This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Houk, C. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Statistical Analysis of Genesis Sources

4800 University Dr. 9-L, Durham, NC 27707, USA

Syllable–word frequency pattern analysis, using the chi-square test, identifies significant differences within Genesis chs. 1–4, 6–9, 12–13, 16–21, 26, 28, 30–33, 39 and 41–43. The statistical results are interpreted to suggest that to an extended composition by an initial Yahweh writer (J^{2–4, 6–8, 12–13, 16}) four other Yahweh writers successively added J^18–19, J²⁶, J^28–33 and J^39–43. In a second major stage of development an Elohim writer expanded chs. 2–3 (using the dual divine name as a distinctive introductory signature mark), wrote chs. 20–21 and enhanced the stories in chs. 7–8, 28, 31, 33. A second Elohim writer added the punishments in 3.14-19, enhanced chs. 30–32 and expanded the Joseph story of ch. 41. Finally, a first P writer composed 1.1–2.3 to introduce a third major version of Genesis and also enhanced chs. 6–8. A second P writer added 1.11, 22, 28-30 and ch. 9, a third P writer composed ch. 17 and a fourth P writer edited the narratives of chs. 12–36. Thus the analysis argues against the explanation of Genesis as consisting of layers of tradition, against the thesis that the primaeval and patriarchal stories as written were developed separately and against the use of redactors who combined sources.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?