01_Biblica_Hong_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:54 Pagina 326 326 KOOG P. HONG that the Judean version of the Abraham story lacked a proper ending (except for the alleged fragmentary J layers in Genesis 20–22) for the story of their ancestor. It is equally difficult to suppose a later Judean redactor would replace J’s (i.e., southern) original ending with that from the northern version (E). Whether one posits the now dis- puted RJE 20 or any other later exilic or post-exilic redactor, the Judean orientation of the redactor is unquestionable. Why would a Judean redactor choose a northern version for this important section of the life of Abraham, the ancestor of the Judeans? Indeed, no single classical source critic has argued for the north- ern origin of E directly from Genesis 20–22. Only as a corollary to the sweeping source-critical identification of E as a northern doc- ument did Genesis 20–22, as a portion of E, begin to carry this northern identification. In what follows, I have no intention of chal- lenging the Elohistic character of Genesis 20–22*. My challenge focuses on revealing the uncritical nature of the ensuing equation of Elohistic with northern. 1. Popular Arguments for E’s Northern Origin Are Selective Standard arguments for E’s northern provenance, mostly relying on tradition-historical criteria (such as a northern geographic setting and a pro-Israel, or anti-Judean, tendency 21), are surprisingly se- lective. Since R.E. Friedman championed this particular point, the following discussion concerns his argument. Friedman, like many others, highlights the prominence of Shechem or Penuel in some of the Elohistic accounts and contrasts it with J material, which is predominantly rooted in southern loca- tions, most notably Hebron; this is a classic source-critical argu- ment 22. Since Shechem and Penuel are notable northern cities (1 Kgs 23,25), at first sight this argument appears cogent. Upon closer examination, however, its selective nature becomes evident. All of Friedman’s evidence, including points that are not mentioned here, comes exclusively out of E’s Jacob, Joseph, and Moses sections. E’s Abraham section (Genesis 20–22*) is entirely neglected. Fur- thermore, to the extent of my knowledge, few scholars, including BADEN, J, E, and the Redaction, 11–43, 188–195, 209–254. 20 E.g. FRIEDMAN, Who Wrote, 62. Cf. CARR, The Formation, 473-475. 21 FRIEDMAN, Who Wrote, 62. 22 © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati