The Abrahamic Covenant: A Divided Promise, or a Forgery of God's Will?

The Abrahamic Covenant, as recorded in the Hebrew Bible, is one of the foundational texts for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It promises land, descendants, and blessings to Abraham and his progeny. However, when scrutinized for writing style, grammar, and technical composition, it becomes evident that the narrative may not have been written by a single source or at the same time. This observation, rooted in the study of the Torah's composition, raises profound questions about the nature of the covenant and its implications for the relationships between these three faiths.

The Documentary Hypothesis and the Torah's Composition

Scholars have long studied the Torah using the Documentary Hypothesis, which posits that the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are a compilation of several sources, traditionally identified as J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist). Each of these sources is thought to have contributed different perspectives, styles, and theological emphases to the final text.

• The J Source (Yahwist): Often uses the name Yahweh for God and features a vivid, narrative-driven style. It is believed to be one of the oldest sources, emphasizing the direct relationship between God and His people.
• The E Source (Elohist): Uses the name Elohim for God until the revelation of the divine name to Moses. It has a slightly different narrative style, often focusing on prophecy and the moral lessons of the patriarchs.
• The P Source (Priestly): Characterized by its formal, repetitive style, attention to detail, and focus on rituals, genealogies, and covenants. This source tends to use Elohim for God and is often seen as emphasizing the institutional aspects of religion.
• The D Source (Deuteronomist): Primarily concerned with law and morality, this source is closely associated with the book of Deuteronomy and later legal interpretations.

Differences in the Covenant Narrative

The Abrahamic Covenant is described in various parts of Genesis, and a close examination reveals significant differences in writing style and content, suggesting that these passages may have been written by different sources.

1. Genesis 15: The Initial Covenant (J Source)
   • In Genesis 15, Yahweh promises Abraham that his descendants will inherit the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. This passage, attributed to the J source, is narrative in style and emphasizes a broad promise to Abraham’s descendants without specifying through which of his sons this covenant will be fulfilled. The language is vivid, and the interaction between God and Abraham is direct and personal.
2. Genesis 17: The Covenant Expanded (P Source)
   • Genesis 17 introduces a more formal, structured covenant. God (referred to as Elohim) changes Abram’s name to Abraham and Sarai’s name to Sarah, promising that Sarah will bear a son, Isaac, through whom the covenant will be established. This passage, often attributed to the P source, is more detailed and repetitive, reflecting a different theological emphasis. The focus shifts from a general promise to a specific lineage, explicitly excluding Ishmael and narrowing the covenant to Isaac and his descendants.
3. Genesis 21: The Division of the Covenant
   • The narrative further evolves in Genesis 21, where Sarah demands the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and God reassures Abraham that, while Ishmael will also be blessed and become a great nation, the covenant will be established through Isaac. This division is critical, as it formally excludes Ishmael from the covenantal promise of land, creating a theological and narrative separation between the descendants of Isaac (later the Israelites) and those of Ishmael (traditionally considered the ancestors of many Arab peoples).

The Implications of a Divided Source

The identification of different sources in these covenantal texts has significant implications. If the initial promise to Abraham was intended for all his descendants, as suggested by the J source’s broad language, then the covenant was originally inclusive. However, the later P source, with its focus on ritual and specificity, narrows the covenant’s scope to Isaac, thereby creating a division between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.

This division has had profound consequences for history and continues to resonate today in the relationships between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. By narrowing the covenant to Isaac, the text creates an exclusivity that has contributed to religious and political conflicts. The descendants of Ishmael, associated in Islamic tradition with the Arab peoples and the Prophet Muhammad, are effectively excluded from the covenantal promise in the biblical narrative, despite their shared ancestry with the descendants of Isaac.

A World of Unity Versus a World of Division

If we consider the possibility that the initial, broader covenant was later amended to create a division, it suggests that the original intention was one of unity—a promise to all of Abraham’s descendants. The later emphasis on Isaac alone could be seen as a theological and political development that introduced division where there might have been inclusivity.

This perspective invites us to reconsider the covenant in its entirety. If the covenant was initially meant to include both Isaac and Ishmael, then the division we see today between Jews, Christians, and Muslims might stem not from divine intention but from later interpretative shifts. The potential for unity is embedded in the shared heritage of these three faiths, and recognizing this shared origin could be a step toward reconciliation.

Conclusion

The Abrahamic Covenant, when analyzed through the lens of source criticism, reveals a complex narrative that may have evolved over time. The differences in writing style, grammar, and theological emphasis between the early and later parts of the covenant suggest that these passages were likely written by different sources. This separation of sources is critical because it reflects a shift from a broad, inclusive promise to one that is exclusive and divisive.

Understanding these distinctions can help us see how the narrative has shaped the religious landscape we inhabit today, one marked by divisions that might not have been intended in the original covenant. By reexamining the covenant in its entirety, we might find a path toward greater unity among the descendants of Abraham—Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

References

• Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote the Bible? HarperOne, 1987.
• Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. 1883.
• Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Harvard University Press, 1973.
• Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. Yale University Press, 1975.

These references provide a foundation for understanding the Documentary Hypothesis and the implications of different sources contributing to the text of the Torah.