The Documentary Hypothesis

he idea that the Pentateuch was not com- and with stylistic differences, that it was Tposed by Moses but was the work of sever- impossible for Moses to have been the only al later authors is called “The Documentary author. He reasoned, as a result, that Catholic Theory,” more accurately, “Hypothesis.” Its tradition was a more secure basis for faith than origination actually began with the Elohist’s Scriptures! Though officially denied by the view that terms such as eloahim and el were Church, his sentiments nonetheless reflected alternate names for Yahweh. Jews of the Mid- the true underlying prejudice of most members dle Ages had raised these generic terms and of the Judaeo-Christian and Muslim faiths, a titles to the rank of personal names in a bizarre fact demonstrated by their actions rather than attempt to conceal the sacred name and to use their words. these words as substitutes. As a result, men The debate was now raging, but unfortu- began to read the books of Moses as if there nately, only false alternatives were presented— were multiple names for the almighty. the various sides knowing little about which In the 12th century C.E., a Jewish scholar they spoke. Leclerc, a protestant, replied to from Spain, named Abraham ibn Ezra, first Simon that he had gone too far but conceded proposed multiple authorship of the Pentateuch that portions of the Pentateuch were written by (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, chaps. VII- scribes later than Moses. Then came the French X). Abraham, faced with specific passages that physician, Jean Astruc, who published a work pointed to a later editor’s hand, concluded that in 1753 entitled Conjectures About the Origi- Moses did not write all of the five books attrib- nal Memoranda It Appears Which Moses Used uted to him. His views set in motion a host of to Compose the Book of Genesis. Astruc other critics who questioned Moses’ author- claimed that the deity was known by two dif- ship. These critics included Jews and even ferent names, Yahve [Yahweh] and Elohim Christians like Martin Luther. Christian [eloahim] and that these two different names humanists and philosophers like Masius (died were the products of two different traditions. 1573) and Thomas Hobbes (1651) added fuel He suggested that the repetitions, contradic- to the fire. Isaac de la Peyrere (1655) then sug- tions, and chronological problems that scholars gested that Moses had not even written the five had come to “believe” actually arose as the books, but rather several other men had. result of the interweaving of these two different As the result of Abraham ibn Ezra and some ancient sources. These sources were more of those who followed him, the developing ancient than Moses, he noted, but Moses Documentary Hypothesis gained momentum brought them together. under the Dutch Jewish philosopher Benedict After Astruc, there arose men of more con- Spinoza (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, chap. siderable skill, like the German scholars Johann VII to X). With a backdrop of religious misin- Gottfried Eichhorn (Einleitung, 1780–1783) terpretation, a lack of understanding of the and K. D. Ilgen (Die Urkunden des parable nature of Scriptures, and limited Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urges- knowledge of Hebrew, Spinoza concluded that tat, 1798). Then came Alexander Geddes all of the Old Testament, from Genesis to (Introduction to the Pentateuch and Joshua, Nehemiah, was composed by the scribe Ezra in 1792), who proposed a fragmentary theory for the 5th century B.C.E. the origin of the Pentateuch. He held that it was Spinoza was followed by Richard Simon, a developed during the Solomonic era from many French priest who wished to emphasize the separate fragments dating back to the time of importance of the Church over Scriptures. Moses and before. These men were followed by Simon argued that Scriptures were so laden a work published in 1806–1807 by W. M. L. De with inconsistency in order and chronology, Wette, entitled Beiträge zur Einleitung in das 2 THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

Alte Testament, 1807, who reasoned yet another From such work, the Tanach scholars came source should be added to the Yahweh and to accept the hypothesis that the Pentateuch eloahim traditions, which he called the was the result of the blending together of J Deuteronomic code. Between 1807 and 1853, (Yahweh), E (eloahim), D (Deuteronomy), and the “fragmentary hypothesis” and the “supple- P (Priestly Code) documents. The belief that mentary hypothesis” were fully developed. there were four major documents that lay In 1853 Hermann Hupfield (Die Quellen der behind the five books of Moses is now almost Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung) set universally accepted by biblical scholars. But forth the argument that there were, in fact, two one must keep in mind that the thrust of the separate Elohim sources. Hupfield’s work drew work of these men has been to attack the cred- a great deal of attention from the Tanach (Old ibility of Scriptures. This assault comes from Testament) scholars. Hupfield was followed in both religious and secular scholarship. 1866 by K. H. Graf, who developed the sugges- Many of the proponents of this multi- tions of the scholars E. Reuss, J. George, and W. authorship view are priests and rabbis, whose Vatke and held that the document labled E1 purpose is to extol the virtues of “the Church” (called P for Priestly Code), rather than being and their own respective religious “traditions” the earliest of the documents, was, in fact, the over the value of Scriptures. In their mind-set, most recent. A. Kuenen (The Religion of Israel, what they perceive as “contradictions” in 1869-1870) assured the triumph of the J, E, D, Scriptures serve to justify their reliance on and P order for these assumed separate docu- “Church,” i.e. “Christian,” Moslem, or “Jew- ments. These conclusions set the stage for the ish” traditions. Human derived religious phi- primary mover of the modern Documentary losophy and interpretation is then perceived as Hypothesis, Julius Wellhausen. a more secure basis for their faith. Though Wellhausen restated the Documentary claiming a “belief” in Scriptures, their actions Hypothesis with great skill and persuasiveness show that their true intent is to justify their own and supported the J, E, D, P sequence as an evo- respective religious interpretations and tradi- lutionary pro cess (Die Komposition des Hexa- tions as well as their own personal views. teuchs, 1878; Prolegomena zur Geschichte It was as a result of this attack on the cred- Israels, 1878). According to Wellhausen, ibility of the books of Moses that the modern Israel’s concept of God evolved from the ani- Elohist school and their Documentary Hypoth- mism and polytheism of the patriarchal days esis gained popularity. Both the secular and into the henotheism in the time of Moses, and religious Elohists had found a vested interest in from there to the ethical monotheism of the discrediting the Pentateuch. The secular schol- prophets of the 8th century B.C.E. His evolu- ars pointed to their findings as justification for tionary views in Biblical literature were often not giving any credence to Scriptures. At the likened to those of his contemporary Charles same time, the religious Elohists use it to attack Darwin. He was undoubtedly influenced by the the Scriptural doctrine that there is only one evolutionary movement, which was gaining personal name for our heavenly father. popularity among scholars of that time. From For a response to the Documentary Hypoth- Wellhausen stems the numerous modern inter- esis, see our Topic entitled Variations in the pretations advocated today. Pentateuch. Available at, www.yahweh.org.