Diagram of the Documentary Hypothesis.

*	includes most of Leviticus
†	includes most of Deuteronomy
‡	"Deuteronomic history": Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings

The documentary hypothesis, (DH) (sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis), holds that the Pentateuch (the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors). The number of these is usually set at four, but this is not an essential part of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries from the attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the biblical text. Biblical scholars, using source criticism, eventually arrived at the theory that the Torah was composed of selections woven together from separate, at times inconsistent, sources, each originally a complete and independent document. By the end of the 19th century it was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors, R. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P.^[1]

Julius Wellhausen's contribution was to order these sources chronologically as JEDP, giving them a coherent setting in the evolving religious history of Israel, which he saw as one of ever-increasing priestly power. Wellhausen's formulation was:

• the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
• the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
• the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
• the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BC by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.

While the hypothesis has been increasingly challenged by other models in the last part of the 20th century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories on the origins of the Torah.^[2]

Part of a series on
The Bible
Biblical canons and books
Tanakh (Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim) Christian Bible Old Testament (OT) New Testament (NT) Hebrew Bible Deuterocanon Antilegomena Chapters and verses Apocrypha (Jewish · OT · NT)
Development and authorship
Authorship Hebrew canon Old Testament canon New Testament canon Mosaic authorship Pauline epistles Johannine works Petrine epistles
Translations and manuscripts
Samaritan Torah Dead Sea scrolls Masoretic text Targums · Peshitta Septuagint · Vulgate Gothic Bible · Vetus Latina Luther Bible · English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible Biblical criticism Historical criticism Textual criticism Source criticism Form criticism Redaction criticism Canonical criticism Novum Testamentum Graece Documentary hypothesis Wiseman hypothesis Synoptic problem NT textual categories Historicity People · Places · Names Internal consistency Archeology · Artifacts Science and the Bible
Interpretation
Hermeneutics Pesher · Midrash · Pardes Allegorical interpretation Literalism Prophecy
Perspectives
Gnostic · Islamic · Qur'anic Christianity and Judaism Inerrancy · Infallibility Criticism of the Bible
Bible book Bible portal
v t e

Outline of the hypothesis (Wellhausen's formulation)[link]

Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis proposes that the Torah was originally four distinct narratives, each complete in itself, each dealing with the same incidents and characters, but with distinctive "messages". The four were combined twice by editors ("redactors") who strove to keep as much as possible of the original documents.

J, Jahwist source[link]

The documentary hypothesis attributes anthropomorphic descriptions of Yahweh, personal visits from Yahweh, and use of the personal name prior to Exodus 3 to the Jahwist source.^[3] It is a misunderstanding of the documentary hypothesis to attribute all use of the personal name Yahweh to the hypothetical Jahwist source; the hypothetical Deuteronomist, Elohist, and Priestly source documents all contain numerous uses of the personal name Yahweh, but the Jahwist source document is the only one to use the personal name Yahweh prior to Exodus 3.^[4] Believed to be the oldest source, concerned with narratives, making up half of Genesis and half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. J has a special interest in the territory of the Kingdom of Judah and individuals connected with its history. J has an eloquent style. Scholars estimate the date of composition as c. 950 BC,^[5] not long before the split of the united Kingdom of Israel into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah in 922 BC.

The Jahwist presents a theology of history, rather than timeless philosophical theology. Yahweh’s character is known by his actions. The Jahwist picture of Yahweh begins with the creation of human beings and the early history of mankind in general (Genesis 2-11). The Jahwist contributions in this material do not intend to present an exhaustive history, but rather certain episodes with particular importance to later generations. These episodes explain human mortality, the need to work for a living, the existence of many languages, rivalry among brothers, and man’s attempt to break through God’s limits. The family is often in view in theological contexts, and the sequence of sin-punishment-mercy appears several times.^[6]

The Jahwist picture of a theology of history continues with the call of Abraham and the subsequent history of Israel and their ancestors. The Jahwist presents the nation of Israel as Yahweh’s own people, which he brought into being, protected, and settled in the land of Canaan, in fulfillment of promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jahwist source presents a history of Israel that also illustrates themes of sin-punishment-grace, but more especially one that portrays Yahweh as a powerful deliverer and provider of his people’s needs. Faith in Yahweh alone is the primary virtue.^[7] The Jahwist also emphasizes Israel’s destiny to be a great nation who will rule over her neighbors and have a king from the tribe of Judah.^[8] The theology of the Jahwist extends beyond Israel and includes notice that all nations will be blessed through Abraham (or bless themselves through Abraham);^[9] furthermore, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is attributed to the Jahwist.^[10]

