Difference between revisions of "Documentary hypothesis" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
Line 2: Line 2:
 
[[Image:Modern_documentary_hypothesis.png|frame|right|A relational diagram describing outline of the documentary hypothesis (see below for details).]]
 
[[Image:Modern_documentary_hypothesis.png|frame|right|A relational diagram describing outline of the documentary hypothesis (see below for details).]]
  
−
The '''documentary hypothesis''' proposes that the [[Pentateuch]] (also called the [[Torah]], or first five books of the [[Old Testament]]) represent a combination of documents from at least four identifiable sources dating from tenth through fifth centuries B.C.E. Although the hypothesis has many antecedants, it reached its mature expression in the late nineteenth century through work of Julius Wellhausen and --- Graf and is thus also refered to as the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.
+
The '''documentary hypothesis''' proposes that the [[Pentateuch]] (also called the [[Torah]], or first five books of the [[Old Testament]]) represent a combination of documents from at least four identifiable sources dating from tenth through fifth centuries B.C.E. Although the hypothesis has many antecedants, it reached its mature expression in the late nineteenth century through work of Julius Wellhausen and Karl Heinrich Graf and is thus also refered to as the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.
  
 
The documentary hypothesis has been refined and criticized by later writers, but its basic outline remains widely accepted by contemporary biblical scholars. [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] and conservative [[Christians]], however, usually reject the theory, affirming that [[Moses]] himself is the sole author of the [[Pentateuch]].
 
The documentary hypothesis has been refined and criticized by later writers, but its basic outline remains widely accepted by contemporary biblical scholars. [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] and conservative [[Christians]], however, usually reject the theory, affirming that [[Moses]] himself is the sole author of the [[Pentateuch]].
Line 27: Line 27:
 
=== Rabbinical biblical criticism ===
 
=== Rabbinical biblical criticism ===
  
−
Certain rabbinical authorities have evidence skepticism of the Torah's supposed Mosaic authorship.
+
Certain traditional rabbinical authorities, however, have evidenced skepticism of the [[Torah]]'s supposed Mosaic authorship.
  
−
*The [[Talmud]] itself indicates that God dictated only the first four books of the Torah, but that Moses wrote [[Deuteronomy]] in his own words. (Talmud Bavli, ''Meg.'' 31b) The Talmud also affimrs that a peculiar section in the [[Book of Numbers]] (10:35-36) was originally a title of a separate book, which no longer exists. (''Sabb.'' 115b)
+
*The [[Talmud]] itself indicates that God dictated only the first four books of the Torah, and that [[Moses]] wrote [[Deuteronomy]] in his own words. (Talmud Bavli, ''Meg.'' 31b) The Talmud also affimrs that a peculiar section in the [[Book of Numbers]] (10:35-36) was originally a title of a separate book, which no longer exists. (''Sabb.'' 115b)
  
 
*Recognizing that over the millennia, scribal errors had crept into the text, the [[Masoretes]] (seventh to tenth centuries C.E.) compared all extant versions and attempted to create a definitive text.
 
*Recognizing that over the millennia, scribal errors had crept into the text, the [[Masoretes]] (seventh to tenth centuries C.E.) compared all extant versions and attempted to create a definitive text.
  
−
*In the twelfth century, Rabbi [[Abraham ibn Ezra]] observed that some parts of the [[Torah]] presenteded apparently anachronistic information, which should only have known after the time of Moses. Later, Rabbi [[Joseph Bonfils]] explicitly stated that [[Joshua]] (or some later prophet) must have added some phrases.
+
*In the twelfth century, Rabbi [[Abraham ibn Ezra]] observed that some parts of the [[Torah]] presented apparently anachronistic information, which should only have known after the time of Moses. Later, Rabbi [[Joseph Bonfils]] explicitly stated that [[Joshua]] (or some later prophet) must have added some phrases.
  
−
*Also in the tewlfth century, Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac noted close similarities between a number of supposedly distinct episodes in [[Exodus]] and [[Numbers]]. He hypothesized that these incidents represented parallel traditions gathered by Moses, rather than separate incidents.
+
*Also in the tewlfth century, Rabbi [[Joseph ben Isaac]] noted close similarities between a number of supposedly distinct episodes in [[Exodus]] and [[Numbers]]. He hypothesized that these incidents represented parallel traditions gathered by Moses, rather than separate incidents.
  
−
*In the thirteenth century,  Rabbi Hezekiah ben Manoah noticed the same textual anomalies that Ibn Ezra and commented that this section of the Torah "is written from the perspective of the future."
+
*In the thirteenth century,  Rabbi Hezekiah ben Manoah noticed the same textual anomalies that Ibn Ezra did and commented that this section of the Torah "is written from the perspective of the future."
  
 
(''Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations'', edited by Shalom Carmy (Jason Aronson, Inc.), and ''Handbook of Jewish Thought'', Volume I, by [[Aryeh Kaplan]] (Moznaim Pub.))
 
(''Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations'', edited by Shalom Carmy (Jason Aronson, Inc.), and ''Handbook of Jewish Thought'', Volume I, by [[Aryeh Kaplan]] (Moznaim Pub.))
Line 43: Line 43:
 
=== The Enlightenment ===
 
=== The Enlightenment ===
  
−
A number of [[the Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] writers expressed doubts about the traditional view of Mosaic authors. For example, in the sixteenth century, [[Andreas Karlstadt]] noticed that the style of the account of the death of Moses matched the style of the preceding portions of [[Deuteronomy]], suggesting that whoever wrote about the death of Moses also wrote larger portions of the Torah.
+
A number of [[the Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] writers expressed more serious doubts about the traditional view of Mosaic authorship. For example, in the sixteenth century, [[Andreas Karlstadt]] noticed that the style of the account of the death of [[Moses]] matched the style of the preceding portions of [[Deuteronomy]]. He suggested that whoever wrote about the death of Moses also wrote Deuteronomy and perhaps other portions of the Torah.
  
−
By the seventeenth century some commentators argued outright that Moses did not write most of the [[Pentateuch]]. For instance, in 1651 [[Thomas Hobbes]], in chapter 33 of ''Leviathan'', argued that the Pentateuch dated from after Mosaic times on account of Deut 34:6 ("no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day"), Gen 12:6 ("and the [[Canaan]]ite was then in the land"), and Num 21:14 (referring to a previous book of Moses's deeds). Other skeptics include [[Isaac de la Peyrère]], [[Baruch Spinoza]], [[Richard Simon]], and [[John Hampden]]. However, these people found their works condemned and even banned. The authorities forced de la Peyrère and Hampden to recant, whereas an attempt was made on Spinoza's life.
+
By the seventeenth century, some commentators argued outright that Moses did not write most of the [[Pentateuch]]. For instance, in 1651 [[Thomas Hobbes]], in chapter 33 of ''Leviathan'', argued that the Pentateuch dated from after Mosaic times on account of Deut 34:6 ("no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day"), Gen 12:6 ("and the [[Canaan]]ite was then in the land"), and Num 21:14 (referring to a previous book of Moses's deeds). Other skeptics included [[Isaac de la Peyrère]], [[Baruch Spinoza]], [[Richard Simon]], and [[John Hampden]]. However, these men found their works condemned and even banned.
  
−
The French scholar and physician [[Jean Astruc]] first introduced the terms ''[[Elohist]]'' and ''[[Jehovist]]'' in 1753. Astruc noted that the first chapter of [[Genesis]] uses only the word "Elohim" for [[God]], while other sections use the word "Jehovah." He speculated that Moses compiled the Genesis account from earlier documents, some perhaps dating back to Abraham. He also explored the possibility of detecting and separating these documents and assigning them to their original sources.
+
The French scholar and physician [[Jean Astruc]] first introduced the terms ''[[Elohist]]'' and ''[[Jehovist]]'' in 1753. Astruc noted that the first chapter of [[Genesis]] uses only the word "Elohim" for [[God]], while other sections use the word "Jehovah." He speculated that Moses compiled the Genesis account from earlier documents, some perhaps dating back to [[Abraham]]. He also explored the possibility of detecting and separating these documents and assigning them to their original sources.
  
−
[[Johann Gottfried Eichhorn]] brought Astruc's book to Germany and further differentiated the two chief documents in 1787. However, neither he nor Astruc denied Mosaic authorship, and they did not analyze the Pentateuch beyond the [[Book of Exodus]]. H. Ewald first recognized that the documents that later came to be known as "P" and "J" left traces in other books. F. Tuch showed that "P" and "J" also appeared recognizably in [[Joshua]].
+
[[Johann Gottfried Eichhorn]] further differentiated the two chief documents in 1787. However, neither he nor Astruc denied Mosaic authorship, and they did not analyze the Pentateuch beyond the [[Book of Exodus]]. H. Ewald first recognized that the documents that later came to be known as "P" and "J" left traces in other books. F. Tuch showed that "P" and "J" also appeared recognizably in [[Joshua]].
  
−
[[Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette|W. M. L. de Wette]] joined this hypothesis with the earlier idea that the author(s) of the first four books of the Pentateuch did not write the Book of [[Deuteronomy]]. In 1805 he attributed Deuteronomy to the time of [[Josiah]] (ca. [[621 BC]]). Soon other writers also began considering the idea. By 1823 Eichhorn, too, had abandoned the claim of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
+
[[Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette|W. M. L. de Wette]] joined this hypothesis with the earlier idea that the author(s) of the first four books of the Pentateuch did not write the Book of [[Deuteronomy]]. In 1805 he attributed Deuteronomy to the time of [[Josiah]] (ca. 621 BCE). Soon other writers also began considering the idea. By 1823 Eichhorn, too, had abandoned the claim of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
  
 
=== 19th-century theories ===
 
=== 19th-century theories ===
Line 57: Line 57:
 
Further developments of the theory were contributed by [[Friedrich Bleek]], [[Hermann Hupfeld]], [[K. D. Ilgen]], [[August Klostermann]], and [[Karl Heinrich Graf]]. The mature expression of the documentary hypothesis, however, is usually credited to the work Graf and [[Julius Wellhausen]]. Accordingly it is often referred to as the "Graf-Wellhausen" hypothesis.
 
Further developments of the theory were contributed by [[Friedrich Bleek]], [[Hermann Hupfeld]], [[K. D. Ilgen]], [[August Klostermann]], and [[Karl Heinrich Graf]]. The mature expression of the documentary hypothesis, however, is usually credited to the work Graf and [[Julius Wellhausen]]. Accordingly it is often referred to as the "Graf-Wellhausen" hypothesis.
  
−
In 1886 Wellhausen published "Prolegomena to the History of Israel." He argued that the Bible provides historians with an important source, but that they cannot take it literally. He affirmed that a number of people wrote the "hexateuch" (including the [[Pentateuch]] plus the book of [[Joshua]]) over a long period. Specifically, he narrowed the field to four distinct narratives, which he identified by the aforementioned '''J'''ahwist, '''E'''lohist, '''D'''euteronomist and '''P'''riestly accounts. He also proposed a '''R'''edactor, who edited the four accounts into one text. (Some see the redactor as ''Ezra'' the scribe.)
+
In 1886 Wellhausen published ''Prolegomena to the History of Israel''. He argued that the [[Bible]] provides historians with an important source, but that they cannot take it literally. He affirmed that a number of people wrote the "hexateuch" (including the [[Pentateuch]] plus the book of [[Joshua]]) over a long period. Specifically, he narrowed the field to four distinct narratives, which he identified by the aforementioned '''J'''ahwist, '''E'''lohist, '''D'''euteronomist and '''P'''riestly accounts. He also proposed a '''R'''edactor, who edited the four accounts into one text.
  
−
Using earlier propositions, he argued that each of these sources has its own vocabulary, its own approach and concerns, and that the passages originally belonging to each account can be distinguished by differences in style (especially, the name used for God, the grammar and word usage, the political assumptions implicit in the text, and the interests of the author).
+
Using earlier propositions, he argued that each of these sources has its own vocabulary, its own approach and concerns, and that the passages originally belonging to each account can usually be distinguished by differences in style—especially the name used for God, the grammar and word usage, the political assumptions implicit in the text, and the interests of the author. Specifically:
  
−
* '''The "J" source:''' In this source God's name appears in Hebrew as YHWH, which scholars transliterated in modern times as ''[[Yahweh]]'' (German spelling uses a "J" prounounced as an English "Y.") Some Bible translations use the term ''Jehovah'' for this word, but normally it is translated as "The Lord.").
+
* '''The "J" source:''' Here,  God's name appears in Hebrew as YHWH, which scholars transliterated in modern times as ''[[Yahweh]]'' (The German spelling uses a "J" prounounced as an English "Y.") Some Bible translations use the term ''Jehovah'' for this word, but normally it is translated as "The Lord.").
−
* '''The "E" source:''' In this source God's name is ''Elohim'' until the revelation of God's name to Moses in the [[Book of Exodus]], after which God's name becomes YHWH in both sources.
+
* '''The "E" source:''' Here, God's name is ''Elohim'' until the revelation of His true name to Moses in the [[Book of Exodus]], after which God's name becomes YHWH in both sources.
−
* '''The "D" or "Dtr." source:''' The is the source of the Book of [[Deuteronomy]], and parts of Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings.
+
* '''The "D" or "Dtr." source:''' The is the source of the Book of [[Deuteronomy]] and parts of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. It portrays a strong concern for centralized workship and an absolute opposition intermarriage with Canaanites or otherwise mixing Israelite culture with Canaanite traditions.
−
* '''The "P" source:''' The priestly material. Uses ''Elohim'' and ''El Shaddai'' as names of God and demonstrates a special concern for [[ritual]], [[liturgy]], religious law.
+
* '''The "P" source:''' This the priestly material. It uses ''Elohim'' and ''El Shaddai'' as names of God and demonstrates a special concern for [[ritual]], [[liturgy]], religious law.
  
−
Wellhausen argued that from the style and point of view of each source one could draw important historical inferences about the authors and audiences of each particular source. He perceieved an evident progression from a relatively informal and decentralized relationship between people and God in the J account, to the more formal and centralized practices of the P account. Thus, the sources reveal the process and evolution of the institutionalized Israelite religion.
+
Wellhausen argued that from the style and theological viewpoint of each source, one could draw important historical inferences about the authors and audiences of each particular source. He perceieved an evident progression from a relatively informal and decentralized relationship between the people and God in the J account, to the more formal and centralized practices of the D and P accounts. Thus, the sources reveal the process and evolution of the institutionalized Israelite religion.
−
 
 
−
Interestingly, Wellhausen eventually resigned his post as professor of biblical studies, stating that his hypotheses had started to make his students unsuitable as ministers.
 
  
 
=== The modern era ===
 
=== The modern era ===
  
−
Other scholars quickly responded to the documentary understanding of the origin of the five books of Moses, and within a few years it became the predominant hypothesis. While subsequent scholarship has dismissed many of Wellhausen's specific claims, most [[history|historians]] still accept the general idea that the five books of Moses had a composite origin. An example of a widely accepted challenge to Wellhausen's version came in the 1950s when Israeli historian [[Yehezkel Kaufmann]] published ''The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile'', in which he argued for the order of the sources as J, E, P, and D — whereas Wellhausan had placed "P" after "D."
+
Other scholars quickly responded to the documentary understanding of the origin of the five books of Moses, and within a few years it became the predominant hypothesis. While subsequent scholarship has dismissed many of Wellhausen's more specific claims, most [[history|historians]] still accept the general idea that the Pentateuch had a composite origin.
−
 
 
−
==== Recent developments ====
 
−
 
 
−
[[Richard Elliott Friedman]]'s ''Who Wrote The Bible?'' offers a very reader-friendly and yet comprehensive argument explaining Friedman's opinions as to the possible identity of each of those authors and, more important, why they wrote what they wrote. [[Harold Bloom]] wrote ''The Book of J'', in which his co-author, Hebrew translator [[David Rosenberg]], claims to have reconstructed the book that J wrote (though, certainly, some of J's original contribution could have become lost in the consolidation, if one accepts the four-author hypothesis). Bloom (picking up on Friedman's earlier speculation) also indicates a belief indentifying J as a woman, but other scholars do not accept this.
 
−
 
 
−
More recently, Friedman published ''The Hidden Book in the Bible'', in which he makes a comprehensive argument for his hypothesis that J wrote not only the portions of the Torah commonly attributed to J, but also sections of Judges, Joshua and First and Second Samuel.
 
−
 
 
−
Friedman has also published ''The Bible with Sources Revealed'' (2003), his own translation of the Torah with the material from each source (as he sees them) in a different color of ink or a different typeface.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== Debates on the hypothesis ==
 
−
=== Various views of opponents ===
 
−
 
 
−
Most [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] and many conservative Christians reject the documentary hypothesis entirely and accept the traditional view that [[Moses]] essentially produced the whole Torah. Jewish sources predating the emergence of the documentary hypothesis offer alternative explanations for the stylistic differences and alternative Divine names from which the hypothesis originated. For instance, some regard the Tetragrammaton as an expression of mercifulness (''middath ha-rachamim'') while ''Elohim'' refers to strict judgement (''middath ha-din''); traditional Jewish literature cites this concept (first found in [[Mekhilta|Mechilta]] section [[Beshalach]]) copiously.
 
−
 
 
−
Most Orthodox Jews and many conservative Christians accept the divine origin of the Pentateuch in its entirety as a given. They usually reject the documentary hypothesis as incompatible with their religious view of the Bible. Some religious conservatives believe that Moses wrote much of the text and edited or compiled the rest. Others who reject the hypothesis allow for considerable post-Mosaic editing of the Pentateuch, though not along J.E.D.P. lines. Many conservative scholars argue for the literary unity of the books[http://www.hkbts.edu.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=193&Pid=16&Version=0&Cid=43&Charset=iso-8859-1&p=1].
 
−
 
 
−
Over the last century, an entire literature has developed within conservative scholarship and religious communities dedicated to the refutation of [[Higher criticism|higher biblical criticism]] in general and of the documentary hypothesis in particular.
 
−
 
 
−
R. N. Whybray's ''The Making of the Pentateuch'' offers a critique of the hypothesis from a critical perspective. Biblical archaeologist [[W.F. Albright]] stated that even the most ardent proponents of the documentary hypothesis must admit that, like the [[Sefer haYashar (Biblical references)|Book of Jasher]], and the [[Book of the Wars of the Lord]], no tangible, external evidence for the existence of the hypothesized J, E, D, P sources exists. The late Dr. Yohanan Aharoni, in his work ''Canaanite Israel during the Period of Israeli Occupation'' (referenced from [http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Biblical_Criticism.htm simpletoremember.com]) states that "[r]ecent archaeological discoveries have decisively changed the entire approach of Bible critics" and that later authors or editors could not have put together or invented these stories hundreds of years after they happened.
 
−
 
 
−
Some studies claim to show a literary consistency throughout the [[Pentateuch]]. For instance, a 1980 computer-based study at [[Hebrew University]] in [[State of Israel|Israel]] (as summarised at [http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Biblical_Criticism.htm simpletoremember.com]) concluded that a single author most likely wrote the Pentateuch. Some Bible scholars have rejected this study for a number of reasons, including the fact that a single later editor can rewrite a text in a uniform voice (see [http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Biblical_Criticism.htm simpletoremember.com]). On the other hand, say critics like [[James Orr (theologian)|James Orr]], if one admits that the texts speak with a uniform voice, much of the initial plausibility of the hypothesis evaporates. Some, perhaps most notably [[Gleason Archer]], have proposed harmonisations of the Torah which allegedly resolve the discrepancies.
 
−
 
 
−
Other criticisms arise from several sources:
 
−
* [[Axel Olrik]]'s ''Principles for Oral Narrative Research'' states that preserving various versions of the same material without regularizing it signals accuracy in transmitting an oral tradition, not a failure of editorship. (§15)
 
−
* [[Umberto Cassuto]] points out an instance of "emendation" which, in modern scientific terms, equates to falsifying the data so that it supports an assertion.<ref>
 
−
Cassuto, Umberto. ''The Documentary Hypothesis'' (Contemporary Jewish Thought), Shalem, 2006. ISBN 965-7052-35-1
 
−
</ref>
 
−
* Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb points out at [http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Biblical_Criticism.htm simpletoremember.com] that according to the Documentary Hypothesis, "the editor is supposed to have composed the Torah out of fragmentary documents possessed by a variety of different group, each with its own conception of G-d and its traditions of history, laws etc. the editor somehow convinced all the groups to replace their fragments with his one composite. This occurred at a time when there were Jewish communities in Israel, Babylon, Alexandria, Egypt and elsewhere. Yet this event – the unification of the text – left no historical record at all. No opposition, no hold-outs retaining their fragments, no celebration of the editor and the event of finally achieving the authentic divine text…."
 
−
 
 
−
=== Various views of supporters ===
 
  
−
Bible-scholars supporting the documentary hypothesis continue to debate the specifics — as commonly happens in the fields of archaeology, history and science.
+
An example of a widely accepted challenge to Wellhausen's version came in the 1950s when Israeli historian [[Yehezkel Kaufmann]] published ''The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile'', in which he argued for the order of the sources as J, E, P, and D—whereas Wellhausan had placed "P" after "D." The exact dates and contexts of each source have also been much debated.
  
−
While accepting the documentary hypothesis as correct in outline, some scholars believe that the Wellhausen School overemphasized the use of written sources to the neglect of the oral traditions that underlay the sources. The oral traditionalists, starting with [[Hermann Gunkel]] (the "father of [[form criticism]]"), viewed the narratives of the Torah as originally stories handed down orally in the form of [[saga]]s, much like the ''Iliad'' or ''Odyssey'', passed down via word of mouth by an illiterate people. Eventually scribes wrote these oral traditions down.
+
==== Recent books====
 +
[[Richard Elliott Friedman]]'s ''Who Wrote The Bible?'' offers a very reader-friendly and yet comprehensive argument explaining Friedman's opinions as to the possible identity of each of those authors and, more important, why they wrote what they wrote. [[Harold Bloom]]'s ''The Book of J'', includes the publication of the J source only as a stand-alone document, creatively translated co-author, [[David Rosenberg]].  Bloom (following Friedman's earlier speculation) also indicates a belief indentifying J as a woman, but other scholars do not accept this. More recently, Israel Finkelstein (200 and William Dever (200) have each written books correlating the documentary hypothesis with current archaeological research.
  
−
Form and tradition history do not necessarily contradict the documentary hypothesis; one could use these methods to try to reconstruct the oral history behind Wellhausen's written sources. On the other hand, one can take oral tradition as an alternative to written sources. The Scandinavian scholar [[Ivan Engnell]] has espoused this point of view: he believes that the Hebrew people transmitted the whole of the Torah orally into the post-exilic period, at which point an author — whose attributes match those ascribed to the Redactor R of the documentary hypothesis — wrote it down in a single document.
+
===Criticims of the hypothesis===
  
−
The [[Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg|Heidelberg]] professor Rolf Rendtorff expresses the view that larger chunks of narrative within the texts which the documentary hypothesis calls J and E evolved independently of other parts of each of these texts, and did not form part of a large text like J or E. This view proposes that a Deuteronomic redactor combined the narratives editorially only at a later stage. In this synthesis, Rendtorff allows for a post-exilic P source, but one far reduced from the notions of Wellhausen.
+
Most [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] and many conservative Christians reject the documentary hypothesis entirely and accept the traditional view that [[Moses]] essentially produced the whole Torah. Jewish sources predating the emergence of the documentary hypothesis offer alternative explanations for the stylistic differences and alternative Divine names from which the hypothesis originated. For instance, some regard the Tetragrammaton ('''YHWH''') as an expression of mercifulness, while ''Elohim'' refers to strict judgment. Traditional Jewish literature cites this concept copiously.
  
−
Some critical analysis rejects the partitioning scheme of Wellhausen. For example Hans Heinrich Schmid, in his 1976 work, ''Der sogenannte Jahwist'' ["The So-called Yahwist"], almost completely eliminates the J document. According to Blenkinsopp (1992), this approach — if taken to the logical extreme — eliminates all narrative sources other than the Deuteronomic author.
+
Over the last century, an entire literature has developed within conservative scholarship and religious communities dedicated to the refutation of [[biblical criticism]] in general and of the documentary hypothesis in particular.
  
−
Other modifications to the documentary hypothesis appeared in the mid-1970s in the work of [[John Van Seters]], and continued into the 1980s and 1990s. Dating the J material  to the period of the exile (6th century B.C.E.), but maintaining its focus as identity-creation, Van Seters' work continues to use the terminology established in the 18th and 19th centuries, but holds a different view regarding the compositional process. While Schmid and other European scholars continue to think in terms of documents and redactors, Van Seters proposes a process of supplementation in which subsequent groups modify earlier compositions to include their points-of-view and to change the focus of the narratives.
+
R. N. Whybray's ''The Making of the Pentateuch'' offers a critique of the hypothesis from a critical perspective. Biblical archaeologist [[W.F. Albright]] stated that even the most ardent proponents of the documentary hypothesis must admit that no tangible, external evidence for the existence of the hypothesized J, E, D, P sources exists. The late Dr. Yohanan Aharoni, in his work ''Canaanite Israel during the Period of Israeli Occupation'' [http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Biblical_Criticism.htm simpletoremember.com] states that "[r]ecent archaeological discoveries have decisively changed the entire approach of Bible critics" and that later authors or editors could not have put together or invented these stories hundreds of years after they happened.
  
−
The modifications to the documentary hypothesis suggested by Van Seters and others have provided challenges for biblical scholars, particularly in the United States of America. Many see the supplementary model as incompatible with the established views of the documentary models of composition. They correctly see a challenge to the early dating for composition and the problematic control of documentary materials, for which the literary evidence appears harder and harder to maintain.
+
Some studies claim to show a literary consistency throughout the [[Pentateuch]]. For instance, a 1980 computer-based study at [[Hebrew University]] in [[State of Israel|Israel]] concluded that a single author most likely wrote the Pentateuch. However, others have rejected this study for a number of reasons, including the fact that a single later editor can rewrite a text in a uniform voice.[http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Biblical_Criticism.htm].
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
  
−
John Rogerson provides an authoritative and readable overview in ''Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany'' (1985).
+
* Blenkinsopp, Joseph ''The Pentateuch : an introduction to the first five books of the Bible'', Doubleday, 1992. ISBN 038541207X
−
 
+
* Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David ''The Book of J'', Random House, 1990. ISBN 0-8021-4191-9.
−
* Allis, Oswald T. ''The Five Books of Moses'', Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, USA, 1949, pages 17 and 22.
+
* Cassuto, Umberto. ''The Documentary Hypothesis'', Shalem, 2006. ISBN 965-7052-35-1.
−
* [[Gleason Archer|Archer, Gleason]]. ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.'' Chicago: Moody, 1994.
+
* Dever, William G. ''What Did The Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?'' William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001. ISBN 0-8028-4794-3
−
* Blenkinsopp, Joseph ''The Pentateuch : an introduction to the first five books of the Bible'', Doubleday, NY, USA 1992. ISBN 038541207X
+
*Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil A. ''The Bible Unearthed'', Simon and Schuster, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86912-8
−
* [[Harold Bloom|Bloom, Harold]] and Rosenberg, David ''The Book of J'', Random House, NY, USA 1990. ISBN 0-8021-4191-9.
+
* Friedman, Richard E. ''Who Wrote The Bible?'', Harper and Row, 1987. ISBN 0-06-063035-3
−
* [[Joseph Campbell|Campbell, Joseph]] "Gods and Heroes of the Levant: 1500-500 B.C.E." ''The Masks of God 3: Occidental Mythology'', Penguin Books, NY, USA, 1964.
 
−
* [[Umberto Cassuto|Cassuto, Umberto]]. ''The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch'', Magnes, 1961. ISBN 965-223-479-6.
 
−
* [[Umberto Cassuto|Cassuto, Umberto]]. ''The Documentary Hypothesis (Contemporary Jewish Thought)'', Shalem, 2006. ISBN 965-7052-35-1.
 
−
* Clines, David J. A. ''The Theme of the Pentateuch.'' JSOTSup. 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978.
 
−
* [[William G. Dever|Dever, William G.]] ''What Did The Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?'' William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 2001. ISBN 0-8028-4794-3
 
−
* [[Israel Finkelstein|Finkelstein, Israel]] and [[Neil A. Silberman|Silberman, Neil A.]] ''The Bible Unearthed'', Simon and Schuster, NY, USA, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86912-8
 
−
* [[Robin Lane Fox|Fox, Robin Lane]], ''The Unauthorized Version''. A classics scholar offers a measured view for the layman.
 
−
* [[Richard Elliott Friedman|Friedman, Richard E.]] ''Who Wrote The Bible?'', Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987. ISBN 0-06-063035-3. This work does not constitute a standard reference for the Documentary Hypothesis, as Friedman in part describes his own theory of the origin of one of the sources.  Rather, it offers an excellent introduction for the layman.
 
−
* [[Richard Elliott Friedman|Friedman, Richard E.]] ''The Hidden Book in the Bible'', HarperSan Francisco, NY, USA, 1998.
 
−
* [[Richard Elliott Friedman|Friedman, Richard E.]] ''The Bible with Sources Revealed'', HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ISBN 0-06-053069-3.
 
−
* Garrett, Duane A. ''Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Bible'', Mentor, 2003. ISBN 1-85792-576-9.
 
−
* Kaufmann, Yehezkel, Greenberg, Moishe (translator) ''The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile'', University of Chicago Press, 1960.
 
−
* Larue, Gerald A. ''Old Testament Life and Literature'', Allyn & Bacon, Inc, Boston, MA, USA 1968
 
−
* [[Josh McDowell|McDowell, Josh]] ''More Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Scriptures'', Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1981, p. 45.
 
−
* McDowell, Josh ''The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict'', Thomas Nelson Inc.,Publishers. 1999, pages: 411, 528.
 
−
* Mendenhall, George E. ''The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition'', The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
 
 
* Mendenhall, George E. ''Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context'', Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0-664-22313-3
 
* Mendenhall, George E. ''Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context'', Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0-664-22313-3
 
* Nicholson, Ernest Wilson. ''The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen'', Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0198269587
 
* Nicholson, Ernest Wilson. ''The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen'', Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0198269587
−
* Rogerson, J. ''Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany'', SPCK/Fortress, 1985.
+
* Van Seters, John. ''Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis'', Westminster John Knox 1992. ISBN 0664219675
−
* [[Baruch Spinoza|Spinoza, Benedict de]] ''A Theologico-Political Treatise'' Dover, New York, USA, 1951, Chapter 8.
+
* Wiseman, P. J. ''Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis'', Thomas Nelson, Inc., USA 1985. ISBN 0840775024
−
* Tigay, Jeffrey H. "An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis"  ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' Vol.94, No.3 Sept. 1975, pages 329-342.
 
−
* Tigay, Jeffrey H., (ed.) ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986. ISBN 081227976X
 
−
* Van Seters, John. ''Abraham in History and Tradition'' Yale University Press, 1975.
 
−
* Van Seters, John. ''In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History'' Yale University Press, 1983.
 
−
* Van Seters, John. ''Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis'' Westminster/John Knox, Louisville, Kentucky, 1992. ISBN 0664219675
 
−
* Van Seters, John. ''The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers'' Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. ISBN 0-664-22363-X
 
−
* Wiseman, P. J. ''Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis'' Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, USA 1985. ISBN 0-8407-7502-4
 
−
* Whybray, R. N. ''The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study'' JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
 
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==

Revision as of 20:45, 15 March 2007

A relational diagram describing outline of the documentary hypothesis (see below for details).

The documentary hypothesis proposes that the Pentateuch (also called the Torah, or first five books of the Old Testament) represent a combination of documents from at least four identifiable sources dating from tenth through fifth centuries B.C.E. Although the hypothesis has many antecedants, it reached its mature expression in the late nineteenth century through work of Julius Wellhausen and Karl Heinrich Graf and is thus also refered to as the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.

