Richard Elliott Friedman

One of the most consistent advocates in recent years for the continued relevance of the documentary approach has been Richard Elliott Friedman. In works directed both toward other scholars and toward more general audiences, Friedman has amassed an extensive collection of evidence in support of the documentary hypothesis. Noting the numerous doublets and contradictions in the Pentateuchal materials, Friedman moves on to distinguish the sources underlying these materials based on their terminology and characteristic features. Many of the features Friedman identifies as unique to one source (or nearly so) are linked to P and D (Friedman, Bible with Sources Revealed, 8–12). Less common are elements specifically distinguishing J from E, though Friedman does catalog a substantial list of terms and emphases which occur solely in J (Friedman, Hidden Book in the Bible, 328–30).

One of Friedman’s significant contributions is his distinguishing of J and E based on their theological, political, and geographical concerns. Friedman argues that J is a southern document written to lend legitimacy and support to the Davidic monarchy. He maintains that E emerged from levitical circles in the north who had been disenfranchised by the Davidic monarchy. The provenance of these documents affects their recollection and presentation of the nation’s historical memories (Friedman, “Recession,” 83–92). For example, in the case of Joseph’s sale into slavery in Gen 37, the version of that emphasizes Judah’s role belongs to J; the version that highlights Reuben, the traditional ancestor of one of the northern tribes, is E. Additional examples include:

• In J, the birthright passes to Judah (Gen 49:8–12); in E it passes to Joseph via his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48:1–20).

• In J, only the Judahite Caleb remains faithful in the spy account; in E, the northerner Joshua does as well (Num 14).

• J emphasizes the promises of land to Abraham, outlining borders that match those ascribed to Solomon at the peak of his power (Gen 15:18; 1 Kgs 4:21–25)

• E criticizes the Aaronic priesthood aligned with the Davidic monarchy through the golden calf episode (Exod 32).

Friedman places his heaviest emphasis on the polarities of north versus south, Davidic monarchy versus prophetic leadership, and Aaronids versus Mushites. However, he does endorse the use of divine names as a basis for distinguishing one source from another. He argues that J consistently excludes the name Elohim in narration, and E largely avoids the name YHWH prior to its revelation to Moses in Exodus 3. As he summarizes: “The consistency of this phenomenon through well over two thousand occurrences makes it a very serious point. One might think that this is merely circular because a scholar can simply identify any bit of text as J, E, or P according to the name of God. But such willy-nilly division of verses by divine names should break down. There should frequently be passages that are thus identified as J because they include the divine name but which then show other indisputable signs of being P or E. But that does not happen” (Friedman, Hidden Book in the Bible, 354).