Brief preliminary thoughts on Wellhausen's Prologomena

Many Christians are skeptical, or even suspicious of what is called the Documentary Hypothesis developed by Wellhausen. Broad brush strokes: Moses did not literally write the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible, Hebrew Torah, meaning 'instruction,' rather than 'law'). Instead, there were four 'traditions' or 'sources:' the Yahwist (J in German), the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomist (D) and the Priestly source (P) - hence JEDP. Also, it is worth mentioning that this thesis falls under the category of historical criticism, or 'the historical-critical method.'

Within evangelical circles, even suggesting this proposal as a possibility is a step in denying the reliability (and therefore authority) of the Bible. I believe this is because there is an assumption that the Bible's reliability is contingent on a particular way of understanding Mosaic history, which is that Moses largely wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy in a chronological other, with at least one final editor or redactor who compiled everything. Well, even suggesting a final editor might already be controversial.

Anyways, my point is that many Christians automatically assume that the Documentary Hypothesis is a result of Enlightenment Rationalism, where human reason is set above God's word - judging it (in the case of the Torah) in terms of its history of composition. Thus, Christians assume that the method is inherently anti-Christian, but I think that this is quite an unfair view. Many evangelical Christians today would state that the historicity of the Bible is crucial to its reliability (and therefore authority). But Wellhausen's proposal shares the exact sentiment! He views history as important, therefore, he tries to find out how the Bible - specifically the Torah - reaches the final form we have now. His concern is also historical!

Therein lies an issue, both camps are concerned with history - but by the term, I suspect they mean different things; at the least, they are asking different questions, adopting different approaches. The solution? I have none yet - maybe in future once I have had more time to think about the issue, I can make up my mind.

Before I finish, an important point needs to be said: I hold to the complete reliability and authority of the Bible. So because the Bible is essential to the life and health of the Church, we must be willing to ask difficult questions - not because we think we are smarter than God - but because we want to better understand the God who has revealed Himself in word and in history; and we know that both are pretty complicated issues. Final question: why bother? Is this erudition born from a want of more 'useful' things to do? Perhaps, but if (generally) we encourage Christians to 'pursue their interests' in the areas of the arts and science, why not in this? Maybe there should also be extra brownie points because we are studying the Bible.

Anyway, I would like to end with this quote from the editor of the English translation of Wellhausen's Prologomena to the History of Ancient Israel:

[…] our Hebrew students will have in their hands an admirable manual of what I may call the anatomy of the Pentateuch, in which they can follow from chapter to chapter the process by which the Pentateuch grew to its present form. But for the mass of Bible-readers such detailed analysis will always be too difficult. What every one [sic] can understand and ought to try to master, is the broad historical aspect of the matter. And this the present volume sets forth in a way that must be full of interest to every one [sic] who has tasted the intense pleasure of following institutions and ideas in their growth, and who has faith enough to see the hand of God as clearly in a long providential development as in a sudden miracle.

That closing sentence does not sound insidious.