The Theology of Estrangement and the Theology of Intimacy: The second edition of The Theology of a Call and the Theology of a Covenant

By N. D. Chambers

This work explores the tension between the first author of the origins of the people of Israel, the Yahwist, and the priestly elite writer(s) who put the whole Pentateuch together after the Babylonian exile. This work further examines the conflict between Paul and the Christian legalists that Paul describes in the Letter to the Galatians. The gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke are products of this conflict. The gospel of Mark was probably the gospel that Paul preached and then instructed Mark to write when Paul was near death. Matthew was a legalistic reaction to Mark's gospel, adding many teachings based on the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. Luke, then was a Pauline reaction to Matthew. The gospel of John was a reaction to the gospel of Thomas, in order to challenge Thomas' assertion that Jesus' essential message was a set of secret teachings, and that there was no resurrection of the dead. This work also explores the profound influence of astrology on ancient religions. The development of the Zodiac and the Seven Heavens redefined the whole universe and the nature of the afterlife.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Apr 25, 2022
• ISBN: 9781667824512

Book preview

cover.jpg

The contents of this work, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of events, people, and places depicted; opinions expressed; permission to use previously published materials included; and any advice given or actions advocated are solely the responsibility of the author, who assumes all liability for said work and indemnifies the publisher against any claims stemming from publication of the work.

Scripture quotations are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Second Edition of The Theology of a Call and the Theology of a Covenant

All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2022 by N. D. Chambers

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted, downloaded, distributed, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented without permission in writing from the publisher.

ISBN: 978-1-66782-728-5 (printed)

ISBN: 978-1-66782-729-2 (eBook)

Contents

Introduction

A Reevaluation of the Yahwist (J) Narrative

ABSTRACT

THE WRITERS

THE CORE OF J

J/E EDITOR = D

THE DISHARMONY OF J AND D

PRESUMED E NARRATIVES THAT BELONG TO P

SUMMARY OF THE J NARRATIVE

THE VOCABULARY OF J, E, D, AND P

THE LEVITES

THE PLAGUES

COVENANT AND LAW

DEUTERONOMISTIC REFORMS OF JOSIAH

THE TWELVE TRIBES

THE INFLUENCE OF ASTROLOGY ON ANCIENT RELIGIONS

THE PRIESTLY WRITER’S STORY OF JOSEPH AND THE PATRIARCHS

THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC

ELOHIM, THE UNIVERSAL GOD

The Theologies of Estrangement and of Intimacy in the New Testament

INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM OF THE LAW

THE LAW OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

PAUL, MARTIN LUTHER, AND AUGUSTINE

THE SPIRIT AT CORINTH

PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS AND THE LAW

PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF JUDGMENT

MATTHEW OF EPHESUS

Luke’s Attack on Matthew

INTRODUCTION

Q

MOSES AND JESUS

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH

MATTHEW’S ATTACK ON PAUL

JUDGMENT, FORGIVENESS AND LOVE

THE LAW AND EXCLUSION

DIVORCE

THE TRANSFIGURATION

THE FIRST AND THE LAST

THE PROBLEM OF THE BEATITUDES

PAUL AND JAMES

WEALTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS

THE FOUR GOSPELS

THE LAST SUPPER

EPILOGUE

The Eschatology of the Kingdom of God

INTRODUCTION

EDEN

ORIGINAL SIN

THE AGE OF ESCHATOLOGY

JOB

THE SON OF MAN

BLIND BARTIMAEUS AND THE KINGDOM OF DAVID

AFTER THREE DAYS HE WILL RISE

SATAN

THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER

GEHENNA

THE KINGDOM AND RECONCILIATION

BAPTISM AND BEING CLEAN

EXCLUSIVE HOLINESS

ESCHATOLOGY AND EVIL

CONCLUSION

Bibliography

Introduction

Wesleyan theology attempts to balance tradition, scripture, reason, and experience. The arguments I present reflect that approach to understanding religion and how to interpret the Bible. Biblical literalism is a fairly modern phenomenon. Before the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was the religious authority. With the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Catholic Church was broken and discredited (among Protestants). Lacking a supreme church authority, the Bible became the new authority. For some that meant biblical literalism—that every story and event in the Bible actually happened and happened exactly as written. This also meant that every Old Testament law was valid and divinely mandated. The problem with this literal approach is that some of the most important figures in the Bible reinterpret and challenge Old Testament laws. In Mark 7:18-23, Jesus says that Whatever goes into a man from the outside cannot defile him . . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts . . . . But the laws of Leviticus 11-15 plainly describe what defiles men (and women). Similarly the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 14:14 that nothing is unclean in itself. Paul not only challenges laws of cleanliness but in 2 Corinthians 3:4-18 attacks the whole principle of law (as guiding religious life), charging that the written code kills, but the spirit gives life. Even in the Old Testament, in Psalm 51:16, the Psalmist states that God has no delight in sacrifice, in spite of abundant laws to the contrary in the Pentateuch.

Some approaches to biblical studies have a strong, ideological orientation. The problem with an ideological orientation is that it tends to see the world within its own value-laden parameters. All information is interpreted and skewed to fit the ideological worldview. Attempting to see the world (and the Bible) as it truly requires openness, and a willingness to discard previous assumptions when they are shown to be lacking. The ideological approach forces information into pre-existing categories, often distorting the information to make it fit. Another failure of the ideological approach is to seize appealing information, and ignore or discard information that challenges its assumptions. Ideologists rarely question their a priori assumptions.

Ideological differences are difficult to overcome. Unfortunately for humans, objectivity is nearly impossible. People perceive reality through lenses that are filtered by values and beliefs. Very often liberals and conservatives cannot even agree on the fact that a certain event has occurred, let alone agree on the reasons for why it happened and what it means. In the case of the issue of global warming, conservatives dispute the evidence for global warming as inconclusive. The problem with acknowledging the problem of global warming for conservatives is that it requires aggressive and broad government regulation, which they in principle oppose. Since liberals believe in general that government regulation is necessary for protection against the excesses of corporations, they have no difficulty in seeking to curb global warming. Some conservatives insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction because they believed this, without the benefit of any corroborating, objective evidence. This shared delusion led to the invasion of Iraq. The distorted perception of reality makes political compromise difficult. In politics there is no such thing as reality, only perceptions of reality.

In many ways, the inspiration for this work comes from trying to come to terms with parts of the Bible that seem to be inconsistent with the dominant themes of the Bible. Initially, my interests were in two subjects in the Bible, the origins of Israel and eschatology (the last judgment). In the 1970s, attempts to explain contradictory statements in Joshua (sweeping conquest) and Judges (continuing struggles) about the settlement of Israel in Canaan inspired many articles speculating on this subject. New theories proposed a gradual, peaceful migration, or an internal rebellion against a weakened Egyptian feudal system. I was impressed by some of the insights of various writers and the expanded use of historical data, but disappointed by their tendency to try to harmonize new insights with traditional interpretations. It is my conclusion that one must fully explore the concerns, theology, and ambitions of the various writers of the Pentateuch in order to come to an understanding of what the original story actually was. It is also my conclusion that the theology of later writers of the Pentateuch is at odds with the theology of the first writer, primarily because the later additions reflect the elitism of a centralized priesthood. Ancient societies have a rigid class structure, and the priestly class is usually the highest class. The sacrificial system, the law, even the idea of a covenant relationship with God, I believe are contrary to the original theology of Israel and to the original writer.

I am interested in eschatology because I have always perceived an inconsistency in the cross and second coming of Christ. Eschatology has to do with the last judgment. The cross is central to Christianity. The cross represents forgiveness while the second coming and last judgment have to do with condemnation. The gospel of John wholly embraces the cross, stating: For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. The gospel of Mark (Ch. 13) describes the second coming of the son of man and last judgment, which is echoed in Matthew and Luke. I was aware that Matthew and Luke differ in that Matthew stresses judgment and Luke stresses mercy. But when I started comparing Matthew and Luke to determine the exact nature of their respective eschatologies, it became apparent to me that they were in direct conflict with each other, but not on the issue of eschatology. As I began to further explore the relationship of Matthew and Luke, it became clear to me that the controversial issue was not eschatology but legalism or the legalistic relationship to God. And to my surprise, I came to the conclusion that Matthew represents the legalistic position that Paul was opposing. I began to see the books of the New Testament as rising out of the Pauline-legalist conflict. Instead of regarding them as the products of distinct Christian communities with their own traditions, I began to see them as products of the Pauline-legalist conflict, which had politicized the entire Christian community. The legalists overwhelmed Paul’s movement, but the literature of Paul and his movement ultimately triumphed over Christian legalism, represented primarily by Matthew and James.

