256:
proposed that the
Deuteronomist is the only independent source and that the Yahwist (J) is a reply to the Deuteronomic explanation of the Exile and a "confessional reformulation" as a theological corrective. Further, the hypothesis views the Priestly (P) source as non-independent as well. Because many P texts, Van Seters argues, "do not make sense without the larger J context," the Priestly writer is viewed as a redactor of J. A major consequence of this view that the later two sources are not independent is the removal of the need for redactors to explain the cohesion of the Pentateuch. Van Seters writes, "Since there are no separate sources after the first one, there is no need for redactors. The elaborate system of multiple redactors used by current documentarians is unnecessary".
22:
231:
sinful as to explain the
Babylonian exile. This "dual-redactor" view is likely the most common held among scholars today; Van Seters affirmed this view arguing that both the emphasis on seventh century reform and on sixth century exile shows that "Deuteronomy ... consists of an older nucleus with later expansions."
230:
suggested that
Deuteronomist (D) actually originated from "dual-redactors," with the original Deuteronomist (Dtr1) being a seventh century author supporting Josiah's reforms, and Noth's later sixth century Deuteronomist (Dtr2) revising the earlier work, imbuing it with themes of punishment for the
196:
The supplementary hypothesis denies the existence of an extensive
Elohist (E) source, one of the four independent sources described in the documentary hypothesis. Instead, it describes the Yahwist as having borrowed from an array of written and oral traditions, combining them into the J source. It
255:
Whereas the documentary hypothesis proposed that the four
Pentateuch sources were complete and independent accounts, Van Seters writes that the supplementary hypothesis "does not view the later sources J and P as independent documents but as direct additions to the earlier corpus." The hypothesis
239:
demonstrated that the
Yahwist (J) was aware of earlier religious writings of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, refuting the original assessment of J as a work of the 10th century. Van Seters argues that the Yahwist (J) used "fragments, some in literary form, others as popular motifs and stories" to
168:
While documentarians originally placed the authorship of the
Pentateuch in the 10th to the 6th centuries BCE, the supplementary hypothesis places the authorship of the Pentateuch later in the 7th to 5th centuries. A major driver of this reassessment has been the evolving understanding of the
234:
While the documentary hypothesis held that the
Yahwist (J) was likely of the 10th century, the supplementary hypothesis puts it much later, in the 6th century, during the exilic period. That reassessment was made largely because of research conducted in the 1970s. A 1976 study by
188:, the leading proponent of the documentary hypothesis, proposed that the Pentateuch is the amalgamation of four independent and complete narratives which were combined by redactors. The supplementary hypothesis, as outlined by Van Seters, differs from it in three major ways:
240:
create a theological creation story, expanding upon the
Deuteronomist's established corpus of work. By the post-exilic period, he theorizes that there was an established theological work (DJ) created by the Deutoronomist (D) and Yahwist (J).
78:
The supplementary hypothesis was developed over the 19th and 20th centuries, primarily deriving from a dissatisfaction with the adequacy of the documentary hypothesis, and came to a head in the 1970s with the publication of works by
210:
The supplementary hypothesis proposes that the
Deuteronomist (D) was the original, and earliest, Pentateuch writer, having been written at the end of the seventh century, and ascribes the Jahwist (J) to the exilic (c.
176:
The archeological findings have caused some recent Pentateuch scholars to reject earlier documentarian claims of 10th-century authorship, in favor of later authorship, as reflected in the supplementary hypothesis.
247:, period, likely in the 5th century. This reassessment of chronology places the Deuteronomist as the first writer (DJP) whereas the documentary hypothesis places the Deuteronomist as a later writer (JEDP).
201:
the Elohist (E). Instead, the supplementary hypothesis proposes that what documentarians considered J and E are in fact a single source (some use J, some use JE), likely written in the 6th century BCE.
243:
Van Seters argues that the Priestly source (P) is not independent from the Yahwist source (J) but indeed relies heavily upon it. If J is ascribed to the exilic period, P must be of the post-exilic, or
160:
While the hypothesis is not the only revision of the documentary hypothesis to be made, it is one of the few at the forefront of Pentateuch studies and has been suggested by many scholars.
133:
the Yahwist source (J) was likely added c. 540 BCE in the late phase of the Babylonian captivity, influencing the stories from the Genesis creation narrative to the death of
110:(D). Van Seters ordered the sources chronologically as DJP and clarifies that he does not view the (J) and (P) sources as independent documents but as direct additions:
197:
proposes that because J is compiled from many earlier traditions and stories, documentarians mistook the compilation as having multiple authors: the Yahwist (J)
71:(the first five books of the Bible) was derived from a series of direct additions to an existing corpus of work. It serves as a revision to the earlier
226:, argued that the Deuteronomist (D) was a single sixth century author explaining the events preceding the Babylonian exile theologically. In 1968
169:
historical context of the early Israelites. Biblical estimates put the earliest activity of the Israelites in Canaan in the 13th century, with
222:
The supplementary hypothesis argues that the Deuteronomist (D) source is of the seventh century BCE. Early Pentateuch scholars, most notably
98:
Van Seters' summation of the hypothesis accepts "three sources or literary strata within the Pentateuch," which have come to be known as the
95:, Kugler and Hartin argue that "the work of John Van Seters best reflects the revival of the supplementary hypothesis."
293:
75:, which proposed that independent and complete narratives were later combined by redactors to create the Pentateuch.
482:
114:
the Deuteronomist source (D) was likely written c. seventh century BCE, and influenced the composition of the
477:
115:
72:
320:
307:
236:
153:
127:
88:
21:
8:
227:
185:
60:
35:
Original independent source, D, written c. 600 BCE, includes most of Deuteronomy.
