Critiques of the Documentary Hypothesis

[Celsus]

Hello all,

I'm sorry I don't have the time to participate in the discussions anymore, but I do lurk occasionally. Anyway, I would be interested in some critiques of the Documentary Hypothesis from the conservative Christian perspective. Since Lawrence Boadt has no problems accepting it (in his excellent Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction), I presume that Catholics (or at least the Catholic position) are fine with it. What of Protestants? Some arguments posted here, links to websites or some good references would be much appreciated.

Cheers,
Joel

[Blake Reas]

Actually there are many who question it. I think Gray Pilgrim could give a better account than I can but as of know I am reading a book by R.N. Whybray who is not a evangelical that I know of who in his book The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study points out the errs in Method and presuppositions.
Also Gordon Wenham in the Word Biblical Commentary of Genesis 1-15 gives it a pretty devastating critique. Along with that there are many more. Kenneth Kitichen in his book Ancient Orient and the Old Testament shows its short comings since other documents in the ANE show the same charateristics doublets, Anachronistic phrases etc.
This is by no means comprehensive. Gray Pilgrim can correct me if I am wrong but I think there is a resurgence of hte Fragmentary Hypothesis.
One problem with the documentary Hypothesis is that it has became a dogma. No one ever questions the assumptions behind it except a growing minority. The people who do not agree with are not just Christians either. More if i find it or if GP beats me to it!
There is also a new book put out by Oxford University Press defending the documentary Hypothesis. The funny thing is that in all of the commentaries that I have ever looked at that are by scholars who hold the the JEDP, I have never read anywhere where they even mention the one author theory. It takes into account all the data I would argue better than the JEDP. It basically says that the pentateuch was put together by a single author who used sources. Also I will allow for later alterations to the text such as the death of Moses recounted in Deuteronomy etc. The Bible has been through many later alterations just like any book but not ones that destroy its central message that Moses first wrote down. Genesis and Exodus also show knowledge of earlier times in Egypt that the JEDP has a hard time of accounting for it was written as late as is thought.
One of the pillars upon which it is founded I find rather unconvincing the theory argues for a late date of Deuteronomy but the thing is that the prophets Amos etc. quote from it. Like I said I have read very little on it and Gray Pilgrim can tell you more.


Hope that helps
By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Socrates]

There has been plenty of discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis on TWeb, e.g. EVIDENCE FOR MOSES’ AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53013#post53013)and this analysis of its unsavory beginnings www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53069#post53069

No one is game to take on GrayPilgrim's challenge to defend it at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=53070#post53070

As Blake says, it is a dogma which cannot be questioned (and liberals claim to be so open-minded :doh:).

[Celsus]

Greetings Blake,

That was a quick response, thanks! Also good to hear from you again.


Today @ 02:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78158#post78158)
Blake Reas:

Actually there are many who question it. I think Gray Pilgrim could give a better account than I can but as of know I am reading a book by R.N. Whybray who is not a evangelical that I know of who in his book The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study points out the errs in Method and presuppositions.
Thanks, I will have to look into it. One problem of course is that Boadt's book is slightly dated (although that was the reason I could get my hands on it, being cheap). Incidentally, his book is here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809126311/qid=1051251629/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-0352463-5773768) at Amazon and going very cheap. With regards to methodology, one of the critiques that I am aware of is that the Documentary Hypothesis is based on "naturalistic" assumptions (whereas proper analysis would/should focus on the divine nature of scripture). Unfortunately, that one will never be resolved (I believe we've had this debate before? :wink:).


Also Gordon Wenham in the Word Biblical Commentary of Genesis 1-15 gives it a pretty devastating critique. Along with that there are many more. Kenneth Kitichen in his book Ancient Orient and the Old Testament shows its short comings since other documents in the ANE show the same charateristics doublets, Anachronistic phrases etc.
An interesting idea. Perhaps the other texts are also multi-source, only that they don't draw attention to themselves, unlike the Pentateuch?


This is by no means comprehensive. Gray Pilgrim can correct me if I am wrong but I think there is a resurgence of hte Fragmentary Hypothesis.
Is this the theory that J was originally composed as a single piece, and that everything else was tacked on over time (as per the various internal sources listed in the Bible, and self-evident stand-alone songs/poetry)? What would it say about the dating of the Pentateuch?


One problem with the documentary Hypothesis is that it has became a dogma. No one ever questions the assumptions behind it except a growing minority. The people who do not agree with are not just Christians either. More if i find it or if GP beats me to it!
Well, my experience with defending the Documentary Hypothesis is limited to a single argument almost a year ago with someone who argued for single authorship during the Exile (and made no sense to me). Unfortunately, he left halfway and I haven't heard from him since. I believe he has a website up, which makes a great deal about the argument from silence. I can't agree about the dogma statement--it depends on what angle you're approaching it from. Obviously, the way to tackle an entrenched view is by analysing the methodology that it rests upon--everything else about it will essentially follow logically out of the methodology. If the critique of the methodology is strong, no dogma can stand up to the critique, short of denying it exists. Which, of course, I'd be very interested in Whybray.


There is also a new book put out by Oxford University Press defending the documentary Hypothesis. The funny thing is that in all of the commentaries that I have ever looked at that are by scholars who hold the the JEDP, I have never read anywhere where they even mention the one author theory. It takes into account all the data I would argue better than the JEDP. It basically says that the pentateuch was put together by a single author who used sources. Also I will allow for later alterations to the text such as the death of Moses recounted in Deuteronomy etc. The Bible has been through many later alterations just like any book but not ones that destroy its central message that Moses first wrote down. Genesis and Exodus also show knowledge of earlier times in Egypt that the JEDP has a hard time of accounting for it was written as late as is thought.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another which theory wins, just as long as it is the best fitting theory. I am aware of critiques of the Documentary Hypothesis from the likes of Gunkel and the Form-critical approach. Obviously, if we accept anything as "oral" sources, we're going to get stuck pinning a letter to their origin. :wink: Secondly, I don't really think that some historical accuracy and knowledge of older times would necessarily negate JEPD. But the methodological critique (as long as it does not rest on supernatural assumptions) would be substantial, and I'll have to look into that.


One of the pillars upon which it is founded I find rather unconvincing the theory argues for a late date of Deuteronomy but the thing is that the prophets Amos etc. quote from it. Like I said I have read very little on it and Gray Pilgrim can tell you more.
I'm thinking of purchasing The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385497881/qid=1051249309/sr=1-22/ref=sr_1_22/102-0352463-5773768?v=glance&s=books). Have you heard of this? The one reader review writes, "In short, Blenkinsopp suggests that the hard lines of Pentateuchal source theory should be softened so that a multitude of influences can be discovered and appreciated. Perhaps the greatest insight of this author is the realization that no critical theory is perfect and that the insights of numerous theories can often prove useful." While good in many ways, it could easily end up just as confusing as HJ theories, with everyone coming out with pet ideas. But then, what do I know?

I eagerly await GrayPilgrim's input.

Cheers,
Joel

Oh, Socrates, I would not take up a challenge to debate the Documentary Hypothesis unless I could read Hebrew, and had access to the texts. Frankly, I am questioning it now.

[GrayPilgrim]

I'll get back to this tomorrow as I have to work on my sermon today.

GP

[AugustineH354]

IMO the best critique of the DHPT is U. Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, Trans. by Israel Abrahams, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew Univ., 1983.

Aug

[apologetics]

It is not who accepts the documentary hypothesis today, the question is who still does. This has been thorough dismantled point-by-point. A few skeptics do still hold fast to it, though, because they understand the ramifications that this theory holds for Christianity in its entirety.

An acceptance of the documentary hypothesis destroys the credibility of the entire Bible. Jesus acknowledges that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. If Moses didn't write the first five books, then Jesus is a one of the first two choices within the Trilemma (either liar or lunatic) and if this is the case, then he isn't the Son of God. The first 22 chapters of Genesis are confirmed by Jesus and/or the disciples in the New Testament. Simply put: JEDP destroys the Bible.

One of the better recaps of this entire problem that I have had the chance to read is in Josh McDowell's book The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Section II is devoted completely to the Documentary Hypothesis. He covers the history behind the formulation of this theory by Julius Wellhausen and his predecessor. He succinctly covers the documentary presuppositions that were needed to conceive such a theory, does a nice job pulling together all of the evidences of Mosaic authorship and then shows how each of the major tenants of the documentary hypothesis really do not stand up when proper textual criticism is employed. This is not an exhaustive treatment of any aspect of this theory and why it fails, but an exhaustive summary of all the criticism of it. All of the major criticism up to the printing of McDowell's book are footnoted for a more exhaustive study.

One thing I don't understand is your comment that you believe that the Catholic Church accepts the documentary hypothesis. I am not Catholic, but I know of no Catholic that accepts it. I have many doctrinal differences with Catholics, but this, to my experience, is not one of them.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 08:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79946#post79946)
apologetics:

It is not who accepts the documentary hypothesis today, the question is who still does. This has been thorough dismantled point-by-point. A few skeptics do still hold fast to it, though, because they understand the ramifications that this theory holds for Christianity in its entirety.

An acceptance of the documentary hypothesis destroys the credibility of the entire Bible. Jesus acknowledges that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. If Moses didn't write the first five books, then Jesus is a one of the first two choices within the Trilemma (either liar or lunatic) and if this is the case, then he isn't the Son of God. The first 22 chapters of Genesis are confirmed by Jesus and/or the disciples in the New Testament. Simply put: JEDP destroys the Bible.

One of the better recaps of this entire problem that I have had the chance to read is in Josh McDowell's book The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Section II is devoted completely to the Documentary Hypothesis. He covers the history behind the formulation of this theory by Julius Wellhausen and his predecessor. He succinctly covers the documentary presuppositions that were needed to conceive such a theory, does a nice job pulling together all of the evidences of Mosaic authorship and then shows how each of the major tenants of the documentary hypothesis really do not stand up when proper textual criticism is employed. This is not an exhaustive treatment of any aspect of this theory and why it fails, but an exhaustive summary of all the criticism of it. All of the major criticism up to the printing of McDowell's book are footnoted for a more exhaustive study.

One thing I don't understand is your comment that you believe that the Catholic Church accepts the documentary hypothesis. I am not Catholic, but I know of no Catholic that accepts it. I have many doctrinal differences with Catholics, but this, to my experience, is not one of them.

As a brother in Christ I must correct you here on your glaring misrepresentation of who holds it and if they can be Christians. First, most non-christian Scholars do still hold to it although not in the same way as Wellhausen. The reasons are many 1) they will not accept Mosaic Authorship that would be admitting to much and 2) they have their own presuppositions, much of the work of the literary critics is good it brings out the meaning of the text. I do not hold to the JEDP but I am just being honest. Second, I know many Christian scholars who hold to the theory, they do so for many reasons, I would also like to add that you are right in saying that there has been some devastating critiques but these things take time to be accepted. Anyway nice post!

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake
:cheers:

[Celsus]

Thanks for the responses. I don't have much to add to Blake's post, except that the very first book I mentioned, written by Father Lawrence Boadt and published by the Paulist Press, shows that Catholics do not necessarily need to reject this theory. I hesitate to check McDowell's ETDAV, partly because Christians themselves rubbish it as poor apologetics. Also, as for GrayPilgrim's challenge, after discussions with a friend, I may consider accepting the challenge as a learning experience. I don't know how well I'll do, but give me a month or so, and I'll be back.

Although, I would still like to hear from him about critiques of the DH. :wink:

Joel

[Celsus]

*bump*

[Socrates]

Celsus:I hesitate to check McDowell's ETDAV, partly because Christians themselves rubbish it as poor apologetics.The Documentary Hypothesis is critiqued in Vol. 2, which is completely different. I have read both, and concur with JP Holding's review, and he has defended JoshMcD more than anyone from loony bibliosceptics, yet that hasn't stopped JPH from being harshly critical of JMcD when he deserved it. From www.tektonics.org/JM.ETD2_0840743793.htm


Bookshop Summary: An excellent introductory text, much better and much more deserving of attention that its older brother with the blue cover. ...

It has passed virtually unnoticed; on Amazon's page, Jeff Lowder has posted a review of it --- or rather, has reposted his review of volume one of the series, which we have indeed had our day with. But volume 2 of ETDAV is not volume 1, and although it has been virtually ignored by the Lowderites, it has an identity of its own and deserves to be considered individually. The poor treatment awarded it is furthermore ironic as well as unjust, for it is by far the more valuable of the two volumes.

To be sure, it suffers from some of the same flaws as its older sibling: It could stand to be updated badly in some places (the chapter on biographical interest in the gospels, for example, sorely needs some information from Richard Burridge), and corrected in others. And yet, a great deal of the information, especially concerning the Documentary Hypothesis and form criticism, remains highly useful and relevant, and that is why we highly recommend it in spite of its flaws.

In closing, yet another irony: From the other reviews on the Amazon page, it seems that the readership of volume 2 has recognized what was left uncomprehended for volume 1 --- that these works are best used as references! How odd at the neglected companion volume of one of the best selling apologetics books on the market has admirably succeeded in so many ways where the original has failed!

[Celsus]

Ok, I managed to find some excerpts from McDowell's METDAV here (http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s3c1.html), in a refutation of the infamous Maurice Bucaille. I have a few problems with it:

1) Why is it dealing with the theory as first formulated by Wellhausen? Things have moved on a great deal since then.

2) Cassuto, mentioned here and in the above link, dates to 1941. I find it strange that no one thought to follow up his ideas?

3) The charge against naturalistic bias cannot be sustained--this is how all history is studied--except that for some reason the Bible is meant to be exempt. However, to accept supernaturalism in the Bible will simply lead to circular reasoning, and as long as no circular understanding is to be allowed, then no supernatural events can be allowed without some external corroborating evidence (of which we have none).

Elsewhere, I noticed that Rendtorff, cited on a page (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dochypo.html) by Glen Miller, and Whybray, recommended here, in no way support a conservative dating or authorship. Neither of these scholars would accept Mosaic authorship in the least. In fact while the Documentary Hypothesis can no longer be taken for granted (see Blenkinsopp, cited earlier), the multi-source (or tradition), non-Mosaic character of the Pentateuch seems to remain undisputed. The Documentary Hypothesis does not seem to be a "dogma," but is even now being revised, thanks to modern scholarship.

Joel

Edited for mootness.