Misplaced Pages

Documentary hypothesis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:07, 2 June 2019 editBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits add navbox: {{Creationism topics}}Tag: AWB← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:41, 25 November 2024 edit undoFeline Hymnic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,189 edits Critical reassessment: add 'clarify' template 
(103 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Hypothesis to explain the origins and composition of the Torah}}
{{redirect|JE|other uses}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}}
{{short description|Hypothesis to explain the origins and composition of the Torah}}
[[File:Modern document hypothesis.svg|thumb|Diagram of the 20th century documentary hypothesis:
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2013}}
{{unbulleted list|J: ] (10th–9th century BCE){{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=40}}{{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}}|E: ] (9th century BCE){{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=40}}|Dtr1: early (7th century BCE) ] historian|Dtr2: later (6th century BCE) ] historian|P*: ] (6th–5th century BCE){{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=41}}{{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}}|D†: ]|R: redactor|DH: ] (books of ], ], ], ])}}]]
{{Bible related}}
] source (7th century BCE or later)|E: ] source (late 9th century BCE)|Dtr1: early (7th century BCE) ] historian|Dtr2: later (6th century BCE) ] historian|P*: ] (6th/5th century BCE; includes most of ])|D†: ] source (includes most of ])|R: redactor|DH: ] (books of ], ], ], ])}}]]


The '''documentary hypothesis''' ('''DH''') is a model used by biblical scholars to explain the origins and composition of the ], the first five books of the Bible (], ], ], ], and ]).{{sfn|Patzia|Petrotta|2010|p=37}} Others are the ] and the fragmentary hypothesis; all agree that the ] is not a unified work from a single author, but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|pp=38-39}} They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors").{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=viii}} Fragmentary hypotheses see the Torah as a collection of small fragments, and supplementary hypotheses as a single core document supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38}} The '''documentary hypothesis''' ('''DH''') is one of the models used by biblical scholars to explain the origins and ] (or ], the first five books of the Bible: ], ], ], ], and ]).{{sfn|Patzia|Petrotta|2010|p=37}} A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German scholar ], was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th century.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} It posited that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four originally independent documents: the ], ], ], and ] sources, frequently referred to by their initials.<ref group="Note">hence the alternative name ''JEDP'' for the documentary hypothesis</ref> The first of these, J, was dated to the ] (c. 950 BCE).{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=40}} E was dated somewhat later, in the 9th century BCE, and D was dated just before the reign of ], in the 7th or 8th century BCE. Finally, P was generally dated to the time of ] in the 5th century BCE.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=41}}{{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}} The sources would have been joined at various points in time by a series of editors or "redactors".{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=viii}}


A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German scholar ], was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th century, but the consensus has now collapsed.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} As a result, there has been a revival of interest in fragmentary and supplementary approaches, frequently in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=12}} The consensus around the classical documentary hypothesis has now collapsed.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} This was triggered in large part by the influential publications of ], ], and ] in the mid-1970s,{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=41}} who argued that J was to be dated no earlier than the time of the ] (597–539 BCE),{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|pp=41–43}} and rejected the existence of a substantial E source.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=436}} They also called into question the nature and extent of the three other sources. Van Seters, Schmid, and Rendtorff shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in complete agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=41}} As a result, there has been a revival of interest in "fragmentary" and "]" models, frequently in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=12}} Modern scholars also have given up the classical Wellhausian dating of the sources, and generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian ] (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production as late as the ] (333–164 BCE), after the conquests of ].{{sfn|Greifenhagen|2003|pp=206–207, 224 fn.49}}


== History of the documentary hypothesis ==
Modern scholars increasingly see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the ] (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production in the ] (333–164 BCE) or even the ] (140–37 BCE).{{sfn|Greifenhagen|2003|pp=206-207, 224 fn.49}} Of its constituent sources, Deuteronomy is generally dated between the 7th and 5th centuries;{{sfn|Bos|2013|p=133}} there is much discussion of the unity, extent, nature, and date of the ] material.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=273}} Deuteronomy continues to be seen as having had a history separate from the first four books, and that this historigraphic tradition is continued with the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings as Deuteronomistic history. There is a growing recognition that Genesis developed apart from the ] stories until joined to it by the Priestly writer.{{sfn|Ska|2006|p=viii}}
]]]
The ] (or Pentateuch) is collectively the first five books of the Bible: ], ], ], ], and ].{{sfn|McDermott|2002|p=1}} According to tradition, they were dictated by God to Moses,{{sfn|Kugel|2008|p=6}} but when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible, it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would expect from a single author.{{sfn|Campbell|O'Brien|1993|p=1}} As a result, the ] of the Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century, with many modern scholars viewing it as a product of a long evolutionary process.{{sfn|Berlin|1994|p=113}}{{sfn|Baden|2012|p=13}}<ref group="Note" name="Moses">The reasons behind the rejection are covered in more detail in the article on ].</ref>


In the mid-18th century, some scholars started a critical study of doublets (parallel accounts of the same incidents), inconsistencies, and changes in style and vocabulary in the Torah.{{sfn|Berlin|1994|p=113}} In 1780, ], building on the work of the French doctor and ] ]'s "Conjectures" and others, formulated the "older documentary hypothesis": the idea that Genesis was composed by combining two identifiable sources, the ] ("J"; also called the Yahwist) and the ] ("E").{{sfn|Ruddick|1990|p=246}} These sources were subsequently found to run through the first four books of the Torah, and the number was later expanded to three when ] identified the ] as an additional source found only in Deuteronomy ("D").{{sfn|Patrick|2013|p=31}} Later still the Elohist was split into Elohist and ] ("P") sources, increasing the number to four.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=19}}
== Basic approaches: documentary, fragmentary and supplementary hypotheses ==
].]]
The ] (or Pentateuch) is collectively the first five books of the Bible: ], ], ], ], and ].{{sfn|McDermott|2002|p=1}} According to tradition they were dictated by God to Moses,{{sfn|Kugel|2008|p=6}} but when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would expect from a single author.{{sfn|Campbell|O'Brien|1993|p=1}} As a result, the ] of the Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century, and the modern consensus is that it is the product of a long evolutionary process.{{sfn|Berlin|1994|p=113}}{{sfn|Baden|2012|p=13}}<ref group="Note" name="Moses">The reasons behind the rejection are covered in more detail in the article on ].</ref>


These documentary approaches were in competition with two other models, the fragmentary and the ].{{sfn|Viviano|1999|pp=38–39}} The fragmentary hypothesis argued that fragments of varying lengths, rather than continuous documents, lay behind the Torah; this approach accounted for the Torah's diversity but could not account for its structural consistency, particularly regarding chronology.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38}} The supplementary hypothesis was better able to explain this unity: it maintained that the Torah was made up of a central core document, the Elohist, supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38}} The supplementary approach was dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by ] in 1853, who argued that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=18–19}} At around the same period, ] argued that the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while ] linked the four to an evolutionary framework: the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.{{sfn|Friedman|1997|p=24–25}}
In the mid-18th century, some scholars started a critical study of doublets (parallel accounts of the same incidents), inconsistencies, and changes in style and vocabulary in the Torah.{{sfn|Berlin|1994|p=113}} In 1780 ], building on the work of the French doctor and ] ]'s "Conjectures" and others, formulated the "older documentary hypothesis": the idea that Genesis was composed by combining two identifiable sources, the ] ("J"; also called the Yahwist) and the ] ("E").{{sfn|Ruddick|1990|p=246}} These sources were subsequently found to run through the first four books of the Torah, and the number was later expanded to three when ] identified the ] as an additional source found only in Deuteronomy ("D").{{sfn|Patrick|2013|p=31}} Later still the Elohist was split into Elohist and ] ("P") sources, increasing the number to four.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=19}}


=== Wellhausen and the new documentary hypothesis ===
These documentary approaches were in competition with two other models, the fragmentary and the supplementary.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38–39}} The fragmentary hypothesis argued that fragments of varying lengths, rather than continuous documents, lay behind the Torah; this approach accounted for the Torah's diversity but could not account for its structural consistency, particularly regarding chronology.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38}} The supplementary hypothesis was better able to explain this unity: it maintained that the Torah was made up of a central core document, the Elohist, supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38}} The supplementary approach was dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by ] in 1853, who argued that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=18–19}} At around the same period ] argued that the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while ] linked the four to an evolutionary framework, the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.{{sfn|Friedman|1997|p=24–25}}
]
In 1878, ] published ''Geschichte Israels, Bd 1'' ('History of Israel, Vol 1').{{sfn|Wellhausen|1878}} The second edition was printed as '']'' ("Prolegomena to the History of Israel") in 1883,{{sfn|Wellhausen|1883}} and the work is better known under that name.{{sfn|Kugel|2008|p=41}} (The second volume, a synthetic history titled ''Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte'' ,{{sfn|Wellhausen|1894}} did not appear until 1894 and remains untranslated.) Crucially, this historical portrait was based upon two earlier works of his technical analysis: "Die Composition des Hexateuchs" ('The Composition of the Hexateuch') of 1876–77, and sections on the "historical books" (Judges–Kings) in his 1878 edition of ]'s ''Einleitung in das Alte Testament'' ('Introduction to the Old Testament').


Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis owed little to Wellhausen himself but was mainly the work of Hupfeld, ], Graf, and others, who in turn had built on earlier scholarship.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=20}} He accepted Hupfeld's four sources and, in agreement with Graf, placed the Priestly work last.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=19}} J was the earliest document, a product of the 10th century BCE and the court of ]; E was from the 9th century BCE in the northern ], and had been combined by a redactor (editor) with J to form a document JE; D, the third source, was a product of the 7th century BCE, by 620 BCE, during the reign of ]; P (what Wellhausen first named "Q") was a product of the priest-and-temple dominated world of the 6th century BCE; and the final redaction, when P was combined with JED to produce the Torah as we now know it.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=40–41}}{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=260}}
== Table: documentary, fragmentary and supplementary hypotheses ==
''The table is based on that in Walter Houston's "The Pentateuch", with expansions as indicated.{{sfn|Houston|2013|p=93}} Note that the three hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Hypothesis
! Method of composition
! Agency (redactor/collector/author)
! Mode of analysis
! Strengths and weaknesses
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Documentary
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| A small number of continuous documents (traditionally four) combined to form one continuous final text.
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Combined by editors who altered as little as possible of the texts available to them.
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| ]
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Explains both the unity of the Torah (due to the unity of the constituent documents) and its diversity (due to disagreements/repetitions between them). Difficulty distinguishing J from E outside Genesis.{{sfn|Houston|2013|p=95}} Greatest weakness is the role of the redactors (editors), who seem to function as a '']'' to explain away difficulties.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=23}}
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Supplementary
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Produced by the successive addition of layers of supplementary material to a core text or group of texts.
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Editors are also authors, creating original narrative and interpretation.
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| ]
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Accounts for the structural consistency of the Pentateuch better than the fragmentary approach, the central core explaining its unity of theme and structure, the fragments embedded in this its diversity of language and style.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38}}
|-
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Fragmentary
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| The combination of a large number of short texts.
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Editors also create linking narrative.
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| ]
| style="text-align:center; background:#ccf;"| Has difficulty accounting for the structural consistency of the Pentateuch, especially its chronology.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=38}}
|-
|}<references group=T />


Wellhausen's explanation of the formation of the Torah was also an explanation of the religious history of Israel.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=260}} The Yahwist and Elohist described a primitive, spontaneous, and personal world, in keeping with the earliest stage of Israel's history; in Deuteronomy, he saw the influence of the prophets and the development of an ethical outlook, which he felt represented the pinnacle of Jewish religion; and the Priestly source reflected the rigid, ritualistic world of the priest-dominated, post-exilic period.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=51}} His work, notable for its detailed and wide-ranging scholarship and close argument, entrenched the "new documentary hypothesis" as the dominant explanation of Pentateuchal origins from the late 19th to the late 20th centuries.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=19}}<ref group="Note" name="newer">The two-source hypothesis of Eichhorn was the "older" documentary hypothesis, and the four-source hypothesis adopted by Wellhausen was the "newer".</ref>
== Julius Wellhausen and the new documentary hypothesis ==
]
In 1878 ] published ''Geschichte Israels, Bd 1'' ("History of Israel, Vol 1"); the second edition he printed as '']'' ("Prolegomena to the History of Israel"), in 1883, and the work is better known under that name.{{sfn|Kugel|2008|p=41}} (The second volume, a synthetic history titled ''Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte'' , did not appear until 1894 and remains untranslated.) Crucially, this historical portrait was based upon two earlier works of his technical analysis: "Die Composition des Hexateuchs" ("The Composition of the Hexateuch") of 1876/77 and sections on the "historical books" (Judges–Kings) in his 1878 edition of ]'s ''Einleitung in das Alte Testament'' ("Introduction to the Old Testament").


== Critical reassessment ==
Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis owed little to Wellhausen himself but was mainly the work of Hupfeld, ], Graf, and others, who in turn had built on earlier scholarship.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=20}} He accepted Hupfeld's four sources and, in agreement with Graf, placed the Priestly work last.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=19}} J was the earliest document, a product of the 900s and the court of ]; E was from the 8th century BCE in the northern ], and had been combined by a redactor (editor) with J to form a document JE; D, the third source, was a product of the 7th century BC, by 620 BCE, during the reign of ]; P (what Wellhausen first named "Q") was a product of the priest-and-temple dominated world of the 6th century; and the final redaction, when P was combined with JED to produce the Torah as we now know it.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=40–41}}{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=260}}
]
In the mid to late 20th century, new criticism of the documentary hypothesis formed.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} Three major publications of the 1970s caused scholars to reevaluate the assumptions of the documentary hypothesis: '']'' by ], ''Der sogenannte Jahwist'' ("The So-Called Yahwist") by ], and ''Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch'' ("The Tradition-Historical Problem of the Pentateuch") by ]. These three authors shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=41}}


Van Seters and Schmid both forcefully argued that the Yahwist source could not be dated to the ] (c. 950 BCE) as posited by the documentary hypothesis. They instead dated J to the period of the ] (597–539 BCE), or the late monarchic{{clarify|date=November 2024|reason=unclear to lay reader: needs a wikilink}} period at the earliest.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|pp=41–43}} Van Seters also sharply criticized the idea of a substantial Elohist source, arguing that E extends at most to two short passages in Genesis.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=42}}
Wellhausen's explanation of the formation of the Torah was also an explanation of the religious history of Israel.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=260}} The Yahwist and Elohist described a primitive, spontaneous and personal world, in keeping with the earliest stage of Israel's history; in Deuteronomy he saw the influence of the prophets and the development of an ethical outlook, which he felt represented the pinnacle of Jewish religion; and the Priestly source reflected the rigid, ritualistic world of the priest-dominated post-exilic period.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=51}} His work, notable for its detailed and wide-ranging scholarship and close argument, entrenched the "new documentary hypothesis" as the dominant explanation of Pentateuchal origins from the late 19th to the late 20th centuries.{{sfn|Barton|Muddiman|2010|p=19}}<ref group="Note" name="newer">The two-source hypothesis of Eichorn was the "older" documentary hypothesis, and the four-source hypothesis adopted by Wellhausen was the "newer".</ref>


Some scholars, following Rendtorff, have come to espouse a fragmentary hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases.{{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=49}}{{sfn|Thompson|2000|p=8}}{{sfn|Ska|2014|pp=133–135}} By contrast, scholars such as John Van Seters advocate a ], which posits that the Torah is the result of two major additions—Yahwist and Priestly—to an existing corpus of work.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=77}}
== Collapse of the documentary consensus ==
The consensus around the documentary hypothesis collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} The groundwork was laid with the investigation of the origins of the written sources in oral compositions, implying that the creators of J and E were collectors and editors and not authors and historians.{{sfn|Thompson|2000|p=8}} ] (1925–2014), building on this insight, argued that the basis of the Pentateuch lay in short, independent narratives, gradually formed into larger units and brought together in two editorial phases, the first Deuteronomic, the second Priestly.{{sfn|Ska|2015|pp=133-135}} This led to the current position which sees only two major sources in the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomist (confined to the Book of Deuteronomy) and the Priestly (confined to the books Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers).{{sfn|Otto|2014|p=609}}


The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of ] as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses.{{sfn|Otto|2015|p=605}} Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.{{sfn|Carr|2015|p=457}} The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.{{sfn|Otto|2014|p=609}} The final Torah is increasingly seen as a product of the ] period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE), possibly as a product of the Persian imperial practice of authorizing local, autonomous law codes for conquered populations.{{Sfn|Frei|2001|p=6}} Some scholars would place the final formation of the Pentateuch somewhat later, in the ] (333–164 BCE) or even ] (140–37 BCE) periods.{{sfn|Greifenhagen|2003|p=206–207, 224 fn.49}} This latter dating remains a minority view, but the ], the records of a Jewish colony in Egypt dating from the last quarter of the 5th century BCE, show no knowledge of a Torah or of an exodus.{{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=32}} There is also a growing recognition that Genesis developed separately from Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and was joined to the story of Moses by the Priestly writer.{{sfn|Ska|2006|p=viii}} Some scholars use these newer hypotheses in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=12}} The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of ] as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses.{{sfn|Otto|2014|p=605}} Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=457}} The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.{{sfn|Otto|2014|p=609}}

The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, likely completed during the ] (539–333 BCE).{{sfn|Greifenhagen|2003|pp=206–207}}{{sfn|Whisenant|2010|p=679|ps=, "Instead of a compilation of discrete sources collected and combined by a final redactor, the Pentateuch is seen as a sophisticated scribal composition in which diverse earlier traditions have been shaped into a coherent narrative presenting a creation-to-wilderness story of origins for the entity 'Israel.'"}} A minority of scholars would place its final compilation somewhat later, however, in the ] (333–164 BCE).{{sfn|Greifenhagen|2003|pp=206–207, 224 n. 49}}


A revised neo-documentary hypothesis still has adherents, especially in North America and Israel.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=271}} This distinguishes sources by means of plot and continuity rather than stylistic and linguistic concerns, and does not tie them to stages in the evolution of Israel's religious history.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=271}} Its resurrection of an E source is probably the element most often criticised by other scholars, as it is rarely distinguishable from the classical J source and European scholars have largely rejected it as fragmentary or non-existent.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=272}} A revised neo-documentary hypothesis still has adherents, especially in North America and Israel.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=271}} This distinguishes sources by means of plot and continuity rather than stylistic and linguistic concerns, and does not tie them to stages in the evolution of Israel's religious history.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=271}} Its resurrection of an E source is probably the element most often criticised by other scholars, as it is rarely distinguishable from the classical J source and European scholars have largely rejected it as fragmentary or non-existent.{{sfn|Gaines|2015|p=272}}


== The Torah and the history of Israel's religion == == The Torah and the history of Israel's religion ==
{{See also|History of ancient Israel and Judah|Origins of Judaism}}
Wellhausen used the sources of the Torah as evidence of changes in the history of Israelite religion as it moved (in his opinion) from free, simple and natural to fixed, formal and institutional.{{sfn|Miller|2000|p=182}} Modern scholars of Israel's religion have become much more circumspect in how they use the Old Testament, not least because many have concluded that the Bible is not a reliable witness to the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, representing instead the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community centred in ] and devoted to the exclusive worship of the god ].{{sfn|Stackert|2014|p=24}}{{sfn|Wright|2002|p=52}} Wellhausen used the sources of the Torah as evidence of changes in the history of Israelite religion as it moved (in his opinion) from free, simple and natural to fixed, formal and institutional.{{sfn|Miller|2000|p=182}} Modern scholars of Israel's religion have become much more circumspect in how they use the Old Testament, not least because many have concluded that the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable witness to the religion of ancient Israel and Judah,<ref name="Lupovitch">{{cite book |last1=Lupovitch |first1=Howard N. |date=2010 |title=Jews and Judaism in World History |chapter=The world of the Hebrew Bible |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s7uLAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA5 |location=] |publisher=] |pages=5–10 |isbn=978-0-203-86197-4}}</ref> representing instead the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community centered in ] and devoted to the exclusive worship of the god ].{{sfn|Stackert|2014|p=24}}{{sfn|Wright|2002|p=52}}


== See also == == See also ==
Line 73: Line 48:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ], Jewish scholar who was critical of the documentary hypothesis
* ], a similar theory for the construction of the ]


== Notes == == Notes ==
Line 81: Line 58:


== Bibliography == == Bibliography ==
{{refbegin|}} {{Refbegin|}}
*{{Cite book|last=Baden|first=Joel S.|title=The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis|publisher=Yale University Press|year=2012|url=https://books.google.com/?id=Beg7LeeNGlkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=0-300-15263-9|series=Anchor Yale Reference Library|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Baden|first=Joel S.|title=The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis|publisher=Yale University Press|year=2012|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Beg7LeeNGlkC|isbn=978-0-300-15263-0|series=Anchor Yale Reference Library}}
*{{Cite book|last=Barton|first=John|pages=|chapter=Biblical Scholarship on the European Continent, in the UK, and Ireland|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|location=|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/?id=rMzUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA311&dq=%22sure+of+only+two+things+about+the+sources+of+the+Pentateuch%22#v=onepage&q=%22sure%20of%20only%20two%20things%20about%20the%20sources%20of%20the%20Pentateuch%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}} *{{Cite book|last=Barton|first=John|chapter=Biblical Scholarship on the European Continent, in the UK, and Ireland|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rMzUBQAAQBAJ&q=%22sure+of+only+two+things+about+the+sources+of+the+Pentateuch%22&pg=PA311|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}}
* {{cite book|last1=Barton|first1=John|last2=Muddiman|first2=John|title=The Pentateuch|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/?id=ldMUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=%221860s%22%22leading+scholars%22%22supplementary+hypothesis%22#v=onepage&q=%221860s%22%22leading%20scholars%22%22supplementary%20hypothesis%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-19-958024-8|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last1=Barton|first1=John|last2=Muddiman|first2=John|title=The Pentateuch|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ldMUDAAAQBAJ&q=%221860s%22%22leading+scholars%22%22supplementary+hypothesis%22&pg=PA18|isbn=978-0-19-958024-8}}
*{{Cite book|last=Berlin|first=Adele|title=Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative|publisher=Eisenbrauns|year=1994|url=https://books.google.com/?id=eLoBhPENIBQC&pg=PA113&dq=%22source+criticism%22%22detecting+in+the+text+evidence+of+its+earlier+stages%22#v=onepage&q=%22source%20criticism%22%22detecting%20in%20the%20text%20evidence%20of%20its%20earlier%20stages%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-1-57506-002-6|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Berlin|first=Adele|title=Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative|publisher=Eisenbrauns|year=1994|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eLoBhPENIBQC&q=%22source+criticism%22%22detecting+in+the+text+evidence+of+its+earlier+stages%22&pg=PA113|isbn=978-1-57506-002-6}}
*{{Cite book|last=Bos|first=James M.|title=Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2013|url=https://books.google.com/?id=buoRBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-567-06889-7|location=|pages=}} *{{cite book |title=Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism |last=Berman |first=Joshua A. |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-19-065880-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rWBwvgAACAAJ}}
* {{cite book|last=Brettler|first=Marc Zvi|editor1-last=Berlin|editor1-first=Adele|location=|editor2-last=Brettler|editor2-first=Marc Zvi|title=The Jewish Study Bible|pages=|chapter=Torah: Introduction|date=2004|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/?id=aDuy3p5QvEYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Jewish+study+Bible#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|year=|isbn=978-0-19-529751-5}} * {{cite book|last=Brettler|first=Marc Zvi|editor1-last=Berlin|editor1-first=Adele|editor2-last=Brettler|editor2-first=Marc Zvi|title=The Jewish Study Bible|chapter=Torah: Introduction|date=2004|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780195297515|url-access=registration|isbn=978-0-19-529751-5}}
*{{Cite book|last1=Campbell|first1=Antony F.|last2=O'Brien|first2=Mark A.|title=Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations|publisher=Fortress Press|year=1993|url=https://books.google.com/?id=cwhICpcHBsQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sources+of+the+Pentateuch:+Texts,+Introductions,+Annotations#v=onepage&q=Sources%20of%20the%20Pentateuch%3A%20Texts%2C%20Introductions%2C%20Annotations&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-1-4514-1367-0|location=|pages=}} *{{cite book|last1=Campbell|first1=Antony F.|last2=O'Brien|first2=Mark A.|title=Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations|publisher=Fortress Press|year=1993|url=https://archive.org/details/sourcesofpentate0000camp|url-access=registration|isbn=978-1-4514-1367-0}}
* {{cite book|last1=Carr|first1=David M.|pages=|chapter=Genesis|editor1-last=Coogan|editor1-first=Michael David|location=|editor2-last=Brettler|editor2-first=Marc Zvi|editor3-last=Newsom|editor3-first=Carol Ann|title=The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2007|url=https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA434&dq=%22collapse+of+consensus%22%22debate+surrounding+virtually+every+aspect%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiny9LBy-jZAhXMabwKHWvHAnEQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22collapse%20of%20consensus%22%22debate%20surrounding%20virtually%20every%20aspect%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-19-528880-3}} * {{cite book|last1=Carr|first1=David M.|chapter=Genesis|editor1-last=Coogan|editor1-first=Michael David|editor2-last=Brettler|editor2-first=Marc Zvi|editor3-last=Newsom|editor3-first=Carol Ann|title=The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2007|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&q=%22collapse+of+consensus%22%22debate+surrounding+virtually+every+aspect%22&pg=PA434|isbn=978-0-19-528880-3}}
*{{Cite book|last=Carr|first=David M.|pages=|chapter=Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|location=|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA434&dq=could+be+presupposed+as+a+givenfor+over+a+hundred+years#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}} *{{Cite book|last=Carr|first=David M.|chapter=Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&q=could+be+presupposed+as+a+givenfor+over+a+hundred+years&pg=PA434|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}}
*{{Cite book|title=Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch|last=Frei|first=Peter|publisher=SBL Press|year=2001|isbn=9781589830158|location=Atlanta, GA|pages=6|editor-last=Watts|editor-first=James|chapter=Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary}}
*{{Cite web|last=Enns|first=Peter|title=3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship|website=|publisher=patheos.com|date=|year=2013|url=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=|ref=harv}}
*{{Cite chapter|title=Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch|last=Frei|first=Peter|publisher=SBL Press|year=2001|isbn=9781589830158|location=Atlanta, GA|pages=6|editor-last=Watts|editor-first=James|chapter=Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary}}
*{{Cite book|last=Friedman|first=Richard Elliott|title=Who Wrote the Bible?|publisher=HarperOne|year=1997}} *{{Cite book|last=Friedman|first=Richard Elliott|title=Who Wrote the Bible?|publisher=HarperOne|year=1997}}
*{{Cite book|last=Gaines|first=Jason M.H.|title=The Poetic Priestly Source|publisher=Fortress Press|year=2015|url=https://books.google.com/?id=pnHhCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA271&dq=%22documentary+hypothesis%22%22still+has+adherents%22#v=onepage&q=%22documentary%20hypothesis%22%22still%20has%20adherents%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-1-5064-0046-4|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Gaines|first=Jason M.H.|title=The Poetic Priestly Source|publisher=Fortress Press|year=2015|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pnHhCwAAQBAJ&q=%22documentary+hypothesis%22%22still+has+adherents%22&pg=PA271|isbn=978-1-5064-0046-4}}
*{{Cite book|last1=Gertz|first1=Jan C.|last2=Levinson|first2=Bernard M.|last3=Rom-Shiloni|first3=Dalit|pages=|chapter=Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory|editor1-last=Gertz|editor1-first=Jan C.|location=|editor2-last=Levinson|editor2-first=Bernard M.|editor3-last=Rom-Shiloni|editor3-first=Dalit|title=The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|year=2017|url=https://www.academia.edu/30485934/The_Formation_of_the_Pentateuch_Bridging_the_Academic_Cultures_of_Europe_Israel_and_North_America?auto=download|ref=harv|isbn=}} *{{Cite book|last1=Gertz|first1=Jan C.|last2=Levinson|first2=Bernard M.|last3=Rom-Shiloni|first3=Dalit|chapter=Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory|editor1-last=Gertz|editor1-first=Jan C.|editor2-last=Levinson|editor2-first=Bernard M.|editor3-last=Rom-Shiloni|editor3-first=Dalit|title=The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|year=2017|volume=44 |issue=4 |page=481 |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/30485934}}
*{{Cite book|last=Gmirkin|first=Russell|title=Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2006|url=https://books.google.com/?id=CKuoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=%22no+reference+to+a+written+torah%22#v=onepage&q=%22no%20reference%20to%20a%20written%20torah%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-567-13439-4|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Gmirkin|first=Russell|title=Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2006|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CKuoAwAAQBAJ&q=%22no+reference+to+a+written+torah%22&pg=PA32|isbn=978-0-567-13439-4}}
*{{Cite book|last=Greifenhagen|first=Franz V.|title=Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2003|url=https://books.google.com/?id=r1evAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&dq=%22final+form+sometime+in+the+Persian+period%22#v=onepage&q=%22final%20form%20sometime%20in%20the%20Persian%20period%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-567-39136-0|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Greifenhagen|first=Franz V.|title=Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2003|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r1evAwAAQBAJ&q=%22final+form+sometime+in+the+Persian+period%22&pg=PA207|isbn=978-0-567-39136-0}}
*{{Cite book|last=Houston|first=Walter|title=The Pentateuch|publisher=SCM Press|year=2013|url=https://books.google.com/?id=IbALAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&dq=%22two+other+possibilities%22%22are+now+being+revived%22#v=onepage&q=%22two%20other%20possibilities%22%22are%20now%20being%20revived%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-334-04385-0|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Houston|first=Walter|title=The Pentateuch|publisher=SCM Press|year=2013|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IbALAQAAQBAJ&q=%22two+other+possibilities%22%22are+now+being+revived%22&pg=PA93|isbn=978-0-334-04385-0}}
*{{Cite book|last=Kawashima|first=Robert S.|pages=|chapter=Sources and Redaction|editor1-last=Hendel|editor1-first=Ronald|location=|title=Reading Genesis|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|url=https://books.google.com/?id=H4JvhWo04oEC&pg=PA52&dq=%22biblicists+generally+refer+to+these+sources+as%22#v=onepage&q=%22biblicists%20generally%20refer%20to%20these%20sources%20as%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-1-139-49278-2}} *{{Cite book|last=Kawashima|first=Robert S.|chapter=Sources and Redaction|editor1-last=Hendel|editor1-first=Ronald|title=Reading Genesis|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H4JvhWo04oEC&q=%22biblicists+generally+refer+to+these+sources+as%22&pg=PA52|isbn=978-1-139-49278-2}}
* {{cite book|last=Kratz|first=Reinhard G.|pages=|chapter=Rewriting Torah|editor1-last=Schipper|editor1-first=Bernd|location=|editor2-last=Teeter|editor2-first=D. Andrew|title=Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of 'Torah' in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period|year=2013|publisher=BRILL|url=https://books.google.com/?id=nbDKAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA282&dq=%22+in+particular+in+the+documentary+and+fragmentary+hypothesis%22#v=onepage&q=%22%20in%20particular%20in%20the%20documentary%20and%20fragmentary%20hypothesis%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=9789004257368}} * {{cite book|last=Kratz|first=Reinhard G.|chapter=Rewriting Torah|editor1-last=Schipper|editor1-first=Bernd|editor2-last=Teeter|editor2-first=D. Andrew|title=Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of 'Torah' in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period|year=2013|publisher=BRILL|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nbDKAQAAQBAJ&q=%22+in+particular+in+the+documentary+and+fragmentary+hypothesis%22&pg=PA282|isbn=9789004257368}}
* {{cite book|last=Kratz|first=Reinhard G.|title=The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament|year=2005|publisher=A&C Black|url=https://books.google.com/?id=g0WnSW4Pc8oC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=9780567089205|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last=Kratz|first=Reinhard G.|title=The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament|year=2005|publisher=A&C Black|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g0WnSW4Pc8oC|isbn=9780567089205}}
*{{Cite book|last=Kugel|first=James L.|author-link=James L. Kugel|title=How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now|publisher=FreePress|year=2008|url=https://books.google.com/?id=msdh9mmGHN4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kugel+%22How+to+read+the+Bible%22#v=onepage&q=Kugel%20%22How%20to%20read%20the%20Bible%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-7432-3587-7|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Kugel|first=James L.|author-link=James L. Kugel|title=How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now|publisher=FreePress|year=2008|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=msdh9mmGHN4C|isbn=978-0-7432-3587-7}}
*{{Cite book|last=Kurtz|first=Paul Michael|author-link=|title=Kaiser, Christ, and Canaan: The Religion of Israel in Protestant Germany, 1871–1918|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|year=2018|url=https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/buch/kaiser-christ-and-canaan-9783161554964|ref=harv|isbn=978-3-16-155496-4|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Kurtz|first=Paul Michael|title=Kaiser, Christ, and Canaan: The Religion of Israel in Protestant Germany, 1871–1918|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|year=2018|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LmuKDwAAQBAJ|isbn=978-3-16-155496-4}}
*{{Cite book|last=Levin|first=Christoph|title=Re-Reading the Scriptures|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|year=2013|url=https://books.google.com/?id=aSNZ76USaYgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Levin+Re-Reading+the+SCriptures#v=onepage&q=Levin%20Re-Reading%20the%20SCriptures&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-3-16-152207-9|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Levin|first=Christoph|title=Re-Reading the Scriptures|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|year=2013|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aSNZ76USaYgC&q=Levin+Re-Reading+the+SCriptures|isbn=978-3-16-152207-9}}
*{{Cite book|last=McDermott|first=John J.|title=Reading the Pentateuch: A Historical Introduction|publisher=Pauline Press|year=2002|url=https://books.google.com/?id=Dkr7rVd3hAQC&pg=PA21&dq=not+the+work+of+a+single+authorcomposed+over+several+centuries#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=978-0-8091-4082-4|location=|pages=|ref=harv}} *{{Cite book|last=McDermott|first=John J.|title=Reading the Pentateuch: A Historical Introduction|publisher=Pauline Press|year=2002|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dkr7rVd3hAQC&q=not+the+work+of+a+single+authorcomposed+over+several+centuries&pg=PA21|isbn=978-0-8091-4082-4}}
*{{Cite book|last=McEntire|first=Mark|title=Struggling with God: An Introduction to the Pentateuch|publisher=Mercer University Press|year=2008|url=https://books.google.com/?id=VwOs9f1FpmsC&pg=PA7&dq=%22Josianic+Reform+of+the+late+seventh+century+BCE%22#v=onepage&q=%22Josianic%20Reform%20of%20the%20late%20seventh%20century%20BCE%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-88146-101-5|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=McEntire|first=Mark|title=Struggling with God: An Introduction to the Pentateuch|publisher=Mercer University Press|year=2008|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VwOs9f1FpmsC&q=%22Josianic+Reform+of+the+late+seventh+century+BCE%22&pg=PA7|isbn=978-0-88146-101-5}}
* {{cite book|last=McKim|first=Donald K.|title=Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms|year=1996|publisher=Westminster John Knox|url=https://books.google.com/?id=UJ9PYdzKf90C&pg=PA81&dq=dictionary+documentary+hypothesis#v=onepage&q=dictionary%20documentary%20hypothesis&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-664-25511-4|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last=McKim|first=Donald K.|title=Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms|year=1996|publisher=Westminster John Knox|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UJ9PYdzKf90C&q=dictionary+documentary+hypothesis&pg=PA81|isbn=978-0-664-25511-4}}
*{{cite book|last1=Miller|first1=Patrick D.|title=Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays|year=2000|publisher=A&C Black|url=https://books.google.com/?id=wKRiloF-00oC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-1-84127-142-2|location=|pages=}} *{{cite book|last1=Miller|first1=Patrick D.|title=Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays|year=2000|publisher=A&C Black|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wKRiloF-00oC|isbn=978-1-84127-142-2}}
*{{Cite book|last=Monroe|first=Lauren A.S.|title=Josiah's Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2011|url=https://books.google.com/?id=bqpoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&dq=%22date+of+Deuteronomy+into+the+exilic%22#v=onepage&q=%22date%20of%20Deuteronomy%20into%20the%20exilic%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-19-977536-1|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Monroe|first=Lauren A.S.|title=Josiah's Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2011|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bqpoAgAAQBAJ&q=%22date+of+Deuteronomy+into+the+exilic%22&pg=PA135|isbn=978-0-19-977536-1}}
* {{cite book|last1=Moore|first1=Megan Bishop|last2=Kelle|first2=Brad E.|title=Biblical History and Israel's Past|year=2011|publisher=Eerdmans|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qjkz_8EMoaUC&pg=PA81|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-8028-6260-0|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last1=Moore|first1=Megan Bishop|last2=Kelle|first2=Brad E.|title=Biblical History and Israel's Past|year=2011|publisher=Eerdmans|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qjkz_8EMoaUC&pg=PA81|isbn=978-0-8028-6260-0}}
* {{cite book|last=Nicholson|first=Ernest Wilson|title=The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century|year=2003|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/?id=opBBTHT13yoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Pentateuch+in+the+Twentieth+Century#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-19-925783-6|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last=Nicholson|first=Ernest Wilson|title=The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century|year=2003|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=opBBTHT13yoC|isbn=978-0-19-925783-6}}
*{{Cite book|last=Otto|first=Eckart|pages=|chapter=The Study of Law and Ethics in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|location=|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA609&dq=%22This+change+of+research+paradigms%22#v=onepage&q=%22This%20change%20of%20research%20paradigms%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}} *{{Cite book|last=Otto|first=Eckart|chapter=The Study of Law and Ethics in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&q=%22This+change+of+research+paradigms%22&pg=PA609|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}}
* {{cite book|last=Patrick|first=Dale|title=Deuteronomy|year=2013|publisher=Chalice Press|url=https://books.google.com/?id=NkP4QlnlEmYC&pg=PA69&dq=%22De+Wette%27s+identification%22%22large+majority+of+critical+biblical+scholars%22#v=onepage&q=%22De%20Wette%27s%20identification%22%22large%20majority%20of%20critical%20biblical%20scholars%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-8272-0566-6|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last=Patrick|first=Dale|title=Deuteronomy|year=2013|publisher=Chalice Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NkP4QlnlEmYC&q=%22De+Wette%27s+identification%22%22large+majority+of+critical+biblical+scholars%22&pg=PA69|isbn=978-0-8272-0566-6}}
* {{cite book|last1=Patzia|first1=Arthur G.|last2=Petrotta|first2=Anthony J.|title=Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies|year=2010|publisher=InterVarsity Press|url=https://books.google.com/?id=btEJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=dictionary+documentary+hypothesis#v=onepage&q=dictionary%20documentary%20hypothesis&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-8308-6702-8|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last1=Patzia|first1=Arthur G.|last2=Petrotta|first2=Anthony J.|title=Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies|year=2010|publisher=InterVarsity Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=btEJAwAAQBAJ&q=dictionary+documentary+hypothesis&pg=PA37|isbn=978-0-8308-6702-8}}
*{{cite book |title=Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism |last=Person |first=Raymond F. |publisher=SBL Press |year=2016 |isbn=978-0-88414-149-5 |editor-last=Person |editor-first=Raymond F. |chapter=The Problem of “Literary Unity” from the Perspective of the Study of Oral Traditions |editor-last2=Rezetko |editor-first2=Robert |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ViYiDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA217}}
*{{Cite book|last=Ruddick|first=Eddie L.|pages=|chapter=Elohist|editor1-last=Mills|editor1-first=Watson E.|location=|editor2-last=Bullard|editor2-first=Roger Aubrey|title=Mercer Dictionary of the Bible|publisher=Mercer University Press|year=1990|url=https://books.google.com/?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA246&dq=%22These+studies+later+guided+Eichhorn%22#v=onepage&q=%22These%20studies%20later%20guided%20Eichhorn%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-86554-373-7}}
*{{cite book |title=How the Bible is Written |last=Rendsburg |first=Gary |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers |year=2019 |isbn=978-1-68307-197-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O7nFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA468}}
*{{Cite book|last=Sharpes|first=Donald K.|title=Lords of the Scrolls|publisher=Peter Lang|year=2005|url=https://books.google.com/?id=39fw6f689GgC&pg=PA41&dq=%22many+modifications%22%22over+several+centuries%22#v=onepage&q=%22many%20modifications%22%22over%20several%20centuries%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=0-300-15263-9|location=|pages=}}
*{{Cite book|last=Ruddick|first=Eddie L.|chapter=Elohist|editor1-last=Mills|editor1-first=Watson E.|editor2-last=Bullard|editor2-first=Roger Aubrey|title=Mercer Dictionary of the Bible|publisher=Mercer University Press|year=1990|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&q=%22These+studies+later+guided+Eichhorn%22&pg=PA246|isbn=978-0-86554-373-7}}
* {{cite book|last=Ska|first=Jean-Louis|title=Introduction to reading the Pentateuch|year=2006|isbn=|location=|pages=|publisher=Eisenbrauns|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7cdy67ZvzdkC&pg=PA217#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv}}
*{{Cite book|last=Ska|first=Jean Louis|pages=|chapter=Questions of the 'History of Israel' in Recent Research|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|location=|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA430&dq=%22Persian+period+as+the+most+important%22#v=onepage&q=%22Persian%20period%20as%20the%20most%20important%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}} * {{cite book|last=Ska|first=Jean-Louis|title=Introduction to reading the Pentateuch|year=2006|isbn=9781575061221|publisher=Eisenbrauns|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7cdy67ZvzdkC&pg=PA217}}
*{{Cite book|last=Ska|first=Jean Louis|chapter=Questions of the 'History of Israel' in Recent Research|editor1-last=Saeboe|editor1-first=Magne|editor2-last=Ska|editor2-first=Jean Louis|editor3-last=Machinist|editor3-first=Peter|title=Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism|publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht|year=2014|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&q=%22Persian+period+as+the+most+important%22&pg=PA430|isbn=978-3-525-54022-0}}
*{{Cite book|last=Stackert|first=Jeffrey|title=A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/?id=DsCiAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-19-933645-6|location=|pages=}} *{{Cite book|last=Stackert|first=Jeffrey|title=A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DsCiAwAAQBAJ|isbn=978-0-19-933645-6}}
* {{cite book|last=Thompson|first=Thomas L.|title=Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources|year=2000|publisher=BRILL|url=https://books.google.com/?id=RwrrUuHFb6UC&pg=PA8&dq=long+folk+history+long+antedating#v=onepage&q=long%20folk%20history%20long%20antedating&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=9004119434|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last=Thompson|first=Thomas L.|title=Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources|year=2000|publisher=BRILL|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RwrrUuHFb6UC&q=long+folk+history+long+antedating&pg=PA8|isbn=9004119434}}
* {{cite book|last=Van Seters|first=John|title=The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary|year=2015|publisher=Bloomsbury T&T Clark|url=https://books.google.com/?id=42-_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&dq=%22new+supplementary+model:+van+seters%22#v=onepage&q=%22new%20supplementary%20model%3A%20van%20seters%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-567-65880-7|location=|pages=}} * {{cite book|last=Van Seters|first=John|title=The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary|year=2015|publisher=Bloomsbury T&T Clark|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=42-_CQAAQBAJ&q=%22new+supplementary+model%3A+van+seters%22&pg=PA55|isbn=978-0-567-65880-7}}
* {{cite book|last=Viviano|first=Pauline A.|pages=|chapter=Source Criticism|editor1-last=Haynes|editor1-first=Stephen R.|location=|editor2-last=McKenzie|editor2-first=Steven L.|title=To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application|year=1999|publisher=Westminster John Knox|url=https://books.google.com/?id=kpDceeylCjYC&pg=PA35&dq=Viviano+%22source+criticism%22#v=onepage&q=Viviano%20%22source%20criticism%22&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-664-25784-2}} * {{cite book|last=Viviano|first=Pauline A.|chapter=Source Criticism|editor1-last=Haynes|editor1-first=Stephen R.|editor2-last=McKenzie|editor2-first=Steven L.|title=To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application|year=1999|publisher=Westminster John Knox|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kpDceeylCjYC&q=Viviano+%22source+criticism%22&pg=PA35|isbn=978-0-664-25784-2}}
* {{cite book |first=Julius |last=Wellhausen |title=Geschichte Israels |date=1878 |volume=1 |location=Berlin |publisher=Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer |url=https://archive.org/details/geschichteisrae00wellgoog}}
* {{cite book|last1=Wright|first1=J. Edward|title=The Early History of Heaven|year=2002|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/?id=lKvMeMorNBEC&pg=PA42&dq=Mesopotamian#v=onepage&q&f=false|ref=harv|isbn=978-0-19-534849-1|location=|pages=}}
* {{cite book |first=Julius |last=Wellhausen |title=Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels |date=1883 |volume=1 |edition=2nd |location=Berlin |publisher=Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer |url=https://archive.org/details/prolegomenazurg01wellgoog}} ;
{{refend}}
* {{cite book |first=Julius |last=Wellhausen |title=Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte |date=1894 |volume=2 |location=Berlin |publisher=Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer |url=https://archive.org/details/israelitischeun00wellgoog}}
* {{cite journal |last=Whisenant |first=Jessica |title=''The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance'' by Gary N. Knoppers, Bernard M. Levinson |journal=Journal of the American Oriental Society |volume=130 |issue=4 |year=2010 |pages=679–681 |jstor=23044597 }}
* {{cite book|last1=Wright|first1=J. Edward|title=The Early History of Heaven|year=2002|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lKvMeMorNBEC&q=Mesopotamian&pg=PA42|isbn=978-0-19-534849-1}}
{{Refend}}


== External links == ==External links==
{{Wikiversity|Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis}} {{Wikiversity|Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis}}
*{{Commons category-inline}}
* full text at sacred-texts.com
* ] *]


{{Creationism topics}} {{Authority control}}


] ]

Latest revision as of 13:41, 25 November 2024

Hypothesis to explain the origins and composition of the Torah

Diagram of the 20th century documentary hypothesis:

The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of the models used by biblical scholars to explain the origins and composition of the Torah (or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German scholar Julius Wellhausen, was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th century. It posited that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four originally independent documents: the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly sources, frequently referred to by their initials. The first of these, J, was dated to the Solomonic period (c. 950 BCE). E was dated somewhat later, in the 9th century BCE, and D was dated just before the reign of King Josiah, in the 7th or 8th century BCE. Finally, P was generally dated to the time of Ezra in the 5th century BCE. The sources would have been joined at various points in time by a series of editors or "redactors".

The consensus around the classical documentary hypothesis has now collapsed. This was triggered in large part by the influential publications of John Van Seters, Hans Heinrich Schmid, and Rolf Rendtorff in the mid-1970s, who argued that J was to be dated no earlier than the time of the Babylonian captivity (597–539 BCE), and rejected the existence of a substantial E source. They also called into question the nature and extent of the three other sources. Van Seters, Schmid, and Rendtorff shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in complete agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it. As a result, there has been a revival of interest in "fragmentary" and "supplementary" models, frequently in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another. Modern scholars also have given up the classical Wellhausian dating of the sources, and generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian Achaemenid Empire (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production as late as the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE), after the conquests of Alexander the Great.

History of the documentary hypothesis

11th-century CE manuscript of the Hebrew Bible

The Torah (or Pentateuch) is collectively the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. According to tradition, they were dictated by God to Moses, but when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible, it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would expect from a single author. As a result, the Mosaic authorship of the Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century, with many modern scholars viewing it as a product of a long evolutionary process.

In the mid-18th century, some scholars started a critical study of doublets (parallel accounts of the same incidents), inconsistencies, and changes in style and vocabulary in the Torah. In 1780, Johann Eichhorn, building on the work of the French doctor and exegete Jean Astruc's "Conjectures" and others, formulated the "older documentary hypothesis": the idea that Genesis was composed by combining two identifiable sources, the Jehovist ("J"; also called the Yahwist) and the Elohist ("E"). These sources were subsequently found to run through the first four books of the Torah, and the number was later expanded to three when Wilhelm de Wette identified the Deuteronomist as an additional source found only in Deuteronomy ("D"). Later still the Elohist was split into Elohist and Priestly ("P") sources, increasing the number to four.

These documentary approaches were in competition with two other models, the fragmentary and the supplementary. The fragmentary hypothesis argued that fragments of varying lengths, rather than continuous documents, lay behind the Torah; this approach accounted for the Torah's diversity but could not account for its structural consistency, particularly regarding chronology. The supplementary hypothesis was better able to explain this unity: it maintained that the Torah was made up of a central core document, the Elohist, supplemented by fragments taken from many sources. The supplementary approach was dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853, who argued that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy. At around the same period, Karl Heinrich Graf argued that the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while Wilhelm Vatke linked the four to an evolutionary framework: the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.

Wellhausen and the new documentary hypothesis

Julius Wellhausen

In 1878, Julius Wellhausen published Geschichte Israels, Bd 1 ('History of Israel, Vol 1'). The second edition was printed as Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels ("Prolegomena to the History of Israel") in 1883, and the work is better known under that name. (The second volume, a synthetic history titled Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte , did not appear until 1894 and remains untranslated.) Crucially, this historical portrait was based upon two earlier works of his technical analysis: "Die Composition des Hexateuchs" ('The Composition of the Hexateuch') of 1876–77, and sections on the "historical books" (Judges–Kings) in his 1878 edition of Friedrich Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte Testament ('Introduction to the Old Testament').

Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis owed little to Wellhausen himself but was mainly the work of Hupfeld, Eduard Eugène Reuss, Graf, and others, who in turn had built on earlier scholarship. He accepted Hupfeld's four sources and, in agreement with Graf, placed the Priestly work last. J was the earliest document, a product of the 10th century BCE and the court of Solomon; E was from the 9th century BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel, and had been combined by a redactor (editor) with J to form a document JE; D, the third source, was a product of the 7th century BCE, by 620 BCE, during the reign of King Josiah; P (what Wellhausen first named "Q") was a product of the priest-and-temple dominated world of the 6th century BCE; and the final redaction, when P was combined with JED to produce the Torah as we now know it.

Wellhausen's explanation of the formation of the Torah was also an explanation of the religious history of Israel. The Yahwist and Elohist described a primitive, spontaneous, and personal world, in keeping with the earliest stage of Israel's history; in Deuteronomy, he saw the influence of the prophets and the development of an ethical outlook, which he felt represented the pinnacle of Jewish religion; and the Priestly source reflected the rigid, ritualistic world of the priest-dominated, post-exilic period. His work, notable for its detailed and wide-ranging scholarship and close argument, entrenched the "new documentary hypothesis" as the dominant explanation of Pentateuchal origins from the late 19th to the late 20th centuries.

Critical reassessment

Distribution of Torah sources proposed by R. E. Friedman (1997)

In the mid to late 20th century, new criticism of the documentary hypothesis formed. Three major publications of the 1970s caused scholars to reevaluate the assumptions of the documentary hypothesis: Abraham in History and Tradition by John Van Seters, Der sogenannte Jahwist ("The So-Called Yahwist") by Hans Heinrich Schmid, and Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch ("The Tradition-Historical Problem of the Pentateuch") by Rolf Rendtorff. These three authors shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it.

Van Seters and Schmid both forcefully argued that the Yahwist source could not be dated to the Solomonic period (c. 950 BCE) as posited by the documentary hypothesis. They instead dated J to the period of the Babylonian captivity (597–539 BCE), or the late monarchic period at the earliest. Van Seters also sharply criticized the idea of a substantial Elohist source, arguing that E extends at most to two short passages in Genesis.

Some scholars, following Rendtorff, have come to espouse a fragmentary hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases. By contrast, scholars such as John Van Seters advocate a supplementary hypothesis, which posits that the Torah is the result of two major additions—Yahwist and Priestly—to an existing corpus of work.

Some scholars use these newer hypotheses in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another. The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses. Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain. The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.

The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, likely completed during the Persian period (539–333 BCE). A minority of scholars would place its final compilation somewhat later, however, in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE).

A revised neo-documentary hypothesis still has adherents, especially in North America and Israel. This distinguishes sources by means of plot and continuity rather than stylistic and linguistic concerns, and does not tie them to stages in the evolution of Israel's religious history. Its resurrection of an E source is probably the element most often criticised by other scholars, as it is rarely distinguishable from the classical J source and European scholars have largely rejected it as fragmentary or non-existent.

The Torah and the history of Israel's religion

See also: History of ancient Israel and Judah and Origins of Judaism

Wellhausen used the sources of the Torah as evidence of changes in the history of Israelite religion as it moved (in his opinion) from free, simple and natural to fixed, formal and institutional. Modern scholars of Israel's religion have become much more circumspect in how they use the Old Testament, not least because many have concluded that the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable witness to the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, representing instead the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community centered in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship of the god Yahweh.

See also

Notes

  1. hence the alternative name JEDP for the documentary hypothesis
  2. The reasons behind the rejection are covered in more detail in the article on Mosaic authorship.
  3. The two-source hypothesis of Eichhorn was the "older" documentary hypothesis, and the four-source hypothesis adopted by Wellhausen was the "newer".

References

  1. ^ Viviano 1999, p. 40.
  2. ^ Gmirkin 2006, p. 4.
  3. ^ Viviano 1999, p. 41.
  4. Patzia & Petrotta 2010, p. 37.
  5. ^ Carr 2014, p. 434.
  6. Van Seters 2015, p. viii.
  7. ^ Van Seters 2015, p. 41.
  8. ^ Van Seters 2015, pp. 41–43.
  9. Carr 2014, p. 436.
  10. ^ Van Seters 2015, p. 12.
  11. Greifenhagen 2003, pp. 206–207, 224 fn.49.
  12. McDermott 2002, p. 1.
  13. Kugel 2008, p. 6.
  14. Campbell & O'Brien 1993, p. 1.
  15. ^ Berlin 1994, p. 113.
  16. Baden 2012, p. 13.
  17. Ruddick 1990, p. 246.
  18. Patrick 2013, p. 31.
  19. ^ Barton & Muddiman 2010, p. 19.
  20. Viviano 1999, pp. 38–39.
  21. ^ Viviano 1999, p. 38.
  22. Barton & Muddiman 2010, p. 18–19.
  23. Friedman 1997, p. 24–25.
  24. Wellhausen 1878.
  25. Wellhausen 1883.
  26. Kugel 2008, p. 41.
  27. Wellhausen 1894.
  28. Barton & Muddiman 2010, p. 20.
  29. Viviano 1999, p. 40–41.
  30. ^ Gaines 2015, p. 260.
  31. Viviano 1999, p. 51.
  32. Van Seters 2015, p. 42.
  33. Viviano 1999, p. 49.
  34. Thompson 2000, p. 8.
  35. Ska 2014, pp. 133–135.
  36. Van Seters 2015, p. 77.
  37. Otto 2014, p. 605.
  38. Carr 2014, p. 457.
  39. Otto 2014, p. 609.
  40. Greifenhagen 2003, pp. 206–207.
  41. Whisenant 2010, p. 679, "Instead of a compilation of discrete sources collected and combined by a final redactor, the Pentateuch is seen as a sophisticated scribal composition in which diverse earlier traditions have been shaped into a coherent narrative presenting a creation-to-wilderness story of origins for the entity 'Israel.'"
  42. Greifenhagen 2003, pp. 206–207, 224 n. 49.
  43. ^ Gaines 2015, p. 271.
  44. Gaines 2015, p. 272.
  45. Miller 2000, p. 182.
  46. Lupovitch, Howard N. (2010). "The world of the Hebrew Bible". Jews and Judaism in World History. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 5–10. ISBN 978-0-203-86197-4.
  47. Stackert 2014, p. 24.
  48. Wright 2002, p. 52.

Bibliography

External links

Categories: