DevelopmentoftheDocumentaryHypothesis Carlstadt:A16thcenturyscholar.Arguedthatthefinal chapterofDeuteronomyonMoses’sdeathwasnotwritten Stage1:Antiquity:FirstSuspicions inthesamestyleastherestofthebookofDeuteronomy. EventheancientRabbisdebatedwhetherornotMoses AndreasVanMaes:FlemishCatholicscholar,positedthat couldhavepossiblywrittenthelastchapterof editorshadworkedoverandexpandedtheMoses Deuteronomy,whichdetailsMoses’sdeath!SotheRabbis material.BenedictPereira:Jesuitscholarpositedthat developedatheory:SomesaidJoshua,Moses’sright-hand editorshadworkedoverandexpandedtheMoses manandsuccessorwroteitafterMosesdied.Otherssaid material.JacquesBonfrere:Jesuitscholarpositedthat thatGoddictatedall5bookstoMosesandthatwhenMoses editorshadworkedoverandexpandedtheMoses gottothispart,hekeptwritingbutwascryingashewrote material. thechapterabouthisdeath. Stage4:EarlyModernPeriod:NoMoreMoses Similarly,Porphyry,athirdcenturyA.D.Neoplatonist • ThomasHobbes:A17thcenturyBritishPhilosopher philosopher,hadhisdoubtsabouttheauthorshipofthe arguedthattheuseofthephrasesuchandsuchisthe bookofDaniel.EventhoughthebookofDanielisa case“tothisday”indicatedthatthetextwaswritten differentbookoftheBiblethanthosewearestudying,it’s longafterMoses. worthquotingPorphyry’sviewsjusttoshowthatevenin • IsaacdeIaPeyere:FrenchCalvinist.Arguedthatthe antiquity,peoplewerebeginningtotheorizeaboutthe phrase‘acrosstheJordan,’’whichisthewayaperson biblicaltextinnewways. livinginsideIsraeltalksabouttheterritoryofthe Ammonites,Moabites,andEdomites,showsthat TheearlyChristianwriterJeromereportsofPorphyry: whoeverwrotethestorymusthavebeenresidingin “Porphyrywrotehistwelfthbookagainsttheprophecyof Israelandcouldn’thavebeenMoseswhodiedin Daniel,denyingthatiswascomposedbythepersonto Moab! whomitisascribedinitstitle,butratherbysomeindividual • BenedictSpinoza:A17thcenturyJewishscholarin livinginJudeaatthetimeofAntiochus...;hefurther Holland,arguedfrommanyproblematicpassagesthat allegedthat‘Daniel’didnotforetellthefuturesomuchas Ezra,notMoses,wasthewriteroftheTorah. herelatedthepast.”Porphyry’sviewsprobablyseemedlike • RichardSimon:A17thcenturyFrenchCatholicscholar, heresyatthetime.Thoughevenaclosecomparison arguedthatvarious“prophets”and“scribalschools” betweenDanielandtheBooksofMaccabeesshouldhave hadmadeadditionstoaTorahthatoweditsstartto causedafewtonoticethatthebookofDanielprobablywas Moses.JohnHampden:A17thcenturyEnglish writtentolooklikeitcamefromthetimeoftheBabylonian scholar,whoaffirmedRichardSimon’sviews. Exile(centuriesearlier)justsothewritercouldgetaway withcriticizingtheSeleucidconquerorsofhisowntime! Stage5:Doublets,Strands,GodNames Butthat’sanotherstory. H.B.Witter:Germanminister.In1711hadbeguntosort outtheproblemofstoriesthatrepeat,buthisfindings Sufficeittosaythateveninantiquity,peoplewereoffering werelostuntil1924. varioustheoriestoaccountfortheoriginsofwhathascome downtousasScripture. JeanAstruc:Frenchprofessorofmedicineandcourt physicianofLouisXV.Alerttothedifferencesintheuses ofthenamesforGodintheTorah,ElohimandJehovah, Stage2:MiddleAgesandRenaissance