The Documentary Hypothesis is a widely-held theory about the historical origin and formation of the first and most important section of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch. It is the purpose of this brief paper to describe the basic workings of this theory along with an attempt to offer a critical alternative. It should be remembered that simply because a theory is widespread or even in the majority in a particular time-period does not mean that it will retain such a position. Simply because the majority of modern scholars accept some version of the Documentary Hypothesis does not mean that the majority will agree in the future. Regardless, the merit of any theory about biblical books or any other matter must be weighed by not taking a poll of public or scholarly opinion but by weighing the intrinsic value and persuasiveness of the arguments supporting the position. In this case, I have found many reasons that give me serious hesitation when it comes to this particular theory.

The Traditional View

It is clear that the traditional understanding of the authorship and dating of the Pentateuch is that Moses authored the books before his death. The obvious exception to this would be the account of Moses' death found at the end of these books. Presumably this would have been added by a respected witness like Joshua. Additionally, there is no significant problem with granting that Moses made use of source-materials available to him for events or persons that he could not have directly known. For example, the book of Genesis records events and persons that Moses did not know. At the same time, however, there is no good reason to think that Moses is simply collecting "camp-fire" stories that have no relationship to the facts of history. Clearly he has a purpose or "agenda" in selecting the materials that he does but such a purpose in no way implies the events are merely "fiction," myth, or legend.

In fact, there is good reason to think that the book of Genesis is a Mosaic collection of ancient tablets written by persons that were witnesses of the events first-hand (See R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 548). There are apparently eleven "tablets" that were used to compose the first eleven sections of the book, each of which is indicated by the use of the Hebrew toldot. If such is the case, not only do we have the editing work of Moses in Genesis, but we also have even more ancient writings by persons that were witnesses whose testimony is preserved in written rather than merely oral form. It has long been a "problem" for those who take the Bible seriously to react to the claim that the older part of the Jewish Scriptures is nothing more than a loose collection of old myths and legends and that we should not take the text seriously.

Internal as well as external support is abundant for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Although not including first-person references to his authorship, Moses frequently indicates that God commanded him to write down the laws, etc., that he was given (e.g., Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 7, Numbers 33:1-2). Additionally, the rest of the Old Testament presupposes the Mosaic Law and refers to Moses as its author (See Joshua 1:7-8, I Kings 2:3). Further, in the New Testament there is every indication that the authorship of the Pentateuch by Moses was everywhere assumed as true, even by our Lord Himself (Matthew 19:8, John 5:46-47, etc.).

There are many other internal observations that are fully consistent with the traditional view and make it quite compelling. These have been documented in numerous fine, detailed studies of this problem. (1) There are various Egyptian names and places as well as events and geographical descriptions that are consistent with the authorship of the work by one familiar with ancient Egypt. Also, unlike previously assumed by many, the discovery of Hammurabi's Code demonstrates that legal codes were not foreign to the ancient Middle East. Along the same lines, writing and various literary forms found in the Pentateuch were not uncommon in the regions in which the Bible was produced.

In principle, then, it appears that there is little reason to reject the "face-value" evidence offered above and consistently held by Jewish and Christian believers until relatively recent in the history of biblical studies.

The Modern View

Without citing all the details of its history, "modern" biblical scholarship of the last few centuries has largely rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Of course, being a brief discussion of these matters we can be accused of "oversimplification." Clearly there were various ones who defended some role that a real Moses may have had in the Pentateuch but more and more this position gave way to an elaborate theory of its formation that left little room for Moses.

The original impetus for claiming that the Pentateuch was a "patchwork" of various source materials put together by an anonymous redactor was clearly the observation that Moses had to make use of some other sources for Genesis since he was not an eyewitness of the events contained in the book. Secondly, it seemed rather important to those looking for indications in the text of various different "sources" that some terms or names appeared more frequently in some passages in contrast to others. The most famous example is the supposed change of divine names between the "two creation accounts" of Genesis 1-3. In chapter one, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is used while in second "creation account" that begins in chapter two the divine name is myhla hwhy or "Yahweh/Jehovah Elohim." These distinct ways of referring to God added to the relatively superficial differences between the "accounts" were said to be sure-proof that we have here two different "sources" that were simply placed together by a later redactor.

