All that remains to answer is how the two sides coalesce. The answers, of course, are varied. Wellhausen proposed that the differences reflect different strata within Israel’s history. His theory divides the Pentateuch into 4 different sources: J – Jahwist, E – Elohist, D – Deuteronomist, and P – Priestly. This theory is know as the Graf-Wellhausen Theory or the Documentary Hypothesis. The Jahwist is the earliest source and represented the idea that Israel would be able to build altars and sacrifice to God anywhere in the land (must like the first post in the series). The Elohist was next followed by the Deuteronomist (who is responsible for the authorship of Deuteronomy). The D source was produced around the time of King Josiah; his reforms reflect much of what Deuteronomy demands of Israel. The latest source – the Priestly source – was produced after Israel’s exile. I am primarily dealing with Deuteronomy because I think if we understand Deuteronomy’s teaching, we will see that it integrates well with what we saw in the first post.
The basic idea behind the source theory is that it maps the historical development of the Israelite religion beginning with the simple worship of Jahwistic cult and progressing to the monotheistic, strigent, law-keeping Judaism. Wellhausen says, “It is only in Deuteronomy…that one sees the root of the matter, and recognizes its connection with the anxiety for a strict monotheism, and for the elimination of the popular heathenish elements.” The goal of the Deuteromistic reforms was to restrict worship to one place (Jerusalem) and to eliminate the degenerate “pagan” practices at that time in Israel’s history. Therefore, Deuteronomy only really had applicability to the people of Israel in the Davidic/Solomonic reigns onward:
One step indeed is taken towards investing it with an historical character, in so far as [Deuteronomy] is put into the mouth of Moses; but the beginning thus made keeps within modest limits. Moses only lays down the Law; for its execution he makes no provision as regards to his own time, nor does he demand it for the immediate future. Rather it is represented as not destined to come into force until the people shall have concluded the conquest of the country and secured a settled peace…Until the building of Solomon’s temple the unity of worship according to it had, properly speaking, never had any existence; and, moreover, it is easy to read between the lines that even after that date it was more a pious wish than a practical demand.
In identifying the “place God will choose” as Jerusalem and some of the law, Wellhausen requires a later time for Deuteronomy’s composition. Wellhausen and many other historical critics date the Deuteromistic source in or shortly after the time of Josiah’s reign.
I think one of the more damaging critiques of the Documentary Hypothesis is the fact that the science of dividing the Pentateuch into its sources is speculative. Also, the practice of dividing sources is prone to ignoring the literary features that glue the Pentateuch stories and laws together. The analyses of the historical critics are helpful (I have enjoyed reading Wellhausen). I do think we ought consider the Pentateuch as a literary whole.
We should note that Deuteronomy does not explicitly name Jerusalem as the place of worship. I would go as far to say that the phrase “the place which God will choose” does not even imply permanence. The phrase, rather, implies God’s sovereignty over the manner in which Israel worships him. Instead of reading the phrase forward in Israel’s history (to Jerusalem), we should read it backward into the formative event of Israel’s life as a nation: Sinai/Horeb. McConville states, “[T]he ‘place the LORD will choose’ brings for ever into Israel’s life the principle that the covenant must always be renewed in a life of decision that finds itself constantly at Horeb, being called into covenant in an open history consisting of many times and (perhaps) many places.” The point of this call for Israel to meet in that place was for them to renew and remember the covenant they made with the LORD.
Furthermore, the law of the altar (Deuteronomy 12:2-5) does not necessarily suggest that all sacrificial activity will occur at a central, permanent location as opposed to the Covenant Code (Ex 20:23-25), which allows a “freer” exercise of Israel’s religion. The literary choice of word “place” is set up in direct contrast to the “places” where Israel’s neighbors set up pillars and altars to their gods. Not only does Yahweh demand worship for himself alone, but he also demands that the place worship is “known to belong wholly and unequivocally to Yahweh” (McConville). The law, like the rest of Deuteronomy, emphasizes the need for Israel to completely dedicate themselves to Yahweh.
Both ideas of Israel’s worship do not represent different ideas with Israel’s history as much as they fill the theological idea of Israel’s worship with significance. Israel’s redemptive beginning continually brings light to the manner in which they are to live in the land, how they are to worship, and how they are to treat one another. The biblical idea of “sanctuary” touches both the spiritual and ethical dimensions of life. Israel cannot divide their interests; they must live holistically – ceremonial feasts andsocial justice, obedience and sacrifice. Israel’s identity of children of God founds God’s commands. Israel’s proper response as God’s children, is obey those commands with hearts fully dedicated to loving God and neighbor, and keeping themselves from the profane practices that soiled the land before Israel’s arrival.
nathanielcooley 
Leave a Reply