1.2 History of Research:

1
1.2 History of Research

• ATPS-BOT620

2
1.1 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) ". . . the
  concern for authorship and book production that
  first emerged in late antiquity. The Wisdom of
  Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), written in the early
  second century BC, is the first Jewish book in
  anything like the modern sense of the term that
  has come down to us, and one in which the author
  for the first time identifies himself (Sir
  50.29). From about the same time polemical
  requirements led Jewish apologists to compare
  Moses favorably, as lawgiver and compiler of the
  national epos, with his Greek counterparts."
  Blenkinsopp, Joseph, The Pentateuch An
  Introduction to the First Five Books of the
  Bible, 1

3
1.2 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Josephus
• ". . . Josephus . . . names Moses as author of
  five books containing the laws and traditional
  history (Apion 1.37-40)." Blenkinsopp, The
  Pentateuch An Introduction to the First Five
  Books of the Bible, 1-2
• "Of these, five are the books of Moses,
  comprising the laws and the traditional history
  from the birth of man down to the death of the
  lawgiver. This period falls only a little short
  of three thousand years. . . ." Josephus
  Against Apion, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray,
  1.37-40

4
1.3 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Celsus (2nd Century)
• "The following passages appear to have some
  bearing upon the question of the Mosaic writings
  Thereafter Celsus says Origen, 'attacking the
  first book of Moses, which is called Genesis,
  says "So they undertook to construct genealogies
  from the first seed' (of mankind), calling to
  witness the obscure and ambiguous expressions of
  cheats and impostors, darkly hidden sayings,
  falsely interpreting them to foolish and ignorant
  folk." Gray, Old Testament Criticism, 18

5
1.4 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Celsus
• "And again "Then Celsus carped at the story of
  the dove, that he might appear to have read the
  book Genesis, but could say nothing to prove that
  the tale of the dove was an invention. Next,
  turning the Scriptures into ridicule, as his wont
  is, he changes the raven into a crow, and
  supposes that Moses wrote down the story (of the
  Flood), fraudulently corrupting the Deucalion
  narrative current among the Greeks. Unless
  forsooth does not believe the

6
1.4 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• writing to be the work of Moses, but of several
  persons which this expression 'they, falsifying
  and corrupting the Deucalion story,' shows, and
  this 'for I suppose they did not expect that
  these things would come to light.'" Gray, Old
  Testament Criticism, 18-19

7
1.5 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Nazarites
• "It does not appear that in their beliefs they
  differed materially from other Christians, except
  in regard to the Pentateuch and this, according
  to the orthodox writers, they steadily refused to
  accept. Epiphanius, who wrote three volumes
  against eighty different heresies, formulates
  their offense in this direction as follows "And
  they accepted the Fathers named in the
  Pentateuch, from Adam until Moses, as evidently
  abounding in true piety. But the Pentateuch
  itself they did not accept, though they
  acknowledge Moses, and believe that he received
  the Law yet not this one, they say, but
  another." Gray, 20-21

8
1.5 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• "And John Damascenus, writing of them in the
  eighth century, says "The Nazarites
  dogmatically deny that the books of the
  Pentateuch are the work of Moses, and maintain
  other writings in their stead." Gray, 21

9
1.6 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Ptolemaitanes, or followers of Ptolemaeus, the
  gnostic disciple of Valentinus
• "In reference to another heretical sect, that of
  the Ptolemaitanes, or followers of Ptolemaeus,
  the gnostic disciple of Valentinus, Epiphanius
  gives the substance of a letter addressed by
  Ptolemaeus to Flora, whom he calls his sister, in
  which the writer states that the Law (sc., the
  Pentateuch) did not proceed from a single
  lawgiver, but was tripartite in character,
  ascribing one part directly to God, another to
  Moses, and the third to the elders of the
  people." Gray, 21

10
1.7 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• The Ezra Tradition
• "Jewish tradition concerning the authorship and
  composition of the Hebrew Scriptures centers in
  and derives from the story of the work of the
  Great Synagogue, which is said to have had Ezra
  for its first president, and to have included
  Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi among
  its members. In the selection and revision of the
  ancient writings and the preparation of the
  canonical library which, according to Jewish
  tradition, constituted the chief work of that
  famous body, the share assigned to Ezra was the
  editing, or rather, the rewriting of the
  Pentateuch and this he was enabled by divine
  inspiration to dictate to

11
1.7 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• five secretaries at once precisely as Moses had
  first set it down. For the tradition involved the
  disappearance of the Mosaic autograph to begin
  with, and a subsequent reproduction by Ezra the
  Scribe. " Gray, 26-27

12
1.8 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Patristic Period
• "The only categorical criticism of the Old
  Testament which has come down to us from
  patristic times is reported by Anastasius the
  Sinaite, patriarch of Antioch at the end of the
  seventh century, in his Hodegos, or Guide of the
  Way. Anastasius tells us that while he was making
  a visitation in the East, a number of so-called
  difficulties were submitted to him by some
  recent deserters from the orthodox Church, and
  gives a long list of these aporia, nearly all
  of which refer, as might be expected, to the New
  Testament. . . ." Gray, 45f.

13
1.8 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• "These difficulties cover a wide field in
  Pentateuchal criticism. The Mosaic authorship
  the discrepant statements in Genesis the absence
  of a prohibition extended to the woman concerning
  the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good
  and evil the chronological difficulty involved
  in the contradictory statements in Genesis and
  Exodus (according to the Septuagint) concerning
  the duration of the bondage in Egypt the
  nonobservance of the term of human life fixed
  before the Flood the contrast between the will
  of God in respect of sacrifice communicated
  through the prophets and the complicated
  Levitical system of oblation and burnt-offering.
  " Gray, 45-47

14
1.9 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry

• Ibn Ezra, Abraham
• "When in the twelfth century the Spanish scholar
  Abraham Ibn Ezra chose, in his commentary on
  Deuteronomy, to voice his misgivings, he felt
  obliged to do so in a kind of code "Beyond
  Jordan . . . if so be you understand the mystery
  of the twelve . . . moreover Moses wrote the law
  . . . the Canaanite was then in the land . . . it
  shall be revealed on the mountain of God . . .
  then also behold his bed . . . then you shall
  know the truth." Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch An
  Introduction to the First Five Books of the
  Bible, 2

15
2.1 To the Sixteenth Century

• Bodenstein, Andreas (or Carlsbad 1480-1541)
• "In this respect the following extract from his
  treatise On the Canonical Scriptures, published
  in 1520, is of extreme interest. "Let us add that
  many books are to be trusted as far as the facts
  are concerned, but in regard to the narrator of
  the transactions, we can but speak with
  uncertainty concerning many canonical books. It
  is certain that Moses divinely received and gave
  to the people the Law of God but doubt can be
  entertained as to whose is the composition of the
  five books of Moses and the thread of the
  narrative. For in the same way that we recognize

16
2.1 To the Sixteenth Century

• a man before we see him, by the shape of his
  body, we also decide in other matters. Thus, from
  the manner of a treatise we conjecture it to be
  that of an author whom we have previously been in
  the habit of reading. Now the manner of the
  narrator appears to be different when Moses
  speaks and when the historian relates a
  transaction in a simple way." Gray, 53ff.

17
2.2 To the Sixteenth Century

• Martinengo, Ascanio
• "The last critical note of the sixteenth century
  was furnished by the Great Glosses on Genesis
  (Padua, 1597) of Ascanio Martinengo. This author
  comes to the conclusion that Moses derived the
  material for the books of the Pentateuch from
  ancestral and other ancient records, which he
  proceeds to enumerate. After the publication of
  Martinengos book biblical criticism seems to
  have rested for more than half a century and it
  was not until the middle of the seventeenth
  century that it made its reappearance with the
  publication of Hobbess Leviathan." Gray, 59-60

18
3.0 16th Century Onward

• Hermeneutical Problems that the Reformation
  Initiated
• 3.0.1 Background
• 3.0.1.1 "The foundations of modern biblical
  criticism were laid in the Renaissance with the
  recovery of knowledge of Greek and the editing
  and printing of ancient sources. Historians could
  show that present practices were developments
  from more primitive customs, and the question was
  raised as to whether or nor the present Church
  was truly faithful to the beliefs of

19
3.0 16th Century Onward

• the primitive Church. The Reformation, both a
  popular and a nationalist movement, took these
  humanist questions and turned them into a
  principle, that the Church should return to the
  sole authority of the primitive charters as
  contained in the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT. It
  rejected the authority of the LXX and the Latin
  Bible. ONeill, J. C., History or Biblical
  Criticism, ADB, I, p. 726-7

20
3.0 16th Century Onward

• 3.0.1.2 "Luther used the doctrine of
  justification by faith alone as an instrument to
  deny apostolicity to the epistles of James, Jude,
  and Hebrews as well as to the apocalypse.
  Zwingli used philological arguments to question
  the Churchs interpretation of the words of
  institution of the Lords Supper. Once the Bible
  was seen as the sole authoritative basis of the
  Churchs life, biblical criticism designed to
  maintain and strengthen the position of the
  various churches that claimed this basis against
  other churches of the Reformation and against
  the, Roman Catholic Church and heretics became a
  central and crucial activity. Ten new German
  universities were founded between 1527 and 1665
  to provide for

21
3.0 16th Century Onward

• this need. Critics of the Reformed and Lutheran
  churches from without and within resorted for
  justification of their position to criticism of
  received scholarly opinions about the Bible."
  ONeil, J. C., Biblical Criticism, ADB, Vol I,
  p. 727
• 3.0.1.3 Primacy of Scriptures "Within that
  interpretative circle of scripture and church,
  Reformation exegesis no longer gives decisive
  weight to the teaching church, equipped with
  sacramental authority, but to the scripture. The
  church is also warned that it is in constant
  peril of shattering on itself and the weight of
  its tradition, and thus while on earth is always
  in need of

22
3.0 16th Century Onward

• reform and is only on the way to spiritual
  consummation." Stuhlmacher, Peter, Historical
  Criticism and Theological Interpretation of
  Scripture, 32-33
• 3.0.1.4 Priority of Exegesis "Within the horizon
  of the so-called exclusive particles . . . -
  solus Christus, sola scriptura, and sola fide
  -which belong together and cannot be separated,
  the task of scripture exposition in the
  Reformation can be unequivocally and clearly
  fixed Exposition must be an exegesis applied to
  the scriptural texts which traces out the gospel
  and serves its preaching. Rather than
  relinquishing to the teaching office of the
  church the definition and

23
3.0 16th Century Onward

• summary of the many-layered witness of scripture
  to the one truth of faith, exegesis must now
  discover the gospel on its own." Stuhlmacher,
  33
• 3.0.1.5 Exegetical Method
• "Understandably, this new, theologically central
  position given to scripture interpretation at
  once bad consequences for method. It is not
  merely that Luther and Calvin-the one as pioneer,
  the other as theoretician and brilliant executor
  of Reformation exegesis-make Humanisms
  philological interest their own, and reach back
  of the Vulgate to, the original biblical texts.
  Allegory is also evicted from its place as the

24
3.0 16th Century Onward

• dominant method. Now an exegetical method is
  needed which first of all facilitates return to
  and theological penetration of the original
  meaning of Holy Scripture." Stuhlmacher, 34f.
• 3.0.1.6 Exegetical Goal "In the place of ancient
  church and medieval allegory with its ascent of
  knowledge, the Reformation brings a theological
  exposition of scripture, which is discriminating
  in respect of its content, rooted in history, and
  emphatically concerned for the original meaning
  of scripture. The goal of the exegetical
  procedure is to facilitate the preaching of the
  gospel." Stuhlmacher, 35f.

25
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.1 Grotius (Huig de Groot, 1583-1645)
• "During the busy decades of his diplomatic career
  Grotius was working on Annotationes to all the
  books of the Bible. Only those on the gospels
  (1641) and the OT (1644) were published during
  his life two additional ones completing the NT
  were published posthumously (1646 and 1650). So
  far as he is a "critic," his criticism touches
  peripheral books of the canon. . . . But Grotius
  true significance lies, not in occasional
  critical insights like the above, but in his
  quiet assumption of a right to study, analyze,
  and scrutinize the books of scripture exactly as
  one does any other book. In this he seems to be
  the

26
3.1 16th Century Onward

• pioneer among modern men." Grobel, K.,
  Biblical Criticism, IDB, Vol. 1, p. 409

27
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.2 Hobbes, Thomas (1588-1679)
• "Thomas Hobbes knew the legal writings of Grotius
  and presumably also the Annotationes - they had
  all been published before Hobbess Leviathan
  appeared in 1651. Hobbess real interest is
  neither in scripture nor in theology but in the
  theory of the state. Seeking a source of
  ultimate authority for the state, he turns his
  candid and rational eye to examine the Authority
  of authorities, the Christian scriptures. He
  does so with all the freedom of Grotius but with
  keener awareness of what he is doing, and now

28
3.1 16th Century Onward

• systematically inquiring after the authorship
  and date of each writing (of the OT, at any
  rate)." Grobel, K., Biblical Criticism, IDB,
  Vol. 1, p. 409
• "And first, for the Pentateuch, it is not
  argument enough that they were written by Moses,
  because they are called the five Books of Moses,
  no more than these titles, the Book of Joshua,
  the book of Judges, the Book of Ruth, and the
  Books of the Kings are arguments sufficient to
  prove, that they were written by Joshua, by the
  Judges, by Ruth, and by the Kings. For in titles
  of Books, the subject is marked, as often as the
  writer." Hobbes

29
3.1 16th Century Onward

• "We read in the last chapter of Deuteronomie,
  ver 6. concerning the sepulcher of Moses, that no
  man knoweth of his sepulcher to this day, that
  is, to the day in which these words were written.
  It is therefore manifest, that those words were
  written after his interrement." Hobbes
• "For it was a strange interpretation, to say
  Moses spake of his own sepulcher (though by
  Prophecy), that it was not found to that day,
  wherein he was yet living. But it may perhaps be
  alledged, that the last chapter only, not the
  whole Pentateuch, was written by some other man,
  but the rest not Let us therefore consider that
  which we find in the Book of Genesis, chap. 12.
  ver. 6. And Abraham passed through the land to
  the place of

30
3.1 16th Century Onward

• Sechem, unto the plain of Moreh, and the
  Canaanite was then in the land which must needs
  be the words of one that wrote when the Canaanite
  was not in the land and consequently, not of
  Moses, who dyed before be came into it. Likewise
  Numbers, 21. ver. 14. the Writer citeth another
  more ancient Book, Entitled, The Book of the
  Wares of the Lord, wherein were registered the
  Acts of Moses, at the Red-sea, and at the brook
  of Arnon. It is therefore sufficiently evident,
  that the five Books of Moses were written after
  his time, though how long after is not so
  manifest." Hobbes

