"Sure, there are books of the acts of various kings (government documents) but in those cases, the Biblical writer is actually using a 'reference' for the reader of his day to go check up his facts or read more. But these are not the precursor documents for JEDP theory to the best of my knowledge."
Not those specific documents, no. They became the basis for what would become the Books of Samuel, Kings and later Chronicles. But my point is that since the Solomonic kingship was more like the kingships of other Mesopotamian cultures than it was like the type of kingship Samuel had in mind, if there was a library it almost certainly contained more than just government documents. And it is these other unnamed documents that probably served as the basis for the Pentateuch.
"Most I have read say it was the pentateuch. Now, I would freely grant that this would be somewhat speculative but not entirely out of line either."
That depends on how you want to define "pentateuch" at this point in time. Many people who make this claim still believe it was written by a single author in its entirety long before the kingdom period. As I hope to show later, however, there is lots of internal evidence that casts serious doubt on this hypothesis. On the other hand, both J and E form of the core of the Pentateuch and much of the material that would form D and P later already existed in other documents, so as long as one acknowledges that it was not yet a single coherent work, the Pentateuch did indeed exist at this time.
"But what is fascinating to me, no one examines Melville, Dickens or Michener, to determine what 4 sources they plagiarized."
In their case we have direct historical and physical evidence that they did not create their works from "plagiarized" sources, whereas we have strong literary evidence that the Pentateuch was. However, their works are actually closer to how J and E at least were created than we might think. Granted the story lines these authors created were their own h directly contradict one another; there are two separate accounts of the slaying of Goliath, one where David kills him and one where Elhanan kills him; etc.
Another problem is that of chronological inconsistencies. For example, if you follow chronological signposts, you will notice that Jacob is dying for 80 years. That is, from the place where the Bible first says Jacob is about to die to the place where it says he finally does die, internal chronological signposts indicate that this period lasted 80 years, even though the impression from the text is that it was a very much shorter time than that. A third problem is that of theological differences. For example, the text often shows radical, even contradictory, shifts in the meaning and nature of the covenant. This will be discussed in more detail later, but either the single author kept changing his mind as to what the covenant meant or these different views demonstrate that at least two separate sources, or group of sources, were used to compose the first half of the Hebrew Bible.
Still another problem is anachronisms. For example, Abraham is said to have owned camels. Abraham is generally believed to have lived sometime around or after 1800 BCE, yet there is no reliable evidence of the use of the camel in the Fertile Crescent before 500 BCE. This would indicate that those portions of Genesis were being edited and/or revised by someone who lived during a time when camels were a common sight and so did not think twice about whether Abraham would have some. (Before 500 BCE, definitely before 1000 BCE, the preferred beast of burden in the Fertile Crescent was the ass.)
Any one of these problems might be explainable by a single author hypothesis, but all of them together, plus others, strongly refute the idea that the first half of the Hebrew Bible, especially the Pentateuch, was written by a single person at a single time.
The evidence supporting the current form of the documentary hypothesis begins like this. Another problem for the single author hypothesis is something that is lost when the Hebrew Bible is translated into English. People who read Hebrew fluently (Oden is one) are often struck by a rather odd phenomenon. Different sections of the Hebrew Bible - often sitting right beside each other in the modern Bible - have different prose styles. These differences go beyond the simple fact that different people write differently; they strongly support the view that these different sections were written at different times.
It would be as if someone today took one story each from the English literature of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th. 19th and 20th Centuries, left them intact except for minor editing and revisions but placed them in random order, then added text between the stories to make the collection look like a single coherent story. If translated into French it might fool Parisians, but to anyone fluent in English the differences in prose style would be immediately and painfully obvious. Virtually any reader would be able to tell where one story ended and another began, even if the book's chapter divisions cut across story boundaries. Most would even be able to reassemble the stories in proper chronological order by comparing prose styles with that of the modern bridging text.
This virtually describes the composition of the Hebrew Bible as seen by people who read it in the original Hebrew, though it is not as obvious. One problem is that the Bible has been edited, and re-edited, and re-re-edited so many times some of the more subtle differences have been lost. Nonetheless, in most cases the relative ages of the different sections can be more or less accurately determined by comparing prose style. This often leads to some interesting revelations. Exodus 15 and Judges 5 are probably two of the oldest poems in the Old Testament. They are so old in fact that translation is extremely difficult; most scholar concede that current translations are simply their best guess as to what these poems are actually saying. But there is evidence that later (1st Millennium BCE) Hebrew scholars also found these poems difficult to understand, because both are preceded by younger prose versions attempting to explain what the poems mean.
In any event, using differences in prose style and other characteristics, literary scholars have been able to divide the first half of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis through Chronicles, plus Job), into four broad categories (though it is no longer considered possible to do this division verse by verse as it was once thought). These categories were called sources and were given the designations J, E, D and P. (A fifth category, designated R for "Redactor", is not considered a true source, because the Redactor is believed to have been simply a compiler and editor. However, "his" influence is clearly noticeable in the original Hebrew.) The designations are based upon one major characteristic that stands out from all the rest, but in fact each source has a number of characteristics that distinguishes it from the others.
These characteristics are almost all theological. Let's look more closely at the differences between J and E to try to illustrate this. The designations come from the one major characteristic that clearly distinguishes them. "J" refers to the fact that the source predominantly uses "Yahweh" as the name for God (and in German Yahweh is spelled with a J) while "E" refers to the fact that the source predominantly uses "Eloheem" as the name for God. This distinction is not based on a reluctance or refusal of either source to use synonyms; in fact, J occasionally uses Eloheem and E uses Yahweh in rare circumstances. And neither uses any one name in Genesis, preferring instead to use titles that all begin with "El", such as El-Elohe-Israel, El Elyon, El-Bethel, El-roi, El Olam and El Shaddai, to name a few. (Which is interesting in itself, because the chief Canaanite god was named El, and his chief rival was Baal.)
Rather the distinction was based on the clear theological differences between J and E. One way to understand this difference is to ask both sources two questions: Was there a time when the divine name of Yahweh was unknown? Is Yahweh the god of Genesis? J appears to answer both questions no, whereas E seems to answer both questions yes. Now, great care should be taken in interpreting these answers, especially J's. Though God never reveals His name in Genesis, J nonetheless believes that it was known (but unused) since the Garden of Eden. As such, J appears to believe there is nothing special about it and uses it freely from Exodus on. E, on the other hand, apparently believes that the divine name was not revealed until Exodus, and even then was a name of such holiness that it should not be spoken openly, hence the source's preference for Eloheem. (This might also be the source for the Fourth Commandment.)
As far as the second question is concerned, J is NOT saying that there are two gods, one who operates in Genesis under various nom de plumes, only to disappear at the end of Genesis and be replaced by Yahweh. Rather it seems to be saying that the god of Genesis is such a different deity compared to Yahweh personality-wise that it seems like two different gods. E on the other hand assumes no difference in personality between Genesis and Exodus. Both sources agree that in Exodus God is clearly the Master of the Universe, a being who prefers to communicate with men through angelic or human intermediates and dreams, but who will appear personally (if He must) only as an invisible spirit or a non-human manifestation. And while He deals with single persons who act as His liaison, His focus is on nations, not individuals. E's portrayal of God in Genesis is no different, but J's is far more personable. J sees the god of Genesis more as a next door neighbor than Master of the Universe, a
being who prefers to deal with men directly rather than through dreams or intermediates, and who will take human form so that he can visit with his favorites in their own camp. J's god of Genesis also has a more human personality, even to the point of being capricious or spiteful. And he seems to care almost nothing for nations, preferring instead to focus on individuals. It's these kinds of theological differences that explain why the two sources choose the names they use.
Another major way in which the two sources differ theologically is in how they treat the covenant. J appears to treat it as an unconditional promise. God had approached the patriarchs and said that if they would honor Him, He would bless them with land and descendents. Since the patriarchs did honor Him, He has to keep His promise to their descendents, even though they don't always follow the example of their ancestors. As such, we almost never read in J of God or one His prophets haranguing someone for violating covenant. In fact, prophets seem to have little importance in J, limited to anointing kings and declaring the occasional Holy War. And J strongly de-emphasizes religious ritual and ceremony, which would otherwise be necessary to keep faith with the covenant.
E on the other hand appears to treat the covenant as a conditional treaty that must be renewed with each generation. God will only continue to bless the people of Israel with land and descendents if they continue to honor Him. When they don't, He withholds His blessing and the result is ruin, death and occupation by a foreign power. As such, E is filled with stories that have a very similar pattern: the people or the king break covenant; God sends a prophet to criticize the people and/or the king; the people and/or the king ignore the prophet; foreign invaders kill the king (if any) and subjugate the people; the people repent; the prophet rallies the people (or anoints a new king) and the invaders are driven out; peace and prosperity reign until the next time covenant is broken. This pattern can be seen in the stories of both Judges and Kings, all of whom have been strongly influenced by E. As a result, prophets are very important in E, having in addition to the powers of anoint
ing kings and declaring Holy War the right to criticize the king when necessary and the responsibility to protect the true religion of Israel. And E strongly emphasizes religious ritual and ceremony, especially the Passover.
There are some non-theological characteristics of the two sources, the most important involving geographical locations and genealogies. Most of the events described in J take place in what will become the southern Kingdom of Judah, whereas most of the events described in E take place in what will become the northern Kingdom of Ephraim (I prefer to use this alternative name for the kingdom to avoid confusion with Israel as a whole). J in turn focuses on genealogies that establish claims over southern lands, whereas E focuses on genealogies that establish claims over northern lands. This has led scholars to conclude that J was written in Judah while E was written in Ephraim (leading to the confusion that J and E stand for the kingdom names when in fact they do not), which in turn has also led many scholars to conclude that the sources reflect the theological differences of the two kingdoms. There is some support for this, in that the heaviest prophetic activity took place in the nor
th, the north seemed to be far more concerned with ritual than the south and the south had a much more stable kingship than the north (the same dynasty ruled the south virtually its entire history whereas the north experienced frequent dynastic changes).
Rather than go on and describe the theological background of D and P (which I could do if there is any interest), I think I shall end here, since Glenn's main concerns were about J and E.
Kevin L. O'Brien
"Good God, consider yourselves fortunate that you have John Adams to abuse, for no sane man would tolerate it!" William Daniels, _1776_