In 1974, Rolf Rendtorff presented a paper at the International SBL that was later printed in the JSOT with responses from other scholars1. It is a seminal article in the field of OT source criticism, and it represents a watermark in the breakdown in consensus concerning the Documentary Hypothesis.

In this month’s SBL Forum, Rendtorff follows up on that article with a retrospective on source critical research in the last 30 years, focusing particularly on different views of the Yahwist. He lists three different ways of understanding the Yahwist within a framework of a Documentary Hypothesis (in addition to those like Friedman who still hold to the traditional Documentary Hypothesis):

  • For von Rad, the Yahwist is an author who also was a theologian. This Yahwist is essentially responsible for the shape of the Pentateuch (Hexateuch) as we have it today.
  • For Van Seters, the Yahwist is an authors who is also a historian. He lived in the exilic period, much later than von Rad’s Yahwist. This Yahwist wrote a prequal to the book of Deuteronomy.
  • For Levin, the Yahwist is a collector and redactor, who pulled together earlier sources. He lived in the exile and post-dates Deuteronomy but is earlier than the DtrH.

A second group of scholars, which includes Levin, are those who have had difficulty identifying a Yahwist. While there is still a consensus on the P materials in the text, identifying the Yahwist has become more difficult, not only in regard to the texts that belong to him but also in regard to his date and location. For some in this circle, the Yahwist has even ceased to exist.

This second group takes a variety of positions concerning the Yahwist and the texts assigned to this layer. Levin brought together a number of scholars in this camp for a conference, and their papers were published in a compilation2 Rendtorff provides a brief overview of some of the papers in this book, and they illustrate the lack of consensus in the field at this point.

Rendtorff ends by noting that an end to the Yahwist means an end to the Documentary Hypothesis. The Elohist was abandoned in the 60s and 70s, though unlike the Yahwist it has few defenders now. If the Yahwist is dropped as well, we cease to have a Documentary Hypothesis, as a source critical hypothesis with only one source (P) is not a theory. As Rendtorff says,

What happened to the Yahwist? The answer: He faded away, and he took with him the building he had lived in because there are no inhabitants any longer.

For those who are interested in source critical questions, I highly recommend this survey of current through.


  1. Rolf Rendtorff, “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism.” JSOT 3 (1977): 2-10. [back]
  2. Gertz, Jan Christian, Konrad Schmid, and M. Witte, eds., Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. BZAW 315 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002). [back]
Permalink