Why the Documentary Hypothesis is the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies

14 Pages·2008·0.12 MB·English

by  John Rogers

The Undead Hypothesis:
Why the Documentary Hypothesis is
the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies
Duane Garrett
Duane Garrett is a professor of Old A stock feature of the classic “grade B” established result of biblical scholarship
Testament at Gordon Conwell Theologi- horror movie is the undead creature who in universities and theological schools
cal Seminary. He has served the Inter- relentlessly stalks innocent people and around the world. Books and mono-
national Mission Board by teaching in terrorizes an otherwise quiet village. graphs rooted in it still frequently appear.
Southern Baptist seminaries in both Whether it be Frankenstein, the Mummy, Laughably, some of these books are
Korea and Canada. Dr. Garrett is the Dracula, or simply crude, grotesque zom- touted for their “startling new interpre-
author of many articles and books, bies with rotting flesh falling off their tations” of the history of the Bible while
including two Old Testament commen- limbs and faces, these villains share a in fact doing little more than repackaging
taries in the New American Commen- common trait. They all have already died old ideas.1 If the sheer volume of litera-
tary series. He is currently working on a and usually have already been buried. But ture on a hypothesis were a demonstra-
commentary on the Song of Solomon then, either through the blunder of some tion of its veracity, the documentary
for the Word Biblical Commentary investigator or the work of some evil hypothesis would indeed be well estab-
series. genius, they rise and walk again. The lished.2 Nevertheless, while the dead
dilemma posed by these undead mon- hand of the documentary hypothesis still
sters is obvious: How do you kill some- dominates Old Testament scholarship as
one who is already dead? its official orthodoxy, the cutting edge
A similar creature stalks the halls of research of recent years has typically been
biblical studies. It is routinely raised up highly critical of the theory.3
from the grave in classrooms and it In 1991 I published Rethinking Genesis,4
haunts textbooks and monographs that which was one of a number of books pub-
deal with the Hebrew Scriptures. Wher- lished within about a decade to challenge
ever it roams, it distorts the analysis of the the documentary hypothesis and suggest
text of the Bible, confounds readers, and a new approach to the background of
produces strange and irrational interpre- Genesis. Notwithstanding the fact that
tations. This undead creature sometimes this work and several major challenges to
goes by the quasi-mystical sounding the hypothesis from established critical
sobriquet “the JEDP theory,” but it is bet- scholars received some significant atten-
ter known by its formal name, the docu- tion—but virtually no rebuttals speaking
mentary hypothesis. in favor of the documentary hypothesis
The time has come for scholars to rec- —J, E, D, and P continue to be paraded
ognize that the documentary hypothesis before university students as the original
is dead. The arguments that support it documents behind the Pentateuch.
have been dismantled by scholars of Evangelical readers should not be san-
many stripes—many of whom have no guine about this fact. Despite the assur-
theological commitment to the Bible. The ances of some quasi-confessional scholars
theory is, however, still taught as an that it really does not matter where Gen-
28
esis comes from, the documentary after K. H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen,
hypothesis is fundamentally incompatible who gave it its classic expression.5 In the
with belief in even a minimal historical English-speaking world, the theory was
core of the Pentateuch. If the hypothesis popularized especially by S. R. Driver.
is true, then the Pentateuch is essentially
fiction. Worse than that, it is a confused, The Documentary Hypothesis
self-contradictory fiction with no unified Briefly Described
theological message. It is with this in The theory asserts that behind the
mind that I return to this topic and seek Pentateuch are four source documents,
to make readers of this journal aware of called J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deu-
the basic issues. teronomist), and P (Priestly Code).
J, the oldest, begins at Genesis 2:4b and
The Background of the includes large portions of Genesis as well
Documentary Hypothesis as portions of Exodus and Numbers and
The documentary hypothesis began a few short texts in Deuteronomy. It is
with the speculations of Jean Astruc often dated to the early monarchy period
(1684–1766), who suggested that he could and is thought to have its provenance in
uncover the sources of the Pentateuch by Judah. In Genesis, J refers to God as
using the divine names Yahweh (“the Yahweh for, according to the hypothesis,
LORD”) and Elohim (“God”) as a guide. He J believed that people began using the
placed passages that use the name Elohim name Yahweh early in the antediluvian
in one column (A), those that use Yahweh period (Gen 4:26, a J text). As a theologi-
in another (B), and passages with “repeti- cal statement, J is often regarded as the
tions” in a third column (C), and inter- work of a great, original thinker who gave
polations in a fourth column (D). His shape to the Old Testament idea of the
suggestion led scholars to believe that the history of salvation.
distinction in the divine names—that is, E is somewhat later than J but follows
whether a given text calls the Deity the same basic story line as J. Genesis 15
“Yahweh” or Elohim—was the primary is the first extant E text. E comes from the
marker of the origin of that text. Using northern kingdom. In Genesis, E refers
this basic criterion, scholars accounted for to God as Elohim rather than Yahweh
the development of the Pentateuch as it because, according to E, the name Yahweh
exists today in various ways. Some sug- was not revealed until the exodus period
gested a “fragmentary hypothesis” (Exod 3:15, an E text). E is more sensitive
(which asserts that the Pentateuch was to moral issues than J but it views God as
compiled from a mass of fragmentary somewhat more distant from man. J and
sources) while others postulated a “sup- E were subsequently redacted into a
plemental hypothesis” (which asserts that single document by RJE (R = “redactor”).
a single document lies at the core of the In the redaction, much of the E material
Pentateuch, but that many fragmentary was edited out and thus lost to posterity.
sources have been added to it). But the D was written at the time of Josiah’s
triumphant theory of Pentateuchal origins reformation and is essentially the book of
was the documentary hypothesis, often Deuteronomy. According to 2 Kings 22,
called the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis Hilkiah the priest found a copy of the law
29
of Moses when the temple was being and the ancient Near Eastern world of the
restored. In the documentary hypothesis, text itself. In addition, scholars were
however, Deuteronomy was actually willing to tolerate a glaring inconsistency
written at this time as a kind of pious in their approach to the problem. They
fraud to justify Josiah’s reformation. D assumed that each document writer (such
does not have a characteristic divine name as J) aimed to produce a single, con-
but uses both Yahweh and Elohim. The tinuous history but would tolerate no
redactor RD subsequently combined the inconsistency, repetition, or narrative
texts JE and D. digressions. They believed that the redac-
P was written in the postexilic period. tors, however, were oblivious to con-
It begins at Genesis 1:1 and includes large tradiction and repetition when they
portions of Genesis, Exodus, and Num- combined the documents.
bers and all of Leviticus. It is said to Stylistic differences enable scholars to dis-
represent the triumph of the postexilic tinguish one source text from another. Early
priesthood and it attempts to justify their advocates of the documentary hypothesis
form of worship and codify their religion. felt they could easily separate one text
In Genesis, P refers to God as Elohim since, from another on the basis of style. P, for
like E, it assumes that the divine name example, is said to have a formal, seg-
Yahweh was first revealed at the exodus mented, and rather aloof style while J is
(Exod 6:3, a P text). It is dominated by supposed to have written in a flowing and
genealogies, priestly regulations, and a dramatic narrative style. This perception
very formal manner of narration. P was is reinforced by the fact that formal texts
soon redacted into JED by RP. The (such as Genesis 1, descriptions of the tab-
Pentateuch was thus formed.6 ernacle and its offerings, and genealogies)
are routinely assigned to P while texts
Defining Principles of the such as Genesis 2—4 are for the most part
Documentary Hypothesis assigned to J. But this is more a matter of
One must recognize that according to content than of style. The whole Penta-
this theory the four documents were each teuch is in standard (albeit somewhat
composed first of all as independent, con- lofty) biblical Hebrew.
tinuous, single narrations and only later Ancient editors (redactors) simply
were brought together and edited into the conflated their source documents without
present work. The scholars who devel- attempting to correct obvious contradictions
oped the documentary hypothesis either or smooth out problems created by joining the
explicitly or implicitly followed a number documents together. That is, the redactors
of basic principles in their research. simply merged the texts at hand by the
It is easy to determine the purposes and “scissors-and-paste” method of cutting
methods behind the documents and redactions. up each document and then joining the
The early framers of the documentary whole into a continuous narrative. This is,
hypothesis thought they could deduce the of course, a questionable and peculiar
purposes and methods of the redactors, assumption.
