Watts, Michael J. - The Authorship of The Pentateuch

Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures Instructor, Michael J.
Watts, AB, Mdiv, ThM

Johnston Community College 1986-1995
The Authorship of the Pentateuch – The “Documentary

Hypothesis” and other theories
By Michael J. Watts
Assignment: Discuss the “Documentary Hypothesis” about the
authorship and the oral and literary sources of the “Pentateuch” (Torah). List and
discuss the traditional reasons that Moses has been assumed to be the author of
Genesis through Deuteronomy, and also the reasons that more recent Biblical
interpreters have questioned Moses’ authorship. What role if any, might Moses
have played in the formation of the Pentateuch? Summarize the content and
characteristics of the four major sources that modern Biblical interpreters have
theorized. To what extent might “oral tradition” have played a role in the
development of such sources?
Why should we bother with questions of authorship and sources
of Biblical books?
In the introductory Bible courses I teach, I usually set forth the goals
for the course in a class syllabus:
To introduce the student to the complex cultural, religious,
and historical contexts out of which the Scriptures arose; to
introduce the student to the various critical methods used by
Biblical interpreters in the scholarly investigation of the Bible; to
introduce the student to the basic data concerning questions of
authorship, intended audience(s), date and historical/sociological
setting(s), and the major themes and distinctive content of the
books of the Hebrew Bible (the “TaNaKh,” commonly referred to as
the “Old Testament”) and the Christian New Testament.
Certain words in that statement should be emphasized.
The first of these is “introduce.” There is no way we could go into full
detail on these matters within the time allowed to teach this course. We will
only scratch the surface here. A lot more background than I have time to
provide will be needed to go into these questions thoroughly, but it is
necessary for us to start somewhere. I suggest you consult some of the more
substantial books (from all points of view) about the Pentateuch, including
Bible dictionaries [now I would add also the Internet] for more detail.
A second important word is “complex.” All of the material being
presented is extremely complex. And, unfortunately, in our modern world,
we generally prefer simple answers that do not tax our brains too much. But
there are very few simple answers. Thinking does tire out the brain, just as
exercise tires out the body. But it is good to exercise both the brain and the
1
Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures Instructor, Michael J. Watts, AB, Mdiv, ThM
body regularly. Sometimes it is necessary for us to drink deeply from the

fountain of knowledge, and not just gargle!
A third important word is “contexts.” It is important for us to
understand the literary and historical backgrounds of our Biblical materials.
It could be important in the Book of Job, for example, to know whether a
speech in that book is being expressed by the character Job, whose words,
defiant as they are, end up being approved by God, or whether the speech is
spoken by one of Job’s “friends,” whose words end up being disapproved by
God, even though those words appear to be very devout and reverent.
If we know just who is speaking, or, at least, from what background(s)
and ways of thinking the speaker comes, and if we know something of the
needs and concerns of the audience being addressed, we may be able to
understand more clearly just what meaning was intended by the speaker or the
writer. Remember the apocryphal story of the seminary professor of Biblical
interpretation, who was challenged, “You don’t need to ‘interpret’ the Bible.
You should just read it and do what it says!” So the professor then quoted three
Biblical passages and suggested that the challenger might just “read it and do
what it says”: (1) Judas went and hanged himself. (2) Go and do thou likewise. (3)
What thou doest, go and do quickly. You see, it does matter whether we know the
contexts of those words—who said them, to whom, at what time, with what
presuppositions, for what purpose, and so forth.
A fourth important word is “critical.” As the word is used in common
parlance, most people think it means to make a negative judgment. But
actually, it comes from the Greek word “kritikos,” which means any
judgment, based on an examination of all the evidence. And in the technical
usage of scientists and theologians, it refers to the examination of all
evidence, leading to a judgment of the facts of a situation, and a reasoned
conclusion based on all the evidence.
The Problem of Authorship
Though the centuries the idea of Moses’ authorship for the first five
“books” of the Hebrew Bible has been met in various quarters with apathy,
with strong affirmation, or with strong denial. But we must remember that
ancient peoples had no copyright legislation, and they were largely
indifferent to questions about the authorship of books. Authorship has
become a concern only in more modern times. Usually the life of a person in
Biblical times was so taken up with his or her own people and nation and
faith-community that the matter of just which individual, if any, wrote or
2
composed the Torah was of little consequence. Their overriding assertion

seems to have been, “This is our story” rather than, “This is his book.”
I. The Testimony of the Hebrew Bible
In the period after about 500 BCE, the so-called “post-exilic” era, the name
of Moses came to be linked with these books that Jews have called “Torah”
(Hebrew: = “instruction,” “guidance,” “teaching,” “revelation,” “law” ). In Nehemiah
8:1-3 we find the priest Ezra becoming the center of a movement to focus the life
of the post-exilic community on obedience to “The Torah of Moses”:
When the seventh month arrived—the Israelites being [settled]
in their towns—the entire people assembled as one body in the
square before the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to
bring the scroll of the Torah of Moses with which Yahweh had
charged Israel. On the first day of the seventh month, Ezra the priest
brought the Torah of Moses before the congregation, men and
women and all who could listen with understanding. He read from it,
facing the square before the water Gate, from the first light until
midday, to the men and women and those who could understand; the
ears of all the people were given to the scroll of Torah.
Furthermore, such passages as Ezra 6:18 and Nehemiah 13:1 explicitly
refer to “the Book of Moses,” and Daniel 9:11 indicates that the “Torah of Moses”
was a written entity. Likewise, Ezra 3:2 and 7:6 suggest that by about 400 BCE
there were many Jewish scribes who credited Moses with having written the
“Torah” that was binding on all Israel. Of course, all of these references are
found in very late writings, long after the time of Moses himself.
In the Pentateuch itself several verses indicate that Moses knew how
to write (Exodus 17:4; 24:4; 34:27-28; Numbers 33:2). Although a century
or so ago some interpreters were suggesting that writing had not even been
invented as early as the time of Moses, more modern archaeological
investigations have shown that conclusion not to be the case.
More specifically, within the Pentateuch there are passages such as
Exodus 24:3-4, 7, where we are told that Moses “wrote down” all the
commands of Yahweh, referring specifically to those commands given in
Exodus 20-23 (the so-called “Book of the Covenant”). Likewise, in
Deuteronomy 31:9, 26, Moses is said to have written down the “Torah,” and
the reference apparently is to the contents of Deuteronomy 12-26, the so-
called “Code of Deuteronomy”). Furthermore, Exodus 34:27-28 reports that
Moses wrote down “the words of the Covenant.” And Exodus 17:14 says that
Moses wrote down a report about the war with the Amalekites; Numbers 33:2
tells that Moses wrote down a list of the encampments in the wilderness; and
3
Deuteronomy 28:61 and 31:24 refer to “this Book of the Torah” and to Moses
writing “the words of this Torah,” with particular reference to the contents of
Deuteronomy 12-26 (the “Code of Deuteronomy”).
II. The Testimony of the New Testament
In the Christian “New Testament” a passage like Acts 15:21 makes
clear the common opinion of the time:
. . . For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those
who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every Sabbath in the
synagogues. . . .
In Mark 12:26 Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6, indicating he is quoting from
“the Book of Moses.” In Romans 10:5 Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5 as the words
of Moses. And there are a number of other passages in the New Testament
that clearly infer the common view of the New Testament characters and
writers that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible.
III. References in Jewish Writers and Traditions
The Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, and the Jewish historian,
Flavius Josephus, both of whom played important roles in Jewish life of the
first century CE, accepted Moses as the actual author of the Pentateuch.
Latter Rabbinic tradition held the same opinion. The Mishnah, the
codification of Jewish oral laws and traditions from about 200 CE, says:
Moses received the Torah from Sinai, and transmitted it to
Joshua, Joshua to “the Elders,”, and ‘the Elders” to ‘the Prophets.”
And “the Prophets” transmitted it to “the Men of the Great
Synagogue” . . . (Tractate Pirke Aboth, 1:1).
And in a Midrash (Hebrew = “commentary”) from the sixth century CE,
Genesis Rabbah 8:8, we are told:
Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rabbi
Jonathan: “When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he
wrote a portion each day . . . ”
Thus, the traditional title for the first five books of the Bible, in the
King James Version of the Bible, and in others, “The Five Books of Moses,”
has generally suggested to readers that these books not only are about
Moses, for the most part, but also that they were written by Moses as well.
Questions Concerning Moses’ Authorship
With such a strong line of tradition behind such a view, why have the
majority of devout Biblical interpreters, in the last two centuries especially,
shifted from affirming to doubting that Moses wrote Judaism’s most ancient
4
and sacred books? The answer to this question is certainly not that they
simply decided in a perverse way that they would attempt to undermine
Biblical authority. For in fact, the great majority of them were very devout
believers, as are their successors to this day.
But their conclusions came gradually, out of their attempts to understand
and to explain some things that readers encounter when they read those five
books. They encountered three primary categories of problems: (1) historical
and literary inconsistencies; (2) unnecessary repetitions of material; and (3)
peculiarities of literary style. These suggested to those interpreters that the five
books of the Pentateuch, as we now have them, are the result of the gradual
combining by later hands of materials from at least four major and several
minor strands of oral and written traditions, over a period of several centuries.
Before examining their findings it is perhaps necessary to remind
ourselves at the outset, however, that the authority and the spiritual value of
the Bible does not (and never did!) depend upon the human authorship of a
particular section or book of the Bible, but rather upon the reader’s opinion
of, and belief/trust, in the ultimate origin of the book—whether a person
believes/trusts that ultimately, God “inspired” the writing, compilation, and
preservation of the book in question. Such a faith cannot be “proved” by any
scientific methodology, of course—it is a matter of faith, and not of sight.
Furthermore, despite the many references we have cited within the
Pentateuch itself that suggest that Moses may have been responsible for
some portions of the work, there is nowhere within the Pentateuch a single
instance of a claim that Moses wrote or compiled the entirety of it. And it is
also clear that when the Pentateuch provides descriptions of events that took
place in Moses’ own lifetime, they do not purport to be his own eyewitness
accounts, but they are written about Moses in the third-person.
As for the New Testament, one may certainly hold that Jesus, Whom
most Christians believe to have been the perfect Son of God, might very
well have been gifted with supernatural knowledge of all things, down to
and including the name of the author of the Pentateuch. But even devout
Christians often differ concerning the extent of Jesus’ knowledge in light of
the belief of many that in taking on the role of a human being, Jesus might
have in fact subjected Himself to all of the limitations of human beings,
including limitations of the common “knowledge” of His generation.
Certainly Jesus exhibits in the New Testament, no knowledge of things
related to twenty-first century astronomy or biology or history, etc.
5
I. The Problem of Historical and Literary Inconsistencies

1. Moses praising himself as humble.
A close look at the details of the Pentateuchal narratives reveals many
clear inconsistencies that apparently point away from sole authorship by
Moses himself, as the material now stands. The writer/compiler seems to
have no desire to be regarded as the same person as Moses. Otherwise he
would not write about him in the third person, as noted above. Neither
would Moses have given us some of the descriptions of himself as we find
therein. For example, Numbers 12:3:
Now the man Moses was very humble, more than anyone
else on the face of the earth.
Someone else might say such a thing about Moses, but is it likely that he
would have said it himself—that would be like praising yourself for your
own humility, and lying in the process! Likewise, it is not likely that Moses
would have spoken of himself the way Exodus 11:3 does:
Moses himself was a man of great importance in the land of
Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s officials, and in the sight of the
people.
Another example is Deuteronomy 34:10-12, which clearly was
written after Moses’ death:
Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses,
whom Yahweh knew face to face. He was unequaled for all the
signs and wonders that Yahweh sent him to perform in the land of
Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and his entire land, and
for all the mighty deeds and all the terrifying displays of power that
Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.
Such self-praise by Moses about himself is clearly unlikely. And even later
Jewish tradition admitted that Moses could not have written an account of
his own death. Yet the writing style does not change from what went before.
2. Inconsistencies in Chronology – Anachronisms
There are also many anachronisms—inconsistencies in chronology—
throughout the Pentateuch, most of which have been noted by Jewish and
Christian interpreters from the earliest times, with various suggestions made
to account for them. They are inconsistent on any assumption that these
materials were written as early as the time of Moses (c. 1330 – 1240 BCE).
1. At least eight verses in Genesis, for example (Genesis 10:14;
21:32, 34; 26:1, 8, 14, 15, 18), refer to the Philistines as residing in the land
6
of Canaan. But both modern archaeological records and the extant Egyptian
records (written in “hieroglyphics”) that have been recovered clearly support
the conclusion that they certainly were not residing in Canaan as early as the
time of Abraham and Isaac as described in the Book of Genesis (c. 1800-
1700 BCE), and that they did not migrate from their original homelands near
Crete and the surrounding Greek islands until about 75-100 years after the
time of the Exodus from Egypt (c. 1290 BCE), as it is described in Exodus.
This would have been shortly after 1200 BCE, during the reign of the
Pharaoh Rameses III, grandson of the probable Pharaoh of the Exodus,
Rameses I. And some Biblical interpreters have placed the time of the
Exodus as much as 200 years earlier.
2. In Genesis 36:31-39 there stands a list of the rulers of Edom, south
and west of Canaan. Verse 31 states that all of these rulers reigned there
“before any king ruled over the Israelites,” i.e., before the time of King Saul (c.
1020-1000 BCE), and long after the time of Moses. Yet the narrator of that
list was clearly aware of a time when Israel did have a king.
3. In Genesis 12:6 and 13:7 there appears the statement that, “at that time
the Canaanites were in the land,” which clearly implies that these narratives were
set down in writing at a time when the Canaanites no longer were in the land,
or at least, were no longer in control of it. This would have to be after the
Israelite conquests in Canaan under Joshua and others in the generations after
the Exodus, and most probably after the reigns of Kings David and Saul, who
completed their subjugation and/or “ethnic cleansing” by about 960 BCE.
4. According to Genesis 14:14 Abram pursued the captors of his
nephew Lot “as far as Dan,” the northernmost city in Palestine, a town that did
not receive that name until the tribe of Dan settled there and changed the
name from its original name, Laish (Judges 18:29), again during the conquest
and settlement (c. 1250-1020 BCE), and long after the time of Moses.
3. Other chronological inconsistencies in Pentateuchal Narratives
1. According to Genesis 12:11, 14, Abram was married to an attractive
woman named Sarai. Yet the reader is at a loss upon attempting to relate the
comments about her beauty with indications in the texts about her age.
Genesis 12:4, for example, indicates that Abram was 75 when he migrated
from Haran to Canaan. Soon after that they traveled to Egypt, where Sarai
impressed the Egyptians with her beauty. Later, Genesis 17:17 discloses that
when Abraham was 100 years old, his wife Sarah was age 90. This would
mean that Sarah was age 65 when Abram feared her beauty would get them
in trouble. Then, the same thing happens to this couple again (!), in Genesis
7
20, when 90-year-old Sarah sets aflutter the heart of the Philistine ruler,
Abimelech! Shades of Joan Collins and Elizabeth Taylor!
2. In Genesis 27:1-6 the reader encounters the patriarch Isaac, son of
Abraham and Sarah, lying on his deathbed, ready to pronounce his final
blessing on his two sons, Esau and Jacob. Earlier, Genesis 25:26 indicated that
Isaac was 60 years old when the twins were born. And Genesis 26:34 indicated
that Esau was forty years old when he got married, so Isaac at that time would
have been age 100. After these events, Genesis 27:46 has the complaint of
Isaac’s wife Rebekah, following Isaac’s deathbed blessing, that Jacob needs to
seek a wife in Haran, and not marry outside their clan, as Isaac had done. Jacob
therefore travels to Haran, marries Leah and Rachel, and stays there some
twenty years (Genesis 29:18, 27, 28, 30; 31:38) and then returns to find his
father still alive (!), according to Genesis 35:27, and then, in the following
verse (35:28), the reader is told that Isaac finally died at the ripe old age of 180!
So Isaac apparently stayed on his deathbed between 20 and 80 years!
One does not need to be an unbeliever to have serious questions about
such chronological inconsistencies.
II. Apparently Unnecessary Repetitions of Material in the Pentateuch
Another factor leading to the questioning of Moses authorship of the
Pentateuch as it currently stands, and the rejection of any single author, for that
matter, is the number of repetitions—duplications and even triplications—of
incidents and legal materials that have many curiously common features.
A. General
1. We encounter in Genesis three versions of the story about a
patriarch pretending that his wife is his sister, and giving her into the harem
of a local ruler. In Genesis 12:10-20 it is Abram and Sarai and an Egyptian
Pharaoh. In Genesis 20:1-18 it is Abraham and Sarah and the ruler of the
Philistines, Abimelech. In Genesis 26:1-14 it is Abraham and Sarah’s son
Isaac, Isaac’s wife Rebekah, and Abimelech ruler of the Philistines, again! It
seems unlikely that this kind of incident happened three times, twice with
the same couple, twice with the same ruler. It seems more likely that the
reader has encountered in the text three differing versions of the same story.
2. We encounter two narratives concerning the expulsion of
Abraham’s concubine, Hagar, in Genesis 16:4-14 and 21:9-21. While there
are different features in each account, yet the two stories are curiously alike.
In one case Hagar flees from Sarai before the birth of her son Ishmael (16:6
ff.), and in the other she is expelled at the wish of Sarah after the birth of
8
Ishmael (21:9 ff.). But in both cases the narrative culminates in an incident
that takes place near a well in the wilderness/desert, and in both cases there
is an angelic visitation and a promise of greatness for Ishmael.
3. There are also two versions of God’s call of Moses, and of the
revelation to Moses of God’s special Name “Yahweh” ( = “The LORD”), in
Exodus 3:14-15 and 6:2-3. And there are two versions of the Israelites’
crossing of the Sea of Reeds (“Red Sea”) intertwined in Exodus 14, two
versions of the story of Noah and the great flood intertwined in Genesis 6-9,
and two versions of the creation story, one in Genesis 1, and another in
Genesis 2-3. And in Genesis 37-45 there are at least two intertwined
narratives about Joseph and his brothers.
Many more instances could be cited. Such passages have led devout
Biblical interpreters of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries to question whether
Moses or any other single author would have persisted in repeating himself
in this way. On the other hand, they have suggested that some later
compiler(s) of the oral and written traditions of the Hebrews, encountering
various parallel versions of the same early traditions, and having no way of
knowing just which was original, nor wanting to leave out anything
important, might have decided to include them all and place them in the
most logical places in the narrative that were possible.
B. Apparent Disagreements in Parallel Materials
Perhaps even more notable are the cases of actual disagreement that appear
in duplicated materials. Sometimes these disagreements are encountered in
separate narratives that can be compared side-by-side. But other duplicate
narratives appear to have been combined or intertwined into a single narrative from
more than one versions, and the apparent disagreements within the single narrative
have been taken as evidence that more than one version was originally used.
1. In the first two chapters of Genesis, for example, we find somewhat
duplicate accounts of the creation. According to Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a, God
created male and female human beings at the same time, after the creation of
all of the birds and the animals, and God created them as the crown and climax
of God’s creative work. But in Genesis 2:4b-24, God creates the human
creature before creating the animals and birds, and then afterward creates a
female from the human creature’s rib, thus differentiating male and female
human beings. In this account, the female human appears to be the crown and
climax of God’s creative activity.
2. In the story of the great flood in Genesis 6-9 the reader now finds a
single narrative where there originally seem to have been two. According to
9
Genesis 6:19 f. God commanded Noah to take a single pair of every species
into the ark, whereas in Genesis 7:12 Yahweh bids Noah to take seven pairs
of the “clean” species, and only a single pair of the “unclean” species. Genesis
7:8 f. even emphasizes the contradiction with its specific statement that, of
the “clean” and the “unclean,” only a single pair went into the ark!
Similarly, there is disagreement on the duration of the flood. According
to Genesis 7:12 the rains lasted 40 days and nights, and after this time,
according to Genesis 8:6 ff. Noah waited for certain periods of seven days
before the waters abated. But according to Genesis 7:24 the waters prevailed
for one-hundred-fifty days, and were not finally abated until a year and ten
days after the beginning of the flood (Genesis 8:14; cf. 7:11).
3. Genesis 37:27 Judah proposes that the brothers should sell Joseph
to some Ishmaelites, and the following verse states that they did this; later,
Genesis 39:1 indicates that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to an Egyptian
master. But in the very same narrative Genesis 37:28a introduces
Midianites, who passed by the pit and kidnapped Joseph from it, without
his brothers’ knowledge (Genesis 37:29 f.)! And then in Genesis 37:36 the
reader is told that the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar.
4. In the narratives of God’s revelation of His special Name “Yahweh,”
( = “The LORD”) the account in Genesis 3:14-15 suggests, while the account
in Exodus 6 explicitly states (6:3) that prior to the time of Moses God had
never disclosed the Name “Yahweh” to the Israelites. Yet Genesis 4:26
suggests that people knew that special Name for God by the time the first
human being, “Adam” had a grandson. Moreover, passages like Genesis
12:8; 14:22; 15:2, 7-8; 18:14; and 24:3 all attest that Abram/Abraham knew
that Name long before the time of Moses. And, in fact, the Name is said to
have been known by Sarai/Sarah (Genesis 16:2), Laban (Genesis 24:31),
Lot (Genesis 19:3), and Jacob (Genesis 28:13).
5. In the legal materials of the Pentateuch there also are duplicated
materials in which the reader encounters disagreements and/or inconsistencies.
For example, in Exodus 20:24 it is laid down than an altar for sacrifice is to be
set up in every place that Yahweh shall appoint. But in Deuteronomy 12:14 it
is forbidden to offer sacrifices at any place except at the single legitimate
sanctuary (thus foreshadowing the location of the one Temple in Jerusalem).
Again, many more examples might be cited, both from the narratives
and from the legal materials. Those cited above are only a small selection.
But it does seem clear that material of similar nature occurred in different
10
versions in the oral and written traditions of the Hebrew people, and those
later compilers included them all without removing the discrepancies.
III. Stylistic Peculiarities in the Pentateuchal Materials
Another factor pointing away from a single person’s authorship of the
Pentateuch concerns matters of literary style. When modern Biblical
interpreters examine the Pentateuch as a whole, its diverse literary styles are
apparent, and the chances of its having come from the hand of a single author
are drastically reduced. Certainly it is likely that Moses might have known
how to write. And any one person certainly would have the ability to write in
more than one style, depending on the subject matter. For example, a modern
attorney, who can employ extensive legal phraseology in the drafting of a
legal document, certainly would not employ the same writing style when
writing a letter to his wife or mother. And if he decided to write a novel or an
essay on something other than law, he would not likely use legal terminology.
Similarly, when a modern person encounters one style of writing in a
narrative, and another in public speeches, and yet another in legal or ritual
regulations, we need not necessarily assume a multiplicity of authors.
But in the case of the Pentateuch the matter is not that simple. We
encounter in the Pentateuch various passages that are devoted to the same or
very similar events or topics, and yet those passages still exhibit strikingly
different writing styles from each other. Of course, it is also true that a single
writer may have a variety of words and expressions for the same idea or
concept, if only for variety’s sake. And the mere fact that we encounter, for
example, “male and female” in one passage, and “man and woman” in another,
would not in itself have a lot of significance. But what we encounter in the
Pentateuch is a whole series of alternative expressions of common ideas,
vocabulary, and ways of narrating a story, and each set belongs together!
Moreover, when we compare some of the larger units in the Pentateuch,
differences in the use of proper names emerge. Sometimes God is referred to
by the special Name “Yahweh,” ( = “The LORD”) and at other times by the
more generic word for a god, “Elohim.” God’s special Mountain of Revelation
is sometimes called “Sinai” and sometimes “Horeb.” The pre-Israelite dwellers
of the “Promised Land” are sometimes referred to as “Canaanites” and
sometimes as “Amorites.” Moses’ wife is named “Zipporah.” However, her
father, the Priest of Midian, and Moses’ father-in-law, is sometimes called
“Jethro,” other times “Hobab,” and still other times, “Reuel.”
Furthermore, because various passages devoted to the same or a similar
subject still reveal a strikingly diverse style and tone, the impression of
11
multiple authorship is sharpened. For example, the Book of Deuteronomy is

characterized by a kind of “oratorical” or “preaching” style, and by a whole
series of stereotyped and often-repeated phrases. Other parts of the Pentateuch
have a very dry and formal style, marked again by many characteristic
stereotyped expressions and by frequent repetitions. There are yet other
sections whose simple and artless style reveals the unsurpassed art of the
storyteller. And these different styles and different ways of expression group
themselves together. If these considerations do not clinch an argument for
multiple authorship, they do tend to reinforce the doubt that the entire
Pentateuch is attributable directly to Moses or to any other single person.
But if not Moses, then who might have been responsible for the
Pentateuch’s content? Is it indeed possible to think of any single author as
responsible for it? And if not some single person, then what person(s) or
group(s) might have been responsible for the composition and content of the
Pentateuch as we now have it. What theory or hypothesis might best explain
the phenomena that we have noted above?
The Hypothesis of Multiple Sources for the Pentateuch as We
Have It
The most commonly-held theory assumed by Biblical interpreters over the
last two hundred years is that the Pentateuch as we currently have it is a blending
of several sources, which may have been either oral, or written, or both,
composed at different times, by different persons or groups, and containing
similar, but not identical accounts of many of the same stories or laws.
In the course of the last three hundred years of intensive examination and
study of the Biblical texts in the original languages by devout Biblical
interpreters seeking to explain the phenomena we have noted above, gradually a
consensus has been reached. Certainly there are differences of opinion, and
different interpreters may still differ on certain of the details, but the main line of
the consensus is clear. These interpreters assume that there are at least four major
strands of tradition in the Pentateuch that may be fairly clearly delineated, along
with several less distinct minor ones, which were eventually woven together by
about 400 BCE to form the Pentateuch as we now know it. These four major
strands may be distinguished from one another by their distinctive theological
and political/sociological points of view, by their characteristics of language,
vocabulary, and style of expression, and, at least in Genesis and in the early
chapters of Exodus, by their use of the names used for God.
This multiple-source consensus has generally been called the
“Documentary Hypothesis.” In its generally accepted form the framework for
12
this theory was worked out by Karl H. Graf about 1866, and more
completely developed by Julius Welhausen, about 1883. Since that time, the
theory has been both challenged and modified, as many interpreters have
proposed more, or have insisted on fewer sources, and as opinions have
differed as to whether they were oral sources, or written documents. This
multiple-source hypothesis generally suggests that sometime in the last half of
the fifth century BCE someone—perhaps the Priest Ezra from Babylon, or
others associated with him—collected and edited from various ancient
sources and traditions, many of which may indeed have been handed down
from Moses, and primarily from at least four written “documents,” and
compiled our present “Pentateuch.” It seems clear, however, that though there
may have been four primary “documents,” these almost certainly were based
on far more ancient oral or written traditions of the Hebrew people.
As traditional stories, laws, and customs were handed down orally
within the Hebrew community, they naturally would tend to reflect the
special interests of the groups among which they circulated. And thus, the
very same story told among people living in the northern parts of the
“Promised Land,” (“Israel”/“Ephraim”), and in the southern areas (“Judah”/
“David”) might, in the details, exhibit northern or southern interests,
respectively, just as, in our own country, for example, Northern writers
spoke of “The Civil War” as “The War of the Rebellion,” while Southerners
would speak of it as “the War Between the States.”
In the northern part of Palestine, for example, the sanctuary at Beth-El
might have kept alive a set of stories linking Abraham and Isaac and Jacob
(Israel) with events that occurred in the north. On the other hand, the priesthood
at Hebron in the south might have preserved similar traditions about those same
individuals, but linking their activities to locations in the south.
Similarly, we might expect that some materials circulated strictly within
priestly circles as part of the “continuing education” of the Israelite priesthood,
and these would have had a rather different character from the popular stories
recounted around campfires by tribal storytellers. And interpretations of the
instructions of God that were handed down among the disciples of the great
prophets might very well have had a more urgent, “preaching” tone, than
teachings about legal/ritual niceties handed down among the priesthood. The
wisdom teachers who compiled many of the psalms and the proverbs and works
like Ecclesiastes, would naturally have had a more didactic style, while the
musical and poetic traditions of the Levites who served in the Temple would
have provided a greater sense of the emotional content of Israel’s faith.
13
Thus, according to the theory of multiple sources, the books of

Genesis through Deuteronomy in their present form are considered to be the
result of a gradual, centuries-long coalescing of such traditions from may
different circles. According to this theory, the priesthood of the Jews during
the Babylonian Exile and afterward were the ones who gave final shape to
the whole, as a means of helping the Jews preserve their identity as the
people of God. In that process they preserved the character of the differing
traditions, and made little attempt to eliminate what they would have
considered minor discrepancies between them.
It should be re-emphasized at this point that those who formulated the
theory that we have outlined above were not doing so with the purpose of
destroying the faith of believers in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Rather,
they were very devout men seeking to understand and to explain what they
discovered in Scripture, and they did not generally believe that they were
being destructive, but that they were making a contribution to the faith of
Jews and Christians. They believed that God was involved, not only in the
composition and the writing of the words of Holy Scripture, but also in the
preservation of the materials used in its composition, and in the preservation
of the texts and transmission of Scripture through the ages.
At this point it may be useful to describe in more detail the characteristics
of each of the four major strands of Pentateuchal tradition as they usually are
delineated.
I. A Southern (Judean) Prophetic Strand of Tradition – the “Yahwist” –
(“J”)
According to the “Documentary Hypothesis” the “Yahwist” (J)
traditions may have been set down in writing about 950 BCE, about the time
the Temple of Solomon would have been completed in Jerusalem. At that
time the Hebrew nation of “all Israel” had overcome or absorbed completely
the original Canaanite inhabitants, and the period of civil wars among the
tribes had ended with the conquests of David. Apparently this period in the
nation’s history, when “all Israel” was unified under Solomon, gave rise to the
collecting of stories of the promises to Abraham and the fulfillment of those
promises that finally had come to pass. This was the beginning of a sacred
literature for the new nation that would match the kind of literature
associated with the religious shrines and temples of neighboring peoples.
This material is designated as “J” for at least two reasons: (1) It seems
to have been associated primarily with the traditions preserved in what
became the southern kingdom later called “Judah.” David had established his
14
first capital in the southern city of Hebron before he united “all Israel” and
established a new capital at Jerusalem, which became the “city of David.” (2)
This group of traditions uses the tribal Name “Yahweh” for God. The Name
may have originally been used of a Kenite or Midianite deity. The German
Biblical scholars who first arrived at that theory for the Name’s origin would
have spelled the name “Jahweh,” with the “J” pronounced like the English
“Y.” Because the Name “Yahweh” is the primary Name used for God in this
body of materials, it is usually also referred to as the “Yahwist” tradition.
We will refer to it that way, even when we speak of the oral materials on
which the “document” would have been based.
This earliest of the sources is also probably the most enjoyable to
read. It is full of marvelous story-telling. The stories are very vivid, always
concrete and full of imagery. God is often represented as being very much
like a human being (“anthropomorphism”). For example, in the creation
story of Genesis 2-3 Yahweh is in turn a gardener, a potter, a surgeon, and a
tailor. God walks and talks with the human creature in the garden (Genesis
2). Yahweh invites Himself to a meal with Abraham, and even bargains with
him over sparing the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18). And
human beings live on familiar terms with Yahweh, and even meet Yahweh
in the routines of everyday life.
At the same time the God of this tradition is also utterly different from
human beings. He is the master: He commands or forbids (Genesis 3:16).
He calls human beings to new adventures: “Go, leave . . . ,” He can say to
both Abram/Abraham and Moses. He has a plan for history. His blessing
will bring happiness to His people, and through them will extend to all other
human beings. (It is remarkable to find such “universalism” at such an early
period in the literature of any early people.) Human beings are called to
respond to the Divine call and to obey Yahweh.
The sin of humankind, according to this tradition, is to want to take
God’s place. This sin draws down a kind of “curse” on human beings: Cain,
the great flood, the tower of Bab-El ( = Babylon). But the Yahwist’s God is
One Who is ready to forgive, particularly when people like Abram/Abraham
(Genesis 18) and Moses (Exodus 32:11-14) intercede with Him. This God
is always ready to renew His blessing and His covenant with His people.
The Yahwist material forms the heart of the structure of the
Pentateuch, for all of the various traditions are built around the basic “plot”
that is first found in “J.” “J” material is found in Genesis through Numbers,
but not in Deuteronomy. Part of the genius of this tradition is the compilers’
15
ability to put together a reasonably complete story of Yahweh’s actions, not

just back to the Exodus, but all the way to the beginning of creation.
However, the facts and legends handed down in this group of
traditions were not just written down as they were received. Rather, whoever
compiled them was both an “artist” and a “theologian.” It is clear that while
the story is presented in a simple and almost naïve style, the compiler
presents profound theological ideas. He apparently loved to put words and
speeches into the mouths of famous people. Often they foreshadow what
would later happen, as in Genesis 15:13-15, in which Yahweh lays out for
Abram/Abraham Israel’s coming history down to about the time of King
David. Such a speech leads the reader to conclude that Yahweh carefully
works out everything to fulfill His promises.
The climax of the Yahwist story comes in the final great vision of the
prophet Balaam in Numbers 24, where the King of Moab pays the seer to
curse Israel, but instead Balaam sees Israel’s glorious future. Many Biblical
“source critics” think that the “J” material ends at this point, for Yahweh has
now taken care of His chosen patriarchs and tribes. He has led them from
danger and slavery in Egypt. He has promised them a land of blessing to
come, and now the vision is before them. Yahweh has fulfilled His
promises.
The “Yahwist” traditions may be rooted somewhat in the prophetic
traditions of the south that began with the prophet Nathan and culminated in
such prophets as Micah, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah.
II. A Northern (“Ephraimitic) Prophetic Strand of Tradition– the
“Elohist” – (“E”)
According to the “Documentary Hypothesis” the “Elohist,” (“E”)
traditions, like those of the “Yahwist,” seem to have been set down in writing
to provide a sacred literature for a religious center. The United Kingdom (“all
Israel”) that had been ruled by Saul and David and Solomon divided shortly
after Solomon’s death (c. 931-922 BCE). At that time the leaders of the
Northern Kingdom, “Israel,” which often was referred to as “Ephraim,” after its
largest tribal group, set up sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel in competition with
Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. They probably felt a need to develop sacred
literature of their own to associate with these newly established sanctuaries.
These traditions, then, would have been set down in writing some time after
about 931 BCE, and probably no later than about 850 BCE.
This hypothetical “document” is referred to as “E” because (1) it was
associated primarily with the Northern Kingdom (“Ephraim”/”Israel”) and (2) this
16
Pentateuchal tradition, from Genesis 1 through Exodus 3 generally uses only

the generic term “Elohim” ( = “god”) for the God of Israel. Therefore, this
strand is usually referred to as the “Elohist” strand of tradition, even when it
refers to the oral materials on which the written “document” was based.
The narratives in the “Elohist” tradition appear to be a later re-working of
the basic “Yahwist” accounts. They tend to be less vivid, less concrete, than the
“Yahwist” narratives. In this tradition God is always portrayed as utterly different
from human beings. The “Elohist” avoids “anthropomorphisms”—ways of
talking about God as involved in human-like activity—unlike the “Yahwist.”
This inaccessible God of “E” does not reveal Himself through anything
like face-to-face encounters, but rather through “theophanies,” or spectacular
Divine manifestations, like the burning bush. And God in this strand of
tradition is often portrayed as revealing Himself through dreams. One cannot
make an image of this Deity. “E” never speaks of God walking and talking
with human beings in the garden or on the road, as does “J.”
The “Elohist” tradition is very interested in moral questions, and a
developing sense of sin is present. For example, as we compare the “J”
version of the story about Abram passing off his wife Sarai as his sister
(Genesis 12:10-20), with the “E” version (Genesis 20:1-18), we note that the
“Elohist” is careful to point out that Abraham did not actually lie, because, in
his understanding, Sarah was actually a half-sister to Abraham! Also,
according to this strand, the Torah (“law,” “instruction,” etc.) that God gave to
Moses was less concerned with ritual matters and more concerned with
morality and with duty towards God and one’s “neighbor.” Real worship for the
“Elohist” consists in obeying God and in rejecting all covenants with false
deities. For the “Elohist” tradition the true servants of God are not the king
and the priests, but the prophets. And this tradition considers both Abraham
and Moses to have been “prophets” (just as Muslims do even today), who
began the great line that resulted in men like Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Amos,
and Hosea in the Northern Kingdom.
The “Elohist” traditions are rooted in the great prophetic traditions of the
North. “E” falls right in line with the great prophetic campaigns in the North by
Elijah and other zealots for God who had to fight tooth and nail against the
sexual license and lax standards of the pagan fertility cults. While the “E”
material does not include as much material as does the “J” story, what it does
cover tends to favor northern ideas and northern venues. For example, unlike
“J,” “E” pays much less attention to Abram/Abraham, and Isaac, who usually are
17
associated with the southern cities of Hebron and Beersheba, and more to
Jacob, who was associated more with northern cities like Shechem and Beth-El.
Also, “E” puts less stress on the role of leaders like Moses and the elders
in the giving of the Covenant than does “J,” and accepts a much larger role for
all the people giving their allegiance to the Covenant. This stress highlights the
differences between the “J” concern for proper leadership of the nation and
“E’s” suspicion of authorities who claim too much power for themselves. The
history of the northern and the southern kingdoms reflects these concerns.
“E” also takes a strong stand against foreign deities because of the ever-
present threat of the Phoenician/Canaanite religion of Ba’al and Asherah in
the north (cf. Genesis 35:2). The northern prophets condemned these fertility
cults not only as unfaithfulness to the covenant with Yahweh, but also as
“adultery,” because they broke the “marriage bond” between Yahweh and
Israel (cf. Hosea 1-3).
“E” is not as large as J, and seems a bit thin to modern readers when it is
set alongside “J.” Some interpreters even suggest that “E” never was actually an
independent written “document” in its own right, but only a series of additions
to the basic “J” story. And even where “Elohist” material may be present in our
present Pentateuch, sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish “J” from “E”,
since they would naturally cover much the same material in a similar way, and
would of necessity used a lot of the same vocabulary. An example of this occurs
in Genesis 15, the great covenant between God and Abram. Almost all
interpreters recognize that both strands of tradition are present, but they simply
throw up their hands in dividing this passage and simply designate it as a
combined “J-E” account. The same is true of the story of the offering of Isaac in
Genesis 22, which is mostly “E,” but with many “J” elements interspersed.
Often the easiest way to tell the two strands apart is their use of the
Divine Names, “Elohim” or “Yahweh.” But this works only up until Exodus 3
for “J” and “E.” and the “Priestly” tradition, “P,” to be discussed below, uses
the name “Elohim” almost exclusively from the first creation story in Genesis
1:1 – 2:4a until Exodus 6. From then on, all three traditions use both
“Elohim” and Yahweh” interchangeably.
But if we cannot always tell “E” from “J” in a particular passage,
interpreters point out that the reader can clearly see that within the whole
narrative story in Genesis through Numbers there are clearly two different
points of view expressed, yet intertwined in the narratives, that correspond to
the differences between Judah (south) and Israel (north) during the period of
18
the compilation of the two strands from the time of David (c. 1000 BCE) to
the fall of Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom in 722/721 BCE.
19
III. The Combined Narrative of “J” and “E” – The “All Israelite Epic”
(“J-E”)
Interpreters who support the “Documentary Hypothesis” have
concluded that sometime after the fall of the Northern Kingdom to Assyria in
722/721 BCE some faithful Israelites made an attempt to preserve the varying
elements of the national tradition from both the northern and the southern
regions. The faithful among the Israelites who had escaped from the north
may have taken refuge in Jerusalem, bringing their traditions with them.
Indeed, after about 715 BCE there seems to have been a kind of national
revival under King Hezekiah of Judah. It may have been in response to this
that the two strands of tradition that had grown up separately were put
together about this time into a single written work.
This combining of the traditions would have been a tricky business,
however, because they often had the same narratives presented from slightly
different perspectives. Those who would have brought the two documents
together tried to respect each of them – which may explain why modern
interpreters can now detect traces of each one – while trying to make sure that the
new narrative held together. They seem to have succeeded very well in keeping
the hope of the “Yahwist” tradition, centered on the dynasty of King David,
while at the same time incorporating the moral and spiritual covenant demands of
the more prophetic “Elohist” tradition. The result was a work that could become
the common property of all the tribes of both the north and the south, exhibiting
their faith in the God of Israel and their hopes for the future. This combination
document probably would have been completed by about 650 BCE.
Many prominent scholars, among them Bernhard Anderson, suggest
that the general outline and content of the combined document was set in oral
form during the period of the Judges, long before either “J” or “E” was set
down in writing, and they refer to this general outline as the “Old Epic
Tradition” or the “All-Israelite Tradition,” since the story belonged not just to
the north or to the south, but to “All Israel.”
IV. The Deuteronomic Stand of Tradition – “D”
The beginnings of “D,” or Deuteronomy, appear to be connected with
the discovery in the sixteenth year of King Josiah of Judah (c. 621 BCE) of a
“Book of the Torah” while repairs were being made in the Temple (2 Kings
22:3-10). The name “Deuteronomy” is derived from the Greek deutero ( =
“second”) and nomos ( = “law”), and thus means, “second law.” This book
reflects the ethical message of the prophets (Ahijah, Micaiah, Elijah, Elisha,
20
Amos, Hosea, etc.) of the Northern Kingdom, Israel, and it appears to have
been written, or most certainly, revised, shortly before its discovery.
It appears that, before the fall of Samaria in 722/721 BCE, some people
(disciples?) influenced by those prophets, were becoming aware that the
Torah handed down from the time of Moses (found in Exodus, for the most
part, in “J” and “E” portions and even earlier traditions) did not match up very
well with reality. Those laws originally had been enacted for, and transmitted
to, a nomadic people, yet by this time, Israel had become an organized nation.
New problems had appeared, such as the dangers of the pagan practices of
Canaan, and the injustices of the rich toward the poor in urban society. The
Levite priests who probably collected and interpreted these legal traditions
seem to have been influenced by the prophetic messages, especially those of
Hosea. They came to understand that the Torah that God had given to His
people, was not just any kind of contract, but a “covenant,” a bond of love like
the bond that unites a husband and wife (cf. Hosea 1-3).
After the fall of Samaria eventually these Levites took refuge in
Jerusalem, where Hezekiah had recently become King. They brought these
laws with them, organized them, and completed them during following
century. In the meantime, these people seem to have reflected on the causes of
the ruin of the Northern Kingdom: just what should they have done to remain
faithful to God and to prevent the Kingdom’s destruction? The earliest
arrangement of these laws (the passages written in the second person
singular, between chapters 5 and 26) forms the core of our present book of
Deuteronomy, according to the “Documentary Hypothesis.”
This book sunk into oblivion under Hezekiah’s successor, the impious
King Manasseh, but apparently was found again in the Temple about 621 BCE.
King Josiah then made it the basis for his own great political and religious
reform thorough which he sought to recreate a people of God united around
Jerusalem and its Temple as the religious center of the nation. It is clear from
the reforms that Josiah carried out, as described in 2 Kings 22-23, that they
were based specifically on the Torah as proclaimed in Deuteronomy 5-26, and
not on other laws from other traditions that were handed down earlier or later.
But that is not all there is to this Deuteronomic strand of tradition. After
the Southern Kingdom, Judah, fell in 587/586 BCE to the Babylonians, other
theologians meditated on the fall of that kingdom, and re-read the history of
the Hebrew people from the time of Joshua through the period of the two
Kingdoms in light of the message found in Deuteronomy. As they put their
final touches to the books of Joshua and Kings, and also, but in a rather less
21
tidy way, to the books of Judges and Samuel, these writers tried to show how
people should have lived in faithfulness to God if they had wanted their
history to take another course.
As we examine the Book of Deuteronomy itself we notice immediately
that the style is very emotional. This strand of tradition is not content just to
teach. It wants to convince people that they should obey. It is written in a kind
of “preaching style.” Deuteronomy favors long speeches, with much urging to
obedience that is typical of a preacher delivering a sermon. This feature stands
apart from the often short stories and incidents that are described in the Books
of Genesis and Exodus.
In the name of the true tradition of Moses, the Book of Deuteronomy
makes a call for return to the proper obedience to the covenant. There are
numerous repetitions. For example: “Yahweh ( = “The LORD”) your God
(Hebrew: Elohim),” . . . “Hear, O Israel, remember . . . ” . . . “Keep the
commandments, laws, and customs” . . . There is a constant mixture of the
second person singular and the second person plural. This, doubtless, is a sign
of two stages in the editing of the book. In the Book of Deuteronomy as we
have it today, it becomes the affirmation that “the people” is a single body, but
that every believer among this people keeps his or her own personality.
Some key ideas of the Deuteronomic tradition are: (1) Yahweh ( = “The
LORD”) is the sole God of Israel. (2) Yahweh has chosen a people for Himself.
In response to this election, the people must love God. (3) God has given the
people a land, but only on condition that they remain faithful to Him,
remember His covenant with them, today. (4) It is above all in worship that
the people and their assembly called by God as at Horeb ( = Sinai), remembers
and understands the Torah of God.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Deuteronomy’s style is that,
although the words are put into the mouth of Moses, they are directed toward
a people living long after the events of the Exodus, people who are urged to
recall and to keep the teaching (Torah) of Moses. Deuteronomy looks back
upon the conquest of the holy land as a completed event, and its legal ideas
presuppose the highly developed government under the monarchy as set up by
David and Solomon. In general, almost every chapter gives away the secret
that the authors/compilers are not really looking ahead to a new time, but
rather are looking backward from deep in the time of the monarchy.
22
V. The Priestly Strand of Tradition (“P”)

