The purpose of this book is to expose the logical fallacies underlying many of the arguments supporting the Documentary Hypothesis. Perhaps one of the criticisms that will be brought against this book is that it spends 90% of its time analyzing the arguments of Richard Elliott Friedman and Joel S. Baden and little time analyzing the arguments of the classical proponents of the Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen. That is because over the last one hundred plus years, scholars, including Friedman and Baden, have already criticized the arguments of the classical proponents and as a result, the Hypothesis has evolved to its present state.
Another result of that criticism is that fewer and fewer scholars hold to the classical version of the Hypothesis or hold to the Hypothesis at all. Those who do hold to it do not seem to bother to defend it but take it for granted, spending their time refining its details. Baden, however, has become the most vocal defender of the so-called Neo-Documentary Hypothesis, while Friedman, for several decades now, has been the most vocal defender of the classical version of the Hypothesis, though he departs from Wellhausen’s model at several important points. He also claims that the opponents of the Hypothesis have never answered his Seven Main Arguments supporting the Hypothesis. If true, then this book may be the first to answer those arguments.
It is my hope that, in exposing these logical fallacies, this book will help to bring clearer thinking to the field of Pentateuchal criticism.
I would like to thank Eyal Rav-Noy for his valuable input.