Biblica_2:Layout 1 21-11-2011 13:02 Pagina 433 433 THE DECEPTIVE PEN OF SCRIBES What remains firm despite this modification 24 is his basic scheme in which the northern Israelite Jacob tradition has been re-appropriated by the Judeans after the fall of northern Israel (722 B.C.E.). First, Blum establishes the pre-promise, “pre-Hoseanic”, northern Israelite Bethel account in 28,11- 13a*.15*.16-22 25, despite Van Seters’s challenge on the early dating 26. 24 There are three notable modifications. First, Blum gave up his earlier rigorous pursuit for the original independent “block” of Bethel Κultgründungssage (11-13aα.16-19a). Rather than supposing its independent existence, now Blum thinks it is a tradition available to the author of the Jacob story Jakoberzählung. BLUM, “Noch einmal”, 38-40. As a corollary, the first two strata (the original etiology and the composition layer) of his earlier model are combined into the new basic layer of the Bethel episode in the Jacob story. Second, the detailed stratification of the promise layer has been given up. Particularly, he no longer distinguishes between the pre-exilic (Vg1) and the exilic (Vg2) layers and merges them into a unified exilic layer, Vätergeschichte (Vg). Now, the four layers in the chart 1 (2-5) belong to one exilic layer. In Vätergeschichte, Blum had dated vv. 13aβ-14a to the pre-exilic Judean Vg1 (290-297), while assigning v. 14b to the exilic Vg2 as the above chart shows (354). Such a simplified position has been already noted in his Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin 1990) 214, n. 35. Cf. CARR, Fractures, 205-208 for an exilic dating of these verses. Third, the basic layer (Jakoberzählung) now includes YHWH’s speech of protection (v. 15a) unlike his earlier reconstruction, where YHWH does appear (v. 13aα) but without giving any speech. He came to this conclusion based on allusions in Hosea 12,5.7 to a divine appearance at Bethel incident. See Blum, “Noch einmal”, 44-51. Carr also originally thought v. 15 did not belong to the original Bethel layer but assigned it to a non-P revision. CARR, Fractures, 207. Yet he also changed his position and considers v. 15a (at least part of it) an original part of the northern Bethel account, based on the reference of the divine appearance at Bethel incident in 35,3 and Hos 12,5.7. CARR, “Genesis 28,10-22”, 410. 25 BLUM, “Noch einmal”, 54. 26 Within Pentateuchal scholarship, Van Seters led the challenge against this early dating, which, in fact, had formed one of the reasons for Blum’s modification discussed above. For Van Seters, 28,10.13-15.16aβb.19b.20- 22 all belong to the work of his exilic Yahwist, who made use of the earlier cult etiology (vv. 11.12.16aα.17-19a). The crux of his challenge laid against Carr (and indirectly to Blum as well), thereby, centered on questioning the alleged northern Israelite edition of the Jacob story. J. VAN SETERS, “Divine Encounter at Bethel (Gen 28,10-22) in Recent Literary-Critical Study of Genesis”, ZAW 110 (1998) 503-513; ID., Prologue, 293-294. The main basis for his claim is (a) that 28,10 is connected to the surrounding J material and (b) that the vow (28,20-22) presupposes the promise (28,13-15) and thus belongs to the same level. His first claim is justifiable, but not much so is the second — the more critical of the two. None of his arguments for the dependence of vv. 20-22 on vv. 13-15, in fact, apply directly to vv. 13aβ-14