The image of God that the Old Testament puts forward is a God of judgment. This is in contrast to the image of God of the New Testament, which is of a God that is forgiving and merciful. The primary characters of the New Testament are Jesus and Paul. They overthrow the image of a distant, estranged, judgmental God. This is an attack on the theology of a covenant or estrangement. The letters of Paul describe a conflict between two factions in the early church. It is a bitter conflict between Paul’s ministry and the Christian legalists. Paul is the leader of a group of traveling evangelists, prominent among them are Timothy, Tychicus, Mark, Luke, and Titus. Paul believes the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was to establish an intimate relationship between God and humanity. The Christian legalists, who are primarily Jews, believe that the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was to establish a new law based on the commandment to love one’s neighbor, which replaces the ritual law of the Pharisees. The legalists continue to perceive God as a distant judge that is estranged from humanity. The church was divided into a western/Greek/Pauline faction and an eastern/Jewish dominated/legalist faction. The churches that remained loyal to Paul were primarily in Greece. Paul describes his ministry in Asia (and Galatia) as utterly, unbearably, crushed. Paul refers to the legalists that oppose him as dogs, false apostles, and servants of Satan.

The gospels are products of the Pauline/legalist conflict. The author of Matthew was a Christian legalist and a bitter enemy of Paul. Just as Paul attacks the legalists as false apostles, Matthew writes of false prophets (Paul), who will be shut out of heaven. Paul de-emphasizes the law and Matthew writes that anyone who relaxes the law and teaches men to do so will be least in the kingdom of heaven. Paul writes of unity with God in Christ while Matthew repeatedly refers to your father who is in heaven (not on earth). Matthew still believes God to be estranged from humanity and residing only in the heavens. Paul believes that this estrangement has been overcome. This perception of God as intimate or remote is a primary underlying experience or premise of any theology, and is often the basis of theological disputes.

When I finished my digression into Matthew and Luke, I once again tried to come to an understanding of eschatology. I have been greatly influenced by the writings of Mircea Eliade, particularly The Myth of the Eternal Return, which examines the meaning of eschatology in primitive societies and traces its development to modern understandings of eschatology. Eschatology is concerned with the estrangement of the world from God, and how the world can be reconciled to God(often in a final, violent judgment). As I began to study the whole subject of eschatology, I saw that the eschatology of Paul and Mark (Chapter 13) was very similar to popular first-century Jewish eschatology. I thought it odd that Jesus would confirm popular eschatology, so I examined Jesus’ discussions of the kingdom of God to see how they related to Mark 13. I find very little relationship between Jesus’ discussions of the kingdom of God and the eschatology of Mark 13. Instead I found that Jesus’ ministry could be summarized as a reinterpretation of the eschatology of the son of man. The son of man does not come to bring down judgment, but to make possible the kingdom of God on earth, a kingdom that is a relationship, not an event.

It was after I wrote separate articles on the authorship of the Pentateuch, the relationship of Matthew and Luke, and on eschatology, that I began to recognize a unifying theme in them. It was then that I found a unifying title for them in my first edition, The Theology of a Call and the Theology of a Covenant. A more precise title might be The Theology of Estrangement and the Theology of Intimacy, which is the title of this second edition. In each of these articles, the perception of God as being intimate or remote was an important element of the article. It became evident to me that there is a theology of estrangement, which is based on elitist perceptions of God. As ancient societies became more stratified, the religious elites reformed their religions in ways that tended to remove God(s) from immediate experience. This process is known as the solarization of myth in which solar gods replace lunar gods in significance. Lunar gods are usually more important in primitive, egalitarian, agrarian societies. The nation of Israel also made this transition from an egalitarian society to a stratified society dominated by elites. The Jerusalem priesthood set themselves up as intermediaries between God and the people of Israel. The need for intermediaries presupposes a distancing of God from humans. The Jerusalem priesthood developed the Pentateuch and overlaid the theology of estrangement onto it. Religious beliefs were also profoundly influenced when Babylonian astrologers developed the concept of the seven heavens. Every ancient religion had to incorporate this structure into its theology in some way (and astrological fatalism also crept in). This influence can be seen in the seven-day creation story in Genesis and in Paul’s discussion of the principalities and powers (orders of angels in the seven heavens) in his epistles.

I see the development of the Pentateuch in three primary stages. The original story of the origins of Israel by the Yahwist (J writer) was significantly altered by the Jerusalem Priesthood (D writer) to legitimize the Deuteronomistic reforms(reign of Josiah B.C.640-609). There was an original J narrative without laws that the Deuteronomist changed and then added the Book of Deuteronomy. When the elites of Judah were exiled by the Babylonians, this elitist religion was destroyed. The remaining lower classes were free to worship without the burden of the sacrificial system. When the Persians reinstated the elite priesthood and allowed exiles to return, the Jerusalem Priesthood (P writer) had to reestablish the sacrificial system and their right to reign over the people of Judah. The premise underlying elitist theology is that God was so angered by human sinfulness that he withdrew from the earth and now resides in the distant heavens. However, God established the priesthood to administer the system of sacrifices by which the sins of the people could be covered. This system of estrangement established the principle of justification. Humans are justified, or made acceptable to God, by making sacrifices to God. Later on the Pharisees transferred the principle of justification from the sacrificial system to obeying the law. Humans were now made acceptable to God by keeping the law. God continued to be perceived as distant.

Jesus challenged the premises of the elitist theology of estrangement. Jesus attacked the sacrificial system of the priesthood and the legalism of the Pharisees. Jesus challenged the notion that the kingdom of God was a judgment on the world. The kingdom instead was the establishment of an intimate relationship between God and humans. Humans were acceptable to God without having to justify themselves. God was intimate, loving, and forgiving, rather than distant, angry, and resentful. As the church developed, many Jewish Christians came to believe that the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was to establish a new law based on the commandment to love one’s neighbor, which replaced the ritual law of the Pharisees. Paul attacked this new legalism because it still required humans to justify themselves. Paul argued that God’s love and forgiveness was freely given. It did not have to be earned by being obedient to the law. Paul argued that the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was to reestablish an intimate relationship between God and humans, a relationship that once existed between God and Abraham. Legalists believe that the law is sufficient to make humans righteous or acceptable to God. The Pauline position is that humans need an intimate relationship with God. Being obedient to the law cannot overcome the inherent limitations of being human. Matthew writes that you must be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect and Blessed are the pure in heart. Paul writes that nothing good dwells within me. Through the new spiritual reality that Jesus represents God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.

The simplest way of understanding the difference between the theology of intimacy and estrangement is to focus on the principle of justification and its relationship to whether God is perceived as near or distant. If God has withdrawn from the earth and humanity, then humans must make themselves acceptable to God, since God no longer intimately interacts with humans. This is the self-serving theology of elites who assert that God has withdrawn from the world and has left them in charge. This is universally true of elites, whether they are the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the priests of Babylon, or the Jerusalem priesthood, or the hierarchy of the medieval Catholic Church. Jesus Christ overthrew this system of estrangement, which holds God at a distance, and which in turn holds humans apart from each other. Jesus called this new era of the reconciliation of God and humans the kingdom of God.

This system of estrangement also had an economic basis. When the societies of Egypt and lower Mesopotamia were first dominated by elites, these early pharaohs and kings called themselves gods. Religion was now for their benefit, not the other members of society. Religion became a tool for elitist domination. Religion itself became exclusionary and oppressive. Through a system of taxation and forced labor, these elites extracted the wealth of their societies and created a class structure. The priests of the state religious cults also became powerful elites, especially after pharaohs and kings became mortal again. And so the estranged relationships of a class society were reinforced by the religious establishment. When Solomon became king of Israel, he engaged in many of these elitist practices. The practice of religion in Israel soon was very much like that of any other nation. The religion that Jesus confronted was not for the poor, which were the vast majority of society. Jesus directed his ministry to the excluded, the poor, the unclean outcastes, and women. Jesus created a religion that was for everyone. The elitist theology of estrangement removed God from immediate experience and removed the poor from participation in religion. Jesus attacked not only the elitist vision of God but also the exclusivity of elitist religion. Jesus attacked the principle of estrangement, of estrangement between humans and God, and of estrangement between humans, between the wealthy and poor, between male and female.

When David was king of Israel, the decisions he made in ruling Israel preserved the egalitarian structure of Israel’s society. He was a gifted military tactician and a charismatic leader, and greatly enlarged the borders of Israel. But he did not resort to taxing his people to support his army. He maintained and supported his army with the wealth of conquest and tribute. He did not even build his own palace (or house) in Jerusalem. King Hiram of Tyre provided this. David had ample opportunity to build a temple, but he chose not to. Building a temple and developing a sacrificial system (which is essentially a form of heavy taxation to support an elite priesthood) would send Israel on a path which would destroy its egalitarian character and structure.

When Solomon became king he began a massive building program which included a very impressive temple, his palace, fortifications and other projects. These required forced labor, called the corvee (enslaving his own people for a time), heavy taxation, as well as the beginnings of a sacrificial system. Suddenly Israel had become plunged into a system of forced labor, heavy taxation, and a shift to using sacrifices as the primary form of religious expression. The people of Israel are no longer God’s people, but now simply a resource to be exploited, making possible a major redistribution of wealth to a small elite of the king’s court and his priests. There is no mention of the Passover or other festivals in1 Kings, where the details of Solomon’s reign are recorded, even though the purpose of building a temple would be to celebrate them. Much later on (over 300 years), after Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law, King Josiah commanded that the Passover be observed For no such Passover had been observed since the days of the judges (2 Kings 23:21-22). The Book of Judges does not mention the Passover. The Passover is mentioned only once in the fifth chapter of Joshua. So for the entire history of Israel in the promised land, Passover does not appear to exist until King Josiah. Passover is not mentioned by any of the prophets before King Josiah. All of this suggests that the Passover segment was added on to the original story of the plagues on the Egyptians in order to establish a system of sacrifices to support an elite priesthood.

One of the great tragedies in the history of Israel is the rebellion/civil war of Absalom against his father King David. Like David, Absalom was a charismatic leader. As David grew old, his charisma inevitably diminished. Absalom apparently was unwilling to wait for his father’s death to assume the crown. Israel was ripped apart by Absalom’s rebellion. After David cleverly outmaneuvered Absalom, David had to deal with the aftermath of this profound betrayal by many of his people. The ultimate consequence of this calamity was the destruction of the just, egalitarian society that David established. The lesson that Solomon apparently learned from this episode of rebellion is that such a social experiment is folly. Solomon ran his kingdom with an iron fist and established a society organized around elitist interests, using forced labor and heavy taxation to build a palace and a grand temple with lavish sacrifices.

It may be that the Yahwist (J writer) wrote the J narrative as a reaction to this political crisis and the end of David’s vision of a just society. In the Book of Exodus the people of Israel are rebellious and are scornful of what Yahweh has provided (food and water) as they travel through the wilderness. They have quickly forgotten Yahweh’s saving of Israel from the Egyptians and their chariots, just as they have forgotten how David saved them from the chariots of the Philistines. In Genesis 14:14 Abram had 318 trained men that he used to rescue Lot. David had 600 men that followed him (1 Samuel 23:13) before he became king. In Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek, the King of Salem and priest of God Most High, blesses Abram. Melchizedek is the prototype of the righteous king who is also a priest. He is the king of Salem, the precursor of Jerusalem. The word Salem means peaceful or complete. Melchizedek as both righteous king and priest represents this completeness. David is also the righteous king who did not build a temple, create an elite priesthood, or develop a sacrificial system designed to support an elite. All of these serve to destroy a just, more egalitarian society. David had to deal with the threat of the Philistines throughout his life. In the Book of Genesis Abraham and Isaac also have to deal with the King of the Philistines. They are the permanent enemy of Israel (like Egypt), even though the Philistines did not arrive in Canaan until many centuries after Abram. For the Yahwist, the struggles of the patriarchs in Genesis and Moses in the wilderness are a reflection of the struggles of David’s kingdom.

