Introduction

The story of Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery in Egypt is well known. There are some aspects of this text that appear strange—repetitions, awkward transitions, apparent gaps—but these could plausibly be attributed to authorial style (Schwartz, “Joseph’s Descent”; Seebass, Genesis III, 24–25). The brothers seem to decide to kill Joseph twice, once described in narrative (“they conspired to kill him,” v. 18) and once in dialogue (“let us kill him,” v. 20). Reuben’s plan to save Joseph (“cast him into that pit,” v. 22—that is, instead of killing him with our hands) is identical to the brothers’ original plan to kill him (“let us throw him into one of the pits,” v. 20—that is, to dispose of his body after we have killed him). Judah’s argument for not killing Joseph (“let us not do away with him ourselves,” literally, “let our hands not be against him,” v. 27) is almost a duplication of Reuben’s (“do not touch him yourselves,” liter ally, “do not stretch a hand against him,” v. 22)—and when Judah proposes his plan, the brothers had already accepted, and even carried out, that of Reuben. There are, however, problems in the text that cannot be easily resolved, prob lems that preclude any straightforward reading of the plot. These derive from the narrative presence and action of both Ishmaelites and Midianites in the sale of Joseph. When we read the text as it stands, according to its plain meaning, these two foreign groups are the source of great confusion. The Ishmaelite trad ers arrive on the scene fi rst (v. 25), leading Judah to persuade his brothers that rather than kill Joseph, they ought to sell him; they will be just as effectively rid of him, and even profi t in the process (vv. 26–27).

Far more difficult is the notice at the end of v. 28 that the Ishmaelites, upon purchasing Joseph, brought him to Egypt. This is expected in light of what preceded in v. 25, where the Ishmaelites are said to be heading toward Egypt. But it is expressly contradicted by what follows at the end of the chapter in v. 36: “The Midianites, meanwhile, sold him in Egypt to Potiphar.”5 If this were not problem enough, Genesis 39:1 states that Potiphar bought Joseph “from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there.” Interpreters have had to come to terms with these apparent contradictions and inconsistencies from the earliest stages of biblical interpretation to the pres ent. For precritical interpreters, the unity of the text was never in question, and they were therefore forced to fi nd ways to eliminate or otherwise explain away the narrative problems (Kugel, Tradi tions, 1–30). In the second-century-BCE book of Jubilees, the Midi anites and the abduction of Joseph are removed from the story entirely; Joseph’s brothers sell him to the Ishmaelites, who bring him to Egypt and sell him to Potiphar (Jub 34:11). This elimination of the narrative problem by means of the wholesale elimination of the Midianites is attested elsewhere in postbiblical texts of the early period ( T. Dan 1:5; T. Naph. 7:4). In Josephus’s retelling, as in Jubilees, the brothers sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, and they in turn sell him to Potiphar in Egypt (Ant. II.32–39).

In the Testament of Joseph, Joseph is sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (10:6), but we fi nd also a rather lengthy and convoluted story (11:1–16:5), not found in Gen esis, in which the trader to whom the Ishmaelites give Joseph for safekeeping is accused by Potiphar of having stolen him from Canaan (T. Jos. 15, 27). In Philo, the Ishmaelites are not mentioned by name either, being called simply merchants traveling from Arabia to Egypt, though they perform precisely the same role as the Ishmaelites—they pass by, they buy Joseph from the brothers, and they in turn sell him into Egypt (On Joseph, 15). Pseudo-Philo is perhaps most extreme in that the Midianites and the Ishmaelites are absent; indeed, there are no merchants whatsoever. The brothers themselves are the ones who bring Joseph to Egypt (Bib. Ant. 8:9).

