Documentary Hypothesis Not Compatible With Current Research

Alice C. Linsley

The Documentary Hypothesis put forth by J. Wellhausen (1895) was largely accepted in academic circles for most of the 20th century. According to this hypothesis the five books of Moses were created c. 450 BC by combining four originally independent sources: the Jehovist, or J (c. 900 BC), the Elohist, or E (c. 800 BC), the Deuteronomist, or D, (c. 600 BC), and the Priestly source, or P (c. 500 BC). However, no manuscript evidence of these documents has ever been discovered and there are no ancient Jewish commentaries that mention any of these documents or sources.

In my view there is only one source: the Horite Hebrew ruler-priests. This royal caste included Methuselah, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, and David. Their ancestors were Nilotes and Proto-Saharans, and the oldest layers of Genesis and Exodus reflect their cultural context. The documentary theory served to obscure the cultural uniformity of Abraham's ancestors and his descendants up to the time of the Babylonian captivity. Today many question the usefulness of the documentary theory. It is not helpful in an anthropological approach to the Bible. 

A rebuttal of the hypothesis comes from Yehuda T. Radday who designed a statistical study of the Documentary Hypothesis. Using computer-assisted statistical linguistics, his research team produced an interpretation of the authorship of Genesis. The team did not find statistical validity for the attribution of the book to J, E, and P. Instead, the evidence calls for a division of the book into three categories: divine speech, human speech, and the narrator. The book provides much of the mathematical material on which the conclusions are based.

In Genesis: An Authorship Study in Computer-Assisted Statistical Linguistics (Analecta Biblica No. 903, Vol. 20) Radday explains:

Biblical scholarship in the nineteenth century, and until quite recently, concentrated either on Lower Criticism, i.e. reconstructing an allegedly corrupt Massoretic text, or on Higher Criticism, i.e. differentiating the sources from which the Massoretic text was thought to be composed. Lower Criticism, as it would be, finds little need to attend to matters of structure, while Higher Criticism, which takes any repetition in the flow of a narrative as evidence of separate source materials, is by definition bound to overlook the very essence of chiasm, namely the fact that such repetitions may have been employed in a given composition as an intentional stylistic device. The result, in the final analysis, is that both approaches, and indeed the somewhat myopic scholarly fixation on detailed and minute analysis generally, can combine to preclude even the most dedicated scholar from perceiving the overall structure of many compositions which reveals the presence of chiasm in longer passages and entire books.

But scholarly attitudes are changing. The general attitude toward biblical exegesis has become less text-critical, especially as the discoveries of Ugaritic and Essene literatures frequently sustain the Massoretic text against its major detractors. Furthermore, disillusionment with the crass rationalism of the last century has brought about a more cautious posture vis-î-vis ancient literatures than the confident attitudes which spawned much of Higher Criticism. These changes in the intellectual climate have slowly enabled scholars to agree that several techniques other than the naturalistic manner of telling a tale may exist in the Bible.

From here.

Unfortunately, the Genesis King Lists were not part of the team's analysis as they do not fit into any of the three categories. This necessarily skews the results. It is through analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Horite Hebrew rulers that we are able to recognize them as one people, one source, and as kinsmen who share a common expectation of a Righteous Ruler who overcomes death and is the "son" of the High God.

Related reading: Judaism is Not the Faith of Abraham; Dating the Books Of Moses Against the Documentary Hypothesis; The Documentary Hypothesis; The Genesis Record of Horite Hebrew Rule; Early Resurrection Texts; The Substance of Abraham's Faith; The Marriage and Ascendancy Pattern of Abraham's People

Documents, Sources, and the Bible's Purpose

Alice C. Linsley

The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit always points us to Jesus Messiah. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the main purpose of the Bible is to help us understand who Jesus is and how His mission radically transforms all of life.

Twentieth century scholarship has failed to account for the purpose of the Bible. It has explored the texts from different disciples: text criticism, the documentary hypothesis, Near Eastern studies, and fundamentalist interpretations with their tendency to read Genesis as a literal account of the creation.

The Documentary Hypothesis proved to be of limited use, but it failed, as has most modern scholarship, to demonstrate the purpose of the Bible. Until we can answer that question we miss the larger picture.

The Documentary Hypothesis was the dominant approach in critical scholarship for most of the 20th century.  Its detractors were largely ignored, but some were too persuasive to dismiss, such an Hermann Gunkel. In his three commentaries on Genesis, Gunkel posed serious doubts about Wellhausen's hypothesis. Wellhausen regarded Genesis as a compilation of narratives projected back into pre-Mosiac times at the time of the Monarchy. He argued that the material reflects the life and times of the Monarchy and presents an erroneous picture of the earlier time of the Patriarchs. Gunkel, on the other hand, insisted that the Patriarchal sagas are a reliable oral transmission from before the time of Moses.

Wellhausen wasn't interested in the archaeological discoveries that shed light on the Afro-Asiatics living in Canaan, but Gunkel recognized that the finds of biblical archaeology revealed that Canaanite culture was not an anomaly. Rather it was consistent with the larger ethnological and linguistic heritage of the Afro-Asiatics who had been around for centuries before the time of Moses.

Both men failed to account for the purpose of the Bible, and especially for the uniqueness of Genesis, the account of Ha'biru (Hebrew) ruler-priests who preserved their bloodlines through endogamy. The intermarriage between fraternal priestly lines existed long before the emergence of the Jewish people. The pattern is consistent throughout the Bible and can be traced from Genesis to Jesus' mother, the Virgin Mary, the daughter of Joachim, a Hebrew priest. I have been unable to find the pattern muchbeyond Jesus' time, probably because the temple priests were either killed to forced to flee with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It is also possible that the pattern ended because with the incarnation of the Son of God, the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Hebrew priest casts fulfilled its purpose, and that purpose is explained in the Bible.

The historical-critical method of Gunkel, R. H. Pfeiffer and Julian Morgenstern is helpful in identifying older sources. Pfeiffer identified the Seir Source (S) which brings forth the people of Edom whose history is linked to Abraham and his Horite ancestors. Morgenstern identified a Kenite Source (K) and explores the Kenite link to Moses through his bride, Zipporah. In both sources, we uncover important information about Jesus' ruler-priest ancestors. Pfeiffer and Morgenstern were scratching the more ancient level of the biblical material.

Having completed lengthy research on Genesis, I'm persuaded that the genealogical data provided is accurate, verifiable, and the account of historical people. This is the single conclusion that one could reach based on analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the rulers listed in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36. The analysis authenticates the data and proves that the rulers are historical persons.

The distinctive kinship pattern of the Horite Hebrew remains unchanged from Genesis to the New Testament. Some might assert that this pattern was written back into the text by a later editor. That would be impossible, given that the Bible consists of sixty-six books written by many different authors over a period of around 1300 years.

So how do we explain the consistent pattern of intermarriage between priestly lines from Genesis to the New Testament? There is only one explanation. The Bible is the account of the people whose story it claims to be: the ancestors of Jesus Christ our God. This provides a clue as to how the Bible came to be. Only God could have authored a book over 1300 years! Granted He used human agents, but they were agents who understood God’s purpose and who were attached to the ruler-priest lines from which Jesus would come.

Twentieth century scholarship has failed to account for the purpose of the Bible and for the uniqueness of Genesis. In part, this is due to the blind eye European scholars have turned to the African context of much of the earliest material.

Today it is impossible to ignore the African substrate, since the haplogroup of the biblical peoples has been identified and it includes peoples of Lake Chad and the Upper Nile. Genesis 10:8 tells us that Nimrod, the great kingdom builder, was a Kushite. Abraham is one of his descendants.

There were Habiru in Nimrod's kingdom. These ruler-priests married the daughters of other ruler-priests and thereby preserved their priestly bloodlines. Study of the Akkadian lexicon of Nimrod's kingdom tells us a great deal about these priests. They believed in a supreme Creator called Anu. Anu was said to have a son. The son of God was called En-Ki, which means "Lord over the Earth."

The endogamous marriage pattern of the Hebrew ruler-priests is consistent throughout the Bible and can be traced from Genesis to Jesus, the Son of God. The pattern ends with Jesus’ appearance, having fulfilled its purpose. The purpose of the Bible is to refresh the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in our minds.

I wish all the readers of JUST GENESIS a blessed Holy Week. May you have joy in knowing that the Son of God has destroyed death and opened for us the way to Paradise.

Related reading: The Social Structure of the Biblical Hebrew (Part 1); Abraham's Ancestral Faith; The Virgin Mary's Ancestry; Marrying that Christ May be Born

Should Genesis Be Taught in Public Schools?

Alice C. Linsley

Today three Democratic senators introduced Senate Bill 142 in Frankfort. It would allow Kentucky schools to teach from the Bible. Kentucky schools would offer it as an elective social studies course to help students become familiar with the Bible’s content and style. Read more here.

The Senators are riding the wave of the increasingly popular Bible Literacy Project. I looked at the Project to see who is the Consultant for Genesis.  It is Thomas B. Dozeman (Ph.D., Columbia University), who is a Professor of Old Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio.  Professor Dozeman is one of the editors of A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 34).

Dozemen generally holds to the Documentary Hypothesis, which maintains that the Pentateuch derives from four documentary sources: (1) a Yahwist (J) source, written in the south (Judah) in early monarchial times, (2) an Elohist (E) source, written in the north (Israel) somewhat later (these two sources being combined at some point, a combination referred to as JE), (3) a Deuteronomic (D) source, representing the book of the law found in the temple during the 621 B.C. reforms of Josiah., and (4) a Priestly (P) source, which most DH adherents thought to be post-Exilic. These sources were combined by an editor or Redactor (R) to form the   first 5 books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch).

I've already written about the failure of this hypothesis to account for the uniqueness of Genesis, so I will not dwell on that here. Let me say only this: Genesis is a record of the Afro-Asiatic rulers and priests before the emergence of a people identified as Israel. As such, it deserves to be studied apart from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy which focus on Moses and the people of Israel.

Genesis names no one as its author, but claims to be the “toledot” or record of God’s intervention in history among real persons. The claim to be toledot is made thirteen times in Genesis, a number associated with the Afro-Asiatic lunisolar calendar of 13 months (requiring adjustment 7 times every 19 years.) This, with the organization of 7 days of Genesis 1, suggests a priestly source which is much more ancient than that proposed by the Documentary Hypothesis.

Dozeman, taking the approach of literary criticism, views the ancestor and exodus traditions as originally separate, but ignores the significance of the unique kinship pattern found in both Genesis and Exodus.  Analysis of the marriage pattern of Moses and his father Amram reveals that it is identical to that of Abraham and his ancestors. 

I'm afraid that this Project will teach children that a resourceful editor is responsible for the first 5 books of the Old Testament, without showing them why the priestly lines intermarried according to a unique pattern until the time of the birth of Jesus Christ.  This is equal to asking children to grasp the essence of an animal by showing them only the dissected parts.

The Documentary Hypothesis

Alice C. Linsley

The Documentary Hypothesis was the topic of heated discussion recently at Stand Firm. A priest made this this facile comment:

But the overwhelming consensus of modern scholars is that the Pentateuch is indeed a composite of multiple traditions, coming from a wide variety of times and places and reflecting a considerable variety of theological viewpoints and group interests.

To which a a layman, Michael A. responded:

The more I thought about this, the more irritated I became, because it is such typical liberal humbug: “This is what everyone is thinking don’t question it”. Yet it is quite untrue - *numerous* scholars reject the documentary hypothesis. I assembled a quick list, broken down into (a) liberals or other; (b) jewish (a huge field of scholars that the liberals always ignore); and (c) conservative christian:

(a) liberal or other

*Rolf Rendtdorff “problems of process of transmission in the Pentateuch”, trans English 1977

*R.N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch 1995.

*Whybray acidly comments: “There is at the present moment no consensus whatever about when, why, how, and through whom the Pentateuch reached its present form, and opinions about the dates of composition of its various parts differ by more than five hundred years.”

*Kikawada, Isaac M. and A. Quinn. Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11. Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.

*Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions, 2008 [This is a huge and detailed study on the subject]

*Literally from left field are scholars like Gmirkin in “Berossus and Genesis” 2006 who argues that the entire Pentateuch was written in the 3rd century BC! Obviously his position is radically different to mine (I believe it was written/edited by Moses, as Jesus said). Yet the end result is the same: Gmirkin rejects the documentary hypothesis.


(b) Jewish

*Umberto Cassuto completely debunked the DH. His “The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch” is still highly recommended reading (1966 in english)

*Yehezkel Kaufmann (1950s)

*Cyrus H. Gordon (1960s)

There are plenty of recent Jewish scholars who reject the Documentary Hypothesis:

*Dr. Yohanan Aharoni

*Amos Hakham

*Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman

*Rabbi Yosef Reinman


(c) Conservative christian

*John Bimson

*Bryant Wood

*Colin Smith

*R.K. Harrison, An Introduction To The Old Testament 1970

*K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient And The Old Testament 1966

*Gleason Archer (d. 2004) of Fuller and Trinity.

*Walter Kaiser of Gordon-Conwell

*Ronald F. Youngblood

*James Orr, The Problems of the Old Testament

*R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament

*J Gordon McConville

*T Desmond Alexander

*Edwin Yamauchi

*Prof. Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History 1969

*Prof. Randall W. Younker, 1999

*Duane A. Garrett 1991.

*Derek Kidner, Commentary on Genesis

*J Harold Greenlee

*Prof. Claude Mariottini

*Joseph Blenkinsopp 1995.

*McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1988

Liberal scholars are of course unaware of any of these, in their intellectual ghetto. Go figure.

[93] Posted by MichaelA on 01-11-2010 at 04:21 AM here.


I would have enjoyed joining the discussion but it appears that I no longer have posting privileges at Stand Firm. Since my work is being discussed at this thread (and misrepresented by some), it would be a courtesy to have allowed me to comment in my defense.  I have responded at Virtueonline here.

For my thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis, go here.