This paper was written for a Church History class last fall. It is only a brief introduction to the issues involved, but I hope you will find it useful and/or interesting. -JME
Julius Wellhausen and
The Documentary Theory of Pentateuchal Origins
The Documentary Theory of Pentateuchal Origins
Introduction
Julius
Wellhausen was born in Germany in 1844, the son of a Protestant pastor.[1]
Wellhausen intended to follow his father into the ministry and began studying
theology at Gottingen in 1862.[2]
Ultimately, he chose to pursue an academic rather than pastoral career.
Wellhausen served as a professor of theology at Greifswald for ten years, from
1872-1882. During these years, Wellhausen began to publicize the unorthodox
views on Pentateuchal origins that would forever mark him in the annals of Old
Testament scholarship. The publication of his landmark Geschichte Israels, I in 1878 generated considerable controversy,
and Wellhausen eventually realized he could not remain true to himself and
provide seminarians the theological preparation they needed for ministry.[3] Wellhausen
was preeminently a historian, not a theologian.[4] He
resigned his position as professor of theology and became a lecturer for
several years, eventually settling once again in an academic post as a
professor of Semitic languages.[5]
The
Documentary Theory that will forever be associated with Julius Wellhausen was
not conceived by him.[6]
The theory was formulated by other scholars, but Wellhausen’s “skill as a
linguist and his literary sensitivity enabled him to establish his positions
with great thoroughness and care.”[7] Although
his theory was not unique, Wellhausen is credited with giving it “such forceful
and brilliant expression that a ‘paradigm shift’ began to be established.”[8] He
prompted “a flood-tide of opinion” that profoundly influenced Old Testament study.[9]
Julius Wellhausen forever changed
the course of biblical scholarship. Though well-intentioned, he legitimized
scholarly skepticism of the biblical documents and undermined both the internal
testimony and external traditions associated with the scriptures. We will
briefly summarize the Documentary Theory advanced by Wellhausen, the religious
motivations involved in it, and the result for Old Testament scholarship.
Wellhausen and the Documentary
Theory
Wellhausen
was not the first to suggest the books of Moses were actually late compositions
arranged from various literary sources, but his restatement of this Documentary
Theory was skillful and persuasive.[10]
The professor viewed Old Testament history as a compilation of mythological
interpretations of religious traditions, not a historical account of Israel’s
origins.[11]
He accepted a historical Moses had, in some way, founded the Israelite
religion, but he denied any of the biblical documents could be dated to his
time.[12] He
believed claims of Mosaic authorship were not meant to suggest Moses actually
wrote these documents but were intended to bolster the documents’ authority by
association with a prominent, historical character.
In
his Prolegomena to the History of Ancient
Israel, Wellhausen proposed to discuss whether the “law is the
starting-point for the history of ancient Israel, or not rather for that of
Judaism, i.e., of the religious
communion which survived the destruction of the nation by the Assyrians and
Chaldeans.”[13]
His initial interest in the history of the Pentateuch arose from his inability
to reconcile the Israelite history found in the historical narratives (e.g.
Samuel and Kings) with the prescriptions codified in the books of Law.[14]
Rejecting the evidence for Mosaic authorship found in Jewish tradition and the
New Testament writings, Wellhausen believed the only means of discovering the
origins of the Law was by analysis of the contents coupled with extra-biblical history.[15] He
concluded that little more than half of the Old Testament, excepting the
Pentateuch, was composed prior to the exile in Babylon.[16]
In 1822 Friederich Bleek proposed
the final written form of the Mosaic tradition should be viewed as a Hexateuch,
to include Joshua as a sixth book, rather than the five-fold Pentateuch.[17]
By 1860, Old Testament critical scholars had reached a consensus on the
composition of the Hexateuch. They agreed Deuteronomy was written in the
seventh century B.C. and that the Hexateuch, with the exception of limited
post-exilic contributions, had begun to reflect its present form at the hands
of Deuteronomic editors in the seventh and sixth centuries.[18]
Eventually
scholars proposed four major literary sources which were collated and edited to
form the Hexateuch as known in modern times. The Jahwist source (J) was written
around 850 B.C. by an anonymous writer in the Southern kingdom of Judah. The
Elohist source (E) was written about 750 B.C. by an anonymous writer in the
Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Deuteronomic source (D) was written to support
the reforms of King Josiah during the revival of 621 B.C. The Priestly source
(P) was written in stages between 570 and 400 B.C.[19]
Wellhausen supported the JEDP
arrangement on the basis of an evolutionary theory of origins.[20]
He affirmed the Pentateuch “is no literary unity, and no simple historical
quantity.”[21]
The original elements had to be disentangled. Wellhausen considered the main
portion to be “historical only in form; the history serves merely as a
framework on which to arrange the legislative material, or as a mask to
disguise it.”[22]
Wellhausen’s Motivation for
Historical Criticism
The leading proponents in the new
field of higher criticism believed faith would be strengthened by the
discipline, benefiting from a solid, historical foundation rather than blind acceptance
of outdated tradition.[23]
The older view of the Old Testament as a prophetic collection pointing to Jesus
Christ was “being replaced by a fresh and more scholarly apologetic which
showed that in the Old Testament were to be found the moral and spiritual
foundations of a universal religion.”[24]
Many scholars from various philosophical, theological, and ecclesiastical backgrounds
embraced critical study, confident they had common cause in the search for
truth.[25]
It is true Wellhausen shows signs of Hegelian
philosophical idealism.[26]
But it is also true he considered uncovering the true origins of Israel’s
religion to be “an achievement of immense religious and spiritual worth.”[27] Readers
can perceive “a deep religious feeling, and a very real sensitivity to
theological issues” in Wellhausen’s work.[28]
He considered the preaching of Jesus to be the “crowning glory” of Old
Testament religion.[29]
Wellhausen’s Lasting Influence
The speculation of higher criticism
was largely ignored until deism created an environment which favored “historical
skepticism and rejection of the supernatural.”[30] Once
historical criticism of the Old Testament literature was accepted, it permeated
the rest of religious scholarship, transforming the discipline by introducing a
new paradigm.[31]
Once the historicity of the Bible was undermined, the theology derived from it
suffered as well.
Subsequent scholars took
Wellhausen’s basic premise even further.[32] William
Robertson Smith built upon the assumptions of the Wellhausen theory and assumed
Old Testament history was largely contrived based on oral traditions.[33]
Others described portions of the Old Testament history not as “conscious
perversion” but as “unconscious idealization,” affirming the documents could
still be viewed as inspired even if not historically accurate.[34]
Whereas Wellhausen’s analysis
focused on the historical origins of the Hexateuch, men like Gerhard von Rad
(1901-71) questioned why the sources were written at all, speculating on what
kind of God was imagined by those who composed such stories.[35]
Eventually
Wellhausen’s theory was disproven and largely discarded even by liberal
scholars. Twentieth century scholarship eviscerated the “neat, tight structure
erected by the Documentary Theory.”[36]
But by and large, “even those scholars who have repudiated Wellhausen have
shown no tendency to embrace a more conservative view of the origin of the
books of Moses.”[37]
Wellhausen legitimized skepticism of the biblical documents. His basic
assumption Moses did not write any book remains. No longer do scholars assume
the truthfulness or historicity of the canon. They presuppose its claims are
not factual, but contrived.
Conclusion
Julius Wellhausen was a gifted
scholar and writer who began with, an apparently sincere, desire to study the
word of God more carefully and uncover its historical foundation. But deism,
rationalism, and modernism had challenged belief in the supernatural
intervention of an immanent God for one hundred and fifty years prior to his
birth. Within this environment Wellhausen approached the biblical text with
flawed assumptions which biased his conclusions. If we exclude the possibility
of the miraculous and divine interaction with the affairs of men described in
scripture, we cannot claim to be engaged in unbiased study. Sadly it was Wellhausen’s
influence which legitimized skeptical scholarship and ended, perhaps forever,
the willingness of many scholars to take seriously the supernatural and
historical aspects of scripture.
[1] Ronald Clements,
One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation.
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976) 7.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 6-7.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 1.
[7] Clements, 10.
[8] John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth
Century: England and Germany. (London, England: Fortress, 1985), 260.
[9] Ibid., 268.
[10] Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.
(Chicago, IL: Moody, 1964), 79.
[11] Clements, 31.
[12] Rogerson, 267.
[13] Julius
Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of
Ancient Israel. (Gloucester, MA: Meridian, 1958), 1.
[14] Ibid., 3.
[15] Wellhausen, 2.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Archer, 76.
[18] Rogerson, 257.
[19] Archer, 81.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Wellhausen, 6.
[22] Wellhausen, 7.
[23] Clements, 2.
[24] Ibid., 2.
[25] Ibid., 3.
[26] Clements, 3.
[27] Ibid., 12.
[28] Ibid., 11.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Archer, 73.
[31] Clements, 143.
[32] Ibid., 13-14.
[33] Rogerson, 278.
[34] Rogerson, 284.
[35] Clements, 24.
[36] Archer, 94.
[37] Ibid., 94.
Bibliography
Archer,
Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1964.
Clements,
Ronald E. One Hundred Years of Old
Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976.
Rogerson,
John. Old Testament Criticism in the
Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. London, England: Fortress, 1985.
Wellhausen,
Julius. Prolegomena to the History of
Ancient Israel. Gloucester, MA: Meridian, 1958.