E, Elohist source[link]

Use of the generic word for deity, Elohim, rather than the more personal name, YHWH, prior to Exodus 3, and descriptions of Yahweh of a more impersonal nature (for example, speaking through dreams, prophets, and angels rather than personal appearances) indicate the Elohist source, according to the documentary hypothesis.^[11] The Elohist’s narrative does not begin with a depiction of Yahweh’s creation of humankind, but with the divine address to Abraham, the ancestor of Israel.^[12] Because both the Jahwist source and the Elohist source use "Yahweh" for God after Exodus 3, it is more difficult to discern Elohist from Jahwist source material from that point onward. E parallels J, often duplicating the narratives. E makes up a third of Genesis and half of Exodus, plus fragments of Numbers. E describes a human-like God initially called Elohim, and Yahweh subsequent to the incident of the burning bush, at which Elohim reveals himself as Yahweh. E focuses on the Kingdom of Israel and on the Shiloh priesthood, and has a moderately eloquent style. Scholars suggest the Elohist source was composed c. 850 BC.^[5]

The theology of the Elohist focuses on four key elements: 1) prophetic leadership, 2) the fear of God, 3) covenant, and 4) the theology of history. Prophetic leadership is emphasized by building the narrative on four key ancestors (Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses) who are presented as prophets who receive revelations from God in visions and dreams.^[13] The Elohist’s concept of the fear of God goes beyond reverent awe and is the root of Abraham’s obedience to the command to slay his son.^[14] Covenant is emphasized by the Elohist on a number of occasions, notably the covenant ceremony of Exodus 24,^[15] establishment of the tent of meeting,^[16] and Israel’s rebellion at Sinai with worship of the golden calf which presents the Elohist’s gloomy view of Israel’s propensity to violate her covenant with God.^[17][18] The Elohist theology of history is focused on the nation of Israel and more inclined than the Jahwist to focus on the specifically religious aspects of prayer, sacrifice, and prophetic revelations. The goal of history for Israel is explicitly religious: to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”^[19]

D, Deuteronomist source[link]

According to M. Noth, the Deuteronomist wrote in the middle of the 6th century BC with the purpose of addressing contemporaries in the Babylonian exile to show them that “their sufferings were fully deserved consequences of centuries of decline in Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh.”^[20] Loyalty to Yahweh was measured in terms of obedience to the Deuteronomic law. Since Israel and Judah had failed to follow that law, their histories had ended in complete destruction in accordance with the divine judgment envisaged by Deuteronomy.^[21] “But it shall come to pass, if you will not listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, that all these curses shall come on you, and overtake you.”^[22] D in the Pentateuch is restricted to the book of Deuteronomy, although it continues into the subsequent books of Joshua, Judges and Kings. It takes the form of a series of sermons about the Law, as well as recapitulating the narrative of Exodus and Numbers. Its distinctive term for God is YHWH Eloheinu, traditionally translated in English as "The Lord our God." Scholars estimate this source may have been composed c. 650–621 BC,^[5] which would have been prior to the Babylonian Exile (587-539 BC).

According to G. von Rad, Noth’s view of the purpose of the Deuteronomist emphasized the theme of judgment and missed the theme of Yahweh’s grace in the Deuteronomistic History. The Deuteronomist reported repeated instances of Yahweh’s word at work in describing previously reported oracles of Yahweh’s prophets being precisely fulfilled in events described later. On the one hand, destruction of Israel and Judah was portrayed as according to the prophetic pronouncement of doom in retaliation for disobedience. On the other hand, the final destruction was restrained by Yahweh’s promise to David found in Nathan’s oracle in 2 Samuel 7 and reiterated throughout 1-2 Kings.^[23]

H.W. Wolff describes the purpose of the Deuteronomist in the pattern of apostasy, punishment, repentance, and deliverance common in the Deuteronomistic History. According to Wolff, the Deuteronomist’s intent was to show the exiles that they were in the second stage of the pattern and therefore needed to “cry out to Yahweh in repentance.”^[24] According to the pattern of Yahweh’s previous dealings with Israel, the imperative for the exiles was simply to turn back to God.

