Redefining the Elohist tradition: 'Pools of oral tradition'

Robert Gnuse

Once a well-defined source in the minds of literary critics and a powerful intellectual tradition in the opinion of biblical theologians, the Elohist now has slipped into obscurity at the hands of contemporary Pentateuchal scholars. Like the mist and the dew of the Palestinian hills, the Elohist tradition has vanished before the scorching sunshine of recent critical scholarship. Increasingly, both the Yahwist and the Elohist have had their very existence denied by critical biblical scholars, the same people who once gave birth to them. The traditional portrayal of the Yahwist has fared poorly in the minds of many since the significant works of Hans Heinrich Schmid, John Van Seters, Rolf Rendtorff, Martin Rose, and others in the 1970's and the1980's,¹ but the Elohist has fared far worse than its cousin, even though primary criticism was directed initially at the Yahwist.

Recent reconstructions of Pentateuchal development have left the Elohist out of the source critical equation completely. Thus, in very simplified form Van Seters and Rose see the process as one of a DJP sequence, since both the Yahwist and Priestly traditions are seen to have emerged in the exile, and the Elohist is subsumed into the Yahwist.² Joseph Blenkinsopp postulates a DPJ sequence, emphasizing the priority of Priestly narrative which subsequently was augmented by the Yahwist (and traditional E texts are assigned to J or D).³ Erhard Blum suggests that what we used to call the Elohist is best defined as part of a Deuteronomistic redaction of the texts.⁴

What has become of the Elohist tradition? Was it truly a minority report on the ancient Israelite traditions as early literary critics before and after Julius Wellhausen suggested? Or was it all along a figment of the scholarly imagination, a dream in the night? Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph suggested as much already in the 1930's. The Elohist texts were well-defined in the minds of literary critics until that first challenge sixty years ago.⁵ Volz and Rudolph assumed that Elohist texts were only another supplemental variation on the Yahwist tradition, and their origin was in the south, not the north as previously hypothesized by literary critics. As fragmentary traditions they could never have functioned as an independent source ("kein erzahler"); they were simply later supplements in an on-going Yahwistic tradition.

The rehabilitation of the Elohist was undertaken by Martin Noth in his great overview of the entire Pentateuchal tradition and later by Hans Walter Wolff in his special consideration of the Elohist tradition.⁶ Wolff readily admitted the disconnectedness of Elohistic traditions by describing them as "Elohistic fragments," thus countering critics who took this fragmentation as a reason to deny their existence altogether. Despite our inheritance of only some of the epic with these fragments, Wolff still defended the integrity of the Elohistic intellectual and theological tradition. By his view the Elohist suffered such vicissitudes at the hands of readactors, but missing plot line could be intuited from the stories which remained and the common themes which united them (especially the motif of the fear of God).

Perhaps, the best explication of the Elohist epic was provided by Alan Jenks in his dissertation (used by this author), which later was developed into a monograph. He suggested that the Elohist was not a single author, but a school of thought, and the tradition emerged in the late 10th and early 9th centuries BCE in the north. Jenks boldly explicated Elohist themes and connected them to northern Israelite prophetic traditions in insightful ways which still may be used for new points of departure.⁷

Karl Jaros believed that the Elohist was written in the late 9th or early 8th century BCE, after Elijah and Elisha but before Hosea, to address the issue of Israelite religious identity in the face of the Canaanite religious threat.⁸ His conclusions are dated in light of the recent opinion of many scholars that Israelites were largely polytheistic and essentially the same as the Canaanites in their religious beliefs and practices until shortly before the exile^.9

The later work of Robert Coote, who exposited the social and theological message of the Elohist, built upon the work of Wolff and Jenks but posed a radically novel thesis. He viewed the Elohist as a written supplement to the Yahwist created in the court of Jeroboam I of Israel (c. 920 BCE) to counter the Yahwist's legitimation of Solomon, and it contained stories concerned with succession (endangered youths, menhirs or stones dedicated to ancestors, and the rejection of infant sacrifice) which reflected Jeroboam's own anxiety about his possible successors. As such, the Elohist scribe sought to legimate the new tyranny of Jeroboam I.¹⁰ Coote's reading of the text was rather political and negative, and it left the Elohist as a very unusable ideological tradition for modern theologians and preachers.

The excellent textbook of Richard Elliott Friedman emerged out of the same school of thought as Jenks (Harvard), and it reconstructed a theoretical model for the Elohist quite similar to Jenks.¹¹ This work is still an excellent pedagogical tool, but of necessity (because it is a textbook), it side-steps some of the complex critical scholarship beginning in the 1970's which doubted the existence of both the Yahwist and the Elohist, or at least redated a modified Yahwist to the exile. In other publications, however, Friedman aptly decried the failure of nerve which led to our desertion of the traditional model so well-defined after more than a century of scholarship,

Now that we are close to the solution, this is not the time to confuse the issue with new fragmentary treatments of J and E as non-continuous sources; this is not the time to break off large portions of J and E and place them after the exile; and this is especially not the time for literary critics of the Bible to ignore source criticism disdainfully, thinking that they are doing some thing higher than Higher Criticism, when they are in fact losing the dimension that this could give to their apprehension and appreciation of the text.¹²

In addition, other contemporary authors in the past generation still give credence to the Elohist's existence and attempt to draw forth theological meaning from the passages assigned to that tradition.¹³ But increasingly fewer scholars are inclined to refer to the Elohist as a significant theological tradition.¹⁴

Hence, we have come to the modern impasse. Some authors steadfastly use the Elohist in their pedagogical and theological commentary, while critical monographs increasingly decry its existence. More and more casual references conclude that it is likely that the Elohist tradition may never have existed.

II

What then is needed to rehabilitate the Elohist in the context of critical debate? What arguments can be marshalled in response to the challenges raised concerning its origin as a significant pre-exilic theological tradition?

While some scholars have dated the Elohist to the 10th and 9th centuries BCE (Jenks, Coote, Friedman), and others have postulated an 8th century BCE date (Wolff), this author believes that a 7th century BCE date may actually affirm the integrity of this tradition. Such a later temporal locus may meet some of the criticisms that the earlier pre-exilic dates are simply too early, and this suggestion of a later age may have some critical comparative data to reinforce it.

Recent archaeological research and critical scholarship may provide the clues for redefining the provenance of the Elohist. Though these new insights cannot date the tradition with certainty, they may help establish the parameters for the era of possible origin and development.

1) The Deir J Alla inscription, whose contents were made available to scholars in the 1970's,¹⁵ describes a personage who is significant in texts usually ascribed to the Elohist. Balaam is seen as a significant Transjordanian seer in the 8th century BCE plaster inscription from Deir JAlla.¹⁶ The Elohist memory of Balaam in Numbers 22-24 may be later and a reaction to these Transjordanian traditions.¹⁷ The Deir J Alla inscription actually may record the beliefs of some Israelites on the periphery of the Israelite religious and cultural sphere for whom Balaam was an acceptable prophet.¹⁸ In the opinion of some scholars the biblical text in Numbers 22-24 may have used some of the language of the inscription, especially in the report of the dream theophany in Num 22:9-21.¹⁹ The similarities between the plaster inscription and the biblical texts are as follows: 1) The expression, "The gods came to him in the night, they said to Balaam, son of Beor" (I.1,2) compares with Num 22:9 and 22:20, "God came to Balaam at night and said to him." 2) "And Balaam rose in the morning" (I.3) compares to Num 22:13 and 22:21, "And Balaam rose in the morning."²⁰

The Elohist may have used the information from the Deir J Alla inscription for particular theological reasons. The Elohist would have attempted to distance Balaam from the religious beliefs of Israel by making him into a potential enemy or at best a strangely ambiguous figure vis-a-vis Moses and the Israelite ancestors. The Elohist then defines Balaam as being outside the prophetic tradition recognized in Elohist accounts; he is a foreigner who tried to oppose their entrance into the land. However, the memory of Balaam's blessing of Israel may be concession to the original origin of Balaam traditions among groups of people who considered themselves to be Israelite. If this scenario is correct, then the Elohist traditions about Balaam attempt to domesticate this memory of unacceptable prophetic practices by placing it outside the true Israelite prophetic tradition.

If indeed the Elohist is redefining the Balaam figure, then the time at which the Elohist came to grips with and redefined the Balaam traditions would have been around 700 BCE or thereafter. This would imply that traditions in the northern state of Israel might have been defining the nature of prophecy after the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. Not only would this be possible, it would be likely that such a process would emerge in the wake of national disaster.

To accept this as a possible explanation, we have to disabuse ourselves of the notion that the north was totally emptied of people and Yahweh devotees after the 722 BCE catastrophe. Critical scholars now acknowledge more readily that mass deportations affected only selected urban centers in the ancient world and often left other regional centers and small villages intact. In addition, we ought to admit the obvious in terms of what the biblical text tells us. if Josiah destroyed the shrines at Bethel and Samaria and killed priests at the latter site (2 Kgs 23:15-20), clearly there was an active cult of Yahweh devotion in the north however unacceptable Josiah may have found it. If this was so, then there could have been centers in the north where prophetic traditions, including the Elohist fragments, could have been recalled. The significance of Bethel, in particular, within the Elohist traditions might further imply that their emergence should be connected to traditions at that shrine. This would imply that the terminus ad quem for Elohist traditions to have moved south to Jerusalem might have been the destruction of Bethel by Josiah.

2) A second argument for the location of the Elohist in the 7th century BCE might be the presence of dream reports in Elohist texts. For years source critics have pointed to the presence of dream reports (Gen 15:12-21, 20:1-8, 22:1-16, 28:10-22, 31:10-24, 46:1-7, Num 22:8-21, 24:2) to identify Elohist texts or accounts related to Elohist texts (1 Sam 3:1-18, 1 Kgs 3:4-15). This author has evaluated these dream reports as aspects of Elohist theology in the past, as well as correlating them to comparable reports from the ancient Near East.²¹ From this comparative analysis may emerge another valuable point of departure for locating the Elohist.

The dreams which bears the greatest similarity to the Elohist dream reports are the Neo-Assyrian and Chaldean Babylonian reports of the 7th and 6th centuries BCE. Dream reports in the Assyrian annals are associated with the reigns of Sennacherib and the early years of Ashurbanipal. Reputedly, dream interpretation become more popular in Assyria at this time, for Esarhaddon's conquest of Egypt brought dream interpreters to Assyria. Sennacherib ruled Assyria prior to Esarhaddon, but his dream is reported by Ashurbanipal.²² In sum, we are directed to the mid-7th century and thereafter as a time when Assyrians would have become increasingly interested in the dream phenomenon.

Furthermore, it was during this time that the northern state of Israel was under direct Assyrian rule, with the bulk of the territory located in the Assyrian province of Samerina. Could this be the era in which northern prophets might have adopted the Mesopotamian dream report formula from the Assyrians for use in recalling their own traditions and the revelatory experiences of great personages in the past?

Scholars, such as A. Leo Oppenheim, in particular, and others, have analyzed these dream reports and characterized them into the following formats: 1) auditory message dream reports, containing the following components--theophany, recipient, dream reference, reference to night, message, termination of dream, 2) visual message dream reports, containing an image with a clear message for the dreamer, and 3) symbolic message dream reports, containing somewhat bizarre visual images in a complex fashion which requires a professional dream interpreter to decode them.²³ The majority of the Assyrian and Chaldean dream reports fall into the first category of auditory message dreams, as do the dream reports in the Pentateuch outside the Joseph Novella in Genesis 37-50. Furthermore, in my own research I sensed that there were significant parallels between auditory message dream reports of the ancient Near East and especially the Assyrian reports with those dreams recounted in the so-called Elohist source. The Elohist dreams conformed to the language of the formula listed above, and the frequent formula was something like, "And the Angel of the Lord/God came to XX in a dream by night and said, . . . " (Gen 15:12-21, 20:1-8, 28:10-22, 31:10-17, 31:24, 46:1-7, Num 22:8-13, 19-21). This formula, however, was lacking in those night revelations, presumably dreams, which were recalled in texts attributed to the Yahwist (Gen 26:2-6 and 26:24-25).²⁴ The apparent dependence of Elohist texts, but not all biblical texts, upon the Mesopotamian format betokens a literary connection. The greatest correlation appears to be with 7th and 6th century BCE Assyrian and Babylonian texts. This would be another indicator to us for the possible emergence of Elohist traditions in the 7th century BCE.

3) A third argument, more nebulous in nature than the preceding ones, would suggest that the distinctive theological themes traditionally attributed to the Elohist would appear to belong to an age only somewhat prior to the exile. The classic themes of divine transcendance, fear of God, indirect revelation (dreams, the angel of God/the Lord, fire, voice from the heavens, and most important, the prophets), the need for obedience, and concern for morality have been seen by many scholars for years to betoken a high or sophisticated view of God. Granted, this is a subjective opinion and has been criticized as such, but there may be something to the argument in light of recent critical scholarship.