31
3.1 16th Century Onward

• "But though Moses did not compile those Books
  entirely, and in the form we have them yet he
  wrote all that which he is there said to have
  written as for example, the Volume of the Law,
  which is contained, as it seemeth, in the 11 of
  Deuteronomie, and the following chapters to the
  27, which was also commanded to be written on
  stones, in their entry into the land of Canaan.
  And this also did Moses himself write, and
  delivered to the Priests and Elders of Israel, to
  be read every seventh year to all Israel, at
  their assembling in the feast of Tabernacles. And
  this is that Law which God commanded, that their
  Kings (when they should have established that

32
3.1 16th Century Onward

• form of government) should take a copy of from
  the Priests and Levites and which Moses
  commanded the Priests and Levites to lay in the
  side of the Arke and the same which having been
  lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah,
  and sent to King Josias, who causing it to be
  read to the people, renewed the Covenant between
  God and them." Hobbes

33
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.3 Isaac de la Peyrère
• "From a remarkable book by Isaac de la Peyrère,
  entitled A Theological System from a Preadamite
  Hypothesis, published in 1655, and designed to
  show the existence of man upon the earth previous
  to the creation related in Genesis, the following
  extracts are of interest in connection with the
  Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch "I know not
  by what author it is found out, that the
  Pentateuch is Moses his own copy. It is so
  reported, but not believed by all. These reasons
  make me believe, that these Five Books are not
  the Originals, but copied out by another. Because
  Moses is there, read to have died. For how could

34
3.1 16th Century Onward

• Moses write after his death? They say, that
  Joshuah added the death of Moses to Deuteronomie.
  But, who added the death of Joshuah to that book
  which is so called and which is reckoned as
  being written by Joshuah himself, as the
  Pentateuch by Moses?" Gray, 83f.
• "De la Peyrère also refers to Deuteronomy 1.1,
  "Beyond Jordan," Deuteronomy 3.11 ("For only Og
  King of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants
  behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron is
  it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?")
  3.14 ("Jair the son of Manasseh took all the
  country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and
  Maachathi and called it after his

35
3.1 16th Century Onward

• own name, Bashan-Havoth-Jair, unto this day")
  also 2.12 and 22 (concerning the defeat of the
  Horim by the descendants of Esau and their
  settlement in Seir) from which latter verse, by
  a comparison with Psalm cviii9, and other
  references to Edom, he concludes that the date of
  that portion of Deuteronomy was subsequent to the
  reign of David." Gray, 84f.

36
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.4 Spinoza, Benedict (1632-77)
• "One scholar who had no difficulty cracking the
  code was Spinoza who, in the eighth chapter of
  his Tractatus Theologico-politicus, published in
  1670, listed the biblical verses alluded to,
  verses which according to Ibn Ezra may not have
  been written by Moses. (The passages in question
  are Deut 1.1 3.11 27.1-8 31.9 Gen 12.5
  22.14). To these Spinoza added arguments of his
  own, leading to the conclusion that 'it is thus
  clearer than the sun at noonday that the
  Pentateuch was not written by Moses but by
  someone who lived long after Moses.'"
  Blenkinsopp, 2

37
3.1 16th Century Onward

• "1. The frequent references to Moses in the third
  person. 2. The statements concerning Moses in the
  last chapter of Deuteronomy. 3. The calling of
  places in Genesis and elsewhere by names which
  did not come into use until a later period (e.g.
  Genesis xiv4, "And Abraham pursued as far as
  Dan," the name of the place being at that time
  Laish.) 4. The prolongation of the history beyond
  the time of Moses, (e.g. Exodus xvi34, "And the
  children of Israel did eat manna until they came
  to a land inhabited they did eat manna until
  they came to the borders of the land of Canaan,"
  in conjunction with Joshua v12, "And the manna
  ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the
  old corn of the land, and the mention of the
  kings of Edom in Genesis xxxvi31)." Gray, 96f.

38
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.5 Simon, Richard (1638-1712)
• "The French Oratorian priest Richard Simon, a
  contemporary of Spinoza and one of the pioneers
  in the critical study of the Pentateuch,
  discovered the need for prudence the hard way
  after publishing his Histoire Critique de Vieux
  Testament in 1678. Simon acknowledged the role of
  Moses in the production of the Pentateuch, merely
  adding the suggestion that the work owed its
  final form to scribes active up to the time of
  Ezra." Blenkinsopp, 3
• "Moses cannot be the Author of the Books which
  are attributed to him."

