Changes

In a more restricted sense, the "Documentary Hypothesis" refers not just to any attempt to identify the precursors to the existing text of the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, but to a particular line of reasoning and development that started with a French physician named Jean Astruc (1684-1786).<ref>Jean Astruc, ''Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Génèse. Avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces conjectures'' ("Conjectures on the original memoranda that it appears Moses used in composing the Book of Genesis. With remarks that support or clarify these conjectures"). Brussels, 1753.</ref> Astruc noticed that the only name for God in the first chapter of Genesis was ''Elohim'', but in Genesis 2:4b a new name (''Yahweh'') is introduced, and he took this as an indication that the text of 2:4b and following was by a different author than the author of the first chapter of Genesis. Since two names or titles of God are often found together and even adjacent in the same verse, as is the case in Genesis 2:4, he further surmised that there was some mixing of sources, in keeping with his basic assumption that one author could only use one name for God. A further assumption was that the existence of two similar stories, such as the trouble over Sarah and the Egyptians in Genesis 12 and a comparable conflict regarding Sarah and the Philistines in Genesis 20, implied different source documents or authors.  

In a more restricted sense, the "Documentary Hypothesis" refers not just to any attempt to identify the precursors to the existing text of the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, but to a particular line of reasoning and development that started with a French physician named Jean Astruc (1684-1786).<ref>Jean Astruc, ''Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Génèse. Avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces conjectures'' ("Conjectures on the original memoranda that it appears Moses used in composing the Book of Genesis. With remarks that support or clarify these conjectures"). Brussels, 1753.</ref> Astruc noticed that the only name for God in the first chapter of Genesis was ''Elohim'', but in Genesis 2:4b a new name (''Yahweh'') is introduced, and he took this as an indication that the text of 2:4b and following was by a different author than the author of the first chapter of Genesis. Since two names or titles of God are often found together and even adjacent in the same verse, as is the case in Genesis 2:4, he further surmised that there was some mixing of sources, in keeping with his basic assumption that one author could only use one name for God. A further assumption was that the existence of two similar stories, such as the trouble over Sarah and the Egyptians in Genesis 12 and a comparable conflict regarding Sarah and the Philistines in Genesis 20, implied different source documents or authors.  

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 eyewitnesses 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, using very precise philological techniques. However, the "precision" of those techniques was such that there has been one scholar's "precise" technique contradicted another scholar's precise technique, as is know to all who have studied the developments of the Documentary Hypothesis, and is shown in part by the confusing and mutually contradictive theories explained below as further developments after Wellhausen.

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. However, the "precision" of those techniques was such that there has been one scholar's "precise" technique contradicted another scholar's precise technique, as is know to all who have studied the developments of the Documentary Hypothesis, and is shown in part by the confusing and mutually contradictive theories explained below as further developments after Wellhausen.

*  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.

*  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 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).

* 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).

===Other findings from archaeology===

===Other findings from archaeology===

Findings like these have meant that even many of those within the scholarly community who share the anti-supernatural bias of De Wette and Wellhausen have had to abandon the basic tenets of their theories because of the knowledge that has been gained from archaeology about the writing methods of antiquity. But archaeology has contributed other information that has caused a new appreciation and understanding of the historical background of, for instance, the time of the patriarchs. The eminent Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has contributed many articles<ref>Kenneth A. Kitchen, [http://www.uccf.org.uk:81/yourcourse/rtsf/docs/atoj/a2jammend.pdf "The Factual Reliability of the Old Testament in the 21st Century"]</ref><ref>Kitchen, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" ''Biblical Archaeology Review'' 21 (1995) pp. 48-57, 92-95).</ref><ref>Kitchen, ''On the Reliability of the Old Testament'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).</ref> showing that the literary background of the first books of the Bible reflects the second millennium BC, not the exilic or post-exilic time that is still advocated, and written about as if it is a proven fact, by those who share the results of Wellhausen's analysis even after its basic underpinnings have been falsified.  

Findings like these have meant that even many of those within the scholarly community who share the anti-supernatural bias of De Wette and Wellhausen have had to abandon the basic tenets of their theories because of the knowledge that has been gained from archaeology about the writing methods of antiquity. But archaeology has contributed other information that has caused a new appreciation and understanding of the historical background of, for instance, the time of the patriarchs. The eminent Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has contributed many articles<ref>Kenneth A. Kitchen, [http://www.uccf.org.uk:81/yourcourse/rtsf/docs/atoj/a2jammend.pdf "The Factual Reliability of the Old Testament in the 21st Century"]</ref><ref>Kitchen, "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" ''Biblical Archaeology Review'' 21 (1995) pp. 48-57, 92-95.</ref><ref>Kitchen, ''On the Reliability of the Old Testament'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).</ref> showing that the literary background of the first books of the Bible reflects the second millennium BC, not the exilic or post-exilic time that is still advocated, and written about as if it is a proven fact, by those who share the results of Wellhausen's analysis even after its basic underpinnings have been falsified.  

Cyrus Gordon (1908-2001) was undoubtedly one of the greatest experts in the languages of the ancient Near East. In a 1949 article, Gordon publicly rejected the Documentary Hypothesis as an unscientific theory, saying it was based on presuppositions rather than archaeological facts. Gordon knew about 30 languages, exceeding in this regard, and in his knowledge of ancient writing practices, the majority if not all the scholars who continued to uphold the Documentary Hypothesis in the 20th and 21st centuries.  

Cyrus Gordon (1908-2001) was undoubtedly one of the greatest experts in the languages of the ancient Near East. In a 1949 article, Gordon publicly rejected the Documentary Hypothesis as an unscientific theory, saying it was based on presuppositions rather than archaeological facts. Gordon knew about 30 languages, exceeding in this regard, and in his knowledge of ancient writing practices, the majority if not all the scholars who continued to uphold the Documentary Hypothesis in the 20th and 21st centuries.