P, Priestly source[link]

The documentary hypothesis describes the Priestly source as using the title Elohim as the general name for God in the primeval period (Genesis 1-11). El Shaddai is the first special name for God and it is revealed to the patriarchs and reserved for that era. Yahweh is the personal name for God that is revealed to Moses and never set in the mouth of any speaker by the Priestly source prior to Moses.^[25] The Priestly source portrays God/Yahweh as the creator of the whole world, which he declared to be good, and on which he has bestowed his blessing. Humanity is created in God’s image (or as God’s image) implying dominion over the whole earth.^[26] P includes many lists (especially genealogies), dates, numbers and laws. Portrayals of God viewed as distant and unmerciful are ascribed to P. P partly duplicates J and E, but alters details to stress the importance of the priesthood. P consists of about a fifth of Genesis, substantial portions of Exodus and Numbers, and almost all of Leviticus. According to Wellhausen, P has a low level of literary style. Scholars estimate its composition c. 600–400 BC.^[5]

The Priestly source portrays Yahweh as a God who is interested in ritual. The covenant of circumcision, the dietary laws, and the emphasis on making a tabernacle according to a divinely revealed plan are all ascribed to the Priestly source.^[27] Yahweh’s presence and Yahweh’s blessings are described in the Priestly source not to be mediated by the king, but by the high priest mediating at the central place of worship.

The Priestly source depicts a formal structure in terms of space, time, and social structure. The spatial center of the universe is the sanctuary which is first modeled in the tabernacle and later in the temple modeled after the pattern revealed to Moses. It is at this specific location that Yahweh wanted to make himself present to his people.^[28] Yahweh has arranged the temporal order around progressive layers of Sabbaths: seven days, seven months, seven years, seven times seven years.^[29] In terms of social structure, the Priestly source portrays Yahweh as granting his presence to the particular people “who know his name.” The priesthood, the ritual system, and the law represent the cosmic order in a priestly garment.^[30]

Before Wellhausen[link]

The traditional view that Moses was the author of the Torah came under increasing and detailed scrutiny in the 17th century. In 1651 Thomas Hobbes, in chapter 33 of Leviathan, marshaled a battery of passages, such as Deut 34:6 ("no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day", implying an author living long after Moses' death); Gen 12:6 ("and the Canaanite was then in the land", implying an author living in a time when the Canaanite was no longer in the land); and Num 21:14 (referring to a previous book of Moses' deeds); and concluded that none of these could be by Moses. Others, including Isaac de la Peyrère, Baruch Spinoza, Richard Simon, and John Hampden came to the same conclusion, but their works were condemned, several of them were imprisoned and forced to recant, and an attempt was made on Spinoza's life.^[31]

In 1753 Jean Astruc printed (anonymously) Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux, dont il paraît que Moïse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse ("Conjectures on the original accounts of which it appears Moses availed himself in composing the Book of Genesis"). Astruc's motive was to refute Hobbes and Spinoza – "the sickness of the last century", as he called their work. To do this, he applied to Genesis the tools of literary analysis which scholars were already using with Classical texts such as the Iliad to sift variant traditions and arrive at the most authentic text. He began by identifying two markers which seemed to identify consistent variations, the use of "Elohim" or "YHWH" (Yahweh) as the name for God, and the appearance of duplicated stories, or doublets, such as the two accounts of the creation in the first and second chapters of Genesis and the two accounts of Sarah and a foreign king (Gen.12 and Gen.20). He assigned verses to ruled columns, the "Elohim" verses in one column, the "YHWH" verses in another, and the members of the doublets in their own columns beside these. The parallel columns thus constructed contained two long narratives, each dealing with the same incidents. Astruc suggested that these were the original documents used by Moses, and that Genesis as written by Moses had looked just like this, parallel accounts meant to be read separately. According to Astruc, a later editor had combined the columns into a single narrative, creating the confusions and repetitions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza.^[32]

The tools adapted by Astruc for biblical source criticism were developed much further by subsequent scholars, most of them German. From 1780 onwards Johann Gottfried Eichhorn extended Astruc's analysis beyond Genesis to the entire Pentateuch, and by 1823 he had concluded that Moses had had no part in writing any of it. In 1805 Wilhelm de Wette concluded that Deuteronomy represented a third independent source. About 1822 Friedrich Bleek identified Joshua as a continuation of the Pentateuch via Deuteronomy, while others identified signs of the Deuteronomist in Judges, Samuel, and Kings. In 1853 Hermann Hupfeld suggested that the Elohist was really two sources and should be split, thus isolating the Priestly source; Hupfeld also emphasized the importance of the Redactor, or final editor, in producing the Torah from the four sources. Not all the Pentateuch was traced to these four sources: numerous smaller sections were identified, such as the Holiness Code contained in Leviticus 17 to 26.^[33]

Scholars also attempted to identify the sequence and dates of the four sources, and to propose who might have produced them, and why. De Wette had concluded in 1805 that none of the Pentateuch was composed before the time of David; since Spinoza, D was connected with the priests of the Temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Josiah in 621 BC; beyond this, scholars argued variously for composition in the order PEJD, or EJDP, or JEDP: the subject was far from settled.^[34]

The Wellhausen (or Graf–Wellhausen) hypothesis[link]

11th century manuscript of the Hebrew Bible with Targum

In 1876/77 Julius Wellhausen published Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments ("The Composition of the Hexateuch and the historical books of the Old Testament", i.e. the Pentateuch plus the book of Joshua), in which he set out the four-source hypothesis of Pentateuchal origins; this was followed in 1878 by Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels ("Prolegomena to the History of Israel"), a work which traced the development of the religion of the ancient Israelites from an entirely secular, non-supernatural standpoint. Wellhausen contributed little that was new, but sifted and combined the previous century of scholarship into a coherent, comprehensive theory on the origins of the Torah and of Judaism, one so persuasive that it dominated scholarly debate on the subject for the next hundred years.^[1]

Distinguishing the sources[link]

Wellhausen's criteria for distinguishing between sources were those developed by his predecessors over the previous century: style (including but not exclusively the choice of vocabulary); divine names; doublets and occasionally triplets. J was identified with a rich narrative style, E was somewhat less eloquent, P's language was dry and legalistic. Vocabulary items such as the names of God, or the use of Horeb (E and D) or Sinai (J and P) for God's mountain; ritual objects such as the ark, mentioned frequently in J but never in E; the status of judges (never mentioned in P) and prophets (mentioned only in E and D); the means of communication between God and humanity (J's God meets in person with Adam and Abraham, E's God communicates through dreams, P's can only be approached through the priesthood): all these and more formed the toolkit for discriminating between sources and allocating verses to them.^[35]

Dating the sources[link]

Wellhausen's starting point for dating the sources was the event described in 2 Kings 22:8–20: a "scroll of Torah" (which can be translated "instruction" or "law") is discovered in the Temple in Jerusalem by the High Priest Hilkiah in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, who had ascended the throne as a child of eight. What Josiah reads there causes him to embark on a campaign of religious reform, destroying all altars except that in the Temple, prohibiting all sacrifice except at the Temple, and insisting on the exclusive worship of Yahweh. In the 4th century Jerome had speculated that the scroll may have been Deuteronomy; de Wette in 1805 suggested that it might have been only the law-code at Deuteronomy 12–26 that Hilkiah found, and that he might have written it himself, alone or in collaboration with Josiah. The Deuteronomistic historian certainly held Josiah in high regard: 1 Kings 13 names him as one who will be sent by Yahweh to slaughter the apostate priests of Beth-el, in a prophecy allegedly made 300 years before his birth.^[36]

With D anchored in history, Wellhausen proceeded to place the remaining sources around it. He accepted Karl Heinrich Graf's conclusion that the sources were written in the order J-E-D-P. This was contrary to the general opinion of scholars at the time, who saw P as the earliest of the sources, "the official guide to approved divine worship", and Wellhausen's sustained argument for a late P was the great innovation of the Prolegomena.^[37] J and E he ascribed to the early monarchy, approximately 950 BC for J and 850 BC for E; P he placed in the early Persian post-Exilic period, around 500 BC. His argument for these dates was based on what was seen in his day as the natural evolution of religious practice: in the pre-and early monarchic society described in Genesis and Judges and Samuel, altars were erected wherever the Patriarchs or heroes such as Joshua chose, anyone could offer the sacrifice, and portions were offered to priests as the one offering the sacrifice chose; by the late monarchy sacrifice was beginning to be centralized and controlled by the priesthood, while pan-Israelite festivals such as Passover were instituted to tie the people to the monarch in a joint celebration of national history; in post-Exilic times the temple in Jerusalem was firmly established as the only sanctuary, only the descendants of Aaron could offer sacrifices, festivals were linked to the calendar instead of to the seasons, and the schedule of priestly entitlements was strictly mandated.^[38]