39
3.1 16th Century Onward

• "He found four general groups of facts to
  disprove the Mosaic authorship of the entire
  Pentateuch (1) those passages which have a
  different historical background than the time of
  Moses, e.g. Deut 34 Gen 12.6 Num 21.14 (2)
  repetitions 'of an identical thing in the
  Pentateuch - repetitions that apparently are not
  at all from Moses but rather from those who made
  the collection of the sacred books and who joined
  together several readings or explications of the
  same words, without considering it necessary to
  remove anything from their copies that would
  clarify the text,' as e.g. in Gen 7.17-24 Exod
  31.14-16 Lev 3.9 (3) the many minor cases of
  poor order (e.g., the mention of woman in Gen

40
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 1.27 before her creation is described in the
  following chapter), which Simon attributed to the
  fact that the books in ancient times were written
  on small scrolls or separate sheets, the order of
  which could easily have been changed and (4) the
  variety of literary styles throughout the
  Pentateuch, which seems to indicate that the
  author could not have written all of it. . . . '
  Moreover, whether a book or a history or a simple
  parable or a history mixed with parables, it is
  at any rate no less true or no less divine.'
  Simon's awareness of these distinctions marks the
  onset of biblical criticism." Knight, Douglas
  A., Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel The
  Development of the Traditio-Historical Research
  of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration
  of Scandinavian Contributions, 47

41
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.6 Witter, Henning Bernhard (1683-1715)
• "That the German pastor Henning Bernhard Witter
  (1683-1715) was able to develop the earliest
  documentary hypothesis was due above all to his
  historical approach to the Pentateuch as a body
  of literature with concrete origins and purposes.
  Confining his attention especially to the book of
  Genesis, Witter made the following basic
  statement "From these sources which were handed
  on by the traditions of the Father and by the
  oral tradition, with the support of the God,
  Moses put together the Pentateuch." There was
  nothing unusual about this opinion since the same
  position was held by Simon, Calvin, Le Clerc, and

42
3.1 16th Century Onward

• others prior to him. He did not ever vary from
  the traditional view of Mosaic authorship of
  Genesis. The significant difference, however, was
  that Witter not only posited pre-Mosaic sources
  but also sought to identify them in our present
  text. . . . Witter's criteria for distinguishing
  between sources consisted of differences of
  style, repetitions of content, and alternation
  between divine names." Knight, 55-56
• "Did Witter initiate a new understanding of
  tradition or transmission? This must be answered
  in the negative, for in essence his view was a
  continuation of the vague, undeveloped notion
  that Moses received some traditional materials

43
3.1 16th Century Onward

• from his ancestors. Witter's contribution was
  that he simply designated certain specific
  portions of Genesis as having been pre-existent
  to Moses." Knight, 56

44
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.7 Astruc, Jean (1684-1766)
• ". . . the extensive source-critical work of the
  French physician Jean Astruc (1684-1766). Like
  his predecessors, Astruc recognized the existence
  of oral tradition in the pre-Mosaic period but
  was very skeptical that it was capable of
  retaining accurately all the details (especially
  names, ages, topographical descriptions) included
  in Genesis. Consequently, Astruc suggested that
  Moses had old literary memoirs at his disposal
  two of these

45
3.1 16th Century Onward

• sources being major and ten being fragmentary.
  Moses assembled these strands into our present
  Genesis. In contrast to Simon who found
  post-Mosaic portions in this book Astruc
  attributed everything to Moses. Like Witter's
  Astruc's work represented an advance inasmuch as
  the pre-Mosaic material simply identified as
  such, without specification, by critics prior to
  them was assorted into distinct groupings and
  classified as ancient sources. But aside from
  this, he did not attempt to investigate this
  prehistory, nor did he regard these sources as
  changing, growing traditions produced by the
  community." Knight, 56-57

46
3.1 16th Century Onward

• "The phenomena which to him cry for explanation
  are chiefly three (a) repeated narratives of the
  same event (b) the strange distribution of
  Elohim and Jehovah (Astruc uses this mistaken
  medieval form of the Tetragrammaton) (c)
  chronological confusion." Grobel, K., Biblical
  Criticism, IDB, Vol. 1, p. 410-11
• 3.1.8 Brouwer, Peter
• "In the same year that Astruc's book appeared,
  Peter Brouwer defended at Leyden his
  dissertation "Whence did Moses learn the facts
  described in the book of Genesis?" in which he
  maintained that the Hebrew leader had access to

47
3.1 16th Century Onward

• previous documents, chiefly historical or
  genealogical, in compiling his history and cited
  such introductory titles as "These are the
  generations of," or "This is the book of the
  generations of," as showing the existence of
  ancient records introduced in this manner, from
  which Moses composed the account contained in
  Genesis." Gray, 146-47

48
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.9 Michaelis, Johann David
• "In his Introduction to the Divine Writings of
  the Old Covenant, published in 1787, Michaelis
  firmly upholds the Mosaic authorship of the
  Pentateuch, subject to the addition of those
  passages which Moses could not possibly have
  written, and a few later interpolations and
  summarises his argument by saying that Moses owed
  his material to (1) written memorials, (2)
  historical poems, (3) hieroglyphics and (4)
  folklore." Gray, 150-51

49
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.10 Herder, Johann Gottfried (1744-1803)
• ". . . Herder's romantic, anti-rationalistic
  understanding of man and the world led him to
  elevate the aesthetic character of the archaic
  expressions of Hebrew life. He sought to shift
  the emphasis from a critical undermining of the
  Bible on the one side and from an unquestioning
  orthodoxy on the other side - to a full,
  intuitive appreciation of the human elements
  permeating the Scripture. This occasioned some
  profound

50
3.1 16th Century Onward

• advances in the on-going under-standing of
  tradition and transmission. . . ." Knight, 58
• "According to Herder's conception, the document
  constitutes "the bridge from timeless poetry to
  time-bound history, the intermediary concept
  between poetical Invention and history. This Is
  the fruit of Herder's awareness that poetry is
  not to be compared with the fine arts but with
  history, from which It also springs. The document
  assumes the character of life congealed in
  writing." Knight, 58-60
• "Herder conceived of an organic growth of
  tradition out of poetry." Knight, 58-60

51
3.1 16th Century Onward

• "A clear understanding of our prime traditio
  principle of interpretation by subsequent
  generations can also be observed in Herder's
  writing." Knight, 58-60
• "Also at the literary stage this process
  continued by means of subsequent redactions."
  Knight, 58-60

52
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.11 Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried (1751-1827)
• "In the second volume of his Introduction to the
  Old Testament Eichhorn deals specifically with
  the authorship and composition of the sacred
  books. In regard to Genesis he argues (1) only
  such a man as Moses could have been the author
  (2) the book is compiled from ancient written
  records (3) among these are certain independent
  documents (4) most of the book is composed of
  parts of two distinct histories, whose separate
  identity is discernible from the repetitions in
  the text and also from the variation in the style
  of the divine appellation. In his assignment of
  the material of the two accounts he follows in
  the main the division of Astruc, with a few
  unimportant variations." Gray, 153-54

53
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.12 Nachtigal, Johann Christoph (1753-1819)
• "Another noteworthy advance occurred in this same
  period - a contribution which has almost totally
  been overlooked and forgotten. Johann Christoph
  Nachtigal (1753-1819) published under the
  pseudonym Otmar a series of articles in 1794-95
  dealing with the gradual formation of the Old
  Testament. Varying from other critics in the
  period immediately after the source-critical
  ground had been broken by Witter and Astruc,
  Nachtigal conceived of this formation as a

54
3.1 16th Century Onward

• complex process in which both oral and written
  traditions were transmitted down to later
  generations and in the course of time were put
  into first smaller compilations and then ever
  larger ones until the entire corpus of the
  historical books was finally reached." Knight,
  61

55
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.13 Ilgen, Karl David (1763-1834)
• ". . . Carl David Ilgen, who in 1794 succeeded
  Eichhorn in the chair of Oriental languages at
  Jena, and in 1798 published a small volume
  bearing the somewhat magniloquent title of
  Documents of the Archives of the Temple of
  Jerusalem in their Original Form. This book,
  which carried on its second page the subtitle,
  "Documents of the First Book of Moses in their
  Original Form," consists of a division of Genesis
  into three independent narratives, assigned to
  three writers, whom the author styles
  respectively "The First Elohist," "The Second
  Elohist," and "The First Jehovist." Gray, 169

56
3.1 16th Century Onward

• 3.1.14 Geddes, Alexander
• "From intrinsic evidence, three things seem to me
  indubitable. lst, The Pentateuch, in its present
  form, was not written by Moses. 2dly, It was
  written in the land of Chanaan, and most probably
  at Jerusalem. 3dly, It could not be written
  before the reign of David, nor after that of
  Hezekiah. The long pacific reign of Solomon (the
  Augustan age of Judaea) is the period to which I
  would refer it yet, I confess, there are some
  marks of a posterior date, for at least of
  posterior interpolation."Quote of Geddes from
  Gray, 175

57
3.1 16th Century Onward

• "But though I am inclined to believe that the
  Pentateuch was reduced into its present form in
  the reign of Solomon, I am fully persuaded that
  it was compiled from ancient documents, some of
  which were coeval with Moses, and some even
  anterior to Moses. Whether all these were written
  records, or many of them only oral tradition, it
  would be rash to determine. From the time of
  Moses, I think, there can be no doubt of their
  having written records. From his Journals, a
  great part of the Pentateuch seems to have been
  compiled. Whether he were also the original
  author of the Hebrew cosmogony, or of the history
  prior to his own days, I would neither
  confidently assert, nor positively deny. He

58
3.1 16th Century Onward

• certainly may have been the original author or
  compiler, but it is also possible, and I think
  more probable, that Solomon was the first
  collector and collected from such documents as he
  could find, either among his own people or among
  the neighbouring nations."
• "Some modem writers, indeed, allowing Moses to be
  the author of the Pentateuch, maintain that he
  composed the book of Genesis from two different
  written documents which they have attempted to
  distinguish by respective characteristics.
  Although I really look upon this as a work of
  fancy, and will elsewhere endeavor to prove it
  so I am not so self-sufficient to imagine that I
  may

59
3.1 16th Century Onward

• not be in the wrong, or that they may not be in
  the right. The reader who wishes to see the
  arguments on which they ground their assertion
  may consult Astruc or Eichhorn." Quote of Geddes
  from Gray, 176

60
4.0 Source Critical Studies

• 4.0.1 Older Documentary Hypothesis Witter
  (1711) Astruc (1756) Eichhorn (1780)
• J and E Source based on the two divine names in
  Genesis. This was then applied to the whole
  Pentateuch.

