Documentary hypothesis

Classical Judaism and Christianity traditionally believed that Moses wrote the entire text of the Torah, and that the text of the Torah extant today is identical to the original, plus or minus a small number of scribal errors.

In contrast, Biblical higher criticism has argued it has been redacted together from a number of earlier sources.

Jewish tradition on the origin of the Torah

The traditional Jewish view, still held by Orthodox Judaism today, holds that God revealed his will to Moses at Mount Sinai in a verbal fashion. This dictation is said to have been exactly transcribed by Moses. The Torah was then exactly copied by scribes, from one generation to the next. Based on the Talmud (Tractate Gittin 60a) some believe that the Torah may have been given piece-by-piece, over the 40 years that the Israelites wandered in the desert. In either case, the Torah is considered a direct quote from God.

There are a number of exceptions to this belief that. These points may be held within Orthodox Judaism. In practice, these points are usually discussed only within Modern Orthodoxy.

Over the millennia scribal errors have crept into the text of the Torah. The Masoretes (7th to 10th centuries CE) compared all extant variations and attempted to create a definitive text. Also, there are a number of places in the Torah where it appears that there are gaps and it has been postulated that part of the text has been edited out.

Some phrases in the Torah present information that should only have been known after the time of Moses; Based on Abraham Ibn Ezra's and Joseph Bonfils's observation of this, some classical rabbis postulated that these sections of the Torah were written by Joshua or perhaps some later prophet. Other rabbis would not accept this view.

The Talmud [tractate Shabbat 115b] states that a peculiar section in the book of Numbers 10:35-36, surrounded by inverted letter nuns, in fact is a separate book. On this verse the non-authoritative Midrash Mishle states that "These two verses stem from an independent book which existed, but was suppressed!" Another, possibly earlier non-authoritative midrash, Ta'ame Haserot Viyterot, states that this section actually comes from the book of prophecy of Eldad and Medad. In Judaism these are considered non-canonical Jewish sources.

Deuteronomy is quite different in many ways from the previous four books. Commenting on this, the Talmud says that the other four books of the Torah were dictated by God, but Deuteronomy was written by Moses in his own words (Talmud Bavli, Megillah 31b). Some rabbis have noted that some other parts of the Torah may also have been composed this way as well.

For more information on these issues from an Orthodox Jewish perspective, see "Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations" edited by Shalom Carmy (Jason Aronson, Inc.) and "Handbook of Jewish Thought - Volume I" by Aryeh Kaplan (Moznaim Pub.)

Classical rabbinical views that suggest multiple origins

The modern, critical view of the origin of the Torah is not without precedent. Within Jewish tradition, individual rabbis and scholars have on occasion pointed out that the entire Torah showed signs of not being totally written by Moses.

Rabbi Judah ben Ilai held that the final verses of the Torah must have been written by Joshua. [[[talmud]] Bava Batra 15a and Menachot 30a, and Midrash Sifrei 357.], however Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai disagrees.
Parts of the Midrash retains evidence of the redactional period during which Ezra redacted and canonized the text of the Torah as we know it today. A rabbinic tradition states that at this time (440 B.C.E.) the text of the Torah was edited by Ezra, and there were ten places in the Torah where he was uncertain as to how to fix the text; these passages were marked with special punctuation marks called the eser nekudot.
The Talmud [Shabbat 115b] states that a peculiar section in Numbers 10:35-36, surrounded by inverted nuns, in fact is a separate book. On this verse, the non-authoritative Midrash Mishle states that "These two verses stem from an independent book which existed, but was suppressed!" Another, possibly earlier, non-authoritative midrash (Ta'ame Haserot Viyterot) states that this section of the Torah comes from the book of prophecy of Eldad and Medad.
In the middle ages, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra and others noted that there were several places in the Torah which apparently could not have been written in Moses's lifetime. For example, see Ibn Ezra's comments on Genesis 12:6, 22;14, Deuteronomy 1:2, 3:11 and 34:1,6. Ibn Ezra's comments were elucidated by Rabbi Joseph Bonfils in his commentary on Ibn Ezra's work.
In the twelfth century, the commentator R. Joseph ben Isaac, known as the Bekhor Shor, noted that a number of wilderness narratives in Exodus and Numbers are very similar, in particular, the incidents of water from the rock, and the stories about manna and the quail. He theorized that both of these incidents actually happened once, but that parallel traditions about these events eventually developed, both of which made their way into the Torah.
In the 13th century, R. Hezekiah ben Manoah (known as the Hizkuni) noticed the same textual anomalies that Ibn Ezra noted; thus R. Hezekiah's commentary on Genesis 12:6 notes that this section "is written from the perspective of the future.".
In the 15th century, Rabbi Yosef Bonfils while discussing the comments of Ibn Ezra, noted: "Thus it would seem that Moses did not write this word here, but Joshua or some other prophet wrote it. Since we believe in the prophetic tradition, what possible difference can it make whether Moses wrote this or some other prophet did, since the words of all of them are true and prophetic?"

Internal evidence about the authorship of the Torah

Throughout history, people have noted the presence of the doublets and triplets that abound in the Torah and Tanakh (The Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament). Doublets and triplets are stories that are repeated with different points of view. Famous doublets include Genesis' creation accounts; the stories of the covenant between God and Abraham; the naming of Isaac; the stories in which Abraham claims to a King that his wife is really his sister; two stories of the revelation to Jacob at Bet-El. A famed triplet is the three different versions of how Be'ersheba got its name.

Further, there are many places in the text of the Torah that are difficult to understand. Some examples include:

Genesis 11:31 describes Abraham as living in the Ur of the Chaldeans. But the Chaldeans did not exist at the time of Abraham.
Numbers 25 describes the rebellion at Peor, and referred to Moabite women; the next sentence said the women were Midianites.
Deuteronomy 34 describes the death of Moses. Deceased authors rarely write about their own funeral.
The list of Edomite kings included Kings who were not born until after Moses' death.
Some locations are identified by names that did not exist until long after the time of Moses.
The Torah often says that something has lasted "to this day". Although this suggests to many that the document was written by someone at a later date, classical commentaries claim that this usually means that they will last until the day they are read, in other words forever.
Deuteronomy 34:10 states "There has never been another prophet like Moses..." (NLT) Classical commentaries consider this to be a description of the past from the perspective of the future. However, others argue that this suggests that the document was written after Moses's death.

The Documentary Hypothesis

In 1886 the German historian Julius Wellhausen published Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prologomena to the History of Israel). Wellhausen argued that the Bible is an important source for historians, but cannot be taken literally. He argued that the "hexateuch," (including the Torah or Pentateuch, and the book of Joshua) was written by a number of people over a long period of time. Specifically, he identified four distinct narratives, which he identified as Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly accounts. He also identified a Redactor, who edited the four accounts into one text. (Some argue the redactor was Ezra the scribe). He argued that each of these sources has its own vocabulary, its own approach and concerns, and that the passages originally belonging to each account can be distinguished by differences in style (especially the name used for God, the grammar and word usage, the political assumptions implicit in the text, and the interests of the author.

The "J" source: In this source God's name is always presented as YHVH, which German scholars transliterated as Jahweh (the equivalent of the English transliteration Jehovah).
The "E" source: In this source God's name is always presented as Elohim (Hebrew for God, or Power).
The "D" or "Dtr" source: The source that wrote the book of Deuteronomy, and the books of Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel and I and II Kings.
The "P" source: The priestly material. Uses Elohim and El Shaddai as names of God.

Wellhausen argued that from the style and point of view of each source, one could draw inferences about the times in which the source was written (in other words, the historical value of the Bible is not that it reveals things about the events it describes, but rather that it reveals things about the people who wrote it). Moreover, Wellhausen argued that the progression evident in these four sources, from a relatively informal and decentralized relationship between people and God in the J account, to the relatively formal and centralized practices of the P account, one could see the development of institutionalized Israelite religion.

The documentary understanding of the origin of the five books of Moses was immediately siezed upon by other scholars, and within a few years became the predominant theory. While many of Wellhausen's specific claims have since been dismissed, we must note that the documentary hypothesis is not one specific theory. Rather, this name is given to any understanding of the origin of the Torah that recognizes that there are basically four sources that were somehow redacted together into a final version. One could claim that one redactor wove together four specific texts, or one could hold that entire nation of Israel slowly created a consensus work based on various strands of the Israelite tradition, or anything in between. Gerald A. Larue writes "Back of each of the four sources lie traditions that may have been both oral and written. Some may have been preserved in the songs, ballads, and folktales of different tribal groups, some in written form in sanctuaries. The so-called 'documents' should not be considered as mutually exclusive writings, completely independent of one another, but rather as a continual stream of literature representing a pattern of progressive interpretation of traditions and history." ("Old Testament Life and Literature" 1968)

Acceptance of the Theory

Some Jews and Christians reject the theory entirely, and follow the traditional view that the whole Torah is the work of Moses. Others, such as the translators of the New International Version take a middle ground, believing that Moses was the author of much of the text, and editor and compiler of the majority of the rest.

Most critical bible scholars, however, accept the principle of multiple authorship, and Wellhausen's identification of four basic accounts. Many, however, have questioned his interpretation of Israelite religion, including his reconstruction of the order of the accounts JEDP. Some scholars have questioned Wellhausen's assumption that history follows a linear progression. They have suggested that he organized the narrative to culminate with P because he believed that the New Testament followed logically in this progression. In the 1950s the Israeli historian, Yehezkel Kaufmann, published The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, in which he argued that the order of the sources would be J, E, P, and D.

In recent years attempts have been made to separate the J, E, D, and P portions. Harold Bloom wrote "The Book of J", in which he claims to have reconstructed the book that J wrote (though, certainly, much of J's original contribution must have been lost in the consolidation, if one believes the four-author theory). Bloom also indicates that he believes that J was a woman, but this is not accepted by other scholars.

Not merely a hypothesis

The documentary hypothesis is not tentative. In scientific terminology, a hypothesis is an initial assumption that one can formulate as a test. After a hypothesis is repeatedly tested, and after multiple researchers find the same supporting evidence, and come to same basic conclusions, it then becomes known as a theory. Theories become known as facts when the preponderance of evidence becomes overwhelming to objective investigators. Using this definition, the non-mosaic origin of the Torah is recognized by the entire academic community, as well as all of non-Orthodox Judaism, as at least a well-established theory, and for most, a fact. Other than religious fundamentalists, who would be unconvinced regardless of whatever data could be supplied, no one has mounted a serious challenge to it. Most biblical scholars hold that there is no longer any doubt as to the factual status of the documentary hypothesis any more so than there is to evolution. Of course, just as the details behind our understanding of evolution may change over time, with the addition of new information, so to may the the documentary hypothesis undergo additional refinement. Nonetheless, a return to the fundamentalist view of the Torah's authorship by scholars is about as likely as a rejection of the laws of thermodynamics.

The Documentary Hypothesis does make testable predictions that have been verified. For an illustration of this, please see the following:

"An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis" Jeffrey H. Tigay _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol.94, No.3 Sept. 1975, pages 329-342.

"Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism" Edited by Jeffrey Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986