Blaire Bayliss The Bible in Politics

J and E in the Documentary Hypothesis

Church tradition states that the Pentateuch was written by a single individual. This individual,
likely Moses, is believed to have acted as the sole author, organizer and editor of all the passages
included in the first five books of the Bible. But this common belief has been subject to much
scrutiny. If a single man wrote the Pentateuch, then why do the first five books of the Bible contain
repetitious and sometimes contradictory stories? Why is it that the books contain two seemingly
unique descriptions of what seems to be the same God? Most importantly, if Moses wrote the first
five books of the Bible, then how was Moses death recorded? (Friedman.17) These are the questions
which author Richard Friedman tackles in his book, Who Wrote the Bible?
In his book, Friedman argues that the first five books of the Bible were not written by a
single person at all. Friedman proposes the idea that there were four distinct authors of the
Pentateuch, each with their own unique perspective on both the religious and political issues of the
day. These four authors recorded important events which occurred and wrote down their own
religious history independently of each other. These separate accounts were then likely collected and
compiled together chronologically by a series of redactors. The compilation resulted in the
documents we know today as the Pentateuch. This theory has come to be known as the Documentary
Hypotheses. (Friedman.22)
Although Friedmans theory includes four authors of the Pentateuch, he spends most of his
book on just two of these authors. Because these proposed authors have no recorded names in the
Bible, Friedman has given then the temporary names J and E. Friedman proposes the idea that J
and E were two authors who came from different places, and who had distinct concerns and
perspectives on the events they were recording.
Blaire Bayliss The Bible in Politics
Based on the different stories told, Friedman deduces that J was an individual who likely
resided in Judah, while E lived in Israel. This is clearly seen in in regards to the stories each author
chooses to emphasize, with E telling stories which glorify Israel and J recording events which glorify
Judah. In a passage written by J, God makes a covenant with Abraham. Abraham is promised that his
descendants will rule the land between the rivers of Egypt and Euphrates. These landmarks signify
the land which later became known as Judah. In contrast, passages written by E tell how Abrahams
grandson Jacob wrestled with God. The place where it happens is named Peni-El, a city in Israel.
(Friedman.62)
The bias of the authors is seen throughout the text in the heroes that each author chooses to
portray. According to the E story, Joshua was Moses trusted companion. But in the J telling of the
story, Joshua plays no role whatsoever. As a northern hero, it is more likely that Joshua would have
been praised by an Israeli author rather than an author from Judah. (Friedman.66) The J story instead
depicts Caleb, a Judean, as the true hero. When Moses sends spies into the Promised Land, the J texts
describe the promised land as the land of Judah. When all other spies refuse to go into Judah due to
the intimidating inhabitants, Caleb stands alone in urging the leaders not to give up hope in Gods
promise. (Friedman.67)
The authors are additionally distinct in the histories of the origins of the tribes. E tells the
stories of Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulon, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin. Each of
these individuals became the founder of one of the tribes of Israel. Meanwhile, J tells a story
recording how Jacobs sons Reuben, Levi and Simeon all lost their birthright through unholy acts.
The Genesis story of Joseph ends with Jacob recanting these sons birthrights on his deathbed. The
story then states that the birthright of the family truly went to none other than Judah. (Friedman.63)
Yet although the J story blatantly attacks the birthright of these elder sons, the E version of this story
continues to protect the image of Israel by stating that it was Reuben who saved Joseph from being
Blaire Bayliss The Bible in Politics
killed by his other brothers. The J story, however, states that it was Judah who saved Joseph.
(Friedman.65)
The geographical distance between the two authors is reflected in their differing
interpretations of historical acts. One passage which discusses the city of Shechem is a particularly
excellent example of this phenomenon. The city of Shechem was originally a part of Judah, but was
taken and made into the capital of Israel. J and E tell differing and contradictory stories describing
how this transfer of land came about. J writes that the men from Israel use a marriage agreement as
leverage to have all the men in the city of Shechem circumcised. While the men of Shechem are
immobile from pain, two sons from Israel come and massacre the men in Shechem, seizing the city.
The harsh narrative used strongly supported the hypothesis that the J writer was himself from Judah.
The parallel story written by E, however, states that the men from Israel bought Shechem in a fair
and honest business deal. Nothing of massacre or circumcision is mentioned at all in the E texts, thus
protecting the interests of the tribes of Israel. (Friedman.63) The descriptions of later conflicts
diverge in the same way, with J providing a much more horrific account than E. J especially
describes the horrors against women. Friedman views this as a possible clue towards the idea that J
may have, in fact, been a woman. (Friedman.10)
The documentation hypothesis provides a new and fascinating explanation for the
contradictions found in the Old Testament. The discovery of two separate authors explains that due
to differing backgrounds and interests, the texts can be contradictory. But rather than being an error
of translation or editing, it is nothing more than a difference of opinion and view. The opinions and
traditions found in the Pentateuch ought to be read in light of the different backgrounds of the
authors.