despite the fact that enormous cultural Israelite history and religion developed in
differences existed between the (mostly a simple, evolutionary manner. In the docu-
German) scholars who studied Genesis mentary hypothesis, Israelite religion is
30
supposed to have moved from a primi- the name Yahweh was not revealed until
tive tribal religion to the advanced mono- the Exodus.
theism of postexilic Israel. Israelite social Genesis contains some duplicate stories
institutions that reflect a sophisticated, and repetitions. This is because each source
monotheistic religion with a central document often contained its own version
priesthood (such as the institutions of the of a single tradition. Thus 12:10–20 (J) and
Aaronic priesthood and the regulated sys- 20:1–18 (E) contain variants of a single tra-
tems of offerings described in Exodus and dition of a patriarch passing off his wife
Leviticus) are said to be retrojections from as his sister.7 Sometimes the two variant
the postexilic period onto the (largely versions were redacted into a single nar-
mythical) era of Moses and the Exodus. rative, yet the documents behind the
Wellhausen built his theory on an evolu- single redaction are still apparent. J and
tionary philosophy with its roots in the P each had a version of the Flood story,
idealism of G. W. F. Hegel. In Wellhausen, for example, but these have been com-
Old Testament scholarship is dominated bined in the present text.
by an outdated and discarded approach Contradictions within Genesis indicate
to historical analysis. the existence of the separate documents. The
implication is that one document had one
The Arguments for the version of a tradition, but a second docu-
Documentary Hypothesis ment had another version of the same
As scholars have continued to study story that contradicted the first in some
the texts, they have proposed many modi- details.
fications to the original documentary The language and style of the documents
hypothesis. Some scholars have made the vary. J is said to have been a masterful
theory more complex by dividing the four storyteller, but P is regarded as formal and
sources into even smaller sources (e.g., wordy. Each document also has its own
J1 and J2 ), whereas others reduced the preferred vocabulary.
number of sources, especially by rejecting Each document, when extracted from the
the existence of E altogether. Neverthe- present text of the Pentateuch, shows itself to
less, the basic documentary hypothesis have been originally a continuous, theologi-
from which all refinements come is the cally meaningful piece of literature. Some
simplest point at which the theory can be have argued that it is possible to see a spe-
analyzed. In addition, the book of Gen- cific literary and theological purpose
esis is the true focus of the debate. The behind each document.8 If this argument
central arguments for the hypothesis are is established, then it obviously suggests
as follows. that there actually were separate docu-
Some texts in Genesis refer to God as ments behind the present text.
Yahweh, whereas others call him Elohim. Pas- Even on a superficial reading, some texts
sages in Genesis that call God Yahweh are obviously involve more than one source. The
assigned to J, who thought the name best example is Genesis 1–2. Genesis 1:1–
Yahweh was revealed to humanity well 2:3 and Genesis 2:4ff. seem to differ in
before the patriarchal age began. Those many details in regard to the sequence of
texts that refer to God as Elohim may be creation (for example, whether the ani-
assigned to E or P, both of whom thought mals were made before or after the cre-
31
ation of the first man). of Moses, there is no reason for them to
The confused history of the Israelite priest- avoid using the name in patriarchal
hood found in the Pentateuch is best explained stories except when they were directly
by the documentary hypothesis. In some texts quoting a character whom they believed
(e.g., Deuteronomy), all Levites are did not yet know the name.10 If anything,
priests. In other texts (the P portions of we might have expected P to use Yahweh
Exodus and Leviticus), only the Aaronites in his patriarchal narrative in order to
are priests and the rest of the Levites are establish continuity with the God of the
mere temple workers without priestly Exodus.
privileges. The Pentateuch, therefore, can- Fourth, the interchange of Yahweh and
not be a unified work from a single hand. Elohim can be explained without resort to
Rather, documents D and P come from postulating different sources. Umberto
different perspectives and different ages. Cassuto makes the point that the two
names bring out different aspects of the
An Analysis of the Arguments for character of God. Yahweh is the covenant
the Documentary Hypothesis name of God, which emphasizes his spe-
The Names of God cial relationship to Israel. Elohim speaks
The criterion of the divine names for of God universally as God of all earth.11
source analysis is very weak. First, the cri- Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who
terion cannot be applied consistently. At he is. More precisely, one can say that the
the beginning of the Pentateuch we read terms Yahweh and Elohim have semantic
not simply “Yahweh” in the J source (Gen- overlap. In a context that emphasizes God
esis 2-4) but the unusual Yahweh Elohim as universal deity (e.g., Genesis 1), Elohim
(“the LORD God”). Genesis 22:11, an E text, is used. In a text that speaks more of God
uses the name Yahweh. M. H. Segal notes as covenant savior (Exodus 6), Yahweh is
that the divine names are often used more likely to be found. Otherwise, if
interchangeably in texts that cannot have neither aspect is particularly stressed, the
different sources, which begs the question names may be alternated for variety or for
of why Genesis should be treated excep- no perceivable reason.
tionally.9 Fifth, the assumption that the J text
Second, use of the divine names as a thought the patriarchs knew the name
source criterion is contrary to all ancient Yahweh but that E and P texts claim they
Near Eastern analogies. No Egyptologist, did not is based on faulty exegesis. Gen-
for example, would use divine names for esis 4:26, “Then people began to call on
source criticism in an Egyptian text. the name of Yahweh,” is often taken as an
Third, the rationale for the avoidance assertion by J that the name Yahweh was
of Yahweh in E and P sources in Genesis revealed at this moment in history. E and
is specious. There is no reason that J P, on the other hand, are said to have
should ever avoid Elohim; no one suggests believed that the name Yahweh was first
that he did not know the word or had revealed in the period of the Exodus. The
theological reasons to exclude it from his relevant texts are Exodus 3:13–15 (E) and
texts. And even if the E and P writers Exodus 6:24 (P).
thought that the Israelites did not know Genesis 4:26 has nothing to do with the
of the divine name Yahweh until the time question of when the name Yahweh was
32
revealed. Even Claus Westermann, an B And I made myself known to
adherent of the documentary hypothesis, Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob
says that it has been misunderstood. Gen- as El Shaddai.
esis 4:26 gives an optimistic closure to the A’ And my name is Yahweh;
sad history of Genesis 3-4 and says that B’ Did I not make myself known to
the God his readers know as Yahweh is them?
the one true God whom people have wor-
shiped from earliest times. The text insists that God revealed him-
In Exodus 3:1–15, Moses asks God his self to the patriarchs. It does not say that
name, and is told first that God is the “I they had never heard of Yahweh or that
am,” and then that he should tell the they only knew of El Shaddai, although it
Israelites that Yahweh, the God of their does say that God showed them the
fathers, had sent Moses to them. God meaning of his name El Shaddai. Ander-
adds that Yahweh is the name by which sen’s comments are to the point: “There
he is to be worshiped forever. The text is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a
does not say that no one had ever heard new name revealed first to Moses. On
the name Yahweh before this time. Were the contrary, the success of his mission
that the case, one would find something depended on the use of the familiar name
like, “No longer will you call me the God for validation by the Israelites.”14
of your fathers; from now on my name is In short, the criterion of divine names,
Yahweh,” similar to Genesis 17:5, 15. the historical and evidential starting point
Instead, the text asserts that the name for the documentary hypothesis, is com-
Yahweh will have new significance pletely specious. It is based on misinter-
because of the Exodus. The people will pretation, mistranslation, and lack of
now see that Yahweh is present with attention to extrabiblical sources.
them.12
Exodus 6:2c–3 appears to be a straight- Repetition, Parallel Accounts
forward assertion that the patriarchs did (Doublets), and Redundancy
not know the name Yahweh. Most trans- The use of repetition as evidence for
lations are similar to the following: “I am multiple documents in Genesis is perhaps
Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, and to the most persuasive argument for the
Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but modern student, while in fact it is the
by my name Yahweh I did not make most misleading of all. It seems to the
myself known to them.” But the Hebrew, modern reader that Genesis 12:10–20
as Francis I. Andersen points out, contains and 20:1–18 must be variants of a single
a case of noncontiguous parallelism that tradition. How else could one explain
translators have not recognized: “I am the presence of two stories that seem so
Yahweh . . . and my name is Yahweh”. The remarkably similar—a patriarch who
negative (“not”) is part of a rhetorical seeks to avoid trouble by claiming that his
question and not a simple negative.13 The wife is his sister? The variants (Pharaoh’s
whole text is set in a poetic, parallel struc- house in Genesis 12, Abimelech’s house
ture, as follows: in Genesis 20) appear to be examples of
how a single tradition has been handed
A I am Yahweh. down in different forms in different com-
33
munities. But this assumption is an logical point to make, would not employ
entirely modern reading of the text and this technique.
ignores ancient principles of rhetoric. In The parallels between Genesis 12:10–
an ancient text, there is no stronger indi- 20 and 20:1–18, when analyzed by ancient
cation that only a single document is literary standards, strongly indicate that
present than parallel accounts. Doublets, the two accounts are from the same
that is, two separate stories that closely source. That is, when judged according to
parallel one another, are the very stuff of the narrative techniques of an ancient
ancient narrative. They are what the dis- storyteller, the repetition is evidence that
criminating listener sought in a story. we have a single author giving us paral-
Simple repetition is common in ancient lel but distinct episodes in his story.
Near Eastern literature. In the Ugaritic Epic In contrast to the phenomenon of dou-
of Keret, for example, large portions of the blets, redundancy within a single text
text are repeated verbatim (albeit from dif- occurs when, according to the documen-
ferent perspectives). This technique is tary hypothesis, a redactor combines (for
employed in the Bible as well. In Genesis example) a J version and a P version of a
24, a great deal of vv. 12–27 is repeated in tradition into a single narrative. The flood
vv. 34–48, although in the latter text it is narrative is the classic example of two
from the servant’s perspective. accounts having been joined in a scissors-
In an analogous manner, if two or more and-paste method. As evidence for the
separate events were perceived to be simi- conflation, advocates of the hypothesis
lar to one another, ancient writers tended cite the redundancies and argue that a
to give accounts of the events in parallel single author would not have repeated
fashion. To do this, they would highlight himself so much. Thus, for example, Gen-
similarities in the episodes. A narrator esis 6:9–22 is said to be P but 7:1–5 is J. As
might put into the same form all the the text reads, however, the two passages
accounts that he wants to present as par- have repetition but are not fully redun-
allel; he would also select material that fit dant; they are consecutive. The P mate-
the parallel he seeks to establish and per- rial is prior to the building of the ark and
haps leave out some of the differences. For the J material is a speech of God after its
this reason the author of Kings, in sum- completion but just prior to the beginning
marizing the reigns of each king of Israel of the flood. The repetition heightens the
and Judah, tends to employ a number of dramatic anticipation of the deluge to fol-
formulas. He gives the date a king came low and is not indicative of two separate
into power, the length of his reign, an documents having been combined.
evaluation, a reference indicating where Similarly, Genesis 7:21–22 is cited as a
the reader can find more information, and redundancy in the flood story. The docu-
a statement of the king’s death and burial. mentary hypothesis assigns verse 21 to P
By employing this technique, he estab- and verse 22 to J,15 but Andersen has shown
lishes the same pattern for every king and that the two verses are chiastic and are not
emphasizes the evil done by Israel’s kings the product of two separate writers.16
through the frequent repetition of “and he
did evil in the sight of the Lord.” A mod- A They perished
ern writer, even one with the same theo- B Every living thing that moves on
34
earth . . . Studies in the Pentateuch written in the
B’ Everything that has the breath of early twentieth century from the perspec-
the living spirit . . . tive of the documentary hypothesis
A’ They died tended to contain lengthy lists of what
was supposed to be the characteristic
Andersen argues that when the text vocabulary of each document. One rarely
is left as it stands rather than arbitrarily sees in modern studies lists of this kind.19
divided into sources and doublets, the The criterion is itself quite artificial; we
artistic unity of the whole gives the know nothing of the common speech of
impression of having been formed as a the people of ancient Israel, and we can-
single, unified narration.17 not be sure that the words cited as syn-
onymous pairs are really synonymous.
Contradictions in the Text One word may have been chosen over
Apparent contradictions in Genesis are another for the sake of a special nuance
often cited as markers to the different in a given circumstance, or indeed sim-
documents behind the text. A simple ply for the sake of variety.
example in the flood account concerns the
number of animals to be brought on board The Unity of Each Document
the ark (6:20 says to bring one pair of The argument that each document (J,
every kind of animal, but 7:2 says to bring E, or P) is a self-contained and complete
seven pairs of clean animals). The expla- narrative when separated from its context
nation is simply that 7:1–2 is a precise fig- in Genesis is simply absurd, although
ure given immediately before the flood demonstrating the absurdity of it will
but that 6:20 is a general figure given require us to examine a text in some
before the ark was built. Provision had to detail. For example, if one looks at Gen-
be made to ensure that there would be esis 28:10-30:7 as it is analyzed in a
sufficient livestock after the flood, and standard text (Driver’s Introduction), the
thus the higher number of clean animals. internal confusion of each document is
Of course, contradictions have to be self-evident. Below is the text as separated
examined on a case-by-case basis, but into its J and E components along with
apparent contradictions hardly sustain additional, extraneous material.20
the documentary hypothesis.
J Text
The Criterion of Style 28:10 So Jacob departed from Beersheba
As already indicated, the idea that J and headed toward Haran. 28:13 And there
and P have different styles is a result of was Yahweh who stood above it and said,
artificially dividing the text. The “arid” “I am Yahweh, the God of your father
style of the genealogies of P is simply a Abraham and the God of Isaac; I will give
by–product of the fact that they are the land on which you lie to you and to
genealogies—it has nothing to do with your descendants. 28:14 Also, your descen-
their being written in a different style. dants will be like the dust of the earth, and
Whybray points out that the genealogies you will spread out toward the west and
ascribed to J “have precisely the same toward the east and toward the north and
‘arid’ character as those attributed to P.”18 toward the south; and all the families of
35
the earth will be blessed in you and in mother’s brother. 29:11 Then Jacob kissed
your descendants. 28:15 And look, I am with Rachel, and lifted his voice and wept. 29:12
you, and will keep you wherever you Then Jacob told Rachel that he was a
go, and will bring you back to this land; relative of her father and that he was
for I will not leave you until I have done Rebekah’s son. She ran and told her
what I have promised you.” 28:16 Then father. 29:13 Then this happened: when
Jacob woke up from his sleep and said, Laban heard the news of Jacob his sister’s
“Yahweh is definitely in this place, but I son, he ran to meet him and embraced
did not know it.” 28:19 He called that place him and kissed him and brought him to
Bethel although the city used to be called his house. Then he told Laban about all
Luz. 29:2 And he looked and saw a well in these things. 29:14 And Laban said to him,
the field, and there were three flocks of “For sure you are my bone and my flesh.”
sheep lying there beside it, for they And he stayed with him a month. 29:31
watered the flocks from that well. Now Now Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved
the stone on the mouth of the well was and he opened her womb; but Rachel was
large. 29:3 When all the flocks were gath- barren. 29:32 And Leah became pregnant
ered there, they would roll the stone from and bore a son and named him Reuben,
the mouth of the well and water the for she said, “Because Yahweh has seen
sheep, and then put the stone back in its my affliction; certainly my husband will
place on the mouth of the well. 29:4 So love me now.” 29:33 Then she became
Jacob said to them, “My brothers, where pregnant again and bore a son and said,
are you from?” And they said, “We are “Because Yahweh has heard that I am
from Haran.” 29:5 Then he said to them, unloved, he has given me this son, too.”
“Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” So she named him Simeon. 29:34 And she
And they said, “We do know him.” 29:6 So became pregnant again and bore a son
he said to them, “Is all well with him?” and said, “Now this time my husband
And they said, “All is well; look, there is will be attached to me, because I have
Rachel his daughter coming with the borne him three sons.” Therefore he was
sheep.” 29:7 Then he said, “You know, it is named Levi. 29:35 And she became preg-
still the middle of the day; it is not time nant again and bore a son and said, “This
for the livestock to be gathered. Water the time I will praise Yahweh.” Therefore she
sheep and go pasture them.” 29:8 But they named him Judah. Then she stopped hav-
said, “We cannot until all the flocks are ing children. 30:3b “I too may have children
gathered and the stone is rolled from the by her.” 30:4 So she gave him her slave girl
mouth of the well; then we water the Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her.
sheep.” 29:9 While he was still speaking 30:5 And Bilhah became pregnant and bore
with them, Rachel came with her father’s Jacob a son. 30:7 And Bilhah Rachel’s slave
sheep (for she was a shepherdess). 29:10 girl became pregnant again, and bore
And this is what happened: when Jacob Jacob a second son.
saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his
mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban E Text
his mother’s brother, Jacob went up and 28:11 Then he came to a certain place and
rolled the stone from the mouth of the spent the night there, because the sun had
well and watered the flock of Laban his set; and he took one of the stones of the
36
place and put it under his head, and lay place and made a feast. 29:23 But this is
down in that place. 28:12 And he had a what happened: in the night he took his
dream, and it was like this: a ladder was daughter Leah and brought her to him
set on the earth with its top reaching to and Jacob went in to her. 29:25 So the morn-
heaven; and the angels of God were ing came and there was Leah! So he said
actually ascending and descending on it. to Laban, “What is this you have done to
28:17 So he was afraid and said, “How awe- me? Didn’t I serve you for Rachel? Why
some is this place! This is none other than then have you cheated me?” 29:26 But
the house of God (Bethel)! This is the gate Laban said, “It is not the tradition here in
of heaven!” 28:18 So Jacob got up early in our place to marry off the younger before
the morning and took the stone that he the first-born. 29:27 “Fulfill the week of this
had put under his head and set it up as a one, and we will give you the other also
pillar and he poured oil on its top. 28:20 for your service—you will serve with me
Then Jacob made a vow: “If God will be for another seven years.” 29:28 So Jacob did
with me and will keep me on this jour- that and completed her week, and he gave
ney that I am making, and if he will give him his daughter Rachel as his wife. 29:30
me food to eat and garments to wear, 28:21 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he
and if I return safely to my father’s house, loved Rachel in fact more than Leah, and
then Yahweh will be my God. 28:22 “And he served with Laban for another seven
this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, years. 30:1 But when Rachel saw that she
will be God’s house; and I will indeed bore Jacob no children, she became jeal-
give a tenth to you of all that you give ous of her sister. So she said to Jacob,
me.” 29:1 Then Jacob went along on his “Give me children, or I will die!” 30:2 Then
journey and came to the land of the Jacob got angry with Rachel and said,
easterners. 29:15 Then Laban said to Jacob, “Am I in the place of God, who has with-
“Since you are my relative, should you for held the fruit of the womb from you?” 30:3a
that reason serve me for nothing? Tell me, So she said, “Here is my slave girl Bilhah!
what will your wages be?” 29:16 Now Go in to her so that she may bear on my
Laban had two daughters; the name of the knees!” 30:6 And Rachel said, “God has
older was Leah, and the name of the judged me, and has also heard my voice,
younger was Rachel. 29:17 And Leah’s eyes and has given me a son: therefore called
were tender, but Rachel was beautiful of she his name Dan.”
form and face. 29:18 But Jacob loved Rachel,
so he said, “I will serve you seven years Later editorial additions
for your younger daughter Rachel.” 29:19 29:24 Laban also gave his slave girl
Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a
So Laban said, “It is better that I give her
slave girl.
to you than that I should give her to 29:29 Laban also gave his slave girl
Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her
another man; stay with me.” 29:20 So Jacob
slave girl.
served seven years for Rachel and they
seemed to him but a few days on account
Read by itself, the J version makes no
of his love for her. 29:21 Then Jacob said to
sense at all. It indicates that Jacob had a
Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is
vision of Yahweh when he arrived at
completed, so that I may go in to her.” 29:22
Haran and that he built a shrine there
And Laban got together all the men of the
(note the jump from 28:19 to 29:2, which
37