In a previous post, I noted that it would be interesting to see how my paper on Deuteronomy and Joshua would be received at the European Association of Biblical Studies in August, due to the differences between American and European scholarship. One of my former students asked me to explain these differences, so I thought I would give a brief summary. My comments will be confined mostly to Pentateuchal studies, since that is my area of specialization.

The current differences between them began in the 1970s with the breakdown of the consensus concerning the Documentary Hypothesis. One of the causes of this breakdown was the work of Rolf Rendtorff, one of Gerhard von Rad’s students. Rendtorff argued that there was a big difference between source criticism on the one hand and form and tradition criticism on the other. Although von Rad and Noth had worked with both, Rendtorff thought that they were at odds with each other. He said that too often, tradition critics stopped their analysis too soon and jumped straight to the sources. Instead, he wanted to see the oral transmission process as being much more responsible for the shape of the Pentateuch as we have it now. In the oral stage, blocks of traditions began to take shape around the primeval history, the patriarchs, the exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, Sinai, and the conquest. Only at a late period did authors step in an stich these tradition blocks together.

Much of the work on the Pentateuch in Europe has continued to follow these lines. Europeans are much more likely than Americans to follow a strictly form and tradition critical approach. There are exceptions, of course, including (ironically) Erhard Blum, who was Rendtorff’s student.

Americans, on the other hand, are more likely to follow the source critical method and see the authors as much more important in shaping the Pentateuch. Some, such as Richard E. Friedman, still follow the Documentary Hypothesis, while others have moved to more of a supplementary hypothesis. Chief among these would be John van Seters, who views J as a very creative author who brought together much of the Pentateuchal material for the first time. (The approaches of Van Seters and Blum have a good deal in common.)

Another area of difference, although one not limited to the Pentateuch, is the current debate between maximalists and minimalists (terms which ignore those of us in the middle). Simply put, maximalists tend to give a good deal of credence to the Old Testament record when reconstructing history, while minimalists see little historical value in the texts of the Bible. In broad strokes, American’s tend to be maximalists, while Europeans are minimalists, although there are certainly large numbers who do not fit that pattern. Influential in the minimalist camp is the so-called ‘Scandinavian School’ or ‘Copenhagen School,’ with scholars such as Thomas Thompson (the man so nice they named him twice) and Niels Peter Lemche. The influential work of W.F. Albright (of blessed memory) and Frank Moore Cross has led Americans to be more maximalists. The truth, of course, probably lies somewhere in between, which is also where you will find most of the scholars on this issue. The maximalist-minimalist debate has gotten quite a bit of play, however, because those on the ends of the spectrum tend to speak the loudest.

Permalink