Documentary hypothesis

See also: Authors of the Bible

The Documentary hypothesis, also known as the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, is best known from Julius Wellhausen's 1876 work, Die Komposition Des Hexateuch in Der Jungsten Diskussion, although a number of authors in the 17th and 18th centuries also developed the idea. The hypothesis derives from the belief that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Christian Bible and Jewish Tanakh) is inconsistent in its writing, and shows signs of multiple authors, rather than one, Moses. This has in turn led to the theory that the Pentateuch is the result of four different authors, who supposedly wrote the book centuries later than the Biblical Moses, and were compiled by a later redactor. As a general framework, the proposed authors are:

• J: Jehovist/Yahwist source - Claimed to be written in the 9th or 10th century B.C.
• E: Elohist source - Claimed to be composed shortly after J in Israel's north, when both were combined into a 'JE' source.
• D: Deuteronomist source - Claimed to be written in 8th century B.C.
• P: Priestly source - Claimed to be written in 6th century B.C. by combining other 3 sources.

Oxford scholarship has repeatedly declared the Documentary Hypothesis as authoritatively recognized since the 19th century, and while recognizing recent challenges deny its former place as the consensus view, asserts no other theory has gained widespread support in its stead. The topic has become one of the most "hotly debated" in the field of Biblical scholarship, and the details of the hypothesis strongly debated even among those who support it, with younger scholars abandoning it in recent years for other approaches.

Background

Traditional views

Traditionally, Moses was considered the author of the Pentateuch. Jewish tradition held that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. In Deuteronomy 31:24-26 it says Moses wrote the words of the Law in a book, that was then put in the Ark of the Covenant. In 2 Chronicles 34:14 it says Hilkiah found a book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses and the book of Nehemiah says the Law was given by Moses, a claim repeated in the New Testament's Gospels of Mark and John.

Start of criticism

In the 18th century, Jean Astruc, J.G. Eichhorn, and H.B. Witter questioned the commonly held belief in Mosaic authorship, considering that the Pentateuch came from two sources, originating what is known as the Two-source hypothesis. In the 19th century W.M.L. DeWette originated the theory of a D source. At this time the Hegelian theory on the development of civilization was in vogue in 19th century Germany, influencing Karl Heinrich Graf and Wilhelm Vatke, as they further refined the theory by dating the sources. Despite strong opposition to the late dating by De Wette and others, the compiling of prior research by Graf and earlier theorists into a unified whole by Julius Welhausen established the dates proposed.

Established theory

From the 19th century on, the Documentary Hypothesis rapidly grew in popularity, and for many years was considered an unchallengeable bedrock of Biblical criticism. However, while criticism in recent decades has called into question many of its principles, no alternative theory has yet achieved broad support.

German influence

See also: Alfred Rosenberg and Positive Christianity

Like the Q Source hypothesis claimed by critical scholars to have been used as a basis by the authors of the Mark and Luke Gospels, (see Johannes Weiss, Christian Hermann Weisse and Friedrich Schleiermacher), the Documentary Hypothesis found its roots in 19th century Germany, where it would ultimately be popularized by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, as noted by Ken Collins:

"The Nazis, borrowing from the growing scholarly consensus that the Torah consisted of myth and legend, used this scholarly climate to invalidate both Judaism and the Old Testament. The Nazis promoted a revised form of Christianity called Deutsches Christentum, in which they replaced the Old Testament with Germanic myths and legends. Deutsches Christentum never caught on with the public, but since it epitomized the beliefs of the leadership of the Nazi party, it contributed to the martyrdom of a number of famous German Christians."

Proofs

The hypothesis first claims inconsistencies in the Bible as its basis for assuming multiple authorship (see Alleged inconsistencies). This includes the use of doublets.

It then points to the following proofs for multiple authors:

Doublets

A doublet, also called a 'double narrative' or 'variant' in textual criticism is, loosely defined, multiple accounts of the same event. As noted by Aulikki Nahkola, though the terms are recognizable to those in the field of Old Testament scholarship, no universal definitions exist for such terms, or even consensus on what constitutes the duplication involved by them. Some commonly cited examples as addressed in the Alleged inconsistencies section include the Genesis Creation account(s) in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and flood account(s) in Genesis chapters 6 through 9.

Friedman claims that separate parallel narratives for Genesis emerge when extracting each of the separate sources, based on the names used in relation to God, whether "Yahweh"/"Jehovah" or "Elohim". and that this was proof "someone had taken two different old source documents, cut them up, and woven them together to form the continuous story in the Five Books of Moses." The first major proof of this Friedman cites is The Flood (see Alleged inconsistencies and Criticism).

Northern origin bias

Friedman repeatedly interprets the separate doublets as indicating bias towards Israel's northern or southern tribes, namely Israel and Judah respectively, and presents this interpretation as evidence for the theory. Friedman cites as primary examples the origins of Israel's tribes (Genesis chs. 30-50), account of Jacob and Esau (Genesis chs. 25-33), God's discussion with Moses (Exodus ch. 3), story of the golden calf (Exodus ch. 32), giving of the commandments to Moses (Exodus chs. 31 and 34), and Miriam's leprosy (Numbers ch. 12).

Third person

Moses rarely speaks in 1st person, but in 3rd person.

Impossible/unlikely mentions

Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?" questions how Moses could be the humblest/meekest person in the world if stating this of himself (Numbers 12:3), how he could have written about his own death and later events in Deuteronomy 34:4-12, and the use of phrases like "to this day" and "across the Jordan".

Alleged inconsistencies

As the basis for the hypothesizing, and upon which the assumption is made that the Pentateuch could not be of Mosaic authorship, are a number of alleged inconsistencies,

Genesis One and Two

The criticism is that two conflicting stories called doublets, separate accounts, are presented in the beginning chapters of Genesis, that in 1:27 God created man in his image, but in 2:7 it repeats this as though man's creation hadn't been mentioned before. However, what the critics fail to take into account is that the chapters are two separate accounts, one general, the later an overview, since in 1:1 it says "God created the heavens and the earth", and in 2:4, a more detailed account is given of "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created", a pattern that will be seen used all through Genesis. In essence, the preceding section serves as the introduction, relating the genealogy or overview, the next relates details from the view of a major character in that genealogy. This is also recognized by Claus Westerman in "A Continental Commentary." Dr. Richard S. Hess has recognized the use of an overview account, rather than a contradictory doublet, at work here as well as elsewhere in Genesis (including chapters 4 through 5 and 10 through 11):

"As with the genealogies, we find in Genesis a focusing of content or theme. In chapter 1, the general account of creation is rehearsed, with little emphasis on any single aspect of the account. In the account of chapter 2, however, there is a clear emphasis on one particular aspect of creation, the man who is created to work the garden. The whole of the account describes his home, his work, and his companion. It is all centred on the man, planned and created for him. Thus there is a focusing technique between the first two chapters in terms of content, just as there is in the two genealogical doublets."

Genesis 6 through 9

Asserted is that the Flood is represented as being 40 days long and 150 days long. However, what the accounts actually say (7:4,12) is that it will rain 40 days and 40 nights, and that the Flood will be on the earth for this time. (7:12,17) It then says the flood waters themselves are on the earth for 150 days,(7:24) and return off the earth constantly until at the end of the 150 days they were stopped.(8:4) This is particularly clear when looking at the time frame, as the Flood began in the 2nd month, 17th day,(7:11) and in the 7th month, 17th day the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.(8:4) The plain context seen is that God stopped the Flood itself after 40 days with a wind, and it was the abating or drying up of the waters to stop them from 'prevailing' that took 150 days to where the Ark could finally come to a rest.(8:1-4) With a flood, there is one period where the rain occurs, and another period where the waters are still at work, perhaps with waves or fierce activity, even though the rain has stopped.

How many pairs?

Yet another contradiction is asserted in this section by Michael Coogan, who suggests the text is inconsistent in saying in Genesis 6:19-20 that two pairs of each animal are to be taken on the Ark, and shortly thereafter in 7:2-3 that 7 each of clean animals and bird species are to be taken, and of each unclean animal, two. The mistake made of course by Coogan and sites like Infidels.org, is in not knowing what clean and unclean animals refer to. In the Mosaic Law, clean and unclean animals are differentiated for purposes of food, with clean animals allowed for eating, and unclean animals not allowed for eating. In short, both the Genesis 6 and 7 passages mentioned the 7 pairs of animals, since the 7 pairs were mentioned in Genesis 6:21, which said "and take for yourself of all food which is eaten..." The 7 pairs were likely brought as food for the other animals on the Ark, and possibly for the people on board as well, and thus were mentioned in the previous passage, just not as explicitly.

Genesis 11 and 12

John Barton claims that in Genesis 12:1 Abram is told to leave after the death of his father, Terah. Barton says in 11:26 Abram was born when Terah was 70, and according to 11:32, Terah died at age 205, so Abram must have been age 135, yet in 12:4 it says he was only 75. However, as with Genesis 1 and 2, Barton fails to note the existence of an overview description given in chapter 11:10-32, stating the genealogies of Abram's lineage, and then a specific account of Abram's life, covering him specifically, starting in ch. 12, in which Abram's father has not yet died.

However, some have called attention to another possible discrepancy with Acts 7:2-4 where Stephen says Abraham left after his father died. One possible explanation has been offered by Norman Geisler, that Genesis 11:26 does not indicate Abram, Nahor, and Teran were all born when Terah was age 70, but merely one. Geisler's arguments are that nowhere in Scripture are triplets described being born, that Haran dies long before Abram (Genesis 11:28), and that Nahor isn't mentioned accompanying Abram to Haran (Genesis ch. 12) even though Nahor's descendants Laban and Rebeckah were living near Haran, by which Geisler infers Abram was the youngest of the three since he died last. (Genesis 25:7) Nevertheless, by including the Acts 7:2-4 references, the cohesion of the New and Old Testaments on this topic becomes more doubtful, if not the Pentateuch itself.

Exodus 24

Barton accuses the chapter of saying Moses went up to the mountain 3 times. In actuality, the chapter says he was asked to go up the mountain (vv. 1-8), then he actually did go up with Aaron and the elders of Israel (vv. 9-11), and then God asked Moses to go up to the mountaintop specifically. (vv. 12-18)

Joshua chapters 3 through 4

Barton calls the passing of the Israelites through the Jordan river "impossibly convoluted." However, it is ultimately simple, merely well detailed. The priests stand in the riverbed with the Ark of the Covenant so a dry path across appears (3:14-16), the people cross over (3:17), 12 men take stones from the still-dry river as a future memorial (4:1-9), and finally, the priests who'd been standing in the riverbed with the Ark the whole time finally cross over themselves, ending the water stoppage. (4:16-18) That the priests were standing there the whole time is specifically stated in 4:10.

1 Samuel chapters 8 through 12

John Barton states as an example of thematic inconsistency how the Bible presents Saul's election as king of Israel, since some accounts present it as a decision by God (9:15-16; 10:1) while others present the people's insistence on having a king as sinful rejection of God (e.g., 8:1-22; 10:17-19). Barton concludes, "The simplest explanation is that the compiler of the books of Samuel used more than one already existing account of the origins of the monarchy, and that these accounts did not agree among themselves." However, the simplest explanation according to the text is that the people were sinfully rejecting God in insisting on a king (1 Samuel 8:4-9), God had Samuel warn them what would happen (1 Samuel 8:9-20), and God then gave them what they wanted anyway. (1 Samuel 8:22)

Therefore, Biblically, the people rejected God by insisting on a king, but God went along with it, picked a king they would want because of his stature/appearance (9:2; 10:23-24), and gave Saul a chance to be a righteous king who would follow in his ways. (9:18-10:13) Yet even if the accounts had been contradictory, which they weren't, Barton's conclusion that the inconsistencies indicated separate accounts would have been questionable, as other possibilities could have been the cause, e.g. mental instability by the author, errors in transmission, etc.

Criticism

"Rarely have such grandiose theories of origination been built and revised and pitted against one another on the evidential equivalent of the head of a pin; rarely have so many worked so long and so hard with so little to show for their trouble."
-Meir Stenberg on the Documentary Hypothesis

Presuppositions

Duane Garrett has accused the Documentary Hypothesis of resting on the following presuppositions:

'Cut and Paste'

Garrett notes that according to the hypothesis the redactors simply merged all the documents together via a "scissors and paste" method into a continuous narrative, concluding "No true analogy to this somewhat bizarre editorial procedure is available."

Able to Divide by Style

Garrett questions the belief held by early supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis that they could easily separate texts from each merely on the basis of style, when the whole Pentateuch is written in standard Biblical Hebrew. Garrett suggests the only way this would be possible is if each "monotonously and rigorously maintained a highly idiosyncratic style."

Based on debunked philosphy

Calling attention to the hypothesis' roots in the now discredited theory of Hegelianism, Garrett admits this is not enough to prove the theory wrong, but at the same time says it is certain Israelite religion can't be presented in the simple and very evolutionary pattern Wellhausen believed it could at the time.

Easy determination of purposes and methods

Questioning why the early founders of the Documentary Hypothesis believed they could easily interpret the purposes and methods of the redactors, given the vast cultural differences existing between themselves and the redactors, Garrett also points out their odd views that each writer sought to create a single, continuous history void of inconsistencies, narrative digressions, and repetitions, yet the redactors when joining said histories were utterly oblivious to all such inconsistencies, narrative digressions, and repetitions.

Interpretive and un-evidenced

According to R.A. Brace, the hypothesis is entirely interpretive, and has no historical evidence supporting claims for sourcing from multiple documents, apart from the analysis of the Bible undertaken by the hypothesis.

Section to be completed with possible sources: Dr. William F. Campbell Glenn Giles , Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, James P. Holding [1]

Alternate theories

P.J. Wiseman first presented the "Tablet Theory", also called the Wiseman Hypothesis, in his 1936 book, New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis. Most recently Curt Sewell has refined the hypothesis. Wiseman first noticed that many of the ancient Mesopotamian clay tablets we're discovering use "colophon phrases" naming the tablet's writer or owner, as well as some method of dating the tablet; and often relate to family histories and origins. Wiseman also noted their similarity to the book of Genesis, which scholars have long recognized is sub-divided into sections via the phrase "these are the generations of..." Such a phrase is translated from the Hebrew word "toledoth", defined by Strong's dictionary as 'generations' as related to family history or descent.

Sewell hypothesizes that each of these subsections divides into differing individual accounts separated by the Hebrew word "toledoth", God's account of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4), Adam's genealogy/personal history (2:4-5:1), Noah's genealogy/personal history (5:1-6:9), Shem/Ham/Japheth's (6:9-10:1), Shem's specifically (10:1-11:10), Terah's (11:10-11:27), Isaac's (11:27-25:19), Ishmael's (25:12-18), Jacob's (25:19-37:2), Esau's (36:1-36:43), and Jacob's 12 sons (37:2-Exodus 1:6).

Since each of these sub-sections is separated by the Hebrew word "toledoth", Sewell considers that Genesis is actually a grouping of the family genealogical tablets, per Mesopotamian style, and thus very much is a compilation of accounts, but not in the way Wellhausen envisioned, since it would make Genesis' origins far older than Moses, rather than younger; with Moses himself the likely compiler/redactor of the tablets' accounts. The theory has also been supported by R.K. Harrison and Russell Grigg.