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 Friedman’s 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 Abraham’s

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 God’s

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 Jacob’s 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.