350:
A Basic Vocabulary of Biblical Studies for Beginning Students: A Work in Progress
146:
138:
103:
80:
142:
119:
84:
471:
244:
107:
223:
68:
180:
43:
Written c. 540 BCE as a response and reformulation to the D source.
250:
123:
99:
170:
134:
445:. Cambridge: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Co. p. 50.
410:
Sources of the Pentateuch: texts, introductions, annotations
152:
the Priestly source (P) was likely added c. 400 BCE in the
407:
191:
215:
BCE) and the Priestly (P) to the post-exilic (c. 400
440:
287:
380:The Deuteronomistic history and the name theology
181:Major divergences from the documentary hypothesis
469:
251:Independence of the Yahwist and Priestly sources
205:
51:Written c. 400 BCE and largely a redactor of J.
365:Etched in Stone: The Emergence of the Decalogue
335:Etched in Stone: The Emergence of the Decalogue
458:The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary
428:The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary
395:The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary
321:The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary
308:The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary
275:The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary
455:
425:
392:
272:
16:Theory explaining the origins of the Torah
20:
377:
367:. New York: t&t clark. p. 169.
337:. New York: t&t clark. p. 167.
192:The existence of the Elohist (E) source
470:
460:. New York: t&t clark. p. 77.
430:. New York: t&t clark. p. 78.
397:. New York: T&T Clark. p. 98.
347:
277:. New York: t&t clark. p. 77.
421:
419:
362:
332:
163:
13:
416:
323:, Sheffield Academic Press, p. 61.
310:, Sheffield Academic Press, p. 78.
294:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
14:
494:
449:
434:
408:Campbell & O'Brien (1993).
401:
386:
371:
356:
341:
326:
313:
300:
281:
266:
1:
259:
206:The chronology of the sources
443:An Introduction to the Bible
441:Kugler & Hartin (2009).
290:An Introduction to the Bible
288:Kugler & Hartin (2009).
126:) in the early phase of the
93:An Introduction to the Bible
7:
378:Richter, Sandra L. (2002).
10:
499:
319:Van Seters, John, (1999).
306:Van Seters, John, (1999).
46:
38:
27:
456:Van Seters, John (1999).
426:Van Seters, John (1999).
393:Van Seters, John (1999).
352:. Wake Forest University.
273:Van Seters, John (1999).
363:Aaron, David H. (2006).
348:Horton, Fred L. (2007).
333:Aaron, David H. (2006).
65:supplementary hypothesis
116:Deuteronomistic History
483:Documentary hypothesis
73:documentary hypothesis
56:
24:
382:. Walter de Gruyter.
237:Hans Heinrich Schmid
154:Second Temple period
128:Babylonian captivity
89:Hans Heinrich Schmid
164:Historical context
67:proposes that the
57:
412:. Fortress Press.
228:Frank Moore Cross
186:Julius Wellhausen
91:. In their book,
55:
54:
490:
478:Biblical studies
462:
461:
453:
447:
446:
438:
432:
431:
423:
414:
413:
405:
399:
398:
390:
384:
383:
375:
369:
368:
360:
354:
353:
345:
339:
338:
330:
324:
317:
311:
304:
298:
297:
285:
279:
278:
270:
218:
214:
61:biblical studies
32:
26:
25:
498:
497:
493:
492:
491:
489:
488:
487:
468:
467:
466:
465:
454:
450:
439:
435:
424:
417:
406:
402:
391:
387:
376:
372:
361:
357:
346:
342:
331:
327:
318:
314:
305:
301:
286:
282:
271:
267:
262:
253:
216:
212:
208:
194:
183:
166:
147:Book of Numbers
139:Book of Genesis
104:Priestly Writer
81:John Van Seters
30:
17:
12:
11:
5:
496:
486:
485:
480:
464:
463:
448:
433:
415:
400:
385:
370:
355:
340:
325:
312:
299:
280:
264:
263:
261:
258:
252:
249:
219:BCE) periods.
207:
204:
193:
190:
182:
179:
165:
162:
158:
157:
150:
143:Book of Exodus
131:
120:Book of Joshua
85:Rolf Rendtorff
53:
52:
49:
45:
44:
41:
37:
36:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
495:
484:
481:
479:
476:
475:
473:
459:
452:
444:
437:
429:
422:
420:
411:
404:
396:
389:
381:
374:
366:
359:
351:
344:
336:
329:
322:
316:
309:
303:
295:
292:. Cambridge:
291:
284:
276:
269:
265:
257:
248:
246:
245:Second Temple
241:
238:
232:
229:
225:
220:
203:
200:
189:
187:
178:
174:
173:'s conquest.
172:
161:
155:
151:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
111:
109:
108:Deuteronomist
106:(P), and the
105:
101:
96:
94:
90:
86:
82:
76:
74:
70:
66:
62:
50:
47:
42:
39:
34:
28:
23:
19:
457:
451:
442:
436:
427:
409:
403:
394:
388:
379:
373:
364:
358:
349:
343:
334:
328:
315:
302:
289:
283:
274:
268:
254:
242:
233:
221:
209:
198:
195:
184:
175:
167:
159:
97:
92:
77:
64:
58:
18:
296:p. 49.
224:Martin Noth
472:Categories
260:References
118:(from the
69:Pentateuch
102:(J), the
145:and the
141:to the
124:2 Kings
100:Yahwist
217:
213:
171:Joshua
87:, and
63:, the
31:
135:Moses
211:540
199:and
122:to
59:In
48:***
474::
418:^
149:).
83:,
40:**
156:.
137:(
130:.
29:*
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
