Documentary hypothesis

The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of the models historically used by

biblical scholars to explain the origins and composition of the Torah (or
Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy).[4] More recent models include the supplementary
hypothesis and the fragmentary hypothesis. All agree that the Torah is not a
unified work from a single author, but is made up of sources combined over
many centuries by many hands.[5] These models differ on the nature of these
sources and how they were combined.

The documentary hypothesis posited that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four

originally independent documents: the Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist Diagram of the 20th century
documentary hypothesis.
(D), and Priestly (P) sources. The first of these, J, was dated to the Solomonic
J: Yahwist (10th–9th century
period (c. 950 BCE).[1] E was dated somewhat later, in the 9th century BCE, and
BCE)[1][2]
D was dated just before the reign of King Josiah, in the 7th or 8th century.
E: Elohist (9th century BCE)[1]
Finally, P was generally dated to the time of Ezra in the 5th century BCE.[3][2]
Dtr1: early (7th century BCE)
The sources would have been joined together at various points in time by a series
Deuteronomist historian
of editors or "redactors."[6]
Dtr2: later (6th century BCE)
A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German Deuteronomist historian

scholar Julius Wellhausen, was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th P*: Priestly (6th–5th century
BCE)[3][2]
century, but the consensus has now collapsed.[7] This was triggered in large part
by the influential publications of John Van Seters, Hans Heinrich Schmid, and D†: Deuteronomist

Rolf Rendtorff in the mid-1970s.[8] These "revisionist" authors ultimately R: redactor

convinced the vast majority of scholars to date J no earlier than the time of the DH: Deuteronomistic history (books
of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings)
Babylonian captivity (597–539 BCE),[9] and to reject the existence of a
substantial E source.[10] They also called into question the nature and extent of
the three other sources. Van Seters, Schmid, and Rendtorff shared many of the
same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in complete agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it.[8]

As a result, there has been a revival of interest in fragmentary and supplementary approaches, frequently in combination with
each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.[11]
Modern scholars generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian Achaemenid Empire (probably 450–
350 BCE), although some would place its production in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE), after the conquests of Alexander
the Great.[12]

Contents
History of the documentary hypothesis
Wellhausen and the new documentary hypothesis
Collapse of the documentary consensus
The Torah and the history of Israel's religion
See also
 Notes
References
Bibliography
External links

History of the documentary hypothesis

The Torah (or Pentateuch) is collectively the first five books of the
Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.[13]
According to tradition they were dictated by God to Moses,[14] but
when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible it was
discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would
expect from a single author.[15] As a result, the Mosaic authorship of the
Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century,
and the modern consensus is that it is the product of a long evolutionary
process.[16][17][Note 1]

In the mid-18th century, some scholars started a critical study of

doublets (parallel accounts of the same incidents), inconsistencies, and
changes in style and vocabulary in the Torah.[16] In 1780 Johann
Eichhorn, building on the work of the French doctor and exegete Jean
Astruc's "Conjectures" and others, formulated the "older documentary
hypothesis": the idea that Genesis was composed by combining two
11th-century manuscript of the Hebrew Bible. identifiable sources, the Jehovist ("J"; also called the Yahwist) and the
Elohist ("E").[18] These sources were subsequently found to run through
the first four books of the Torah, and the number was later expanded to
three when Wilhelm de Wette identified the Deuteronomist as an additional source found only in Deuteronomy ("D").[19] Later
still the Elohist was split into Elohist and Priestly ("P") sources, increasing the number to four.[20]

These documentary approaches were in competition with two other models, the fragmentary and the supplementary.[5] The
fragmentary hypothesis argued that fragments of varying lengths, rather than continuous documents, lay behind the Torah; this
approach accounted for the Torah's diversity but could not account for its structural consistency, particularly regarding
chronology.[21] The supplementary hypothesis was better able to explain this unity: it maintained that the Torah was made up of a
central core document, the Elohist, supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.[21] The supplementary approach was
dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853, who argued
that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-
Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy.[22] At around the same period Karl Heinrich Graf argued that
the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while Wilhelm Vatke linked the four to an
evolutionary framework, the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical
religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.[23]

Wellhausen and the new documentary hypothesis

In 1878 Julius Wellhausen published Geschichte Israels, Bd 1 ("History of Israel, Vol 1"); the second edition he printed as
Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels ("Prolegomena to the History of Israel"), in 1883, and the work is better known under that
name.[24] (The second volume, a synthetic history titled Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte ["Israelite and Jewish History"],
did not appear until 1894 and remains untranslated.) Crucially, this historical portrait was based upon two earlier works of his
technical analysis: "Die Composition des Hexateuchs" ("The Composition
of the Hexateuch") of 1876/77 and sections on the "historical books"
(Judges–Kings) in his 1878 edition of Friedrich Bleek's Einleitung in das
Alte Testament ("Introduction to the Old Testament").

Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis owed little to Wellhausen himself

but was mainly the work of Hupfeld, Eduard Eugène Reuss, Graf, and
others, who in turn had built on earlier scholarship.[25] He accepted
Hupfeld's four sources and, in agreement with Graf, placed the Priestly
work last.[20] J was the earliest document, a product of the 10th century
BCE and the court of Solomon; E was from the 9th century in the northern
Kingdom of Israel, and had been combined by a redactor (editor) with J to
form a document JE; D, the third source, was a product of the 7th century
BCE, by 620 BCE, during the reign of King Josiah; P (what Wellhausen
first named "Q") was a product of the priest-and-temple dominated world
of the 6th century; and the final redaction, when P was combined with JED
to produce the Torah as we now know it.[26][27]

Wellhausen's explanation of the formation of the Torah was also an

Julius Wellhausen
explanation of the religious history of Israel.[27] The Yahwist and Elohist
described a primitive, spontaneous and personal world, in keeping with the
earliest stage of Israel's history; in Deuteronomy he saw the influence of the prophets and the development of an ethical outlook,
which he felt represented the pinnacle of Jewish religion; and the Priestly source reflected the rigid, ritualistic world of the priest-
dominated post-exilic period.[28] His work, notable for its detailed and wide-ranging scholarship and close argument, entrenched
the "new documentary hypothesis" as the dominant explanation of Pentateuchal origins from the late 19th to the late 20th
centuries.[20][Note 2]

Collapse of the documentary consensus

The consensus around the documentary hypothesis collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.[7] Three major publications
of the 1970s caused scholars to seriously question the assumptions of the documentary hypothesis: Abraham in History and
Tradition by John Van Seters, Der sogenannte Jahwist ("The So-Called Yahwist") by Hans Heinrich Schmid, and Das
überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch ("The Tradition-Historical Problem of the Pentateuch") by Rolf Rendtorff.
These three authors shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in agreement about what
paradigm ought to replace it.[8]

Van Seters and Schmid both forcefully argued, to the satisfaction of most scholars, that the Yahwist source could not be dated to
the Solomonic period (c. 950 BCE) as posited by the documentary hypothesis. They instead dated J to the period of the
Babylonian captivity (597–539 BCE), or the late monarchic period at the earliest.[9] Van Seters also sharply criticized the idea of
a substantial Elohist source, arguing that E extends at most to two short passages in Genesis.[29] This view has now been accepted
by the vast majority of scholars.[10]

Some scholars, following Rendtorff, have come to espouse a fragmentary hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch is seen as a
compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the
Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases.[30][31][32] By contrast, scholars such as John Van Seters advocate a supplementary
hypothesis, which posits that the Torah is the result of two major additions—Yahwist and Priestly—to an existing corpus of
work.[33]
Scholars frequently use these newer hypotheses in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it
difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.[11] The majority of scholars today continue to recognise
Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently
given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of
Moses.[34] Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is
uncertain.[35] The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly
material.[36]

The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on
earlier sources, likely completed during the Persian period (539–333 BCE).[37][38] Some scholars would place its final
compilation somewhat later, however, in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE).[39]

A revised neo-documentary hypothesis still has adherents, especially in North America and Israel.[40] This distinguishes sources
by means of plot and continuity rather than stylistic and linguistic concerns, and does not tie them to stages in the evolution of
Israel's religious history.[40] Its resurrection of an E source is probably the element most often criticised by other scholars, as it is
rarely distinguishable from the classical J source and European scholars have largely rejected it as fragmentary or non-
existent.[41]