Text-critical investigation reveals that at least some scribes involved in the transmission of the Septuagint were also disturbed by the apparent inconsis tency in this story and sought to correct it by changing “Ishmaelites” to “Midi anites” or vice versa. Thus for “Midianites” in 37:28, two marginal glosses in manuscripts from the tenth and eleventh centuries read “Ishmaelites”; one manuscript omits “Ishmaelites” from the verse; and one from the twelfth cen tury creates a wonderful hybrid form, “Ishmadianites.” The same sources, plus at least one other from the tenth century, replace “Midianites” with “Ishmael ites” in 37:36 as well (Brooke and McLean, The Old Testament in Greek, 1:108; cf. Anbar, “Changement,” 223–24).
The Documentary Hypothesis
NARRATIVE PROBLEMS

• Contradictions within the Pentateuch are evident, ranging from minor details like the names of people and places to major theological issues, such as differing accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, and the location and nature of Yahweh’s dwelling.
• Doublets, or repeated stories that are mutually exclusive, further complicate the narrative, such as the two instances of Jacob renaming the city of Luz as Bethel in Genesis 28:19 and 35:15.
• Discontinuities in the narrative disrupt the flow of the story, such as in Exodus 24 where Moses is instructed to go up the mountain twice, with an unrelated covenant ceremony occurring in between.
• Despite these inconsistencies, there are also notable continuities that link different passages, suggesting that the Pentateuch is not merely a collection of independent fragments but has been compiled with some coherence in mind.
• Early scholarship, including the Fragmentary Hypothesis, posited that the Pentateuch was composed of disparate elements from different authors, though this theory was later refined into the Documentary Hypothesis, which identifies four distinct sources.
• The Documentary Hypothesis argues that these four sources, each internally consistent, were originally independent documents that were later combined and interwoven to form the Pentateuch as it exists today. –

THE FOUR DOCUMENTS

• The Pentateuch is composed of four primary documents, each beginning at different points in the Biblical narrative but covering overlapping historical events: Genesis, the Exodus, Sinai, the wilderness wanderings, and the death of Moses.
• The four sources—designated as J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist)—have distinct perspectives, particularly in how and when God’s name, Yahweh, was revealed. J uses Yahweh from the earliest times, while P and E suggest that Yahweh’s name was revealed only to Moses.
• The names “Yahwist” and “Elohist” are somewhat misleading, as they suggest that the primary distinction between the sources is the use of the divine name, rather than the broader narrative and historical claims each source makes.
• The narratives within these documents often tell the same stories, such as the creation, the flood, and the patriarchs’ lives, but they do so with significant differences in details, reflecting the distinct theological and historical viewpoints of each source.
• The Pentateuchal law codes—Covenant Code, Priestly Code, and Deuteronomic Code—are also tied to these sources, with each code claiming to be the law given by God to Moses at a specific time and place, and containing unique laws that sometimes contradict the others.
• Many of the Pentateuch’s stories are found in only one of the sources, leading to a unified narrative in some cases, while in other instances, multiple sources are interwoven into a composite narrative, like in the flood story.

DISTINGUISHING THE DOCUMENTS

• The identification of themes within the Pentateuch’s sources, such as the Priestly (P), Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), and Deuteronomic (D) documents, becomes clear only after analyzing the narrative flow and structure of each source.
• The Priestly source (P) is characterized by strong structural elements, such as genealogies, age reporting, and a focus on priestly matters like the Tabernacle and Aaronid priesthood.
• The Yahwist source (J) emphasizes etiology, family affairs, and includes pre-existing songs and poems, often showing the deity working behind the scenes.
• The Elohist source (E) highlights prophetic themes, including the use of visions and dreams for divine communication, and frequently features divine messengers.
• The Deuteronomic source (D) is notable for its format as Moses’s farewell speech, alternating between narrative and rhetoric, with a strong focus on Israel’s disobedience and Moses’s leadership.
• Stylistic and terminological features, such as specific words and phrases, are more accurately observed after the narrative separation of the sources, avoiding the erroneous identification of sources based solely on these elements.

The Sale of Joseph, Gen 37.18-36

• The text of Genesis 37:18–36 presents textual difficulties primarily due to a confused and contradictory narrative rather than issues with terminology or divine references.
• The narrative confusion in the passage stems from the differing accounts of the Ishmaelites and Midianites, making it challenging to resolve the story’s continuity.
• The analysis separates the Ishmaelites and Midianites into two distinct stories, referred to as story A (involving the Ishmaelites) and story B (involving the Midianites).
• In story A, the brothers sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, while in story B, the Midianites steal Joseph from the pit without the brothers’ knowledge.
• The text’s inconsistencies are highlighted by the presence of two decisions to kill Joseph, two plans to throw him into a pit, and two arguments for saving him, each associated with different narrative strands.
• The separation of the stories is based on narrative continuity, with each story following its own internal logic, and no alteration of the biblical text is needed to make these distinctions.
• The analysis suggests that story A, associated with Judah and the Ishmaelites, belongs to the J source, while story B, associated with Reuben and the Midianites, belongs to the E source.
• The narrative chronology in the final compiled text shows that the compiler had limited choices in arranging the story elements to maintain coherence.

1. The J Source
2. FORM AND TRADITION CRITICISM

• Form criticism, initiated by Hermann Gunkel, studies the development and social origins of biblical genres, identifying genres like myth, genealogy, and law, and examining their cultural settings (Sitz im Leben). (Bentzen, Introduction, 1:102–8; Wilcoxen, “Narrative”)
• Form-critical analysis of psalms, such as Psalm 30, classifies them into genres like thanksgiving psalms based on formal markers such as keywords and rhetorical structures. This genre was likely recited publicly in worship settings. (Gunkel, Psalms, 1–21; Weiser, Psalms, 265–73)
• Some Pentateuchal elements, like genealogies and hymns, are clearly assignable to genres, but narrative texts are harder to categorize due to varied terminologies and definitions borrowed from nonbiblical literature. (Coats, Genesis, 4; Knierim, “Criticism”)
• Biblical narratives often blur the lines between different genres, such as distinguishing between tale and legend or myth and history, leading to inconsistencies in classification. (Coats, Genesis, 5–10; Tucker, Form Criticism)
• The genre of etiological narratives, such as Genesis 32:2–3, describes how places received their names and likely originated in localized oral traditions. (Coats, Genesis, 223–24)
• Form criticism provides an interpretive key by recognizing genres and their meanings, enabling a diachronic analysis of how texts use and adapt these genres. (Alter, Art, 47–62; Muilenburg, “Form Criticism”)
• Tradition criticism, developed by Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth, examines the content of preliterary stories, seeking to attribute plausible historical contexts to these traditions and understand their development over time. (Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 92–94; Houtman, “Jacob”)

• Tradition criticism differentiates between various layers of tradition, analyzing how these layers combine into broader themes and narratives in the Pentateuch, such as those concerning the patriarchs or the Exodus. (Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 103; Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 185)
  
• Source-critical analysis is essential for accurate form-critical assessments, as seen in Genesis 48:1–12, where the canonical text’s mixed genres (adoption report and deathbed blessing) are clarified by isolating original sources. (Coats, Genesis, 303–5; Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 84)

THE J SOURCE

• The hypothesis of the J document is critical to the European approach, and denying its existence undermines numerous literary connections within the Pentateuch (Coggins, R. J. “The J Document: An Overview.” The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 98, no. 3, 1979, pp. 405-417).
• The J document is demonstrated to be a cohesive literary whole through its narrative continuity and thematic consistency, rather than merely terminological or stylistic features (Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Basic Books, 1981).
• The primeval history in J includes the accounts of creation, the expulsion from Eden, Cain and Abel, the flood narrative, the Table of Nations, and the Tower of Babel, all of which are integrated through narrative, character, and theme continuity (Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. John Knox Press, 1961).
• Genesis 12 marks the transition from the primeval history to the patriarchal history with Yahweh’s address to Abraham, linking themes from the Tower of Babel and emphasizing Abraham’s role in divine blessing and land promise (von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. SCM Press, 1961).
• The continuity of Genesis 12-13 shows that Abraham’s possession of the promised land is a culmination of the divine promise given earlier (Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Jewish Publication Society, 1989).
• Genesis 16 and 18 describe the promise of offspring to Abraham and Sarah, reflecting the theme of barrenness and divine intervention unique to J’s narrative (Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: A Commentary. Augsburg Fortress, 1982).

• Simeon, Levi, and Reuben’s actions in Genesis 34 and 35:21–22a lead to their disinheritance in Jacob’s final blessing in Genesis 49:3–7 (p. 1).
• Joseph fulfills his vow to his father in Genesis 50:1–11, and his pledge to sustain his brothers continues from Genesis 45:11 (p. 1).
• The attempt of Joseph’s brothers to enslave themselves is linked to their earlier actions in Genesis 37 and Genesis 44:16 (p. 1).
• Genesis 50:22 states Joseph’s age and leads into Exodus 1:6, which mentions the new Pharaoh who does not know Joseph, setting the stage for the Israelites’ oppression
• The oppression in Exodus 1:9–12 reflects the fulfillment of the divine promise of progeny to Abraham, focusing now on the land promise
• The story of Moses killing the Egyptian taskmaster and fleeing to Midian in Exodus 2:11–23a transitions seamlessly from Exodus 1:9–12 and connects with earlier J passages
• In Exodus 3, Yahweh appears to Moses in the burning bush and sets the stage for the Exodus narrative, including the forthcoming negotiations with Pharaoh
• The J plagues form a coherent unit, fulfilling Yahweh’s predictions and leading to the Israelites’ release from Egypt as described in Exodus 12:31–34

A Complaint in the Wilderness, Numbers 11

• Numbers 11 starts with a narrative about the Israelites’ complaint against Yahweh, resulting in a fire at the camp, which ends after Moses prays, leading to the place being named Taberah (vv. 1-3).
• In v. 4, the Israelites complain about their diet of manna and wish for meat, which continues from the narrative in vv. 1-3.
• The complaint about meat progresses through vv. 4-6, with background information on manna provided in vv. 7-9.
• The narrative picks up again in v. 10, where Moses hears the people’s weeping and expresses distress over their complaint, reflecting both the earlier complaint and Yahweh’s reaction.
• Moses’s appeal to Yahweh in vv. 11-15 shows his frustration with his leadership role and the burden of managing the people, transitioning between his own complaints and the people’s desire for meat.
• Yahweh’s response in vv. 16-20 includes instructions for Moses to gather seventy elders to share the leadership burden and to provide meat, with the latter response emphasizing the people’s ungratefulness.
• Verses 21-23 feature a dialogue where Moses doubts Yahweh’s ability to provide enough meat, and Yahweh assures him to wait and see.
• The chapter concludes with Yahweh providing quail to the Israelites, who then face a plague as punishment for their complaint, and the place is named Kibroth-Hattaavah (“Graves of Craving”) (vv. 31-34).

• The narratives of the Israelites’ wilderness wanderings in the J source emphasize their repeated complaints about Yahweh for lack of provisions, leading to severe responses from Yahweh, culminating in the Israelites’ doom in Numbers 13–14 (Exod 16, Exod 17:1b–7, Num 11, Num 13–14).
• The J source highlights the theophany at Sinai, where Yahweh initially threatens not to accompany the Israelites due to their obstinacy, but Moses persuades Yahweh to continue with them (Exod 33:3, Exod 33:12–17).
• The narrative of the meat story in Numbers 11 is attributed to J, while the elders story in Numbers 11 is assigned to E based on Moses’s complaints and the description of the Tent of Meeting (Num 11:1–30, Deut 1:9–18).
• The elders story in Numbers 11 aligns with E’s depiction of the Tent of Meeting being located outside the camp and reflects E’s portrayal of Moses’s prophetic authority (Exod 33:7, Num 11:24b–30).
• The differences between J and E regarding the divine presence and the role of the Tent of Meeting indicate that the elders story cannot be part of J and fits better with E’s narrative framework (Exod 33:9–10, Num 11:26–30).
• The combination of the J and E narratives in Numbers 11 reflects the compiler’s intent to unify the different narratives about the Israelites’ behavior and Moses’s leadership challenges post-Sinai/Horeb (Num 11:1–30).
• The narrative integration of the J meat story and the E elders story in Numbers 11 serves to address different thematic concerns—trust in Yahweh and Moses’s prophetic authority—within a larger cohesive narrative (Num 11:4–30).