Donate -or- Patronize our Creation Science Store

Documentary hypothesis

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

(Redirected from Documentary Hypothesis)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Documentary Hypothesis, in its broadest sense, is an attempt to identify various source documents from which the present text of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the historical books of Genesis through Joshua, is derived. In a more restricted sense, it is applied to a line of reasoning that found its full expression in the work of the German theologian Julius Wellhausen, with subsequent developments by many other scholars, and which has as a central tenet the idea that different names of God in the Pentateuch (or Pentateuch plus Joshua) indicate different authors or editors, and these authors/editors lived long after the events they were describing.


Documentary sources indicated in the Scripture

The idea that there were source documents behind much of the original text of Scripture is encouraged by the Bible itself, since there are numerous references to pre-existing materials that were drawn from when the text was written, and which are either recommended for further reference or are cited as the source from which the text was summarized. In Joshua 10:13, the Book of Jasher (sefer ha-yasher, Book of the Upright) is cited as the source of the poetic fragment regarding the sun and moon standing still during Joshua's war against the Canaanites. In 2 Samuel 1:18, David's dirge at the death of Saul was recorded in this same book, indicating it was being maintained as a long-term record of certain aspects of Israel's history. In Numbers 21:14,15, the "Book of the Wars of the Lord" is cited for a description of the extent of Moabite territory. In the books of Kings and Chronicles, the reader is frequently reminded that more complete histories relating the events that happened during the reign of the mentioned king can be found in the official chronicles of the kings of Judah or the chronicles of the kings of Israel. Because these are explicitly named as sources from which the present text was extracted, or which could be cited to corroborate that text, it would also be reasonable to assume that there were other literary works which were not named but which also figured in the creation of the existing (canonical) text.

Early critical developments: Astruc through Wellhausen

In a more restricted sense, the "Documentary Hypothesis" refers not just to any attempt to identify the precursors to the existing text of the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, but to a particular line of reasoning and development that started with a French physician named Jean Astruc (1684-1786).[1] Astruc noticed that the only name for God in the first chapter of Genesis was Elohim, but in Genesis 2:4b a new name (Yahweh) is introduced, and he took this as an indication that the text of 2:4b and following was by a different author than the author of the first chapter of Genesis. Since two names or titles of God are often found together and even adjacent in the same verse, as is the case in Genesis 2:4, he further surmised that there was some mixing of sources, in keeping with his basic assumption that one author could only use one name for God. A further assumption was that the existence of two similar stories, such as the trouble over Sarah and the Egyptians in Genesis 12 and a comparable conflict regarding Sarah and the Philistines in Genesis 20, implied different source documents or authors.

Astruc's writing was not intended to cast doubt on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It was, instead, intended to show that Moses would have used sources from different authors in his compilation of its first book, Genesis. His goal was to counter the criticisms of 17th-century skeptics such as Spinoza who had argued against the Mosaic authorship, and indeed the basic integrity, of the Torah. Astruc's idea was generally consistent with a high view of the divine origin and inspiration of Scripture. In particular, it is consistent with the later development of the so-called "Tablet Theory" of P. J. Wiseman, a theory which also postulates separate authors in the book of Genesis, but which, unlike subsequent theories of the classical Documentary Hypothesis, was based on a study of ancient literary conventions in Mesopotamia in the second millennium BC and earlier. The Tablet Theory is usually not considered in discussions of the Documentary Hypothesis, however, because its basic tenets are consistent with the a viewpoint that says that the early chapters of Genesis were generally recorded by eye-witnesses of the events recorded, and are thus historical, whereas the developers of the Documentary Hypothesis followed presuppositions that ruled out such a possibility.

Although the finding that there was only one name used for God in the first chapter of Genesis was a valid and potentially meaningful observation, there was a certain amount of subjectivity in other aspects of Astruc's approach. This might be excused when it is considered that the basic writings styles of the ancient Near East were not known in the 18th century, and the great decipherments of these scripts and languages were still in the future. However, it was this subjectivity, or the imposition of modern western cultural ideas based on the scholars' presuppositions, that was to become the hallmark of later developments in the literary criticism of the Pentateuch. Various scholars set out to identify the "sources" of not only the Pentateuch, but of the rest of the Hebrew Bible, almost entirely based on each scholar's individual presuppositions. This subjective approach has meant that there have been almost as many theories of how the sources of the Pentateuch should be divided as there are scholars who write on this subject. Such a fragmentation of ideas persists to the present day. This is in spite of the common assertion by those who follow this approach that the "truths" of the documentary hypothesis have been established by a consensus of scholarly opinion.

Unlike Astruc, many later scholars largely had a deistic, anti-supernatural bias, in keeping with the cultural milieu of the Enlightenment and the attempts to show that scientific inquiry was incompatible with a belief in the miracle-working, revelation-giving God or Israel. Significant developments in this regard were the following.

  • In 1780-1783, Gottfried Eichorn divided the book of Genesis plus the first two chapters of Exodus into two source, J (for Jahwist or Yahwist) and E (source that used Elohim for name of God). In his later writing he assumed these sources were by someone other than Moses, at a later date than the historical Moses.
  • In 1805, Wilhelm De Wette published his idea that the book of Deuteronomy was not from the pen of Moses, but instead was a creation from the days of Josiah, with the purpose of centralizing control under the Jerusalem priesthood.[2] This conjectured document, produced as a fraud by the priesthood in order to accomplish this purpose, was labeled 'D', for 'Deuteronomic.' It consisted of most of the book of Deuteronomy plus whatever texts elsewhere might seem to support the centralization of worship. De Wette's theory offered an alternative, anti-supernatural alternative to the repeated Biblical statements ("The Lord said to Moses . . .") that the main contents of Deuteronomy were given by revelation to Moses during Israel's time in the wilderness. Because it replaced a belief in divine revelation with a concept that could be explained on a completely natural level, De Wette's theory is one of the few ideas that has survived fairly intact until the present day among many liberal scholars. This is in spite of the fact that De Wette could offer no archaeological or inscriptional evidence to support this 7th-century BC date for the composition of Deuteronomy. Nor has any such evidence been found since his time.
  • Various other authors contributed their ideas about the way the sources of the Pentateuch should be divided, many if not most taking their clue from De Wette that a completely anti-supernatural approach should be followed in determining those sources. Important in this regard was Herman Hupfield's 1853 work, Die Quellen der Genesis (The Sources of Genesis), in which he divided the hypothesized "E" document into two parts, E1 and E2. Hupfield's E1 document was classified as the 'P' or Priestly document by later writers. Hupfield placed E1 (or P) as the earliest of these sources, so that his sequence of development was P, E, J, D.
  • In 1866, Carl Heinrich Graf advocated that the priestly and legal portions of the Pentateuch were a later development than the 7th-century 'D' document.
  • This idea was seized on by Julius Wellhausen, who saw that it could be made to fit into a scheme that showed an evolutionary development of the religion of Israel, in which the 'P' or priestly phase was the last phase of that development before the closure of the Old Testament canon. These ideas were developed in Wellhausen's influential books, notably Die Komposition des Hexateuchs (The Composition of the Hexateuch, 1876) and Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena [Introduction] to the History of Israel, 1878). Charles Darwin's Origin of Species had been published in 1859, and, just as Darwin's theories were being used to deny the necessity of postulating the existence of God to explain the physical creation, so Wellhausen developed his theories to show that the formation of the Pentateuch (and, by extension, all other Scripture) could be explained without the "unscientific" basis of a belief in supernatural inspiration. More than that, the very idea of the existence of God was postulated to have undergone its own evolutionary progress from primitive belief in animistic forces or spirits in the trees, animals, and forces of nature, through the development of a somewhat more human-resembling pantheon of gods, then a belief that one of those gods was somehow superior to the others, until finally the idea came forth that that one superior god was the only god, resulting in monotheism. This evolutionary approach to religion had been proposed by the English would-be anthropologist Edward Tylor.[3] Even though Tylor's theories have been thoroughly refuted by later scholarship, the seeming harmony of those ideas with Darwin's theories in the biological realm were very appealing to Wellhausen. Along with other liberal theologians he therefore adopted Tylor's ideas with enthusiasm.[4] Besides his prolific and influential writing that made the ideas of the Documentary Hypothesis available to a wide audience, perhaps the main contribution of Wellhausen was to say that, consistent with his presupposition of an evolutionary development in the Israel's religion, the 'P' document, representing the triumph of the priesthood, must be placed last. The sequence was now J, E, D, P, producing to the alternate name by which the Documentary Hypothesis is known, the JEDP theory. Each chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena repeats the theme that is essential to his thesis: the 'P' or priestly phase was the last phase in the development of Israel's religion, and this phase necessarily developed in the post-exilic period, after the time of Ezekiel. There is no other theme in the Prolegomena that is emphasized so frequently and is so important to Wellhausen's thinking, unless it is the theme that the development of the Israel's religion and its concept of God can be explained in a completely natural, evolutionary way, with no necessity of presuming the intervention of God at any point. Israel's religion, according to Wellhausen and his followers, was entirely a man-made affair. Once this central presupposition of the Documentary Hypothesis is accepted, the next logical step, to be consistent, would be atheism, or at best an agnostic kind of practical atheism in which God, if He exists, has no interest in man's present doings.

Developments after Wellhausen

Wellhausen's writing proved very influential for subsequent scholarship and for popularization of the idea that the majority of Old Testament scriptures were written, not by historians who were contemporaneous with the events described, but by unknown personalities, generally from a much later date, who fabricated stories about Israel's history in order to advance their own theological, social, or personal agenda. Wellhausen wrote well, and his ideas were in keeping with the anti-supernatural outlook fostered by Darwin's evolutionary ideas. Consequently, many other scholars, first in Germany and then elsewhere, devoted their efforts to refining or expanding the central tenets of the Documentary Hypothesis. The sheer number of scholarly publications that resulted led many who had not examined the issues closely to conclude that the scholarly world by and large had abandoned any belief that the "books of Moses" could have been written by Moses, and also any belief that the books of the Old Testament were inspired in any meaningful sense. Even in his own time, Wellhausen could relegate those who disagreed with his opinions as belonging to a pre-scientific or unscientific mindset, with such generalizations as, "About the origin of Deuteronomy there is still less dispute; in all circles where appreciation of scientific results can be looked for at all, it is recognised that it was composed in the same age as that in which it was discovered, and that it was made the rule of Josiah's reformation."[5] Similar statements are made to this day about those who challenge the JEDP and its later developments, even though, from the very first, various conservative scholars, and some not so conservative, have issued warnings that something was drastically wrong with the underlying presuppositions of the theory. Among conservative scholars who ably refuted some of the basic tenets of this kind of scholarship were Ernst Hengstenberg, who defended the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in The Genuineness of the Pentateuch (1847), Wilhelm Moeller, an original supporter of the JEDP theory, in Against the Curse of Source Division (1912), in which he showed that the multiple references to Genesis through Numbers in Deuteronomy contradicted that Deuteronomy (D) was written before the supposed 'J' and 'E' texts of those books (Moeller's investigations led him back to historic Christianity), and many others whose researches can generally be found in the various "introductions" to the study of the Old Testament written by conservative scholars. Conservative scholars should be consulted by those who desire to know more fully the history of criticisms of the Documentary Hypothesis because, in the words of Gordon Wenham, ". . . critical scholars may list conservative works in their bibliographies, but they rarely take the trouble to interact with them."[6]

Further developments of the JEDP theory, and ramifications of it, are complex and are perhaps best explained by understanding the two basic principles that (1) The theory, ever since the days of Astruc, but more particularly since the time of De Wette, was based on subjective presuppositions whereby the modern western scholar thought that he could properly read his ideas into ancient Near Eastern texts, and, associated with this, (2) The ancient methods of writing were generally not known, and even when they were known they were not consulted, in developing the scholar's theory. These two principles explain the great diversity of opinions into which liberal scholarship has fallen in post-Wellhausen developments. When theories are based on presuppositions, not evidence, a necessary consequence is that different sets of presuppositions will produce different results. Thus Otto Eisfeldt could see an "L" source within "J"; Julius Morgenstern thought he could carefully discern a "K" source, Pfeiffer an "S" source, Mowinckel taught that J and E should probably be combined, and Gunkel's form-critical approach basically eliminated the distinctions between J, E, and P. Martin Noth theorized that Deuteronomy through 2 Kings was the work of an author ("the Deuteronomist") who lived in the exilic period, with additions made by others after the exile.[7] Subsequent scholars have shown their erudition by dviding Noth's Deuteronomist into Dtr1, Dtr2, etc. Divergent opinions like this, based on each scholar's "insights" into how he or she think the text could have been formed, continue unto the present.

The Documentary Hypothesis and the findings of archaeology

In addition to this fundamentally unscientific method of developing theories based on presuppositions, so that there is such a divergence of opinions, the other factor that has caused dramatic changes to the Documentary Hypothesis has been the decipherment of ancient inscriptions that shed light on the literary conventions of the first millennium BC and earlier. One such finding was that more than one name of a god was used in the same original document. This has been firmly established by original writings from Egypt, Ugarit, and elsewhere in the Near East. This should have been taken into account earlier, since it the Qur'an, which is manifestly by only one author, has many names for Allah. Nevertheless, the division of sources according to the name of God that is used has always been a central tenet of the Documentary Hypothesis, as even indicated by its alternate name, the "JEDP" theory. It is therefore somewhat curious that some scholars still write of the "E" document vs. the "J" document, or similar distinctions as if there remains any valid historical support for their analysis. Another finding was that doublets (repeated accounts of the same event) were also a literary device in antiquity, so that, for instance, the "Song of Deborah" in Judges ch. 5 was not necessarily written by a different author, in a different timeframe, than the narrative description of the same victory over Hazor in the preceding chapter. Ancient authors were perfectly capable of writing both poetry and prose and combining them in this fashion in the same document. The ancient device of the Chiasmus, unknown to Wellhausen, when rediscovered by modern scholars, demonstrates that the Flood account (probably the most elegant example of a chiasm in the whole Bible) is an artistic unity, contrary to critics who, even to the present time, are confident that this account must be divided between the imaginary J,E, or P editors/compilers. Noth sees 15 fragments of the Flood account as belonging to P and 17 fragments as belonging to J or JE. He has no discussion of the chiasm of the account.[8]

The Ketef Hinnom amulets

It was remarked above that the distinguishing mark of the classical Documentary Hypothesis was the thesis that Israel's religion followed an evolutionary course of development, with the P or Priestly phase being the last phase, and the P document, constructed by the priests in the post-exilic period, was the last part of the Pentateuch to be written. It is of some interest to note, therefore, that an inscription that Wellhausen attributed to the so-called 'P' source has been found at Ketef Hinnom, just outside the city area of Jerusalem. The inscription was on one of two tiny silver scrolls that were apparently used as amulets. It contained a shortened form of the "priestly blessing" of Numbers 6:24-26, a passage that is assigned by the Documentary Hypothesis to 'P'. Scholars who examined the writing determined that the scrolls were created during the last days of the Judean monarchy, before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC.[9] This dating contradicts the idea that 'P' was a post-exilic invention. The usual response from those who are committed to a late-date theory of composition of the Bible has been to say that some portions of 'P' or other documents in the JEDP theory may come from an earlier time, while still maintaining that the main elements of the document are late—always later than the time that a straightforward reading of the text would indicate. By following this procedure, scholars who advocate some form of the Documentary Hypothesis can dispose of any evidence from archaeology that would threaten the hypothesis and their scholarly presuppositions.

Other non-conservative scholars, recognizing that Wellhausen's dating of 'P' can no longer be defended, have explained the Ketef Hinnom finding by just moving pack the time of the Priestly writings to a date early enough to accommodate the date of the scrolls, always being cautious to make sure that it is not too early (time of Moses). Frequent adjustments in dates like this have not been necessary for conservative Biblical scholars. The Ketef Hinnom finding is compatible with the traditional idea that Deuteronomy and the 'P' texts are all from the time of Moses. At the same time, it must be realized even if a similar inscription was found from a context several hundred years earlier, that still would not be a proof of Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. It would, however, require another adjustment of the "assured results" of liberal, anti-supernatural scholarship.

Other findings from archaeology

Findings like these have meant that even many of those within the scholarly community who share the anti-supernatural bias of De Wette and Wellhausen have had to abandon the basic tenets of their theories because of the knowledge that has been gained from archaeology about the writing methods of antiquity. But archaeology has contributed other information that has caused a new appreciation and understanding of the historical background of, for instance, the time of the patriarchs. The eminent Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has contributed many articles[10][11][12] showing that the literary background of the first books of the Bible reflects the second millennium BC, not the exilic or post-exilic time that is still advocated, and written about as if it is a proven fact, by those who share the results of Wellhausen's analysis even after its basic underpinnings have been falsified.

Cyrus Gordon (1908-2001) was undoubtedly one of the greatest, if not the greatest, 20th century expert in the languages of the ancient Near East. Among his many accomplishments was the production of the definitive grammar of the Ugartic language. Gordon knew about 30 languages, exceeding in this regard, and in his knowledge of ancient writing practices, the majority if not all the scholars who continued to uphold the Documentary Hypothesis in the 20th and 21st centuries. In a 1949 article, Gordon publicly rejected the Documentary Hypothesis that he had been taught as an unscientific theory, saying it was based on presuppositions rather than archaeological facts.

From his studies of Ugaritic material Gordon became aware of the high degree of culture in Canaan prior to the emergence of the Hebrews as a sedentary people, and as a result he was able to reject quite readily the notion advanced by earlier literary critics that the formative stages of Israelite religion and society were essentially primitive. Gordon suggested as a conclusion to his article that subsequent Old Testament studies could only be based most satisfactorily upon an exacting and accredited scientific methodology in which the spurious and imaginary would be rejected in favor of the genuine and factual, and the a priori deductive system of classical liberalism replaced by an inductive approach that would pursue with resolution any specific direction indicated by the facts of the situation.[13]

Perhaps the only other person in recent times who had such a command of ancient languages and of ancient literary techniques was Gleason Archer Jr. (1916-2004). Archer, like Gordon, also knew about 30 languages, and he wrote extensively on textual issues and the literary sources of the Old Testament. Archer had a law degree from Suffolk University in Boston. Based on this legal training he was able to make the following comments about the circular reasoning followed by advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis when they assigned any Scriptural texts that disagreed with their ideas to the interpolations of a late-date editor, and then made such statements as "J knows nothing of the Levitical priesthood":

To sum up, it is very doubtful whether the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the status of scientific respectability. There is so much of special pleading, circular reasoning, questionable deductions from unsubstantiated premises that it is absolutely certain that its methodology would never stand up in a court of law. Scarcely any of the laws of evidence respected in legal proceedings are honored by the architects of this Documentary Theory. Any attorney who attempted to interpret a will or statute or deed of conveyance in the bizarre and irresponsible fashion of the source-critics of the Pentateuch would find his case thrown out of court without delay.[14]

The Documentary Hypothesis is still taught in secular universities and in some religious colleges. Its continuing appeal, in spite of the many ways it has been falsified, is that it affords a completely naturalistic approach to the religion of the Old Testament and the formation of the Bible, one that finds no need for Laplace's "unnecessary hypothesis" that God exists.

The Documentary Hypothesis and the findings of anthropology

The truth or falsity of the Documentary Hypothesis can also be tested by determining whether the religion of primitive societies is in keeping with the idea, central to the Hypothesis ever since the time of Hupfield, that monotheism is a late development that necessarily must be preceded by a period of spiritism and polytheism in which men develop their ideas of the supernatural, and that furthermore this idea of one God is wholly derived from such a development, not from any revelation of this truth from God to man. The 19th-century milieu in which this evolutionary viewpoint was developed was largely ignorant of the nature of primitive cultures throughout the world. Such knowledge as was available was generally interpreted as showing the superiority of the western or European-based cultures and peoples to the cultures of other, more "primitive" peoples of the earth. Even the monotheism of the Bible, declared so powerfully in its first sentence (Gen. 1:1), was declared to be a late development by assigning all such monotheistic statements to a late date of composition. Such late-dating of all monotheistic texts was not based on verifiable evidence, but on the idea that it had to be so in order to fit the theories of the scholars. It affords another example of the circular reasoning present throughout the works of Wellhausen and his followers, as criticized by Archer and by many others: no "early" texts supporting monotheism are found by these writers because they had already classified all texts that contradicted their theory as late.

It therefore is entirely germane to the discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis to state that its central idea about monotheism has been repeatedly and effectively refuted by anthropologists and missionaries who have taken great pains to learn the language, customs, and folklore of so-called "primitive" people in various parts of the world. See the Monotheism article for several instances indicating that monotheism was remembered, by various cultures in various parts of the world, as the original religion of their ancestors. These instances are well documented and are not the result of prior missionary contacts. They are consistent with the traditional view of Judaism and Christianity that the first books of the Bible are a revelation of God to man, and that God revealed Himself to mankind at the very beginning as the one God whom alone should be worshipped. They are not consistent with the anti-supernatural presuppositions of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Alleged inconsistencies

Main Article: Contradictions

As the basis for the hypothesizing, and upon which the assumption is made that the Pentateuch could not be of Mosaic authorship, are a number of alleged inconsistencies,[15][16] as referenced by supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis like John Barton and Richard Friedman.

Genesis 1 and 2

Supporting hypothesis Opposing hypothesis
Asserted is that two conflicting stories called doublets, separate accounts, are presented in the beginning chapters of Genesis,[17] that in 1:27 God created man in his image, but in 2:7 it repeats this as though man's creation hadn't been mentioned before.[18][19] According to Barton, the "simplest explanation" is that two separate versions of the story have been allowed to remain in the finished book form, unreconciled with each other.[15] Friedman notes that the order of creation in the 1st chapter is plants, animals, humans, but in the 2nd chapter, it is man, plants, animals, woman. Friedman also calls attention to the first version (1:1-2:4) referring to the Creator as God 35 times and the second calling him Jehovah God 11 times, with no overlap.[20] The chapters are two separate accounts, one general, the later an overview, since in 1:1 it says "God created the heavens and the earth", and in 2:4, a more detailed account is given of "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created", a pattern that will be seen used all through Genesis. In essence, the preceding section serves as the introduction, relating the genealogy or overview, the next relates details from the view of a major character in that genealogy.[21][22] This is also recognized by Claus Westerman in "A Continental Commentary."[23] Dr. Richard S. Hess has recognized the use of an overview account, rather than a contradictory doublet, at work here as well as elsewhere in Genesis (including chapters 4 through 5 and 10 through 11).[24]

Genesis 6 through 9

Supporting hypothesis Opposing hypothesis
Asserted is that the Flood is represented as being variously 40 days long and 150 days long, conflicting accounts.[17] Friedman additionally argues for two separate narratives differentiated by the names of God, references to gender, and anthropomorphic (human) qualities attributed to God such as emotion.[25] The text says (7:4,12) that it will rain 40 days and 40 nights, and that the Flood will be on the earth for this time. (7:12,17) It then says the flood waters themselves are on the earth for 150 days,(7:24) and return off the earth constantly until at the end of the 150 days they were stopped.(8:4) This is particularly clear when looking at the time frame, as the Flood began in the 2nd month, 17th day,(7:11) and in the 7th month, 17th day the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.(8:4) The plain context seen is that God stopped the Flood itself after 40 days with a wind, and it was the abating or drying up of the waters to stop them from 'prevailing' that took 150 days to where the Ark could finally come to a rest.(8:1-4) With a flood, there is one period where the rain occurs, and another period where the waters are still at work, perhaps with waves or fierce activity, even though the rain has stopped. Additionally, a chiasm is at work throughout the entire account making it entirely structured.

How many pairs?

Supporting hypothesis Opposing hypothesis
Asserted by Michael Coogan[16] and Infidels.org[26] that the text is inconsistent in saying in Genesis 6:19-20 that two pairs of each animal are to be taken on the Ark, and shortly thereafter in 7:2-3 that 7 each of clean animals and bird species are to be taken, and of each unclean animal, two. In the Mosaic Law, clean and unclean animals are differentiated for purposes of food, with clean animals allowed for eating, and unclean animals not allowed for eating.[27] In short, both the Genesis 6 and 7 passages mentioned the 7 pairs of animals, since the 7 pairs were mentioned in Genesis 6:21, which said "and take for yourself of all food which is eaten..." The 7 pairs were likely brought as food for the other animals on the Ark, and possibly for the people on board as well, and thus were mentioned in the previous passage, just not as explicitly.

Genesis 11 and 12

Supporting hypothesis Opposing hypothesis
John Barton claims that in Genesis 12:1 Abram is told to leave after the death of his father, Terah. Barton says in 11:26 Abram was born when Terah was 70, and according to 11:32, Terah died at age 205, so Abram must have been age 135, yet in 12:4 it says he was only 75.[15] As with Genesis 1 and 2, Barton fails to note the existence of an overview description given in chapter 11:10-32, stating the genealogies of Abram's lineage, and then a specific account of Abram's life, covering him specifically, starting in ch. 12, in which Abram's father has not yet died.

Genesis 20 and 26

Supporting hypothesis Opposing hypothesis
Peyrerius has criticized the chronological context of Genesis chapters 20 and 26.[17] Presumably this is because each tells similar accounts. In Genesis 20 Abraham, who has married his half-sister Sarah (20:12), tells Abimelech, king of the Philistines, that she is his sister, without mentioning their marriage, out of fear he'll be killed so they can take his wife. (20:11) In Genesis 26, Isaac also is in Abimelech's land, and tells Abimelech the same thing of Rebekah (26:7). However, there are a number of differences between the stories[28] and no reason to think the accounts are contradictory, or could not simply be relating different events. Reasons for the similar occurrences could include customs among Abimelech's land putting the wives of foreigners at risk or Isaac imitating what he saw his father do.

Exodus 24

Supporting hypothesis Opposing hypothesis
According to John Barton, the chapter says that Moses went up to the mountain 3 times.[15] The chapter says he was asked to go up the mountain (vv. 1-8), then he actually did go up with Aaron and the elders of Israel (vv. 9-11), and then God asked Moses to go up to the mountaintop specifically. (vv. 12-18) While they were asked to come up and did so previously, not until v. 12 is Moses asked to go to the "mount" specifically (Hebrew "har" defined as a mountain or range of hills[29]), a word not used until this point save in v. 4 where it says Moses built an altar beneath the mount.

Alternate theories

Tablet theory

Main Article: Tablet theory

P.J. Wiseman first presented the "Tablet Theory", also called the Wiseman Hypothesis, in his 1936 book, New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis. Most recently Curt Sewell has refined the hypothesis.[22] Wiseman first noticed that many of the ancient Mesopotamian clay tablets we're discovering use "colophon phrases" naming the tablet's writer or owner, as well as some method of dating the tablet; and often relate to family histories and origins. Wiseman also noted their similarity to the book of Genesis, which scholars have long recognized is sub-divided into sections via the phrase "these are the generations of..." Such a phrase is translated from the Hebrew word "toledoth", defined by Strong's dictionary as 'generations' as related to family history or descent.[30]

Sewell hypothesizes that each of these subsections divides into differing individual accounts separated by the Hebrew word "toledoth", God's account of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4), Adam's genealogy/personal history (2:4-5:1), Noah's genealogy/personal history (5:1-6:9), Shem/Ham/Japheth's (6:9-10:1), Shem's specifically (10:1-11:10), Terah's (11:10-11:27), Isaac's (11:27-25:19), Ishmael's (25:12-18), Jacob's (25:19-37:2), Esau's (36:1-36:43), and Jacob's 12 sons (37:2-Exodus 1:6).

Since each of these sub-sections is separated by the Hebrew word "toledoth", Sewell considers that Genesis is actually a grouping of the family genealogical tablets, per Mesopotamian style, and thus very much is a compilation of accounts, but not in the way Wellhausen envisioned, since it would make Genesis' origins far older than Moses, rather than younger; with Moses himself the likely compiler/redactor of the tablets' accounts. The theory has also been supported by R.K. Harrison[31] and Russell Grigg.[32]

See also

External links


  1. Jean Astruc, Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Génèse. Avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces conjectures ("Conjectures on the original memoranda that it appears Moses used in composing the Book of Genesis. With remarks that support or clarify these conjectures"). Brussels, 1753.
  2. Wilhelm De Wette, Dissertatio critica, qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi librus diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse demonstrator. Jena, 1805. Reprinted in Opuscula Theologica (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1830).
  3. Edward B. Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art and Custom (London, 1871). Cited in Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts (rev. ed.: Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1984), p. 134.
  4. Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts, pp. 141, 142.
  5. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (New York: World, 1961), p. 9. Originally published as Prolegomena zur geschichte Israels (Berlin: 1882).
  6. Gordon Wenham, "The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-Pin of O.T. Criticism," Themelios 10 (1985), p. 15.
  7. Martin Noth, The Deuteronomic History (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1981).
  8. Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, tr. Bernhard Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972) p. 17.
  9. Barkay, G., A.G. Vaughn, M.J. Lundberg & B. Zuckerman, "The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 334 (2004) pp. 41-71.
  10. Kenneth A. Kitchen, "The Factual Reliability of the Old Testament in the 21st Century"
  11. Kitchen, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" Biblical Archaeology Review 21 (1995) pp. 48-57, 92-95).
  12. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).
  13. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969) p. 516, summarizing Cyrus Gordon, Ugartic Literature (Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 1949) pp. 6f.
  14. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) p. 99.
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Barton, J. (1992). Source Criticism. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 6). (also here)
  16. 16.0 16.1 Glassman, G. (2007). NOVA: The Bible's Buried Secrets. PBS.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Cheyne, T., & Black, J. (Eds.). (1899). "Hexateuch." In Encyclopaedia Biblica (Vol. II, pp. 2045-2058).
  18. Reed, A.Y. (2004, September 20). Source Criticism, The Documentary Hypothesis, and Genesis 1-3.
  19. Friedman. pp. 25-26.
  20. Friedman. pp. 50-51.
  21. Tsumura, D. (1996). Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part I. BibleArchaeology.org.
    Jackson, W. (1991). Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? Apologetics Press.
  22. 22.0 22.1 Sewell, C. (1994). The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship. Bible and Spade (Vol. 7, No. 1).
  23. Westerman, C. (1994). A Continental Commentary. p. 583. First Fortress.
  24. Hess, R.S. (1990). Genesis 1-2 In Its Literary Context. Tyndale Bulletin 41.1.
  25. Friedman. pp. 53-60.
  26. Morgan, D. Bible Inconsistencies. Infidels.org.
  27. The Bible. Leviticus 11:46-47.
  28. Abraham's Half-Truth: passing Sarah off as his sister. HelpMeWithBibleStudy.org.
  29. Strong's Hebrew Dictionary. 2022.har. Biblos.com.
  30. Strong's Hebrew Dictionary. 8435.toledoth. Biblos.com.
  31. Harrison, R.K. (1994). From Adam to Noah: A Reconsideration of the Antediluvian Patriarchs' Ages. Jets (Vol. 16, No. 2). pp. 161-168.
  32. Grigg, R. (1994). Creation Ex Nihilo (Vol. 16 No. 1). pp. 38-41. ChristianAnswers.net.
Personal tools