The Torah and the history of Israel's religion

Wellhausen used the sources of the Torah as evidence of changes in the history of Israelite religion as it moved (in his opinion)
from free, simple and natural to fixed, formal and institutional.[42] Modern scholars of Israel's religion have become much more
circumspect in how they use the Old Testament, not least because many have concluded that the Bible is not a reliable witness to
the religion of ancient Israel and Judah,[43] representing instead the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite
community centred in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship of the god Yahweh.[44][45]

See also
Authorship of the Bible
Biblical criticism
Books of the Bible
Dating the Bible
Mosaic authorship

Notes
1. The reasons behind the rejection are covered in more detail in the article on Mosaic authorship.
2. The two-source hypothesis of Eichorn was the "older" documentary hypothesis, and the four-source hypothesis
adopted by Wellhausen was the "newer".

References
1. Viviano 1999, p. 40.
2. Gmirkin 2006, p. 4.
3. Viviano 1999, p. 41.
4. Patzia & Petrotta 2010, p. 37.
5. Viviano 1999, pp. 38–39.
6. Van Seters 2015, p. viii.
 7. Carr 2014, p. 434.
8. Van Seters 2015, p. 41.
9. Van Seters 2015, pp. 41–43.
10. Carr 2014, p. 436.
11. Van Seters 2015, p. 12.
12. Greifenhagen 2003, pp. 206–207, 224 fn.49.
13. McDermott 2002, p. 1.
14. Kugel 2008, p. 6.
15. Campbell & O'Brien 1993, p. 1.
16. Berlin 1994, p. 113.
17. Baden 2012, p. 13.
18. Ruddick 1990, p. 246.
19. Patrick 2013, p. 31.
20. Barton & Muddiman 2010, p. 19.
21. Viviano 1999, p. 38.
22. Barton & Muddiman 2010, p. 18–19.
23. Friedman 1997, p. 24–25.
24. Kugel 2008, p. 41.
25. Barton & Muddiman 2010, p. 20.
26. Viviano 1999, p. 40–41.
27. Gaines 2015, p. 260.
28. Viviano 1999, p. 51.
29. Van Seters 2015, p. 42.
30. Viviano 1999, p. 49.
31. Thompson 2000, p. 8.
32. Ska 2014, pp. 133–135.
33. Van Seters 2004, p. 77.
34. Otto 2015, p. 605.
35. Carr 2014, p. 457.
36. Otto 2014, p. 609.
37. Greifenhagen 2003, pp. 206–207.
38. Whisenant 2010, p. 679, "Instead of a compilation of discrete sources collected and combined by a final redactor,
the Pentateuch is seen as a sophisticated scribal composition in which diverse earlier traditions have been
shaped into a coherent narrative presenting a creation-to-wilderness story of origins for the entity 'Israel.'"
39. Greifenhagen 2003, pp. 206–207, 224 n. 49.
40. Gaines 2015, p. 271.
41. Gaines 2015, p. 272.
42. Miller 2000, p. 182.
43. Lupovitch, Howard N. (2010). "The world of the Hebrew Bible" (https://books.google.com/books?id=s7uLAgAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA5). Jews and Judaism in World History. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 5–10. ISBN 978-0-203-86197-4.
44. Stackert 2014, p. 24.
45. Wright 2002, p. 52.

Bibliography
Baden, Joel S. (2012). The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (https://book
s.google.com/?id=Beg7LeeNGlkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Anchor Yale Reference Library.
Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15263-0.
Barton, John (2014). "Biblical Scholarship on the European Continent, in the UK, and Ireland" (https://books.goog
le.com/?id=rMzUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA311&dq=%22sure+of+only+two+things+about+the+sources+of+the+Pentat
euch%22#v=onepage&q=%22sure%20of%20only%20two%20things%20about%20the%20sources%20of%20th
e%20Pentateuch%22&f=false). In Saeboe, Magne; Ska, Jean Louis; Machinist, Peter (eds.). Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-
Modernism. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-54022-0.
Barton, John; Muddiman, John (2010). The Pentateuch (https://books.google.com/?id=ldMUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA
18&dq=%221860s%22%22leading+scholars%22%22supplementary+hypothesis%22#v=onepage&q=%221860
s%22%22leading%20scholars%22%22supplementary%20hypothesis%22&f=false). Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-958024-8.
Berlin, Adele (1994). Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (https://books.google.com/?id=eLoBhPENIB
QC&pg=PA113&dq=%22source+criticism%22%22detecting+in+the+text+evidence+of+its+earlier+stages%22#v=
onepage&q=%22source%20criticism%22%22detecting%20in%20the%20text%20evidence%20of%20its%20earli
er%20stages%22&f=false). Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-1-57506-002-6.
Bos, James M. (2013). Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea (https://books.google.co
m/?id=buoRBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-0-567-06889-7.
Brettler, Marc Zvi (2004). "Torah: Introduction". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible
(https://books.google.com/?id=aDuy3p5QvEYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Jewish+study+Bible#v=onepage&
q&f=false). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-529751-5.
Campbell, Antony F.; O'Brien, Mark A. (1993). Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (http
s://books.google.com/?id=cwhICpcHBsQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sources+of+the+Pentateuch:+Texts,+Introd
uctions,+Annotations#v=onepage&q=Sources%20of%20the%20Pentateuch%3A%20Texts%2C%20Introduction
s%2C%20Annotations&f=false). Fortress Press. ISBN 978-1-4514-1367-0.
Carr, David M. (2007). "Genesis" (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA434&dq=%22c
ollapse+of+consensus%22%22debate+surrounding+virtually+every+aspect%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin
y9LBy-jZAhXMabwKHWvHAnEQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22collapse%20of%20consensus%22%22debate%
20surrounding%20virtually%20every%20aspect%22&f=false). In Coogan, Michael David; Brettler, Marc Zvi;
Newsom, Carol Ann (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-528880-3.
Carr, David M. (2014). "Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism" (https://books.google.com/?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=P
A434&dq=could+be+presupposed+as+a+givenfor+over+a+hundred+years#v=onepage&q&f=false). In Saeboe,
Magne; Ska, Jean Louis; Machinist, Peter (eds.). Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-
Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
ISBN 978-3-525-54022-0.
Enns, Peter (2013). "3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship"
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-a
bout-biblical-scholarship/). patheos.com.
Frei, Peter (2001). "Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary". In Watts, James (ed.). Persia and Torah: The
Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press. p. 6. ISBN 9781589830158.
Friedman, Richard Elliott (1997). Who Wrote the Bible?. HarperOne.
Gaines, Jason M.H. (2015). The Poetic Priestly Source (https://books.google.com/?id=pnHhCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA
271&dq=%22documentary+hypothesis%22%22still+has+adherents%22#v=onepage&q=%22documentary%20hy
pothesis%22%22still%20has%20adherents%22&f=false). Fortress Press. ISBN 978-1-5064-0046-4.
Gertz, Jan C.; Levinson, Bernard M.; Rom-Shiloni, Dalit (2017). "Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal
Theory" (https://www.academia.edu/30485934). In Gertz, Jan C.; Levinson, Bernard M.; Rom-Shiloni, Dalit (eds.).
The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Mohr
Siebeck.
Gmirkin, Russell (2006). Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus (https://books.google.com/?id=CKuoAwA
AQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=%22no+reference+to+a+written+torah%22#v=onepage&q=%22no%20reference%20to%
20a%20written%20torah%22&f=false). Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-0-567-13439-4.
Greifenhagen, Franz V. (2003). Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map (https://books.google.com/?id=r1evA
wAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&dq=%22final+form+sometime+in+the+Persian+period%22#v=onepage&q=%22final%20f
orm%20sometime%20in%20the%20Persian%20period%22&f=false). Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-0-567-39136-0.
Houston, Walter (2013). The Pentateuch (https://books.google.com/?id=IbALAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&dq=%22two
+other+possibilities%22%22are+now+being+revived%22#v=onepage&q=%22two%20other%20possibilities%2
2%22are%20now%20being%20revived%22&f=false). SCM Press. ISBN 978-0-334-04385-0.
Kawashima, Robert S. (2010). "Sources and Redaction" (https://books.google.com/?id=H4JvhWo04oEC&pg=PA
52&dq=%22biblicists+generally+refer+to+these+sources+as%22#v=onepage&q=%22biblicists%20generally%20
refer%20to%20these%20sources%20as%22&f=false). In Hendel, Ronald (ed.). Reading Genesis. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49278-2.
Kratz, Reinhard G. (2013). "Rewriting Torah" (https://books.google.com/?id=nbDKAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA282&dq=%
22+in+particular+in+the+documentary+and+fragmentary+hypothesis%22#v=onepage&q=%22%20in%20particul
ar%20in%20the%20documentary%20and%20fragmentary%20hypothesis%22&f=false). In Schipper, Bernd;
Teeter, D. Andrew (eds.). Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of 'Torah' in the Wisdom Literature of the Second
Temple Period. BRILL. ISBN 9789004257368.
Kratz, Reinhard G. (2005). The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (https://books.google.c
om/?id=g0WnSW4Pc8oC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). A&C Black. ISBN 9780567089205.
Kugel, James L. (2008). How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (https://books.google.com/?
id=msdh9mmGHN4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kugel+%22How+to+read+the+Bible%22#v=onepage&q=Kugel%
20%22How%20to%20read%20the%20Bible%22&f=false). FreePress. ISBN 978-0-7432-3587-7.
Kurtz, Paul Michael (2018). Kaiser, Christ, and Canaan: The Religion of Israel in Protestant Germany, 1871–1918
(https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/buch/kaiser-christ-and-canaan-9783161554964). Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-
155496-4.
Levin, Christoph (2013). Re-Reading the Scriptures (https://books.google.com/?id=aSNZ76USaYgC&printsec=fr
ontcover&dq=Levin+Re-Reading+the+SCriptures#v=onepage&q=Levin%20Re-Reading%20the%20SCriptures&f
=false). Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-152207-9.
McDermott, John J. (2002). Reading the Pentateuch: A Historical Introduction (https://books.google.com/?id=Dkr
7rVd3hAQC&pg=PA21&dq=not+the+work+of+a+single+authorcomposed+over+several+centuries#v=onepage&q
&f=false). Pauline Press. ISBN 978-0-8091-4082-4.
McEntire, Mark (2008). Struggling with God: An Introduction to the Pentateuch (https://books.google.com/?id=Vw
Os9f1FpmsC&pg=PA7&dq=%22Josianic+Reform+of+the+late+seventh+century+BCE%22#v=onepage&q=%22J
osianic%20Reform%20of%20the%20late%20seventh%20century%20BCE%22&f=false). Mercer University
Press. ISBN 978-0-88146-101-5.
McKim, Donald K. (1996). Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (https://books.google.com/?id=UJ9PYdz
Kf90C&pg=PA81&dq=dictionary+documentary+hypothesis#v=onepage&q=dictionary%20documentary%20hypot
hesis&f=false). Westminster John Knox. ISBN 978-0-664-25511-4.
Miller, Patrick D. (2000). Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (https://books.google.com/?id
=wKRiloF-00oC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-84127-142-2.
Monroe, Lauren A.S. (2011). Josiah's Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement (https://books.google.com/?id=bq
poAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&dq=%22date+of+Deuteronomy+into+the+exilic%22#v=onepage&q=%22date%20of%
20Deuteronomy%20into%20the%20exilic%22&f=false). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-977536-1.
Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=Qjkz_8EMoaUC&pg=PA81). Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-6260-0.
Nicholson, Ernest Wilson (2003). The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century (https://books.google.com/?id=opBBT
HT13yoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Pentateuch+in+the+Twentieth+Century#v=onepage&q&f=false). Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-925783-6.
Otto, Eckart (2014). "The Study of Law and Ethics in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament" (https://books.google.co
m/?id=8fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA609&dq=%22This+change+of+research+paradigms%22#v=onepage&q=%22Thi
s%20change%20of%20research%20paradigms%22&f=false). In Saeboe, Magne; Ska, Jean Louis; Machinist,
Peter (eds.). Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth
Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-54022-0.
 Patrick, Dale (2013). Deuteronomy (https://books.google.com/?id=NkP4QlnlEmYC&pg=PA69&dq=%22De+Wett
e%27s+identification%22%22large+majority+of+critical+biblical+scholars%22#v=onepage&q=%22De%20Wett
e%27s%20identification%22%22large%20majority%20of%20critical%20biblical%20scholars%22&f=false).
Chalice Press. ISBN 978-0-8272-0566-6.
Patzia, Arthur G.; Petrotta, Anthony J. (2010). Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (https://books.google.com/?id
=btEJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=dictionary+documentary+hypothesis#v=onepage&q=dictionary%20documentar
y%20hypothesis&f=false). InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-6702-8.
Ruddick, Eddie L. (1990). "Elohist" (https://books.google.com/?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA246&dq=%22These+s
tudies+later+guided+Eichhorn%22#v=onepage&q=%22These%20studies%20later%20guided%20Eichhorn%22
&f=false). In Mills, Watson E.; Bullard, Roger Aubrey (eds.). Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University
Press. ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7.
Sharpes, Donald K. (2005). Lords of the Scrolls (https://books.google.com/?id=39fw6f689GgC&pg=PA41&dq=%2
2many+modifications%22%22over+several+centuries%22#v=onepage&q=%22many%20modifications%22%22o
ver%20several%20centuries%22&f=false). Peter Lang. ISBN 0-300-15263-9.
Ska, Jean-Louis (2006). Introduction to reading the Pentateuch (https://books.google.com/books?id=7cdy67Zvzd
kC&pg=PA217#v=onepage&q&f=false). Eisenbrauns. ISBN 9781575061221.
Ska, Jean Louis (2014). "Questions of the 'History of Israel' in Recent Research" (https://books.google.com/?id=8
fcxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA430&dq=%22Persian+period+as+the+most+important%22#v=onepage&q=%22Persian%
20period%20as%20the%20most%20important%22&f=false). In Saeboe, Magne; Ska, Jean Louis; Machinist,
Peter (eds.). Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. III: From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Part II: The Twentieth
Century – From Modernism to Post-Modernism. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-54022-0.
Stackert, Jeffrey (2014). A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (https://books.google.co
m/?id=DsCiAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
933645-6.
Thompson, Thomas L. (2000). Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources
(https://books.google.com/?id=RwrrUuHFb6UC&pg=PA8&dq=long+folk+history+long+antedating#v=onepage&q=
long%20folk%20history%20long%20antedating&f=false). BRILL. ISBN 9004119434.
Van Seters, John (2015). The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (https://books.google.com/?id=42-_CQ
AAQBAJ&pg=PA55&dq=%22new+supplementary+model:+van+seters%22#v=onepage&q=%22new%20supplem
entary%20model%3A%20van%20seters%22&f=false). Bloomsbury T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-65880-7.
Viviano, Pauline A. (1999). "Source Criticism" (https://books.google.com/?id=kpDceeylCjYC&pg=PA35&dq=Vivia
no+%22source+criticism%22#v=onepage&q=Viviano%20%22source%20criticism%22&f=false). In Haynes,
Stephen R.; McKenzie, Steven L. (eds.). To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and
Their Application. Westminster John Knox. ISBN 978-0-664-25784-2.
Whisenant, Jessica (2010). "The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and
Acceptance by Gary N. Knoppers, Bernard M. Levinson". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130 (4): 679–
681. JSTOR 23044597 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23044597).
Wright, J. Edward (2002). The Early History of Heaven (https://books.google.com/?id=lKvMeMorNBEC&pg=PA42
&dq=Mesopotamian#v=onepage&q&f=false). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534849-1.

External links
Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel by Julius Wellhausen (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/phai/inde
x.htm) full text at sacred-texts.com
Wikiversity – The King James Version according to the documentary hypothesis

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Documentary_hypothesis&oldid=915669014"

This page was last edited on 14 September 2019, at 16:35 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.