Many contemporary authors now suggest that monotheism emerged late, perhaps only prior to the exile or perhaps during the exile.²⁵ If so, the Elohist might be part of the religious and intellectual ferment which occurred prior to the exile and helped to create the seedbed for the "evolutionary and revolutionary" advance to monotheism in the Babylonian Exile.²⁶ Particular themes in Elohist texts might be perceived as reinforcing this assumption. Jenks suggested that Elohist texts sought to connect El traditions to Yahweh.²⁷ This would be part of the "process of convergence" of deities so aptly described by Mark Smith,²⁸ which was part of emerging monotheism in ancient Israel. The implied ridicule of the household gods stolen by Rachel in Gen 31:25-42 may be part of the general critique of other religious beliefs found in developing monotheism. All of this is very hypothetical when used to date the Elohist to the 7th century BCE, but in conjunction with the previous two arguments, it may carry some weight.

III

How could our critical paradigms be reconfigured were we to locate the Elohist in the 7th century BCE? Further, if we were to hypothesize this locus for the Elohist, would this produce additional compelling arguments for the existence of such a theoretic pentateuchal tradition?

1) Initially, we should suggest that the inspiration for the development of the Elohist tradition would be the destruction of Samaria in 722 BCE and the reduction of the survivors to the status of directly ruled Assyrian vassals in the province of Samerina. The loss of national identity would lead surviviors to articulate a new self-understanding which would focus more on religious identity than political identity. For this is the very same dynamic which critical scholars suggest was operative among the exiles of Judah both in Babylon (the Priestly tradition and perhaps the Yahwist tradition also) and in Palestine (perhaps the final Deuteronomistic History, if it were not finished in Babylon). Should not a similar social setting be suggested for the fragmentary northern traditions?

In addition, the stern character of Elohist traditions is quite comparable to the Deuteronomic theology. Just as the latter, with its emphasis upon warning and judgment, sought to explain why destruction befell Jerusalem in 586 BCE, likewise the similar themes in the Elohist may be a response to the judgment upon Samaria in 722 BCE. Deuteronomic theologians in the south may have been inspired by Elohist language and ideas after Josianic expansion into the north brought traditions from Bethel and elsewhere to the south.

2) The Elohist tradition has a high regard for dreams, while the Deuteronomic tradition (Deut 13:2-6 and perhaps obliquely in Deut 18:10-11) and Jeremiah (Jer 23:25-32, 27:9-10, 29:8-9) condemn dream revelation.²⁹ In the past scholars assumed that the Elohist had to have been significantly earlier than these southern theologians in order to explain the eventual development of theological hostility toward what had once been an acceptable mode of revelation. Even this author worked with that assumption.³⁰ But there may be a more probable explanation which does not require a great separation in time. The Elohist may have been sympathetic to dream revelation at shrines, because that was a phenomenon which occurred at Bethel and elsewhere in the north, while the Deuteronomic tradition and Jeremiah may have opposed dream theophanies because of their emphasis upon the Temple as the place where worship should occur, and dream theophanies were not a characteristic religious phenomenon there.³¹ Thus, the opposition to dream theophanies may not be the result of religious development but rather regional theologies. This would then permit the near contemporaneity of the Elohist with the Deuteronomic tradition.

3) Within the Elohist traditions there are implied criticisms of the golden calves of Dan and Bethel, especially with the Elohist account of Aaron and the calf in Exod 32:1-29, and perhaps the northern prophetic account of Jeroboam I and the calves in 1 Kgs 12:26-32. (These northern prophetic traditions in Kings have been seen as having some connection to Elohist traditions by scholars in the past.³²) Elohist traditions are concerned with Bethel as a sacred shrine in a very positive way, as witnessed by Jacob's connection to Bethel in Gen 28:10-22 and Gen 35:1-15. Yet Bethel is implicitly condemned by virtue of the calf cult sponsored there by the kings. This two-edged theological assessment would make sense after the national catastrophe of 722 BCE. The revered shrine of Bethel is seen as polluted by the calf cult and therefore responsible, in part, for the fall of Samaria. One is reminded of Ezekiel's assessment of the Jerusalem Temple cult in Ezekiel 8-11 which helped to bring destruction in 586 BCE. The shrine of Bethel for the Elohist, like the later Temple, still remained a revered symbol for the Elohistic believers of the north, despite its calf cult pollution. The same theologians, of course, would have respected and recalled the comparable critique of Hosea against the calf cult.³³ Only with the destruction of Bethel by Josiah would the fragmentary Elohist traditions and northern prophetic accounts have been brought south, perhaps to inspire the emergence of Deuteronomic theology and the Deuteronomistic History. (This would imply that Hezekiah's reform was a Deuteronomistic projection back into that era of a reform comparable to Josiah's.)

4) Hosea's relationship to the Elohist tradition has been of interest to scholars in the past. For example, Otto Procksch boldly declared that Hosea was exclusively dependent upon the Elohist.³⁴ By way of contrast, Jenks reviewed Procksch's arguments and found them to be wanting. In turn, Jenks suggested that Hosea's connections to the Elohist were so minimal that the prophet may have had recourse to an oral tradition separate from both the Yahwist and the Elohist. To be sure, Hosea was familiar with Elohist stories, such as Jacob's birth, the flight to Aram, the Bethel revelation, service to Laban, and the confrontation at Penuel. But in Jenk's opinion both Yahwist and Elohist elements in rudimentary form are found in Hosea's oracles. The only true continuity between Hosea and the Elohist include: the characterization of Moses as a prophet (Hos 12:14), the condemnation of the calf cult, and an anti-royal bias.³⁵

But let us reverse the order and suggest that Hosea was prior to the Elohist tradition. How would this affect the argument that Hosea's knowledge and use of the Elohist is rudimentary? With the reversal Hosea's motifs could be seen as the inspiration for the Elohist, and their simpler and more rudimentary form would be more logical. Such a study of Hosea could be an avenue of further research.

5) This scenario assumes that Bethel functioned as a shrine for Yahweh worship after the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. Perhaps, Elohist traditions were used therein as an ideological tool for reform and purification of the cult after that destruction. This might explain some of the narratives in the books of Leviticus and Numbers, such as the death of priests who sacrificed with unholy fire (Nadab and Abihu, Lev 10:1-2, which may be a Priestly text, although their names are similar to the sons of Jeroboam I, Nadab and Abijah) and the rebellion of Korah (Num 16:1-35, part of which appears Elohistic). Other allusions and narratives which vaguely recall the conflict between priestly families (Mushites and Aaronides) may reflect the conflict between reformers and others in the shrine at Bethel during the 7th century BCE. Perchance, an early form of the story about Korah's rebellion may contain a veiled memory of the priests who either brought judgment upon Samaria or opposed some reform efforts after 722 BCE. These accounts may have been absorbed subsequently into the southern Deuteronomistic traditions with appropriate modifications which lost some of the sense of that northern setting in Bethel.

