What Is Source Criticism?

by Steven L. McKenzie

Definition
Source criticism is the study of the different components of a literary text. It is assumed
that the biblical texts are composite works, and that their components originated in
different historical periods and exhibit different themes. It is also assumed that, in
antiquity, authors were not worried about copyright privileges; sources were never
footnoted or otherwise acknowledged. Given these assumptions, the task of the source
critic is to filter out the various ideological strains, to locate these in their historical
settings, and to evaluate the meaning of the complete text in light of the results.
The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran.
Source Criticism seeks to identify independent source documents behind the present
biblical texts. It is the oldest method of critical biblical study except for textual criticism.
It was initially called higher criticism to distinguish it from lower or textual criticism, then
called literary criticism because of its emphasis on written documents. It differs from
form criticism in its focus on written rather than oral sources and from redaction criticism
in its quest to describe independent sources rather than editorial work.

Brief History

The Bible sometimes mentions written sources, such as the book of Yahweh’s wars (Num
21:14) and the chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah (1Kgs 14:19, 1Kgs 14:29). Such
mentions justify source criticism as an approach, even though it has not focused on
identifying these specific sources. The main forum for source criticism has been the
Pentateuch or Hexateuch—the first five or six books of the Bible. Careful readers like Ibn
Ezra (twelfth century) and Spinoza (seventeenth century) suspected the presence of
multiple documents behind these books. But a physician to King Louis XIV named Jean
Astruc (1753) first sought to isolate source documents and explain their relationship to
one another. Using techniques common for analyzing classical texts, especially the
observation of doublets (two versions of the same story or item) and of the different
names for God—Yahweh and Elohim—Astruc defended the Mosaic authorship of
Genesis by arguing that Moses had used source documents. Over the next century,
scholars gradually surrendered the idea of Mosaic authorship and identified four sources
in the Hexateuch: E1 and E2, which both used the name Elohim; J, which used the name
Yahweh (written Jahwe in German); and D for Deuteronomy.
In 1878, a landmark synthesis by Julius Wellhausen brought an end to competing
models—the Fragmentary Hypothesis (numerous fragmented sources rather than
continuous documents) and the Supplementary Hypothesis (a kernel source
supplemented by additions)—and established the Documentary Hypothesis as the
consensus explanation for the Hexateuch. Wellhausen identified E2 as Priestly and the
latest of the sources and put forward a developmental sequence for the sources—JEDP.
Wellhausen’s main interest was reconstructing Israelite history and religion. The initial
title of his book (in German) was History of Israel, Part One. (He did not write Part Two
until much later.) The book is better known by the title Prolegomena to the History of
Israel. Dating P in the postexilic period, Wellhausen traced the evolution of ancient
Israelite religion into Judaism while also pointing out their differences. The evolutionary
scheme was a prime reason for the theory’s popularity. It underwent a major adjustment
in 1943 when Martin Noth separated Deuteronomy and Joshua as parts of the
Deuteronomistic History, leaving the Tetrateuch (Genesis–Numbers) as the subject of the
Documentary Hypothesis. There were also dissenters from the start, notably
Scandinavians, such as Ivan Engnell, who argued for the oral nature of the sources
behind the Tetrateuch, and Israelis, especially Yehezkel Kaufmann, who advocated the
%%antiquity of priestly material and were generally doubtful about breaking up the text.

Nevertheless, the Documentary Hypothesis dominated Pentateuchal study until the

1970s when the existence of E began to be questioned and J was dated to the postexilic
period. At about this same time, source criticism replaced literary criticism, which came
to be used for the interpretation of the Bible as literature under the influence of literary
studies in the humanities. In the late 1990s and early 2000s European scholars dismissed J
as a source, replacing it with a model that identifies numerous written sources and cycles
of tradition. However, many North American scholars steadfastly defend the
Documentary Hypothesis. This widespread disagreement continues today, although P is
still generally recognized as a principal source, and the distinctiveness of D is also
maintained.

While the showcase of source criticism has been the Pentateuch, it is also used in other
parts of the Hebrew Bible. To give just a few examples, in Isaiah, source criticism has
been used to identify three distinct parts of the book (Isa 1-39; Isa 40-55; Isa 56-66) and
to isolate other possible source documents such as the Servant Songs, the most
prominent of which is Isa 52:13-53:12; in Judges, an underlying collection of hero stories
has been perceived behind Judg 3-9; and in 1-2 Samuel, several older documents have
been theorized, including a narrative about the ark, a collection of stories about Saul, a
narrative about David’s rise to kingship, and one about his succession as king.
Approach

Source criticism entails three steps: determining the separate elements that make up a
text, reconstructing the sources, and dating them. The first two steps involve taking note
of three features within a text: doublets and repetitions, contradictions and tensions,
and differences of vocabulary and style. The leading examples are the creation accounts
in Gen 1-3 and the flood story in Gen 6-9. In Gen 1-3, two separate accounts of creation
(doublets) have been juxtaposed in Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4b-3:24, with Gen 2:4a as a
linking verse. (The a and b refer to half verses.) The most obvious tension between them
is the order of creation where humans are created last and as a group in Gen 1:26-27 but a
man and a woman separately in Genesis 2, with plants (the garden) and animals between
them. In the flood story, two versions have been intertwined. Doublets are apparent, as
in the two sets of reasons for the flood (Gen 6:6-8 vs. Gen 6:11-13). One of the most
obvious contradictions concerns whether Noah is to bring one pair of every kind of
animal (Gen 6:19) or seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean (Gen 7:2). Such
differences in content are reinforced by different styles and sets of vocabulary, including
the two distinct names for god—Yahweh and Elohim. Once the different sources are
isolated, an effort can be made to date them. Dating is of two kinds: relative and
absolute. Relative dating tries to determine which source is older than the other. The link
in Gen 2:4a is often recognized as part of an organizational scheme used by P as a
heading. This suggests that the author of Gen 1:1-2:3 (P) edited Gen 2:4b-3:24 (J?), which
would be, therefore, the older of the two accounts. Absolute dating assigns concrete
dates to the sources. The postexilic date typically assigned to Gen 1:1-2:4a, for instance,
depends on the dating of P as a whole and on possible evidence of Babylonian influence
during the exile

Method
To discern the discrete sources of a text, apply these three steps to it:
Search for textual anomalies (irregularities):

Thematic inconsistency - does the main theme or tone of the text change suddenly?

Repetition - do you suddenly find yourself reading another version of the previous story,
one that perhaps contradicts something in the first account? Look for duplicate stories,
overlapping time references, unnecessarily repeated narrative introductions ("X said...").

Digression - does some explanatory comment or story interrupt your main text?
Different vocabulary or style - does the text include certain words, expressions and
idioms characteristic of a certain group’s perspective? Does the text shift "persons"
(e.g., from narrative third person [they did X] to second person address [you have done
X])?

Isolate the anomaly from the surrounding text. If you have found a repetition, it may be
helpful to lay the accounts out side-by-side, so that you can see the differences and
similarities more easily.

Discern and list the themes important to the anomalous passage and to the surrounding
text.

A source critic would then integrate these results with his/her knowledge of Israelite
history and literary production, in order to discern the date and meaning of each
passage. You will not need to do this step; rather, this information will be provided for
you as your starting point.