Hello. This question is for Dr. Ehrman or any other professional scholars here.
My question is this. Is some version of the documentary hypothesis the consensus view of most biblical scholars as the explanation for how the Old Testament/Pentateuch was written/compiled?
When I search for this online, the first thing I find is the Wiki entry ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Which of course is not the final authority on much.
Some sites claim this is basically the view of most historians. Which makes sense to me. However, as with most biblical topics, it’s hard to navigate through a sea of apologetics when searching for any topic even slightly controversial.
When Josiah found the Book of Law, he did not find Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Dueteronomy, I and II Kings.
[T]he “canonical’ versions of the biblical stories were only finally written down and “fixed” at the earlies during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (641 – 610 BC) in whose time an ancient scroll called the Book of the Law was found in the temple and read out before the people [2 Kings 22: 3 – 11 and 2 Kings 23: 1-3]. … [T]his organizing and canonizing of scripture does not mean that the events described in the texts were invented then, but rather that they were collated (from earlier sources such as the Book of the Law), edited (by what scholars call “redactors”) and embellished (perhaps exaggerated and made more epic) at that time. … Professor Donald Redford championed the idea that the biblical toponyms of Exodus reflected [the Saite or 26th Dynasty era (in Egyptian terms) of the late seventh and sixth centuries BC]. … [L]eading biblical exegetes Martin Noth, Frank Moore Cross, and Rudolf Smend were all convinced that the “Deuteronomistic History” from the Book of Deuteronomy down to the Book of Kings was composed around this time.
[The balance of the Hebrew Bible was completed when the Jews returned from exile in Babylonia—]
David Rohl, Egyptologist
= = =
What would be the alternative to the documentary hypothesis? If it were not the view of most biblical scholars, we would know more about the alternative.
What? Moses wrote the 5 Books of Moses? No.
Besides, Moses is a composite character of historical fiction. One Moses was from the Intermediate Kingdom. Another Moses was from the New Kingdom. So, no ONE Moses wrote the 5 Books of Moses.
Jesstradiol said
Hello. This question is for Dr. Ehrman or any other professional scholars here.My question is this. Is some version of the documentary hypothesis the consensus view of most biblical scholars as the explanation for how the Old Testament/Pentateuch was written/compiled?
When I search for this online, the first thing I find is the Wiki entry ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Which of course is not the final authority on much.
Some sites claim this is basically the view of most historians. Which makes sense to me. However, as with most biblical topics, it’s hard to navigate through a sea of apologetics when searching for any topic even slightly controversial.
I am not a professional scholar, however I am extremely well read on the subject and have been studying Hebrew Bible under several professionals in the field.
The consensus on the Documentary Hypothesis collapsed around the mid 90’s to the turn of the century, and has since been ever decreasing. Most scholars look to either a merged Documentary-Supplementary hypothesis (Van Seters), the Supplementary upright, or the Fragmentary Hypothesis (which is what I ascribe to). Farewell to the Jahwist actually demonstrated the decline of even the belief in a J source in European fronts. I personally go one step further and reject the P source as well. The only solid source I think that can be argued for is D.
That being said, there a resurrection of the Documentary Hypothesis on some fronts, though uncommon. Generally, scholars will use the JEPD sources for discussion, but not necessarily hold to the theory. Among major criticisms of it has been its propensity for deus ex machina type editors and redactors to explain things away, as well as poor methodology for separating and parsing the sources, hence why most Documentary Hypothesis scholars even dismissed the existence of E.
“The only solid source I think that can be argued for is D.”
Same here. Since we know that Isaiah, Job and Psalms refer directly to the old ANE myths, it seems contradictory to think there was a Genesis at all, and thus no E or J needed to write it. Isaiah seems unaware of a Law code from Moses or Sinai. Jeremiah says “they (Hebrews) had no law (coming out of Egypt)” and talks about lying scribes.
The same can be argued for the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Precious little knowledge of these people is conveyed by any of the earlier written books, almost nothing that would presuppose that Genesis was written.
I am not sure why we do not start from 140 BC (“we have these 24 books”) and work backwards!!
Ironically, if D was written by Baruch (Jeremiah’s scribe), then he may just have been living in Egypt when he wrote it.
Considering the massive slaughters in the birthing of Judea, and my idea of starting from 120 and working backwards, The Pentatuech, including the original writing of Genesis, may have been written in Egypt as well!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)