 4 includes a lengthy account of the birth, youthful relations, and break between 4acob and
2sau12dom. These stories reflect the kinship and historical relations with 2dom on several
points. 4 also includes the list of the kings of 2dom )#enesis &-*. There are no eBuivalent
stories or records in 2. 4udah bordered 2dom and dominated it from David to 4ehoram.
. The iconography of 4 corresponds to the situation in 4udah. )a* 4 includes a description of
the ark9s movements in the wilderness )=um /:&&$&-*, and 4 associates the presence of
the ark with military success )=um ':'$''*7 but the ark is never mentioned in 2. The ark
was located in 4udah. )b* The 4 Decalog only prohibits making molten gods )2xod &':,*.
This denounces the golden calves of = 3srael, which were molten, without denigrating the
golden cherubs of the Temple in 4udah, which were wooden and gold-plated. )c* 3n 4,
cherubs are used to guard the path to the tree of life, also consistent with the cherub
iconography of 4udah. !herubs are not mentioned in 2.
%. 3n 4, the <ebrew root \ xo o@of the name ;ehoboam, first king of the divided kingdom
of 4udah@occurs six times, connoting the nation9s expansion. )3t does not occur in 2.*
The elements of 2 that indicate a )northern* 3sraelite provenance are:
. 3n 2 4acob struggles with #od )or an angel* and, etiologically, names the site of this event
Peniel )#en &%:&*. The city of Peniel was built by 4eroboam 3, the founding king of the =
3sraelite kingdom ) Jgs %:%(*.
%. 3n 2 there is an account of 4oseph9s deathbed wish to be buried in his homeland and an
account of the 3sraelites taking his remains during the exodus. The traditional site of
4oseph9s grave was at the city of 0hechem, which was also built by 4eroboam and capital of
3srael for a time.
&. 3n 2, territory around the city of 0hechem is acBuired by peaceful purchase )#en &&:.$
8*. )!ontrast item & in the preceding section.*
'. The 2 birth accounts of the eponymous ancestors of the tribes include: Dan, =aphtali, #ad,
"sher, 3ssachar, Mebulon, 2phraim, 5anasseh, and +enGamin@i.e., all of the tribes of
3srael, but not 4udah. Durther, )a* in 2 the birthright goes to 4oseph, thus creating the
)northern* tribes of 2phraim and 5anasseh. )b* 3n 2 2phraim is favored over 5anasseh
)#en '.:&$%/*, corresponding to the historical preeminence of 2phraim )4eroboam9s tribe7
the name 2phraim is freBuently used in the <ebrew +ible as a pars pro toto name for
3srael*. )c* The term for the additional portion thus awarded to 4oseph is the unusual ekem
)0hechem7 '.:%%*, a perfect pun on the name of the 3sraelite capital city, which was in fact
located in the hills of 2phraim.
(. 3n the 2 story of 4oseph, ;euben, rather than 4udah, is the brother who saves 4oseph from
the other brothers9 plans to kill him )#en &,:%$%%*.
-. 3n the 2 4oseph story, it is ;euben, rather than 4udah, who promises 4acob that +enGamin
will survive the Gourney to 2gypt )#en '%:&,*.
,. 3n 2, the 2gyptian taskmasters are identified as Eofficers of corveeF
( : o x oo:: o @2xod :*. The = 3sraelite tribes9 dissatisfaction with the
0olomonic policy of missm was an explicit ground for their secession, which was initiated
by the stoning of ;ehoboam9s officer of the missm.
.. The heroic role of 4oshua is developed in 2, but not in 4. 4oshua was of = 3sraelite origins,
of the tribe of 2phraim.
8. The elements of 2 particularly coincide with the interests of the 6evites of = 3srael who
were of the priestly group from 0hiloh. Hnly 2 includes the story of the golden calf heresy,
which is led by "aron. The 0hiloh 6evites9 high priest "biathar had been expelled from the
4erusalem priestly hierarchy by 0olomon, his prerogatives thus passing to an "aronid high
priest )Madok*. The 0hiloh prophet "hiGah had first supported the kingship of 4eroboam but
later reGected it in the wake of the establishment of the golden calves at +ethel and Dan.
