Old Testament Historical Books

Summer 2002

History and Historiographical Issues

For a good discussion of these issues, see David Howard, Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books, 23-58.

Historiography

--“The writing of History.” The study of the techniques of historical research and historical writing, method of major historians. A body of historical writing. The science/discipline of recording events.

--Western Assumptions of History Writing

–Chronological—Western history writing assumes that all events are recorded in chronological order without major omissions or changing of events. A thematic or theologically-based history, on the other hand, may well rearrange events that have the same or related theological import, or to contrast theological points.

–Systematic—Western history writing assumes that the only goal of history writing is the passing along of “historical events.”

--This is not the norm for most history writing through the ages (even modern histories!), which is normally formatted toward a particular worldview or selective group of people.

–Objective—Western history writing considers something “historical” if it is verifiable, normally by an “eyewitness.” Thus, modern histories are replete with reference to contemporary accounts.[1]

--History writing is actually both exclusive (chosen by a particular group of people) and interpretive (written from a particular point of view).

--G. Orwell, 1984:

Who controls the past, controls the future:

Who controls the present controls the past.

--The American Heritage Dictionary definition of “historiography”[2] betrays the biased (and probably faulty) presuppositions of modern history writing.

1. The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation.

2. The writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism.

3. A body of historical literature.

--By this definition, biblical history would qualify as historiography only marginally, since only historical writing that is critical and scholarly qualifies as historiography. (See further below.)

--Scholars might divide historical and biblical events like this.

--A “Historical Event” is a happening or occurrence that is empirical objective, with verifiable facts. Verifiable facts might include archeological data or concurrent historical writings.

--A “Biblical Event” a faith event, an event of revelation, an event that has been interpreted so as to have meaning. A “Biblical Event” is not necessarily unhistorical, but it is fundamentally different from a “Historical Event.” These study notes will return to the suggested conflict between “biblical” and “historical” events after a discussion of history itself.

--What is History?

--History exists on at least three levels[3]:

1. The “Facts”—This refers to the actual things that happened, i.e. what Joshua actually did, where he went, what happened.

2. The Account/Record of the Facts—The Book of Joshua records what Joshua actually did. The OT historical books are this type of history, although sometimes they are also #3 below.

3. The Study of the Facts/Accounts—

a. Interpretation of what happened—Biblical writers & Modern writers do this.

Modern history study often involves the study of the facts

b. Interpretation of the records. Modern students of the Bible

& modern historians study the accounts of the facts. The OT Historical Books are sometimes this as well (some would say exclusively), i.e. they used sources and they interpreted the events for their readers.

--Are the Historical Books History?

--The Question of Historicity--Is the Biblical Account Trustworthy as history? How we answer this question will affect how we interpret the OT Historical Books. If these authors claim the basic historicity of the events they recorded, then I believe that we should accept the basic historicity of the accounts.

I choose not to reduce the biblical accounts to nothing but meaningless tradition, myth, and fable.

--The Question of Evidence-- What if no other evidence exists?

§Conquest of cities—Some cities listed as conquered have not revealed destructions at the time of Joshua, either in the 15^th or 13^th century.

§David/Solomon’s Reign—There is very little evidence of the existence of David and Solomon’s kingdoms, either in archaeology or outside written records (in fact, only one or two references to David outside the Bible have been found).

The lack of evidence for an event does not mean that the event did not happen. It simply means that there is a lack of evidence (contra the Minimalists).[4]

--The Question of Inaccuracies-- What if there are inaccuracies?

§City Names—Pithom & Ramses in Exodus in comparison with the 480 years of 2 Kings 6:2. Are the names anachronistic, or do they represent the time of the exodus?

§Numbers & Dates—480 in 1 Kings 6:2 & 300 years in Judges vs. adding up the lengths of wilderness, judges, David, etc.

§Reigns of Kings—Some of the reigns do not seem to match, when the chronologies in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are compared. The struggle for harmonization is particularly true with reference to the reign of Hezekiah.[5] A perusal of various histories of ancient Israel will show the disagreement that, though small in years, is extensive.

With years of oral, then written, records some details would certainly get confused. Furthermore, 21^st century readers do not always know the frame of reference for the biblical history writing, e.g. overlapping of career of judges, fall vs. spring new year for coronation, and co-regencies of kings.

--Purpose of OT Historical Books

Not to reveal History…to reveal God!

--The OT Historical Books do, however, reveal history as well. While the primary intent of the biblical record might be to present God’s actions, the OT historical books certainly do reveal history. Howard (and many others) argues that the key ingredient to history writing is intent. If the author intended to write history, then it is history. Even most modern histories are found to contain errors or inconsistencies, but they are not thereby considered non-histories. Thus, the OT historical books certainly qualify as history.[6] The authors/editors present the material as historical and this professor will choose to accept the biblical record as true, although even this assertion of truth requires interpretation at many points.

However, it is history with a purpose. This discussion leads to a brief excursus into Gerhard von Rad’s view of OT history.

--Von Rad on OT History and Theology

--Gerhard von Rad was one of the most influential OT scholars of the 20^th century. Even in the 21^st century, scholars and preachers regularly reference several of his commentaries and monograph length works. His most abiding work, however, is certainly his 2-volume work, Old Testament Theology.[7] He argued, “In principle Israel’s faith is grounded in a theology of history. It regards itself as based upon historical acts, and as shaped and re-shaped by factors in which it saw the hand of Jahweh at work.”[8]

Von Rad then spent several pages discussing the contrast of two very different histories: that remembered by Israel and that reconstructed by modern critical scholarship. Although he argued that the reader of the OT must be reconciled to both pictures of history, he stated that the critical history is “rational and objective,” while the other is “confessional and personally involved in the events to the point of fervor.” Thus, the former “constructs a critical picture of the history as it really was in Israel.” The modern historian searches for “a critically assured minimum,” while the kerygmatic (as he called the confessional record of the history) “tends toward a theological maximum.” Despite this seemingly negative assessment of the biblical record, von Rad struggled with the relationship of the two histories. Thus he stated, “It would not do, however, simply to explain the one picture as historical and other as unhistorical. The kerygmatic picture too is founded in the actual history and has not been invented.”[9]

Von Rad also noted the difficulty presented by the long development of the biblical record of Israel’s history. A variety of traditional materials were incorporated into what became the Pentateuch (Hexateuch for von Rad) and the Deuteronomistic History. Unfortunately, as these traditions were incorporated into a whole, von Rad correctly noted that the new “reference and interpretation” of the traditions was in most cases “foreign to their original meaning.” Further complicating the matter is that each generation tended to add its own traditions to the already existing records of the events. The new records sometimes complicated the older accounts, sometimes even seemingly contradicting them (as in the two accounts of creation). Modern historians seek to dismantle the layers of the history, but these critics must be aware that the Chronicler never distinguished his presentation of the historical events from that of the Deuteronomist, even though the presentations often differ radically.[10]

While the reader might see von Rad as talking from both sides of his mouth, so to speak, that reader should probably be much more sympathetic with von Rad’s plight. Von Rad was seeking to maintain the value of the OT record, even for its historical worth, while also remaining faithful to his modern critical training.

--“Historie” & “Geschichte”—Technical terms in historiography.

--Historie refers to the bare facts, the simple recording of historical events. Historie professes to be objective. In other words, this is history without bias, w/o prejudice, w/o interpretation.

--Geschichte refers to the interpretation of history. This is the interpretation of the historical facts. It is recognized as subjective. The prejudices & biases of the writer is brought to bear on the events of history.

--Are the OT Historical Books Historie & Geschichte? Or both?

--They are historie because they certainly do record many historical events. Only a small minority of scholars believes that no reliable historical events are recorded in the OT historical books, although some believe that nothing reliable is contained prior to Omri/Ahab in the 9^th century. These books do contain historical events that the reader can trust.

--They are geschichte because they certainly do interpret those events. And the student must see this. The “conquest” by Joshua was simply not as decisive as the Book of Joshua presents it. They won some battles, but they conquered very little land and struggled to hold onto what they captured. The Book of Judges shows this to be true.

--In his Old Testament Theology, von Rad quoted from Kasemann’s discussion of the record of the historical Jesus in the New Testament documents.

The transmission of relatively probable facts does not as such in the least establish historical communication or continuity…. Only in this way can the fact be understood that [early Christianity] did not compose the Gospels primarily as reports and that her own kerygma practically overgrew and covered the picture of the historical Jesus…. The community did not just absent-mindedly or foolishly amalgamate its own message with that of its Lord, or even refer the former to the latter…. In acting as it does, the community attests past history (Geschichte) as alive and present. It interprets what had become even for itself history (Historie) in the light of its own experience, and to do this it uses the medium of its preaching…. For history (Historie) does not become historically (geschichtlich) important through tradition as such, but through interpretation: not through the simple assertion of facts as such, but through the understanding of events of the past which have become objective and lifeless in the form of facts.[11]

This quotation makes much the same point that von Rad has made, that the modern critic must take seriously the historical “facts” of the biblical report, while at the same time recognize that the material was collected and transmitted through kerygmatic means.

Heilsgeschichte

--Salvation-history—This really is what the OT historical books record (& the Pentateuch). They record the history of God revealing himself in history through the election of Israel, the saving of Israel, and the placing of Israel in the land, as well as the subsequent removal of Israel from the land because of their sins.

--Sources used in the Historical Books—

1. Oral Sources/Tradition

--Prophetic Words, i.e. the historical materials in Isaiah & Jeremiah.

--Family stories, i.e. tribal history.

--Religious tradition

2. Written Sources

--Book of Jashar (Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18)

--Book of the annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)

--Book of the annals of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19, passim)

--Book of the annals of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29, passim)[12]

--Sources used in modern study of Biblical History—

1. OT Historical Books

2. Archaeology

--Material finds, i.e. destruction, changes in habitation patterns

--Written finds, esp. outside Palestine

3. Literary Criticism—This may include rhetorical, ethnographic, source, redaction, tradition-history, or other approaches to studying the ancient text. This course will use a variety of approaches, hopefully building an eclectic approach to the text.

Summary

The student should not ignore the disparity between “biblical history” and “modern critical history.” However, neither should he or she take this to mean that the Bible does not contain authentic historical data. While conservative scholars tend to be overly dismissive of the difficulties, with statements such as “archaeological evidence indicates that the historical data is (sic) accurate and reliable.”[13] Such a statement is inaccurate, as it ignores contrasting, and even conflicting, data throughout the archaeological record. Furthermore, Paul House’s reference after the above quote to Bright is disingenuous, if not fraudulent, since on the same page Bright wrote, “The archaeological evidence is not at all points unambiguous.”[14] Nevertheless, archaeological and historical data can objectively support much of the OT historical narrative, even if most details cannot be proven. In fact, despite arguments to the contrary, such evidence is expanding.[15] Such evidence, however, will likely always remain ambiguous. Biblical history was written to record history, but also to proclaim God’s truth through, in, and beyond that history. The latter purpose tends to overshadow the former, making biblical history suspect to the modern historian. Students of the Bible must recognize the tension between “historical fact” and “theological truth” and allow that tension to challenge, inspire, and instruct the reader.

---

[1] An example of history written according to western, modern assumptions is Michael Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Presidio Press, 2003).

[2] Access online at www.dictionary.com, on June 26, 2006.

[3] See David M. Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), 29.

[4] For a discussion of these issues see Finkelstein and Silbermann, The Bible Unearthed, and Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It. For the arguments as they relate to Jerusalem, see Ann Killebrew and Andrew G. Vaughn, eds., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), esp. the essays of Jane Cahill, Margreet Steiner, Israel Finkelstein, and David Ussishkin.

[5] For a thorough, though debated, analysis of the reigns of the kings see Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.

[6] Howard, 29-30.

[7] Originally published as Theologie des Alten Testaments; BD I, Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Uberlieferungen Israels, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1957 and BD II, Die Theologie der prophetischen Uberlieferungen Israels, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1960. They were translated as Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., trans. D. M. G. Stalker, New York: Harper & Row, 1962, 1965.

[8] Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, 106.

[9] Ibid., 107-108.

[10] Ibid., 118-119.

[11] E. Kasemann, “Das Problem des historischen Jesus,” Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche (1954), 129-130; quoted in von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, 119.

[12] See Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 193, for a good brief discussion of these sources.

[13] R. Paul House, “Old Testament Historians,” in Historians of the Christian Tradition: Their Methodology and Influence on Western Thought, ed. Michael Bauman and Martin I. Klauber, 3-38 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 18.

[14] John Bright, A History of Israel, Second Ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 127. Furthermore, Bright was only discussing the Joshua narrative, not the history of Israel in general. In fact, in the third edition (1981), Bright added, “we have no means of testing the veracity of the Joshua narrative in detail.”

[15] For example, the latest issue of Biblical Archaeological Review included an article that pushes the beginning of significant settlement in Edom back to the 14^th or 13^th century, increasing the likelihood of early Israel’s contact with the Edomites. Thomas E. Levy and Mohammad Najjar, “Edom and Copper: The Emergence of Ancient Israel’s Rival,” BAR (July/August 2006).