The four sources were combined by a series of Redactors (editors), first J with E to form a combined JE, then JE with D to form a JED text, and finally JED with P to form JEDP, the final Torah. Taking up a scholarly tradition stretching back to Spinoza and Hobbes, Wellhausen named Ezra, the post-Exilic leader who re-established the Jewish community in Jerusalem at the behest of the Persian emperor Artaxerxes I in 458 BC, as the final redactor.^[39]

After Wellhausen[link]

Distribution of materials of Jahwist, Elohist and Priestly sources, as well as Redactor's contribution in the first four books, following Richard Friedman.

For much of the 20th century Wellhausen's hypothesis formed the framework within which the origins of the Pentateuch were discussed, and even the Vatican came to urge that the "light derived from recent research" not be neglected by Catholic scholars, urging them especially to pay attention to "the sources written or oral" and "the forms of expression" used by the "sacred writer".^[40] Some important modifications were introduced, notably by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth, who argued for the oral transmission of ancient core beliefs—guidance out of Egypt, conquest of the Promised Land, covenants, revelation at Sinai/Horeb, etc.^[41] Simultaneously, the work of the American Biblical archaeology school under William F. Albright seemed to confirm that even if Genesis and Exodus were only given their final form in the first millennium BC, they were still firmly grounded in the material reality of the second millennium.^[42] The overall effect of such refinements was to aid the wider acceptance of the basic hypothesis by reassuring believers that even if the final form of the Pentateuch was late and not due to Moses himself, it was nevertheless possible to recover a credible picture of the period of Moses and of the patriarchal age. Hence, although challenged by scholars such as Umberto Cassuto, opposition to the documentary hypothesis gradually waned, and until the 1970s it was almost universally accepted.^[43]

This changed when R. N. Whybray in 1987 restated almost identical arguments with far greater consequences. By that time three separate models for the composition of the Pentateuch had been proposed: the documentary (the Torah as a compilation of originally separate but complete books), the supplementary (a single original book, supplemented with later additions/deletions), and the fragmentary (many fragmentary works and editions). Whybray pointed out that of the three possible models the documentary was the most difficult to demonstrate, for while the supplemental and fragmentary models propose relatively simple, logical processes and can account for the unevenness of the final text, the process envisaged by the DH is both complex and extremely specific in its assumptions about ancient Israel and the development of its religion. Whybray went on to assert that these assumptions were illogical and contradictory, and did not offer real explanatory power: why, for example, should the authors of the separate sources avoid duplication, while the final redactor accepted it? "Thus the hypothesis can only be maintained on the assumption that, while consistency was the hallmark of the various [source] documents, inconsistency was the hallmark of the redactors!"^[44]

Since Whybray there has been a proliferation of theories and models regarding the origins of the Torah, many of them radically different from Wellhausen's model. Thus, to mention some of the major figures from the last decades of the 20th century, H. H. Schmid almost completely eliminated J, allowing only a late Deuteronomical redactor.^[45] With the idea of identifiable sources disappearing, the question of dating also changes its terms. Additionally, some scholars have abandoned the Documentary hypothesis entirely in favour of alternative models which see the Pentateuch as the product of a single author, or as the end-point of a process of creation by the entire community. Rolf Rendtorff and Erhard Blum saw the Pentateuch developing from the gradual accretion of small units into larger and larger works, a process which removes both J and E, and, significantly, implied a fragmentary rather than a documentary model for Old Testament origins;^[46] and John Van Seters, using a different model, envisaged an ongoing process of supplementation in which later authors modified earlier compositions and changed the focus of the narratives.^[47] The most radical contemporary proposal has come from Thomas L. Thompson, who suggests that the final redaction of the Torah occurred as late as the early Hasmonean monarchy.^{[citation needed]}

The documentary hypothesis still has many supporters, especially in the United States, where William H. Propp has completed a two-volume translation and commentary on Exodus for the Anchor Bible Series from within a DH framework,^[48] and Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien have published a "Sources of the Pentateuch" presenting the Torah sorted into continuous sources following the divisions of Martin Noth. Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? (1987) and The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003) were in essence an extended response to Whybray, explaining, in terms based on the history of ancient Israel, how the redactors could have tolerated inconsistency, contradiction and repetition, indeed had it forced upon them by the historical setting in which they worked. Friedman's classic four-source division differed from Wellhausen in accepting Yehezkel Kaufmann's dating of P to the reign of Hezekiah;^[49] this in itself is no small modification of Wellhausen, for whom a late dating of P was essential to his model of the historical development of Israelite religion. Friedman argued that J appeared a little before 722 BC, followed by E, and a combined JE soon after that. P was written as a rebuttal of JE (c. 715–687 BC), and D was the last to appear, at the time of Josiah (c. 622 BC), before the Redactor, whom Friedman identifies as Ezra, collated the final Torah.

While the terminology and insights of the documentary hypothesis—notably its claim that the Pentateuch is the work of many hands and many centuries, and that its final form belongs to the middle of the 1st millennium BC—continue to inform scholarly debate about the origins of the Pentateuch, it no longer dominates that debate as it did for the first two thirds of the 20th century. "The verities enshrined in older introductions [to the subject of the origins of the Pentateuch] have disappeared, and in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is (to quote John van Seter's description of one seminal work) 'not for the faint-hearted.'"^[50]

See also[link]

Wikiversity has learning materials about Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis

• Authorship of the Bible
• Biblical criticism
• The Bible and history
• Books of the Bible
• Dating the Bible
• Mosaic authorship
• Wiseman hypothesis (Tablet theory)
• Source criticism

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Alter, Robert (2004). The Five Books of Moses. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-33393-0. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZcMhkJ8a708C&printsec=frontcover&dq=he+Five+Books+of+Moses&hl=en&ei=s7bATsiWFYjHmQX_6LXKBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=he%20Five%20Books%20of%20Moses&f=false. 
• Blenkinsopp, Joseph The Pentateuch : an introduction to the first five books of the Bible, Doubleday, NY, USA 1992. ISBN 0-385-41207-X
• Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, NY, USA 1990. ISBN 0-8021-4191-9.
• Campbell, Antony F., and O’Brien, Mark A. Sources of the Pentateuch, Fortress, Minneapolis, 1993.
• Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987. ISBN 0-06-063035-3. This work does not constitute a standard reference for the documentary hypothesis, as Friedman in part describes his own theory of the origin of one of the sources. Rather, it offers an excellent introduction for the layperson.
• Friedman, Richard E. The Bible with Sources Revealed, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ISBN 0-06-053069-3.
• Garrett, Duane A. Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Bible, Mentor, 2003. ISBN 1-85792-576-9.
• Kaufmann, Yehezkel, The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, University of Chicago Press, 1960. (Translated by Moishe Greenberg)
• Kugel, James L., How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now, Free Press, 2008.
• Mendenhall, George E. The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
• Mendenhall, George E. Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0-664-22313-3
• Nicholson, Ernest Wilson. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-826958-7.
• Rofe, Alexander. Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch, Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
• Rogerson, J. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany, SPCK/Fortress, 1985.
• Shafer, Kenneth W. Searching for J, Gateway Press, Baltimore, 2003, ISBN 0-9747457-1-5, (Amazon)
• Spinoza, Benedict de A Theologico-Political Treatise Dover, New York, USA, 1951, Chapter 8.
• Tigay, Jeffrey H. "An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis" Journal of Biblical Literature Vol.94, No.3 September 1975, pages 329–342.
• Tigay, Jeffrey H., (ed.) Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986. ISBN 0-8122-7976-X
• Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition Yale University Press, 1975.
• Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History Yale University Press, 1983.
• Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis Westminster/John Knox, Louisville, Kentucky, 1992. ISBN 0-664-21967-5
• Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. ISBN 0-664-22363-X
• Wellhausen, Julius, "Prolegomena to the History of Israel", (the first English edition, with William Robertson Smith's Preface, from Project Guttenberg)
• Wenham, Gordon. "Pentateuchal Studies Today", Themelios 22.1 (October 1996): 3–13.
• Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. ISBN 1-85075-063-7

External links[link]

• Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel by Julius Wellhausen full text at sacred-texts.com
• Documentary Hypothesis (University of Maryland). Explanation of the DH, based on the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on source criticism.
• Development of the Documentary Hypothesis (University of Maryland). A brief overview of the history of the DH, concentrating on the work of major scholars.
• Redaction Theory (documents hypothesis)
• Smith, Colin: "A Critical Assessment of the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis", June 2002. Retrieved from the Alpha and Omega Ministries website on 26 July 2006.
• Review of Bloom's "Book of J" with overview of current trends in biblical scholarship and DH
• The Documentary Hypothesis on the identity of the Pentateuch's authors on Religioustolerance.org, with the first ten chapters of Genesis color-coded by source
• JEDP vs Mosaic Authorship comparing JEDP criticism with Mosaic authorship defense
• A teaching guide for Bible education based on the documentary hypothesis
• " Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?" Critique of JEDP by conservative Christians
• Wikiversity - The King James Version according to the documentary hypothesis

Round Table
King Arthur presides at the Round Table with all of his Knights.
Plot element from Arthurian legend
First appearance	Roman de Brut
Created by	Wace
Genre	Fantasy
In-story information
Type	Fictional table
Element of stories featuring	King Arthur

The Round Table is King Arthur's famed table in the Arthurian legend, around which he and his Knights congregate. As its name suggests, it has no head, implying that everyone who sits there has equal status. The table was first described in 1155 by Wace, who relied on previous depictions of Arthur's fabulous retinue. The symbolism of the Round Table developed over time; by the close of the 12th century it had come to represent the chivalric order associated with Arthur's court, the Knights of the Round Table.

History[link]

The Round Table first appears in Wace's Roman de Brut, a Norman language adaptation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae finished in 1155. Wace says Arthur created the Round Table to prevent quarrels among his barons, none of whom would accept a lower place than the others.^[1] Layamon added to the story when he adapted Wace's work into the Middle English Brut in the early 13th century, saying that the quarrel between Arthur's vassals led to violence at a Yuletide feast. In response a Cornish carpenter built an enormous but easily transportable Round Table to prevent further dispute.^[1] Wace claims he was not the source of the Round Table; both he and Layamon credit it instead to the Bretons. Some scholars have doubted this claim, while others believe it may be true.^[1] There is some similarity between the chroniclers' description of the Round Table and a custom recorded in Celtic stories, in which warriors sit in a circle around the king or lead warrior, in some cases feuding over the order of precedence as in Layamon.^[1] There is a possibility that Wace, contrary to his own claims, derived Arthur's round table not from any Breton source, but rather from medieval biographies of Charlemagne—notably Einhard's Vita Caroli and Notker the Stammerer's De Carolo Magno—in which the king is said to have possessed a round table decorated with a map of Rome.^[2]

Though the Round Table itself is not mentioned until Wace, the concept of Arthur having a marvellous court made up of many prominent warriors is much older. Geoffrey of Monmouth says that after establishing peace throughout Britain, Arthur "increased his personal entourage by inviting very distinguished men from far-distant kingdoms to join it."^[3] The code of chivalry so important in later romance figures in as well, as Geoffrey says Arthur established "such a code of courtliness in his household that he inspired peoples living far away to imitate him."^[3] Long before Geoffrey, Arthur's court was well known to Welsh storytellers; in the romance Culhwch and Olwen, written around 1100, the protagonist Culhwch invokes the names of 225 individuals affiliated with Arthur.^[4] In fact, the fame of Arthur's entourage became so prominent in Welsh tradition that in the later additions to the Welsh Triads, the formula "Arthur's Court" in the titles of the triads began to supersede the older "Island of Britain" formula.^[5] Though the code of chivalry crucial to later continental romances dealing with the Round Table is mostly absent from the earlier Welsh material, some passages of Culhwch and Olwen seem to prefigure it, for instance when Arthur explains the ethos of his court, saying "[w]e are nobles as long as we are sought out: the greater the bounty we may give, the greater our nobility, fame and honour."^[6]

Though no Round Table appears in the early Welsh texts, Arthur is associated with various items of household furniture. The earliest of these is Saint Carannog's mystical floating altar in that saint's 12th century Vita; in the story Arthur has found the altar and attempts unsuccessfully to use it for a table, and returns it to Carannog in exchange for the saint ridding the land of a meddlesome dragon.^[7] Arthur's household furniture figures into local topographical folklore throughout Britain as early as the early 12th century, with various landmarks being named "Arthur's Seat", "Arthur's Oven," and "Arthur's Bed-chamber."^[8] A henge at Eamont Bridge near Penrith, Cumbria is known as "King Arthur's Round Table".^[9] The still-visible Roman amphitheatre at Caerleon has been associated with the Round Table^[10] and has been suggested as a possible source for the legend.^[11]

In 2010, following archaeological discoveries at the Roman ruins in Chester, some writers suggested that the Chester Roman Amphitheatre was the true prototype of the Round Table^[12] but English Heritage, acting as consultants to a History Channel documentary in which the claim was made, declared that there was no archaeological basis to the story.^[13]

Later development[link]

Sir Galahad takes the "Siege Perilous"

The Round Table takes on new dimensions in the romances of the late 12th and early 13th century, where it becomes a symbol of the famed order of chivalry which flourishes under Arthur. In Robert de Boron's Merlin, written around the 1190s, the wizard Merlin creates the Round Table in imitation of the table of the Last Supper and of Joseph of Arimathea's Holy Grail table. This table, here made for Arthur's father Uther Pendragon rather than Arthur himself, has twelve seats and one empty place to mark the betrayal of Judas. This seat must remain empty until the coming of the knight who will achieve the Grail. The Didot Perceval, a prose continuation of Robert's work, takes up the story, and the knight Percival sits in the seat and initiates the Grail quest.^[1]

The prose cycles of the 13th century, the Lancelot-Grail cycle and the Post-Vulgate Cycle, further adapt the chivalric attributes of the Round Table. Here it is the perfect knight Galahad, rather than Percival, who assumes the empty seat, now called the Siege Perilous. Galahad's arrival marks the start of the Grail quest as well as the end of the Arthurian era.^[1] In these works the Round Table is kept by King Leodegrance of Cameliard after Uther's death; Arthur inherits it when he marries Leodegrance's daughter Guinevere. Other versions treat the Round Table differently, for instance Italian Arthurian works often distinguish between the "Old Table" of Uther's time and Arthur's "New Table."^[14]

Round Table tournaments[link]

Winchester Round Table

During the Middle Ages, festivals called Round Tables were celebrated throughout Europe in imitation of Arthur's court. These events featured jousting, dancing, and feasting, and in some cases attending knights assumed the identities of Arthur's knights.^[15] The earliest of these was held in Cyprus in 1223 to celebrate a knighting. Round Tables were popular in various European countries through the rest of the Middle Ages and were at times very elaborate; René of Anjou even erected an Arthurian castle for his 1446 Round Table.^[15] On 19 December 1566, in Stirling Castle, Mary Queen of Scots gave a feast with 30 guests at an imagined replica of Arthur's round table during the masque-themed celebrations of the baptism of the future James VI.^[16][17]

Winchester Round Table[link]

The artifact known as the "Winchester Round Table," a large tabletop hanging in Winchester Castle bearing the names of various knights of Arthur's court, was probably created for a Round Table tournament.^[18] The current paintwork is late; it was done by order of Henry VIII of England for Holy Roman Emperor Charles V's 1522 state visit, and depicts Henry himself sitting in Arthur's seat above a Tudor rose. The table itself is considerably older; dendrochronology calculates the date of construction to 1250–1280—during the reign of Edward I—using timber from store felled over a period of years.^[19] Edward was an Arthurian enthusiast who attended at least five Round Tables and hosted one himself in 1299, which may have been the occasion for the creation of the Winchester Round Table.^[18] Martin Biddle, from an examination of Edward's financial accounts, links it instead with a tournament Edward held near Winchester on April 20, 1290, to mark the betrothal of one of his daughters.^[20]

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Bromwich, Rachel (2006). Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain. University Of Wales Press. ISBN 0-7083-1386-8.
• Geoffrey of Monmouth; Thorpe, Lewis (1988). The History of the Kings of Britain. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-044170-0.
• Lacy, Norris J. (Ed.) (1991). The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. New York: Garland. ISBN 0-8240-4377-4.
• Loomis, Roger S. (1959). "Arthurian Influence on Sport and Spectacle". Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. Oxford.
• Padel, O. J. (2000). Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature. University of Wales Press. ISBN 0-7083-7689-1.
• Rouse, Robert; and Cory Rushton (2005). The Medieval Quest for Arthur. Tempus, Stroud. ISBN 0-7524-3343-1.
• Thomas, Charles (1953). "Folklore from a Northern Henge Monument". Folklore 64 (3): 427–429. JSTOR 1256826. 

External links[link]

• Timeless Myths - Knights of the Round Table
• The 14th Century Round Table in Winchester, Hampshire. UK