Thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis

The Eclipse of the “Documentary Hypothesis,” Sometimes Called the “Graf-Wellhausen’s Theory”

by Donald Philip Veitch (no copyright claimed whatsoever)

When discussing the Documentary Hypothesis, sometimes called the “Graf-Wellhausen Theory,” one refers to a composition-theory of the first five books of the Bible. This composition-theory deals with the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The scope of these books cover Israel’s story: Creation, Flood, Patriarchal narratives, Exodus, Wilderness Wanderings, and closes with Moses’ death (Dt. 34). The argument of the centuries, Jewish as well as Christian, has held that Moses was the key author of all five books, including possibly a school of scribes under his direction. In conflict with this view, however, a 19th-20th century view emerged in Germany called the “Documentary Hypothesis” or Graf-Wellhausen’s Theory.” This 100-year old theory held dominance in many scholarly circles but, at the present, it shows signs of extinction. Professor Tulloch, a tentative documentarian himself, gives the gentle, telling, but undeveloped eulogy: “A marked shift in emphasis has occurred in Old Testament studies in recent years. There has been a movement away from examining the pieces that make up the literature to examining the finished product” (Tulloch 15). Why the passing? Three reasons are suggested for the extinction: a history of chaos and confusion, a history of unanswered and dubious assumptions, and a significant credulity in the face of sustained and credible opposition.

Before looking at these three factors of extinction or scholarly retreat, what is this theory called the “Documentary Hypothesis” or “Graf-Wellhausian” theory? The thumbnail answer is that at least four writer/editors wrote Israel’s history centuries after Moses (1446-1406 B.C.E.) and, for some scholars, one century after Israel’s Babylonian exile (609 B.C.E.-520 B.C.E.) of date 450 B.C.E. In short, the first five books of the Bible are redacted (created) histories over a 1000 year period. The theory claims to have discovered four writers or sources called J, E, D, and P. Rather than the “Documentary Hypothesis,” it is sometimes calls the JEDP-Theory. Here is why.

• The “J” writer or source is dated 950 B.C.E. This writer allegedly wrote during Solomon’s reign (970-930 BCE), five hundred years after Moses. This source distinctively uses the OT name of Jehovah, יְהוָה, sometimes spelled YWHW or Jahwist. Hence, the term “J.”

• “E”, shorthand for an “Elohist” writer or document, was a redactor/redaction of “J” hailing from 750 B.C.E., seven hundred years after Moses. The distinctive name, Elohim or אֱלֹהִים, characterizes this source.

• “D” is a “Deuteronomist” redactor/document, a source from 550 B.C.E., nine hundred years after Moses. This writer/document is informed by the “rediscovery” of the Book of Deuteronomy during King Josiah’s reign in 621 B.C.E. and reflects legal concerns.

• “P” is shorthand for a “Priestly” document/redactor, dated 500-450 B.C.E. This was “a history written by the priests around 450 B.C.E, adding legal materials related to worship and genealogical lists” (Tulloch 14). This is 1000 years after Moses.

With circularity and gratuity, this compositional theory claims that the final product was “creatively pieced together” shortly after the Babylonian Exile (Sproul, 1). Other assertions are made about these four sources: different distribution of the divine names, repetitive stories (Abraham’s wife and Isaac’s wife), repetitive laws (e.g. Passover, Ex.12.1-20, 21-23; Dt. 16.1-8), different geographical names (e.g. Mt. Horeb and Mount Sinai) and differing theologies. The “JEDP Theory,” or the Documentary Theory,” was “an assured result of scholarly research,” a dominant claim by Documentarians. But one documentarian, Dr. Tulloch, granted —in a serious concession—that the theory suffered “from an exaggerated sense of certainty about the historical framework based upon little evidence” (Tulloch, 14). While this is a refreshing concession by Dr. Tulloch, an elaboration on this theory would have shown much more, namely, a history of chaos and confusion, a history of dubious assumptions, and a significant credulity amongst their own advocates.

History of Chaos and Confusion. The first issue is that the Graf-Welhausen’s theory
suffers from a history of chaos, confusion, contradiction, and reversal amongst its advocates. In the literature, the scholars disagree amongst themselves as to the criteria and dates of J, E, D, and P—for starters. This has made the theory difficult to comprehend and defend. To fully argue this point, one would need to review the key players, their publications and their own disagreements and disavowals: Astruc, DeWette, Hupfeld, Eichorn, Kuenan, Eissfelt, and others. That alone, a history, would merit a doctoral level dissertation. “One scholar’s `J’ is
another’s `E.’” These disagreements are not occasional in the literature, but are distributive and dominant . Dr. Gleason Archer, a modern OT scholar in the old Princetonian school, sarcastically summarized the issue: “Observe the contradictions and reversals of this documentary theory” (Archer 90). Chaos and confusion has prevailed.

To illustrate this chaos, a photo may help. A fuller picture would have J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 and more J’s, indexed to any given scholar, with the photo to the left having many more
connecting lines in the diagram. One scholar has his list of biblical texts that reflect the “J” source. We can call that a J1 scholar. Another scholar disagrees and offers his unique list of biblical texts that are truly a J-source. We can call that second scholar a J2 scholar with his unique list contradicting the J1 scholar. Multiply the scholars who have differing and conflicting lists of biblical texts that are alleged J-sources. We again note Dr. Archer’s dictum: “Observe the contradictions and reversals of this documentary theory” (Archer 90). Illustratively, the argument can be extended to the E-sources indexed to variant views of scholars with conflicting lists of biblical texts. By way of argument, let this be the E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 and more E’s, indexed to any given scholar, with more lines for the above diagram. There are also some scholars who feel that J and E have the same author, e.g. Dr. Hupfeld (Archer, 90). But then again, there are scholars who think there is no J, E, or D, just a P. There are earlier E’s and later E’s according to varied scholars. (Archer, 90). The argument is applied to variant and conflicting views about texts for D. There are D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and more D-lists, indexed to varying scholars. There are P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and more P’s. Some P’s precede the J’s. (Archer, 90). Unsatisfied with JEDP, other scholars advocate for a “K” or Kenite” source, “L,”, “S,” “R” and more. Hence, the photo used above can be filled in and new lines drawn—the result is chaos, confusion and reversals. One might say that “one needs a scorecard to keep them straight.” While we have offered a quick photo, it is fair to say that this paragraph
summarizes the history of confusion and chaos. Such a multi-mutant theory is not for the “faint- hearted” as one scholar gently and quite charitably reminds us:

"No longer can a biblical scholar begin a sentence with the word J and presume that another scholar will listen to the rest—or that the other scholar will mean more or less the same thing even if she is willing to use that term. The verities enshrined in older introductions have disappeared, and in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is (to quote John van Seter's description of one seminal work) `not for the faint-hearted.'" (Sommer 1)

Indeed, Graf-Wellhausen’s theory is not for the “faint-hearted” with its permutations that are “discouragingly numerous.” This theory is a theory that has died due to a history of reversals and contradictions. It has also died because of dubious assumptions and its excessive credulity by its adherents.

Dubious Assumptions. In addition to the conflicted theory of chaos, the second argument proposed for the extinction of this theory is its history of problematic and dubious assumptions. We can only trace of few of these problems with a few suggested rebuttals.

For example, one dubious assumption concerns the criteria of names, e.g. Jehovah and Elohim, as a reference-point to date two sources, J and E. But this begs the question and argues in a vicious, but not virtuous, circle. The argument runs this way: (1) This set of biblical texts use Jehovah’s name. (2) Only a “Jehovist” redactor writes this way in 950 B.C.E. (3) Therefore, these texts are written by a “J” or “Jehovist” redactor in 950 B.C.E. The assumption in premise one is that Moses could not and did not use the name “Jehovah.” But who granted that assumption, other than Dr. Graf and Dr. Wellhausen? And why was this assumption granted, other than with circulatory and selective evidence? Further, by what criteria is 950 B.C.E. adopted except by a scholarly assumption and assertion without evidence. By what stretch of the imagination is Moses unable to use two names of God? One is never told insofar as this scribe can see. There are many more than two names throughout the Old Testament, e.g. Jehovah- Nissi, Jehovah-Tskekenuh, El-Shaddai, El-Elyon, El-Olam, Adonai, as well as others. Furthermore, one third of the 150 Psalms, eleventh century B.C.E. documents, use both names, Jehovah and Elohim. Where does 950 and 750 B.C.E. arise? By parallel, Dr. D. James Kennedy , examined President George Washington’s dairies—which had many religious references—and found about eighty different permutations of divine names in the diaries, e.g. God Almighty, God the Father, Most Merciful God, Eternal God, Fountain of all goodness, Holy One, Most blessed and most merciful God, etc. By parallel, were there eighty authors of George Washington’s diaries? Without substantial answers, one gets the preliminary whiff of regal and imperial assumptions, a theory in search of non-supporting facts.

A second dubious assumption is offered concerning “P,” the Priestly Source of 450 B.C.E. The assumption is that Israel in Moses’ time could not have known about priestly and tabernacle issues, e.g. Ex.25-40 and Leviticus. On this assumption, it was not possible for Moses to write about priests, sacrifices and a religious center. The assumption, like the one above, suffers from severe question-begging and circularity. The argument runs likes this. (1) Moses did not know of priestly, sacrificial, or religious rituals. (2) Redactors in 450 B.C.E. did know about these matters. (3) Therefore, what Moses couldn’t do, this “P” redactor did. Premise one is assumed without warrant. The conclusion simply repeats the premise. Were there no priestly and religious rituals in the surrounding ancient near eastern religions during Moses’ day of the 15th century B.C.E.? Cultures having priests and religious rituals, e.g. the Hittite culture of the 15th-14th century? By parallel, even if one granted a 7th-8th century provenance to Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, why must a “Priestly” redactor be assumed for a 450 B.C.E. date? Greek religion teems with references to “sacrifices to the gods” centuries before 450 B.C.E. Can that not occur with the Israelites? One could compile a long list of priestly and religious texts from the 13th-9th century B.C.E. rebutting this assumption of 450 B.C.E. Professor William Henry Green of Princeton Seminary did exactly that--offering at least 300 such references written in the 13th-9th centuries and referring to Moses’ writings…long before 450 B.C.E. (Green 34ff.) In fact, Green buried this dubious assumption in 1895 and 1896 C.E.

A third gratuitous assumption—heard less and less these days—was that Moses and associates were not literate. While we do not have authoritative sources immediately at hand, this scribe has heard it in years past. Also, Professor William F. Albright, America’s premier “Father and Dean of Archaeology” at John Hopkins University, the doctoral mentor of my Professor of Hebrew, Dr. Milton Fisher, insisted that the Graf-Wellhausians were dominated by their assumptions, rigidity and intransigent defiance to abundant archaeological data. According to Dr. Fisher, Professor Albright constantly complained about Graf-Wellhausians “sweeping the evidence under the rug” in the interests of a theory and philosophy. Just on the assumption of divine names alone as a criterion, Professor Albright said this was “completely absurd” (Albright 29). When related to Moses’ literacy, surrounding nations had literate scribes. Why must one assume that Moses was not literate? For example, the ancient Sumerians (3000 B.C.E.) and Akkadians had scribes who wrote wisdom proverbs as a means of teaching both wisdom, but also as a method to learning a second language (Tulloch 330). The 15th-14th century Hittites, Babylonians and Egyptians had “polyglot” dictionaries in “parallel” columns for reasons of international diplomacy and translation of treatises. Under-privileged Semitic miners at the turquoise mines in the Sinai Peninsula “were scrawling their alphabetic inscriptions as early as 1500 B.C., if not earlier” (Archer 96). The Egyptian scribes, c. 1000 B.C.E., were trained in Pharaoh’s court (as was Moses) and used the “Instruction of Amen-em-opet,” a manual to teach youth morals (Tulloch 330). Many surrounding cultures had literate scribes, so why would one gratuitously assume illiteracy, ignoring “the cumulative evidence that the Hebrews were a highly literate people from the times of Moses onwards”? (Archer 96) These are a few examples of objections to another dubious assumption.

A fourth assumption will be dispatched quickly, namely, that allegedly differing styles characterize the four alleged sources. This is more circular reasoning and question begging. Here is how the argument runs. (1) Genesis contains narrative and not legal materials. (2) Leviticus contains legal and religious materials but little narrative. (3) Ergo, given these differences, there are two sources. The scholar gets what he wants—confirmation of his assumption by repeating it with a conclusion. We offer one rebuttal, although more have been crafted. John Milton, the 17th century English poet and polemicist, wrote a cheerful poem entitled, L’Allegro. He wrote the Paradise Lost, a serious epic poem whose subject and style differed from L’Allegro. He also wrote the Aeropagita, a work full of prose essays. All three had different subjects and styles. By parallel reasoning, were there three different Miltons? M1, M2, and M3? On Graf-Wellhausian assumptions, there would need to be several Miltons. This fourth assumption, dubious as it is, is dispatched quickly without further ado.

Excessive Credulity. Graf-Wellhausen has suffered from excessive credulity—to the
point that its own adherents are dismissing or re-working it. Several quotes will be listed from
critics who find the theory “extravagant,” a theory for the “credulous, and a theory full of
circular reasons and question begging. Unlike the 100-year past with the frequent, if not
triumphalist, assurances that JEDP was “an assured result of scholarship,” one writer speaks of the modern relinquishment of the earlier claims to scientific methodology:

"The mid-1980s and the early 1990s witnessed a resurgence of biblical scholars challenging, revising, and even rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis. First and foremost, scholars relinquished claims to a scientific methodology." (Stern 182)

The same writer, Dr. Stern, quotes another scholar, Dr. Tigay, regarding the “notorious subjectivity” of Graf-Wellhausen, what we term “excessive credulity” without warrant or evidence. He says,

"In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Jeffery Tigay insists that "The degree of subjectivity which such hypothetical [source critical] procedures permit is notorious." In fact, he characterizes these procedures as `reading between the lines.'" (Stern 182)

We repeat Dr. Tulloch’s gentle, but unexplained, concession-speech about Graf-Wellhausen— credulity. This scribe views credulity as the unspoken subtext Dr. Tulloch’s comment. We might employ the metaphor of historic beach erosion over time for the disappearance of Graf-Wellhausen, although Dr. Tulloch is kinder when he says:

“A marked shift in emphasis has occurred in Old Testament studies in recent years. There has been a movement away from examining the pieces that make up the literature to examining the finished product” (Tulloch 15).

Another OT scholar offers this unflattering description of Graf-Wellhausen:

"This review of the activity in the field of Old Testament criticism during the last quarter-century has revealed a chaos of conflicting trends, ending in contradictory results, which create an impression of ineffectiveness in this type of research. The conclusion seems unavoidable that the higher criticism has long since passed the age of constructive achievement.” (Hahn, 41)
Dr. Gleason Archer offers this excoriating summary of Graf-Wellhausen (AKA “Credulity Theory of 100 Years”) when he says:

“Almost every supporting pillar has been shaken and shattered by a generation of scholars who were brought up on the Graf-Wellhausen system and yet have found it inadequate to explain the data of the Pentateuch…They have undermined the defenses and torn down the bastion which buttressed the documentary hypothesis, but they have gravitated quite definitely into an even more implausible position than that occupied by their predecessors…the Hebrews never got around to inscripturating the records of their faith until 500 B.C. or later. It requires a tremendous willingness to believe the unlikely for an investigator to come up with a conclusion like that" (Archer 104).

In short, Graf-Wellhausen has disappeared because the credulity of its earlier chieftains and advocates has been explored and exposed.

A Few Objections. First, given the dominance of this theory over the last 100 years, upon what grounds is it dismissed? Answer: the onus probandi rests with the defenders of Graf-Wellhausen and this theory has suffered a chaotic history with dubious assumptions and with credible scholars debunking the credulity. It’s own advocates have abandoned the theory, or at least, have reworked it with further problems. Second objection: Medical Doctors need an M.D. and a state license. Airline pilots require training. Lawyers are required to pass a bar exam. By what stroke do you think you— without a doctorate in OT—think you can deconstruct Graf-Wellhausen. Answer: we concur with the objection, although serious doctors in the OT have taken up the attacks, including adherents of Graf-Wellhausen. Conceding this objection, the studies must continue. Third objection, how to you account for the widespread dominance of Graf-Wellhausen? Answer: This a a commendable, if not difficult, objection. Although we lack graduate and doctoral credentials in sociology, e.g. "elite theory," and social psychology, we post that perhaps 100 elites in Germany and England--pre-internet days--were able to dominate influential instititutions. While the objection has force, we still are left with a gaggle of OT scholars abandoning the theory over the last generation. Pray tell, why? Having noted these three suggested objections, the onus of proof still rests with the Documentarians—and from what we have seen, they have been abandoning the hypothesis for the last thirty years. A reasonable person asks “Why?” Three reasons have been posited.

Confused like Rowan in Canterbury?

Rowan is consistently confused with Hegelian tensions between his accomodating ears, so we look for no help from him. The shocked eyes and fly-away eyebrows best represents CANTAUR's confused responses to Graf-Wellhausen (and many other issues). We view Rowan as our mascot of perennial confusion.

Although not an Old Testament scholar myself, the frequent hints, one-liners (without explanation), isolated paragraphs here and there, and other concessions raised the question. What has become of the Documentary or Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis? Why has it all but disappeared? The impetus to this argument was to collect some of the reasons for the death, disappearance and/or retreat of this theory. Upon review, the situation is worse than previously imagined, although few celebrate the history of chaos and confusion, the history of dubious assumptions, and the evident credulity. In fact, documentarians appear to have presided at the funeral and have uttered, “Requiescat in pace,” or, “Rest in peace.” The Graf-Wellhausen Theory is full of historic, special pleading with chaos as the common theme. It possesses numerous assumptions that are begged and circular in nature. The theory operates with questionable deductions from those assumptions. An excessive credulity has existed as 19th-20th century scholars, living more than 3400 years after Moses, have assumed that they can reliably reconstruct the 15th century B.C.E.—they assume they can do that better than even the redactors themselves who, on Documentary terms, lived 500 to 1000 years after Moses. Dr. William Green of old Princeton summarized it: “…extravagant theorizing…revolutionary conclusions…a dubious scientific respectability.” (Green v.)

Doctors Graf and Wellhausen, your Documentarian children have buried you both saying: “Requiescant in pace.” The theory still demands more reasons to explain its demise—this represents but a mere beginning.

Works Cited

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1977. Print.

Albright, William. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1968. Print.

Green, William Henry. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. New York: Charles Scribners and Sons, 1895. Print.

Hahn, H.F. The Old Testament in Modern Research. Norwick, UK: S.C.M. Press, 1956. Print.

Sommer, Benjamin, review of Benjamin Sommer, review of Ernest Nicholson’s “The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen,” Review of Biblical
Literature, 30 September 2000. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.

Stern, David. "RECENT TRENDS IN BIBLICAL SOURCE CRITICISM. (Cover story)."
Jewish Bible Quarterly 36.3 (2008): 182-186. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.
9 Dec. 2010.

Sproul, R.C., ed. The New Geneva Study Bible. London: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995. Print.

Tulloch, John H, and Mark McEntire. The Old Testament Story. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson-
Prentiss Hall, 2009. Print.