S. R. Driver

One of the earliest communicators of the documentary approach to the English-speaking world was S. R. Driver (1846–1914). In his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Driver admitted the difficulty of separating J from E, conceding, “In the details of the analysis of JE there is sometimes uncertainty, owing to the criteria being indecisive, and capable, consequently, of divergent interpretation” (Driver, Introduction, 14). Despite these challenges, he proceeded to chart out the distinct contributions of J and E throughout the Torah.

In distinguishing J and E, Driver consistently emphasized the literary doublets and the internal tensions and contradictions—including the use of different divine names—these doublets produce. For example, in the account of Joseph’s being sold into slavery in Gen 37, he notes the tensions between Joseph’s being taken to Egypt by both Midianites (Gen 37:28a, 36) and Ishmaelites (Gen 37:28b; 39:1). He also points to Reuben (Gen 37:22, 29–30) and Judah’s (Gen 37:26–27) competing attempts to rescue their brother. Based on these sorts of inconsistencies, Driver separates the text into two literary strands: a J narrative in which Judah takes the lead in selling Joseph to Ishmaelites, and an E narrative in which Reuben attempts to rescue Joseph but is thwarted when Midianites steal him away.

Once Driver established that a passage belonged to either J or E, he worked to trace the literary strands of each source through the rest of the text. For example, Driver connects Joseph’s statement that he was “stolen out of the land of the Hebrews” (Gen 40:15) with the verses in Gen 37 in which the Midianites had stolen Joseph, which he had previously identified as E.

As confirmation of a text’s alignment with one source or another, Driver cited distinctive stylistic and terminological elements in each literary strand. Again using the Joseph narratives as an example, he noted that the narratives he identified as E prefer the name Jacob, whereas those he identified as J prefer the name Israel. He also noted that his E narratives use the more common word for “sack” (שׂק, sq), while his J narratives use a more unusual term for “sack” (אמתחת, 'mtcht). While Driver does rely considerably on the distribution of the names Elohim and YHWH, he also draws attention to various places in which these names do not fit the expected pattern (e.g., Gen 40:8; 41:16).

Having separated J and E as narrative strands, Driver summarized the stylistic and terminological features that distinguish each source. However, the elements of style he adduced in J and E are too general to serve as evidence for assigning a given passage to one source or another. For example, he says of E, “The standpoint of E is prophetical, though it is not brought so prominently forward as in J, and in general the narrative is more ‘objective,’ less consciously tinged by ethical and theological reflexion than that of J” (Driver, Introduction, 118). Similarly, of J he offers, “J, if he dwells less than E upon concrete particulars, excels in the power of delineating life and character. His touch is singularly light: with a few strokes he paints a scene which, before he has finished, is impressed indelibly upon his reader’s memory” (Driver, Introduction, 119). While these are the observations of a sensitive literary critic, they do little to help one separate knotted literary strands.

More helpful are Driver’s observations concerning terminology and subject matter. For example, he highlights J’s strongly anthropomorphic presentation of God (e.g., Gen 2–3), E’s emphasis on dreams (e.g., Gen 20:3; 28:11; 31:10, 24; 40–41; 46:2; Num 22:8, 20), J’s use of Sinai for E’s Horeb, and other similar features.