A Comparative Analysis of OT Critics Viviano and Van Seters

Both Pauline Viviano and John Van Seters are contributors to introductory texts on biblical criticism. Viviano has written the second chapter in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application.[1] Here she provides a brief introduction to Old Testament source criticism. Similarly, Van Seters has written a chapter on source critical issues relating to the Pentateuch in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues.[2] In the following essay, I will provide a brief summary of the work of both of these scholars. I will then draw a comparison and make an assessment of their respective approaches. Lastly, I will conclude with some thoughts regarding the value of their respective approaches for the evangelical scholar.

Pauline Viviano
In her essay on source criticism, Pauline Viviano gives a brief introduction to the topic. She begins by defining exactly what it is that source criticism seeks to do. Fundamentally, she says, “source criticism analyzes the biblical text in order to determine what sources were used in its formation.”[3] She further explains that source critics seek to identify the process by which the biblical authors implemented the various stories which are now in the biblical text in order to ascertain which stories belong to which sources.[4] After these sources are identified, she explains, the scholar can then begin to consider issues of date, authorship, style, and setting.[5]

Viviano goes on to provide an overview of the historical development of Old Testament source criticism. She gives a brief synopsis of the Fragmentary Hypothesis, the Supplementary Hypothesis, and the Documentary Hypothesis. Her overview of these approaches, then, provides a springboard for her to move into a more thorough explanation of what becomes the predominant view, namely, the Newer Documentary Hypothesis. By this she is referring to the Documentary Hypothesis as it is developed and expressed by Wellhausen. Viviano explains that this approach, while it undergoes certain refinements, becomes the approach most held by source critics.

Viviano then goes on to explain that the Documentary Hypothesis, as it is expressed by Wellhausen and his predecessors, is a theory in which it is believed that four independent sources (J, E, D, and P) were written and combined over the course of several hundred years.[6] Wellhausen developed a set of criteria which he used to distinguish different styles and types of content between these various sources. These criteria included duplications, similar vocabulary, and other stylistic features.[7] Source critics apply these criteria to the various materials contained in the Old Testament and attempt to determine which materials belong to which sources based upon these criteria.

After explaining the Newer Documentary Hypothesis, Viviano goes on to apply it to Genesis 1-11. She first examines differences in style, vocabulary, and perspectives, and observes seeming inconsistencies, interruptions, and duplications. She then attributes the various materials contained in these chapters to specific sources based on the criteria of the hypothesis . She follows this with a summary of the conclusions she has drawn based on the application of this method to the text.

Based on her analysis, Viviano suggests that there are two sources in Genesis 1-11, namely J and P. She writes, “Genesis 1:1-2:4a; 5; 10; and 11:10-32, taken apart from 2:4b-4:26 and 11:1-9, has a consistency of style, vocabulary, and perspective. When the two strands are separated from each other, duplications and contradictions are eliminated. Genesis 1:2:4a; 5; 10; and 11:10-32 have been attributed to the Priestly author, and Gen. 2:4b-4:26 and 11:1-9 to the Yahwist.”[8] Similarly, although with more difficultly and less certainty, Viviano distinguishes between J and P sources in Genesis 6-9 concluding that Gen. 6:1-8; 7:1-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 16b-17, 22-23; and 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22 belong to the J source while Gen. 6:9-22; 7:6, 9, 11, 13-16a, 18-21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; and 9:1-17 belong to the P source.[9]

Viviano then moves into the final portion of her essay in which she critiques the approach she has just outlined and applied. First, she explains some of the criticisms that have historically been raised noting that the Fragmentary Hypothesis and the Supplementary Hypothesis offer alternative ways of explaining the differences in the various materials found in the Pentateuch. Second, Viviano notes the work of Gunkel and Alt who each suggest (albeit with somewhat different nuances) that the present forms contained in the Pentateuch are underlain by an oral tradition. Here, she says, the chronological development advanced by Wellhausen was undermined by the way the theory of oral prehistory was understood by Gunkel and Alt. Third, she documents G. von Rad’s, M. Noth’s, and R. Rendtorff’s tradition-historical methodology as approaches which turn their focus away from individual sources and provide an alternative paradigm through which to view the development of the Pentateuch.

Noting the work of these scholars and several others, Viviano cautions against “the application of modern literary categories to ancient literature.”[10] She indicates that like Wellhausen and other source critics, form critics and tradition-historical critics—scholars she cites who have challenged the Documentary Hypothesis—have also overstepped their bounds in this regard.[11] Here Viviano seems to rely on a principle of consensuslessness. The growing pessimism amongst Old Testament scholars regarding the Documentary Hypothesis reflects an increasing lack of consensus that should caution them against dogmatism in this regard. This is further solidified by disagreement regarding finer details of the hypothesis. Some, for example, have questioned the existence of E and others have sought to divide sources into further subdivisions. Regarding the lack of agreement in these areas, Viviano notes, “the arguments for these various subdivisions and additional sources have not gained acceptance by many scholars beyond the recognition that the identification and formation of source documents are far more complicated than was once assumed.”[12]

John Van Seters
In his introductory essay to the Pentateuch, John Van Seters begins by discussing the diverse nature of the Pentateuch as this diversity is evidenced in issues related to authorship and genre. Traditionally, he explains, Moses was understood to be the author of the Pentateuch. This is reflected in both Jewish scholarship and the New Testament.[13] However, Van Seters explains that the material contained in the Pentateuch has a diversity which implies more than one author. This diversity is exhibited, for example, in parallel stories whose differences in style suggest that they were written by different authors.[14] Other stories, he says, “appear to contain later additions that give them a new context or theme.”[15] Van Seters indicates that these and other factors have led to the broad consensus that the Pentateuch was produced by multiple authors. In addition, Van Seters says that ANE comparative studies have shown that there is a variety of literary genres contained in the Pentateuch.[16] This, he says, suggests that the authors of the Pentateuch made wide use of a variety of different sources as they composed these documents.[17]

Van Seters moves on to give a brief overview of the various approaches by which various scholars have attempted to distinguish between these authors and their sources. Like Viviano, he gives a short introduction to the history of source criticism. This includes synopses of the Fragmentary Hypothesis, the Supplementary Hypothesis, and the Documentary Hypothesis. He then provides a very brief summary of form criticism and its development. Finally, he looks at the tradition-history approach as developed by von Rad and Noth.

Van Seters then provides a critique of some of the approaches that have been advanced. Tradition-history, he says, is much too speculative. Since scholars do not have access to the oral stages of develop that preceded the current forms of materials contained in the Pentateuch, any conclusion about these traditions is purely speculative. Similarly, Van Seters notes that there is a question about form criticism and its ability to identify the forms of a text from which the current forms developed based on social settings.[18] The reason for this is that scholars have disagreed about whether these social settings can be identified based on the etiologies upon which they are dependent in such a system.[19] Lastly, Van Seters provides a critique of the Documentary Hypothesis. He indicates that many recent developments in Old Testament scholarship have brought tenets of the Documentary Hypothesis into question. These developments are primarily twofold. First, Van Seters says, there are questions about the J and E sources. Should these sources be divided? If so, should they be further divided? On this, he says, Scholars themselves are divided. Second, there is a question about the independence or dependence of sources. Did the various sources which the Pentateuchal authors used develop independently of one another or is their some kind of interrelatedness? Van Seters suggests that there is a level of interdependency. He then spends the vast majority of his essay outlining what he calls the New Supplementary Hypothesis.

Van Seters presents the New Documentary Hypothesis in significant detail, noting the many complexities that are inherent to it. In the New Supplementary Hypothesis, Van Seters suggests that there are three main sources: D, P, and JE (which he refers to as J).[20] These sources roughly correspond to the sources advanced by Wellhausen. However, unlike Wellhausen, Van Seters’ J source comprises Wellhausen’s J and E sources.[21] Van Seters believes that these sources come in the chronological order of D, J, and P. D is from 625 b.c.e., J is from around 540 b.c.e., and P is from around 400 b.c.e.[22] The earliest of these sources, Deuteronomy, Van Seters says, is “the key to understanding the Pentateuch and the historical books that follow.”[23] It is characterized by its sermonic style. The second source, the Yahwist (J) source, is a historical account of the history of Israel. It is a literary history of an antiquity genre that is built upon four separate blocks of pre-J tradition.[24] Lastly, the Priestly source (P) is characterized by its extensive legal code. This, says Van Seters, was typical of a history in which the development of a nations constitution was a significant factor.[25] Scholars are able to identify this source on the basis of style, language, and other criteria that are particular to it.[26] This is a very brief sketch of the approach that Van Seters unpacks at length in his essay.

The Final Analysis
Both Viviano and Van Seters find significant agreement in their analysis of the history and development of source criticism and the Documentary Hypothesis. They both observe the objections brought out by form critics, such as Gunkel, as well as questions raised by proponents of the traditional-historical approach such as von Rad and Noth. Viviano, of course, gives a much more detailed explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis since her ultimate purpose is to provide a detailed critique of it. Van Seters, on the other hand, is writing to explain his own proposal, the New Supplementary Hypothesis, and does not give quite the same space to the Documentary Hypothesis.

The issues Van Seters raises concerning the Documentary Hypothesis center around the question of whether or not the sources contained in the Pentateuch arose independently or whether there is significant interrelatedness. However, it seems that his own approach is dependent upon the presupposition that there is interrelatedness between these sources. This presupposition causes him to interpret the chronology of the sources in a way that makes it possible for later sources to draw upon earlier sources as they are being developed. But this seems to beg the question. If proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis are correct, then sources have been integrated in such a way as to correlate materials which arose independently (although perhaps with a common tradition of some kind). But the presupposition that there is no organic connection leads these scholars to interpret the chronology in a certain way, in the same way that Van Seters’ presupposition that there is an organic connection leads him to do likewise. And so in both instances, there is an extent to which one’s method predetermines the conclusions based upon that method.

One of the notable things about Van Seters’ approach is that it raises significant questions about the Documentary Hypothesis. In light of the fact that the Documentary Hypothesis had been widely held, Van Seters’ analysis should lead scholars to exercise a greater degree of caution and humility. Nevertheless, Van Seters may also want to exercise care as he draws his own conclusions. Just as it now seems that proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis may have been too quick to adopt that position, so too scholars might seek to hold newer positions more tentatively.

This seems to be the strength of Viviano’s analysis. While she recognizes that there may be significant interrelatedness and use of sources, she seems to approach these questions with a level of humility. She seems to be wise in her concerns that contemporary scholars exercise care not to impose modern literary standards on ancient literature. The lack of consensus on the part of scholars should lead to caution as scholars draw conclusions related to these questions. And in the same way that adherents to the Documentary Hypothesis seemed unwilling for a number of years to hear competing views, so too contemporary scholars should be slow to adopt new positions in light of both the complexity of the task and the lack of documentary evidence.

This caution should also be noted by evangelical scholars. In the same way the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis may have imposed modern standards upon ancient literature, so too it seems that some evangelicals have had the tendency to impose modern conceptions of truth upon the Old Testament. This has been especially true as it relates to the question of Mosaic authorship. Although we ought to exercise conviction in relation to those things which we believe God has said, perhaps we have been too unwilling to think seriously about the question of sources. In the same way that liberal scholars have imposed modern standards on ancient literature, maybe we have been too quick to criticize theories which, according to our modern standards of authorship, might compromise Mosaic authorship.

____________________

End Notes

[1] Pauline A. Viviano, “Source Criticism,” To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 35-57.

[2] John Van Seters, “The Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy,” The Hebrew Bible Today, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 3-49.

[3] Viviano, 35.

[4] Ibid, 37.

[5] Ibid, 35.

[6] Ibid, 40.

[7] Ibid, 38.

[8] Ibid, 48.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid, 50.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid, 50-51.

[13] Van Seters, 5.

[14] Ibid, 7.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid, 8.

[18] Ibid, 12.

[19] Ibid, 12.

[20] Ibid, 14.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid, 15.

[24] Ibid, 20.

[25] Ibid, 39.

[26] Ibid, 39.