_{Handout 62}

Source Criticism, Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), & “J-E-D-P”

Wellhausen’s main work is: Prolegomena to the History of Israel (originally 1878, in German; the 2nd ed. was trans. by J. S. Block & A. Menzies; New York: Meridian Books, 1957).

A second major work of his is: 1885 / 1889 - The Composition of the Hexateuch and the Historical Books of the Old Testament (Berlin: G. Reimer; to my knowledge this has never been translated into English).

A very readable and useful summary of Wellhausen’s views is available in: A Survey of the OT, by Andrew Hill & John Walton, 3rd ed., see: Appendix B, pp. 761-769.

To Note: This ↑ is a different book from The Old Testament Today by those same two authors.  The Old Testament Today does not address Wellhausen, JEDP, or the critical approach to the Bible.

A. Recap:

In previous handouts, we described the Enlightenment (briefly!), rationalism, and the resulting rise of the critical approach to the Bible (earlier known as “historical criticism”). And we explained that, in general, critical scholars read & study the Bible through the lens of rationalism.

As concerns the Pentateuch, this has resulted in a unanimous rejection of Moses as the author of the Pentateuch among critical scholars. In particular, some scholars argued that JJ-SS-KK do not seem to be aware of the Levitical elements of the Law, and in fact, neither was Deuteronomy. By way of contrast, books that are post-exilic (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi) do refer to and care about those Levitical laws. A conclusion that grew out of these observations was that → those Levitical elements must have actually been written during or after the exile. They do not go back to Moses; they were written a millennium(!) later.

This led to the larger conclusion (mentioned earlier) that the “real history” of Israel had to have happened in a substantially different order than the way the Pentateuch and the Old Testament present it.

The first major scholar to openly conclude this was Wilhelm M. L. de Wette, ≈ 1800, m.h.t.d.

So in addition to trying to identify the sources of the Pentateuch, scholars were also trying to figure out the real history of OT Israel. The result is often called a “reconstructed history of Israel.”

By the mid-1800’s there was growing agreement among critical scholars that the Pentateuch as we have it was compiled from four main original sources, all of which were written after the division of the kingdom, if not later. The letters used to designate the four main sources, in alphabetical order, were: D, E, J, & P.

However, debate continued as to what was the sequence in which the four sources were composed. In 1869 Abraham Kuenen published a work (De Godsdientst van Israel = The Religion [literally: “Duty-to-God”] of Israel) in which he argued that the correct sequence was J-E-D-P. Kuenen’s argument persuaded many. Nonetheless, it was the work of Julius Wellhausen a decade later that would cement JEDP as the form of the documentary hypothesis / as the explanation of the composition & compilation of the Pentateuch, that would become dominant among critical scholars for decades to come.

B. One Other Major Backdrop Element to Wellhausen: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

In addition to the specific developments within critical scholarship that are summarized above, there was another major development in the western intellectual world that set the stage for Wellhausen’s argument: the theory of evolution. Darwin’s pivotal work, The Origin of Species, was published in 1859. [To Note: Darwin himself never used the term “evolution”; rather, he spoke of natural selection. But his observations and conclusions were quickly used to support the idea of evolution.] So in intellectual circles at that time evolution was all the rage (Wellhausen’s main work was published in 1878).

This led to the idea that religions evolved. An idea commonly suggested was that in the western world, religion had evolved from primitive animism to → paganism to → monotheism. [Again, the idea that God had revealed himself to Israel was a non-starter for most critical scholars, due to their rationalistic worldview, which ruled out miracles and divine intervention.] Wellhausen applied the idea that religions evolve to the religion of OT Israel. With this in mind we now turn to Wellhausen’s work.

C. The Particular ‘Contribution’ of Julius Wellhausen:

Again, Wellhausen (1844–1918) did not originate the notion that the Pentateuch was compiled from multiple sources (the documentary hypothesis), nor the idea that there were four such main documents. And neither was he the first to put them into the sequence J-E-D-P. So what was his contribution?

Wellhausen’s main contribution was:

• Wellhausen worked up a reconstructed history of Israel (i.e., “what really happened”), and then linked the sources JEDP to that reconstructed history.

• In particular, that reconstructed history of Israel described the evolution of Israel’s religion.

  The four sources come from and reflect the stages of the evolution of Israel’s religion.

The following sets forth how Wellhausen reconstructs Israel’s history, showing each major stage of the evolution of Israel’s religion, and then indicates how he links the sources J, E, D, & P to those stages.

D. Wellhausen’s Reconstruction of Israel’s History / of the Evolution of Israel’s Religion, and How it Links to the Four Hypothetical Sources, JEDP:

Remember to bear in mind: Wellhausen's "history of Israel" is a reconstruction, it does not follow the way the OT sets forth the history of Israel. Also, he does not speak in terms of _God gradually revealing himself to Israel_, because he does not see it that way. Rather, he speaks in terms of _Israel's gradually evolving view of God, and of their relationship with God_.

In Wellhausen’s reconstruction of Israel’s history, he sees five main stages. The four source documents (JEDP), come from the third, fourth and fifth stages of Israel’s (reconstructed) history.

Stage 1: The Early Israelite Period: a “Natural Bond”; Essentially a Pagan Conception of God

In Wellhausen’s view, in the earliest stage of Israel’s history, there was no thought of Israel being in covenant with God. Rather, just as pagan nations had their own god(s), Yahweh was Israel’s God. In Wellhausen’s assessment, Israel did not at this time maintain that there was only one God, rather, simply that Yahweh was Israel’s God. Wellhausen sometimes describes it as a “natural bond” between Israel and Yahweh. Wellhausen says that this stage is reflected in some early non-redacted sections of the book of Judges. In other words, for Wellhausen, Judges, not Genesis & Exodus, reflects the earliest stages of Israel’s history. This stage is before the monarchy.

To show the difference between Wellhausen's view and the view of conservatives: Conservatives will say: the book of Judges says that Israel knew God's laws, but ignored them.  Wellhausen will say: Israel behaved like pagans at that time and had never even heard of those laws.  He will say that the verses that label Israel as being disobedient → were added in later, by later "redactors," who wanted to make it look like Israel knew better, and yet was unfaithful.

Stage 2: The Stage of the Early Prophets / “Ethical Monotheism” (pre-covenantal)

This is the period of the early prophets: Amos, Hosea, and Elijah (and perhaps Micah). In this stage, Israel came to believe that there was only one God, Yahweh (hence: monotheism). In this stage, Yahweh was seen first of all as a God of righteousness, and only secondarily as the God of Israel. Accordingly, they came to believe that how we live, and how we treat our fellow human beings, matters greatly to God (hence: ethical monotheism). In this stage, Israel came to believe that any blessing they might receive from Yahweh was conditioned on moral obedience. This stage is definitely not pagan.

Wellhausen bases this stage on the teaching of the early prophets (Amos, Hosea, Elijah, & maybe Micah), who insisted on two large ideas:

1. There is only one God;
2. That God insists that we treat each other fairly, and that we are faithful to what we promise–to God, or to our fellow human beings.

And rather than promoting obedience to a known detailed body of law, in Wellhausen’s view, these early prophets argue against a “legalistic” approach to God. [See for example: Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21–24.]

Further, in Wellhausen’s assessment, there are few if any references to the idea of “covenant” in these early prophets; so for Wellhausen, this stage is “pre-covenantal.”

In terms of Israel’s history, Wellhausen places this development during the divided kingdom period.

Stage 3: The Initial Covenantal Stage, Israel is in a Treaty-Covenant with Yahweh; “J” and “E”

In this stage of Israel’s religious evolution, Israel now views itself as being in a covenant with Yahweh, and in Wellhausen’s view this was “an entirely new thing” (Prolegomena to the Hist. of Israel, trans. 1957, p. 418). But when Wellhausen translates the term we usually render “covenant,” he uses the German term for treaty (Vertrag). What is similar to the previous stage: blessing depends on behavior, on obedience.

What is new & different in this stage is the idea that blessing depends on obedience to the covenant.

The sources “J” and “E” come from this period. “J” and “E” are mostly in the books of Genesis and Exodus. Wellhausen suggests that “J” was composed in the 10th or 9th century BC, and that “E” was composed in the 8th century BC, and that they were combined somewhere around the year 700 BC by a skillful redactor.

To Note: Although the main view is that “J” and “E” were separate sources to begin with, the redactor who combined them did a sufficiently thorough-going job that it is often difficult to separate them. While Wellhausen does refer to the differences that “J” and “E” had in their conceptions of God, nonetheless, Wellhausen often speaks of the “JE stratum.” Wellhausen views the mature JE stratum as where “the intellectual and moral development of the people stood at its highest” (Prolegomena to the Hist. of Israel, trans. 1957, p. 467).

By way of some specific examples: Wellhausen views Exod 20 (the 10 Commandments), and Exod 21–24 (the next set of laws right after the 10 Commandments), as well as Exod 34 (Moses in the cleft of the rock on Mt. Sinai) as part of the “JE” source.

Stage 4: The Treaty-Covenant as the Dominant Theological Idea; the “D” Source

This stage is similar to Stage 3 in that treaty-covenant is a major idea. But in Wellhausen’s scheme there are two significant developments in Stage 4, namely:

1. The idea that Israel is in covenant with Yahweh is now the dominant theological idea of this stage.
2. The specific idea that Yahweh might punish Israel severely for breaking the treaty-covenant is now emphasized; there are curses for disobedience (e.g., Deut 28).

The “D” source is mainly the book of Deuteronomy. This period dates to the time of Judah alone.

Critical scholars specifically connect the composition of the core of the “D” document (chs. 12–26) to the time of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22,23; specifically 621 BC). Here is their argument:

• In 2 Kings 22:8–13, during the reign of Josiah, we are told that the high priest Hilkiah found “the Book of the Law” in the temple (v. 8). It is then read to King Josiah (v. 10). What critical scholars focus on is Josiah’s reaction to hearing it, that he shows great concern for the fact that the people have not been obeying what is written in the Law (vv. 12,13).

• In specific, critical scholars argue Josiah’s reaction shows that something he heard when the Law was read to him was new to him, namely, that the Lord’s anger was burning(!) against Israel for their disobedience to him. In the very next paragraph, vv. 15–18, the testimony of the prophetess Huldah reinforces the idea that God’s anger was burning against Israel. Critical scholars explain Josiah’s reaction by saying this was the first time he had heard that Israel’s treaty-covenant with Yahweh contained curses upon Israel for disobedience. This was the first time–critical scholars argue–that

• Josiah heard that Israel was actually in danger of being cursed by God for breaking the treaty-covenant. That idea is what was new to Josiah. And that idea is one that–according to critical scholars–the “D” source introduces.

So for Wellhausen and many critical scholars, the “D” source introduces the idea that Israel is not only in a treaty-covenant with Yahweh, but that she is under the threat of a curse for being disobedient to it.

Stage 5: The “Treaty-Covenant” becomes the “Law of Moses”; the Priestly Source: “P”; + The Final Redaction of the Pentateuch

The Priestly source (“P”) is often called “the Priestly Code,” because it contains so many laws.

For Wellhausen, this stage is when the bulk of the so-called Law of Moses, esp. all those Levitical laws, were written. [But please remember: Wellhausen does not say, “This is when God gave Israel those laws,” rather, “This is when the priests wrote them.” Again, for Wellhausen, there is no divine revelation. All of this is about how Israel’s religion evolved on its own.]

• Q: According to Wellhausen, why was “P” written? and, Why did the priestly redactor(s) edit/revise the Pentateuch into the form in which it has come down to us?

Critical scholars commonly date the “P” source itself to approx. 500 BC. Wellhausen claimed that it was written after and in response to the exile. That is, the priestly writers truly believed that Jerusalem & the temple had been destroyed and the Jews taken into exile precisely because Judah had scorned Yahweh and had broken Israel’s covenant with God. The very judgments that King Josiah had feared had in fact come to pass. The fundamental motive of the priestly writers was to make sure Israel never went that far astray from God again. How would they achieve this?

• They would develop and promulgate a body of laws, rituals and festivals that would govern Israel’s life so fully that it would be practically impossible for Israel to stray that far again.

• They would combine them with and edit them into the previously existing sources (“JE,” and “D”), such that the final form produced (= the Pentateuch as it has come down to us) portrayed those laws not as something that had been added in after the exile, but that had actually been the foundation of Israel, going back to Moses himself. This is the priestly redaction of the Pentateuch.

Wellhausen and those who agreed with him point out (somewhat correctly) that JJ-SS-KK do not often mention the laws, but that the post-exilic historical books (Ezra, Nehemiah, & Esther, as well as Chronicles) refer to the law / the laws much more often. Likewise, they argue, the three unambiguously post-exilic minor prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, & Malachi) and Ezekiel, refer to the law and the temple a lot. So for Wellhausen & co., this was evidence that the large majority of the laws (esp. the Levitical laws), and the urgent concern to obey them, were features of the post-exilic era.

In specific, he sees Ezra the priest/scribe (who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem in 458 BC) as the person who introduced the Priestly Code to Israel when he read the “Book of Law of Moses” (Neh 8:1) to the gathered people of Israel in the year 444 BC (recorded in Nehemiah ch. 8. [This occurred within about one year after Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem, which we can place at 445 BC.]

Interestingly, Wellhausen clearly views the priestly code, and the subsequent priestly redaction of the Pentateuch, as a big step backwards spiritually and theologically for Israel. Wellhausen describes the religion that “P” brought to Israel with words like “dead,” “encrusted,” and “lifeless” (Prolegomena to the Hist. of Israel, trans. 1957, pp. 421–425). For Wellhausen, the Pentateuch is not the foundation of OT Israel, rather, it was the foundation of Pharisaic, legalistic Judaism. And it was not so much a covenant, as a treaty. Recall, Wellhausen viewed the JE stratum as where “the intellectual and moral development of the people stood at its highest” (Prolegomena to the Hist. of Israel, trans. 1957, p. 467).

This, then, is Wellhausen’s reconstruction of OT Israel’s history, and his explanation of how the Pentateuch arrived in the form in which we have it today. The Pentateuch appears to make the Law of Moses the foundation of Israel as a nation–although Wellhausen and his cohorts assure us that it was not so.

E. One Further Claim of Wellhausen about J, E, D & P ← vs. → the Pentateuch:

Recall from the previous handout that critical scholars claimed that the Pentateuch makes no sense, because it does not fit any known category of literature. Namely, it does not make sense as a history of Israel, as a law code, or as a biography of Moses. So the Pentateuch makes no sense.

But in Wellhausen’s assessment, each of the four sources does(!) make sense. In specific:

• Each of the four sources is coherent – they make sense, and they tell a reasonably complete story.
• Each of the four sources is consistent – each of them uses a consistent vocabulary, and has a consistent theological perspective = a consistent view of God and of what God wants from Israel.

F. The Scholarly Reaction to Wellhausen’s Ideas:

The reaction to Wellhausen’s conclusions was quite mixed; we will look at it more in the next handouts.

Among critical scholars, his views were widely–though not unanimously–accepted. As a minimum, Wellhausen’s view became the standard point of reference for critical scholarly discussions of the origin and composition of the Pentateuch for decades. In recent decades it has been challenged and vigorously debated even among critical scholars; nonetheless, it remains highly influential to this day, and is commonly taught in universities and colleges. No other suggestion has truly replaced it.