In a recent article series, I gave a broad history of the development of the documentary hypothesis–the view of most critical scholars about how the Old Testament came together over time by combining various sources. In this article, I wanted to discuss in more detail the arguments these scholars have made to support the hypothesis.
David Noel Freedman’s article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary gives a standard critical account (often referred to as the Documentary Hypothesis) of the Pentateuch’s (the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Torah or the books of Moses) composition:
“The Torah was composed by a number of authors. The originally separate works of these authors were combined in a series of editorial steps into a continuous, united work. The full process of composition and editing, from the earliest passage in the Pentateuch to the completion of the work, took approximately six centuries (11th to 5th century B.C.).”
Evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis
What reasons does he give for supporting such a hypothesis? Here is a summary of his ten evidences:
1. Doublets within the text. When it appears that the same story is being told twice, this might mean that two different versions of the same story have been edited into one work. The classic example suggested of such a doublet is Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4b-25.
2. Differing terminology. The classic example of this is that sometimes in the Pentateuch (and throughout the Old Testament) God is referred to as Yahweh (the J or Jahweh source) and others times as Elohim (the E source).
3. Contradictions. An example of contradiction supposedly pointing to different authorship builds upon the previous two examples: “The order of creation in the P [allegedly in Genesis 1] account is plants, then animals, then man and woman; but in the J creation account [allegedly in Genesis 2] the order is man, then plants, then animals, then woman.”
RELATED: PODCAST: A PRIEST AND A DEUTERONOMIST WALK INTO A BAR – THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
4. Characteristics of each group of texts. Once one has a broad view of the distinct texts which the hypothesis contends have been brought together in the Pentateuch (identified as J, E, D, and P sources), one may begin to discover characteristics within those sources. For instance, Freedman claims that there are no angels, dreams, talking animals, or anthropomorphic language used of God in P. Similarly, the tabernacle is mentioned over two hundred times in P (the “priestly” source) but never in J or D and only three times in E.
5. Narrative flow. One example Freedman states is that if you take the alleged J source out of the flood story (Gen 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7, 10, 12, 16b-20, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22), it flows nicely on its own.
6. Historical referents. Freedman alleges that if you take the traditional views of each source’s composition (for instance, that J was a Judean source), you will see the biases of that source within the text. For instance, Schechem (the capital city of Northern Israel) is spoken of in negative connotations in J’s account.
7. Linguistic classification. Freedman argues that J and E reflect a more ancient stage in Hebrew language development than P and D.
CRITICAL BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP PART 3 – THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS APPLIED TO THE BOOK OF AMOS
8. Identifiable relationships among sources. Freedman claims that P seems to be reflecting on a combined J and E source which means they had been put together before P was written.
9. References in other biblical works. Jeremiah alludes to content in the theorized P source which suggests that P was pre-exilic.
10. Marks of editorial work. Freedman theorizes that when a seemingly parenthetical comment is inserted after a sentence and that sentence is then repeated after the parenthetical, that is the mark of a redactor to return to the flow of the preceding story.
Critical Assumptions and Their Counters
Before addressing any of these points explicitly, it is worth assessing what Freedman’s underlying assumptions are. For instance, he seems to be warning scholars to be cautious in their assessment of the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the text:
“Relatively little of the Torah’s story can be verified historically. Sufficient evidence from extrabiblical sources and archaeological artifacts is lacking to make judgments for or against historical veracity.”
However, a quick scan of his arguments (and a cursory knowledge of common counter responses) demonstrates that the critical perspective is not primarily concerned with being cautious to reach conclusions, but with throwing caution to the wind to read the text through culturally biased assumptions of skepticism. This is different from more conservative approaches to biblical development which are open to the strong possibility of the Jewish community crafting the final forms of certain texts, but not in such a way that contradictory texts are smashed together.
RELATED: CRITICAL BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP PART 4 – THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL
For instance, critical scholars (such as Kuenen) have distinguished E from J on the basis that in J God seems more anthropomorphic and personal whereas in E He is described more often as lofty and distant (Freedman in this article offers a different perspective—that J and E are more anthropomorphic but D isn’t). But why conclude that these are necessarily two distinct sources? In Genesis 1 and 2, for instance, one could argue that we find two different stories from J and P placed side-by-side or one could take the text at face value and see one chapter as describing the mighty God creating the universe and the second detailing how He, the God who is called by a personal name, interacts with humanity on a more personal level.
The fact that Genesis 1 and 2 use different names for God and tell us somewhat different things about God is difficult to argue with and this makes the sacred names division of sources seem quite plausible, though the critical use of such an idea takes some unwarranted leaps.
As for the usefulness of the divine names criterion to distinguish sources in the Torah, Johannes Dahse showed as early as 1903 that the Greek translation of the Torah (the LXX or Septuagint), which translated Yahweh as kyrios and Elohim as theos, switches them up around 180 times. This calls into question whether the Hebrew text we possess today can be used rigidly to assert which divine name was used where. This contradicts Freedman who argues that, “The LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch have minimal differences from the MT in divine names and have been shown by Skinner to confirm these authorial identifications.”
There is some debate in critical scholarship over whether the proposed sources reflect the concerns which they are alleged to. Mowinckel argued that a written J came first and that an oral E, not being a distinct source itself, merely adapted it by making minor alterations. He also denied that E was of northern Israelite origin (a claim which Freedman makes in the article). Volz and Rudolph similarly argued against E as a distinct source but only as an editor of J. Kennett argued that J was actually later than E, though he placed its composition back into the northern kingdom. And this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to contradictory critical views about the alleged sources. Does this confusion not point to the distinct possibility that critical scholars are merely devising clever but unwarranted schemes which are united primarily in their assumption of the untrustworthiness of the text?
And what of the confirmation bias and circularity built into these hypotheses? Freedman perhaps shows his hand when he argues that P is clearly a distinct source because the other sources don’t discuss the tabernacle. Of course, it is on the basis of P’s discussion of priestly concerns (such as the tabernacle) that critical scholars argue that it is a distinct source in the first place! One could just as easily suggest that only a hypothetical source S discusses sexual purity, isolate the sections that discuss sexual purity, and then use that as “evidence” of an S source.
In conclusion, the Documentary Hypothesis as it is generally presented is an assumption of biblical contradiction in want of evidence.