In the past scholars have not suggested this setting for the Elohist, and two reasons might be given for their reluctance to do so. Unconsciously scholars may have assumed that after 722 BCE the northern state of Israel and its Yahwistic religion was dead. The nature of Assyrian deportation was exaggerated. Perhaps, we also read 2 Kgs 17:24-41 too literally and failed to realize that its portrayal of northern religious development after 722 BCE was from a southern perspective designed to denigrate the Yahwistic religion practiced in the north. But recent critical insights permit us to realize that Assyrian and Babylonian deportations removed only the population of urban centers, and other segments of the population remained relatively intact (including regions in the highlands where Yahwistic prophets might have been strong). Further, the cult in Bethel obviously continued, and given the propagandistic nature of the Deuteronomistic critique in 2 Kings 17, we should assume that it was closer to a traditional pre-exilic form of Yahwism than our Deuteronomistic authors will concede. (Of course, pre-exilic Yahwism everywhere was a far cry from the monotheism which emerged in the exile.)

If a worshipping Israelite community still continued to function in the north after the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE, it is logical to assume that they came to some understanding of why this event happened. If intelligentsia in Judah could have generated the Deuteronomistic History in Palestine during the exile, and others could generate significant theology and literature in Babylon during the exile, we need to accept the possibility that a similar process of theological reflection (not necessarily with literature, though) may have occurred in the north during the 7th century BCE. We simply have not really considered this as a viable option in the past, when it makes as much sense as our other paradigms of exilic behavior do. This is especially worth considering, if we accept that Yahwistic beliefs may have been strongest in the north outside of the urban centers which experienced destruction and deportation.

Josiah's destruction of Bethel implies that a significant religious center here was worth his attention, perhaps because it could rival the Temple in Jerusalem. This alone implies that viable religious life could have existed in the north. Perhaps, scholars have not been inclined to accept an Elohist location in this region, or even with this shrine, because our present biblical text portrays the shrine as a hotbed of pagan or syncretistic worship in an obvious attempt to justify Josiah's vengeful destruction and murder of priests. Unconsciously we assumed that the Elohistic tradition or any tradition present in our biblical text could not have originated in such a setting. For the same reason, when we write a history of Israelite religion, we do not try to reconstruct the nature of this northern religiosity, because we assume it to be outside the pale of traditional Yahwism. In all likelihood the differences between Bethel and Jerusalem may have been less than the final edition of Kings seeks to imply. Thus, it is possible that northern traditions from Bethel or other shrines in the north actually could have been integrated into the pentateuchal traditions and the Deuteronomistic narratives without acknowledgment by the redactors, because there really was continuity in some ways with those traditions and Deuteronomistic assumptions. Of course, once this integration of northern traditions occurred, their origin was forgotten with the final exilic or post-exilic editions of the Deuteronomistic History and Priestly redaction of the Pentateuch (or Tetrateuch).

How would this new provenance for the Elohist affect our exegetical analysis of texts usually ascribed to that tradition? Let us take, for example, the Elohist narrative found within the composite text of Gen 28:10-22. Early source critics were wont to divide the passage between early pre-exilic Yahwist (vv. 10, 13-16, 19) and Elohist (vv. 11-12, 17-18, 20-22) sources on the basis of vocabulary, names for God, theological themes, and, above all, the modes of theophany.³⁶ The contemporary approach which is critical of delineating these traditions, such as the work of Van Seters, would characterize the text essentially as a unity, originating from an exilic Yahwist historian.³⁷ Our newly proposed paradigm would take seriously the old source critical observations about doublets within the passage, particularly the tension between God's appearance on the ladder (v. 12) and the reference to the deity standing beside Jacob (v. 13), while admitting the final author has melted the two traditions into each other rather tightly. Perhaps, as Van Seters suggests, the Yahwist author is exilic, but he has used a coherent Elohist tradition in crafting this narrative, and some original Elohist material may have been retold in distinctively Yahwist modes.

From the perspective of a hypothetical 7th century BCE date for the original core Elohist narrative in Gen 28, the text would contain some themes worthy of our assessment: 1) The promise of land (v. 13), if there were an Elohist equivalent to this Yawhist theme, would speak poignantly to Israelites taken into exile in 722 BCE, as well as to those who felt like prisoners in their own land languishing under Assyrian rule. 2) The promise of children (v. 14), if likewise an Elohist equivalent existed, would speak dramatically to people in a land depopulated by war, exile, and hostile foreign rule. 3) The promise of divine accompaniment and return (v. 15), if again another parallel Elohist phrase once were present, would address especially the concerns of those dragged into exile by the Assyrians. 4) The dream motif and its language could be compared to similar Assyrian dream reports. 5) The origin story of the shrine at Bethel would be recalled with bittersweet memories in regard to its supposed beginning as a true Yahweh shrine from the time of Jacob, and in contrast with the perceived theological abuses of the later days (calf cult) that brought national defeat and disgrace. And 6) the appearance of God in the theophany from the ladder might reflect the values of a newly emerging high view of God which would evolve later into monotheism of the Babylonian Exile. Though hypothetical in scope, these brief suggestions might be themes which scholars could develop, if they view this text from a 7th century BCE northern perspective.

IV

Finally, though it is highly speculative to suggest that a narrative framework could have contained the traditions of the Elohist in the Tetrateuch together with the northern prophetic traditions in Samuel and Kings, it is fascinating to see the possibilities with such a hypothesis. First, all of these narratives portray charismatic heros who lead God's people and further the divine plan, and they are usually idealized as prophets (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha). Jenks saw this as evidence that there was a unified Elohist source with a distinct vision of history.³⁸ Second, common themes pervade all of these narratives, including fear of God, the need for obedience to the Law or God, the testing of the people, and respect for the prophets.³⁹ Third, one can sense a plot line in terms of a projected history of revelation. God speaks to the patriarchs in auditory message dreams, God speaks face to face with Moses during the powerful theophanies on the mountain, and then after Elijah's Horeb experience God speaks to the prophets with the prophetic word. The auditory is stressed in all these stages, but there is clearly a sequence. Dream revelation occurs for the last time for the child Samuel in Elohist texts, and it is completely gone by the time of Elijah and Elisha. Above all, the experience of Elijah on Horeb appears to be the dramatic sequel to Moses' experience on the mountain.⁴⁰ It would appear that a new age has begun with Elijah (the "age of the prophets") which succeeds the earlier age of Moses. In the age of the prophets cultic functions are no longer attributed to Elijah and Elisha, as they earlier had been assigned to Moses (perhaps reflecting a prophetic disavowal of the cult projected back into the earlier centuries resulting from the disaster of 722 BCE). Could this have been a theme in the Elohist tradition? If so, it is tempting to speak of a unified source. This author, however, at the present time resists the temptation and still prefers to speak of "pools of Elohistic tradition." Nonetheless, it remains a tempting argument to suggest such a unified oral epic tradition!

In light of past scholarly evaluations of the fragmentary nature of the Elohistic traditions, it is ultimately difficult for us to conclude that the Elohist ever was a unified oral epic tradition. If the Elohist tradition was composed of merely loose oral fragments, it was radically redacted as it was absorbed into the southern traditions. In past research I have assumed that the Elohist never really solidified into an fixed oral epic, comparable to the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer, but rather it may have been a loose collection of tales and memories, comparable to the oral traditions which Homer drew upon. The comparison with Homer may be apt, since he may have lived only a century prior to the age of emerging Elohist traditions. Hence, the expression "pools of Elohist tradition" might be preferable to expressions used in the past, like the Elohist source or the Elohist Epic. If, indeed, there were separate "pools" or small oral collections of Elohist traditions, they did not solidify into any fixed form until the Deuteronomistic Historians and the Priestly Editors integrated them into their larger fixed literary works.

If we accept the possibility that Elohist traditions existed in several loose pools of oral tradition, then it is possible to consider segments of narrative materials outside of the Pentateuch as having their origin also in those "loose pools of Elohist tradition." Most notably one would think of the northern prophetic traditions, including both the Elijah and the Elisha cycles, which are found in the books of Kings. Critical scholars, especially Alan Jenks,⁴¹ have detailed the significant continuities between Pentateuchal Elohist traditions and these prophetic accounts. He observed a number of similarities between the Elohist portrayal of Moses and Samuel: 1) The call of Moses and the call/dream⁴² experience of Samuel share certain similarities, especially the language of Exod 3:4 and 1 Sam 3:4--"And God (Moses)/the Lord (Samuel) called to him . . . and he said, 'behold I (Moses)/here am I (Samuel).'" 2) Both have call experiences which stress the auditory dimension. 3) Both are portrayed as deliverers from foreign oppression. 4) Both perform the function of prophetic intercession for the people. 5) Both experience nocturnal revelation or divine encounters (dream revelations common to Elohistic texts). And 5) the Elohistic Moses, like Samuel, combines the role of covenant mediator, holy war leader, and judge. These are men of action rather than speakers, and they lead people dramatically.⁴³ Other scholars also have noted affinities between the Elohist and the Samuel traditions.⁴⁴ A number of parallels exist between the Elohistic Moses and the Elijah and Elisha cycles: 1) Elijah received bread and meat both in the morning and the evening (1 Kgs 17:6), just as Moses and the Israelites received bread in the morning and meat in the evening during the wilderness wanderings (Exod 16:8, 12). 2) Elijah fought Baal prophets (1 Kgs 18:20-40) as Moses opposed magicians in Egypt (Exod 7:8-13, 20-22). (However, the magician motif in the Exodus traditions may be Priestly in origin.) 3) Elijah went to Horeb (1 Kgs 19:1-18), Moses went to Sinai (Exod 3:-4:17), and both were inspired or commissioned to continue the work of God. 4) Elijah passed authority to Elisha (1 Kgs 19:16-21, 2 Kgs 2:1-25) as Moses passed authority to Joshua (Deut 31:14, 34:9). (The latter passages are Deuteronomic; however, Joshua presumably was important for the Elohist also.) 5) Both Elijah and Moses died or disappeared at an unknown site in the Transjordan (2 Kgs 2:1-12, Deut 34:1-8). 6) Elijah and Moses parted the water: the Jordan River with a mantle (2 Kgs 2:8) or the sea with a rod (Exod 14:16). 7) In their overall life experience both Moses and Elijah fled from a ruler to the east (Midian or the Transjordan; Exod 2:15, 1 Kgs 17:2-6), lived with a foreign family (Exod 2:16-22, 1 Kgs 17:8-24), returned for a contest with foreign gods (Exod 7:8-11:10, 1 Kgs 17:8-24), went to a sacred mountain, and then undertook a journey to the promised land. 8) Elisha and Joshua parted the Jordan River to cross into the Cisjordan after they inherited authority and leadership (2 Kgs 2:14, Josh 3:1-17). 9) Both sets of tradition maintain the priority of prophets over kings. And 10) both sets of tradition have a holy war ideology: Elisha led the people against the Moabites (2 Kgs 3:9-27) and against Baal devotees (2 Kgs 9:7-13) as Moses led the people in battle against Amalek (Exod 17:8-16).⁴⁵ Since Jenks attributed a well-defined Elohist Epic to the late 10th century B.C.E., he obviously saw the 9th century BCE prophetic traditions of Elijah and Elisha as related to, but not part of, that Elohist Epic. Such a model would lead a scholar to postulate that the Elohist Epic influenced these evolving prophetic narratives in their formation.

If, however, we lower the date for the emerging Elohist materials to the 7th century BCE, then those prophetic narratives in Kings may have been antecedent to the generation of Elohist narratives. Or they could have arisen at the same time and influenced each other. We could take the above-mentioned parallels and posit influence in the direction opposite of that which Jenks suggested. We could observe how the narrative of Elijah at Horeb (1 Kgs 19:4-18) might have influenced the emergence of the Sinaitic traditions, or how the crossing of the Jordan twice by Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:8, 13-14) might have influenced the traditions concerning the crossing of the sea in Exod 14. John Van Seters has suggested the possibility in several instances of how Deuteronomistic accounts may have inspired narratives in the Tetrateuch.⁴⁶ Furthermore, one could study how particular motifs, such as the fire motif, found in the narratives in Kings (fire on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kgs 18:20-40, Elijah's destruction of soldiers with fire in 2 Kgs 1:9-16, the chariot of fire in 2 Kgs 2:1-14, the horses and chariots of fire protecting Elisha and his servant in 2 Kgs 6:17, etc.) might have had an impact upon Elohist narratives in the Tetrateuch where fire is also important (burning bush, pillar of fire in the wilderness, etc.). This new view of the Elohist would permit the serious consideration of such possibilities. Regardless of these considerations, in reference to the Elohist we may begin to speak of "pools of Elohist tradition" and by use of that term refer equally to the narratives in our present Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History. Because all of these accounts may have circulated among the oral traditions in north Israel in the 7th century BCE, all of the material might be classified best under the rubric of the Elohist.

