Biblica_2:Layout 1 21-11-2011 13:02 Pagina 430 430 KOOG P. HONG I. Literary History of the Bethel Account Insofar as Bethel functioned as a national sanctuary for northern Israel (1 Kgs 12,26-29; Amos 7,13), the Bethel tradition is instrumental for discussing Israelite identity. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Beth-El presumably was conceived as the navel of the universe, a hill that connected heaven and earth, which was a type of notion that often accompanied central religious shrines in ancient societies 16. Therefore, investigating a Judean re- working of the Bethel tradition provides a unique opportunity to glimpse the Judeans’ struggle to negotiate their identity in relation to this northern Israelite religious center, especially after the fall of Samaria. A brief overview of the literary history of the Bethel account is in order. Traditionally, the Bethel account in Genesis 28,10-22 functioned as one of the model texts for source criticism 17. Recently, however, redaction models — more accurate alternatives in accounting for the growth of this particular text — have begun to dominate 18. That is, now the Bethel account is 16 See M. ELIADE, The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion (New York 1959) 37-42; J.D. LEVENSON, “The Temple and the World”, JR 64 (1984) 275-298. 17 J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs (Berlin 1885) 30. The reason why the Bethel account has been taken as a model example of source criticism is two-fold. First, it has been claimed that the divine-name principle applies particularly well to this text. Second, when sources are divided so, the ensuing documents betray two conflicting viewpoints, which when read separately flow more smoothly. The common source delineation among source critics is as follows: Wellhausen Noth Friedman 11aβb.12.17.18. 20.21*.22 10-12.17-18.20.21a.22 E 11b.12; 17.18.20-22 10.11aα.13-16.19 13-16*.19a J 10.11a.13-16.19 RJE 14bß.19b.21b 19b?21b? WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition, 30-31; R.E. FRIEDMAN, The Bible with Sources Revealed. A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco, CA 2003) 77. Noth’s source division follows A.F. CAMPBELL – M.A. O’BRIEN (eds.), Sources of the Pentateuch. Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis, MN 1993) 112, 170, 261-262. For a slightly different reconstruction of Noth’s Source division, see Anderson’s supplement to M. NOTH, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1972) 264. 18 There are two frequently raised critiques against the source-critical reading of the Bethel account. First, the division is almost entirely rooted in the divine-name principle, the use of which is not particularly convincing in this text. For a critique of the divine-name principle, see E. BLUM, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984)