Theonomastics and the Documentary Hypothesis - Divine names as evidence for textual development

The study of divine names in the Hebrew Bible reveals far more than linguistic variation—it exposes the complex evolution of ancient Israelite religion from polytheistic origins to exclusive monotheism, preserved despite later editorial attempts at theological uniformity. Through the lens of the Documentary Hypothesis, theonomastic patterns provide compelling evidence for multiple authorial traditions, each preserving distinct theological perspectives about the nature and character of the divine. The systematic distribution of names like Yahweh, Elohim, and El Shaddai across proposed sources, combined with archaeological discoveries at sites like Kuntillet Ajrud revealing references to “Yahweh and his Asherah,” demonstrates that biblical texts preserve memories of religious development spanning centuries. While contemporary scholarship remains deeply divided about the validity and application of source-critical methods, the evidence from divine names continues to illuminate fundamental questions about how ancient communities understood, named, and related to their deity.

Foundations of theonomastics in biblical scholarship

Theonomastics, the specialized study of divine names, emerged as a crucial discipline for understanding ancient religious thought and textual development. This field encompasses not merely the etymology of divine appellations but their societal functions, narrative contexts, and role in religious evolution. The systematic analysis of divine names became foundational to biblical source criticism when Jean Astruc first observed in 1753 that Genesis employed two distinct divine names—Yahweh and Elohim—in patterns suggesting different authorial hands. This observation would eventually develop into the Documentary Hypothesis, reaching its classical formulation under Julius Wellhausen in 1878.

The Documentary Hypothesis proposes that the Pentateuch comprises four originally independent sources, each identifiable through distinctive vocabulary, theology, and particularly divine name usage. The Yahwist source (J) consistently employs the personal name YHWH from primordial times, presenting an anthropomorphic deity who walks in gardens and speaks face-to-face with humans. The Elohist source (E) uses the generic term Elohim until the divine name revelation to Moses, emphasizing transcendence and ethical concerns. The Deuteronomist (D) focuses on covenant theology and centralized worship, while the Priestly source (P) presents a cosmic, transcendent deity concerned with ritual purity and systematic order. These sources allegedly underwent redactional compilation, producing the complex final text.

Contemporary scholarship has significantly refined these categories while acknowledging methodological challenges. As Jeffrey Stackert notes in recent scholarship, “While continuing to acknowledge the literary problems to which it responds, scholars over the last century have raised serious questions about the viability of parts of the Documentary Hypothesis.” The field now encompasses neo-documentarian approaches that focus on narrative continuity over stylistic criteria, supplementary models viewing texts as successive additions, and fragmentary hypotheses proposing composition from numerous small units. Despite these divergent methodologies, divine name patterns remain central to understanding biblical composition.

Mapping divine names across documentary sources

The distribution of divine names across proposed sources reveals striking patterns that extend beyond simple alternation. Statistical analysis demonstrates that J passages employ YHWH over 90% of the time, beginning with Genesis 2:4 where “YHWH Elohim” first appears in the creation narrative. This consistent usage continues through patriarchal narratives, with Abraham addressing YHWH directly (Genesis 15:7) and the name appearing in primordial contexts like Genesis 4:26: “At that time people began to call on the name of YHWH.” The Yahwist’s YHWH engages in remarkably human activities—forming humans with hands, breathing into nostrils, and personally closing Noah’s ark door.

The Elohist tradition demonstrates 95% Elohim usage until Exodus 3, where the burning bush theophany introduces YHWH to Moses. This source’s preference for divine transcendence manifests through angelic intermediaries and dream revelations. Genesis 20:3 exemplifies E’s style: “Elohim came to Abimelech in a dream,” avoiding the direct divine-human contact characteristic of J. The theological implications are profound—E’s Elohim remains more mysterious and ethically demanding, introducing the “fear of Elohim” theme absent from J’s more intimate portrayals.

Priestly texts exhibit complex naming patterns that support theories of religious evolution. P employs Elohim exclusively in primordial history, introduces El Shaddai for patriarchal covenants, and explicitly states in Exodus 6:3 that YHWH was unknown to the ancestors: “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them.” This creates what scholars call the “Exodus 6 problem”—patriarchal narratives repeatedly use YHWH despite P’s claim of later revelation. Source criticism elegantly resolves this contradiction by attributing YHWH-using patriarchal stories to J while P maintains consistent Elohim/El Shaddai usage until the Mosaic revelation.

The paradigmatic example appears in Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2-3, where P’s cosmic creation account uses Elohim 35 times without variation, presenting deity through ordered speech acts (“Let there be…”), while J’s garden narrative employs YHWH Elohim consistently, depicting YHWH forming humans from dust, breathing life, and walking in Eden. These patterns correlate with other distinguishing features—vocabulary, style, theological emphasis—strengthening the case for distinct sources.

Divine names as evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis

The systematic correlation between divine names and other textual features provides compelling support for source division, though not without challenges. Computer-assisted analysis has recently validated traditional observations, with Israeli researchers using automated methods to distinguish P from non-P material with 90% accuracy based on word frequency patterns including divine names. These computational approaches demonstrate that naming patterns aren’t arbitrary but reflect deeper linguistic and theological structures.

The most persuasive evidence emerges from passages where divine names create narrative problems. Exodus 3:13-15 (E) depicts Moses asking for Elohim‘s name, receiving the enigmatic “I AM WHO I AM” before the revelation of YHWH, yet J passages assume patriarchal knowledge of this name. Similarly, Genesis 4:26 (J) states that YHWH worship began in primordial times, contradicting P’s insistence on Mosaic revelation. Traditional harmonizations—that patriarchs knew the name but not its full significance, or that different names emphasize different divine attributes—fail to explain the systematic patterns across hundreds of passages.

Recent challenges to linguistic dating, however, complicate source-critical arguments. Scholars like Ian Young and Robert Rezetko argue that biblical Hebrew features reflect stylistic registers rather than chronological development, undermining attempts to date sources through language. If divine name patterns result from genre, ritual context, or scribal preference rather than distinct sources, the Documentary Hypothesis loses crucial support. Dead Sea Scrolls evidence reinforces this critique, showing that sectarian communities varied divine name usage based on ritual context rather than textual tradition.

Nevertheless, neo-documentarian scholars like Joel Baden maintain that narrative continuity and plot consistency matter more than stylistic features. They argue that divine names correlate with distinct narrative voices—J’s immediate YHWH suits patriarchal promise stories, E’s transcendent Elohim fits covenant-testing narratives, and P’s systematic Elohim aligns with genealogical frameworks. The cumulative weight of evidence—names, narrative perspective, geographical orientation, theological emphasis—suggests multiple traditions even if precise source reconstruction remains contested.

Polytheistic echoes in biblical divine names

Archaeological discoveries have revolutionized understanding of Israelite religion’s polytheistic substrate, with divine names preserving clear evidence of this heritage. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions (c. 800 BCE) contain multiple references to “Yahweh and his Asherah,” while the Khirbet el-Qom tomb inscription invokes blessing “by Yahweh and by his Asherah.” These eighth-century texts demonstrate that Yahweh possessed a divine consort in popular religion, despite biblical attempts to suppress goddess worship. The thousands of female figurines discovered throughout Iron Age Israel/Judah corroborate widespread Asherah veneration.

The divine name El reveals even deeper polytheistic roots. Ugaritic texts discovered at Ras Shamra depict El as the Canaanite pantheon’s head, bearing epithets identical to biblical usage: El Shaddai (“El of the Mountain”), El Elyon (“Most High”), El Olam (“Eternal”). Biblical texts preserve memories of El as Israel’s original patron deity—Genesis 33:20 explicitly references “El, god of Israel,” while the name Israel itself means “El perseveres.” The peaceful assimilation of El traditions into Yahwism, contrasting with violent anti-Baal polemics, suggests Yahweh emerged from within the El pantheon rather than as an external deity.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 provides the clearest evidence for Yahweh‘s subordinate origins. Based on Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint readings, the passage originally stated: “When Elyon gave nations their inheritance… he fixed boundaries according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh‘s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.” This depicts Yahweh receiving Israel as his allocation from El/Elyon, the high god distributing nations among divine council members. Later Masoretic editors changed “divine beings” to “sons of Israel,” obscuring polytheistic implications, but the original reading survives in older witnesses.

Biblical texts preserve numerous divine council scenes despite monotheistic editing. Psalm 82 depicts Elohim standing in the “assembly of El,” judging other deities for failing to maintain justice. These Elohim are condemned to “die like mortals,” suggesting a transition from polytheism to monotheism through divine demotion rather than denial. Job 1-2 presents the “sons of Elohim” assembling before Yahweh, including Satan as a council member. Such passages demonstrate that Israelite religion long acknowledged multiple divine beings even while elevating Yahweh to supremacy.

The evolution from polytheism to monotheism appears clearly in Second Isaiah (6th century BCE), where explicit denials of other gods first emerge: “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; besides me there is no god” (Isaiah 45:5). This rhetorical emphasis suggests active competition with polytheistic beliefs rather than established monotheism. Mark S. Smith’s analysis demonstrates that true monotheism emerged from the crucible of Babylonian exile, when military defeat required theological explanation—Yahweh must control even foreign empires, using them as instruments of punishment and restoration.

Divine character through the documentary lens

Each proposed source presents remarkably distinct divine characterization, with theonomastic choices reinforcing theological perspectives. The Yahwist’s anthropomorphic deity transcends mere human-like description, exhibiting complex emotional states and direct physical engagement with creation. Genesis 6:6 captures J’s startling theology: “YHWH regretted that he had made human beings, and it grieved him to his heart.” This YHWH experiences genuine surprise at human behavior, changes plans based on intercession, and maintains passionate involvement in human affairs. The personal name YHWH suits this intimate portrayal—a deity known by name engages personally with those who invoke that name.

The Elohist’s transcendent Elohim requires mediation through dreams, angels, and prophets. E’s Elohim tests Abraham through near-sacrifice of Isaac, with an angel intervening at the crucial moment (Genesis 22). This source introduces the “fear of God” motif absent from J, emphasizing divine mystery and moral demand. The generic term Elohim reinforces this theological distance—humans relate to divinity as such rather than through personal nomenclature. E’s northern kingdom perspective may explain this emphasis, differentiating legitimate prophecy from Baal worship’s ecstatic immediacy.

Deuteronomistic theology centers on covenant and law, presenting YHWH primarily as sovereign legislator. The divine name becomes attached to the Jerusalem temple—“the place where YHWH chooses to make his name dwell”—centralizing both worship and divine presence. D’s retribution theology systematically correlates obedience with blessing, disobedience with curse, interpreting Israel’s entire history through this lens. The Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through Kings) demonstrates this principle repeatedly: righteous kings prosper while covenant-breakers face destruction. YHWH functions here as covenant name, invoked in legal formulations and treaty contexts.

The Priestly source’s cosmic Elohim operates through systematic order and ritual purity. P’s creation account presents Elohim speaking existence into being through divine fiat, assessing each stage as “good” before culminating in Sabbath rest. This transcendent creator never directly touches creation, instead establishing mediating structures—priesthood, tabernacle, sacrifice—enabling divine-human encounter without compromising holiness. P’s elaborate purity system (Leviticus 11-15) creates graduated sacred space: Holy of Holies, Holy Place, camp, wilderness. The names Elohim and El Shaddai suit this theological vision—universal deity rather than national god, cosmic sovereign rather than covenant partner.

These characterizations profoundly shape biblical interpretation. When Genesis presents three wife-sister narratives—Abraham with Pharaoh (J), Abraham with Abimelech (E), Isaac with Abimelech (J)—source critics explain repetition through distinct traditions rather than editorial confusion. Each version reflects its source’s theology: J emphasizes YHWH‘s protection through plagues, E focuses on divine communication through dreams, while the second J account develops themes of covenant blessing.

Contemporary scholarship and methodological crisis

The twenty-first century has witnessed fundamental challenges to traditional source criticism without achieving consensus on alternatives, as demonstrated through specific scholarly developments and computational studies:

Table 20: Contemporary Approaches to Biblical Source Criticism

Methodology	Key Proponents	Divine Name Treatment	Main Claims	Limitations
Neo-Documentarian	Joel Baden, Jeffrey Stackert	Central evidence	Four independent sources mechanically compiled	Limited manuscript evidence
Supplementary	John Van Seters, Rolf Rendtorff	Secondary concern	Gradual textual growth around core	Difficulty explaining systematic patterns
Fragmentary	Erhard Blum, Konrad Schmid	Contextual variation	Multiple small units combined	Cannot explain narrative continuity
Neo-Orthodox	R.N. Whybray, Gordon Wenham	Stylistic preference	Single authorship with variations	Ignores literary inconsistencies

Computational Analysis Results

Computer-assisted analysis has provided mixed support for traditional source criticism:

Table 21: Recent Computational Studies of Biblical Authorship

Study	Year	Method	Divine Names Role	Results	Implications
Israeli AI Project	2024	Machine learning	Key distinguishing feature	90% accuracy P vs non-P	Validates some source divisions
PLOS ONE Study	2024	Word frequency analysis	Primary variable	Significant clustering patterns	Supports multiple authorship
SBL Computer Project	2021	Stylometric analysis	Secondary marker	Mixed results	Questions traditional boundaries

Specific findings from the 2024 PLOS ONE study:

• Vocabulary clustering: “Create” (ברא) vs “form” (יצר) correlates with Elohim vs YHWH usage
• Formulaic expressions: P’s “These are the generations” formula appears exclusively with Elohim
• Statistical significance: Divine name distribution shows p-value < 0.001 for source distinction

Geographic and Institutional Divisions

The field has bifurcated along geographic and institutional lines:

Table 22: Regional Scholarly Trends

Region	Dominant Approach	Representative Institutions	Divine Name Emphasis	Current Status
North America	Neo-Documentarian	Yale, Harvard, Princeton	Central evidence	Continued refinement
Germany	Supplementary/Fragmentary	Heidelberg, Tübingen	Contextual variation	Fundamental revision
Israel	Mixed approaches	Hebrew University, Tel Aviv	Archaeological integration	Diverse methodologies
United Kingdom	Post-critical	Sheffield, Cambridge	Literary unity focus	Alternative paradigms

Specific Contemporary Debates

The “Friedman School” vs. “European Revisionism”:

Richard Elliott Friedman’s approach (University of Georgia):

• Maintains four-source theory with refined boundaries
• Emphasizes narrative continuity over linguistic features
• Example: Traces J’s “mercy” theme through Genesis 18:23-33 (Abraham’s intercession) to Exodus 34:6-7 (YHWH‘s divine attributes)

European revisionist approach (exemplified by Konrad Schmid):

• Questions independent sources in favor of supplementary layers
• Emphasizes Persian period composition over earlier dating
• Example: Views Exodus 6:3 as late theological reflection rather than P source marker

Dead Sea Scrolls Impact

The Qumran discoveries have complicated traditional assumptions:

Table 23: Dead Sea Scrolls Evidence for Divine Names

Document Type	Divine Name Usage	Source-Critical Implications	Traditional Response
Biblical manuscripts	Paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton	Reverence for sacred name	Supports antiquity of YHWH
Sectarian rules	Substitute expressions	Liturgical context matters	Divine names reflect function
Pesharim (commentaries)	Mixed usage patterns	Interpretive flexibility	Names carry theological meaning
Thanksgiving hymns	El/Elohim dominant	Prayer genre preferences	Context determines choice

Specific examples from Qumran:

• 1QS (Community Rule): Avoids writing tetragrammaton, uses “El” and “Adonai”
• 4QDeut^j: Preserves “sons of El” reading in Deuteronomy 32:8
• 1QH (Thanksgiving Hymns): Prefers El/Elohim in liturgical contexts regardless of biblical source

Feminist and Postcolonial Critiques

Ideological criticism has exposed methodological biases:

Table 24: Critical Perspectives on Source Criticism

Approach	Key Criticism	Divine Name Implications	Proposed Alternatives
Feminist	Androcentric assumptions	Male deity characterizations	Gender-inclusive interpretation
Postcolonial	Western academic imperialism	Ignores indigenous readings	Community-based hermeneutics
Liberation	Elite scholarly privilege	Divorces text from justice concerns	Socio-economic analysis
African	Cultural inappropriateness	European theological categories	Contextual interpretation

Specific challenges:

