Intermediate Bible students often learn about something called the Documentary Hypothesis, or JEDP theory. This theory involves a skeptical approach to the Pentateuch, which is the first five books of the Bible, oftentimes called the Law of Moses.
The theory says that the five biblical books of Genesis (G), Exodus (E), Leviticus (L), Numbers (N), and Deuteronomy (D) were not each written as independent and coherent documents by a single author. Rather, these five books were combinations of the four sources J, E, D, and P, and each one of these sources has its own conflicting theology and intention. Think of it like a patchwork quilt. For example, Exodus was not written by one author, but might have elements of J, E, D, and P in it.
The reason that this JEDP theory was created is the odd features of the Pentateuch, such as the doublets of events and apparent contradictions. To give some doublet examples, see the multiple creation accounts (Gen. 1 and 2), the multiple genealogies of the same person, and the two accounts of Jacob’s name change. There are also apparent contradictions between the doublets. One example is where the man (Adam) and woman (Eve) are created last in Gen. 1’s chronological succession of created things, whereas the man is created first and then the woman last in Gen. 2. These things are explained by JEDP theorists by claiming that multiple sources were strung together.
To help comprehend this four-source approach, here are three analogies.
- The dissecting analogy. JEDP theorists say that the Pentateuch is like a dead frog with multiple parts that need to be dissected. Each part belongs to J, E, D, or P.
- The rock analogy. There are different layers of strata within a rock. JEDP theorists say that the Pentateuch is like that, having multiple layers, each of which possesses separate historical time periods. One paragraph in Genesis was invented by J in the tenth century, another by P in the sixth century, etc.
- The evolutionary analogy. Simple stuff slowly morphs into complex stuff. JEDP theorists say that the Pentateuch evolved from the simple stories of J and gradually became complex as it combined with E, D, and P.
There are a ton of objections to the JEDP theory. Let’s look at just one for now.
The JEDP theory does not consider the literary unity of the Pentateuch. If there is literary unity, then that should make one question whether there need to be four (or more) separations into different sources.
Robert Alter, emeritus professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at Berkeley, said in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative that there are strong literary connections within the Pentateuch. One example is the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38, which JEDP theorists say was added in at a later date by a separate source, for it is unrelated to the main story.
But Alter rebuts this suggestion by pointing out that Genesis 38 has some fascinating contextual connections with the stories before and after it. In Genesis 38, the character Judah relates to the larger context of the Genesis narrative about Joseph, for both of them left their families, married Gentile women, had two sons who fought over primogeniture, and more. Joseph was sexually continent toward Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39), whereas Judah was sexually incontinent with Tamar (Gen. 38). JEDP theorists ignore these connections.
Scholars separate Genesis 38 into another source because they approach the text with a dissecting knife in their hands, rather than looking for the literary connections, as Alter does. Yet JEDP theorists may simply dismiss Alter, saying the unity within the Pentateuch comes from a redactor who combined their four sources (JEDP) in a masterful way. But this response begs the question—and not only that, but it ignores the unique vocabulary within the texts.
Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto points out the unique vocabulary organization within the books of Genesis and Exodus, suggesting that both documents were independent and coherent. This can be seen in his “Commentary on the Book of Genesis” and “Commentary on the Book of Exodus.” He says there are unique phrases spread throughout the texts, arranged in a total of seven, ten, or twelve occurrences. This suggests a single author, who organized his written work with certain vocabulary.
For example, the phrase “over the face of all the earth” occurs seven times throughout the book of Genesis and only the book of Genesis. The phrase “in all the land of Egypt” is spread twelve times over the book of Exodus. If the JEDP theory were correct, then shouldn’t there be a piecemeal number of phrases? The Jews were big on numbers, as any bible scholar will say, and this should be taken into consideration.
Finally, many JEDP theorists argue for their theory by pointing to the doublets of stories in the Pentateuch. A single author certainly would not repeat a story in his writing, right? However, this might be explained by the literary unity of the text as well.
The Pentateuch is united by chiastic structures, like one upside-down triangle on top of a rightside-up triangle, which may explain the doublets. A chiasm is a technique used to organize and arrange literature. For example, if I say, “Marcus is an excellent apologist; great apologists need to look to Marcus,” this sentence has an AB A’B’ structure. Marcus is mentioned in the beginning and the end, like bookends, and “apologist” is referenced twice in the middle.
Scholars Kikawada and Quinn explain how the Pentateuch uses chiasms in their book, Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11. JEDP theorists say there are two sources that wrote out the doublet, yet they do not seem to recognize that the doublet was likely intentional by the author!
There are many more objections that could be raised about this theory, such as circular reasoning, eisegesis, overlooking other possibilities, radical skepticism, subjective instead of objective leanings, overlooking the central purpose, etc. The theory helps in some ways, just as any heresy leads to a fuller doctrinal explanation of the topic, but it does more harm than good. The Pentateuch is rich in lessons to teach us, not a frog to be dissected.