In Defense of Revolution: The Elohist History (review)

Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 123 Reviews IN DEFENSE OF REVOLUTION: THE ELOHIST HISTORY. By Robert B. Coote. Pp. x + 150. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1991. Paper. It is a daunting task to associate a historical personage with one of the Pentateuchal sources. In this slender companion to his study on J, Coote tries to illuminate the historical circumstances surrounding the composition of E. He fully recognizes the difficulty inherent in such undertakings and admits that matters are less settled than his tone may indicate. Coote's E is a product of the court of Jeroboam I, reflecting the rebel's quest for legitimacy. The Elohist is not so much an author as an annotator of the older J document, and E is not an independent source but a collection of insertions converting J from Davidic/Solomonic into pro-Jeroboam propaganda . This composite text was later slightly revised and readopted in Judah under Hezekiah. Having advanced this hypothesis, Coote translates the E stratum in full, interspersed with a paraphrase of J. Contributing to the pace and popular nature of the book is Coote's slangy style (e.g., "it's okay" for "£DC, c,c,ro") -a surprising choice, however, given his thesis that J and E were elite products of royal courts. Coote claims that his identification of E is based "primarily on the most generally agreed upon E texts of Genesis and Exodus" (p. 17). But in fact his E differs markedly from the consensus. It lacks Exodus 32 and all of Numbers and is often restricted to tiny insertions into Yahwistic contexts. Often, one suspects Coote is tailoring his source partition to fit his hypothesis. Coote next reviews the historical situation in Judah and Israel that elicited the composition of E. His reconstruction of the reign of Solomon and the revolt of Jeroboam is detailed and imaginative, with full attention paid to socio-economic and geo-political factors. He brilliantly depicts an alienated North ripe for its own monarchy and requiring its own legitimating annals. Many would contest, however, Coote's assertions that there was no distinctively Israelite culture or religion at the popular level (p. 56; cf. p. 72) and that the Solomonic state religion was essentially Baalism (pp. 75, 103). In the succeeding examination of E, Coote suggests that Jeroboam is mirrored in E's Moses and Joseph-the first a "forced labor gang boss" and the second coming into power in exile under Pharaonic sponsorship. In Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 124 Reviews E, Coote finds a catalogue for Jeroboam's personal likes and dislikes. Indeed, where E does not corroborate what is known about Jeroboam, Coote draws inferences about Jeroboam from E to make the match. For example, in E's theme of the fear of God Coote detects Jeroboam's own insecurity as a usurper (pp. 4, 114). From the theme of endangered sons, he deduces that Jeroboam's offspring were hostages in Egypt (p. 77). From Genesis 22, he infers that Jeroboam may have been under pressure to sacrifice a son (pp. 83, 113), presumably one not held hostage. E's frequent mention of dreams suggests to Coote that Jeroboam had a particular interest in incubation (pp. 92, 113). From the theme of Joseph's wisdom, Coote infers that Jeroboam claimed to rival the wisdom of Solomon (p. 92). From the prominence of massebot in E, he posits these were important to Jeroboam (p. 97), and so on. This circular reasoning does not constitute a valid test of Coote's hypothesis, although Coote is not the only source critic to encounter such difficulties. Moreover, themes that Coote specifically associates with Jeroboam are not limited to a single historical context. E's motif of the fear of God need not reflect Jeroboam's own fear of revolution or his rejection of the fear of Solomon; it is common enough within and outside the Bible. Similarly, the Ugaritic and biblical parallels on endangered posterity cited by Coote himself (pp. 78-82) illustrate that concern for sons, too, is timeless. Coote posits rather than justifies his theory of the E stratum: "when trying to make sense of E, it can be presumed that E refers to...