In its beginnings, the Documentary Hypothesis presupposed a particular theory of the development of religions, which we will discuss below, as well as various conclusions about the status of intellectual, moral, and religious life during the supposed time of Moses. Among these were the assumptions that "law" and religion were quite primitive in the period that Moses is purported to have lived as well as the supposed absence of writing at this time. In other words, whatever "Moses" may have said, the only way it could have possibly passed into the future was through oral tradition and then this was placed in writing later. As already indicated, this position is no longer tenable in light of various discoveries over the last century that have shown writing to have been widespread more than 1,500 years before Christ. There is no "educational" or literary argument that can then be made against Moses actually writing the books attributed to him.

In short, the Documentary Hypothesis or the modern view of the Pentateuch is that it was written over a long period of time based on various myths and legends and it was edited and changed based on the development of the religion of the Hebrew people, a development that must have followed a similar course as any other religion of the time.

World-Views

A "world-view" is simply a fundamental way of looking at reality. It refers to the most basic philosophical commitments that a person has towards interpreting our lives and events that happen in its course.

For example, some people are materialists. This means that they view reality as nothing more than matter in motion. There is no "spiritual" dimension. Others, on the other hand, are idealists meaning that they think ideas or thoughts are most primary and basic in the world. There are still others who think reality is made up of both such elements (dualists). Such world-views dictate and determine how the person will react to claims that grow from such presuppositions. Take for instance a story on a news-show the night before this article was written that highlighted a "miracle" that supposedly happened for a Catholic young man who was blind from birth. He suddenly was able to see after walking out of a hospital. The materialist could never admit that such a happening was caused by "God" since, by definition, God cannot exist. If there is nothing but matter and God is, by definition, a spiritual being, then God not only cannot exist but really makes no sense at all since one is speaking about a kind of "reality" that cannot be thought.

The dualist, on the other hand, may be open to a claim of miracles since he has not ruled out from the start the possibility of God's existence or of supernatural happenings.

The nineteenth century was marked for a series of movements that seriously affected "world-views" and shaped biblical scholarship for some time, perhaps all the way to the present. World-views are often so "unseen" in the immediate consciousness of the person that they are often taken for granted. First, the evolutionary theory as presented by Charles Darwin became not only a revolution in the realm of biology and the physical sciences but it was also considered a standard model or "key" by which all other disciplines could be carried out. History could be analyzed in evolutionary terms. Even religion and theology could be so analyzed. There could be detected, it was claimed, a movement from the more simple to the more complex through struggle and conflict and only those views or persons that were best suited to survival would emerge as victors in the end.

Second, Positivism was the premiere attitude in the sciences. Only what was empirically verifiable could be accepted as true. Anything outside of sensory observation was rejected as false. This theory of knowledge was later shown to be self-refuting since the Positivist principle itself could not be empirically verified. Also, the very structures of thought themselves were unverifiable in the Positivistic sense. Some modified form of the theory, then, would have to be developed later. Commitment to the principle itself, however, for a considerable time seemed to cause blindness to the intrinsic weaknesses of that "world-view."

Third, along with the above theories came about a growing conviction that the past could be judged based on the present. In other words, nothing could be accepted as true that could not be shown consistent with happenings today. There is always more reason to believe, it was claimed, in a naturalistic explanation for an event than a supernatural one. Miracles were then ruled out as improbable from the start. Not only were they improbable on a scientific level but they were ruled out as impossible on the level of world-views. Positivism, Materialism, and Empiricism all made miracles impossible for the "educated."

Of course, it should have come as no surprise that miracles were not "everyday" occurrences. That they are rare and unique events is part of what makes them miracles. Unfortunately, the hard sciences overstepped their bounds whenever they tried to extend their influence to history. Without proving beyond doubt the materialistic world-view, a task that cannot be done, it always remains possible that there is a God Who can act in human history. Repeatable observations do not disprove the miraculous they only help to identify when something miraculous has taken place by showing what is the normal way nature works. Whether or not a miracle has happened in the past depends on careful historical analysis as well as carefully considering what grounds there may be for adopting a world-view that allows for miracles.

The History (Evolution?) of Religions School

It is hard to estimate or quantify the influence of Darwin's theory of natural selection. It transformed so many disciplines that its influence was nothing less than incredible. Even though it appears that Darwin's account involving slow changes over eons of time has been replaced by a more sudden account of evolution arising from genetic mutations, his name is still attached with the revolution in knowledge in his century.

The History of Religions School was a part of the fall-out of Darwin's theory in the domain of religious studies. The attempt was made to show that there was a certain kind of progression among religions that would parallel each other. The movement would be from simple, primitive forms of religious expression towards more complex and systematic forms. These accounts of religion vary in many details and become quite complex and therefore we are only able to offer a "sample" of such theories as it related to our purposes.

It was believed that the study of religions shows that animism is the most primitive expression of religious belief. Everything living, trees, grass, etc., was believed to be inhabited by "spirits" or deities that must be feared and respected. In the course of time, these "gods" were objectified to some realm "out there." Some placed them on top of Mount Olympus others elsewhere. This polytheism would then give way to belief in "Tribal Deities." This would occur whenever an individual family or tribe would identify one of the "gods" as its own. Yahweh, for instance, might be the name of the Tribal deity for the family of Abraham. A bit later this family deity would slowly but surely become the only deity through a denial that any of the other tribal gods had real existence. This emergent monotheism would later develop into the belief that the one true God had specially chosen this family and this people so much so that He had entered into a covenant relationship with them. If these people continued to develop so that they became a nation, they would then have a national deity Who would then be claimed as the source of the laws that would be needed to govern the nation. Finally, the continued development of the religion would show the emergence of a priestly religion complete with a temple and sacrifices.

This, of course, is the outline that the religion of Israel supposedly developed according to the evolutionary theory of religion. Scholars then went to work trying to identify distinct "sources" that could be identified with these periods of evolutionary development based on this outline. It was believed that the oldest sources were those in which God was seen as a powerful being, perhaps as Creator, and the name Elohim appeared to be the "clue" that a text was from the period in which God was emphasized in this way. It then became known as the Elohist source or, for short, "E." Those texts that emphasized God as Covenant God of Israel was identified with the covenant name for God, Jaweh (Jehovah), hence "J." Those texts emphasizing an advanced state of Law and social organization were called Deuteronomist ("Second Law"), or "D." Those texts emphasizing priestly elements were identified with a priestly source or "P." Modern commentaries on the Pentateuch, then, are filled with the symbols J, E, D, P as quick ways of referring to these supposed "sources" that were used to compose the Pentateuch as we have it. Certain periods of Israelite history are designated as "turning-points" when the new documents emerged.

Although the theories are much more complicated than the simple presentation offered here, the basic workings should be evident. The Documentary Hypothesis is founded upon the basic conviction that the religion of the Israelite people can be explained in terms of a natural evolutionary process. It is presupposed that there can be no miraculous events in history or at least that we should not refer to them in accounting for the books of Scripture. Comparative religion is then the "key" to understanding the formation of Scripture and the development of the faith of the Jews and, eventually, of Christians.

At best, then, we may describe the "world-view" of those ascribing to the JEDP theory as a "Deistic" one. There may be a God Who brought the universe into existence but reference to such a being is unnecessary in the analysis of religion. Miraculous claims in history must be explained not as valid accounts of divine activity in human history but as ways of setting forth a "hidden" agenda to persuade the people to act in certain ways or believe certain things.

Also, it is impossible to take the narrative sections of Scripture at face-value even when they do not involve miraculous elements. It is common for such theorists to explain the apostasy of the Israelite people into idolatry, for example, as really an "edited" account of a period of time in which idolatry was common and accepted and prior to the development of a religion without idols. A theory of religious evolution is then the guiding principle in interpreting the Scriptures.

Return to World-Views

With the widespread acceptance of the above-stated theory it might be assumed that the case for it is rather strong. The truth of the matter is that it may be criticized on every front, including its strongest ones. For example, that Genesis one and two are unrelated accounts of creation may be seriously questioned. That they have distinct points of emphasis cannot be denied but it is quite possible and, I would say, even natural to believe that the accounts are complementary. After the majestic and rather poetic account of chapter one, we are then given a perspective on creation as finding its summit and center in the creation of the human person. The ordering of creative acts in chapter two differs from chapter one simply because the interest is not chronological but, in a sense, hierarchical. The focus is on the creation of man and woman and the subsequent fall into sin rather than on some kind of precise scientific ordering of events. The use of "Jehovah Elohim" would then emphasize that it was the Covenant God of Israel that is both the Creator of the Universe and personal God Who has created human persons to commune with Himself in covenant relationship.

Not only are the supposed indications of multiple sources woven together over centuries by some unknown redactor questionable and capable of other interpretations, but there is also the more basic problem of whether or not one is obligated to adopt the world-view that originally motivated the theory to begin with. In other words, what if I do not find Deism or Atheism or Positivism compelling? To state the same point, what if I find good reason to believe in a personal God Who is intimately concerned with the events of our world and even of our own lives? What if God really does know my needs before I pray? What if God does know how many hairs are upon my head? In such a case, I have no principial objection to the textual claim that God appeared to Moses or Abraham or any of the other Patriarchs. I have no a priori assumption that Jesus could not have raised from the dead. In other words, if my world-view allows for the possibility of miracles then I am under no obligation to admit to the claims of the Documentary Hypothesis. To the contrary, if my world-view allows for the possibility of miraculous events then I am justified in concluding that the History of Religions School and the Documentary Hypothesis have radically overstated their case and should consider the foundational assumptions upon which their theories rest.

If in fact God has communicated the knowledge of Himself and His Laws and, ultimately, His Gospel to human beings in history, then it would no longer be impossible but would rather be expected that we would find a certain development and advanced state of belief among the Hebrew people than we would find among surrounding tribes or nations. In other words, there is nothing inconceivable with the Israelites believing in one God while all the surrounding people-groups believed in many gods and worshipped idols. The difference would be explained by divine revelation in history. This position would not only fit with the claims of the text itself but it would allow us to avoid the extreme subjectivity and arbitrariness found among those engaging in JEDP theory.

Finally, there is an even deeper problem or difference between the claims of this paper and those of the Documentary Hypothesis. The presupposed theory of the evolution of religion is actually the very opposite of the biblical perspective on religion. Romans 1:18-23 is a classic text in which the Apostle Paul argues that the knowledge of the true God is available to all people. This knowledge can in fact be seen in and through the created order. The problem is that because of sin and laziness of mind the understanding becomes progressively darkened and men move further and further from the true God. In other words, according to Scripture, the human religions are not, of their own power, becoming more like the truth about God but they are actually moving away because of sin and darkness. Any examples of movements towards the truth must be attributed, according to Scripture, to the mysterious work of divine grace preparing persons for the truth of the Gospel.

The Documentary Hypothesis is then not only contrary to the world-view presupposed and defended by Christians but it is also the exact opposite of the account of religion and its development within the Christian Scriptures themselves.

Conclusion

Our purpose has been to expose the reader to the basic workings of the prevailing theory today regarding the formation of the Pentateuch. We have attempted to identify the main features of the theory (at the risk of oversimplification) and also to show why we are not only under no obligation to accept it as true but we are actually armed with some serious criticisms of its soundness. Among these are (1) the presupposed world-view, (2) the subjectivity and questionable nature of the textual supports for the theory, (3) criticisms of the evolutionary theory as applied to religion, and the (4) biblical explanations of the development of religion.

We might also wish to add that there appears to have been a movement away from taking seriously the external evidence of a book towards dating and identifying the authorship of a book. I find this quite distressing. It seems that the ancients were in a better position to measure such questions than are we thousands of years after the fact and with quite limited data. It has been my experience that the more archaeological data is available the more it comes to support a straightforward reading of the biblical text without engaging in an endless and, in my opinion, futile quest at identifying "sources" that in turn rest upon a theory of religion that fundamentally disagrees with the claims of Scripture itself.

1. See, for example, James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, and Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch.