Chapter 14 The Documentary Hypthesis | Four Sources for the Torah | Early Hebrew History | Yahwists and Elohists | Deuteronomy | The Priests of Jerusalem | Differences in Vocabulary Identify the Sources | Reactions to the Hypothesis | See for Yourself

Four Sources for the Torah

This chapter describes what mainstream non-fundamentalist scholars believe about the origins of the Torah – that is, the first five books of the Bible, Genesis through Deuteronomy.

The Torah is derived primarily from four sources. 

The two oldest sources are The Yahwist Narrative, which was written by the southern Hebrews sometime between 930-720 BCE, and The Elohist Traditions, which were written by the northern Hebrews during the same time period.  These make up the bulk of Genesis, and also a great deal of Exodus and Numbers.  

The third source is the book of Deuteronomy, which was most likely the Bible that Hilkiah "found" in the temple. 1  Scholars believe whoever published Deuteronomy also compiled Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings – and that even though these were not compiled until the 620's BCE, certain original source documents and oral traditions upon which they were based are much older.  The identification of these older sources is a challenging process, and, although reasonably complete approximations can be achieved, we will never be able to conclusively pinpoint the origins of all of them.

The fourth source is The Priestly Text which was composed by the priests of Jerusalem.  Scholars are divided about the date of this source.  Some think it was written before the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE, some think during that exile, and some think after that exile by as much as 100-200 years.  On the whole, its material is more recent than the others.  The largest of the four, it constitutes all of Leviticus, a great deal of Exodus and Numbers, and a little of Genesis, including the all-important creation account in Genesis 1.

Early Hebrew History

In order to understand why scholars believe this, it is necessary to have a cursory knowledge of ancient Hebrew history.  The Hebrews migrated from Palestine into Egypt during the 1700's BCE – an event commemorated in the story of Joseph, and in Egyptian history as the Hyksos take-over of northern Egypt.  The Hebrews departed from Egypt about 1550 BCE, which Egyptian history records as the expulsion of the Hyksos, and which corresponds in very general terms to the Biblical Exodus.  Then there follows a 300+ year period filled with very interesting but inconclusive information, which largely reduces us to the art of speculation.  The degree of uncertainty abates in the 1220's BCE with the archaeological verification of Israel's existence in Palestine. 

The Biblical book of Judges is our best source for what happened during the period from about 1200 BCE until 1050 BCE.  The first few chapters of Judges indicate that there was a deep cultural divide between the northern Hebrews who mingled with the Canaanite culture and the southern Hebrews who did not.  We know this from studying the various judges, who often ruled over exclusively northern tribes, but not southern tribes, and vice-versa – for example, the very ancient Song of Deborah, mentions almost every northern tribe, yet fails to mention southern tribes such as Judah and Simeon, and says the southern tribe of Reuben was only a lukewarm ally. 2 

From about 1050 BCE until 930 BCE both northern and southern Hebrews were theoretically united under the iron fists of the kings Saul, David, and Solomon; but these kings were constantly quelling revolts initiated by one faction or the other.  It was during Solomon's time that Zadok started the priesthood of the Jerusalem temple, and disenfranchised the northern priests under Abiathar.  The merger of north and south proved unworkable, and dissolved with the successful revolt of the north under Jeroboam. 

Yahwists and Elohists

King Jeroboam presided over a deeply divided kingdom in the north.  Not only were the northern Hebrews culturally divided from the southern Hebrews, the northern Hebrews were also religiously divided amongst themselves – some worshiping Yahweh and others worshipping the pagan Canaanite god Baal.  To complicate matters, even those who worshipped Yahweh were divided between Abiathar's successors and Zadok's priests at Jerusalem. 

Yet despite their differences, all western Semitic peoples, Hebrew and Canaanite alike, believed in a Father-God named El, as we can surmise from a large number of archaeological sites. 3  Jeroboam attempted to use this common belief in El in order to unite his northern kingdom.  Like Henry of Navarre, he was a politique.  He erected idols of El's symbol, the golden calf, at Dan and at Bethel, and said "Here are your gods O Israel." 4  The calf, or cow, was a symbol of El, for it is known from archaeology that he was depicted as a bull with horns. 5  Therefore, it became politically correct to call God by the name of "El" or "Elohim," not "Yahweh."  To say that El was God was acceptable to Canaanite and Hebrew alike, but to say that Yahweh was God was offensive to the Canaanites, and therefore politically incorrect.

The northern Hebrews began referring to their God as Elohim, in order to be politically correct, yet many of them still worshipped Yahweh.  Therefore, they began to use the names Elohim and Yahweh interchangeably for the same God.  This is evident from an Elohist passage in Genesis 29:31-30:24, where the progenitors of the southern tribes are associated with Yahweh (the LORD), but the progenitors of the northern tribes are associated with Elohim (God) – yet it is implicit that both are the same God.

It was at this point that scholars believe the two sources known as The Yahwist Narrative and The Elohist Traditions began to take shape.  The Yahwist came from the south, and the Elohist came from the north.  We know they were once separate texts because the Bible preserves them as telling the same stories in two different ways.  For example, the story of Hagar is told twice in the Bible – once in Genesis 16, which calls God Yahweh, the signature of The Yahwist Narrative; and again in Genesis 21 which calls God Elohim, the signature of The Elohist Traditions.  The story of Abraham giving his wife to another man is also told twice – the Yahwist version in Genesis 12 and the Elohist in Genesis 20.  The story of God's warning to Balaam is also told twice – the Yahwist version in Numbers 22:22-35 and the Elohist in Numbers 22:9-12.

Differing more than merely on the names for God, there are minute details which establish the Yahwist and Elohist versions as two as separate texts.  Moses' father-in-law has two different names – he is called Reuel in the Yahwist version and Jethro in the Elohist version. 6  Likewise, the mountain on which the Ten Commandments are given has two different names – it is called Sinai in the Yahwist version and Horeb in the Elohist version. 7 

Deuteronomy

The north-south division continued until the Assyrians conquered the north in the 720's BCE.  At that time, it is believed that many northerners moved south and combined The Elohist Traditions with The Yahwist Narrative into one document.  Many Elohists became loyal to the southern kingdom that was still ruled by the descendents of King David.  They, by necessity, were forced to take a back seat to Zadok's Jerusalem priests.  They compiled their traditions into the book of Deuteronomy and the books of history, Joshua through Kings.  Out of allegiance to their new southern home, they gave these books a very pro-monarchy and pro-Jerusalem bias.  Yet they still retained certain Elohist signatures, for example, Deuteronomy still called the Mount of the Covenant by the name of Horeb instead of Sinai.  If one assumes that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, as is traditionally thought, then one must also assume that he used the names Horeb and Sinai interchangeably; but if this is true, then why does Deuteronomy constantly use the word Horeb but never Sinai?  If these names were truly interchangeable, then why is their usage not more random? 

The Priests of Jerusalem

The last of the sources, The Priestly Text, which includes Genesis 1, was the brainchild of the Jerusalem temple priests who were the heirs of Zadok.  It was woven together with The Yahwist Narrative and The Elohist Traditions, to complete Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and to add Leviticus.  Scholars believe it achieved its final form sometime after the Jews returned from Babylon in 539 BCE, although a great deal of the material is from earlier times.  The Priestly text was comprised of at least three main bodies of material – 1) genealogical records, 2) rituals and regulations, and 3) a historical narrative including Genesis 1.  Although the first two may be somewhat more ancient, it is the historical narrative which causes the greatest degree of skepticism among scholars, and most agree it is largely false or misleading.

Differences in Vocabulary Identify the Sources

Throughout the Torah, scholars observe subconscious differences in vocabulary which strongly indicate multiple authors.    In whole sections of Exodus and Numbers, the masses following Moses are called "the people."  In other lengthy sections they are called "the congregation."  The sections where they are called "the people" don’t contain the phrase "the congregation."  Likewise, the sections where they are called "the congregation" don’t contain the phrase "the people."  In some sections, the Israelites are called "Hebrews."  In other sections, they are called "the children of Israel."  Some sections refer to the monarch of Egypt as "the king of Egypt," but other sections call him "Pharaoh."  Some sections call the town of Hebron "Mamre by Hebron."  Other sections call Hebron "Machpelah by Mamre."  The two names never occur together in the same section.  The same is true of northwestern Mesopotamia, which is variously called "Haran" in some sections and "Padan-Aram" in others.  Why does the Bible use two names for the same place?  As for the deserts south of Israel, some sections call it "the Negev" while other sections call it "The Wilderness of Zin," or "The Wilderness of Paran."

As there is no theological reason for such trivial differences in vocabulary, the best explanation is that the first few books of the Bible were compiled from multiple authors, each manifesting unique subconscious preferences for certain vocabulary.

There are even more signatures of the Priestly source which identify it and separate it from the earlier sources.  In the Priestly text, the main characters are almost all male, in contrast to the Elohist and especially the Yahwist sources which often include women as main characters.  The Priestly text is the only source to use the names Horeb and Sinai interchangeably.  This indicates that the Priestly text was written after the other sources, that is, after the northerners had moved south, bringing the name Horeb with them and identifying it with Sinai. 

Besides this, other phrases that distinguish the Priestly text from the earlier sources include "the sons of Aaron," "perpetual ordinance," "a statute throughout all your generations," "to be observed throughout all generations," and "all flesh."  These are repeated frequently in the Priestly text, but are elsewhere non-existent.  Priestly sacrifices are "without blemish" and God’s Law is an "everlasting covenant."  Whoever breaks the Law is "cut off from his people."  There is also an inordinate amount of emphasis on "the ark of the covenant," priestly garments called "ephods," the colors "blue, purple, and crimson," and the "holy place."  These items are rarely mentioned in the other sources.  

Most people who read the Priestly material find it to be boring ritualistic dribble, which is neither good for spiritual edification nor for entertainment. 

In contrast, the earlier Yahwist and Elohist texts are packed full of poetry, exciting adventures, and moral lessons spiced with gratuitous dirty little stories.  The main characters cheat, lie, steal, kill, and commit incest.  They get married, get drunk, and have sex.  These earlier texts are fond of vocabulary such as "he knew his wife," "nakedness," and "a land flowing with milk and honey."  Phrases like "face of the earth," "flocks and herds," "the ground," "Thus says the LORD," "let my people go," "Here I am," and "the hill country," are used often, but the Priestly sections don’t use these phrases.   Lots of places are discussed that the Priestly Text fails to mention – Shechem, Bethel, Gerar, and Beer-Sheba.  Stories explain the origin of place names.  The compound name for God is sometimes used – Yahweh Elohim –  "the LORD God." 

Reactions to the Hypothesis

It is hard to find scholars who disagree with the Documentary Hypothesis.  Jewish and Christian fundamentalists continue to oppose it, yet even among them, some of their experts concede that most scholars think it is "strong and durable." 8  Even some of the most conservative Biblical scholars believe the Documentary Hypothesis is true.  William Albright acknowledged that the Torah was derived from sources, and he quite naturally built his positions with the multiplicity of sources in view.  Also the Roman Catholic Church officially states in its catechism,

"The first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place.  From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources.  The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture…" 9 

An objection frequently raised against the Documentary Hypothesis is that the different names for God can be explained theologically.  As the argument goes, "El" and "Elohim" were universal names for God to be used when conversing with gentiles, but "Yahweh" was a name for God that endeared the Jews. 10  But this opinion falls apart when actually tested against the scriptures.  For example, in 1st Samuel 4-6, the Ark of the Covenant is alternatively called "Ark of Elohim" and "Ark of Yahweh" without any theological significance apparent in the names.  Both the Israelites and the gentile Philistines call the Ark by both names, and the narrator (or narrators) do the same, without any regard whatsoever to whether the verse in question has Israelites or gentiles in view.  Likewise, Moses speaks to the gentile Pharaoh with Yahweh’s name, not with Elohim, and all the oracles that the Prophets pronounced against gentile nations do so in the name of Yahweh, not in the name of Elohim.  The argument is entirely erroneous and without merit.

Another objection is that the Documentary Hypothesis threatens the credibility of the Jewish Bible.  However, this fear is unwarranted, because the parts of the Bible that it undermines are not central to the modern practice of Judaism.  The parts that it undermines concern a temple that no longer exists, rituals that are no longer practiced, and a defunct priesthood that has been replaced by rabbis.  Judaism, as it is practiced today, no longer observes the customs and rituals contained in many of these texts anyway, so it is hardly threatened by the Documentary Hypothesis.  Nor is the Documentary Hypothesis anti-Semitic.  The Shalem Center, a self-identified Zionist think tank, 11 states, "It would be a mistake to categorize it as an anti-Semitic manifesto." 12 

See for Yourself

You don't have to trust the scholars to believe that the Documentary Hypothesis is true.  You can see it for yourself.  Everyone has the tools to investigate it for themselves, regardless of their brainpower or knowledge of the Hebrew language.  All you need is a good old-fashioned King James Bible and a set of colored pencils.  In fact, the King James is preferable for this excersize, since it is more consistent and literal than most other translations.  Color-code words and phrases such as "the LORD," "God," "congregation," "the people," and the other phrases mentioned above.  Start in the beginning, Genesis 1, and skim your way forward. 

It won’t take long to become a believer in the Documentary Hypothesis.  You will find that whole passages use one set of vocabulary, and that other passages use an entirely different set of vocabulary.  Try to identify some theological reason for why this might be.  You will find that there is no theological reason.  The only explanation is multiple authors.

After identifying which passages belong to which sources, we can then compare the opinions of the differing sources.  It is then that some very disturbing things begin leaping off the pages at you.