I was trying to get a little better grasp on source criticism the other day and ran across a Themelios book review on The Formation of the Pentateuch. I thought the reviewer’s summary was pretty good, but what do I know? Do you (and @Christy, and anyone else out there with a little knowledge to share) think it’s an accurate description of the state of things?
“This is an important book and to understand how it contributes to biblical studies, it is crucial first to remember the present state of critical scholarship on the Pentateuch. Currently, two main approaches coexist. On the one hand, many exegetes in North America and in Israel still endorse the Documentary Hypothesis, albeit often in a refined version. According to Julius Wellhausen’s hypothesis, four documents (J, E, D, P) underlie the Pentateuch. While this theory came under heavy fire during the last quarter of the twentieth century, some scholars (the so-called “Neo-Documentarians”), building on the work of their mentor B. Schwartz, have skillfully renewed it, notably J. Baden (The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012]) and J. Stackert (A Prophet like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion [New York: Oxford University Press, 2014]). On the other hand, most critical scholars in Europe have long ceased to believe in the existence of E (the so-called Elohist document), and more recently in J, that is, the Yahwist (see e.g., T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid, A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2006]). Accordingly, the main division in Genesis to Numbers is to be found between P (the Priestly work) and non-P, with some Deuteronomistic influence too.”