• Alice Ogden Bellis questions whether source criticism’s focus on male authorship obscures women’s roles in textual transmission
• R.S. Sugirtharajah argues that Documentary Hypothesis imposes Western literary categories on ancient Near Eastern texts
• Itumeleng Mosala contends that source criticism ignores class struggle reflected in divine name variations

Archaeological Challenges

Recent archaeological work complicates traditional dating:

Table 25: Archaeological Evidence Challenging Traditional Dating

Discovery	Date	Relevance to Sources	Traditional Response	Revisionist Interpretation
Low literacy rates	Iron Age II	Questions early written sources	Sources reflect oral traditions	Supports Persian period composition
Lack of 10th-century Jerusalem	Solomonic period	Challenges early J dating	J reflects later memory	Sources entirely post-exilic
Continuous Canaanite culture	Throughout Iron Age	Questions distinctive Israelite religion	Biblical idealization	Religious diversity preserved in sources

Contemporary Assessment

Current scholarly assessment reveals deep methodological uncertainty:

• Supporters maintain that cumulative evidence—narrative continuity, theological consistency, ancient parallels—supports some form of source division
• Critics argue that the absence of manuscript evidence for hypothetical sources fatally undermines the entire enterprise
• Moderates suggest that source criticism identifies real literary phenomena while overstating precision in reconstruction

Recent meta-analyses of biblical scholarship show declining confidence in classical Documentary Hypothesis while acknowledging continued explanatory power for specific textual problems. The field increasingly emphasizes reading strategies over historical reconstruction, with divine names serving interpretive rather than archaeological functions.

Implications for understanding ancient religion

The convergence of theonomastic analysis with archaeological and comparative evidence reveals ancient Israelite religion as far more complex than biblical texts suggest. Rather than pristine monotheism corrupted by Canaanite influence, the evidence indicates evolutionary development from polytheistic origins through henotheistic stages toward exclusive Yahwism. Divine names preserve this transformation despite systematic editorial suppression.

The implications extend beyond historical reconstruction to contemporary religious understanding. If biblical texts preserve multiple, sometimes contradictory theological perspectives rather than uniform divine revelation, interpretive approaches must account for this diversity. The recognition that Yahweh once had a consort, that Israelite religion emerged from Canaanite polytheism, and that monotheism developed gradually rather than appearing fully formed challenges traditional Jewish and Christian theological claims while enriching understanding of religious development.

For biblical scholarship, the methodological crisis surrounding the Documentary Hypothesis reflects broader disciplinary maturation. The confidence of earlier generations, who believed source criticism could scientifically reconstruct textual history, has yielded to recognition of irreducible complexity. Yet the literary problems that prompted source-critical solutions—narrative contradictions, stylistic variations, competing theologies—remain real. Divine name patterns continue providing crucial evidence even as their interpretation grows more complex.

Contemporary scholarship increasingly emphasizes what Michael Fishbane calls “inner-biblical exegesis”—how later texts interpret and transform earlier traditions. Divine names become sites of theological negotiation, with scribes harmonizing, suppressing, or reinterpreting inherited traditions. The final text preserves this interpretive history, making the Hebrew Bible not a static document but a record of ongoing religious reflection. Understanding theonomastic patterns illuminates this dynamic process, revealing how ancient communities struggled to comprehend and name the divine through changing historical circumstances.

Conclusion

The study of divine names through the Documentary Hypothesis lens reveals the Hebrew Bible as preserving a complex history of religious evolution, theological diversity, and editorial intervention. From the polytheistic substrate evident in El epithets and Asherah inscriptions through the systematic patterns distinguishing proposed sources to contemporary methodological debates, theonomastic analysis illuminates fundamental questions about textual composition and religious development. While scholars remain divided about specific source reconstructions, the evidence from divine names demonstrates that biblical texts emerged from multiple traditions, each contributing distinct perspectives on divine nature and human-divine relationships. The current methodological crisis in biblical studies, rather than invalidating theonomastic insights, highlights the irreducible complexity of texts that preserve centuries of religious thought. As the field continues evolving through computational analysis, archaeological discoveries, and diverse interpretive perspectives, divine names remain crucial evidence for understanding how ancient communities conceived, encountered, and articulated their experience of the sacred—a process whose traces, despite editorial intervention, still speak through the biblical text’s complex tapestry of divine names.