Dean Anderson

You're half right.

Basically, according to the Documentary Hypothesis - which has been the mainstream (and by mainstream I mean that everyone bar fundy literalists accepts it) theory about authorship of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) for at least a century.

The two main authors of the Genesis/Exodus section of the Torah are indeed the "Elohist" and the "Yawehist".

They are so named because the Elohist usually refers to God as "Elohim" and the Yahwehist (usually called the Jahwist - since the Documentary Hypothesis was first put forward by Germans, and their spelling of YHVH is "Jahve" as opposed to the English "Yahweh") usually refers to God as "Yahweh".

However, to think that this is a simple split is inaccurate. Both authors say that God was initially just referred to by people as "El" or "Elohim" and later called "Yahweh". The differences are that the Jahwist says this was done in the second or third generation of humans (see Genesis 4:26) whereas the Eholist says this was done for the first time by Moses (see Exodus 6:2-3, where God reveals his name to Moses saying that he was known as El or El Shadday by previous generations). Furthermore, the Jahwist always calls God Yahweh when he is narrating (as opposed to when a character is speaking) whereas the Elohist calls God Elohim during narration until Exodus 6:2-3, and then calls him Yahweh or Elohim from that point onwards.

So in general, you are right. One of the sources consistently calls him Yahweh from the beginnning, and the other calls him Elohim throughout Genesis, and then Yahweh after that.

However, since the writings of these two sources are mixed together, we actually see both names jumbled up throughout Genesis and then Yahweh fairly consistently afterwards.

As for the creation stories, there are two added complications.

1) The "first" story - Genesis 1 - is actually not from either of the two sources I have mentioned. It is from a later "Priestly" author. This author follows the same naming convention as the Elohist, though, as can be seen by the text of Genesis 1 which refers to "God" (i.e. the Hebrew "Elohim") throughout.

2) The "second" story - Genesis 2-3, and actually written first - was written by the Jahwist, and consequently (as well as other stylistic giveaways) refers to "The LORD" (i.e. the Hebrew "YHWH"). However, unlike most of the Jahwist's writings, a later editor has inserted "Elohim" after each use of "YHWH" - so most English translation read "The LORD God" rather than simply "The LORD" which is what you see in other Jahwist portions of the text.

Anat

Because there were apparently multiple authors to the text. One author thought Yahweh revealed his name for the first time to Moses, another thought humans started using the name Yahweh in the days of Seth or Enos - a generation or two after Adam (Genesis 4:26). Another author uses the name Yahweh from the start (Genesis 2).

Apologetic reasons for the name variations are 1) Elohim is a generic name, but Yahweh is the name of the god of Israel, the God that gives commandments (including the commandment to Adam to avoid the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil). 2) Elohim is the name that reflects God's justice, whereas Yahweh is the name that reflects God's mercy.

Dean Anderson

Of course, by "increasingly unsupportable by sound scholarship", what Sheshbazzar actually means "subject to a state of abject denial by fundamentalists"...

Dean Anderson

I cannot recommend "The Bible With Sources Revealed" by Professor Richard Elliot Friedman highly enough.

It not only makes explicitly clear the different sections by different authors, it presents some of the overwhelming evidence for this multiple authorship in its excellent introduction.

Sheshbazzar

Interesting how the Documentary Hypothesis 'theory' attempts to assign the first use of the Name YHWH to a late period to conform with that theories a priori conclusions.
The underlying text of Genesis 4:1 makes the clear statement that Eve both knew and spoke the Name YHWH, and now, without even a shred of any actual evidence, other than their own theories interpretations being forced upon latter texts of Scripture, the proponents of the DH deny the accuracy of what Gen.4:1 actually states, because it disagrees with their pet "theory", and claim that the Name YHWH was substituted into the story and into the text.

Archaeological discoveries continue to produce compelling evidence of Name being known and used prior to the time of the Exodus and of the writing down of the Hebrew Scriptures .
That evidence is strongly supportive of the the position that the original text as written, and as "read into the ears of all the people", did contain the Name YHWH, and such phrasing as "YHWH Elohim" and "YHWH your Elohim" from its inception. And that text is the authoritative one superseding the wording of any previous documents however closely parallel.
Not quite Pervy, lets see your actual proof that Eve did not know or speak the Name YHWH, and that Moses (or any other whom you would rather credit) did not write the Name into the original text at every place that it occurs, thus far there is nothing but the hot air of DH theories and claims without evidence.
Produce even a single genuine ancient document that omits the Name from Eve's testimony, then at least you would have something other than your imagination to validate your claims.

Dean Anderson

No it doesn't.

On the contrary. The DH assigns the texts using Yahweh to the oldest of the four written sources.

It makes no claims about when people started using the name Yahweh - only that the name was already in use when the first parts of the Torah were written.

No we don't.

The DH says nothing about the name Yahweh being "substituted into the text". It is assumed to have been there when the text was first written.

Which discoveries? According to modern archaeology, the Exodus never happened.

Besides, as I have already pointed out, the DH makes no claims that the name Yahweh only started being used in later periods.

Apart from the obvious fact that Eve never existed, I need give no proof that the author(s) did not write the name "Yahweh" in the original texts because neither I nor the DH claim that the author(s) didn't do that.

Once again, according to the DH, the name Yahweh was in the original version of the text, so your request is nonsensical.

If you wish to attack and attempt to discredit the Documentary Hypothesis, you may wish to actually learn what it does and does not claim first.

Otherwise you simply end up looking foolish as you demand that I back up with proof various Strawman claims of your own invention that neither I, nor any other proponent of the DH, have actually made.

Sheshbazzar

Then I extend my apologies Pervy, perhaps I was just misled by reading the statements that were posted in the debates that I have been engaged in, and have read over the last few years on this forum, from such experts as spin and Loomis, views that they have consistently expressed in hundreds of posts, clearly indicating that they, and many others here consider the text of the Scriptures to be of late fabrication, even to the ridiculous extent of arguing that the DSS may have been composed only minutes before being deposited within the Qumran caves!

"Apart from the obvious fact that Eve never existed" Just what is so obvious about this "fact"?
You are here making a claim that goes beyond any ability to provide any proof of. How then do you support that claim as being a "fact"?

I have read hundreds of articles, and thousands of posts on the subject of The Documentary Hypothesis, and your own view of it is but one other opinion among many, and I am certainly not out of line in stating that many of these others do not view it as you apparently do.

The point I was making, is that irregardless of what ancient legends, documents, or sources, the Torah may have originally been drawn or composed from, it was only that form that was "read into the ears of all the people" that was a valid legal contract (Covenant) made binding by all the people by their saying of "Amen". Ex. 24:7, Deut. 27:14-26
If you are persuaded, or desire to believe that "the Exodus never happened", that is irrelevant to the premise that the text of the Torah existed from a very early period in Israelite history, and that the people upon hearing its reading did say "Amen", and this agreement and acceptance of its exact terms constituted the basis of their history, society and religion.

Chris Weimer

No offense to Loomis, but the last time I checked, he doesn't even speak Hebrew. And yes, spin's position is very different than the formal DH which I think Friedman is advocating best at the moment.

I have never seen this argued here by anyone serious. Do you have a link or is this a strawman?

Proof is for mathematics. Here, we work with evidence. Evidence for Eve: none. Evidence for not-Eve: a whole bunch. Once you stop this phony "where's the proof" we can talk serious.

But who cares about when it was considered covenant or not? That's an issue for theology, and you can keep it to yourself. We don't care for your theology and we don't want to. It's entirely irrelevant to what the DH is and where the Israelites originally came from.

Yet you fail to indicate when this is, except the vague notion of being very early. What is very early? How do you know this? What evidence? What archaeological evidence, to be specific? Don't give me theology - I want facts.

Naphtali Jones

Wow! I feel like I've just stumbled into the middle of a minefield with this one. I didn't realize there was this whole debate going on about this subject. Personally I have felt for some time that the Pentateuch and early historical books were written on behalf of the priest Hilkiah who suddenly "discovered" the lost book during repairs to the temple at the time of King Josiah (2 Chronicles 34:14).

A question for Sheshbazzar: If "Elohim" does not refer to the sons of El in the caananite pantheon then why is it plural? Why not just use El? As it is, the term seems to convey gods in the plural and would surely have caused confusion among ancient caananite peoples who would have assumed the reference was to their gods.

Just wondering.

Naphtali Jones

And another thing...

If Adam and Eve called god Yahweh and he was known by that name all throughout Genesis, then isn't Exodus 6:2 a blatant contradiction. God claims that he was not known by that name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Is God ever referred to as Yahweh specifically during these stories or was the name known before, but somehow supposedly lost after the flood?

Added question: Why wouldn't God reveal his name to Abraham in the first place?