Changes

Astruc's writing was not intended to cast doubt on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It was, instead, intended to show that Moses would have used sources from different authors in his compilation of its first book, Genesis. His goal was to counter the criticisms of 17th-century skeptics such as Spinoza who had argued against the Mosaic authorship, and indeed the basic integrity, of the Torah. Astruc's idea was generally consistent with a high view of the divine origin and inspiration of Scripture. In particular, it is consistent with the later development of the so-called "[[Tablet theory|Tablet Theory]]" of P. J. Wiseman, a theory which also postulates separate authors in the book of Genesis, but which, unlike subsequent theories of the classical Documentary Hypothesis, was based on a study of ancient literary conventions in Mesopotamia in the second millennium BC and earlier. The Tablet Theory is usually not considered in discussions of the Documentary Hypothesis, however, because its basic tenets are consistent with the a viewpoint that says that the early chapters of Genesis were generally recorded by eye-witnesses of the events recorded, and are thus historical, whereas the developers of the Documentary Hypothesis followed presuppositions that ruled out such a possibility.  

Astruc's writing was not intended to cast doubt on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It was, instead, intended to show that Moses would have used sources from different authors in his compilation of its first book, Genesis. His goal was to counter the criticisms of 17th-century skeptics such as Spinoza who had argued against the Mosaic authorship, and indeed the basic integrity, of the Torah. Astruc's idea was generally consistent with a high view of the divine origin and inspiration of Scripture. In particular, it is consistent with the later development of the so-called "[[Tablet theory|Tablet Theory]]" of P. J. Wiseman, a theory which also postulates separate authors in the book of Genesis, but which, unlike subsequent theories of the classical Documentary Hypothesis, was based on a study of ancient literary conventions in Mesopotamia in the second millennium BC and earlier. The Tablet Theory is usually not considered in discussions of the Documentary Hypothesis, however, because its basic tenets are consistent with the a viewpoint that says that the early chapters of Genesis were generally recorded by eye-witnesses of the events recorded, and are thus historical, whereas the developers of the Documentary Hypothesis followed presuppositions that ruled out such a possibility.  

Although the finding that there was only one name used for God in the first chapter of Genesis was a valid and potentially meaningful observation, there was a certain amount of subjectivity in other aspects of Astruc's approach. This might be excused when it is considered that the basic writings styles of the ancient Near East were not known in the 18th century, and the great decipherments of these scripts and languages were still in the future. However, it was this subjectivity, or the imposition of modern western cultural ideas based on the scholars' presuppositions, that was to become the hallmark of later developments in the literary criticism of the Pentateuch. Various scholars set out to identify the "sources" of not only the Pentateuch, but of the rest of the Hebrew Bible, almost entirely based on each scholar's individual presuppositions. This subjective approach has meant that there have been almost as many theories of how the sources of the Pentateuch should be divided as there are scholars who write on this subject. Such a fragmentation of ideas persists to the present day. This is in spite of the common assertion by those who follow this approach that the "truths" of the documentary hypothesis have been established by a consensus of scholarly opinion.

Although the finding that there was only one name used for God in the first chapter of Genesis was a valid and potentially meaningful observation, there was a certain amount of subjectivity in other aspects of Astruc's approach. This might be excused when it is considered that the basic writings styles of the ancient Near East were not known in the 18th century, and the great decipherments of these scripts and languages were still in the future. However, it was this subjectivity, or the imposition of modern western cultural ideas based on the scholars' presuppositions, that was to become the hallmark of later developments in the literary criticism of the Pentateuch. Various scholars set out to identify the "sources" of not only the Pentateuch, but of the rest of the Hebrew Bible, using very precise philological techniques.  

Unlike Astruc, many later scholars largely had a deistic, anti-supernatural bias, in keeping with the cultural milieu of the Enlightenment and the attempts to show that scientific inquiry was incompatible with a belief in the miracle-working, revelation-giving God or Israel. Significant developments in this regard were the following.  

Significant developments in this regard were the following.  

* In 1780-1783, Gottfried Eichorn divided the book of Genesis plus the first two chapters of Exodus into two source, J (for Jahwist or Yahwist) and E (source that used ''Elohim'' for name of God). In his later writing he assumed these sources were by someone other than Moses, at a later date than the historical Moses.  

* In 1780-1783, Gottfried Eichorn divided the book of Genesis plus the first two chapters of Exodus into two source, J (for Jahwist or Yahwist) and E (source that used ''Elohim'' for name of God). In his later writing he assumed these sources were by someone other than Moses, at a later date than the historical Moses.  

* In 1805, Wilhelm De Wette published his idea that the book of Deuteronomy was not from the pen of Moses, but instead was a creation from the days of Josiah, with the purpose of centralizing control under the Jerusalem priesthood.<ref> Wilhelm De Wette, ''Dissertatio critica, qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi librus diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse demonstrator''. Jena, 1805. Reprinted in ''Opuscula Theologica'' (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1830).</ref> This conjectured document, produced as a fraud by the priesthood in order to accomplish this purpose, was labeled 'D', for 'Deuteronomic.' It consisted of most of the book of Deuteronomy plus whatever texts elsewhere might seem to support the centralization of worship. De Wette's theory offered an alternative, anti-supernatural alternative to the repeated Biblical statements ("The Lord said to Moses . . .") that the main contents of Deuteronomy were given by revelation to Moses during Israel's time in the wilderness. Because it replaced a belief in divine revelation with a concept that could be explained on a completely natural level, De Wette's theory is one of the few ideas that has survived fairly intact until the present day among many liberal scholars. This is in spite of the fact that De Wette could offer no archaeological or inscriptional evidence to support this 7th-century BC date for the composition of Deuteronomy. Nor has any such evidence been found since his time.

