Documentary Hypothesis
I want to respond at length to Edgecomb’s1 criticism, as well as that raised by Ken and Joe. But first I think I need to clarify my own position on the Documentary Hypothesis.
I do not accept the Documentary Hypothesis as the best explaination for the development of the Pentateuch. But the problems I have with it are not the same as Edgecomb’s. Here are what I see as the main difficulties:
- J is not a document as much as it is a supplement. H.H. Schmid and John van Seters have demonstrated that it was written after D and draws from it. It never existed seperately.
- There is almost no evidence for E.
- P needs to be divided into at least two sources and a redactor. The pre-exilic P (earlier than Wellhausen thought) is several documents, all steming from the priestly circles in Jerusalem. H is a later set of documents (exilic or post-exilic) from the same circles but showing differences in terminology and theology. These were combined and edited into the JD document by the H redactor (I think; I am still researching this).
My approach could better be called a supplemental theory, since texts keep getting added to the basic work. But it also has source elements, since P and H were sources at one point. It is a hybrid between documentary and supplementary theories, since I don’t think either one adequately accounts for the formation of the Pentateuch.
If I had already moved my archives here from Karamat, I could just link to those posts. But this will have to do for now, since grading demands my attention. When I critique Edgecomb’s critique of the Documentary Hypothesis, it should not be taken as an argument in favor of that hypothesis. I am, however, arguing in favor of source criticism, which he seems to reject completely.
- I hate to refer to people by their last name, but calling him “The Other Kevin” makes me sound like the original and him the copy. He is certainly welcome to refer to me as Wilson, although he may also call me by my secret identity: the Exegete (mild-mannered professor by day - caped crime fighter by night). [back]
On May 3rd, 2006 at 3:19 am
[…] Kevin Wilson keeps churning out the great posts by bucking the system(s) and creating a “hybrid theory” of source criticism. It’s not the Documentary Hypothesis and it’s not quite the Supplementary Hypothesis–but it is the best of both in a nice, beautiful package. Check out this link, it’s only a quick snapshot of his views, but it’s a good summary. Kevin has a bright future ahead of him and I can’t wait to see a forthcoming monograph on this topic (hey, I asked him to write a post about it and he obliged, let’s see if I can get a full book length treatment out of him!). […]
On May 3rd, 2006 at 4:32 am
Oh, goodness, The Other Kevin is just fine by me, Kevin. If you’re younger than 40, I came first! There aren’t that many Kevin’s around, anyway, so it’s not so bad.
Hearing or reading just “Edgecomb” makes me think I’m in physical education class again. And Mr. Edgecomb is still my dad as far as I’m concerned.
I suppose by now, everyone’s aware of my opinion on “source criticism” in general, but it will certainly be refreshing to hear more of your own rather iconoclastic approach.