(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...I am now nearly finished talking about the “Documentary Hypothesis” devised by scholars of the Hebrew Bible to account for the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I have already discussed the traditional view developed in the nineteenth century, especially as it was laid out by Julius Wellhausen (the JEDP hypothesis). But that was a long time ago. What do scholars say today? As one might expect, the discussions have not gotten simpler but more complicated. Here is what I say, briefly, about that in my undergraduate textbook on the Bible. It’s about as much as most beginning students (and most people in general) need to know.
******************************
The Scholarly View Today
It is impossible to speak about a single scholarly opinion about the Documentary Hypothesis today. Some scholars reject the idea that J and E were separate sources; some think that there were far more sources than the four; some propose radically different dates for the various sources (for example, one increasingly popular proposal is that the earliest sources were written in the 7th century; other scholars maintain that none of the sources was produced before the Babylonian exile in the 6th century). A number of scholars have produced mind-numbingly complicated proposals that try to take better into account all of the nuances of the data.
But it is possible to speak about a scholarly consensus on some of the truly critical points. These would include the following:
To keep reading you will need to belong to the blog. Why not join? The benefits are large, the cost is small, and since the membership fee goes entirely to charity, joining will contribute to the welfare of the human race and the universe as we know it. Click here for membership options
Mr Ehrman, is it fair to declare bogus the claim that there’s a (true) theological coherence between the Old and New Testament, given the fact that both of these collections of books have been edited innumerable times by an undefined number of people and in unfathomable ways?
Or am I missing something here (given my atheist inclination)??
I’d say that there are clear lines of coherence, but that they work in one direction only. I do not think that one needs anything in the New Testament to understand the Old Testament, but that the Old Testmant is important for understanding the New. But the lines of coherence are not “necessary,” that is, they take OT views in certain directions and there were many others that were taken as well, ifyou see what I mean.
I think I see what you mean. I recently read in a Greek orthodox forum the claim that there is *a* unique theology that permeates the entire bible (of course, that would be in line with the Greek orthodox “truth”). I asked from that perspective. It seems to me rather dubious to make such a claim, since there are “lines of coherence” and “certain directions” taken amongst many others. But maybe that’s not dubious at all and I simply don’t get it! 😂 Thank you for your answer, professor.
I know you’re not an expert on the composition of the Hebrew Bible, but do you think the Documentary Hypothesis still has merit, or has it served its purpose by getting this discussion started?
Yes, I think in it’s basic structure and premises it is right. Many Hebrew Bible scholars think it is more comlicated than the simple JEDP construction though.
The story of Zipporah at the Inn (Exodus 4:24-26), where God tries to kill Moses. My translation says “THE LORD” tries to kill Moses – does this mean Yahweh? So that’s part of the J narrative?
YEs, any time LORD is in caps, it is a translation of YHWH. But the name shows up in sources other than J; I’m away from my books and don’t know if this (very strange!) story is J or not.
The best explanation I’ve come across regarding the bizarre “God sought to kill Moses” story is by Rabbi Forman of AlephBeta.com (video series “The Moses Origin Story / Why Did God Try to Kill Moses?”). The Rabbi shows how in chiastic parallelism (Pharaoh’s earlier desire to kill Moses for vigilante justice (killing the Egyptian) matches God seeking to kill him)–it comes down to Moses acting in a “vigilante” manner due to not having yet /fully/ aligned himself as a Hebrew. The emergency circumcision took care of that divided identity (his entire family is now officially Hebrew) and so Moses’ intent to effect (legitimate) justice in freeing the slaves was now YHWH-“state sponsored” so to speak because Moses met the qualifications of the deliverer and thus he’s no longer guilty of vigilante justice.
Have you read “Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origin in the Hebrew Bible” by Konrad Schmid?
It seems to present the hypothesis that the Israelites had two origin myths. One was the Three Patriarchs origin myth and the other was the Moses origin myth. These myths were written independently from each other and were combined by the “Priestly (P)” writer.
Nope, haven’t read it. Interesting idea though. The connections of Patriarchs to Moses are indeed a bit thin in the surviving text, imo….
Here Is a concise article by Schmid summarizing “Genesis and the Moses Story” and recent criticisms of JEDP by European scholars: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/3gen357926#sdfootnote8anc.
Very interesting! I agree 9with far less study) with Bart. The “relocation” of the story from Canaan to Egypt is rather odd. Then many many generations, they return to the same places, apparently remember which places (named in the patriarch era) are which, etc.
A harmonization attempt between two completely different national origin stories (maybe because the various tribes were once less confederated than they became) is at least worth investigating!
The Pentateuch is rich in the culture and the mystic of what was to become Israel. I find that my Rabbi (I’m not Jewish) takes all his teaching from the first five books, and rarely speaks of any others, for these are the foundations of his belief. Most of what is considered right or wrong is because God sad so. Reasons for acting or practicing in a particular way are rarely given, but you act or practice in that way because God said so. Few rewards were given only the personal satisfaction of following God’s command was enough. Prof. Robert Miller II teaches that many writers were involved with the Pentateuch, “certainly not four”. Sounded like a complicated subject he did not have the allowed time. A lot in the Law makes no sense and I have a problem believing. Start with 1.6 million people, feeding all those people was a great miracle over 40 years, but disposing of all the poop was a greater miracle. It was written that 24,000 were put to death for poop worship. The average person of ‘this’ millennium would not live a week under those conditions.
What is the evidence that points toward the stories originally being orally transmitted? Does the fact that the stories’ settings pre-date the existence of a hebrew language play a role?
Almost all cultures passed along ancient traditions by word of mouth before they were written down, and so there’s good reason for thinking that’s the case for ancient Israel as well. And since many of the stories involve events long before literacy was common or even known, either they were passed along orally for a long time or were simply being made up later. But the kinds of features one finds in oral traditions are often found in OT narratives, and so they almost certainly come from oral traditions.
> But the kinds of features one finds in oral traditions are often found in OT narratives
Is there available a description of what those features are and how to spot them in a text?
There probably are succinct accounts, but off hand I’m not sure where to send you. You might look at the works of the anthropologists who work on oral cultures such as Jack Goody and Jan Vansina, and also Walter Ong.
I commend this post! In my view it is very important to make these points especially as a former member of a fundamentalist denomination. Apologetics often try to muddy the waters on this issue by repeating some of the more outlandish theories on the Pentateuch and insinuate that ALL of the scholarship is taken from thin air. But it’s important to note WHY such theories came to exist: because of the undeniable evidence that the Pentateuch is not an uniform work written all at the same time. In other words, though the viewpoints among scholars differ sometimes greatly, NO ONE has the viewpoint that the tradition of Mosaic authorship is reliable.
“ NO ONE has the viewpoint that the tradition of Mosaic authorship is reliable.” years ago, I was discussing with my Rabbi about the likelihood that Moses didn’t exist. He was a pretty laid back and open Rabbi and he said that someone probably brought some people into the new land…who ever he was, we call him Moses.
He was pretty skeptical regarding the exodus, the numbers involved, well, most of it. But, he felt that whether it was a myth or not, it has held the Jewish people together for thousands of years so there’s something special about the tale that resonates. I could live with that!
When i was in college, at Oklahoma State, the instructor who introduced me to the critical study of the Bible prefaced his lecture by informing us that early critical bible scholars were devoted people of faith, committed to the Bible and living by its teaching. They loved the Bible. Theories like the doc hyp are attempts to explain what they saw, inconsistencies in the text, diverse voices and points of view, etc. He went on to add that such study does not exclude the idea that God somehow inspired it, but it does force us to reconsider our definition of inspiration and also challenges external demands we place on the text, that the text does not place on itself (infallibility, inerrancy and the like). I don’t think i am out of order in saying that Dr. Ehrman loves the Bible also, as many if not most of us on the blog do.
The need to somehow defend inerrancy inhibits us from seeing the text as what it really is: an ancient book, or rather library of books, written by different people at different times for different audiences. I enjoy and embrace the messy-ness of it 🙂
Professor, I have enjoyed this diversion from our usual NT fare! Thank you.
I have a quick question. On several occasions, I have come across people referring to the “original Hebrew text.” Some refer to the “original Hebrew text” to support a particular interpretation others to support certain translations of the Bible they prefer to use. However, apart from fragmentary Dead Sea Scrolls, isn’t the oldest complete surviving Hebrew bible the Masoretic text (around 900-1000 CE)?
Yes, they either don’t know that or, far more often, they are simply using the term as a short hand. They know we don’t have the “original” but they are trusting that we can come pretty darn close to reconstruction it. Usually they don’t say “the original Hebrew TEXT” but just “the original Hebrew.” And by that tehy simply mean the oldest form of the text that we can discern as written in its original language (as opposed to an English translation, or the Septuagint, etc.)
U all have probably gone on by this weekend to the more current topics….but just from the point of linguistics on the O.T….As I remember the Phoenician Alpha came into existence in the 7th c B.C. and the original Hebrew script was similar in many ways to that writing.
I have heard also that up until that time, the duty of the father in a Hebrew family was to teach his sons by memory the Proverbs and Psalms. (Some girls too…) There was a school of teaching also that went beyond the basics…in which all the O.T. sacred stories were memorized by sons, a PhD type, commitment to learning, memorizing all the passages, then discussing. Interestingly in Aramaic at the time of Jesus, a person who undertook such study was called a “carpenter.” A “carpenter’s son” also was considered one who was taught by an expert father or learned elder to work the scriptures into study sessions, much say as we have Biblical or Torah readings today of scriptures at services.
The Babylonian and Judean Torah/Talmud when first written down were separately written in the two areas of dispersal….but exactly alike. Wow!!