What is the documentary hypothesis?

They call this kind of criticism scientific. It surely has all the marks of so-called science. Speculation, uncertainty and complicated statements are the leading characteristics of this criticism. They claim now that the Pentateuch (the five books written by Moses) was never written by him, but that these books consist of four diverse documents. These they designate as follows: 1. The Jehovist. 2. The Elohist. 3. The Deuteronomist. 4. The Priestly Code. The authorship of Moses has been completely given up and it is claimed that the earliest part of the Pentateuch was written perhaps six hundred years after Moses' death. They put the date of the greater part of these five books after the Babylonian captivity.

They conjecture that these four suppositive documents were not compiled and written by Moses, but were probably constructed somewhat after this fashion: For some reason, and at some time, and in some way, someone no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, wrote Jehovist. Then someone else, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, wrote another document, which is now called Elohist. And then at a later time, the critics only know who, or why, or when, or where, an anonymous personage, whom we may call Redactor I, took in hand the reconstruction of these documents, introduced new material, harmonized the real and apparent discrepancies, and divided the inconsistent accounts of one event into two separate transactions. Then some time after this, perhaps one hundred years or more, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, some anonymous personage wrote another document, which they styled Deuteronomist. And after a while another anonymous author, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, whom we will call Redactor II, took this in hand, compared it with Jehovist and Elohist, revised them with considerable freedom and, in addition, introduced quite a body of new material. Then someone else, no one knows who, or why, or when, or where, probably, however, about 525, or perhaps 425, wrote the Priestly Code; and then another anonymous Hebrew, whom we may call Redactor III, undertook to incorporate this with the triplicated composite Jehovist, Elohist, and Deuteronomist, with what they call redactional additions and insertions (Canon Hague).

"This view is supported by the fact that, even as it now stands the history sometimes gives more than one account of the same event, and that the Pentateuch often gives several laws on the same subject. Of the latter we have already had one example, but for our present argument the main point is not diversity of enactment, which may often be only apparent, but the existence within the Pentateuch of distinct groups of laws partly taking up the same topics. Thus the legislation of Exodus 20-23 is partly repeated in Exodus 34, and on the passover and feast of unleavened bread we have at least six laws, which, if not really discordant, are at least so divergent in form and conception that they cannot be all from the same pen (Ex. 12:1-28; Ex. 13:3-10; Ex. 23:15; Ex. 34:18; Lev. 23:5-14; Deut. 16.) Of historical duplicates the most celebrated are the twofold history of the creation and the flood, to which we must recur presently. The same kind of thing is found in the later books; for example, in the account of the way in which Saul became king, where it is scarcely possible to avoid the conclusion that 1 Samuel 11:11 should attach directly to 1 Samuel 10:16 (cf. 1 Sam. 10:7).

"The extent to which the historical books are made up of parallel narratives, which, though they cover the same period, do not necessarily record the same events, was first clearly seen after Astruc (1753 A.D.) observed that the respective uses of Jehovah (LORD) and Elohim (God) as the name of a deity afford a criterion by which two documents can be dissected out of the book of Genesis. That the way in which the two names are used can only be due to difference of authorship is now generally admitted, for the alternation corresponds with such important duplicates as the two accounts of creation, and is regularly accompanied through a great part of the book by unmistakable peculiarities of language and thought, so that it is still possible to reconstruct at least the Elohim document with a completeness which makes its original independence and homogeneity matter of direct observation. The character of this narrative is annalistic, and where other materials fail, blanks are supplied by genealogical lists. Great weight is laid on orderly development, and the name Jehovah is avoided in the history of the patriarchs in order to give proper contrast to the Mosaic period (cf. Gen. 17:1; Ex. 6:3) and, accordingly, we find that the unmistakable secondary marks of this author run through the whole Pentateuch and Joshua, though the exclusive use of Elohim ceases at Exodus 6. Of course the disappearance of this criterion makes it less easy to carry on an exact reconstruction of the later parts of the document; but on many points there can be no uncertainty, and it is clearly made out that the author has strong priestly tendencies, and devotes a very large proportion of his space to liturgical matters. The separation of this document may justly be called the point of departure of positive criticism of the sources of the Old Testament; and present controversy turns mainly on its relation to other parts of the Pentateuch. Of these the most important are: 1. The Jehovistic narrative, which also begins with the creation, and treats the early history more in the spirit of prophetic theology and idealism, containing, for example, the narrative of the fall, and the parts of the history of Abraham which are most important for Old Testament theology. That this narrative is not a mere supplement to the other, but an independent whole, appears most plainly in the story of the flood, where two distinct accounts have certainly been interwoven by a third hand. 2. Many of the finest stories in Genesis, especially great part of the history of Joseph, agree with the Elohim-document in the name of God, but are widely divergent in other respects. Since the researches of Hupfeld, a third author, belonging to northern Israel, and specially interested in the ancestors of the northern tribes, is generally postulated for these sections. His literary individuality is in truth sharply marked, though the limits of his contributions to the Pentateuch are obscure." — Ed. B. W. and R.

That such a denial is not of God is self-evident. But it is interesting to examine the source from which the destructive criticism of Genesis and the Pentateuch has come. The man who has been called the "Sir Isaac Newton of criticism" is jean Astruc. He was a French physician, a freethinker, who led a wicked, immoral life. In 1753 this man gave to the world his doubts in a work which he called, "Conjectures Regarding the Original Memoirs in the Book of Genesis." In this work he taught that the use of the two names of God in Genesis, Elohim (translated by God) and Jehovah (translated by Lord) showed that two different documents were used in the composition of the book. The hypothesis of a Jehovist and Elohist writer, so called, was invented by this unsaved man. It was, however, reserved for a German scholar and rationalist to formulate the denial of the unity and inspiration of Genesis into a system. This man was Professor Eichhorn. He coined the phrase, "higher criticism," and is therefore called the "father" of it. He introduced successfully into the theological institutions of Germany the theory of Astruc. On account of his great learning his invented higher criticism took hold upon the minds of thousands of people. But who was Professor Eichhorn? Let another higher critic give the answer. Ewald, himself such a powerful factor of this most dangerous infidelity, wrote: "We cannot fail to recognize that, from the religious point of view the Bible was to him a closed book."

A French doctor, Jean Astruc, a man of profligate life, seeking for ways and means of destroying confidence in God’s Word, propounded a theory, that because Genesis 1 used the single word, Elohim, and Genesis 2 the double name Jehovah Elohim for God, that there must have been two original documents written by two different authors, which documents must have been incorporated by some unknown redactor, or editor, into one book. This strange theory found a too ready response with infidels, and the class described by Scripture as “willingly ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5). What sort of treatment would this French doctor have had, if, having read a Life of the great Napoleon, and finding that he was referred to as Napoleon, and in a subsequent chapter as Napoleon Buonaparte, had then set forth the theory that here was the work of two authors, which some unknown editor had pieced together? He would have been laughed at for his pains, scoffed at as a man of feeble brains, producing a senseless idea. If we would not treat a secular book after this fashion, why treat a divine book in this way?

Jean Astruc in 1753 seems to have first suggested the chimera in his "Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux, dont il parait que Moise s'était servi pour composer le livre de Genèse," which appeared simultaneously at Brussels and Paris. He was a medical man of strong memory, wide reading, and mental activity, but totally devoid of depth or large views even in the science of his own profession. Yet a supposition equally shallow and easy of refutation, inadequate to meet the facts of the case, and barren of a spiritual thought or a godly feeling, drew after it not a few ingenious and learned Germans with their British and American admirers. For this but one circumstance accounts — the sceptical spirit that preceded and accompanied the last century of revolution. Astruc conceived a double set of longer documents by authors respectively Elohistic and Jehovistic, with nine or ten others of lesser extent, all independent. Even to give unity to such various materials was no small task. This some would assign to Moses: others are keen to bring down the unknown "redactor" or digester as late as is plausible by specious arguments. Of truth and divine design these daring speculators have no notion: God is in none of their thoughts. It is a trifle in their eyes to give the lie virtually to the Lord or any of the Twelve or Paul the apostle. To this their "higher criticism" speedily drags them down. It is a snare of the enemy.

The Bible books themselves, instead of being complete works, the product of a single writer, or the compilation of an inspired man, were looked upon as compounded of discordant and contradictory traditions. Early myths which had grown by being handed down from one generation to another were combined with much later material by more or less skilful editors, so that, for instance, the book of Genesis, instead of being the coherent and inspired account of the earliest ways of man, and of God's ways with him, came to be a mass of material upon which the higher critic expended his genius in sorting it into its various component parts.

In 1753, a French doctor, Jean Astruc, propounded the theory that because Genesis 1 used the word—“Elohim”—for God, and Genesis 2 used the words—“Jehovah Elohim”—for God, there must have been two original documents, which had been incorporated into one book. And who was Astruc? A free-thinker and a man of profligate life.

Kuenen is referred to in Supernatural Religion as a very able book. With sufficient contradiction to make their judgment of little worth, all these rationalists are in substance on the same ground. The Pentateuch is not a really historical book at all, but a compilation from a few old documents, partly made in the time of Judges, partly in David's or Solomon's reign, partly after the exile. There, at any rate, it received its priestly form. Every divine element is completely excluded; of course therefore, no prophecy. Hence, when events later than the professed date of the writing are found, it was written after these events. Jahve was the national god, but Monotheism was only that into which they gradually grew up (through a Semitic tendency). Some think Jahve (Jehovah) a Canaanitish god; at any rate it was one party, and a small one, who held to his exclusive worship; other gods being equally recognised, even in the Pentateuch, and by the best kings. One party would have fellowship with the Canaanites; another drive them wholly out.

190 I may mention two cases as specimens of their systems. As it is rejected as historically true, and what professes to be of Moses invented or legends, they try and compose a system, putting things together by the probabilities drawn from man's motives; rejecting all thought of any revelation of God - of course all prophecy and any mind of God in the matter. The whole is put together and compiled finally after the exile, with the object of exalting the priests and the authority of Jahve But I must give in my specimens:

The school of the destructive Bible criticism claims that Exodus is of a composite origin. The same confusing nonsense of a "Jehovist-Elohist-Priestly" narrative with a number of redactors, with which they dissect Genesis, has been applied to Exodus. Canon Driver, an ardent disciple of the fathers of higher criticism, makes the following statement: "The two main sources used in Exodus are those now generally known as 'Jehovist-Elohist,' the chief component parts of which date probably from the seventh or eighth century before Christ, and the 'Priestly' which is generally considered to have been written during or shortly after the Babylonian captivity." According to these statements Moses had nothing whatever to do with the composition of this book. We do not care to invite our readers to a closer inspection of this higher critical dissecting room, nor do we wish to burden our pages with the infidel assertions of these so-called "learned men." It is a hopeless labyrinth of theories and contradictions, which lead gradually but surely into the outer darkness. Yet these pernicious inventions are taught in many colleges and seminaries of the different evangelical denominations.

A Jewish rabbi of considerable learning, after a close examination of the arguments produced by the critics, has of late shown their absolute worthlessness from a literary point of view. He declares, "All these and similar analyses of the sources of Exodus and the conclusions based thereon are entirely wrong.... The theory that the book of Exodus was compiled from previous works is not sufficiently supported; and the attempt to analyze it into its component parts is a hopeless one, for all the elements of the book are closely welded together into one harmonious whole (Rabbi Dr. Benno Jacob of Goettingen , Germany).