The 2 golden calf story thus merges and denigrates the two symbols of the exclusion of the
0hiloh 6evites: "aron and the golden calf. 5eanwhile, it is the 6evites in this story who
violently purge the people of the heresy. )+ut 6evite violence is criticiCed in 4. 0ee +.-.a
)&* and )'* above.*
/. The 2 story of "aron9s and 5iriam9s criticism of 5oses over 5oses9 !ushite wife
)=umbers %*, like the golden calf story, denigrates "aron, who is reprimanded directly by
the deity. The story explicitly declares 5oses9 revelation to be superior to "aron9s )and to
anyone else9s*. "s in the golden calf story, "aron submissively addresses 5oses as Emy
lord.F
. The iconography of 2 corresponds to the situation in 3srael@and especially to the concerns
of the 0hiloh 6evites. )a* 2 includes a description of the tabernacle9s establishment in
relation to the camp in the wilderness, emphasiCing its importance for revelation )=um
/:&&$&-*7 but the tabernacle is never mentioned in 4. The tabernacle was originally
associated with the = 3sraelite religious center at 0hiloh. )b* 2 denigrates the golden calves.
)0ee item 8 above.* )c* "s opposed to 49s prohibition of making molten gods, which
attacked only the = golden calves, 2 prohibits making any Egods of silver and gods of
goldF )2xod %/:%&*, thus applying to both the 3sraelite golden calves and the 4udean golden
cherubs. )d* 3n the 2 story of the golden calf, 5oses smashes the tablets of the Decalog,
and there is no 2 account of a second set of tablets being made. This casts aspersions on the
ark in 4udah, which would thus either be empty or contain inauthentic tablets.
%. "nother sign that 2 derives from priestly origins is the fact that it includes a lengthy law
code, the !ovenant !ode. "ll other corpora of law in the <ebrew +ible are found in texts
that come from priestly circles: viC. D, P, and 2Cekiel.
+oth 4 and 2 contain a story of the establishment of +ethel )#en %.:/$%%*7 and both
kingdoms, 4udah and 3srael, had claims and interests in +ethel. 4 lacks the law codes that are
characteristic of priestly texts and shows no explicit signs of composition in such circles. =either
source shows any awareness of the fall of the kingdom of 3srael nor of the dispersion of the =
tribes, which strongly suggests composition before the fall of 3srael in ,%% +.!. The very
character of the two sources, each fitting one of the two divided kingdoms, likewise points to
composition in the period of the division. 49s reference to 2sau12dom9s breaking 3srael9s yoke
from its shoulder )#en %,:'/* probably places its composition at least after <adad9s rebellion
against 0olomon or even after 2dom9s full independence from 4udah in the reign of the 4udean
king 4ehoram ).'8$.'% +.!.*. 2 offers few clues to narrow its composition further within the two-
century period of division.
The P text contains elements whose historical referents lie in the period following the fall of the
kingdom of 3srael ),%% +.!.* but prior to the fall of the kingdom of 4udah )(., +.!.*, with
particularly significant elements indicative of the reign of the 4udean king <eCekiah ),($-.,
+.!.*. The maGority of scholarly opinion has held since the latter part of the 8th century that P
was composed in the exilic or postexilic period, but several discoveries in recent scholarship call
for the preexilic provenance. These include references in other biblical books and, particularly,
linguistic classification )see +., and +.. below*. The historical referents that indicate a preexilic
and probably <eCekian provenance are:
. The tabernacle. The P narrative spends a disproportionately large amount of space on the
tabernacle, also known as the Tent of 5eeting. 3t devotes whole chapters to the record of
the tabernacle9s construction and contents, and it sets numerous episodes in the tabernacle9s
precincts, including the consecration of the priesthood, the deaths of =adab and "bihu, the
theophany in the spies episode, the Jorah rebellion, the blossoming of "aron9s rod, the
theophany at 5eribah, the offense and Phinehas9 Ceal at Peor, and the dedication of the
5idianite spoil. 3t identifies the tabernacle as the site of the revelation of the entire body of
law recorded in 6eviticus. The P laws themselves, too, are centrally concerned with the
tabernacle. The P legal sections reBuire the presence of the tabernacle for the fulfillment of
numerous laws and especially for the practice of sacrifice, which according to P can be
carried out nowhere but at the tabernacle )6ev :&, (7 &:%, ., &7 ':($,, '$.7 -:8, 8, %&7
':7 -:$&'7 ,:$87 =um (:,7 -:/7 8:'*. The P legal sections declare repeatedly that
execution of these laws at the tabernacle is the rule fore"er )2xod %,:%7 %.:'&7 &/:%7 6ev
&:,7 -:7 /:87 -:%8, &'7 ,:,7 %':&, .7 =um .:%&7 8:/*.
The tabernacle was long regarded as a fiction in scholarly consensus, but evidence has
been collected since the 8'/s that the tabernacle was historical. "rchitectural, scriptural,
archaeological, and extrabiblical textual evidence indicate that the tabernacle was housed
)either stored or actually erected* in the Temple of 0olomon. 0ee T"+2;="!62. 3t
probably was destroyed when the temple was burned, at the time of the destruction and
exile in (., +.!. )Ps ,':,7 6am %:-$,*, and it certainly was not present in the 0econd
Temple. Therefore, the interwoven centrality of the tabernacle in P law and narrative,
together with the numerous declarations in P that this is the law forever, had to have been
written before the 0olomonic Temple was destroyed. )The older view, that the tabernacle
was a fiction, was conceived to defend the #raf-:ellhausen hypothesis that P was a
0econd-Temple composition. 3n this view the tabernacle had been invented to symboliCe
the 0econd Temple, thus accounting for the absence of any reference to the temple in P.
+ut see other problems with this dating of P below.*
%. The ark, tablets, cherubs, and Irim and Thummim. These sacred obGects are also centrally
important in P, treated at some length, and directly connected to the tabernacle. They, too,
were associated solely with the Temple of 0olomon, not with the 0econd Temple, and
therefore are compatible with preexilic interests.
&. Priests and 6evites. P alone among the four source works of the Torah calls for hierarchical
divisions among the clergy. +oth in the P legal sections and in its narrative, this is a
pervasive concern. =ot all 6evites are priests. Hnly those 6evites who are descended from
"aron are priests. "ll other 6evites are second-level clergy. The specific tasks of each
group are assigned. "ccording to the explicit report of the book of % !hronicles, <eCekiah
was the king who established these divisions and assigned these tasks )% !hr &:%*. The
maGority view in scholarship has connected the origin of these divisions to a statement by
the prophet 2Cekiel )'':8$-*, but: )a* 2Cekiel distinguishes not the "aronids but only the
Madokite "aronids from other 6evites. )b* There is no evidence that the author)s* of P
accepted 2Cekiel9s visions as legally authoritative. Hn the contrary, the P model of the
tabernacle is structurally incompatible with 2Cekiel9s vision of the temple. )c* =ew
linguistic evidence indicates that P was composed prior to 2Cekiel. )0ee below.*
'. The house of "aron. P is exceptionally concerned with the house of "aron and visibly
favors it over other levitical groups, whom P excludes from the priesthood. P places "aron
alongside 5oses from the beginning in 2xodus, identifies "sron as 5oses9 older brother,
provides for "aron9s consecration and for the consecration of his sons to the priesthood7 P
depicts the "aronid succession, including the death of his eldest two sons, his own death,
his replacement by his third son 2lieCer, and the eternal promise of priesthood through
2lieCer9s son Phinehas. The other Pentateuchal sources, meanwhile, understand all 6evites
to be priests. The other biblical work that clearly identifies only "aronids as priests is the
!hronicler9s work7 and the books of !hronicles praise <eCekiah as foremost among the
kings of 3srael and 4udah. The only other king who compares with <eCekiah according to
!hronicles is 0olomon, and it was 0olomon who first gave the "aronid priest their
exclusive hold on the 4erusalem priesthood. 3t was 0olomon who removed the non-"aronid
priest "biathar from his shared high priesthood with the "aronid priest Madok. That is, the
biblical books that hold the same view of the priesthood as P focus upon the two kings who
supported P9s priestly distinctions: 0olomon and <eCekiah. 0ince P had to have been
written long after 0olomon9s time )see below* the reign of <eCekiah is the provenance that
appears to be reflected in P.
(. P9s insistence on centraliCation of sacrifice also points to the reign of <eCekiah, who,
according to both the books of Jings and !hronicles, was the king who initiated
centraliCation. 5oreover, his centraliCation of worship at the Temple in 4erusalem placed
all sacrifice under the aegis of the "aronid priesthood, which had held the leadership in
4erusalem since the reign of 0olomon and which <eCekiah further supported. )The other
Pentateuchal source text that calls for centraliCation is D, but D is virtually unanimously
recogniCed by scholars to be associated with the reign of the other centraliCing king, 4osiah.
0ee below.*
-. <eCekiah is also the king who, according to !hronicles, destroyed the bronCe serpent of
5oses, known as =ehushtan. The destruction of a sacred obGect that was strictly associated
with 5oses )in 2, the source that is most favorable to 5oses and the most harshly critical
of "aron, =um %:'b$/* further fits with <eCekiah9s support of the "aronid priests over
those 6evites who saw themselves as the heirs of 5oses rather than of "aron.
,. The house of "aron and the house of David. These close connections between the "aronid
priests and the royal house of David, which excelled in the time of <eCekiah, are reflected
also in the notice in P that "aron is married to the sister of =ahshon ben "mminadab, the
prince of the tribe of 4udah and the ancestor of David )2xod -:%&7 =um %:&7 ;uth ':%/$%%
The D text contains elements whose historical referents lie in the reign of 4osiah, the great-
grandson of <eCekiah. These include:
. The scroll of the t#r$. "t the conclusion of the book of Deuteronomy 5oses is said to have
written a Escroll of the t#r$,F a document that is to be placed by the ark for reference at
some future time. The book of 4oshua then reminds us of the existence of this scroll three
times ):.7 .:&, &'7 %&:-*. The Escroll of the t#r$F is then never mentioned again in the
history until it is reported to have been brought out from the temple and read to Jing 4osiah
)% Jgs %%:.*.
%. !entraliCation of sacrifice. 4osiah is then reported to have initiated a religious reform based
on the text of the scroll. The components of the 4osianic reform conform to the
reBuirements of the Deuteronomic law code )Deuteronomy %$%-*, particularly the
centraliCation of religion, which is the first reBuirement of the code. 4osiah destroys all
places of worship outside of 4erusalem. 3t is clear that the 4osianic reform is tied to the
Deuteronomic law code and not to the P law code, because: )a* there is the explicit
connection to 5oses9 scroll. )b* 4osiah destroys the golden calf altar of 4eroboam at +ethel.
% Jings %& describes this act with the same terms used in Deuteronomy for 5oses9
destruction of the golden calf of "aron, a story which obviously does not appear in the pro-
"aron P text. )c* 4osiah9s treatment of the "sherah of 4erusalem and other altars likewise
reflects specific commands of the D law code.
&. The history of the kings of 3srael in the books of Jings, as opposed to the history in the
books of !hronicles, is constructed to culminate in the reign and reform of 4osiah, the only
king who receives a completely positive rating7 and this history is written in language that
manifestly mirrors the characteristic phraseology of Deuteronomy.
'. Deuteronomy is diametrically opposed to the P view of 3srael9s priesthood. Deuteronomy
makes no distinction between priests and 6evites, and it is negative with regard to "aron. 3t
mentions "aron only twice, once to say that he died and once to identify him as the maker
of the golden calf. 3t also refers to 5iriam9s leprosy, an episode in which "aron is
denigrated. <eCekiah9s reign is compared by the !hronicler to the reign of 0olomon, who
favored the "aronid priesthood, but 4osiah9s reform includes the destruction of 0olomon9s
altars. <eCekiah destroyed the brass snake =ehushtan of 5oses, but 4osiah married his son
to a woman named =ehushta.
(. There are numerous parallels of wording and action between the characteriCation of 5oses
in Deuteronomy and of 4osiah in % Jings )e.g., the words Enone arose like...F are applied
only to these two persons, both grind a golden calf@or its altar@Ethin as dust,F in both
cases at a wadi*. 3n recent scholarship the biblical books of Deuteronomy through % Jings
have been identified as a continuous work, termed the D2IT2;H=H530T3! <30TH;>.
The 5oses-to-4osiah construction of this work is further made manifest by changes in
maGor themes following the 4osiah pericope: the concern with centraliCation of sacrifice and
the comparison of the 4udean kings to David cease after this pericope.
-. The 4osianic provenance applies to the composition and original promulgation of D as a
work. 5uch of the material within D nonetheless shows signs of having been composed in
an earlier period and then included in the 4osianic Deuteronomist9s work. The core of the
Decalog in Deuteronomy ( and most of the Deuteronomic law code )Deuteronomy %$%-*
falls in this group. 2lements in the law code whose historical referents lie in an earlier
period include: )a* the laws of war in Deuteronomy %/$%. The reBuired assembling and
admonishing of the people in these laws reflect the period of general conscription, when the
3sraelite tribes were summoned to battle. The rise of the monarchy led to replacement of the
tribal musters by professional armies. These laws of war, therefore, represent the earliest,
i.e., premonarchic, period of 3srael9s history. )b* The law of the king in Deuteronomy ,
and )c* the laws giving legal Gurisdiction to the 6evites, too, do not appear to derive from
4osiah9s court, because they limit or ignore royal prerogatives. They therefore appear to
have been older than the 4osianic composition but sufficiently authoritative to have been
included in it. These laws, as well as others written in the interests of the 6evites, indicate
composition by 6evites. The nonrecognition of "aronid distinction excludes that group as
possible authors of this work. The demand of centraliCation excludes the 6evites of the
various high places outside of 4erusalem. The most likely provenance of this work,
therefore, is among the 6evites of the pre-4erusalem center of 3sraelite religion: 0hiloh.
,. "lso, portions of D )and of the Deuteronomistic <istory* show signs of having been added
to the 4osianic edition of the work in a subseBuent editorial operation. These portions show
signs of having been composed after the destruction and exile of 4udah in (., +.!. They
include Deut ':%($&7 .:8$%/7 %.:&-$&,, -&$-.7 %8:%$%,7 &/:$/, '$%/. 2ach of these
passages is identified as an exilic addition by a combination of several factors: terminology,
theme, grammar, syntax, literary structure, and comparative data. There is also a thematic
commonality among them7 all refer to apostasy, destruction, exile, and dispersion. Their
wording and themes match with demonstrably exilic portions of the Deuteronomistic
<istory )cf. Jgs 8:-$87 % Jgs %:.$(*.
*. +inguistic Classification. 0ince the 8,/s, advances in linguistic analysis have made it
possible to trace the stages in the development of <ebrew prose to which the source texts each
belong )PolCin 8,-*. Through a series of studies, 4 and 2 have been shown to represent the
earliest stage of biblical <ebrew prose. P and D )the Deuteronomistic texts* have been shown to
represent a later stage than 4 and 2, but a stage with still more in common with the early biblical
<ebrew of 4 and 2 than with the late biblical <ebrew of postexilic texts. 3n a separate
comparative study )<urvitC 8.%*, P was found to represent an earlier stage than the book of the
prophet 2Cekiel. This linguistic evidence is consistent with the evidence of the historical referents
and with the evidence of references in other biblical books. 3t is a powerful confirmation both of
the division into source works and the relative dating of the sources.
,. -dentifiable )elationshis .mong /ources. "nother factor that contributes to the
cumulative force of these bodies of evidence is the presence of signs in sources that reflect their
relationship with other sources. These include:
. P9s account follows the chronology and events of the combined 4 and 2. The parallels of
persons, events, and order between P and 42 are so close as to indicate that 4 and 2 were
edited together and then were known to and followed by the person)s* who composed P.
!onsistent differences between P and 42 are observable as enumerated above )see +.'
above*. This fits with the view that 2, the text composed in the = kingdom of 3srael, was
combined with 4, the text from 4udah, following the fall of 3srael. This further fits with the
evidence of P9s having been composed in the time of <eCekiah, whose reign in 4udah
covered the years following the fall of 3srael. P9s tie with the "aronid priesthood explains
the motivation for the composition of P in that period. The combination of 4 and 2 resulted
in a t#r$ in 4udah that was derogatory toward "aron@identifying him as the maker of the
golden calf@and unacceptable to 4erusalem9s "aronid priests on various other grounds as
well. The P account appears to have been composed as an alternative to this work. P
follows the order of 42, but it
a. promotes "aron7
b. denigrates 5oses )for striking the rock at 5eribah, among other things*7
c. leaves out the stories of the golden calf and "aron9s criticism over 5oses9 wife7
d. eliminates stories of dreams, angels, talking animals, and all references to prophets
)except "aron*, thus picturing only the "aronid priesthood as the channel to the deity7
e. eliminates all references to repentance and divine mercy, thus strictly picturing
sacrifice as the means of atonement and forgiveness7 and
f. eliminates all depictions of sacrifice prior to the consecration of "aron and the
tabernacle, thus identifying the "aronid priesthood as the only divinely sanctioned
conductors of sacrifice.
3n virtually every P story it is possible to identify components that reflect an overall
design of composition of P as an alternative work to 42. Thus the differences between the P
versions and the 42 versions of stories are not only observable but, in nearly every case,
explainable. Dor example, we can explain the fact that in 4 =oah takes seven pairs of clean
)i.e., sacrificeable* animals on the ark while in P he takes only one pair, because in 4 =oah
offers a sacrifice at the end and therefore needs more than one pair of the sacrificeable
animals or else his sacrifice would end a species. 3n P, however, no sacrifices are pictured
prior to "aron, and therefore =oah needs no extra animals. 0imilarly, we can explain P9s
addition of 4oshua alongside !aleb in the spies story, because P cannot follow 42 in
establishing the merit of 4oshua by his disassociation from the golden calf incident, for P
eliminates the golden calf incident since it obviously denigrates "aron.
%. D begins with 5oses9 review of the years he has spent with the people on the Gourney from
0inai. 3n his speech are references to passages in 4, 2, and, in one case, P:
a. 2.g., Deut %:%-$&&7 cf. =um %:%$%& L 4.
b. 2.g., Deut 8:%$'7 cf. 2xod &%:,$8 L 2.
c. Deut :&8 )E"nd your little ones whom you said would be a preyF*7 cf. =um ':&, & L
P.
This is further confirmation that the 4, 2, and P narratives were composed prior to D. The
greater number of references to 42 than to P )only one* in Deuteronomy also suggest that D
was written in sympathy with the former but with less respect to the latter. This is
confirmed by D9s inclusion of the 2 stories that are hostile to P, by D9s blatantly opposite
view of priests and 6evites from that of P, and by D 9s reference to the Dathan and "biram
episode without reference to Jorah.
0. )eferences in 1ther 2iblical 2oo3s.
. 3n the book of the prophet 4eremiah there are allusions to passages in P. These allusions are
found in both the poetic and prose layers of 4eremiah )the poetry usually ascribed to
4eremiah himself and the prose to his contemporary, the scribe +aruch ben =eriah, or to a
EDeuteronomisticF biographer*. 3n every case, 4eremiah9s allusions to P are negative,
reversing P9s language and taking an opposite point of view in what are visibly deliberate
plays upon P9s characteristic language@which is consistent with a virtually universally
recogniCed bond between 4eremiah and the Deuteronomistic texts. The allusions to P in the
various layers of 4eremiah are consistent with the linguistic and other evidence for a
preexilic date for the composition of P. They also fit with the other signs of the
alternative1polemical relationship between P and the non-"aronid 6evitical sources )2 and
D*. " poetic allusion is 4er ':%&:
3 looked at the earth, and here it was unformed and void, "nd to the heavens, and their light was
gone.
The allusion to #en :$& )P* is patent.
%. " prose allusion is 4er &:-, E3t will be, when you multiply and be fruitful in the land in
those days, says >ahweh, that they will no longer say, Nthe ark of the covenant of >ahweh,9
and it will not come to mind, and it will not be made anymore.F !f. P9s characteristic use of
Ebe fruitful and multiply,F and also P9s focus on the ark.
&. 4eremiah says in ,:%%, EDor 3 did not speak to your fathers and 3 did not command them in
the day that 3 brought them out of the land of 2gypt about matters of offering and
sacrifice.F !f. P9s wording in 6ev ,:&,$&..
'. The book of 2Cekiel also alludes to passages in P. +iblical scholarship commonly regarded
2Cekiel as the source for P, but the linguistic evidence )see +., above* has now established
the priority of P. "lso, the character of the texts in 2Cekiel is identifiable as allusive rather
than primary. 2Cekiel ($-, for example, is form-critically a genre known as a Ecovenant
lawsuitF7 and the covenant text on which the lawsuit is based is found in P. The charge in
the covenant litigation in 2Cek (:, is E>ou did not walk according to my statutes, and you
did not do my Gudgments.F !f. P in 6ev %-:&, (. The allusions to P in 2Cekiel conform
with the other evidence for preexilic composition of P. 2Cekiel9s favorable attitude toward
P )as opposed to 4eremiah9s* together with his favorable regard for the "aronid1Madokite
priesthood is also consistent with other evidence that the source texts reflect the positions
of opposing priestly houses in ancient 3srael.
(. The Gudgment in 2Cekiel9s covenant litigation includes in (:/, EDathers will eat sons in
your midst.F This alludes to a passage in P7 cf. 6ev %-:%8.
-. The Gudgment continues in 2Cek (:,. !f. P in 6ev %-:%%, %(. The wordings are clearly
related@practically identical.
,. 6ikewise 2Cek -:&b$-a continues in wording that is based on the wording of P in 6ev
%-:&/, &a.
.. 2Cekiel9s criticism of priests in %%:%- is, in the precise wording of P, for their failure to
fulfil the reBuirements of priests as stated in 6ev /:/.
8. 2Cekiel9s review of the 2xodus in 2Cekiel %/ also is based on the story in the P version in
2xodus -. )3t is clearly a retelling, based on P9s telling, and not the reverse.* 2Cek %/:%.7 cf.
2xod -:.. 2Cek %/:(7 cf. 2xod -:&. 2Cek %/:&&$&'7 cf. 2xod -:-. 2Cek %/:.7 cf. 6ev %-:%.
2Cek %/:&, -, %'7 cf. 6ev %-:'&.
14. 5ar3s of Editorial 6or3. There are observable editorial devices in the Torah that
further confirm that there were originally separate works that were combined by editors
)EredactorsF*. These evidences of editorial work, together with other evidence enumerated above,
also reveal that the combining of 4, 2, P, and D into the united Torah was accomplished in several
stages of redaction.
a. Eanalesis )resumptive repetition*. This is an editorial device in which a line is
repeated following an insertion of one text into the body of another text. 2.g., in 2xod -:% 5oses
says, E<ow will Pharaoh listen to me, when 3 am uncircumcised of lipsOF Then a partial 3sraelite
genealogy that culminates in "aron9s family interrupts the account, followed by a transitional
summary of what had been said prior to the interruption, and then 5oses says in v &/, E3 am
uncircumcised of lips, and how will Pharaoh listen to meOF The epanalepsis in this case does not
appear to be the author9s own resumption after clumsily interrupting himself, but rather it has the
character of an editor9s mechanism for inserting a text into a preexisting account and then
returning to the flow of the account.
b. )econciling Phrases. The combining of texts that were similar but still not identical in
their order and location of events inevitably resulted in some inconsistencies. !ertain phrases are
superfluous to the narrative but make perfect sense as editorial insertions for the purpose of
reconciling such inconsistencies. Dor example, the 4 and 2 accounts of 4acob9s return from <aran
to !anaan picture him arriving at 0hechem, then returning to +ethel, where #od had appeared to
him years earlier. The P account has him coming from Paddan "ram directly to +ethel. The P
account of his arrival at +ethel begins, E"nd #od appeared to 4acob when he was coming from
Paddan "ramF )#en &(:8*. This makes no sense now that 4 and 2 texts precede it stating that
4acob had already returned and dwelled in the land. The redactor );* therefore added a
reconciling phrase to these 4 and 2 accounts of 4acob9s prior arrival at 0hechem, stating, Ewhich
was in the land of !anaan when he was coming from Paddan "ramF )&&:.b*. The ;edactor also
added the word EagainF to the P verse Buoted above )&(:8*, thus rendering the P report of the
divine appearance at +ethel an additional theophany to that of 2.
c. %raming De$ices. The originally separate texts are united into a sensible chronological
flow by three literary frames. The first is the series of EThese are the generations )<eb
_e o .e _ * of . . .F passages, which arrange the book of #enesis in an unbroken
chronological flow of the generations from "dam to 4oseph. The second is the EPharaoh hardened
his heartF element, which frames the accounts of the plagues, 2xodus, and ;ed 0ea events. The
third is the series of chronological-geographical notices of the stations of 3srael9s Gourney from
2gypt to the border of the promised land. 2ach of these three sets of framing passages derives
from a preexisting text. The first is constructed from the E+ook of #enerations,F an originally
independent text, now cut and distributed through the book of #enesis. The second is derived
from the wording of the P plagues account. "nd the third is derived from the E6ist of 0tations,F
another originally independent text, now located in =umbers &&. 2ach of the three texts from
which the editorial frames are constructed has the character of P material. The plagues text is
itself part of P, and the other two resemble P in language and data. This indicates that the redactor
of the final work favored P.
d. Te!ts .ttributed to ). The special relationship between the redactor and P is confirmed
by the presence of passages that are similar to P but which are supplemental and which appear to
come from a later period, viC. the era of the 0econd Temple. Dor example, =um (:$& and
=umbers %8$&/ have substantial terminology and interests in common with P, but these passages
nonetheless duplicate much information that is already given in P. " maGor difference between
these passages and the P texts that they overlap, however, is that the P texts emphasiCe the
reBuired presence of the tabernacle, as noted above, but these passages never mention the
tabernacle. This fits with the assignment of these passages to the period of the 0econd Temple,
which unlike its predecessor did not house the tabernacle, cherubs, and ark.
e. Degree of Comleteness of Te!ts. :hen the strands of the interwoven source works are
untwisted and separated from one another, neither 4 nor 2 can be read as a continuous story. 2ach
is incomplete. <owever, 4 and 2 together, with only P separated from them, do form a nearly
complete and continuous narrative. 3t is this combined narrative that P has been shown to follow.
P, as well, when separated from the other sources is a continuous and nearly complete narrative,
with only an occasional lacuna. This indicates that 4 and 2 were combined in a separate and
earlier editorial process and that P was added to them in a subseBuent editing. 3t also indicates
that each of the respective editors of these stages had a different set of governing principles and
methods. The redactor of 42 must have cut substantial portions of each of the sources in order to
produce the desired combined work. The redactor who merged 42 with P appears to have taken
enormous pains to retain as much of the source texts as possible without producing intolerable
contradictions and repetitions. This person may well have been responsible for adding D in the
same editorial enterprise. The separate stages of the editing of D )the law code, then the 4osianic
edition, then the exilic edition* would have been completed by the time of this redactor. The
Goining of D with 42P reBuired little more than moving the accounts of the promotion of 4oshua
and the death of 5oses to the end of Deuteronomy. 0ince the Torah that 2Cra is reported to have
read in 4erusalem in the (th century +.!. appears to have been the complete Torah, including 4, 2,
P, and D, 2Cra himself or someone from his circle is a likely candidate to be the redactor of the
Torah. 2Cra is identified as a scribe, as one who was particularly concerned with the Torah, as an
"aronid priest )hence the sympathy with and similarity to P*, and as the first person known to
possess a scroll of the complete Torah.
The strength of the identification of the four maGor sources of the Torah is not any single one of
the categories enumerated above. ;ather, it is the con"ergence of all of these bodies of e"idence
that is the most powerful argument