61
4.0 Source Critical Studies

• 4.0.2 Fragment Hypothesis (Geddes, Vater, De
  Witte)
• "The work might have been compiled by a single
  editor who joined together into a single but
  somewhat jumbled whole a mass of quite
  independent short written pieces." Whybray, The
  Making of the Pentateuch, 17

62
4.0 Source Critical Studies

• 4.0.3 Supplementary Hypothesis (Ewald, Bleek)
• One basic source with numerous expansions.
• ". . . there might originally have been a single,
  consistent, unified account composed by a single
  author, to which, for various reasons, later
  writers made additions, so distorting the
  original unity of the composition." Whybray, The
  Making of the Pentateuch, 17

63
4.0 Source Critical Studies

• 4.0.4 Newer Documentary Hypothesis
• Hupfeld, 1853 the independent sources of P, J, E,
  D.
• Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen place P at
  the end and dated it post-exilic and therefore
  JEDP.

64
5.0 Documentary Hypothesis

• 5.0.1 Main Features
• Stated briefly and in purely literary terms, the
  Documentary Hypothesis states the Pentateuch took
  shape in a series of stages in which, during the
  space of several centuries, four originally
  distinct books (documents), each written at a
  different time, were dovetailed together by a
  series of redactors to form a single work.

65
5.0 Documentary Hypothesis

• 5.0.2 This was achieved in the following ways
• The earliest of these works was that of the a
  Yahwist (J). It began with what is now Gen
  2.4b, and its various parts are now found in
  Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, together with a few
  short passages in Deuteronomy. Whether it ended
  at this point or continued into the book of
  Joshua or beyond was disputed. It is not
  represented in Leviticus.

66
5.0 Documentary Hypothesis

• The Elohist work (E) began with the story of
  Abraham in Gen 15 and then followed the same
  general course as J.
• J and E were subsequently combined to form JE
  by a redactor (RJE). The process of redaction
  involved the omission of parts of J and E,
  especially of the latter.
• The third document, Deuteronomy (D), consists
  mainly of the book of that name.

67
5.0 Documentary Hypothesis

• D was subsequently appended to JE by a second
  redactor (RD), who also inserted a few passages
  into JE and incorporated a few passages from JE
  into D.
• The final work, the Priestly document (P),
  began with what is now Gen 1.1 and followed the
  same chronological scheme as J. Material from P
  predominates in Exodus and Numbers, and is the
  sole source of Exod 25-31 35-40 and of Leviticus.

68
5.0 Documentary Hypothesis

• P was subsequently combined with JED by a third
  redactor (RJED) to form the present Pentateuch.
• A few passages (e.g. Gen 14) are not derived from
  any of the main four documents but must be
  regarded as independent fragments. It is not
  possible to determine at what point in the above
  scheme they were inserted, but a late date for
  this is probable. A few other

69
5.0 Documentary Hypothesis

• passages were added after the bulk of the
  Pentateuch was completed. Both Fragment and
  Supplement Hypotheses therefore, retained a minor
  place in the scheme of the Documentary
  Hypothesis. Whybray, The Making of the
  Pentateuch, 20-21

70
5.1 Presuppositions

• An evolutionary, unilinear approach to Israelite
  history. It has long been recognized that
  Wellhausen built his theory on a now-discredited
  evolutionary philosophy with its roots in the
  thought of G.W.F.Hegel. Whybray in Garret,
  Rethinking Genesis, 16
• The possibility of dividing the Pentateuchal
  texts on the basis of stylistic criteria.
  Garret, ibid.

71
5.1 Presuppositions

• A simple conflation of documents by redactors.
  According to the theory, the redactors simply
  conflated the texts at hand by the
  scissors-and-paste method of cutting up each
  document and then joining the whole into a
  continuous narrative. Garret, ibid.
• Easy determination of the purposes and methods
  behind the documents and redactions. The early
  framers of the Documentary Hypothesis thought
  they could deduce the purposes and methods of

72
5.1 Presuppositions

• the redactors, despite the fact that enormous
  cultural difference existed between the scholars
  who studied Genesis and the men who wrote it.
  More than that, scholars came to have strange
  perceptions of the writers of the documents over
  against the redactors. In particular, it was
  assumed that each writer aimed to produce a
  single, continuous history but would tolerate no
  inconsistency, repetition, or narrative
  digressions. The redactors, on the other hand,
  were said to be utterly oblivious to every kind
  of contradiction and repetition. Garret, ibid.

73
5.2 Analysis

• The use of Different Names for the Deity
• Variations of Language and Style
• Contradictions and Divergences of Views
• Repetition, Parallel Accounts (Doublets), and
  Redundancy Conflations
• Theological Unity of Each Document

74
6.0 Adjustments

• 6.1 Noth, Martin
• "G (Grundlage a common basis) underlying J and
  E by Noth "The situation at hand cannot be
  explain very well except by postulating a common
  basis (Grundlage) for the two sources, for which
  both - independently of each other - have drawn
  the nucleus of their content. In those elements
  of the tradition where J and E run parallel, they
  concur to such an extent that their common
  Grundlage already must have existed in a fixed
  form, either one

75
6.0 Adjustments

• fixed in writing or one which had already been
  quite distinctly formed according to structure
  and content in oral transmission. The question as
  to whether this Grundlage was written or oral can
  hardly be answered with any certainty but then,
  traditio-historically this is not of great
  consequence. . . . Every thing which J and E
  concur can be attributed to G." Noth, A History
  of Pentateuchal Traditions, 39

76
6.0 Adjustments

• 6.2 Cross, Frank Moore
• Cross school claims that J and E cannot really be
  separated positively therefore the "Epic
  Sources."
• "By "Epic" we mean JE and the epic of which J and
  E were, in origin, oral variants." Cross,
  Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 6
• "Perhaps the term "epic" best designates the
  constitutive genre of Israel's religious
  expression. Epic in interpreting historical
  events combines mythic and historical features in
  various ways and proportions. Usually Israels
  epic forms have been labeled "historical." This
  is a legitimate use of the term "historical." At
  the same time confusion often enters at this
  point. The epic form,

77
6.0 Adjustments

• designed to recreate and give meaning to the
  historical experiences of a people or nation, is
  not merely or simply historical. In epic
  narrative, a people and their god or gods
  interact in the temporal course of events. In
  historical narrative only human actors have
  parts. Appeal to divine agency is illegitimate.
  Thus the composer of epic and the historian are
  very different in their methods of approach to
  the materials of history. Yet both are moved by a
  common impulse in view of their concern with the
  human and the temporal process. By contrast myth
  in its purest form is concerned with "primordial
  events" and seeks static structures of meaning
  behind or beyond the historical flux. The

78
6.0 Adjustments

• epic cycle of the Israelite league was taken up
  into the prose Epic (JE) sources in the course of
  the early monarchy. The Pentateuch itself may be
  described as a baroque elaboration of these Epic
  sources." Cross, viii-ix

79
7.0 Recent Developments

• 7.1 Questioned Material
• 1.1 "First, historical scholars have questioned a
  number of its basic aspects the dating of the
  earliest pentateuchal stratum (J) to the ninth
  or tenth centuries, the existence of an
  independent elohistic document (E) or
  identifiable elohistic supplementary layer, the
  limitation of deuteronomistic and
  post-deuteronomistic elements to the book of
  Deuteronomy, and the idea that the priestly
  material ever existed separately as a priestly
  document." Carr, "Controversy and Convergence .
  . .", 22

80
7.0 Recent Developments

• 1.2 "Second, biblical scholars attuned to debates
  in literary theory outside of biblical studies
  have increasingly asked whether we can say
  anything meaningful about the formation of the
  Bible. Some have drawn heavily on the new
  literary criticism or more directive types of
  reader-response criticism to argue that the text
  is actually far more unified than we previously
  supposed, that it is seamless where we once
  mistakenly saw indicators of sources or
  redactions. Alternatively, other scholars more
  influenced by postmodern literary theory have
  argued that the text is far more complex than we
  supposed." Carr, "Controversy and Convergence .
  . .", 22

81
7.0 Recent Developments

• 7.2 John Van Seters
• 2.1 Abraham in History and Tradition (1975)
  Prologue to History (1992) The Life of Moses
  (1994).
• 2.2 ". . . crucial parts of the Abraham story
  conventionally assigned to the tenth century
  Yahwist were actually part of a
  post-deuteronomistic Yahwhist." Carr, 23
• 2.3 ". . . non-priestly pentateuchal texts show
  signs of dependence on deuteronomistic and
  prophetic traditions." Carr, 23
• 2.4 ". . . the historiographic form of the
  non-priestly Pentateuch is best understood as
  part of a broader sixth-fifth-century
  historiographic movement in the

82
7.0 Recent Developments

• Mediterranean, a movement also seen in the works
  of early Greek historians." Carr, 23

83
7.0 Recent Developments

• 7.3 Erhard Blum
• 7.3.1 Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch
  (1990) Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte
  (1984).
• 7.3.2 K-D combine at Gen 12-50 and Life of Moses
  unit immediately after the exile, after the DHtr.
  The Promise theme therefore come from the K-D.
• 7.3.3 K-P is then a further redaction.

84
7.0 Recent Developments

• 7.4 Frank Crüsemann
• 7.4.1 The Torah (1992, Eng. 1996).
• 7.4.2 Deals basically with the legal material
  Covenant Code Deuteronomic Code the Priestly
  writing and the combination of these texts.
• 7.4.3 CC - early 9th Northern Deut.
  freelandlords during the Josiah to Jehoahaz
  period Priestly exilic attempt to deal with
  the exile Combination Persian period,
  coalition of debtors priests.