Duplication and Contradiction

Another argument that is central to Wellhausen's approach, and which was contested by many in the previous generation is the dating of the Priestly source to the Second Temple Period.

In terms of subject matter, it is difficult to understand why the Priestly source, which includes major sections of Shemot and Bamidbar and almost all of Vayikra, would include laws that have no connection with the Second Temple Period.

In light of archaeological finds from the ancient Near East, it became clear that phenomena such as a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices existed even hundreds of years prior to Israel's entry into the land.

In general, the study of the development of biblical Hebrew provides a very strong indication that the Chumash predates not only the later Books of Tanakh, but also the Books of the Prophets. This is shown most strongly when we contrast the language of the Chumash with the Books of the Prophets where, despite the general similarity between them, we find a number of motifs that appear exclusively in one but not the other.

The absence of common expressions from the Torah, found in the Books of the Prophets and variant spellings of the same words would suggest that the Torah’s Hebrew is a more ancient stage of the language than that which is found in the Books of the Prophets. Had some parts of the Torah been written from the period of the monarchy onwards, there would be no reason for these discrepancies.