The documentary hypothesis has been refined and criticized by later writers, but its basic outline remains widely accepted by contemporary biblical scholars. Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians, however, usually reject the theory, affirming that Moses himself is the sole author of the Pentateuch.

Summary

The documentary hypothesis identifies four main sources making up the Pentateuch:

  • the J, or Yahwist, source
  • the E, or Elohist, source (later combined with J to form the "JE" text)
  • the P, or Priestly, source
  • the D, or Deuteronomist, text (which had two further major edits, resulting in sub-texts known as Dtr1 and Dtr2).

The hypothesis further postulates the combination of the sources into their current form by an editor known as R (for Redactor), who added editorial comments and transitional passages.

The specific identity of each author remains unknown, (although a number of cnadidates have been proposed). However, textual elements identify each source with a specific background and with a specific period in Jewish history. Most scholars associate "J" the southern Kingdom of Judah aournd the ninth century B.C.E., and "E" with a northern context. The combined "JE" text is thought to have been compiled in the Kingdom of Judah following the destruction of Israel by the Assyrian Empire in the 720s B.C.E. "P" is often associated with the centralizing religious reforms instituted by king Hezekiah of Judah (reigned ca 716 to 687 B.C.E.), and D with the later reforms Josiah (reigned ca 641 B.C.E. to 609 B.C.E.). "R" is considered to have completed the work sometime after the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity in the fifth century B.C.E.

History of the hypothesis

Traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs

The traditional view holds that God revealed the Pentateuch (also called the Torah) to Moses at Mount Sinai in a verbal fashion, and that Moses transcribed this dictation verbatim. Based on the Talmud (tractate Git. 60a), however, some believe that God may have revealed the Torah piece-by-piece over the 40 years that the Israelites reportedly wandered in the desert.

This tradition, long held by both Jewish and Christian authorities, was nearly unanimously affirmed with a few notable exceptions until the seventeeth century B.C.E. [1].)

Rabbinical biblical criticism

Certain traditional rabbinical authorities, however, have evidenced skepticism of the Torah's supposed Mosaic authorship.

  • The Talmud itself indicates that God dictated only the first four books of the Torah, and that Moses wrote Deuteronomy in his own words. (Talmud Bavli, Meg. 31b) The Talmud also affimrs that a peculiar section in the Book of Numbers (10:35-36) was originally a title of a separate book, which no longer exists. (Sabb. 115b)
  • Recognizing that over the millennia, scribal errors had crept into the text, the Masoretes (seventh to tenth centuries C.E.) compared all extant versions and attempted to create a definitive text.
  • In the twelfth century, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra observed that some parts of the Torah presented apparently anachronistic information, which should only have known after the time of Moses. Later, Rabbi Joseph Bonfils explicitly stated that Joshua (or some later prophet) must have added some phrases.
  • Also in the tewlfth century, Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac noted close similarities between a number of supposedly distinct episodes in Exodus and Numbers. He hypothesized that these incidents represented parallel traditions gathered by Moses, rather than separate incidents.
  • In the thirteenth century, Rabbi Hezekiah ben Manoah noticed the same textual anomalies that Ibn Ezra did and commented that this section of the Torah "is written from the perspective of the future."

(Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, edited by Shalom Carmy (Jason Aronson, Inc.), and Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume I, by Aryeh Kaplan (Moznaim Pub.))

The Enlightenment

A number of Enlightenment writers expressed more serious doubts about the traditional view of Mosaic authorship. For example, in the sixteenth century, Andreas Karlstadt noticed that the style of the account of the death of Moses matched the style of the preceding portions of Deuteronomy. He suggested that whoever wrote about the death of Moses also wrote Deuteronomy and perhaps other portions of the Torah.

By the seventeenth century, some commentators argued outright that Moses did not write most of the Pentateuch. For instance, in 1651 Thomas Hobbes, in chapter 33 of Leviathan, argued that the Pentateuch dated from after Mosaic times on account of Deut 34:6 ("no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day"), Gen 12:6 ("and the Canaanite was then in the land"), and Num 21:14 (referring to a previous book of Moses's deeds). Other skeptics included Isaac de la Peyrère, Baruch Spinoza, Richard Simon, and John Hampden. However, these men found their works condemned and even banned.

The French scholar and physician Jean Astruc first introduced the terms Elohist and Jehovist in 1753. Astruc noted that the first chapter of Genesis uses only the word "Elohim" for God, while other sections use the word "Jehovah." He speculated that Moses compiled the Genesis account from earlier documents, some perhaps dating back to Abraham. He also explored the possibility of detecting and separating these documents and assigning them to their original sources.

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn further differentiated the two chief documents in 1787. However, neither he nor Astruc denied Mosaic authorship, and they did not analyze the Pentateuch beyond the Book of Exodus. H. Ewald first recognized that the documents that later came to be known as "P" and "J" left traces in other books. F. Tuch showed that "P" and "J" also appeared recognizably in Joshua.

W. M. L. de Wette joined this hypothesis with the earlier idea that the author(s) of the first four books of the Pentateuch did not write the Book of Deuteronomy. In 1805 he attributed Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah (ca. 621 B.C.E.). Soon other writers also began considering the idea. By 1823 Eichhorn, too, had abandoned the claim of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

19th-century theories

Further developments of the theory were contributed by Friedrich Bleek, Hermann Hupfeld, K. D. Ilgen, August Klostermann, and Karl Heinrich Graf. The mature expression of the documentary hypothesis, however, is usually credited to the work Graf and Julius Wellhausen. Accordingly it is often referred to as the "Graf-Wellhausen" hypothesis.

In 1886 Wellhausen published Prolegomena to the History of Israel. He argued that the Bible provides historians with an important source, but that they cannot take it literally. He affirmed that a number of people wrote the "hexateuch" (including the Pentateuch plus the book of Joshua) over a long period. Specifically, he narrowed the field to four distinct narratives, which he identified by the aforementioned Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly accounts. He also proposed a Redactor, who edited the four accounts into one text.

Using earlier propositions, he argued that each of these sources has its own vocabulary, its own approach and concerns, and that the passages originally belonging to each account can usually be distinguished by differences in style—especially the name used for God, the grammar and word usage, the political assumptions implicit in the text, and the interests of the author. Specifically:

  • The "J" source: Here, God's name appears in Hebrew as YHWH, which scholars transliterated in modern times as Yahweh (The German spelling uses a "J" prounounced as an English "Y.") Some Bible translations use the term Jehovah for this word, but normally it is translated as "The Lord.").
  • The "E" source: Here, God's name is Elohim until the revelation of His true name to Moses in the Book of Exodus, after which God's name becomes YHWH in both sources.
  • The "D" or "Dtr." source: The is the source of the Book of Deuteronomy and parts of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. It portrays a strong concern for centralized workship and an absolute opposition intermarriage with Canaanites or otherwise mixing Israelite culture with Canaanite traditions.
  • The "P" source: This the priestly material. It uses Elohim and El Shaddai as names of God and demonstrates a special concern for ritual, liturgy, religious law.

Wellhausen argued that from the style and theological viewpoint of each source, one could draw important historical inferences about the authors and audiences of each particular source. He perceieved an evident progression from a relatively informal and decentralized relationship between the people and God in the J account, to the more formal and centralized practices of the D and P accounts. Thus, the sources reveal the process and evolution of the institutionalized Israelite religion.

The modern era

Other scholars quickly responded to the documentary understanding of the origin of the five books of Moses, and within a few years it became the predominant hypothesis. While subsequent scholarship has dismissed many of Wellhausen's more specific claims, most historians still accept the general idea that the Pentateuch had a composite origin.

An example of a widely accepted challenge to Wellhausen's version came in the 1950s when Israeli historian Yehezkel Kaufmann published The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, in which he argued for the order of the sources as J, E, P, and D—whereas Wellhausan had placed "P" after "D." The exact dates and contexts of each source have also been much debated.

Recent books

Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote The Bible? offers a very reader-friendly and yet comprehensive argument explaining Friedman's opinions as to the possible identity of each of those authors and, more important, why they wrote what they wrote. Harold Bloom's The Book of J, includes the publication of the J source only as a stand-alone document, creatively translated co-author, David Rosenberg. Bloom (following Friedman's earlier speculation) also indicates a belief indentifying J as a woman, but other scholars do not accept this. More recently, Israel Finkelstein (200 and William Dever (200) have each written books correlating the documentary hypothesis with current archaeological research.

Criticims of the hypothesis

Most Orthodox Jews and many conservative Christians reject the documentary hypothesis entirely and accept the traditional view that Moses essentially produced the whole Torah. Jewish sources predating the emergence of the documentary hypothesis offer alternative explanations for the stylistic differences and alternative Divine names from which the hypothesis originated. For instance, some regard the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) as an expression of mercifulness, while Elohim refers to strict judgment. Traditional Jewish literature cites this concept copiously.

Over the last century, an entire literature has developed within conservative scholarship and religious communities dedicated to the refutation of biblical criticism in general and of the documentary hypothesis in particular.

R. N. Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch offers a critique of the hypothesis from a critical perspective. Biblical archaeologist W.F. Albright stated that even the most ardent proponents of the documentary hypothesis must admit that no tangible, external evidence for the existence of the hypothesized J, E, D, P sources exists. The late Dr. Yohanan Aharoni, in his work Canaanite Israel during the Period of Israeli Occupation simpletoremember.com states that "[r]ecent archaeological discoveries have decisively changed the entire approach of Bible critics" and that later authors or editors could not have put together or invented these stories hundreds of years after they happened.

Some studies claim to show a literary consistency throughout the Pentateuch. For instance, a 1980 computer-based study at Hebrew University in Israel concluded that a single author most likely wrote the Pentateuch. However, others have rejected this study for a number of reasons, including the fact that a single later editor can rewrite a text in a uniform voice.[2].

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Blenkinsopp, Joseph The Pentateuch : an introduction to the first five books of the Bible, Doubleday, 1992. ISBN 038541207X
  • Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, 1990. ISBN 0-8021-4191-9.
  • Cassuto, Umberto. The Documentary Hypothesis, Shalem, 2006. ISBN 965-7052-35-1.
  • Dever, William G. What Did The Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001. ISBN 0-8028-4794-3
  • Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil A. The Bible Unearthed, Simon and Schuster, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86912-8
  • Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, 1987. ISBN 0-06-063035-3
  • Mendenhall, George E. Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0-664-22313-3
  • Nicholson, Ernest Wilson. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0198269587
  • Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Westminster John Knox 1992. ISBN 0664219675
  • Wiseman, P. J. Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, Thomas Nelson, Inc., USA 1985. ISBN 0840775024

See also

External links

Criticisms

Alternative hypotheses

Notes


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Documentary_hypothesis&oldid=231770

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki