the documentary hypothesis: its history and present status apologetics seminar houston, tx...

The Documentary Hypothesis: The Documentary Hypothesis:

Its History and Present StatusIts History and Present Status

Apologetics SeminarApologetics SeminarHouston, TX Houston, TX 06/12/200906/12/2009Glenn GilesGlenn Giles

DefinitionDefinition

Documentary Hypothesis (DH): Documentary Hypothesis (DH):

It is a Source Critical hypothesis theorizing that It is a Source Critical hypothesis theorizing that

the first five books of the Old Testament were the first five books of the Old Testament were composed via the use of several written composed via the use of several written sources, usually described as sources J, E, D, sources, usually described as sources J, E, D, and P. It normally denies Mosaic authorship and P. It normally denies Mosaic authorship and attaches a much later date to these and attaches a much later date to these sources and the final Pentateuchal form than sources and the final Pentateuchal form than has been traditionally held before the has been traditionally held before the Enlightenment era.Enlightenment era.

Competing Pentateuchal Competing Pentateuchal World ViewsWorld Views

1. Traditional Conservative View1. Traditional Conservative Viewa. Moses is the author of the Pentateucha. Moses is the author of the Pentateuchb. It was written ca. 1400 BCb. It was written ca. 1400 BCc. It is inspired by Godc. It is inspired by God

2. Radical Documentarian View2. Radical Documentarian Viewa. Moses is not the authora. Moses is not the authorb. It was written much later than Moses’ timeb. It was written much later than Moses’ timec. It is a composite of many documents and c. It is a composite of many documents and

authors and a result of literary evolutionauthors and a result of literary evolutiond. It is not inspired by God. God is not assumed d. It is not inspired by God. God is not assumed to to existexist

The Birth and History of DHThe Birth and History of DH

A. The Historical Critical Approach to Biblical Studies is A. The Historical Critical Approach to Biblical Studies is a product of the Enlightenmenta product of the Enlightenment

1. Interpretation was based on human reason and a 1. Interpretation was based on human reason and a naturalistic worldview. naturalistic worldview.

2. The Bible is not considered God’s special revelation 2. The Bible is not considered God’s special revelation but written by mere human beings. Everything is to but written by mere human beings. Everything is to be explained naturally. The supernatural is locked be explained naturally. The supernatural is locked out of interpretation. The Bible is only a human out of interpretation. The Bible is only a human book and is to be interpreted from a naturalistic and book and is to be interpreted from a naturalistic and eventually (in the 19eventually (in the 19thth century) an evolutionary century) an evolutionary

perspective. perspective.

The Birth and History of DHThe Birth and History of DH

B. Important Personages In Its HistoryB. Important Personages In Its History1. Benedict Spinoza (1670), a Spanish pantheistic 1. Benedict Spinoza (1670), a Spanish pantheistic Jewish Jewish

scholar, claimed the Pentateuch not written byscholar, claimed the Pentateuch not written byMoses because:Moses because:(1) in passages he is spoken of in third (1) in passages he is spoken of in third

person rather than first person (he person rather than first person (he rather than I)rather than I)

(2) Moses could not have written of his own (2) Moses could not have written of his own death in Deut. 34 death in Deut. 34

““Spinoza therefore proposed Ezra as the final Spinoza therefore proposed Ezra as the final composer of the Torah” composer of the Torah” (Gleason Archer, Jr., (Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of the Old Testament A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Introduction (Chicago:

Moody, 1980), 81)Moody, 1980), 81)

Birth of DHBirth of DH

2. 2. Jean Astruc,Jean Astruc, a French physician, (1753): a French physician, (1753):

a. Noticed that two different words for God were a. Noticed that two different words for God were

used in Gen. 1 and 2, (Elohim and Yahweh)used in Gen. 1 and 2, (Elohim and Yahweh)

b. He then proposed two separate authors b. He then proposed two separate authors

for the two chapters with Moses putting for the two chapters with Moses putting

them together as Gen. 1 and 2them together as Gen. 1 and 2

c. This became the primary assumption upon c. This became the primary assumption upon

which DH was built.which DH was built.

The Birth of DHThe Birth of DH

3. 3. Johann Gottfried EichhornJohann Gottfried Eichhorn (1780-83) (1780-83)a. Used the “Elohim/Yahweh” criterion to a. Used the “Elohim/Yahweh” criterion to divide divide

up all of Genesis and Exodus up to the up all of Genesis and Exodus up to the account of the burning bush into the account of the burning bush into the JJ

or or Jawist (Yahweh) and the Jawist (Yahweh) and the EE or Elohist or Elohist (Elohim) accounts. The J-E division of (Elohim) accounts. The J-E division of

the the Pentateuch began.Pentateuch began.b. Concluded that the Pentateuch was b. Concluded that the Pentateuch was

much later than Moses and he could much later than Moses and he could not be the author.not be the author.


4. 4. Alexander GeddesAlexander Geddes, a Scottish Roman , a Scottish Roman Catholic priest, set forth his “fragmentary Catholic priest, set forth his “fragmentary theory” in 1792 in which he proposed that theory” in 1792 in which he proposed that the Pentateuch was copied from the Pentateuch was copied from many many fragmentsfragments

5.5. Johann S. Vater Johann S. Vater, a supporter of the , a supporter of the fragmentary theory, in 1802 proposed that fragmentary theory, in 1802 proposed that Genesis was composed from at least 39 Genesis was composed from at least 39 different fragments which he dated from different fragments which he dated from Moses’ time up to 586 B.C. Moses’ time up to 586 B.C.


6. 6. Wilhelm M. L. De WetteWilhelm M. L. De Wette (1805-06) (1805-06) a. Put forth the idea that Deuteronomy was the a. Put forth the idea that Deuteronomy was the

law book found by Hilkiah in law book found by Hilkiah in the Temple the Temple in II in II

Kings 22 around 621 BC Kings 22 around 621 BC b. This became document D (Deuteronomist)b. This became document D (Deuteronomist)c. None of Pent. was to be dated earlier c. None of Pent. was to be dated earlier

than Davidthan Davidd. Pent. Books=compiled by Redactors from d. Pent. Books=compiled by Redactors from

independent fragmentary sources.independent fragmentary sources.

Birth and History of DHBirth and History of DH

7. Friederich Bleek (1822), Heinrich Ewald 7. Friederich Bleek (1822), Heinrich Ewald (1823), and Franz Delitzsch (1852)(1823), and Franz Delitzsch (1852) a. proposed the “supplementary theory” a. proposed the “supplementary theory”

of the origin of the Pentateuch in which of the origin of the Pentateuch in which there was “one basic document or body there was “one basic document or body

of of tradition (E) which underlay all the rest tradition (E) which underlay all the rest and and which dated from about 1050-950 BC” which dated from about 1050-950 BC” (Archer, 83)(Archer, 83) b. later additions were made by the J authorb. later additions were made by the J authorc. laws attributed to Moses by the text were c. laws attributed to Moses by the text were

genuinely his. The rest were codified by genuinely his. The rest were codified by priests after the conquest of Canaan priests after the conquest of Canaan


8. Hermann Hupfeld (1853): The 4 document theory8. Hermann Hupfeld (1853): The 4 document theorya. Re-examined the E document and proposed that a. Re-examined the E document and proposed that

there were two documents (E1 and E2)there were two documents (E1 and E2)b. E2 was composed of “considerable portions of the b. E2 was composed of “considerable portions of the

Elohist which greatly resembled J in style Elohist which greatly resembled J in style vocabulary, and type of subject matter” vocabulary, and type of subject matter” (Archer, 85) (Archer, 85)

c. E2 was mainly distinguished from J only by the c. E2 was mainly distinguished from J only by the term “Elohim.” This undermines “the soundness term “Elohim.” This undermines “the soundness

of of using the two names as a criterion for source using the two names as a criterion for source division.” division.” (Archer, 84).(Archer, 84). E2 became simply E. E2 became simply E.

d. E1 later became document P (Priestly)d. E1 later became document P (Priestly)e. The sources dated PEJD in that dating order.e. The sources dated PEJD in that dating order.


9. 9. Karl Heinrich Graf (1866)Karl Heinrich Graf (1866) a. P contained legal material so proposed a. P contained legal material so proposed

““legal-P” document. legal-P” document. b. “legal-P” was later than Db. “legal-P” was later than Dc. Historical P was very early so had order c. Historical P was very early so had order

of documents as P,E,J,D, legal-Pof documents as P,E,J,D, legal-Pd. E supplemented by J, E-J put together d. E supplemented by J, E-J put together

by the author of D in Josiah’s day.by the author of D in Josiah’s day.

The History and Birth of DHThe History and Birth of DH

10. 10. Abraham Kuenen (1869)Abraham Kuenen (1869) a. argued for a unified P document which a. argued for a unified P document which

should not be splitshould not be splitb. argued that the entire P document had b. argued that the entire P document had

to be of late origin. to be of late origin. c. now the order changed from P-E-J-D-c. now the order changed from P-E-J-D-legalPlegalP

to J-E-D-P. P went from the earliest to to J-E-D-P. P went from the earliest to the the latest in dating.latest in dating.

The History and Birth of DHThe History and Birth of DH

11. Julius Wellhausen (1878).11. Julius Wellhausen (1878). a. contributed basically nothing new a. contributed basically nothing new b. restated the four source theory with “great b. restated the four source theory with “great skill and skill and persuasiveness, supporting the JEDP persuasiveness, supporting the JEDP sequence sequence upon an evolutionary basis” fitted upon an evolutionary basis” fitted into Hegelian into Hegelian dialecticism and the supposed dialecticism and the supposed evolutionary evolutionary development of development of polytheism to monotheism in the polytheism to monotheism in the

Jewish religion Jewish religion (Archer, 87)(Archer, 87)

c. Became “Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis” or c. Became “Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis” or “ “The Documentary Hypothesis” The Documentary Hypothesis”

d. Classic statement is found in his d. Classic statement is found in his Prolegomena to the Prolegomena to the

History of Ancient Israel History of Ancient Israel (New York: The World Publishing Co, 1957).(New York: The World Publishing Co, 1957).

Wellhausenian E/P and J Division Wellhausenian E/P and J Division Based on Divine Names’ First UseBased on Divine Names’ First Use

An alleged contradiction between Gen. 4:26 and Ex. An alleged contradiction between Gen. 4:26 and Ex. 6:2-3 gave impetus to the assertion that E/P and J 6:2-3 gave impetus to the assertion that E/P and J were separate documents.were separate documents.

Ex. 6:2-3: “God also said to Moses, “I am YHWH. I Ex. 6:2-3: “God also said to Moses, “I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name YHWH I did not make Almighty, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them.” This is P. Cf., Ex. 3:15, myself known to them.” This is P. Cf., Ex. 3:15, considered E.considered E.

Yet Gen. 4:26 states, “At that time men began to call Yet Gen. 4:26 states, “At that time men began to call on the name of YHWH.” So this is J as P/E does not on the name of YHWH.” So this is J as P/E does not present men as having known YHWH yet.present men as having known YHWH yet.

--The conclusion is then drawn that “different sources --The conclusion is then drawn that “different sources have a different idea of when the name YHWH was have a different idea of when the name YHWH was first revealed to humans” first revealed to humans” (Friedman, (Friedman, The BibleThe Bible, 10, See also Wellhausen, , 10, See also Wellhausen, Prolegomena, Prolegomena, 338-339).338-339).

--A solution can be found in the term “to know” (YADA’)--A solution can be found in the term “to know” (YADA’)

The Documentary HypothesisThe Documentary Hypothesis

The J Document:The J Document:

a. written about 850 BC by an unknown a. written about 850 BC by an unknown

writer in the Southern Kingdom of writer in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.Judah.

b. uses “Yahweh” for Godb. uses “Yahweh” for God

d. often refers to God anthropomorphicallyd. often refers to God anthropomorphically

c. makes up about ½ of Genesis, the first c. makes up about ½ of Genesis, the first half of half of

Exodus, and some parts of NumbersExodus, and some parts of Numbers


The E DocumentThe E Documenta. written about 750 BC by an unknown writer in a. written about 750 BC by an unknown writer in the the

Northern Kingdom of Israel.Northern Kingdom of Israel.b. dwells on “concrete particulars,” is interested in b. dwells on “concrete particulars,” is interested in ritual, ritual,

worship, God communicates through dreams worship, God communicates through dreams rather than walking and talking with rather than walking and talking with

man man (Archer, 89).(Archer, 89).

c. uses “Elohim” for God up to Ex. 3:15.c. uses “Elohim” for God up to Ex. 3:15.d. makes up about a third of Genesis, half of d. makes up about a third of Genesis, half of Exodus, Exodus,

and some portions of Numbers and some portions of Numbers


The J-E CombinationThe J-E Combination

a.a. written about 650 BC by an written about 650 BC by an unknown unknown

redactor redactor

b. This Redactor “combined J and E b. This Redactor “combined J and E into a into a

single document”, J-E single document”, J-E (Archer, 89).(Archer, 89).


The D DocumentThe D Documenta. “composed, possibly under the direction a. “composed, possibly under the direction

of the high priest Hilkiah, as an official of the high priest Hilkiah, as an official program for the party of reform sponsored program for the party of reform sponsored by King Josiah in the revival of 621 BC.” It by King Josiah in the revival of 621 BC.” It was done to force people to stop worshiping was done to force people to stop worshiping in High places and worship only in in High places and worship only in

Jerusalem Jerusalem (Archer, 89).(Archer, 89). b. contains almost all of Deuteronomy (and b. contains almost all of Deuteronomy (and

also Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). also Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). c. uses Yahweh for God.c. uses Yahweh for God.


The P DocumentThe P Documenta. “composed in various stages, all the way from a. “composed in various stages, all the way from

Ezekiel, with his holiness code (Lev. 17-26) Ezekiel, with his holiness code (Lev. 17-26) ca. 570 . ca. 570 .

. . to Ezra.” . . to Ezra.” b. “P is concerned with a systematic account of b. “P is concerned with a systematic account of

the origins and institutions of the Israelite the origins and institutions of the Israelite theocracy. It shows a particular interest in theocracy. It shows a particular interest in origins, in genealogical lists, and details of origins, in genealogical lists, and details of sacrifice and ritual” sacrifice and ritual” (Archer, 89).(Archer, 89).

c. makes up a fifth of Genesis, large portions of c. makes up a fifth of Genesis, large portions of Exodus and Numbers, and nearly all of Leviticus.Exodus and Numbers, and nearly all of Leviticus.d. uses “Elohim” for God up to Exodus 6:2-3.d. uses “Elohim” for God up to Exodus 6:2-3.

How Was the Pentateuch Formed?How Was the Pentateuch Formed?

Dr. Ronald Troxel, Univ. of Wis., Madison: http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Intro/

The DH Scheme:The DH Scheme:

from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html

Some Main Criteria for Some Main Criteria for Source DivisionSource Division

I. The use of two different names for God I. The use of two different names for God (Elohim (Elohim myhla myhla and Yahweh and Yahweh hwhyhwhy) in different ) in different passages. passages.

-For example: 1:1-2:3 uses Elohim while -For example: 1:1-2:3 uses Elohim while Yahweh is used in Gen. 2:4-4:24.Yahweh is used in Gen. 2:4-4:24.

-It is compound (“Yahweh Elohim,” LORD God) -It is compound (“Yahweh Elohim,” LORD God) in Gen. 2-4 but only Yahweh in Gen. 4.in Gen. 2-4 but only Yahweh in Gen. 4.

-Why the different usages? Could it be -Why the different usages? Could it be explained by positing different explained by positing different sources/writers? Yes, says the Source DH sources/writers? Yes, says the Source DH Theorist.Theorist.

Some Main Criteria for Some Main Criteria for Source DivisionSource Division

II. Doublets seemingly repeating the same story, e.g.,II. Doublets seemingly repeating the same story, e.g.,

a. two different stories of creationa. two different stories of creationb. two converged stories of the floodb. two converged stories of the floodc. two stories of the covenant between God and Abrahamc. two stories of the covenant between God and Abrahamd. two stories of Abraham claiming Sarah is his sisterd. two stories of Abraham claiming Sarah is his sistere. two stories of Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamiae. two stories of Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamiaf. two stories of God changing Jacob's name to Israelf. two stories of God changing Jacob's name to Israelg. two stories of Moses getting water from a rock at a place g. two stories of Moses getting water from a rock at a place called called

Meribah Meribah (From (From http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc4/source.htmhttp://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc4/source.htm).).

Source Critic query:Source Critic query:-Could these stories have each been originally only one story -Could these stories have each been originally only one story which were modified or merged to create the narrative in the which were modified or merged to create the narrative in the Pentateuch? Yes, says the Source DH Theorist.Pentateuch? Yes, says the Source DH Theorist.

Some Main Criteria forSome Main Criteria forSource DivisionSource Division

3. Language and Style differences. 3. Language and Style differences.

-Why the differences in language and -Why the differences in language and style style

observed at different portions of observed at different portions of the the

Pentateuch? Does this point to Pentateuch? Does this point to

different authors and sources?different authors and sources?

-Yes, says the Source DH Critic-Yes, says the Source DH Critic

The Documentary Hypothesis In The Documentary Hypothesis In Trouble After WellhausenTrouble After Wellhausen

A. Criteria IssuesA. Criteria Issues1. Problems with Elohim and Yahweh used 1. Problems with Elohim and Yahweh used

as a criterion for source division:as a criterion for source division:Umberto Cassuto (Hebrew, 1941; English Umberto Cassuto (Hebrew, 1941; English translation, 1961) in translation, 1961) in The Documentary The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight LecturesPentateuch: Eight Lectures (Jerusalem: The (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961) publishes lectures Magnes Press, 1961) publishes lectures that should devastate the Documentary that should devastate the Documentary Hypothesis critiquing the major DH criteria Hypothesis critiquing the major DH criteria for source division, but it is not taken for source division, but it is not taken seriously by many at the time.seriously by many at the time.

DH in TroubleDH in Trouble

-E.g., Cassuto studied the use of the two -E.g., Cassuto studied the use of the two names of God (Elohim and Yahweh) and names of God (Elohim and Yahweh) and noted the following:noted the following:a. These names are not of the same type:a. These names are not of the same type:

““Elohim” is an “appellative, that was Elohim” is an “appellative, that was applied applied both to the One God of Israel and both to the One God of Israel and to the to the heathen gods . . .” and “YHWH is heathen gods . . .” and “YHWH is a proper a proper noun, the specific name of Israel’s noun, the specific name of Israel’s God, the God, the God whom the Israelites God whom the Israelites acknowledged as acknowledged as the Sovereign of the the Sovereign of the universe and as the universe and as the Divinity who chose Divinity who chose them as His people” them as His people” (18).(18).


b. When studied out, Cassuto was able to determine 7 b. When studied out, Cassuto was able to determine 7 rules with regard to the use of the two names. For rules with regard to the use of the two names. For instance note the following rule:instance note the following rule:

(1). “It selected the name YHWH when the text (1). “It selected the name YHWH when the text reflects the Israelite conception of God, which is reflects the Israelite conception of God, which is embodied in the portrayal of YHWH and finds embodied in the portrayal of YHWH and finds expression in the attributes traditionally ascribed to expression in the attributes traditionally ascribed to Him by Israel, particularly in His ethical character” Him by Israel, particularly in His ethical character” (31).(31).

““It preferred the name Elohim when the passage It preferred the name Elohim when the passage implies the abstract idea of the Deity prevalent in implies the abstract idea of the Deity prevalent in the international circles of ‘wise men’ –God the international circles of ‘wise men’ –God conceived as the Creator of the physical universe, conceived as the Creator of the physical universe, as the Ruler of nature, as the Source of life” (31)as the Ruler of nature, as the Source of life” (31)


(2). Another rule is:(2). Another rule is:

““The name YHWH is employed when God is The name YHWH is employed when God is presented to us in His personal character and presented to us in His personal character and in direct relationship to the people or nature” in direct relationship to the people or nature” (31). This is his personal covenantal character.(31). This is his personal covenantal character.

““Elohim, when the Deity is alluded to as the Elohim, when the Deity is alluded to as the

Transcendental Being who exists completely Transcendental Being who exists completely outside and above the physical universe” (31)outside and above the physical universe” (31)

This is his Almighty and otherly character.This is his Almighty and otherly character.


c. When applied to Gen. 1 and 2, it perfectly explains c. When applied to Gen. 1 and 2, it perfectly explains the different usages of the two terms in these the different usages of the two terms in these passages without a need to posit two different passages without a need to posit two different authors/sources.authors/sources.

--Genesis 1 is the story of Creation and Lord of the --Genesis 1 is the story of Creation and Lord of the Universe which would, according to the rules above, Universe which would, according to the rules above, require the term “Elohim.” Indeed “Elohim” is the require the term “Elohim.” Indeed “Elohim” is the word used in that passage. word used in that passage.

--With respect to Genesis 2-3, “God is portrayed as --With respect to Genesis 2-3, “God is portrayed as the moral Ruler, for He imposes a certain injunction the moral Ruler, for He imposes a certain injunction on man, symbolic of the ritual precepts that are on man, symbolic of the ritual precepts that are subsequently to be given to Israel, and he requires subsequently to be given to Israel, and he requires an accounting from him for his actions” an accounting from him for his actions” (13). (13). This is This is appropriate here as it is dealing with God’s personal appropriate here as it is dealing with God’s personal relationship with people.relationship with people.


d. In his article, “El, Elohim, and the YHWH in d. In his article, “El, Elohim, and the YHWH in the Bible” (the Bible” (Jewish Quarterly ReviewJewish Quarterly Review 46 46 (1955/56), 89-115), M. H. Segal shows (1955/56), 89-115), M. H. Segal shows

--The use of these names in the narrative --The use of these names in the narrative prose of the historical books “has proved prose of the historical books “has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that, contrary beyond a shadow of a doubt that, contrary to the assertion of the Documentary Theory, to the assertion of the Documentary Theory, the change of names is not caused by a the change of names is not caused by a change of a literary source or document” change of a literary source or document” (112).(112).

--It is part of the “living speech of the day” --It is part of the “living speech of the day” and “the fondness of the Hebrew writers for and “the fondness of the Hebrew writers for the use of a picturesque variety of the use of a picturesque variety of expression” expression” (115).(115).


With respect to the use of Elohim and Yahweh: With respect to the use of Elohim and Yahweh: Cassuto concludes:Cassuto concludes:

““There is no reason, therefore, to feel surprise There is no reason, therefore, to feel surprise that the use of these Names varies in the Torah. that the use of these Names varies in the Torah. On the contrary, we should be surprised if they On the contrary, we should be surprised if they were not changed about . . . every Hebrew were not changed about . . . every Hebrew author was compelled to write thus and to use author was compelled to write thus and to use the two Names in this manner, because of their the two Names in this manner, because of their primary signification, the general literary tradition primary signification, the general literary tradition of the ancient East, and the rules governing the of the ancient East, and the rules governing the use of the Divine Names throughout the entire use of the Divine Names throughout the entire range of Hebrew literature.” range of Hebrew literature.” (Cassuto, 41).(Cassuto, 41).

DH in TroubleDH in Trouble2. Problems with the doublet issue as a criterion for source 2. Problems with the doublet issue as a criterion for source

division: E.g., the Flood Doublet composed of J and P. division: E.g., the Flood Doublet composed of J and P. -Assumptions:-Assumptions:

a. The terms “two of every species” (p) is incompatible a. The terms “two of every species” (p) is incompatible with “seven of every clean species” (J) to be taken with “seven of every clean species” (J) to be taken into the ark.into the ark.

b. There is an assumed discrepancy in the number of days the b. There is an assumed discrepancy in the number of days the flood flood lasted: lasted:

J=40 days, see Gen. 7:12, 17; 8:6; J=40 days, see Gen. 7:12, 17; 8:6; P=150 days, see Gen. 7:24P=150 days, see Gen. 7:24

c. He sends out a dove (J) and a raven (P). Surely he did not do c. He sends out a dove (J) and a raven (P). Surely he did not do both, did he?both, did he?

These are all indicators of different sources according to Source These are all indicators of different sources according to Source CriticsCritics


Sample: Gen. 8:2-9, what it looks like: J=normal type, Sample: Gen. 8:2-9, what it looks like: J=normal type, P is P is bold italic typebold italic type

And the fountains of the deep and the apertures of And the fountains of the deep and the apertures of the skies were shut, the skies were shut, And rain was restrained from the And rain was restrained from the skies. And the waters went back from on the earth, going skies. And the waters went back from on the earth, going back continually,back continually, and the water receded at the end of and the water receded at the end of a hundred fifty days. And the ark rested in the a hundred fifty days. And the ark rested in the seventh month, in the seventeenth day of the seventh month, in the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the water month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the water went on receding until the tenth month. In the tenth went on receding until the tenth month. In the tenth month, in the first of the month, the tops of the month, in the first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. mountains appeared. And it was at the end of forty days, And it was at the end of forty days, and Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made. and Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made. And he let a raven go, and it went back and forth And he let a raven go, and it went back and forth until the water dried up from the earth. until the water dried up from the earth. And he let a And he let a dove go from him to see whether the waters had eased dove go from him to see whether the waters had eased from the face of the earth. from the face of the earth.


--It is assumed that doublets were pieced together --It is assumed that doublets were pieced together by a redactor and this is the cause of the by a redactor and this is the cause of the perceived “inconsistencies.” perceived “inconsistencies.”

--But is this a valid assumption? There seems to be --But is this a valid assumption? There seems to be no reason why there has to be a piecing together no reason why there has to be a piecing together of different documents here. of different documents here.

--In addition, Whybray states about DH, --In addition, Whybray states about DH, “ “. . . the hypothesis can only be maintained on . . . the hypothesis can only be maintained on the assumption that, while consistency was the the assumption that, while consistency was the hallmark of the various documents, inconsistency hallmark of the various documents, inconsistency was the hallmark of the redactors” was the hallmark of the redactors” (Quoted by Gordon Wenham, “Pondering (Quoted by Gordon Wenham, “Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm” in the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary ApproachesThe Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches , David W. Baker and , David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold, eds., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 130).Bill T. Arnold, eds., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 130).

Can this assumption truly be maintained? How do Can this assumption truly be maintained? How do you know? It seems to beg the question.you know? It seems to beg the question.


3. The Issue of Language and Style 3. The Issue of Language and Style DifferencesDifferencesa. It is not disputed that there are style a. It is not disputed that there are style

differences found in the documents as differences found in the documents as separated by the Documentariansseparated by the Documentarians

b. However, are the style and language b. However, are the style and language differences due to different authors or differences due to different authors or something else?something else?

c. Cassuto determined that “change in style c. Cassuto determined that “change in style depends on change of subject-matter, depends on change of subject-matter,

not on not on differences of sources” differences of sources” (54, see his discussion of this on (54, see his discussion of this on

pages 42-54).pages 42-54).


d. Possible circular reasoning:d. Possible circular reasoning:““the supposed consistency of criteria over a large the supposed consistency of criteria over a large body of writing is contrived and deceptive body of writing is contrived and deceptive (especially on vocabulary, for example), and will (especially on vocabulary, for example), and will hold for “style” only if one in the first place picks hold for “style” only if one in the first place picks out everything of a particular kind, then proclaims out everything of a particular kind, then proclaims it as all belonging to one document separate from it as all belonging to one document separate from the rest, and finally appeals to its remarkable the rest, and finally appeals to its remarkable consistency—a consistency obtained by consistency—a consistency obtained by deliberate selection in the first place, and hence deliberate selection in the first place, and hence attained by circular reasoning. ‘P’ owes its attained by circular reasoning. ‘P’ owes its existence mainly to this kind of procedure, and existence mainly to this kind of procedure, and was not even recognized to have existed for one was not even recognized to have existed for one hundred years from Astruc in 1753 until Hupfeld hundred years from Astruc in 1753 until Hupfeld in 1853” in 1853” (Kenneth Kitchen, quoted in Josh McDowell, (Kenneth Kitchen, quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (Nashville: Thomas (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 520).Nelson, 1999), 520).


e. Studies on style and vocabulary result in widely e. Studies on style and vocabulary result in widely varying conclusions: Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. varying conclusions: Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien for instance conducted a vocabulary analysis O’Brien for instance conducted a vocabulary analysis of Genesis 1-11 and found that of Genesis 1-11 and found that

““while it is while it is not impossible not impossible that Genesis One, Gen that Genesis One, Gen 5:1-2, 5:1-2, and the P flood text were written by the and the P flood text were written by the same same person or group, given the extent of the person or group, given the extent of the differences differences between them, such unity of authorship between them, such unity of authorship must be must be considered considered highly unlikelyhighly unlikely”. ”. Rethinking the Rethinking the Pentateuch,Pentateuch, 115. 115.

--They conclude that there is “No P Text in Genesis 1-11”--They conclude that there is “No P Text in Genesis 1-11”--This would seem to be a major blow to the concept of P --This would seem to be a major blow to the concept of P

found in Genesis 1, 5, and 6-8 based on vocabulary found in Genesis 1, 5, and 6-8 based on vocabulary usage. usage. ((Rethinking the PentateuchRethinking the Pentateuch: : Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005)11-15, 105-115)Israel (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2005)11-15, 105-115)


f. DH Scholars cannot agree on the f. DH Scholars cannot agree on the specifics of the documental divisions. specifics of the documental divisions.

--For example: One website (--For example: One website (http://www.threejews.net/2008/07/dohttp://www.threejews.net/2008/07/documentary-hypothesis-in-detail.htmlcumentary-hypothesis-in-detail.html) has listed over 100 discrepancies ) has listed over 100 discrepancies between S. R. Driver’s and Richard between S. R. Driver’s and Richard Friedman’s division of the text.Friedman’s division of the text.(Information was gleaned from Richard Friedman ((Information was gleaned from Richard Friedman (The Bible with Sources Revealed The Bible with Sources Revealed (New York: (New York: HarperCollins, 2003)HarperCollins, 2003) and S. R. Driver (and S. R. Driver (Introduction to the Literature of the Old TestamentIntroduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,, 1913))1913))


B. Consensus by 1970 despite B. Consensus by 1970 despite challenges:challenges:

--Gordon Wenham states that even though --Gordon Wenham states that even though there were many substantive challenges to there were many substantive challenges to the Documentary Hypothesis in the early the Documentary Hypothesis in the early 20th century “by 1970 these had been 20th century “by 1970 these had been forgotten, and everyone who wanted to be forgotten, and everyone who wanted to be thought a serious Old Testament scholar thought a serious Old Testament scholar had to believe in J, E, D, and P and in the had to believe in J, E, D, and P and in the dates assigned to them by the consensus” dates assigned to them by the consensus” (“Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm” in (“Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of

Contemporary ApproachesContemporary Approaches, David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold, eds., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 116., David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold, eds., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 116.

DH in TurmoilDH in Turmoil

C. Crumbling of Consensus after C. Crumbling of Consensus after 19701970

1. Gleason Archer states 1. Gleason Archer states (1974/1980):(1974/1980):

““For the most part . . . the trend For the most part . . . the trend of the of the twentieth-century scholarship twentieth-century scholarship has been has been toward the repudiation of toward the repudiation of the Graf-the Graf-Wellhausen theory, whether Wellhausen theory, whether in whole in whole or in part” or in part” (Archer, 91-92)(Archer, 91-92)

Genesis can be seen as a UnityGenesis can be seen as a Unity

2. 1985: Issac M. Kikawada and 2. 1985: Issac M. Kikawada and Arthur Quinn, argue for the unity Arthur Quinn, argue for the unity of Genesis 1-11of Genesis 1-11 over a literary over a literary patchwork of different authors by patchwork of different authors by comparing it with ancient Near comparing it with ancient Near Eastern primeval histories, especially Eastern primeval histories, especially the Atrahasis epic (structure: the Atrahasis epic (structure: Creation, First Threat, Second Threat, Creation, First Threat, Second Threat, Third Threat, Resolution) and other Third Threat, Resolution) and other ancient primeval histories ancient primeval histories ((Before Abraham Was: The Before Abraham Was: The

Unity of Genesis 1-11Unity of Genesis 1-11 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985, see especially pp. 36-53). (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985, see especially pp. 36-53).

DH not PlausibleDH not Plausible

3. 1987: Roger Norman Whybray in 3. 1987: Roger Norman Whybray in The The Making of the PentateuchMaking of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) argues that the Documentary Press, 1987) argues that the Documentary Hypothesis is not plausible.Hypothesis is not plausible. Wenham states Wenham states that Whybray that Whybray (1) considers “most of their hypotheses at best (1) considers “most of their hypotheses at best unverifiable and at worst illogical speculation” as unverifiable and at worst illogical speculation” as well as self-contradictory well as self-contradictory (Wenham, (Wenham, The Face of Old Testament StudiesThe Face of Old Testament Studies, 132), 132) (2) “the phenomena of repetition and stylistic (2) “the phenomena of repetition and stylistic variation found in the Pentateuch, which the variation found in the Pentateuch, which the documentary hypothesis is alleged to explain, documentary hypothesis is alleged to explain, may be understood quite differently, as they may be understood quite differently, as they usually are in other literatures” usually are in other literatures” (Wenham, (Wenham, The Face of Old Testament StudiesThe Face of Old Testament Studies, 130)., 130).

DH in FermentDH in Ferment

4. By the end of the 204. By the end of the 20stst century century Gordon Gordon Wenham writes:Wenham writes:

““On the face of it, On the face of it, the study of the the study of the Pentateuch is in fermentPentateuch is in ferment . . . The . . . The debate between different points of view is debate between different points of view is lively and sometimes heated. As yet, no lively and sometimes heated. As yet, no new consensus has emerged about the new consensus has emerged about the composition of the Pentateuch.” composition of the Pentateuch.” (“Pentateuchal Studies Today,” (“Pentateuchal Studies Today,” ThemeliosThemelios 22 (1996): 3, 12).22 (1996): 3, 12).

DH: A Fix is NeededDH: A Fix is Needed

5. 2005: Antony F. Campbell and 5. 2005: Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brian stateMark A. O’Brian state that the that the Documentary Hypothesis is “no Documentary Hypothesis is “no longer solving” the problems longer solving” the problems encountered in the Pentateuch and encountered in the Pentateuch and “a fix is needed”“a fix is needed” ((Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of

Ancient IsraelAncient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 1. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 1.

Critical Scholar’s Continued Stance Critical Scholar’s Continued Stance

From a From a criticalcritical scholars’ standpoint, however, the scholars’ standpoint, however, the following is true:following is true:““Contemporary critical scholars disagree with Contemporary critical scholars disagree with Wellhausen and with one another on details and Wellhausen and with one another on details and on whether D or P was added last. But they agree on whether D or P was added last. But they agree that the general approach of the Documentary that the general approach of the Documentary Hypothesis best explains the doublets, Hypothesis best explains the doublets, contradictions, differences in terminology and contradictions, differences in terminology and theology, and the geographical and historical theology, and the geographical and historical interests that we find in various parts of the interests that we find in various parts of the Torah.” (Torah.” (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.htmlhttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html). ).

The Great “Never-the-Less”The Great “Never-the-Less”


DH: DH: No Shred of Objective Evidence No Shred of Objective Evidence

--With respect to the whole of the --With respect to the whole of the Documentary Hypothesis, there is not one Documentary Hypothesis, there is not one shred of external objective evidence that shred of external objective evidence that has ever been found to support the has ever been found to support the theory. That is, there has not been any theory. That is, there has not been any “document” or part of one found which “document” or part of one found which are hypothesized with the original are hypothesized with the original Wellhausenian J E D P theory or any of its Wellhausenian J E D P theory or any of its modern variants. The theory is based modern variants. The theory is based solely on internal hypothetical markers solely on internal hypothetical markers and presuppositions.and presuppositions.

Evidence For Mosaic AuthorshipEvidence For Mosaic Authorship

A. Gleason Archer states that the A. Gleason Archer states that the argument against Mosaic authorship argument against Mosaic authorship from the use of the third person is from the use of the third person is “very weak” since many ancient “very weak” since many ancient authors, “such as Xenophon and authors, “such as Xenophon and Julius Caesar, referred to themselves Julius Caesar, referred to themselves in their own historical narratives in in their own historical narratives in the third person exclusively.” the third person exclusively.” (Archer, 81, note 1)(Archer, 81, note 1)

Evidence For Mosaic AuthorshipEvidence For Mosaic Authorship

B. Scriptural Evidence, a sampleB. Scriptural Evidence, a sample 1. Ex. 24:4, 7: “Moses then wrote down 1. Ex. 24:4, 7: “Moses then wrote down

everything the LORD had said . . . Then he everything the LORD had said . . . Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people” to the people”

2. Deut. 31:9, 11: “So Moses wrote down 2. Deut. 31:9, 11: “So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel . . . When all Israel comes to of Israel . . . When all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing.”law before them in their hearing.”

Evidence for Mosaic AuthorshipEvidence for Mosaic Authorship

3. Josh. 1:7, 8: “Be careful to obey all the law 3. Josh. 1:7, 8: “Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you . . . Do not let my servant Moses gave you . . . Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything that you may be careful to do everything written in it.” written in it.”

4. Josh. 8:31: “He built it according to what is 4. Josh. 8:31: “He built it according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses—written in the Book of the Law of Moses—an altar of uncut stones, on which no iron an altar of uncut stones, on which no iron tool had been used” (referring to Ex. tool had been used” (referring to Ex. 20:25).20:25).


6. II Ki. 21:8: “. . . if only they will be careful 6. II Ki. 21:8: “. . . if only they will be careful to do everything I commanded them and to do everything I commanded them and will keep the whole Law that my servant will keep the whole Law that my servant Moses gave them.”Moses gave them.”

7. Neh. 13:1: “On that day the Book of 7. Neh. 13:1: “On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people” people”

8. Mal. 4:4: “Remember the law of my 8. Mal. 4:4: “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.”gave him at Horeb for all Israel.”

Evidence of Mosaic AuthorshipEvidence of Mosaic Authorship

9. Jesus believed Moses wrote it: Mk. 9. Jesus believed Moses wrote it: Mk. 7:10; 10:3-5; 12:26; Lk. 5:14; 16:29-7:10; 10:3-5; 12:26; Lk. 5:14; 16:29-31; 24:27, 44; Jn. 7:19, 23.31; 24:27, 44; Jn. 7:19, 23.

10. The NT writers testifies of Mosaic 10. The NT writers testifies of Mosaic authorship: Mk. 12:19; Rom. 10:5; Lk. authorship: Mk. 12:19; Rom. 10:5; Lk. 2:22; 20:28; Jn. 1: 45; 8:5; 9:29; Acts 2:22; 20:28; Jn. 1: 45; 8:5; 9:29; Acts 3:22; 6:14; 13:39; 15:1, 21; 26:22; 3:22; 6:14; 13:39; 15:1, 21; 26:22; 28:23; I Cor. 9:9; II Cor. 3:15; Heb. 28:23; I Cor. 9:9; II Cor. 3:15; Heb. 9:19; Rev. 15:3.9:19; Rev. 15:3.These references, 9-10, come from McDowell, 458.These references, 9-10, come from McDowell, 458.


C. Other internal pointers to Mosaic Authorship C. Other internal pointers to Mosaic Authorship (From Archer, 111-18)(From Archer, 111-18)

1. Appearance of eye witness testimony in 1. Appearance of eye witness testimony in details of the account, e.g., the detailed details of the account, e.g., the detailed description of Manna, Num. description of Manna, Num. 11:7-8. 11:7-8.

2. Acquaintance of the writer with Egyptian 2. Acquaintance of the writer with Egyptian

background.background.

3. Author view point is “extra-Palestinian” 3. Author view point is “extra-Palestinian” with with

reference to seasons, weather, crop reference to seasons, weather, crop sequence, and flora and fauna sequence, and flora and fauna


4. The presence of archaic customs such as 4. The presence of archaic customs such as having children by one’s handmaids, a having children by one’s handmaids, a custom that was found in the 2custom that was found in the 2ndnd millennium millennium BC (the time of Moses) but not in the first. BC (the time of Moses) but not in the first. (Nuzi tablets).(Nuzi tablets).

5. Pentateuchal 5. Pentateuchal literaryliterary unity. Even unity. Even Documentarians have to resort to a Documentarians have to resort to a Redactor to explain its orderliness and Redactor to explain its orderliness and harmony. Why not Mosaic authorship?harmony. Why not Mosaic authorship?

6. Moses himself was well qualified to write 6. Moses himself was well qualified to write the Pentateuch having been raised in the Pentateuch having been raised in Pharaoh's court.Pharaoh's court.


D. External Evidence D. External Evidence (from McDowell, 458-59)(from McDowell, 458-59) 1. Ancient Jewish Tradition has always ascribed the writing 1. Ancient Jewish Tradition has always ascribed the writing of the of the Pentateuch to MosesPentateuch to Moses2. The Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, 24:23 (180 BC) 2. The Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, 24:23 (180 BC) ascribes it to ascribes it to

MosesMoses3. The Talmud, 3. The Talmud, Baba BathraBaba Bathra, 146, (200 AD) ascribes it to , 146, (200 AD) ascribes it to MosesMoses4. The Mishnah, 4. The Mishnah, Pirqe Aboth IPirqe Aboth I, 1, (100 AD) ascribes it to , 1, (100 AD) ascribes it to MosesMoses5. Josephus in his 5. Josephus in his Against ApionAgainst Apion 11:8, attributes it to Moses 11:8, attributes it to Moses6. Church Fathers, Melito, Bishop of Sardis (175 A.D.), Cyril 6. Church Fathers, Melito, Bishop of Sardis (175 A.D.), Cyril of of

Jerusalem (348-386 A.D.), Hilary (366 A.D.), Rufinus Jerusalem (348-386 A.D.), Hilary (366 A.D.), Rufinus (410 (410 A.D.) and Augustine (430 A.D.) all attribute it to A.D.) and Augustine (430 A.D.) all attribute it to Moses Moses


E. Evidence for the Antiquity of the PentateuchE. Evidence for the Antiquity of the Pentateuch1. I Ki. 6:1 seems to place the terminal 1. I Ki. 6:1 seems to place the terminal date for the completion of the date for the completion of the composition of composition of the Pentateuch around the Pentateuch around 1400 BC if Moses is the 1400 BC if Moses is the writer of it. writer of it. 2. Documentarians have tended to assume that 2. Documentarians have tended to assume that the presence of Aramaic words in Bible texts the presence of Aramaic words in Bible texts was an indication of lateness of the written was an indication of lateness of the written text, i.e., post-exilic. But Archer shows this text, i.e., post-exilic. But Archer shows this to be an invalid (see Archer, 138-41)to be an invalid (see Archer, 138-41)


3. Archaeological Evidence. Wellhausen’s view of 3. Archaeological Evidence. Wellhausen’s view of the historicity of the OT was based on the historicity of the OT was based on archaeological data that was available to him archaeological data that was available to him in his day. Since then, archaeology has in his day. Since then, archaeology has overturned overturned earlier assumptionsearlier assumptions, e.g., , e.g.,

a. writing unknown before 10a. writing unknown before 10thth century BC century BCb. non-existence ofb. non-existence of Hittites, Horites, Sargon II, Hittites, Horites, Sargon II,

Belshazzar Belshazzar c. non-existence of priestly code law type c. non-existence of priestly code law type before 5before 5thth

century BCcentury BCd. non-existence of domesticated camelsd. non-existence of domesticated camels(Archer, 165-76)(Archer, 165-76)

DH in Serious TroubleDH in Serious Trouble

Archer (108):Archer (108): ““To sum up, it is very doubtful whether the To sum up, it is very doubtful whether the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the status of scientific respectability. There is so status of scientific respectability. There is so much of special pleading, circular reasoning, much of special pleading, circular reasoning, questionable deductions from questionable deductions from unsubstantiated premises, that it is absolutely unsubstantiated premises, that it is absolutely certain that its methodology would never certain that its methodology would never stand up in a court of law. Scarcely any of the stand up in a court of law. Scarcely any of the laws of evidence respected in legal laws of evidence respected in legal proceedings are honored by the architects of proceedings are honored by the architects of this documentary theory.”this documentary theory.”


Umberto Cassuto (100) states concerning Umberto Cassuto (100) states concerning the pillars that support the Documentarythe pillars that support the Documentary Hypothesis:Hypothesis:

““I did not prove that the pillars are weak or I did not prove that the pillars are weak or that each one failed to give decisive that each one failed to give decisive support, but I established that they were support, but I established that they were not pillars at all, that they did not exist, not pillars at all, that they did not exist, that they were purely imaginary. In view of that they were purely imaginary. In view of this, my final conclusion that the this, my final conclusion that the documentary hypothesis is null and void is documentary hypothesis is null and void is justified.”justified.”

DH in Serious TroubleDH in Serious TroubleYehezkel Kaufmann (a Jewish scholar) Yehezkel Kaufmann (a Jewish scholar)

speaking of the present state of the speaking of the present state of the Hypothesis:Hypothesis:

““Wellhausen’s arguments complemented Wellhausen’s arguments complemented each other nicely, and offered what seemed each other nicely, and offered what seemed to be a solid foundation upon which to build to be a solid foundation upon which to build the house of biblical criticism. Since then, the house of biblical criticism. Since then, however, both the evidence and the however, both the evidence and the arguments supporting this structure have arguments supporting this structure have been called into question and, to some been called into question and, to some extent, even rejected. Yet biblical extent, even rejected. Yet biblical scholarship, while admitting the grounds scholarship, while admitting the grounds have crumbled away, nevertheless continues have crumbled away, nevertheless continues to adhere to the conclusions.”to adhere to the conclusions.”(Quoted by McDowell, 531-32)(Quoted by McDowell, 531-32)


H. H. Rowley (a British scholar), statesH. H. Rowley (a British scholar), states

““That it (the Graf-Wellhausen theory) is That it (the Graf-Wellhausen theory) is widely rejected in whole or in part is widely rejected in whole or in part is doubtless true, but there is no view to doubtless true, but there is no view to put in its place that would not be more put in its place that would not be more widely and emphatically rejected . . . widely and emphatically rejected . . . The Graf-Wellhausen view is only a The Graf-Wellhausen view is only a working hypothesis, which can be working hypothesis, which can be abandoned with alacrity when a more abandoned with alacrity when a more satisfying view is found, but which satisfying view is found, but which cannot with profit be abandoned until cannot with profit be abandoned until then.”then.” (quoted by McDowell, 532)(quoted by McDowell, 532)

Why Not Mosaic Authorship and Why Not Mosaic Authorship and Pentateuchal Antiquity and Unity?Pentateuchal Antiquity and Unity?

In spite of general agreement that the Documentary In spite of general agreement that the Documentary Hypothesis is inadequate, liberal scholars still teach Hypothesis is inadequate, liberal scholars still teach it and support it. The Conservative approach is a it and support it. The Conservative approach is a viable alternative but because of its worldview it is viable alternative but because of its worldview it is not acceptable to liberal scholars. not acceptable to liberal scholars.

The greatest danger in this critical enterprise I The greatest danger in this critical enterprise I believe is approaching the Word of God from a believe is approaching the Word of God from a position of assumed intellectual superiority. In a position of assumed intellectual superiority. In a passage speaking of idolatry it says, “Let everyone passage speaking of idolatry it says, “Let everyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (I who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (I Cor. 10:13, ESV). Cor. 10:13, ESV).

““Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.” (I Cor. 81b-3, NIV).known by God.” (I Cor. 81b-3, NIV).

the documentary hypothesis: its history and present status apologetics seminar houston, tx...

Documents

written sources

i2 moses

moses timec

existthe birth

birth of dh2

birth of dh4

birth of dh3

birth of dh6