After Absalom was defeated and killed, Israel was in a state of chaos. Judah supported David, but the rest of Israel was in flux. The men of Israel soon followed Sheba, a Benjaminite, but he was eventually killed. Support for David gradually solidified. When David was very old, his fourth son Adonijah declared himself king with the help of Joab and Abiathar the priest. He did this without the knowledge or support of King David, Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Solomon. Nathan learns of this subterfuge and warns Bathsheba, who then warns David. If Adonijah were to be successful it is likely that he would kill Solomon to remove him as a threat. Adonijah might also kill Bathsheba, Zadok and Nathan, since they are not loyal to him. David and those loyal to him have Solomon officially crowned as king in a public ceremony. Adonijah is outmaneuvered and has to concede. This struggle between Adonijah and Solomon is reminiscent of the relationship between Isaac’s sons Jacob and Esau. Jacob gets Esau to sell Jacob his birthright as the oldest son when Esau is hungry (hungry for power?). Adonijah loses his birthright as the older brother because he is outmaneuvered. Adonijah was too hungry for power and could not wait for David to die. Later as Isaac nears death, Jacob tricks Isaac in order to get Isaac’s blessing that would have been conferred to Esau. Perhaps the Yahwist believes that in this struggle for power between Adonijah and Solomon that David’s blessing has been stolen or compromised. Solomon receives David’s blessing as David nears death (when Solomon is crowned), but Solomon’s policies as king do not reflect David’s wishes, beliefs, or vision. Solomon was hurriedly crowned to avert a disaster. The Yahwist narrative seems to be deeply guided by the tragic events of David’s kingdom as his sons Absalom, Adonijah and Solomon were seduced by power.

A Reevaluation of the Yahwist (J) Narrative

I [the Lord] will send hornets to drive out the Hivite, Canaanite, and Hittite. I will not drive them out in one year, lest the land become desolate. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you are increased and possess the land.

Exodus 23:28-32

My angel [will] go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perrizites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites, and I will blot them out.

Exodus 23:23

Be strong and of good courage; for you (Joshua) shall cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.

Joshua 1:6

ABSTRACT

This review of the Yahwist (J) narrative precedes from the assumption that J’s original story of the exodus, wilderness wandering, and settlement of Canaan has been altered by later writers of the Pentateuch. This alteration has been accomplished primarily by additions to the original text. In some places these additions surround the original text and alter J’s story. Other additions are simply new episodes that convey the theological concerns of later writers. This review will establish criteria for a narrower definition of the Yahwist’s original narrative, as well as for determining who the other writers are and which sections they wrote. The conventional cast of writers—the Yahwist (J), the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomist (D), and the Priestly writer (P)—will be used as a frame of reference as well as their respective styles and vocabularies.

THE WRITERS

The Yahwist (J) is so named because he uses the name Yahweh for the God of Israel. The J comes from the German Jahweh. Yahweh is translated LORD in the Pentateuch. The Yahwist wrote the history of Israel beginning with the Garden of Eden story in Genesis 2 and ending with Israel just outside the Promised Land and about to enter. The Yahwist’s narrative is contained in parts of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. Later writers made additions to J’s account. It is believed that J wrote during the reign of Solomon because his writing has a southern bias reflected in J’s elevation of Judah above the other tribes of Israel. The J document then is most likely a court document. The Yahwist also uses the name Mt. Sinai for the mountain where Moses received the law and the name Canaanites for the native inhabitants of Canaan (what we now call Palestine).

The Elohist (E) uses the name Elohim for the God of Israel. Elohim comes from the root word El, which is the Semitic word for God. Elohim is both singular and plural. It can mean God or gods. In common practice in Canaan and Phoenicia Elohim was used in the singular. Elohim is translated God in the Pentateuch. The Elohist has a northern bias. It is believed that E wrote a document essentially parallel to the official southern court document of J after Solomon’s kingdom split into Judah and Israel. The Elohist uses Horeb instead of Sinai and