01_Biblica_Hong_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:54 Pagina 332 332 KOOG P. HONG II. Fundamental Basis: Wellhausen’s Evolutionary Scheme 1. Influence and Critique of the Evolutionary Scheme I turn now to the most fundamental basis for designating E as a northern document. One of the most influential aspects of Wellhausen’s presentation of the Documentary Hypothesis was the lucidity of his evolutionary scheme around which the history of the religion of Israel was reconstructed. And it is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that the attribution of E’s northern origin was informed as much by the reputa- tion of his evolutionary scheme as by textual evidence. For Wellhausen, it was certain that the more “primitive” J is earlier than E, which “shows a more advanced and thoroughgoing religiosity” 43. Wellhausen did not explicitly connect this relative dating of his Jehovist sources (J and E) to their political orientations; he thought it impossible to neatly separate the two sources and accordingly showed little interest in discussing their respective provenance 44. Yet subsequent scholarship frequently took his evolutionist assessment of E’s late date, relative to J, as the basis for designating E as a northern document 45. Due to its earlier date, J is gen- erally assigned to the period of the united monarchy (either to the tenth or ninth century BCE), the earliest stage in which a literary production of this kind is thought possible. Then there remained only one other his- torical setting in which the more developed E could fit: the following era in which northern Israel acquired independent statehood. This argument appears overly simplistic in today’s intellectual atmosphere. The very fact that early critics were content with as- signing two literary manifestations to two different polities of Israel is a cardinal example of their simplistic perspective. True, two king- doms shared one God. Each led a politically independent life and developed its distinct theological and ideological perspectives. Against this backdrop, assigning the two pre-exilic sources to each of these kingdoms appears reasonable. The unstated assumption, however, is that discordant ideas could not have coexisted in one E.g. G. BUCCELLATI, Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria. An Essay on Po- 42 litical Institutions with Special Reference to the Israelite Kingdoms (Rome 1967); T. ISHIDA, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel. A Study on the Forma- tion and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology (BZAW 142; Berlin 1977). WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 361. 43 RÖMER, “The Elusive Yahwist”, 12-13. 44 E.g. SKINNER, Genesis, liv-lviii. 45 © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati