What Happened to the Documentary Hypothesis?

THE MORGAN LIBRARY & MUSEUM/ART RESOURCE, NY

In its best-known formulation, the Documentary Hypothesis is the theory that the Pentateuch comprises four originally independent works—identified by the sigla J (for J/Yahwistic), E (for Elohistic), D (for Deuteronomic), and P (for the Priestly source)—that were subsequently interwoven.^a It was developed to explain the Pentateuch’s various contradictions, discontinuities, and duplications that stand alongside cohesive ties that connect discontinuous parts of the text with each other.

Many of the Pentateuch’s discrepancies are well known. For example, if the world and its inhabitants were created in Genesis 1, why were they created anew in Genesis 2? Did Noah bring a single pair of each type of animal on the ark, or seven pairs of pure animals and single pairs of impure ones (cf. Genesis 6:20 and 7:2)? Is the mountain of revelation Sinai or Horeb (cf. Exodus 19:2 and Deuteronomy 1:19)? These discrepancies—and many more like them found across the Pentateuch—are persistent challenges to those attempting to make sense of the text.

At its core, the Documentary Hypothesis seeks to address these challenges by positing that the text of the Pentateuch is a patchwork, with multiple source documents combined into a single continuous narrative. Accordingly, discrepancies in the text, while challenging on the surface, are explained simply as points of dissimilarity between the sources, and thus do not represent intractable historical or literary problems.

The pentateuchal sources were written to be independent literary works; their authors did not anticipate their combination. To aid our examination, the sidebar provides a helpful illustration of the disentanglement of sources in the blood plague story from the Book of Exodus (7:14–25).

While continuing to acknowledge the literary problems to which it responds, scholars over the last century have raised serious questions about the viability of parts of the Documentary Hypothesis. Some have even declared the whole theory’s demise. Questions were extended to almost every aspect of the documentary theory: Was P originally an independent work or simply the result of a later editor? Is a J source actually identifiable?

In the face of such criticism, a number of scholars have advanced a modified version of the Documentary Hypothesis that has been dubbed “Neodocumentary.” This revised and streamlined version of the Documentary Hypothesis is both part of, and a response to, the critique that has been leveled against earlier forms of the theory.

The Neodocumentarian approach is distinctive in a number of ways. First, it emphasizes that the Documentary Hypothesis is not properly a method but a solution to a particular problem—the incomprehensibility of the Pentateuch’s story. Accordingly, Neodocumentarians identify disparate sources only in response to problems of narration and characterization in the text. If no such problems present themselves, no delineation of sources is warranted.

Second, Neodocumentarians distinguish questions of the sources’ dating from the problem of their disentanglement. Pursuing questions of dating is crucial for understanding pentateuchal texts, but the sources’ dates do not affect how they are disentangled from each other and reconstructed. In the blood plague example, it does not matter at all whether the J or P text is considered older; neither does it matter if one or the other of these sources is from the eighth, seventh, or sixth century BCE.

Third, Neodocumentarians observe a single and consistent method of compilation across the Pentateuch. This method, easily observable in the blood plague, is characterized by three principles: (1) maximal preservation of the combined works; (2) minimal intervention by the compiler(s) during the compilation process; and (3) the creation of a single, chronologically ordered plotline in the Pentateuch based on the plotlines of the underlying sources. The consistency of this method suggests that a single compiler was responsible for the Pentateuch and that this compilation was accomplished during a single stage in the text’s history.

Fourth, the principles that guided the compiler’s work do not easily admit of a discernable theological motive. In the blood plague, it is hardly clear that the compiler preferred the J account, the P account, or had a different view altogether. The questions of who compiled the Pentateuch, when it was compiled, and why it was compiled are pressing ones, but given the available evidence, Neodocumentarians are most confident in describing how the text was assembled.

Those persuaded by the Neodocumentary Hypothesis often point to its economy, consistency, and comprehensiveness. Earlier articulations of the Documentary Hypothesis have sometimes given an impression of arbitrariness in their analysis. Many have operated with faulty assumptions—for example, that the sources included all the same episodes and basic details. Neodocumentarians seek a high level of consistency and defensibility in their analysis, both in distinguishing the pentateuchal sources from each other and in explaining how these sources were combined.

Recent developments in pentateuchal studies suggest the Documentary Hypothesis will continue to play an important role in scholarly conversations. And there is still work to do. A small number of difficult texts within the Pentateuch require refined source analysis, and there remains much to be investigated regarding the individual sources. Who compiled the Pentateuch and why also remain open questions, as do questions about historical details, language, and the Pentateuch’s religious outlook.

Across more than two centuries, the Documentary Hypothesis has proven to be a persuasive account of the Pentateuch’s many literary problems. The critiques leveled against it, as is so often the case in academic research, have aided scholars in their refinement of the theory. The result is an even better explanation of both the Pentateuch as a whole and its individual parts.

In its best-known formulation, the Documentary Hypothesis is the theory that the Pentateuch comprises four originally independent works—identified by the sigla J (for J/Yahwistic), E (for Elohistic), D (for Deuteronomic), and P (for the Priestly source)—that were subsequently interwoven.a It was developed to explain the Pentateuch’s various contradictions, discontinuities, and duplications that stand alongside cohesive ties that connect discontinuous parts of the text with each other. Many of the Pentateuch’s discrepancies are well known. For example, if the world and its inhabitants were created in Genesis 1, why were they created anew in Genesis 2? Did Noah bring a single […]