Biblica_2:Layout 1 21-11-2011 13:02 Pagina 431 431 THE DECEPTIVE PEN OF SCRIBES understood generally as a product of successive revisions rather than collations of parallel sources 19. The present form of the Bethel account reveals diverging foci — “frac- tures”, in Carr’s terms — that provide clues for literary history beyond the final form of the text. Above all, one may sense an etiological nature that promotes the sanctity of an ancient shrine at Bethel particularly in a distinct heavenly vision in this account. At another level, the discovery of the place is subsumed into the legend of the heroic figure Jacob, who later receives the name “Israel” (Gen 32,29; 35,10). The incident at Bethel now exists only as part of a legend that celebrates the rise of this hero. On yet another level, however, this focus on Jacob is somewhat diluted by the divine 19-25; 471-477. The use of YHWH in the supposed E stratum in v. 21b, for instance, presents such source-critical havoc that most critics have to rely on RJE (or the Jehovist of Graf and Wellhausen), the problem of which became more evident after Baden’s critique of it. See J.S. BADEN, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen 2009). Second, the resulting Yahwistic strand does not form a complete, parallel Bethel account to E; it rather represents a universal theme of promise that occurs in several other places of Genesis, which undermines one of the founding principles of the Documentary Hypothesis—the existence of continuous, parallel sources. See D.M. CARR, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY 1996) 207-208; M. ROSE, “Genèse 28,10-22: l’exégèse doit muer en herméneutique théologique”, Jacob: Commentaire à plusieurs voix de Ein mehrstimmiger Kommentar zu A Plural Commentary of Gen 25-36. Mélanges offerts à Albert de Pury (eds. J.-A. MACCHI – T. RÖMER) (Le monde de la Bible 44; Genève 2001) 82. For a defense of the traditional source model in the Bethel account, see S.E. MCEVENUE, “A Return to Sources in Genesis 28,10-22?”, ZAW 106 (1994) 375-389; and D.J. WYNN-WILLIAMS, The State of the Pentateuch. A Comparison of the Approaches of M. Noth and E. Blum (BZAW 249; Berlin 1997) 117-124. Both of them, however, focus on criticizing flaws in Blum’s critique of Wellhausen, without attempting to defend Wellhausen from the criticism laid against the Documentary Hypothesis. 19 See, e.g., O.H. STECK, Old Testament Exegesis. A Guide to the Methodology (Atlanta, GA 1998) 185. For a general critique of the source theory, see also Carr, Fractures, 143-151; KRATZ, Composition, 249-50; and K. SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story. Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN 2010) 336-341. NB: Recently, even source critics tend to espouse the revisional nature of the Bethel account. The Yahwistic promise (vv. 13-16) is considered an insertion into the original Elohistic account. See, e.g., Z. WEISMAN, From Jacob to Israel (Jerusalem 1986); idem, “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative: Theological Criteria”, ZAW 104 (1992) 177-197; and T.L. YOREH, The First Book of God (BZAW 402; Berlin 2010).