# "Strands" in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers



## jwithnell (Aug 22, 2011)

I realize that we accept what the Bible says about itself when considering authorship and time of writing. So this question addresses what is published in the generally liberal "scholarly" world.

Is the strand theory still the popularly accepted way to describe the writings of the Old Testament -- P for priestly strand, E for Elohim etc. -- the writers whose work was woven together to form the texts? 

I am reading something dated 2004 stating that this view of the writing of the Torah is the accepted "scholarly" view. I thought this had largely been debunked. Or is it just the separation of J and E that has been discarded?


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 22, 2011)

BTW, this is most commonly called the Documentary Hypothesis -- I couldn't think of the name earlier.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 22, 2011)

I was taught it at a liberal PC(USA) seminary as settled fact.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 22, 2011)

From an article on the Documentary Hyotheis in biblearchaeology.org:


> The time has long passed for scholars of every theological persuasion to recognize that the Graf-Wellhausen theory, as a starting point for continued research, is dead. The Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise. Even so, the ghost of Wellhausen hovers over Old Testament studies and symposiums like a thick fog, adding nothing of substance but effectively obscuring vision. Although actually incompatible with form-critical and archaeology-based studies, the Documentary Hypothesis has managed to remain the mainstay of critical orthodoxy. One wonders if we will ever return to the day when discussions of Genesis will not be stilted by interminable references to P and J. There are indications that such a day is coming. Many scholars are exploring the inadequacies of the Documentary Hypothesis and looking toward new models for explaining the Pentateuch



The Documentary Hypothesis


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> Is the strand theory still the popularly accepted way to describe the writings of the Old Testament -- P for priestly strand, E for Elohim etc. -- the writers whose work was woven together to form the texts?



Brevard Childs' Canonical Process Approach opened the door for a more coherent treatment of the text as a single literary tradition. Radical liberals seem to still maintain the old fragmentary approach but in most circles the documentary hypothesis has undergone a change of focus. It is not about the way the text came together so much as identifying background themes. It is worth noting that Geerhardus Vos sometimes made use of it in this way. The use of these categories of differentiation is not indicative of the approach one is taking. On the other hand, it is somewhat disappointing to see some "evangelical" commentaries still clinging to the fragmentary approach, e.g., Wenham on Genesis.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 24, 2011)

Thanks y'all! I was a little surprised to see a statement regarding the Hypothesis Theory as the standard scholarly approach in a book published in this last decade. I thought it had largely been abandoned. Given what's been posted, it sounds like the left still wants to hold onto the idea. I like the "fog" statement!



> It is not about the way the text came together so much as identifying background themes.


I see where this could be useful, particularly when trying to follow the literary themes and styles. I might revisit parts of _Biblical Theology_ or see if I caught it in my notes.


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> I see where this could be useful, particularly when trying to follow the literary themes and styles. I might revisit parts of _Biblical Theology_ or see if I caught it in my notes.



One of the more ironic examples is the way Vos is able to find biblical support for a prelapsarian covenant from the "so-called priestly document." Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 192-193.


----------