AstrucsuggestedthatMoseswroteGenesisandExodusin AnumberofscholarsduringtheMiddleAgesbroughtup 4columns,2ofwhichweredistinguishedbyusing questionshereandthereaboutvariouslinesandpassagesin differentnamesforGod.Laterscribesmixedupthe thebiblicaltextthatseemedoddoroutofplace: columnstoproducetheBiblewenowhave.Astrucmakes • IsaacibnYashush:An11thcenturyJewishcourt therealbreakthroughwhichothersfollow. physicianinMuslimSpain.HeobservedthatGenesis 36appearedtobealistofEdomitekingswhowould J.G.Eichhorn:Germanprofessor.FollowedAstruc’s havelivedlongafterMoseswasdead.Whywasthislist lead,butsuggestedthatthesourceswereputtogetherafter inGenesis? Moseshaddied. • AbrahamibnEzra:A12thcenturySpanishRabbinoted severalpassagesthathethoughtMosescouldn’thave Stage6:19thCent:SourcesPutinaTimeframe beenresponsiblefor.Bonfils:A14thcenturyscholar W.M.L.deWette:ArguedthatDeuteronomywasa locatedinDamascus.AffirmedibnEzra’s separatesourcethatshouldbeconnectedwiththereforms determinations. ofKingJosiahinthelate7thcenturyB.C.andnotput • Tostatus:A15thcenturybishopofAvila.Affirmedthat centuriesearlierasiffromMoses. thepassageaboutMoses’sdeathandotherscouldnot havebeenpennedbyMoses. W.Vatke:ArguedthatthePsourcewasafter DeuteronomyandthusdatedfromtheperiodoftheExile. Stage3:ReformationPeriod:EditorsatWork Vatkehadseenthreestagesofreligiousdevelopment:J andEwereafertilitystage;Dwasanethicalstage;andP 1 wasapriestlystage.E.Reuss:FurtherdevelopedVatke’s views. AdditionalComments StartingwithSpinozainthe17thcent,andflourishing K.H.Oral:StudentofReusswhoarguedthatthefour withGermanscholarshipinthemid-19thcentury,analysis sourcescomefrombasicallythreedifferenttimeperiods:J grewtothepointwhere,asSpeisersaysinhis andEweretheearliest;DwaslaterasdeWettehadsaid; introductiontotheAnchorBibleGenesis,“theconclusion andPwasstilllaterasVatkehadsaid. whichvirtuallyallmodernscholarsarewillingtoaccept, J.Wellhausen:UsuallytheDocumentaryHypothesisis isthatthePentateuchwasinrealityacompositework,the creditedtoWellhausen,whoreallyjustgaveitthemost productofmanyhandsandperiods”.Aswithanytheory, elaborateexpression.Hearguedthatthecombinationcame itsacceptancerestsonitsabilitytoexplainvarious instages:JandEwerejoinedfirst,makingJE;later problemsanddiscrepanciesinthetext.Althoughtoday DeuteronomywasjoinedtoJE;andstilllaterthePriestly manypointsremainindisputewithinthisschoolof materialwasadded.EssentiallyWellhausencombined thought,thosedisputesareaboutwhichsourceis Vatke’sstagesofreligiousdevelopmentwithGraf’stiming responsibleforagivenpassageandwhatwerethe ofthedevelopment. influencesonthatsource,andarenotaboutwhetherornot thereweredifferentsourcesorwhatweretheprincipal Stage7:20thCentury:MoreQuestions characteristicsandconcernsofeachsource. M. Noth:Amajorturntookplaceinthe1940swhen thisGermanscholararguedthatDeuteronomyreallywas Asagrossoversimplificationofthatperspective,analysis theintroductiontoawholehistoryofIsraelthatranfrom oftheTorahrevealsfourseparatestrandsorsources,each Deuteronomy,throughJoshuaandJudges,downto1-2 withitsownvocabulary,itsownapproachandconcerns. Samueland1-2Kings,thatisfromthetimeofMosestothe Thosefoursourcesare: destructionofthekingdomofJudahbytheBabylonians • The“J”source,from“Jahweh,”theGermanChristian (theExile).Scholarshadbeensopreoccupiedwiththe renderingofYod-He-Vav-He,thewordforGodused booksofMosesthattheyfailedtosortouttheconnection almostexclusivelybythatsource,andwhich withotherbooks! generallypresentshumansinvarioussituationsin whichtheiractionsandwordsconveythemeaning. Critics:Thetheoryhasneverbeenwithoutitscritics.Some • The“E”source,for“Elohim,”thewordforGodmost havebeenmoreconservativeandviewanysortof commonlyusedinthatsource,inwhichthefocusis theorizingabouttheoriginsoftheBibletobedestructiveof oneventsmorethanontheindividualsinvolved. religionasawhole.’ • The“P”source,for“Priestly,”whichfocusesonthe formalrelationsbetweenGodandsociety,including Othersaremoresophisticated,likeM.H.SegalandU. thegenealogieswhichdocumentthechainof Cassuto,Jewishscholarswhoarguethatdifferencesinthe transmissionofGod’smessageandauthorityfrom namesforGodjustshowadifferenceinemphasis:Elohim CreationtoMoses.“P”usesbothElohimandEl isusedforthegeneralworldandYHWHisusedforGod’s Shaddai. relationwithIsrael.Some,suchasK.A.Kitchen,usethe • The“D”or“Dtr”source,fortheDeuteronomist,source resultsofarchaeologytoarguethatinallancientmyths ofthebookofDeuteronomyandlikelyinadditionthe thereisrepetitionofwholesectionsofastoryandone booksofJoshua,Judges,IandIISamuelandIandII shouldn’tmaketoomuchofrepetitionintheBible.Still Kings.Generallyspeaking,theDeuteronimist otherswillarguethatthetheoryisjusttoospeculativetobe emphasizescentralizationofworshipandgovernance assured.Theywouldagreethatsomethingisfunnyabout inJerusalem. thecompositionoftheTorah,butaccountingforitisjust toodifficult.Butsuchsuggestionsaretheoriestooandone Thedocumentaryhypothesisalsousestheshorthand“R” mustwonderiftheyreallyaccountforalltheevidenceas fortheRedactororeditorwhobroughttogethertheJ,E,P wellastheDocumentaryHypothesis. andDtrmaterialintoasinglesetofwritingsweknowas theTorah. Developments:Ofgreaterimportance,perhaps,isthe discussionamongscholarsabouttherelativedatesofthe Itshouldbenotedthattheuseofeachofthese sources.TheoldefforttoputPlatesoundslikeaProtestant alphabeticalshorthandlettersdoesnotnecessarilyimply biasagainstCatholicritual.RecentlyJewishscholarssuch thattherewasasingleindividualwhowroteallofany asJ.MilgromhavearguedthatthePsourcefindsahomein givenstrandofmaterialbutrathertherewasalike-minded therituallifeofIsrael’smonarchyandthusshouldbedated groupthatexistedovertimewithsharedperspectivesand earlier.SomehavebeguntoquestionwhetherJorEshould traditions. beseenas“primitive”andhenceold.Suchmythicmaterials asJ’sstoryinGenesis2-4couldjustaseasilycomefrom TheabandonmentofMosaicauthorshipdoesnotrequirea theExile,wheretheBabyloniansthemselveswerestill denialofdivinecontentintheTorah.Itisnotdifficultto usingandproducingtalesliketheBabylonianCreation believethatthesourcesweredivinelyinspired, Story. notwithstandingthattheyoftenhadotheragendasaswell. 2.