Changes

The '''''Documentary Hypothesis''''', in its broadest sense, is an attempt to identify various source documents from which the present text of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the historical books of Genesis through Joshua, is derived. In a more restricted sense, it is applied to a line of reasoning that found its full expression in the work of the German theologian [[Julius Wellhausen]], with subsequent developments by many other scholars, and which has as a central tenet the idea that different names of God in the [[Pentateuch]] (or Pentateuch plus Joshua) indicate different authors or editors, and these authors/editors lived long after the events they were describing.

The '''''Documentary Hypothesis''''', in its broadest sense, is an attempt to identify various source documents from which the present text of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the historical books of Genesis through Joshua, is derived. In a more restricted sense, it is applied to a line of reasoning that found its full expression in the work of the German theologian [[Julius Wellhausen]], with subsequent developments by many other scholars, and which has as a central tenet the idea that different names of God in the [[Pentateuch]] (or Pentateuch plus Joshua) indicate different authors or editors, and these authors/editors lived long after the events they were describing.

==Documentary sources indicated in the Scripture==

==Documentary sources indicated in the Scripture==

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, if not the greatest, 20th century expert in the languages of the ancient Near East. Among his many accomplishments was the production of the definitive grammar of the Ugartic language. 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. In a 1949 article, Gordon publicly rejected the Documentary Hypothesis that he had been taught as an unscientific theory, saying it was based on presuppositions rather than archaeological facts.   

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 was not a specialist on the Bible and his reputation was weakened by his reliance on forged documents.

<blockquote>From his studies of Ugaritic material Gordon became aware of the high degree of culture in Canaan prior to the emergence of the Hebrews as a sedentary people, and as a result he was able to reject quite readily the notion advanced by earlier literary critics that the formative stages of Israelite religion and society were essentially primitive. Gordon suggested as a conclusion to his article that subsequent Old Testament studies could only be based most satisfactorily upon an exacting and accredited scientific methodology in which the spurious and imaginary would be rejected in favor of the genuine and factual, and the ''a priori'' deductive system of classical liberalism replaced by an inductive approach that would pursue with resolution any specific direction indicated by the facts of the situation.<ref>R. K. Harrison, ''Introduction to the Old Testament'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969) p. 516, summarizing Cyrus Gordon, ''Ugartic Literature'' (Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 1949) pp. 6f.</ref></blockquote>

 

From his studies of Ugaritic material Gordon became aware of the high degree of culture in Canaan prior to the emergence of the Hebrews as a sedentary people, and as a result he was able to reject quite readily the notion advanced by earlier literary critics that the formative stages of Israelite religion and society were essentially primitive. Gordon suggested as a conclusion to his article that subsequent Old Testament studies could only be based most satisfactorily upon an exacting and accredited scientific methodology in which the spurious and imaginary would be rejected in favor of the genuine and factual, and the ''a priori'' deductive system of classical liberalism replaced by an inductive approach that would pursue with resolution any specific direction indicated by the facts of the situation.<ref>R. K. Harrison, ''Introduction to the Old Testament'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969) p. 516, summarizing Cyrus Gordon, ''Ugartic Literature'' (Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 1949) pp. 6f.</ref>

Perhaps the only other person in recent times who had such a command of ancient languages and of ancient literary techniques was Gleason Archer Jr. (1916-2004). Archer, like Gordon, also knew about 30 languages, and he wrote extensively on textual issues and the literary sources of the Old Testament. Archer had a law degree from Suffolk University in Boston. Based on this legal training he was able to make the following comments about the circular reasoning followed by advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis when they assigned any Scriptural texts that disagreed with their ideas to the interpolations of a late-date editor, and then made such statements as "J knows nothing of the Levitical priesthood":

Perhaps the only other person in recent times who had such a command of ancient languages and of ancient literary techniques was Fundamentalist Gleason Archer Jr. (1916-2004). Archer, like Gordon, also knew about 30 languages, and he wrote extensively on textual issues and the literary sources of the Old Testament. Archer had a law degree from Suffolk University in Boston. Based on this legal training he was able to make the following comments about the circular reasoning followed by advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis when they assigned any Scriptural texts that disagreed with their ideas to the interpolations of a late-date editor, and then made such statements as "J knows nothing of the Levitical priesthood":

<blockquote>To sum up, it is very doubtful whether the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the status of scientific respectability. There is so much of special pleading, circular reasoning, questionable deductions from unsubstantiated premises that it is absolutely certain that its methodology would never stand up in a court of law. Scarcely any of the laws of evidence respected in legal proceedings are honored by the architects of this Documentary Theory. Any attorney who attempted to interpret a will or statute or deed of conveyance in the bizarre and irresponsible fashion of the source-critics of the Pentateuch would find his case thrown out of court without delay.<ref>Gleason L. Archer, Jr., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) p. 99.</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>To sum up, it is very doubtful whether the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the status of scientific respectability. There is so much of special pleading, circular reasoning, questionable deductions from unsubstantiated premises that it is absolutely certain that its methodology would never stand up in a court of law. Scarcely any of the laws of evidence respected in legal proceedings are honored by the architects of this Documentary Theory. Any attorney who attempted to interpret a will or statute or deed of conveyance in the bizarre and irresponsible fashion of the source-critics of the Pentateuch would find his case thrown out of court without delay.<ref>Gleason L. Archer, Jr., ''A Survey of Old Testament Introduction'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) p. 99.</ref></blockquote>

The Documentary Hypothesis is still taught in secular universities and in some religious colleges. Its continuing appeal, in spite of the many ways it has been falsified, is that it affords a completely naturalistic approach to the religion of the Old Testament and the formation of the Bible, one that finds no need for Laplace's "unnecessary hypothesis" that God exists.

The Documentary Hypothesis is taught in at most universities and seminaries.  

==See also==

==See also==