* In 1805, Wilhelm De Wette published his idea that the book of Deuteronomy was not from the pen of Moses, but instead was a creation from the days of Josiah, with the purpose of centralizing control under the Jerusalem priesthood. This conjectured document was labeled 'D', for 'Deuteronomic.' It consisted of most of the book of Deuteronomy plus whatever texts elsewhere might seem to support the centralization of worship. De Wette's theory offered an alternative to the repeated Biblical statements ("The Lord said to Moses . . .") that the main contents of Deuteronomy were given by revelation to Moses during Israel's time in the wilderness; the Bible only says the Ten Commandments were given to Moses.  

*  Various other authors contributed their ideas about the way the sources of the Pentateuch should be divided, many if not most taking their clue from De Wette that a completely anti-supernatural approach should be followed in determining those sources. Important in this regard was Herman Hupfield's 1853 work, ''Die Quellen der Genesis'' (''The Sources of Genesis''), in which he divided the hypothesized "E" document into two parts, E¹ and E². Hupfield's E¹ document was classified as the 'P' or Priestly document by later writers. Hupfield placed E¹ (or P) as the earliest of these sources, so that his sequence of development was P, E, J, D.

 

*  Various other authors contributed their ideas about the way the sources of the Pentateuch should be divided. Important in this regard was Herman Hupfield's 1853 work, ''Die Quellen der Genesis'' (''The Sources of Genesis''), in which he divided the hypothesized "E" document into two parts, E¹ and E². Hupfield's E¹ document was classified as the 'P' or Priestly document by later writers. Hupfield placed E¹ (or P) as the earliest of these sources, so that his sequence of development was P, E, J, D.

* In 1866, Carl Heinrich Graf advocated that the priestly and legal portions of the Pentateuch were a later development than the 7th-century 'D' document.  

* In 1866, Carl Heinrich Graf advocated that the priestly and legal portions of the Pentateuch were a later development than the 7th-century 'D' document.  

* This idea was seized on by [[Julius Wellhausen]], who saw that it could be made to fit into a scheme that showed an evolutionary development of the religion of Israel, in which the 'P' or priestly phase was the last phase of that development before the closure of the Old Testament canon. These ideas were developed in Wellhausen's influential books, notably ''Die Komposition des Hexateuchs'' (''The Composition of the Hexateuch'', 1876) and ''Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels'' (''Prolegomena [Introduction] to the History of Israel'', 1878).  [[Charles Darwin]]'s ''Origin of Species'' had been published in 1859, and, just as Darwin's theories were being used to deny the necessity of postulating the existence of God to explain the physical creation, so Wellhausen developed his theories to show that the formation of the Pentateuch (and, by extension, all other Scripture) could be explained without the "unscientific" basis of a belief in supernatural inspiration. More than that, the very idea of the existence of God was postulated to have undergone its own evolutionary progress from primitive belief in animistic forces or spirits in the trees, animals, and forces of nature, through the development of a somewhat more human-resembling pantheon of gods, then a belief that one of those gods was somehow superior to the others, until finally the idea came forth that that one superior god was the only god, resulting in monotheism. This evolutionary approach to religion had been proposed by the English would-be anthropologist Edward Tylor.<ref>Edward B. Tylor, ''Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art and Custom'' (London, 1871). Cited in Don Richardson, ''Eternity in Their Hearts'' (rev. ed.: Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1984), p. 134.</ref> Even though Tylor's theories have been thoroughly refuted by later scholarship, the seeming harmony of those ideas with Darwin's theories in the biological realm were very appealing to Wellhausen. Along with other liberal theologians he therefore adopted Tylor's ideas with enthusiasm.<ref>Richardson, ''Eternity in Their Hearts,'' pp. 141, 142.</ref> Besides his prolific and influential writing that made the ideas of the Documentary Hypothesis available to a wide audience, perhaps the main contribution of Wellhausen was to say that, consistent with his presupposition of an evolutionary development in the Israel's religion, the 'P' document, representing the triumph of the priesthood, must be placed last. The sequence was now J, E, D, P, producing to the alternate name by which the Documentary Hypothesis is known, the JEDP theory. Each chapter of Wellhausen's ''Prolegomena'' repeats the theme that is essential to his thesis: the 'P' or priestly phase was the last phase in the development of Israel's religion, and this phase necessarily developed in the post-exilic period, after the time of Ezekiel. There is no other theme in the ''Prolegomena'' that is emphasized so frequently and is so important to Wellhausen's thinking, unless it is the theme that the development of the Israel's religion and its concept of God can be explained in a completely natural, evolutionary way, with no necessity of presuming the intervention of God at any point. Israel's religion, according to Wellhausen and his followers, was entirely a man-made affair. Once this central presupposition of the Documentary Hypothesis is accepted, the next logical step, to be consistent, would be atheism, or at best an agnostic kind of practical atheism in which God, if He exists, has no interest in man's present doings.

* This idea was seized on by [[Julius Wellhausen]], who saw that it showed an evolutionary development of the religion of Israel, in which the 'P' or priestly phase was the last phase of that development before the closure of the Old Testament canon. These ideas were developed in Wellhausen's influential books, notably ''Die Komposition des Hexateuchs'' (''The Composition of the Hexateuch'', 1876) and ''Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels'' (''Prolegomena [Introduction] to the History of Israel'', 1878).

==Developments after Wellhausen==

==Developments after Wellhausen==