History and the Hebrew Bible: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography

118 Pages·2008·19.41 MB·English

by  Hans M. Barstad

Hans M. Barstad
History and the Hebrew Bible
Studies in Ancient Israelite
and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography
Mohr Siebeck
HANS M. BARSTAD, born 1947; 1982 Dr. theol. University of Oslo; 1983 Fellow Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem; 1986-2005 Professor
of Old Testament, University of Oslo; 1998-2000 Secretary General of the Norwegian
Academy of Science and Letters; since 2006 Professor of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament
Studies at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
To my students in
Oslo 1986-2005 and Edinburgh 2006-
with the humble wish that they have learnt as much
from me as 1 have from them
ISBN 978-3-16-149809-1
ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament)
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio
graphie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
© 2008 by Mohr Siebeck Ttibingen.
This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted
by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to
reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Ttibingen on non-aging paper and bound by
Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany.
Preface
I have "always" been interested in the history of ancient Israel and the
ancient Near East. At the same time as I have taken a particular interest in
methodological and theoretical issues, my concern has as much been the
practice of history writing itself. This volume contains the major part of
my contributions in those areas. Even if published in earlier versions, the
present collection does form a coherent work.
Quite often, scholars who write about method and theory do not take an
interest in history writing - and vice versa. This would represent a variety
of the traditional dichotomy between "theory and practice". The present
volume, therefore, is an attempt to show how theory and practice can be
mutually beneficial.
Since they cover a period of 8 years (from 1996-2003), all of the
publications included here have been revised and updated. In accordance
with the nature of the topics, some needed to be updated more that others.
Chapter 7 have been thoroughly revised, updated, and expanded to include
also the most recent discussions in the area.
The chapters in this volume all started life as papers read before various
audiences too numerous to be mentioned here. I am grateful not only to
those of my colleagues who invited me in the first place, but also to the
many who gave valuable feedback, much of it included in the subsequent
publications.
Among my colleagues, I would like to single out Bob Becking and
Lester Grabbe. Bob and Lester have always been particularly supportive of
my work. Over the years, they have also become very good friends.
I am grateful to Professors Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith, and
Hermann Spieckermann, editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament,
who accepted the manuscript for publication in their series.
I have been lucky to have had superb word processing assistance
throughout the work with the present manuscript. In Oslo, I got excellent
help from Mr. Andrew Thomas, who started me off. Andy was always
willing and supportive. In Edinburgh, I was very fortunate to meet Ms
Bronwen Currie, Computer Support Officer in the School of Divinity. Her
expertise brought my manuscript a long way toward completion. When
Bronwen retired to move to her beloved Islay, my student Shawn White
VIII Preface
turned out to be extremely helpful. Shawn is not only a very gifted student
of the Hebrew Bible, but he is also a computer wizard. I am very grateful
to Shawn for producing the final PDF file, and for making the indices.
Edinburgh, Summer 2008 Hans M. Barstad
Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................... VII
Contents ......................................................................................................... IX
Abbreviations ................................................................................................. XI
Chapter I: History and the Hebrew Bible ...................................................... l
1.1 Background ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 The Recent History Debate ................................................................... 2
1.3 The Hebrew Bible ................................................................................. 8
1.4 A Narrative Alternative ...................................................................... 13
1.5 Narrative Truth .................................................................................... 15
1.6 Summing Up ........................................................................................ 23
Chapter 2: Issues in the Narrative Truth Debate ......................................... 25
2.1 The History Problem ........................................................................... 25
2.2 "The New History" ............................................................................. 26
2.3 "The Linguistic Turn" ......................................................................... 28
2.4 Fact Versus Fiction ............................................................................. 31
2.5 Fact, Fiction, and the Narrative Mode ............................................... 33
2.6 Ancient History ................................................................................... 35
2.7 Final Remarks ...................................................................................... 37
Chapter 3: "Bibliophobia" in Ancient Israelite Historiography ................. 39
3.1 The Problem ........................................................................................ 39
3.2 Historical Truth in Ancient Sources ................................................... 40
3.3 Some Examples from the Bible .......................................................... 43
3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 45
Chapter 4: The Dating of the Israelite Tradition ......................................... 46
4.1 Introductory Remarks ......................................................................... 46
4.2 Deuteronomy ....................................................................................... 50
4.3 The Deuteronomistic History ............................................................. 51
4.4 The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East.. .......................... 54
X Contents
4.5 A Hebrew Einheitskultur .................................................................... 63
4.6 Scribes, Sources and Diachronic Growth .......................................... 65
4. 7 The Persistence of the Tradition ........................................................ 67
4.8 Final Remarks ...................................................................................... 68
Chapter 5: Is the Hebrew Bible A Hellenistic Book? ................................. 70 Abbreviations
5.1 Background .......................................................................................... 70
5.2 Lemche's First Argument.. ................................................................. 71
5.3 Lemche's Second Argument.. ............................................................. 72 AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AB The Anchor Bible
5.4 Lemche's Third Argument... ............................................................... 72
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D. N. FREEDMAN. Vols 1-6. New York,
5.5 Lemche's Fourth Argument... ............................................................. 80
1992.
5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 88 ABRL The Anchor Bible Reference Library
AfO Archivfur Orien~forschung
Chapter 6: The Myth of the Empty Land ..................................................... 90 AHR American Historical Review
AHW SODEN, W. VON, Akkadisches Handwiirterbuch. Unter Benutzung des
6.1 Preliminary Remarks ........................................................................... 90
lexikalischen Nachlasses von B. Meissner, bearbeitet von ... B. 1-3.
6.2 The Biblical Evidence ......................................................................... 97 Wiesbaden, 1965-1981. B. I. Zweite, urn Hinweise auf die Nachtrage
6.3 The Archaeology of Judah During the "Exilic" Period .................. Ill vermehrte Auflage, 1985.
6.4 The Evidence from Transj ordan ....................................................... 117 ATONSup Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Supplemento
6.5 The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Judah .......................................... 121 AnBib Analecta Biblica
6.6 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 131 ANET Pritchard, J. B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. Princeton, New Jersey. 1950 and later editions.
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Chapter 7: Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period ....................................... 135
AOS American Oriental Series
7.1 Background ........................................................................................ 135 ArOr Archfv Orientdlnf
7.2 The Archaeology of Neo-Babylonian Judah ................................... 140 ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research
7.3 The Neo-Babylonian Empire ............................................................ 144
BAlAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society
7.4 Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Economy .......................................... 149
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
7.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 158 BAS OR Bulletin of the A me ric an Schools of Oriental Research
EBB Bonner Biblische Beitrage
Sources and Acknowledgements ................................................................ 161 BEATJ Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bibliography ................................................................................................ 163 Bib Biblica
BN Biblische Notizen
Author Index ................................................................................................ 201 BO Bibliotheca orienta/is
BSA Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture
Source Index ................................................................................................ 208 BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Subject Index ............................................................................................... 211
Chicago. Chicago, 1956-
CAH The Cambridge Ancient History. Second edition. Cambridge, 1991-
CANE Civilizations r~fthe Ancient Near East. Ed. J. M. SASSON. Vols 3 and 4.
Peabody, Massachusetts, 2000.
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
XII Abbreviations Abbreviations XIII
CHI The Cambridge History of Judaism. Eds. W. D. DAVIES [and] L. OBO Orbis Biblicus et Oriental is
FINKELSTEIN. Vol I. Introduction. The Persian Period. Cambridge, 1984. OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
CM Cuneiform Monographs DEANE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Prepared Under
ConBOT Coniectanea Bib1ica. Old Testament Series the Auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Editor in chief,
CQ Classical Quarterly E. M. MEYERS. Vols. 1-5. New York, 1997.
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Eds. K. VANDER TOORN, B. OLP Orientalia lovaniensia periodica
BECK!NG, and P. W. VANDER HORST. Leiden, 1995. OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
DTT Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Or Orientalia
OTL Old Testament Library
ESHM European Seminar in Historical Methodology OTS Oudtestamentische studien
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neues Testaments pp Past & Present
HANES History of the Ancient Near East. Studies RA Revue d'Assyriologie et d'arrheologie orientale
HdA Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft RB Revue biblique
HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik REG Revue des etudes grecques
HSM Harvard Semitic Monogaphs RHPR Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies RHR Revue de l'histoire des religions
HT History and Theory RivB Rivista biblica
RStFen Rivista di Studi Fenici
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Vol. 1-, Berlin, 1932-
/rAnt Iranica antiqua RN Revue numismatique
JA Journal asiatique SAA State Archives of Assyria
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Colombia University SAAS State Archives of Assyria. Studies
lAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient World.
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature, Semeia Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages SH Scripta Hierosolymitana
JQR The Jewish Quarterly Review SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East (continuation of
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament SHANE)
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series SHANE Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East.
ISS Journal of Semitic Studies SlOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
ITS Journal of Theological Studies so Symbolae Osloenses
SSN Studia semitica neerlandica
KVR Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe SWBA The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series
LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies TA Tel Aviv
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
M/0 Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orientforschung Trans Transeuphratene
TRev Theologiscche Revue
NedTTs Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift TRu Theologische Rundschau
NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land.
Eds. E. STERN, A. LEWINSON-GILBOA, J. AVIRAM. Vols. 1-4. New York, UF Ugarit-Forschungen
1993. UTB.W Uni-Taschenbticher ftir Wissenschaft
XIV Abbreviations
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
wo Die Welt des Orients
Chapter 1
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
History and the Hebrew Bible
YOS Yale Oriental Series
ZAW Zeitschriftfiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Paliistina-Vereins 1.1 Background
The much debated crisis in history appears "finally" to have reached also
biblical studies. The most important question seems to be whether or not it
is possible to write a history of ancient Israel on the basis of Old Testa
ment historiography. The matter may, quite shortly, be illustrated through
the following development:
In the article on "History" in the 2. ed. of Encycloptedia Britannica,
which appeared during the years 1777-1783, the biblical Book of Genesis
may still be regarded as the historians' most important source for how the
world came into existence. Here, the following arguments for the dating of
the earth (which is exactly 6096 years old) are typical: " ... the whole ac
count of the creation rests on the truth of the Mosaic history; and which we
must of necessity accept, because we can find no other which does not
abound with the grossest absurdities, or lead us into absolute darkness. The
Chinese and Egyptian pretensions to antiquity are so absurd and ridiculous,
that the bare reading must be a sufficient confutation of them to every rea
sonable person. Some historians and philosophers are inclined to discredit
the Mosaic accounts, from the appearances of volcanoes, and other natural
phaenomena: but their objections are by no means sufficient to invalidate
the authority of the sacred writings ... "1
Since then, not only have historians stopped using the Bible as a major
historical source, but we have also been witnessing a development where
so to speak every new generation of authors of that particular scholarly
genre most commonly referred to as "The History of ancient Israel" have
had their sources drastically curtailed.2 In good order biblical cosmogony,
1 Encyclopcedia Britannica, "History". Vol. 5 (1780), pp. 3649-88.
2 For a survey of the development of the study of history in the West, see BREISACH,
Historiography, 1994. See in particular the chapter on "The Eighteenth-Century Quest
for a New Historiography", pp. 199-227. On the Old Testament as the source for
Western historiography already in the Early Church, see same place, pp. 77-80.
BREISACH (p. 77) claims that the birth of a Christian historiography was much more
complex than the often referred to change from a cyclic to a linear view of historical
development. Notwithstanding the correctness of this claim, it is hardly possible anymore
to characterize Greek historiography as patterned on "the Great Cosmic Cycle of Plato
2 Chapter 1: History and the Hebrew Bible 1.2 The Recent History Debate 3
then Moses,3 then Abraham,4 and finally the Exodus event and the con what some scholars appear to believe, this has far from only to do with the
quest of Palestine5 all took leave of history. Typically, in the recent history impact of the modern social sciences and changes in political and social re
of ancient Israel by Miller and Hayes, both of whom must be regarded as alities. Rather, the new situation should be regarded as a fundamental at
belonging to the "conservative wing" of biblical scholarship, the authors tack on the ways in which we think about history.
take the view that, following the nature of the biblical sources, one cannot It is, of course, nothing new in itself to raise doubts about such "positiv
write a history of ancient Israel before the time of the monarchy.6 istic" notions as objectivity, historians' value freedom, primary and sec
Obviously the matter could not stop here, and what we are witnessing at ondary sources, the existence of a continuous history, historical truth, or
present is the beginning of the end of a history project which over the history as a science. Thus, it has for a long time sporadically been claimed
years has become more and more problematic. Elucidating symptoms of that there is a "crisis" in history. What is new, however, may be summar
this are clearly seen in recent books by Davies7 and Thompson,8 the former ized in the following way: I. The view that there is a crisis in conventional
claiming, among other things, that there was no united kingdom in ancient historiography has become "commonplace". 2. The whole question of his
Israel in the 11th century BCE, and that this is a creation of late Persian tory, historicity, historical consciousness, historical understanding, histori
times, whereas the latter attempts to write about ancient Israel without us cism, and historiography has been radicalized through the work of so
ing the Bible as an historical source at all. Thompson, too, argues that the called "post-modern" theorists.
idea "Israel" was created in late Persian times. Whether your name was Leopold von Ranke or Fernand Braude! it was
Against the background of the development which I have, very briefly, always a hermeneutical presupposition, shared by "all" historians to the
outlined above, it appears that it is now time to ponder a little on what it is present day, that the historian can understand the past. Thinkers like I.
°
that is going on in biblical studies? Before we do this, however, some con Kant, 1 F. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, H.-G. Gadamer, P. Ricceur, J. Derrida,
sideration should be given to recent developments in the academic history R. Barthes, M. Foucault, J.-F. Lyotard, and J. Baudrillard, have made the
debate in general. very nature of such an understanding problematic, or even denied its possi
bility. In its most radical form the post-modernist attack on history repre
sents a rejection of history altogether, including also the so-called "new
1.2 The Recent History Debate history". 11
Whereas Heidegger and Gadamer still stressed the relationship between
What above all characterises the present "state of the art" is that the old the concrete interpretation of a part of something and the meaning universe
models of historical science that have dominated historical scholarship within which the actual interpretation takes place, "post-modernist" think
from the 19th, and at least through the first half of the 20th century, by ers have gone much further in their critique. Especially French theorists
most theoreticians today are regarded as inadequate.9 Quite contrary to have attacked "The Great Story" altogether and denied the existence of a
"meta-story" which allegedly constitutes our horizon for understanding
and other philosophers" (BREISACH, same place). Compare the following statements by and which brings subject and object, the understander and the understood,
DE ROMILLY in: The Rise and Fall (1977), p. 9: "If there is, then, a pattern in history for together. In its most radical form the post-modernist critique has given a
the Greeks, it is but the recurrent pattern of rise and fall." And: "The cyclic pattern has new meaning to the old discussion about objectivity. There can be no ob
been grossly overestimated" (the grounds are given on pp. 9-18). jectivity because there is no object "the past" against which one can judge
3 See typically GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit, 1913. Cf. also more recent books
like: COATS, Moses, 1988, and VAN SETERS, The Life of Moses, 1994. On the history of
research of the Pentateuch, see, for instance, HOUTMAN, Der Pentateuch, 1994. APPLEBY, HUNT, and JACOB, Telling the Truth about History (1994), pp. 198-237 and
4 Well known studies are THOMPSON, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, passim, and in IGGERS, Historiography in the Twentieth Century, 1997. A more theoreti
1974, and VAN SETERS, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975. cal work is BERKHOFER, Beyond the Great Story, 1995.
5 Most thoroughly LEMCHE, Early Israel, 1985. 10 The role of KANT as one of the "founding fathers" of post-modernism is sometimes
6 MILLER and HAYES, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (1986), pp. 77-9. overlooked. For KANT's views on history, see the survey in WHITE, Metahistory (1993)
7 DAVIES, In Search of "Ancient Israel", 1992. 55-8. On the relevance of KANT for the view of history in French post-modernism, see
8 THOMPSON, Early History of the Israelite People, 1992. also LYOTARD, "The Sign of History", in: Post-Structuralism and the Question a_{ History
9 The bibliography in this field is vast, and it is not possible to refer to but a small (1993), pp. 162-80.
part of it here (there are some references to the post-modern debate also in chapter 2 be 11 For various forms of the "new history", see also New Perspectives on Historical
low). Easily accessible surveys of recent developments in history theory are found in Writing. Ed. BURKE, 1991.
4 Chapter 1: History and the Hebrew Bible 1.2 The Recent History Debate 5
the different interpretations. And even if we do not have to deny altogether sent a striking contrast to the "end of history" claims of recent theorists. 14
the existence of a given past, we must realise that we have no access to it. Not only has history not ended, but what we are facing today is rather an
History writing, in other words, is impossible. ever increasing flow of "histories" of all sorts. As for theoretical studies
The consequence of the crisis in hermeneutics for the historian is obvi there has been a veritable explosion in the production of books and arti
ous.12 We do not always have to agree with the philosophers, but we can cles. Not bad indeed for a field of studies which is supposed to be dead!
not pretend that there is not a problem here. This is particularly true in the One of the stranger phenomena here is that the overwhelming majority of
case of students of the Hebrew Bible who are, after all, dealing with texts these books and articles deal with the relationship to history of those the
which are more than two thousand years old! orists who have claimed that there is no history. 15
Closely associated with the crisis in hermeneutics is the impact of lingu Yet, we should take the philosophers' claim of a dichotomy between
istics and literary theory on modern historiography ("the linguistic turn"). 13 language and reality seriously. Even if we do not accept everything, it re
In particular, thinkers like Derrida, Ricreur, and Barthes have stressed the mains a fact that we have too often overlooked quite a few of the problems
autonomous character of the text and claimed that texts do not refer to any raised in "post-modernist" discussions. What should come out of it, is, at
reality outside themselves. least, an increased methodological awareness of what it is that we are actu
Historians are text readers and have to deal with the hermeneutic prob ally doing when we make simplistic statements concerning textual refer
lem that no text (= historical source) can be understood the way it was ence and historical reality.
"originally" meant. And even if they should have been able to This takes us to the next, and to the historian of ancient Israel the per
"understand" their sources, which they are not, these textual sources of the haps most important, recent development in history theory: The question
past, again, do not refer to any past reality outside themselves. Historians of historical "truth" and the relationship between history and literature.
are also text producers, writing texts which, in turn, cannot refer to any From ancient times philosophers have been stressing the difference be
reality outside themselves. According to some theorists, then, there is no tween history (fact) and literature (fiction). Since the rise of scientific
connection at all between modern history writing and the past which history in Germany in the late 18th and early 19th centuries the distinction
historians believe that they are referring to. The past as an object will be between fact (=true) and fiction (=not true) has been the chief mainstay
read quite differently by each new generation of historians. It has, of all history writing.16 Recently, scholars like R. Barthes, H. White, and
however, fairly little to do with past reality "as it really was". The radical N. Davis, 17 influenced by recent developments in literary theory and genre
consequence of this must, again, be the "end of history". research have seriously questioned the strict distinction between history
The so-called "linguistic tum" has led to drastic developments during the writing and fiction.18 History writing represents just another story, but it
last 20 years or so and represents yet another radical attack on the possi cannot be more "true", only "different".
bility of history writing in the traditional meaning.
All this, however, has not stopped history writing or writing about hist
14 Typically, in his article "Historiography and Postmodernism", in HT 28 (1989),
ory. On the contrary, despite much frustration, the enormous amount of ANKERSMIT takes as his starting point the overproduction in recent historiography.
books which have appeared in the train of the post-modernist debate repre- 15 See typically Foucault and the Writing of History. Ed. GOLDSTEIN, 1994.
16 This, of course, does not mean that the truth value of history has not been in stormy
weather before. We may, for instance, think of NIETZSCHE's views on history (above all
in his Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie from 1873). And as early as in 1921,
12 A good survey of the situation, written by an historian, is found in BERKHOFER, LESSING claimed, in his book Geschichte als Sinngebung des Sinnlosen, that all history
Beyond The Great Story, 1995. writing is mythical and that historians want to create a hope for the future rather than to
13 See on this also chapter 2, below. See for a short survey IGGERS, Geschichtswissen reconstruct past reality. Since then, discussions about truth and the possibility of a scien
schaft (1993) 87-96. For a more thorough survey, see BERKHOFER, Beyond The Great tific history have been on the agenda with varying intensity. Cf. the surveys in IGGERS,
Story, 1995. One of the most important vehicles for this new and radical development has New Directions (1984), pp. 3-42, and in BREISACH, Historiography (1983), pp. 326-36.
been the journal History and Theory. For the history of the journal during its first 16 Cf. also chapter 2 below, passim.
years, see VANN, "Turning Linguistic", in: A New Philosophy of History (1995) 40-69. 17 Cf. for a very short survey IGGERS, Geschichtswissenschaft (1993), pp. 87-8.
The label "linguistic" is, of course, not wholly adequate for a description of what has IH It is not without a certain irony that we recollect the Rankean ideal for history
been going on in the postmodernist discussion. The "turn" has as much to do with textu writing which put a lot of weight upon the ability to write elegantly and rhetorically
ality, interpretation, and rhetoric as with linguistics. Apparently, the fact that also histori when describing the past, and how imagination was considered as the historian's most
ans read texts has taken a long time to dawn upon some practitioners in the field. important tool. It is mostly forgotten today that THEODOR MOMMSEN in 1902, one year
6 Chapter I: History and the Hebrew Bible 1.2 The Recent History Debate 7
The most radical consequence of this "genre neutralization" would, fundamental significance for what they are actually doing in their daily
again, be the "end of history". This, however, appears not to be the case, at work.
last not for the majority of scholars. 19 What has happened, though, is that The way the situation is today implies that historians simply cannot pre
we are now facing a completely new situation concerning the question of tend anymore that nothing has happened. Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob sum
historical truth. Future studies must start from the presumption that "truth" up the situation to the point: "In the nineteenth-century sense, there is no
on the one side and "fiction" on the other is not a valid distinction scientific history, nor is there even scientific science. But it is possible to
anymore. In other words: What is at stake here is the belief in a scientific know some things more rather than less truly. In their respective realms,
and analytic history, modelled on the sciences, which, precisely, is what both history and science seek to do that. Given the issues about truth and
history has mostly been about up till the last 20 years or so. relativism that have been raised late in this century, historians cannot pre
Can we, as biblical scholars and historians of ancient Israel, allow our tend that it is business as usual. It is essential to rethink the understanding
selves to disregard the developments in history theory which I have, very of truth and objectivity" .22
shortly, outlined above? I should think not. As we know, historians have, Precisely the "But it is possible to know some things more rather than
as a rule, not engaged themselves in philosophical questions.20 This has less truly" is rather important here.23 Much contemporary theory has been
now started to change. Whereas theory was formerly the field of philo accused of scepticism or nihilism. What we need now is a healthy rela
sophers and a few theorists (more often than not within the field of literary tivism with a multi-methodological approach to history. There is no one
theory) today historians, too, point to the necessity of taking also epis method for historical studies any more, but a multitude of different
temological and ontological presuppositions into some consideration. 21 strategies. Pluralism in methodology is final. With the end of scientific
Even if we cannot really talk of any real consensus, at least not yet, there history, it follows that there are also several "truths". 24
can be little doubt that some historians today have realised that the Summing up so far we can say that the most important thing which has
situation has changed completely and that philosophical questions come out of the radicalization of thinking about history during the last 20-
concerning historiography and historical truth cannot any longer be 30 years is not that "history has ended" or that history writing has been
separated from the very task of history writing itself, but are of made impossible. Despite the (quite necessary) post-modernist defiance,
history still does not want to tell any story about the past, it wants to tell
the most likely story, to account for the reality of what happened in the
before his death, received the Nobel Prize in literature for his historical works! This past. What is at stake here is that history, on the whole, has become much
strikes one as even more remarkable when we take into consideration that MOMMSEN's more problematic. This should, however, be regarded as a necessary devel
pioneering work represents a scholarly transition from a more literary aesthetic approach opment, which demands of historians to take, at least a practical, interest
to historiography to a strongly positivistic and analytical one. Cf. DEMANDT, "Theodor also in epistemological and ontological questions.25 The post-modernist
Mommsen, 1817-1903", Neue Deutsche Biographie 18 (1996), p. 26. The difference
challenge cannot simply be ignored. In the long run this will lead to stale
between the 19th century German historians and recent historians, of course, is that
whereas the "stories" of the former were regarded as providing their readers with direct antiquarianism.
access to an historical past, the "stories" of the latter have, according to quite a few
theorists, nothing to do with the past.
19 Even WHITE, who has been accused of being one of the foremost proponents for 22 APPLEBY, HUNT, and JACOB, Telling the Truth about History (1994), p. 194.
"the end of history movement" has himself made it quite clear that he is not the radical 23 One may easily be given the impression that contemporary theoreticians are all
sceptic he has been taken to be: "I have never denied that knowledge of history, culture, "sceptics". This, of course, is not the case. For a defence of objectivity and authorial in
and society was possible; I have only denied that a scientific knowledge, of the sort actu tention, see e.g. MCCULLAGH, "Can Our Understanding of Old Texts be Objective?" HT
ally attained in the study of physical nature, was possible. But I have tried to show that, 30 (1991 ), pp. 302-23. Cf. also the remark further below on narrative historiography, as
even if we cannot achieve a properly scientific knowledge of human nature, we can well as the discussion in chapter 2, below.
achieve another kind of knowledge about it, the kind of knowledge which literature and 24 BERKHOFER, Beyond the Great Story ( 1995), p. 50, refers to "the fallacy of a single
art in general give us in easily recognizable examples". The quotation is taken from right or best interpretation".
Tropics of Discourse (1992), p. 23. 25 If only to cope with one's own feeling of being at loss vis-a-vis too much relativism
°
2 Cf. RICCEUR The Reality of the Historical Past (1984 ), p. 3. or scepticism. Easily accessible introductions to the realism debate, by philosophers who
21 Cf. the statement by BERKHOFER in: Beyond the Great Story (1995), p. 257: "In the are also "happy" realists, are: DEVITT, Realism and Truth (1991), and FARRELL, Subjec
end, any textualization, any discourse, any scholar must make some commitment about tivity, Realism, and Postmodernism (1994). These problems are also touched upon in
what is real, what is fictional, and what is hypothetical in a represented world". chapter 2, below.