Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 69:276 (Oct 1912)
Article: New Methods Of Inquiry Concerning The Pentateuch
Author: Johannes Dahse

BSac 69:276 (Oct 1912) p. 657

New Methods Of Inquiry Concerning The Pentateuch¹

Johannes Dahse

Every reader of the Bible is at once impressed, upon reading the book of Genesis, by the many repetitions which pervade the Mosaic writings; he is also impressed by the fact that not only separate verses but also entire parallel accounts repeat what has already been told, and, as a result, are, in their present relation, often very distracting. Because of these repetitions, Old Testament critics have concluded that the five books of Moses are a compilation from different sources. Each of these sources, three of which are thought to have been found in Genesis, has, according to the views commonly accepted until recently, its peculiar designation of the Deity and its special name for the third patriarch, and each points also to other peculiarities, viz. of language and matters of religious history. This source hypothesis has had almost universal acceptance among the students of the Old Testament throughout the whole world. Even to-day the older school of Old Testament critics, with the exception of Klostermann, consider it one of the most important results of scientific research.

The younger generation of scholars, however, are beginning to doubt seriously the correctness of this hypothesis. “Translated by Karl Frederick Gelser, Ph.D., Oberlin, Ohio.

BSac 69:276 (Oct 1912) p. 658

Recently there has appeared a long list of writings in which the authors point out its weak points. The worthlessness of the names of the Deity as a source distinction has been pointed out in the American Journal of Theology in 1904 by Redpath, in England by Wiener (since 1909),1 in Holland by Eerdmans (1908), in Germany by Klostermann, Johannes Lepsius (in the Reich Christi, 1903), and by myself (in Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, 1903). Moreover, various Catholic theologians, as Hoberg, Hummelauer, Schlogl, and Weiss, have written appropriate contributions.

That the names “Jacob” and “Israel” are just as worthless for source distinction as the: names of the Deity is shown in my “Textkritische Materialien zur Hexateuchfrage “(Gies-sen, 1912), and by Harold M. Wiener in the Bibliotheca Sacra (1910).

According to this view, the main reason for the existence of the records of the Jahvists who wrote “Jehovah” and “Israel” in the manner supposed, and the Elohists who wrote “Elohim “and “Jacob,” are invalid. The condition of things is somewhat different in the documents assigned to “P “(so named because they are said to have originated with priests). One sees at the first glance that, if not all, at least detached parts, of these records seem ...