Content deleted Content added
Added link to the Supplementary hypothesis when it is first mentioned. |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 4:
{{unbulleted list|J: [[Jahwist|Yahwist]] (10th–9th century BCE){{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=40}}{{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}}|E: [[Elohist]] (9th century BCE){{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=40}}|Dtr1: early (7th century BCE) [[Deuteronomist]] historian|Dtr2: later (6th century BCE) [[Deuteronomist]] historian|P*: [[Priestly source|Priestly]] (6th–5th century BCE){{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=41}}{{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}}|D†: [[Deuteronomist]]|R: redactor|DH: [[Deuteronomist#Deuteronomistic history|Deuteronomistic history]] (books of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], [[Book of Judges|Judges]], [[Books of Samuel|Samuel]], [[Books of Kings|Kings]])}}]]
The '''documentary hypothesis''' ('''DH''') is one of the models used by biblical scholars to explain the origins and [[composition of the Torah]] (or [[Pentateuch]], the first five books of the Bible: [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]], [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]], [[Leviticus]], [[Book of Numbers|Numbers]], and [[Deuteronomy]]).{{sfn|Patzia|Petrotta|2010|p=37}} A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German scholar [[Julius Wellhausen]], was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th century.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} It posited that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four originally independent documents: the [[Jahwist]]
The consensus around the classical documentary hypothesis has now collapsed.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=434}} This was triggered in large part by the influential publications of [[John Van Seters]], [[Hans Heinrich Schmid]], and [[Rolf Rendtorff]] in the mid-1970s,{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=41}} who argued that J was to be dated no earlier than the time of the [[Babylonian captivity]] (597–539 BCE),{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|pp=41–43}} and rejected the existence of a substantial E source.{{sfn|Carr|2014|p=436}} They also called into question the nature and extent of the three other sources. Van Seters, Schmid, and Rendtorff shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in complete agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=41}} As a result, there has been a revival of interest in "fragmentary" and "[[Supplementary_hypothesis|supplementary]]" models, frequently in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.{{sfn|Van Seters|2015|p=12}} Modern scholars also have given up the classical Wellhausian dating of the sources, and generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian [[Achaemenid Empire]] (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production as late as the [[Hellenistic period]] (333–164 BCE), after the conquests of [[Alexander the Great]].{{sfn|Greifenhagen|2003|pp=206–207, 224 fn.49}}
| |||