Documentary hypothesis: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Joshua Zambrano
(→‎Proofs: adding source)
imported>Joshua Zambrano
(found friedman source, adding as reference, additional material)
Line 18: Line 18:
===3rd Person===
===3rd Person===
Moses rarely speaks in 1st person, but in 3rd person.<ref name=pbs />
Moses rarely speaks in 1st person, but in 3rd person.<ref name=pbs />
 
===Impossible/Unlikely Mentions===
Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?" questions how Moses could be the humblest/meekest person in the world if stating this of himself (Numbers 12:3), how he could have written about his own death and later events in Deuteronomy 34:4-12, and the use of phrases like "to this day" and "across the Jordan".<ref>Friedman, R.E. (1987). [http://www.archive.org/stream/WhoWroteTheBible_167/Friedman_Who-Wrote-the-Bible#page/n19/mode/2up Who Wrote the Bible?] pp. 19-20. Summit Books.</ref>
==Traditional Views==
==Traditional Views==
Traditionally, [[Moses]] was considered the author of the Pentateuch.<ref name=pbs /> Jewish tradition held that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.<ref>Hirsch, E.G., & Jacobs, J. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=176&letter=P Pentateuch]. JewishEncyclopedia.com.</ref> In Deuteronomy 31:24-26 it says Moses wrote the words of the Law in a book, that was then put in the [[Ark of the Covenant]]. In 2 Chronicles 34:14 it says Hilkiah found a book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses and the book of Nehemiah<ref>The Bible. Nehemiah 8:14; 9:29.</ref> says the Law was given by Moses, a claim repeated in the [[New Testament]]'s Gospels of Mark<ref>The Bible. Mark 12:26.</ref> and John.<ref>The Bible. John 8:17.</ref>
Traditionally, [[Moses]] was considered the author of the Pentateuch.<ref name=pbs /> Jewish tradition held that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.<ref>Hirsch, E.G., & Jacobs, J. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=176&letter=P Pentateuch]. JewishEncyclopedia.com.</ref> In Deuteronomy 31:24-26 it says Moses wrote the words of the Law in a book, that was then put in the [[Ark of the Covenant]]. In 2 Chronicles 34:14 it says Hilkiah found a book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses and the book of Nehemiah<ref>The Bible. Nehemiah 8:14; 9:29.</ref> says the Law was given by Moses, a claim repeated in the [[New Testament]]'s Gospels of Mark<ref>The Bible. Mark 12:26.</ref> and John.<ref>The Bible. John 8:17.</ref>
==Alleged Inconsistencies==
==Alleged Inconsistencies==
As the basis for the hypothesizing, and upon which the assumption is made that the Pentateuch could not be of Mosaic authorship, are a number of alleged inconsistencies,<ref name=barton>Zelkowitz, M. (2006). [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/doc-hyp.pdf Documentary Hypothesis]. University of Maryland, Legacy College.<br />Barton, J. (1992). [http://people.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/DocHypothesis.html Source Criticism]. ''The Anchor Bible Dictionary'' (Vol. 6).</ref><ref name=pbs />
As the basis for the hypothesizing, and upon which the assumption is made that the Pentateuch could not be of Mosaic authorship, are a number of alleged inconsistencies,<ref name=barton>Zelkowitz, M. (2006). [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/doc-hyp.pdf Documentary Hypothesis]. University of Maryland, Legacy College.<br />Barton, J. (1992). [http://people.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/DocHypothesis.html Source Criticism]. ''The Anchor Bible Dictionary'' (Vol. 6).</ref><ref name=pbs />
===Genesis 1 & 2===
===Genesis 1 & 2===
The criticism is that two conflicting stories called [[doublets]], separate accounts, are presented in the beginning chapters of Genesis,<ref name=biblica /> that in 1:27 God created man in his image, but in 2:7 it repeats this as though man's creation hadn't been mentioned before.<ref name=barton /><ref name=reed /> However, what the critics fail to take into account is that the chapters are 2 separate accounts, one general, the later an overview, since in 1:1 it says "God created the heavens and the earth", and in 2:4, a more detailed account is given of "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created", a pattern that will be seen used all through Genesis. In essence, the preceding section serves as the introduction, relating the genealogy or overview, the next relates details from the view of a major character in that genealogy.<ref>Tsumura, D. (1996). [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/02/Genesis-and-Ancient-Near-Eastern-Stories-of-Creation-and-Flood-An-Introduction-Part-I.aspx#Article Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part I]. BibleArchaeology.org.<br />Jackson, W. (1991). [http://www.apologeticspress.com/article/1131 Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?] Apologetics Press.</ref> This is also recognized by Claus Westerman in "A Continental Commentary."<ref>Westerman, C. (1994). [http://books.google.com/books?id=oga-LNsa7U8C&pg=PA583&lpg=PA583 A Continental Commentary]. p. 583. First Fortress.</ref> Dr. Richard S. Hess has recognized the use of an overview account, rather than a contradictory doublet, at work here as well as elsewhere in Genesis (including chs. 4-5 and 10-11):  
The criticism is that two conflicting stories called [[doublets]], separate accounts, are presented in the beginning chapters of Genesis,<ref name=biblica /> that in 1:27 God created man in his image, but in 2:7 it repeats this as though man's creation hadn't been mentioned before.<ref name=barton /><ref name=reed /><ref>Friedman, R.E. (1987). [http://www.archive.org/stream/WhoWroteTheBible_167/Friedman_Who-Wrote-the-Bible#page/n49/mode/2up Who Wrote the Bible?] pp. 25-26. Summit Books.</ref> However, what the critics fail to take into account is that the chapters are 2 separate accounts, one general, the later an overview, since in 1:1 it says "God created the heavens and the earth", and in 2:4, a more detailed account is given of "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created", a pattern that will be seen used all through Genesis. In essence, the preceding section serves as the introduction, relating the genealogy or overview, the next relates details from the view of a major character in that genealogy.<ref>Tsumura, D. (1996). [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/02/Genesis-and-Ancient-Near-Eastern-Stories-of-Creation-and-Flood-An-Introduction-Part-I.aspx#Article Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part I]. BibleArchaeology.org.<br />Jackson, W. (1991). [http://www.apologeticspress.com/article/1131 Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?] Apologetics Press.</ref> This is also recognized by Claus Westerman in "A Continental Commentary."<ref>Westerman, C. (1994). [http://books.google.com/books?id=oga-LNsa7U8C&pg=PA583&lpg=PA583 A Continental Commentary]. p. 583. First Fortress.</ref> Dr. Richard S. Hess has recognized the use of an overview account, rather than a contradictory doublet, at work here as well as elsewhere in Genesis (including chs. 4-5 and 10-11):  
<blockquote>"''As with the genealogies, we find in Genesis a focusing of content or theme. In chapter 1, the general account of creation is rehearsed, with little emphasis on any single aspect of the account. In the account of chapter 2, however, there is a clear emphasis on one particular aspect of creation, the man who is created to work the garden. The whole of the account describes his home, his work, and his companion. It is all centred on the man, planned and created for him. Thus there is a focusing technique between the first two chapters in terms of content, just as there is in the two genealogical doublets.''"<ref>Hess, R.S. (1990). [http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1990_41_1_07_Hess_Gen1-2LiteraryContext.pdf Genesis 1-2 In Its Literary Context]. Tyndale Bulletin 41.1.</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>"''As with the genealogies, we find in Genesis a focusing of content or theme. In chapter 1, the general account of creation is rehearsed, with little emphasis on any single aspect of the account. In the account of chapter 2, however, there is a clear emphasis on one particular aspect of creation, the man who is created to work the garden. The whole of the account describes his home, his work, and his companion. It is all centred on the man, planned and created for him. Thus there is a focusing technique between the first two chapters in terms of content, just as there is in the two genealogical doublets.''"<ref>Hess, R.S. (1990). [http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1990_41_1_07_Hess_Gen1-2LiteraryContext.pdf Genesis 1-2 In Its Literary Context]. Tyndale Bulletin 41.1.</ref></blockquote>
===Genesis 6-9===
===Genesis 6-9===
Asserted is that the Flood is represented as being 40 days long and 150 days long.<ref name=biblica /> However, what the accounts actually say is that it will rain 40 days and 40 nights,<ref>The Bible. Genesis 7:4,12.</ref> and that the Flood will be on the earth for this time.<ref>The Bible. Genesis 7:12,17.</ref> It then says the flood waters themselves are on the earth for 150 days,<ref>The Bible. Genesis 7:24.</ref> and return off the earth constantly until at the end of the 150 days they were stopped.<ref>The Bible. Genesis 8:4.</ref> This is particularly clear when looking at the time frame, as the Flood began in the 2nd month, 17th day<ref>The Bible. Genesis 7:11.</ref> and in the 7th month, 17th day the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.<ref>The Bible. Genesis 8:4.</ref> The plain context seen is that God stopped the Flood itself after 40 days with a wind, and it was the abating or drying up of the waters to stop them from 'prevailing' that took 150 days to where the Ark could finally come to a rest.<ref>The Bible. Genesis 8:1-4.</ref> With a flood, there is one period where the rain occurs, and another period where the waters are still at work, perhaps with waves or fierce activity, even though the rain has stopped.
Asserted is that the Flood is represented as being 40 days long and 150 days long.<ref name=biblica /><ref>Friedman, R.E. (1987). [http://www.archive.org/stream/WhoWroteTheBible_167/Friedman_Who-Wrote-the-Bible#page/n49/mode/2up Who Wrote the Bible?] pp. 26-60. Summit Books.</ref> However, what the accounts actually say (7:4,12) is that it will rain 40 days and 40 nights, and that the Flood will be on the earth for this time. (7:12,17) It then says the flood waters themselves are on the earth for 150 days,(7:24) and return off the earth constantly until at the end of the 150 days they were stopped.(8:4) This is particularly clear when looking at the time frame, as the Flood began in the 2nd month, 17th day,(7:11) and in the 7th month, 17th day the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.(8:4) The plain context seen is that God stopped the Flood itself after 40 days with a wind, and it was the abating or drying up of the waters to stop them from 'prevailing' that took 150 days to where the Ark could finally come to a rest.(8:1-4) With a flood, there is one period where the rain occurs, and another period where the waters are still at work, perhaps with waves or fierce activity, even though the rain has stopped.
====How many pairs?====
====How many pairs?====
Yet another contradiction is asserted in this section by Michael Coogan, who suggests the text is inconsistent in saying in Genesis 6:19-20 that two pairs of each animal are to be taken on the Ark, and shortly thereafter in 7:2-3 that 7 each of clean animals and bird species are to be taken, and of each unclean animal, two.<ref name=pbs /> The mistake made of course by Coogan and sites like Infidels.org,<ref>Morgan, D. [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html Bible Inconsistencies]. Infidels.org.</ref> is in not knowing what clean and unclean animals refer to. In the Mosaic Law, clean and unclean animals are differentiated for purposes of '''food''', with clean animals allowed for eating, and unclean animals not allowed for eating.<ref>The Bible. Leviticus 11:46-47.</ref> In short, both the Genesis 6 and 7 passages mentioned the 7 pairs of animals, since the 7 pairs were mentioned in Genesis 6:21, which said "and take for yourself of all food which is eaten..." The 7 pairs were likely brought as food for the other animals on the Ark, and possibly for the people on board as well, and thus were mentioned in the previous passage, just not as explicitly.
Yet another contradiction is asserted in this section by Michael Coogan, who suggests the text is inconsistent in saying in Genesis 6:19-20 that two pairs of each animal are to be taken on the Ark, and shortly thereafter in 7:2-3 that 7 each of clean animals and bird species are to be taken, and of each unclean animal, two.<ref name=pbs /> The mistake made of course by Coogan and sites like Infidels.org,<ref>Morgan, D. [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html Bible Inconsistencies]. Infidels.org.</ref> is in not knowing what clean and unclean animals refer to. In the Mosaic Law, clean and unclean animals are differentiated for purposes of '''food''', with clean animals allowed for eating, and unclean animals not allowed for eating.<ref>The Bible. Leviticus 11:46-47.</ref> In short, both the Genesis 6 and 7 passages mentioned the 7 pairs of animals, since the 7 pairs were mentioned in Genesis 6:21, which said "and take for yourself of all food which is eaten..." The 7 pairs were likely brought as food for the other animals on the Ark, and possibly for the people on board as well, and thus were mentioned in the previous passage, just not as explicitly.
Line 43: Line 43:
BibleArchaeology.org<ref name=biblearchaeology>Garrett, D. (2010, September 24). [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/09/24/The-Documentary-Hypothesis.aspx#Article The Documentary Hypothesis]. BibleArchaeology.org.</ref>, Dr. William F. Campbell<ref>Campbell, W.F. (2002). [http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/ The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science] (2nd ed.). Section 3, chapter 1.</ref> Glenn Giles <ref>Giles, G. (2009, June 12). [http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4980 The Documentary Hypothesis: Its History and Present Status]. Christian Evidence Conference Houston, Texas.</ref>, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb<ref>Gottlieb, D. [http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Who_Wrote_The_Bible.htm Who Wrote the Bible? - Critique]. DovidGottlieb.com</ref>, James P. Holding<ref>
BibleArchaeology.org<ref name=biblearchaeology>Garrett, D. (2010, September 24). [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/09/24/The-Documentary-Hypothesis.aspx#Article The Documentary Hypothesis]. BibleArchaeology.org.</ref>, Dr. William F. Campbell<ref>Campbell, W.F. (2002). [http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/ The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science] (2nd ed.). Section 3, chapter 1.</ref> Glenn Giles <ref>Giles, G. (2009, June 12). [http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4980 The Documentary Hypothesis: Its History and Present Status]. Christian Evidence Conference Houston, Texas.</ref>, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb<ref>Gottlieb, D. [http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Who_Wrote_The_Bible.htm Who Wrote the Bible? - Critique]. DovidGottlieb.com</ref>, James P. Holding<ref>
Holding, J.P. (2005). [http://creation.com/debunking-the-documentary-hypothesis Debunking the Documentary Hypothesis]. Creation.com.</ref>
Holding, J.P. (2005). [http://creation.com/debunking-the-documentary-hypothesis Debunking the Documentary Hypothesis]. Creation.com.</ref>
===Separate Narratives===
===3rd Person===
===Impossible/Unlikely Mentions===


==German Influence==
==German Influence==

Revision as of 20:02, 15 March 2011

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.
See also: Authors of the Bible

The Documentary Hypothesis is best known for Julius Wellhausen's 1876 work, Die Komposition Des Hexateuch in Der Jungsten Diskussion,[1] although a number of authors in the 17th and 18th centuries also developed the idea.[2] The hypothesis is based upon the belief that that the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Christian Bible and Jewish Tanakh) is inconsistent in its writing,[3] and shows signs of multiple authors, rather than one, Moses. This has in turn led to the theory that the Pentateuch is the result of four different authors, who supposedly wrote the book centuries later than Biblical Moses. As a general framework, the proposed authors are:

  • J: Jehovist/Yahwist source - Claimed to be written in the 9th or 10th century B.C.[2]
  • E: Elohist source - Claimed to be composed shortly after J in Israel's north, when both were combined into a 'JE' source.[4]
  • D: Deuteronomist source - Claimed to be written in 8th century B.C.[2]
  • P: Priestly source - Claimed to be written in 6th century B.C. by combining other 3 sources.[2]

The hypothesis is entirely interpretive, and has no historical evidence supporting claims for sourcing from multiple documents, apart from the analysis of the Bible undertaken by the hypothesis.[5] The topic is one of the most "hotly debated" in the field of Biblical scholarship,[6] and the details of the hypothesis strongly debated even among those who support it, with younger scholars abandoning it for other approaches.[7]

Proofs

The hypothesis first claims inconsistencies in the Bible as its basis for assuming multiple authorship (see Alleged Inconsistencies) below. This includes the use of doublets.

It then points to the following proofs for multiple authors:

Separate Narratives

A separate narrative for Genesis appears when extracting each of the separate sources.[8]

3rd Person

Moses rarely speaks in 1st person, but in 3rd person.[2]

Impossible/Unlikely Mentions

Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?" questions how Moses could be the humblest/meekest person in the world if stating this of himself (Numbers 12:3), how he could have written about his own death and later events in Deuteronomy 34:4-12, and the use of phrases like "to this day" and "across the Jordan".[9]

Traditional Views

Traditionally, Moses was considered the author of the Pentateuch.[2] Jewish tradition held that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.[10] In Deuteronomy 31:24-26 it says Moses wrote the words of the Law in a book, that was then put in the Ark of the Covenant. In 2 Chronicles 34:14 it says Hilkiah found a book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses and the book of Nehemiah[11] says the Law was given by Moses, a claim repeated in the New Testament's Gospels of Mark[12] and John.[13]

Alleged Inconsistencies

As the basis for the hypothesizing, and upon which the assumption is made that the Pentateuch could not be of Mosaic authorship, are a number of alleged inconsistencies,[14][2]

Genesis 1 & 2

The criticism is that two conflicting stories called doublets, separate accounts, are presented in the beginning chapters of Genesis,[3] that in 1:27 God created man in his image, but in 2:7 it repeats this as though man's creation hadn't been mentioned before.[14][4][15] However, what the critics fail to take into account is that the chapters are 2 separate accounts, one general, the later an overview, since in 1:1 it says "God created the heavens and the earth", and in 2:4, a more detailed account is given of "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created", a pattern that will be seen used all through Genesis. In essence, the preceding section serves as the introduction, relating the genealogy or overview, the next relates details from the view of a major character in that genealogy.[16] This is also recognized by Claus Westerman in "A Continental Commentary."[17] Dr. Richard S. Hess has recognized the use of an overview account, rather than a contradictory doublet, at work here as well as elsewhere in Genesis (including chs. 4-5 and 10-11):

"As with the genealogies, we find in Genesis a focusing of content or theme. In chapter 1, the general account of creation is rehearsed, with little emphasis on any single aspect of the account. In the account of chapter 2, however, there is a clear emphasis on one particular aspect of creation, the man who is created to work the garden. The whole of the account describes his home, his work, and his companion. It is all centred on the man, planned and created for him. Thus there is a focusing technique between the first two chapters in terms of content, just as there is in the two genealogical doublets."[18]

Genesis 6-9

Asserted is that the Flood is represented as being 40 days long and 150 days long.[3][19] However, what the accounts actually say (7:4,12) is that it will rain 40 days and 40 nights, and that the Flood will be on the earth for this time. (7:12,17) It then says the flood waters themselves are on the earth for 150 days,(7:24) and return off the earth constantly until at the end of the 150 days they were stopped.(8:4) This is particularly clear when looking at the time frame, as the Flood began in the 2nd month, 17th day,(7:11) and in the 7th month, 17th day the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.(8:4) The plain context seen is that God stopped the Flood itself after 40 days with a wind, and it was the abating or drying up of the waters to stop them from 'prevailing' that took 150 days to where the Ark could finally come to a rest.(8:1-4) With a flood, there is one period where the rain occurs, and another period where the waters are still at work, perhaps with waves or fierce activity, even though the rain has stopped.

How many pairs?

Yet another contradiction is asserted in this section by Michael Coogan, who suggests the text is inconsistent in saying in Genesis 6:19-20 that two pairs of each animal are to be taken on the Ark, and shortly thereafter in 7:2-3 that 7 each of clean animals and bird species are to be taken, and of each unclean animal, two.[2] The mistake made of course by Coogan and sites like Infidels.org,[20] is in not knowing what clean and unclean animals refer to. In the Mosaic Law, clean and unclean animals are differentiated for purposes of food, with clean animals allowed for eating, and unclean animals not allowed for eating.[21] In short, both the Genesis 6 and 7 passages mentioned the 7 pairs of animals, since the 7 pairs were mentioned in Genesis 6:21, which said "and take for yourself of all food which is eaten..." The 7 pairs were likely brought as food for the other animals on the Ark, and possibly for the people on board as well, and thus were mentioned in the previous passage, just not as explicitly.

Genesis 11 & 12

John Barton claims that in Genesis 12:1 Abram is told to leave after the death of his father, Terah. Barton says in 11:26 Abram was born when Terah was 70, and according to 11:32, Terah died at age 205, so Abram must have been age 135, yet in 12:4 it says he was only 75.[14] However, as with Genesis 1 & 2, Barton fails to note the existence of an overview description given in chapter 11:10-32, stating the genealogies of Abram's lineage, and then a specific account of Abram's life, covering him specifically, starting in ch. 12, in which Abram's father has not yet died.

Genesis 20 & 26

[3]

Exodus 24

Barton accuses the chapter of saying Moses went up to the mountain 3 times.[14] In actuality, the chapter says he was asked to go up the mountain (vv. 1-8), then he actually did go up with Aaron and the elders of Israel (vv. 9-11), and then God asked Moses to go up to the mountaintop specifically. (vv. 12-18)

Samuel chs. 8-12

Criticism

Section to be completed.

BibleArchaeology.org[22], Dr. William F. Campbell[23] Glenn Giles [24], Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb[25], James P. Holding[26]

Separate Narratives

3rd Person

Impossible/Unlikely Mentions

German Influence

See also: Alfred Rosenberg and Positive Christianity

Like the Q Source hypothesis claimed by critical scholars to have been used as a basis by the authors of the Mark and Luke Gospels, (see Johannes Weiss, Christian Hermann Weisse and Friedrich Schleiermacher), the Documentary Hypothesis found its roots in 19th century Germany, where it would ultimately be popularized by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, as noted by author Ken Collins:

"The Nazis, borrowing from the growing scholarly consensus that the Torah consisted of myth and legend, used this scholarly climate to invalidate both Judaism and the Old Testament. The Nazis promoted a revised form of Christianity called Deutsches Christentum, in which they replaced the Old Testament with Germanic myths and legends. Deutsches Christentum never caught on with the public, but since it epitomized the beliefs of the leadership of the Nazi party, it contributed to the martyrdom of a number of famous German Christians."[27]

References

  1. McKim, D. (2007). Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. pp. 130-131.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Glassman, G. (2007). NOVA: The Bible's Buried Secrets. PBS.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Cheyne, T., & Black, J. (Eds.). (1899). "Hexateuch." In Encyclopaedia Biblica (Vol. II, pp. 2045-2058).
  4. 4.0 4.1 Reed, A.Y. (2004, September 20). Source Criticism, The Documentary Hypothesis, and Genesis 1-3.
  5. Brace, R.A. (2003). Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'? UKApologetics.net.
  6. Cassuto, U. (1941). The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. Originally published by Magnes Press, the Hebrew University.
  7. Alter, R. (1996). The Five Books of Moses. pp. 10-11.
  8. Friedman, R.E. (2004). The Editorial Team Behind the Bible. BeliefNet.com.
  9. Friedman, R.E. (1987). Who Wrote the Bible? pp. 19-20. Summit Books.
  10. Hirsch, E.G., & Jacobs, J. Pentateuch. JewishEncyclopedia.com.
  11. The Bible. Nehemiah 8:14; 9:29.
  12. The Bible. Mark 12:26.
  13. The Bible. John 8:17.
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Zelkowitz, M. (2006). Documentary Hypothesis. University of Maryland, Legacy College.
    Barton, J. (1992). Source Criticism. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 6).
  15. Friedman, R.E. (1987). Who Wrote the Bible? pp. 25-26. Summit Books.
  16. Tsumura, D. (1996). Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction Part I. BibleArchaeology.org.
    Jackson, W. (1991). Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? Apologetics Press.
  17. Westerman, C. (1994). A Continental Commentary. p. 583. First Fortress.
  18. Hess, R.S. (1990). Genesis 1-2 In Its Literary Context. Tyndale Bulletin 41.1.
  19. Friedman, R.E. (1987). Who Wrote the Bible? pp. 26-60. Summit Books.
  20. Morgan, D. Bible Inconsistencies. Infidels.org.
  21. The Bible. Leviticus 11:46-47.
  22. Garrett, D. (2010, September 24). The Documentary Hypothesis. BibleArchaeology.org.
  23. Campbell, W.F. (2002). The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science (2nd ed.). Section 3, chapter 1.
  24. Giles, G. (2009, June 12). The Documentary Hypothesis: Its History and Present Status. Christian Evidence Conference Houston, Texas.
  25. Gottlieb, D. Who Wrote the Bible? - Critique. DovidGottlieb.com
  26. Holding, J.P. (2005). Debunking the Documentary Hypothesis. Creation.com.
  27. Collins, Ken (1993). The Torah in Modern Scholarship. www.kencollins.com. Retrieved on 2011-03-12.
    Robinson, B.A. (2007, August 21). The Documentary Hypothesis on the identity of the Pentateuch's authors. ReligiousTolerance.org.