Making all of these traditions roughly contemporary, or even assuming the slight priority of the prophetic traditions in Kings, might provide a new avenue to approach long-standing debates concerning certain texts. For example, scholars have noted the great similarities between the account of the golden calf/calves in Exod 32:1-35 and 1 Kgs 12:25-33, and frequently the supposition is put forward that the account in 1 Kings 12 may be prior. The old source-critical model demanded that we postulate a tradition behind our present text of Exodus 32 which somehow inspired 1 Kings 12, which then in turn influenced the emergence of our written version of Exodus 32. But this new paradigm with its later date for the Elohist can accept the priority of an essential form of 1 Kings 12 and suggest that it inspired Exodus 32. Furthermore, Exodus 32 then emerges as a critique of Jeroboam I and all the later north Israelite kings who sponsored the calf cult at Bethel. The ultimate preservation of both narratives serves to indict political Israel and justify the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.E. in the circles of 7th century BCE north Israelite prophets. This would make good sense of both accounts.

How might exegetical analysis proceed, were we to assume a strong connection between these prophetic narratives and the Pentateuchal Elohistic materials? A classic text sometimes attributed to Elohist circles is the account in I Samuel 3, a significant passage from the Samuel Idyll (I Samuel 1-3). Early source critics were inclined to view this narrative as part of the "Anti-Monarchical Source" (along with I Samuel 7-8, 10:17-27, 12, and sometimes 15) and an extension of the Elohist source into the historical books.⁴⁷ After Martin Noth's scholarly observations these narratives were viewed more within the context of Deuteronomistic traditions, but some subsequent scholars, like Jenks, still believed the Samuel narratives were related to the Elohist tradition as part of the northern prophetic cycle of tales.⁴⁸ Critical contemporary scholars, like Van Seters, would dismiss the Elohist connection and characterize the Samuel Idyll as loose traditions creatively woven together by the Deuteronomistic Historians.⁴⁹

Our newly proposed paradigm for the Elohist would take very seriously the connections between motifs in I Samuel 3 and the Elohist, especially the image of the prophet as mediator and the dream motif. If we view this passage from the perspective of the 7th century BCE, rather than the 10th to the 8th century BCE setting proposed by earlier scholars, several valuable observations may be made: 1) The entire narrative may refer obliquely to a destruction of Shiloh which occurred around 700 BCE rather than 1050 BCE. Some archaeologists have proposed such a destruction of the site, though it is disputed by others.⁵⁰ If they are correct with this later date, it would explain why Jeremiah's reference to the fall of Shiloh (Jer 7:12) was so meaningful around 600 BCE, and why the allusions in Ps 78:60-64 to Shiloh's destruction would be relevant to a later post-exilic audience. 2) The reference to how the "word" was "rare" in those days (v. 1) would allude poignantly to the perceived loss of such religious intermediaries with the pollution of the Bethel shrine by the calf cult and the subsequent national destruction of 722 BCE. 3) The dream motif could be compared to parallel Assyrian dream reports. 4) Finally, aspects of a prophetic call narrative format have been isolated in this text by several commentators.⁵¹ If so, the 7th century BCE would provide a more probable era for the appearance of a classical prophetic literary form which is ingrained in the narrative of I Samuel 3. In sum, a number of significant theological observations can be made, if the text is anchored somewhere in the 7th century BCE.

V

What would be the relationship of "Elohist pools of tradition" to the Yahwistic narratives? In the mind of this author, that is still an undecided issue. However, much of the contemporary debate, especially the research of Schmid, Van Seters, Rose, and Blenkinsopp suggests strongly that either much or all of the Yahwist tradition may have its origin in the Babylonian Exile. Thus, there are two avenues upon which we might proceed in this analysis. Perhaps, there was a fragmentary or loose Yahwistic oral tradition originating in Judah in the monarchic period. If so, it was comparable to the "Elohist pools of tradition" in the north. This "Yahwistic trajectory" of oral tradition may trace its origins ultimately in some small form back to the early monarchy. The exilic Yahwist author then would have used these fragmentary Elohistic and Yahwistic traditions for his work of exilic historiography. Even Van Seters admits the use of sources by the exilic Yahwist, and he admits that those texts formerly called Elohistic might be some of the especially old sources used by the exilic Yahwist historian. Van Seters, however, demurs from discussing them as a truly significant theological entity, preferring to describe the historiographical skills of the exilic Yahwist author.⁵² As Van Seters and others have observed, these pre-exilic fragments did not coalesce into a fixed oral or written tradition until the Babylonian Exile, for too much of the vocabulary (Mt. Ararat, Ur of the Chaldees, camels, Haran, etc.) and the theology (promise of land, emphasis upon forgiveness, Davidic hopes) clearly reflect an exilic setting. The second avenue of hypothetical reconstruction is to concede completely to the arguments of contemporary critical scholars mentioned above and simply state that the Yahwist is totally an exilic product.

Either way the supposition of a 7th century BCE provenance of "pools of Elohistic tradition" would not be incompatible with the evaluation of the Yahwistic traditions. Ultimately, both the Yahwist and the Elohist of the Tetrateuch receive their initial expression with the exilic Yahwist author and their final concrete literary formation at the hands of Priestly Editors during and after the Babylonian Exile. The northern prophetic narratives in Kings precipitated into written form in the hands of Deuteronomistic Historians in their two or three successive editions at a slightly earlier date.

If one were to summarize this new model in simplistic acronomic fashion, it would be called the EDJP theory (if exilic dating is chosen for J). In actuality, the process is really far more complex than that, and it cannot be reduced to a simple acronym. Perhaps, the complexity of this oral and literary evolution of the Primary History (Genesis through 2 Kings) may never be recovered by us, for all we can observe in the final literary product.

VI

Of necessity this essay has been painted with broad strokes. Its fuller explication must await a full length monograph to work out exegetical, literary, and traditio-historical details. But the suggestion of a 7th century BCE date for the Elohist traditions deserves some attention in the great debates that now occur in Pentateuchal research. In a similar manner Israel Knohl has proposed recently that "H" (from the "Holiness" tradition in Leviticus) ought to be considered a separate theological trajectory and dated later than the Priestly strand in Leviticus.⁵³ Thus, suggestions are being aired among scholars for reconfiguring the Pentateuchal traditions. This paradigm shift⁵⁴ in regard to the Elohist may permit us to view texts and the entire theological tradition in a new light. Perhaps, it will engender new reflection on the theological significance of Elohist texts.

Ultimately, this essay suggests a lower date for the Elohist on the basis of evidence from the Deir J Alla text and a comparative study of Mesopotamian dream reports. The late emergence of monotheistic beliefs is used as an inferential argument. Admittedly, that is slim evidence. But in the field of Old Testament we often work with little concrete evidence in the formulation of a theory. A theory is often convincing not on the basis of the concrete evidence, but more significantly due to the cogency of attending arguments, theoretical though they may be. Hopefully, past suggestions concerning the scope and nature of the Elohist tradition can be reconfigured to create a sensible theory for 7th century BCE origins. In particular, it may be more logical to view the Elohist tradition as a northern prophetic response to the destruction of Samaria in 722 BCE, to see the Elohist condemnation of the king and the calf cult as likewise occurring after that event, and to acknowledge that not only are northern prophetic traditions in Kings Elohistic in character, but that they may have inspired some of the Pentateuchal or Tetrateuchal Elohistic narratives.

¹Frederick Winnet, "Re-Examining the Foundations," JBL 84 (1965) 1-19; John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975); Hans Heinrich Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist (Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 1976); Rolf Rendtorff, Das Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), and "The 'Yahwist' as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism," JSOT 3 (1977) 2-10; Martin Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist (ATANT 67; Zürich: Theologisches Verlag, 1981); Norman Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1987) 43-131. A good summary is provided by Douglas Knight, "The Pentateuch," in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (eds. D. Knight and G. Tucker; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 263-296.

²Van Seters, Abraham, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), Prologue to History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), The Life of Moses (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), and "The Pentateuch," in The Hebrew Bible Today (eds. S. McKenzie and P. Graham; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 3-49; and Rose, Deuteronomist. So also A. D. H. Mayes, The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile (London: SCM, 1983) 139-149.

³Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

⁴Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), and Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).

⁵Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler (BZAW 63; Giessen: Töpelmann,1933), and Rudolph, Elohist von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW 68; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1938).

⁶Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (tr. B. Anderson; Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972); and Hans Walter Wolff, "The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch" (tr. K. Crim) Int 26 (1972) 158-172.

⁷Alan Jenks, "The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions" (Dissertation, Harvard University, 1965), and The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions (SBLMS 22; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).

⁸Karl Jaros, Die Stellung des Elohisten zur Kanaanäischen Religion (OBO 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982).

⁹Robert Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOTSup 241; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 62-128.

¹⁰Robert Coote, In Defense of Revolution: The Elohist History (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991) 1-140.

¹¹Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1987) 50-88.

¹²Idem., "The Recession of Biblical Source Criticism," in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures (eds. R. Friedman and H. Williamson; SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 99.

¹³Lothar Ruppert, "Der Elohist--Sprecher für Gottes Volk," in Wort und Botschaft des Alten Testaments (ed. J. Schreiner; Würzburg: n.p., 1969) 108-117; Terence Fretheim, "Elohist," IDBS (ed. K. Crim; Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 259-263; and Hans Klein, "Ort und Zeit des Elohisten," EvT 37 (1977) 247-260.

¹⁴Van Seters, "Pentateuch," 13.

¹⁵Jacob Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir JAlla (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 19; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 173-182; and Jo Ann Hacket, The Balaam Text from Deir JAlla (HSM 31; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984).

¹⁶Frank Cross, "Notes on the Ammonite Inscription from Tell Siran," BASOR 212 (1973) 14, and "Ammonite Ostraca from Heshbon: Heshbon Ostraca IV-VIII," AUSS 13 (1975) 12-17; Kyle McCarter, "The Balaam Texts from Deir J Alla: The First Combination," BASOR 239 (1980) 49-60; and André Lemaire, "L'inscription de Balaam trouvée a; Deir J Alla: épigraphie," in Biblical Archaeology Today (ed. J. Amitai; Jerusalem: IES, 1985) 355.

¹⁷Alexander Rofé, The Book of Balaam (Numbers 22:2-24:24) (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Simor, 1979) 1-77; Gösta Ahlström, "Another Moses Tradition," JNES 39 (1980) 69; McCarter, "Balaam Texts," 57; Lemaire, "Fragments from the Book of Balaam Found at Deir Alla," BARev 11/5 (1985) 37-38; Hedwige Rouillard, Le péricope de Balaam (Nombres 22-24): La prose et les "oracles" (EB 4; Paris: Gabalda, 1985) 483-487; Michael Coogan, "Canaanite Origins and Lineage," in Ancient Israelite Religion (eds. P. Miller, P. Hanson, and D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 117-118; and Michael Moore, The Balaam Traditions (SBLDS 113; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 95.

¹⁸Hans-Peter Müller, "Die aramäische Inschrift von Deir JAlla und die älteren Bileamsprüche," ZAW 94 (1982) 239; Emile Puech, "L'inscription súr plâtre de Tell Deir J Alla," in Biblical Archaeology Today, 362, connects it to the tradition about Jacob's encounter at Penuel; and Baruch Levine, "The Balaam Inscription from Deir J Alla: Historical Aspects," Biblical Archaeology Today, 336-339, suggests the cult may be condemned by Hos 6:7-10, 11:11.

¹⁹McCarter, "Balaam Texts," 57; and Lemaire, "Fragments," 37-38.

²⁰Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus (AGJU 36; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 58.

²¹Idem., "A Reconsideration of the Form-Critical Structure in I Samuel 3," ZAW 94 (1982) 379-390, The Dream Theophany of Samuel (Lanham: UPA, 1984) 11-177, and "Dreams in the Night--Scholarly Mirage or Theophanic Formula? The Dream Report as a Motif of the so-called Elohist Tradition," BZ 39 (1995) 28-53.

²²Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (APS, NS 46; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), 201-202; J. Bergmann, M. Ottosson, and G. Botterweck, "chalam," TDOT 4:425; and Gnuse, Dream Theophany, 31-32, and Josephus, 49-50.

²³Julian Oberman, How Daniel Was Blessed with a Son (AOS 20; JAOS Sup 66,2; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1946) 1-30; Oppenheim, Interpretation, 179-255, "Mantic Dreams in the Ancient Near East," in The Dream and Human Societies (eds. G. von Grunebaum and R. Callois; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966) 341-350, and "New Fragments of the Assyrian Dream-Book," Iraq 31 (1969) 153-165; Bendt Alster, Dumuzi's Dream (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 1; Copenhagen: Akademisch Forlag, 1972) 9-135; Annelies Kammenhuber, Orakelpraxis, Träume und Vorzeichenschau bei den Hethitern (Texte der Hethiter 7; Heidelberg: Winter, 1976) 7-183; and Jack Sasson, "Mari Dreams," JAOS 103 (1983) 283-293.

