By Linda A. Dietch
PhD Candidate, Drew University, Madison, NJ

Those who read the Bible are sometimes struck by discrepancies or inexact repetitions of content that make following the storyline difficult. During the Age of Enlightenment, critical examination of the biblical texts led scholars to posit the existence of various unnamed sources in order to explain contradictions and inconsistencies they perceived. These investigations, which mark the birth of modern biblical scholarship, eventually led to the proposal that the Pentateuch is a composite of four sources (J, E, D, and P) originating from different communities and moments in Israel's history. Although it has undergone revision and critique, the Four-Source Theory, or Documentary Hypothesis, continues to be valued in contemporary biblical studies.

Order from Disorder

Theories are typically developed to create order from disorder—to make sense of puzzling phenomena or data. As such, good theories may be thought of as helpful tools for understanding what is observed in the world. The best theories offer an organizing idea or principle that plausibly explains a large degree of the incongruous data encountered in a given area of interest. The Four-Source Theory attempts to make sense of stylistic and textual discrepancies without discounting their significance or attempting to harmonize them. Rather, these features are understood as evidence of the Pentateuch's underlying sources, each of which may be identified by recognition of a unique style or theological outlook.

Variation in naming Israel's deity, which may be obscured through translation, is one of the Pentateuch's more perplexing features. The issue is not simply that different names such as YHWH or Elohim are used—although this certainly contributes to the puzzle—but that patterns of usage appear. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this point, as well as the theory's helpfulness, is to apply it to biblical texts. Consider, for example, the creation accounts in the opening chapters of Genesis. By reading closely, one detects some marked differences between the depictions in 1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-25. In the former, chaos gives way to order as Elohim speaks. In a series of seven cycles, the creation emerges in the following sequence: vegetation (1:11-12), birds (1:20-22), animals (1:24,25), and human beings (1:26,27). The account that follows offers a less systematic and more complex sequence as YHWH Elohim creates—presumably with his hands—a human being (2:7), vegetation (2:8,9), animals and birds (2:19), and woman (2:21,22). The shift in how the deity is named is especially striking because each account uses its preferred designation consistently.

In addition to this shift, the conflicting sequences are difficult to reconcile. The theory provides a plausible explanation for such discontinuity: two different stories, each with its own perspective and interests, have been juxtaposed in the story of Israel's faith. The first account is ascribed to the priestly source given its interest in order, use of Elohim, and higher perspective on the deity, while the second suggests the J source due to the use of YHWH and its anthropomorphic description of a god who interacts closely with creation.

The Value of Theory

The example above demonstrates the theory's value: problematic inconsistencies are explained by an appeal to differing sources. Yet, it is also fair to say that this application, as successful as it may seem, does not prove the theory to be true. Scholars have long debated how and when the Pentateuch—and its possible sources—came to exist. Some schools of thought resist the idea of literary sources and suggest that an extended period of oral tradition accounts for the basic narrative, which was later supplemented. Others may grant the validity of proposing literary sources but hesitate to affirm the criteria used to discern them. Today, variations on the Four-Source Theory abound. Many scholars now use the label D or P to refer to an editor rather than a document, while others have created ancillary designations to identify the activity of additional writers or redactors. It has also been augmented and applied more broadly to the primary history (Genesis through Kings, excluding Ruth).

This trend reveals another benefit of creating theories: while they are valuable for their specific insights, their application leads to new observations, which fosters the development of other theories and methods of interpretation. Scholarly study of the Bible creates a conversation where older ideas are re-evaluated and innovative ideas are tested. Ideally, this sort of diversity should be welcomed in the interest of broadening understanding. While the process may sometimes generate more heat than light, it frequently yields greater knowledge of the ancient texts and the communities that produced them.

Caveats and Concerns

For more conservative faith communities, the greatest concern related to the theory is the challenge it poses to the traditional belief that Moses authored the Pentateuch. While this conviction should not be taken lightly, neither should it be unquestioningly held. Much has been learned about ancient writing practices through fields associated with biblical scholarship (such as archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.). The existence of discrepancies and of passages that Moses could not have written (e.g., Deuteronomy 34:5-12) should at least compel concerned readers to develop a more expanded understanding of the authorship and transmission of these texts.

While the theory quite helpfully proposes that stylistic and textual discrepancies point to a compositional process, it offers little aid in discerning the meaning of the final form: it makes sense of the text but not of the story. Additionally, in recent years, the conceptual framework that grounds the theory has been seriously questioned. Most biblical scholars now realize that past and present theories and methods are epistemologically indebted to the contexts from which they emerged. As such, the theory's Eurocentric moorings and assumptions regarding "reason" have been faulted as indifferent towards such factors as class, gender, and race. Given these realities, complementary theories and methods need to be utilized to address the theory's deficiencies.

Thus, the Four-Source Theory can be thought of as a tool for understanding the text. Just as a screwdriver can be used to fix many problems, it isn't the right tool for every job. Likewise, every theory has its limitations; acknowledging these means allowing room for other theories, which may offer different solutions to the same set of problems or address other issues that are beyond the scope of the original theory. This should never obscure the fact that each one has tremendous value as it contributes to an ongoing exchange, thereby challenging and enriching the field of biblical scholarship.