According to the “Documentary Hypothesis” the Priestly material in the
Pentateuch consists of legal, genealogical, ritual, and chronological records of
varying antiquity. Some of it may well go all the way back to the time of
Moses himself, shortly after c. 1290 BCE (e.g., Exodus 20-23). Some of it
seems to come from the time of the Exile in Babylon in the sixth century BCE
(e.g., Leviticus 17-26). Most of the rest seems to stem from the periods in
between. The Biblical interpreters who hold to the “Documentary Hypothesis”
suggest that it was probably a priest (Ezra or some one associated with him?)
or a group of priests, who, in the fifth century BCE completed the compilation
of the Priestly strand and also completed the Pentateuch itself, doing the final
work of compilation, organization, and editing.
The “P” traditions are clearly intended to supplement the historical
traditions of Israel and Judah that “J” and “E” and the legal materials of “J,”
“E,”, and “D,” by adding special materials on worship, observance of the
covenant in day to day life, and within the social structures of the Israelite
community of the period of the Exile. “J” and “E” had traced the promise of
God down to the covenant on Sinai/Horeb, and the taking of the land of
Canaan. This was adequate for Israel while it had full possession of the land
and a King or Kings to protect their religious practices from pagan threats. But
“P” shows many signs that it was compiled during the time of the Exile, when
the land and the Kingship had both been taken away.
To help people maintain their faith in Yahweh even when everything
seemed to have been lost, “P” set out all the aspects of Israel’s faith that were
still valid despite those losses. “P” includes in its story the reasons for keeping
the Sabbath (Genesis 1), the origins of circumcision (Genesis 17), the Divine
commands to obey all of the cultic and religious laws (Leviticus 1-27 and
Numbers 1-10, 25-36), and the important role of the High Priest, next to
Moses himself (Exodus 4:28; Numbers 1, etc.)
The center of the tradition for the “P” tradition was not the promise of
the land, but rather the time of testing in the desert at Sinai/Horeb, where the
Torah was given and where the Tent and the Ark were built for Yahweh.
“P’s” treatment of these themes takes up more space than the entire “J” and
“E” narratives put together. Everything that “P” treats offers the possibility of
practicing one’s faith despite conditions of hardship or even loss of the land.
During the Exile the Jewish people had lost all that had made them a people.
There was a risk that they might become assimilated and disappear, as had
been the fate of the Northern Kingdom some 150 years earlier, when the
23
cream of the leadership were deported to Assyria. Who would then help them
to withstand this test? There were prophets like Ezekiel and an unknown
prophet who wrote most of the last half of our book of Isaiah (40-66), but
above all, there were the priests.
In Babylon the priesthood of the Judean exiles formed a solid group,
well-organized and with deep piety. They were the ones who would sustain
the faith of the exiles. They succeeded in adapting their religion to the difficult
situation and in giving it a new future. They either invented new forms of
practice, or gave established practices a new significance. The Sabbath, as a
sanctification of time, and circumcision, as a mark of belonging to God’s
people, would become primary symbols. Temple sacrifices were replaced
gradually by assemblies in “synagogues” where people prayed and meditated
on God’s Torah. It was in this context, according to those who hold the
“Documentary Hypothesis,” that the Priestly document came into being.
The priests re-read past history to discover in it a reply to agonizing
questions: Why is God silent? How can we believe in God in the Babylonian
environment that celebrates the god Marduk as the creator? What is the place
of other nations (“Gentiles”) in the plans of God?
The literary style of the Priestly tradition is dry. It is not the product of
the great storytellers. It is partial to genealogies and lists and numbers, and
often it is quite repetitive. See, for example the Priestly version of the crossing
of the Sea of Reeds/“Red Sea” (Exodus 14), the creation of the world (Exodus
1:1 – 2:4a), and the building of the sanctuary in the wilderness/desert
(Exodus 25-31, 35-40). The vocabulary is often technical, and has to do with
ritual matters. When people begin to read through the Bible the going is
smooth while they are reading the traditions from “J” and even “E” and “D,”
but the going gets tougher when the reader runs into the “P” traditions,
especially those of legal and ritual matters.
Genealogies often appear in this strand of tradition, and they become
the skeleton of Genesis, onto which the meat and muscles of the body are
added by “J” and “E.” Genealogies are important for an exiled people without
apparent roots. They give the people their roots in history, and they connect
this history with the history of the creation (Genesis 2:4a; 5:1; Numbers 3:1).
Worship has pride of place in this strand. Moses organizes it. Aaron and his
descendants (the priesthood) are made responsible for continuing it through
pilgrimages, festivals, and worship in the Temple, which is the holy place in
which God makes Himself present. The priesthood is an essential institution
24
that assures the existence of the people. It replaces the role of the King in the
“Yahwist” tradition and the prophet in the “Elohist” tradition.
The various laws are usually placed in a narrative context in the “P”
tradition. Thus, they are attached to historical events that give them
significance. See for example, the law about fertility (Genesis 9:1) in the story
of the flood, or the law about the Passover (Exodus 12:1 ff.) attached to the
narrative about the tenth plague on the Egyptians.
Because of all of these characteristics the Priestly texts are the easiest
ones to identify in the Pentateuch.
VI. The Complete “Torah,” or “Pentateuch”
When the priest Ezra arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon about 398
BCE (?) his mission was to reorganize the Jewish community and to settle the
differences with the Samaritans. As a national law, he imposed “The Torah of
the God of Heaven” (Ezra 7:21) upon everyone. There is general agreement
among Biblical interpreters that we should see this “Torah” as the “Pentateuch”
(from Greek: penta = “five” and teuchos = “scroll”) in generally its present
form, as apparently Ezra and others associated with him had organized it.
They seem to have had a vast collection of texts at their disposal for
doing this:
1. The Sacred Judean History – The “Yahwist” Traditions – “J”
2. The Sacred History of the North – The Elohist” Traditions – “E”
3. These two had already been fused into a single account: The “Old
Epic Tradition” – “J-E”
4. Deuteronomy – “D”
5. The Priestly History and the laws in Leviticus and Numbers – “P”
6. Various independent traditions, notably, laws on sacrifices and
festivals, which had been edited by the priests during the Exile, or upon their
return from Exile.
With these materials Ezra and his associates succeeded in producing a
work that, if it is not always coherent, is at least unified. The resultant sacred
history runs from creation to the death of Moses, and brings into relief the two
figures of Abraham and Moses.
25
General Overview of J E D and P

“Yahwist” (“J”) “Elohist” (“E”) “Deuteronomist “Priestly” “P”
(D)
God is Yahweh God is Elohim God is Yahweh God is Elohim
(until Exodus 3) (until Exodus 6)
God walks and God reveals Moralistic Ritual (cultic)
talks with humans Himself in dreams approach to God approach to God
and visions
Stress on Stress on “fear of” Stress on Stress on
promised (reverence for) obedience to obedience to
blessings from God Mosaic laws Mosaic laws
God
“Earthy” speech “Refined” speech Speeches “Majestic” speech
about God about God recalling God’s about God
works
Stress on Stress on the Stress on fidelity Stress on ritual
individual leaders people; stress on to one central (cultic) matters
prophetic themes sanctuary
(Jerusalem)
Narratives and Narratives and Long, “sermonic” Dry lists,
stories warnings speeches genealogies,
“links”
Stress on south Stress on north Stress on whole Stress on south
(Judah) (Israel) land (“all-Israel”) (Judah)
Uses term “Sinai” Uses term
“Horeb”
Calls natives of Calls natives of
promised land promised land
“Canaanite” “Amorites”
Partial to military Many “lists,”
imagery genealogies
Many fixed Many fixed
phrases phrases
26
Test the “Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Genesis

You can test the “Documentary Hypothesis” for yourself by marking your copy of
the Bible with colored pencils. Make a simple vertical line down the margin in the colors
indicated below. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as used in the New
Oxford Annotated Bible (Third Edition) is used here, but any version can be used,
although there will be slight differences in wording.
A. The following passages are predominantly “J.” Mark the margins in RED:
2:4b – 4:26 “In the . . . ” 21:25-26 37:14b-17a “So he . . .
5:29 21:28-30 Dothan”
6:1-8 21:33 37:18c “to kill him”
7:1-5 22:20-24 37:21 (and change the
7:7 24:1 – 25:6 name “Reuben” to
7:10 25:11b “And . . . ” “Judah”)
7:12 25:18 37:23b “the long . . . ”
7:16b-17 “and the . . . ” 25:21-26a “ . . . heel” 37:25b-27 “and looking . . .
7:22-23 25:27 – 26:33 37:28b “and sold . . . silver”
8:2b-3a “the rain . . . ” 28:10 37:32a “ . . . with sleeves”
8:6-12 28:13-16 37:33a “ . . . robe”
8:13b “and Noah . . . ” 28:19 37:33c “Joseph . . . pieces”
8:20-22 29:2-14 37:35
9:18-27 29:18-23 38:1 – 39:23
10:8-19 29:25-28 40:3b “in the prison . . . ”
10:21 29:30-35 42:27-28
10:24-30 30:24b – 31:1 “ . . . May” 43:1-23a “ . . . money”
11:1-9 31:3 43:24 – 45:1
11:28-30 31:25 45:4-5a “ . . . here”
12:1-4a “ . . . with him” 31:27 45:21-24
12:6 – 13:5 31:46 45:28
13:7-11a “ . . . eastward” 31:48-52 46:28 – 47:5a “ . . . Joseph”
13:12b-18 “and . . . ” 32:4-13a “ . . . night” 47:6b “Let . . . ”
16:1b-2 “She . . . ” 32:23 – 33:4 47:27a “ . . . Goshen”
16:4-14 33:6-10 47:29-31
18:1 – 19:28 33:12-20 48:2b “then . . . ”
19:30-38 36:31-39 48:8-22
21:1a “ . . . said,” 37:3 49:1b-27 “Gather . . . ”
21:2a “ . . . age” 37:12-13a “ . . . to them”
27
B. The following passages are predominantly “E.” Mark the margins in BLUE.
20:1-18 31:47 37:22
21:6-24 31:53-55 37:24-25a “ . . . to eat”
21:27 32:3 37:28a “ . . . pit”
21:31-32 32:13b-22 “and . . . ” 37:28c “and they took . . . ”
22:1-14 33:5 37:29-31
22:19 33:11 37:34
28: 11-12 35:1-8 37:36
28:17-18 35:14-15 40:1-3a “ . . . guard”
28:20-21a “ . . . in peace” 37:2b “Joseph . . . ” 40:4 – 41:30
28:22 – 29:1 37:4-11 (Before 37:13b 41:46b – 42:26 “And
29:15-17 add “And Jacob called to Joseph . . . ”
31:2 Joseph,” 42:29-38
31:4-18a “had gained . . . ” 37:13b-14a “He 43:23b “Then . . . ”
31:19-24a “ . . . saying,” answered, . . . back to 45:2-3
31:26 me” 45:5b-20 “for God . . . ”
31:28 Before 37:19 add “against 45:25-27
31:45 him” 48:1-2a “ . . . to you”
37:19-20
C. The following passages are “J-E” combined. Mark the margins in GREEN:
15:1-21 35:16-22 37:32-33
27:1-46 37:17b “So Joseph . . . at 41:31-45
30:1-3 Dothan” 46:1-5
30:4b-24a “and Jacob . . . ” 37:18a “ . . . conspired” 47:12-26
34:1-31 37:23a “ . . . his robe” 50:1-11
50:14-26
D. The following passages are from other (unknown) sources. Leave them UNMARKED:
14:1-24 22:15-18 36:20-30
E. All remaining passages are predominantly “P.” Mark the margins in BLACK.
28

Watts, Michael J. - The Authorship of The Pentateuch

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Watts, Michael J. - The Authorship of The Pentateuch

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures Instructor, Michael J.

Watts, AB, Mdiv, ThM

The Authorship of the Pentateuch – The “Documentary

body regularly. Sometimes it is necessary for us to drink deeply from the

composed the Torah was of little consequence. Their overriding assertion

I. The Problem of Historical and Literary Inconsistencies

multiple authorship is sharpened. For example, the Book of Deuteronomy is

Thus, according to the theory of multiple sources, the books of

ability to put together a reasonably complete story of Yahweh’s actions, not

Pentateuchal tradition, from Genesis 1 through Exodus 3 generally uses only

V. The Priestly Strand of Tradition (“P”)

General Overview of J E D and P

Test the “Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Genesis

Potrebbero piacerti anche