²⁴Gnuse, "Dreams in the Night," 39-40.

²⁵To name but a few--Bernhard Lang, "Vor einer Wende im Verständnis des israelitischen Gottesglaubens?," TQ 160 (1980) 53-60, "The Yahweh-Alone Movement and the Making of Jewish Monotheism," in Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority (SWBA 1; Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 13-59, "Neues über die Geschichte des Monotheismus," TQ 163 (1983) 54-58, and "Zur Entstehung des biblischen Monotheism," TQ 166 (1985) 135-142; Hermann Vörlander, "Der Monotheism Israels als Antwort auf die Krise des Exils," in Der einzige Gott (ed. B. Lang; Munich: Kösel, 1981) 84-113; Norbert Lohfink, "Gott und die Götter im Alten Testament," Theologische Akademie 6 (1969) 50-71, "Das Alte Testament und sein Monotheismus," in Der eine Gott und der dreieine Gott (ed. K. Rahner; Munich: Schnell and Steiner, 1983) 28-47, "The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah," in Ancient Israelite Religion, 459-475, and "Zur Geschichte der Diskussion über den Monotheismus im Alten Israel," in Gott, der Einzige (ed. H. Haag; QD 104; Freiburg: Herder, 1985) 9-25; McCarter, "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy," in Ancient Israelite Religion, 137-155, and "The Origins of Israelite Religion," in Rise of Ancient Israel (ed. Hershel Shanks; Washington: BAS, 1992) 118-141; and Mark Smith, "God and Female in the Old Testament," TS 48 (1987) 333-340, The Early History of God (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990) xix-xxxiv, 1-167, and "Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel," in Ein Gott allein? (eds. W. Dietrich and M. Klopfenstein; OBO 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1994) 197-234. A fuller explication of contemporary views is found in Gnuse, No Other Gods, 62-128.

²⁶The deliberate juxtaposition of evolutionary and revolutionary as adjectives to describe emergent monotheism in Israel is a usage I advocated in my previous works, Gnuse, "Contemporary Evolutionary Theory as a New Heuristic Model for the Socio-scientific Method in Biblical Studies," Zygon 25 (1990) 405-431, "New Directions in Biblical Theology," JAAR 62 (1994) 893-918, and No Other Gods, passim.

²⁷Jenks, Elohist, 124.

²⁸Smith, History, passim.

²⁹One has to be cautious, however, in making this generalization about the entire Deuteronomistic History, since the incubated dream of Solomon in I Kings 3 undergirds kingship. Perhaps, the historians inherited this tradition of Solomon's dream at a questionable shrine in Gibeon, and like other memories (such as human sacrifice in Judg 11:34-40 and a Yahweh image in Judg 17:1-5) included the narrative despite their own theological reservations.

³⁰Gnuse, "Dreams and their Theological Significance in the Biblical Tradition," CurrTM 8 (1981) 166-171, Dream Theophany, 57-118, and Josephus, 68-101.

³¹Coote, Revolution, 112-113.

³²Jenks, Elohist, 83-111.

³³Gnuse, "Calf, Cult, and King: The Unity of Hosea 8:1-13 on the basis of structural and thematic evidence," BZ 26 (1982) 83-92.

³⁴Otto Procksch, Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: Die Elohimquelle (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906) 248-255.

³⁵Jenks, Elohist, 113-117.

³⁶Samuel Rolles Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Meridian, 1956) 16; and John Skinner, Genesis (2d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1930) 375-380.

³⁷Van Seters, Prologue, 288-306.

³⁸Jenks, Elohist, 32-36.

³⁹Ibid., 124-125.

⁴⁰Ibid., 97.

⁴¹Ibid., 83-129.

⁴²Gnuse, "Reconsideration," 379-390, argued that I Sam 3 should be considered an auditory message dream form-critically.

⁴³Jenks, Elohist, 83-84, 89-91.

⁴⁴Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (tr. P. Ackroyd; New York: Harper and Row, 1965) 270-280, and he also lists previous scholars who held comparable views.

⁴⁵Jenks, Elohist, 89-101; and Jerome Walsh, I Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996) 284-289, who additionally observes many vocabulary and stylistic parallels between the Moses and Elijah traditions.

⁴⁶Van Seters, Prologue, passim, and Moses, passim.

⁴⁷Carl Cornill, "Ein elohistischer Bericht über die Entstehung des israelitischen Königtums in 1 Samuelis 1-15 aufgezeigt," Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliche Leben 6 (1885) 113-141, "Zur Quellenkritik der Bücher Samuelis," Königsberger Studien 1 (1887) 25-89, and "Noch einmal Sauls Königswahl und Verwerfung," ZAW 10 (1890) 96-109; and Karl Budde, "Sauls Königswahl und Verwerfung," ZAW 8 (1888) 223-248, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau (Giessen: Ricker, 1890) 169-210, and The Books of Samuel (trans. B. W. Bacon; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894) 1-14.

⁴⁸Jenks, Elohist, 83-93.

⁴⁹Van Seters, Search, 346-353.

⁵⁰Marie-Louise Buhl, "Conclusion," Shiloh: The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailun, Palestine, in 1926, 1932, and 1963 (eds. Marie-Louise Buhl and Svend Holm-Nielsen; Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark, 1969) 60-62, who challenged the conclusion of Hans Kjaer, the director of the excavations, who had opted for 1050 BCE as the date of destruction. Yigal Shiloh, "Review," IEJ 21 (1970) 67-69 countered the views of Buhl and reaffirmed a 1050 BCE date.

⁵¹Hugo Gressmann, Die Schriften des Alten Testaments (2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910) 1:7; Alfred Jepsen, Nabi (Munich: Beck, 1934) 53; Murray Newman, "The Prophetic Call of Samuel," Israel's Prophetic Heritage (eds. Bernhard Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962) 86-97; Peter Ackroyd, The First Book of Samuel (CBC; Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 42-44; Hans Joachim Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis (KAT 8/1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973) 125; and Benjamin Hubbard, "Commissioning Stories in Luke-Acts: A Study of their Antecedents, Form and Content," Sem 8 (1977) 107.

⁵²Idem., Abraham, 130, 311, Prologue, 5, 328. He also believes that there is very little which may be attributed to this early Elohist tradition.

⁵³Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).

⁵⁴Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) 1-210, suggests that significant theory revisions occur when sufficient data emerges to break the old consensus and create a new one.