![Sample our Information Science journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5940/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Communication-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This series of articles covers scholarly works in English which can, at least potentially, be associated with a generally positive view of biblical historicity regarding periods preceding the Israelites’ return from exile. Part 2 covers works that treat the methodological issues at the center of the maximalist–minimalist debate. Parts 3–5 will cover works on evidences.
This article completes the coverage, begun in the preceding article, of works that are neither maximalist nor minimalist, by treating select publications of Anthony J. Frendo, Nadav Na’aman, Israel Finkelstein, Andrew G. Vaughn, Baruch Halpern, Robert D. Miller II, and H. G. M. Williamson.
It then discusses works on methodology by authors who espouse biblical historicity unless it is proven wrong, who are often called maximalists. It introduces these through the comments of Craig G. Bartholomew, then treats select works by Kenneth A. Kitchen, Jens Bruun Kofoed, Richard E. Averbeck, Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, and James K. Hoffmeier.
Acknowledgments
I dedicate this article to the memory of Gordon D. Young (1936–2012) and to the memory of Joseph Haberer (1929–2013), my dear faculty colleagues at Purdue University. I also gratefully acknowledge Purdue University's Dean of Libraries, James L. Mullins, granting me six months’ sabbatical leave during 2009 to conduct research for the bibliographic essay that this series of articles comprises. Most appreciative thanks to the JRTI scholars who commented on this article. The author bears sole responsibility for all of its flaws and shortcomings.
© Lawrence J. Mykytiuk
Notes
1. Preceding articles in this single-author series, which are in this same journal, are: “Strengthening Part 1” (2010) and “Strengthening Part 2.1” (2012).
2. Among this article series’ select treatments of methodology since 2008 are works by Anthony J. Frendo, Nadav Na’aman, and Israel Finkelstein.
Anthony J. Frendo's Pre-Exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact (2011) is a reflective work that traces a path through conflicting views. Its opening chapters specify the distinctions between archaeology and history but emphasize their very close relationship as two sides of the same coin. Both “offer data to the scholar which need to be interpreted correctly for facts to be established” (25). Vis-à-vis minimalism, Frendo establishes the major point that relating biblical and archaeological evidence “without confusing one with the other is a must. … Nothing short of all the available evidence must be seriously taken into account” (7). Also, rather than following some minimalists in requiring near-absolute proof in order to regard a historical event as true, the book recognizes the need not only for logic, but also for “prudence and common sense in order to reach truth” (99). Therefore, “it is impossible to eliminate the personal element” (99). In chapter 7, investigation of an example in the book of Joshua demonstrates that “some things about ancient Israel can be known with a high degree of probability and that therefore historical relativism is untenable” (102). Also, the use of a historical narrative for the purpose of propaganda “does not mean that whenever we find elements of propaganda in the narratives of ancient Israel we are dealing with fiction” (102). Further, “later traditions can contain old and authentic historical information” (103), and, as unexpected archaeological discoveries have shown, “the fact that no archaeological evidence supports a given biblical text does not mean that such a text is to be automatically viewed as untrustworthy. The reliability of a text should be established via other means, such as that of historical criticism” (103). At its most basic level, Frendo observes that “the debate between the so-called maximalists and minimalists centres on whether one accepts that we can know the truth about the past, albeit imperfectly, or whether one endorses the self-defeating assumption of relativism and scepticism” (104). Still, he finds good and bad historians among minimalists and non-minimalists, which he feels is a better distinction than which position a scholar favors (105). | |||||
Although Nadav Na’aman does not usually publish on theory per se, his book chapter, “Does Archaeology Really Deserve the Status of a ‘High Court’ in Biblical Historical Research?” (2011), addresses a theoretical question. (The next section below concerns Israel Finkelstein's reply.) Na’aman begins by tracing the developments that reasonably led “many biblical scholars” (166) to rely increasingly on archaeology as “scientific” and to regard biblical texts with growing uncertainty or mistrust as sources of reliable historical data (165–166). Thus, he explains conditions favoring the rise of minimalism. | |||||
While acknowledging the value of archaeology, Na’aman goes on to present instances in which it seems advisable to reject the primacy of archaeology as a source of data for the history of ancient Israel. He examines “a series of test-cases in which the documentary evidence disagrees with the results of the archaeological research. In the light of this comparison, … [he points out some] circumstances in which the archaeological research is quite limited and should be treated with great caution” (162, emphasis mine), namely, multi-layered highland sites. | |||||
His six test-cases begin with the fourteenth century B.C.E. Amarna letters compared with archaeology at four cities in the land of Canaan, including Jerusalem. Next come cases comparing other ancient texts and archaeological results regarding Jerusalem in three later periods, then Gibeah of Benjamin, and finally Bethel. All involve wide discrepancies between textual accounts and archaeological discoveries—or their absence. | |||||
Na’aman's prime example of highland cities is “the old city of Jerusalem, which was built on terraces and settled for thousands of years, each new city resting its foundations on bedrock, destroying what had stood on it” (183). He concludes that “The old truth, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’, is particularly applicable for multi-layered highland sites and should always be taken into consideration” (183). “The discussion of the documents and the archaeological finding demonstrates the dangers of ignoring the limitations of either of these disciplines. Exclusive reliance on one of them alone can produce a distorted picture. Only the skilful [sic] use of both can lead to a balanced evaluation of the ancient reality” (183). | |||||
Israel Finkelstein understands archaeology to be “the only real-time witness to many of the events described in the biblical text” (“Digging” 19). In relation to the preceding section on Na’aman, his online article, “Archaeology as a High Court in Ancient Israelite History: A Reply to Nadav Na’aman” (2010, perhaps in response to a pre-publication copy of Na’aman's chapter) briefly defends what he feels is the proper preeminence of archaeological research by short replies to each of Na’aman's six test-cases mentioned above. This publication is useful for locating weaknesses and debatable points in Na’aman's examples. Ultimately it replies directly with only a single, carefully worded, closing sentence: “[W]hen solid data from well-excavated sites is compared to assumptions regarding the nature of biblical texts and their date of compilation, the former should prevail, at least until tested by new archaeological evidence or extra-biblical texts” (Finkelstein and Mazar Quest 7). It seems difficult to disagree with the general, abstract concept that “solid data” should prevail over what are characterized as mere “assumptions.” Not all of the texts Na’aman uses are biblical, so such assumptions are not always involved, yet Finkelstein appears to have neutralized each of the test-cases. But because the article focuses on those six cases, it bypasses potentially productive engagement with Na’aman's main point, which appears to be entirely reasonable. | |||||
In a 2005 colloquium with Amihai Mazar, Finkelstein presented his overall position at length. That colloquium appears in The Quest for the Historical Israel (2007). The first of Finkelstein's chapters in this book, “Digging for the Truth: Archaeology and the Bible,” spells out his overall approach to the question of the Bible as a source of historical data. | |||||
(Mazar's overall position appears in his first chapter, “On Archaeology, Biblical History, and Biblical Archaeology.” The content of this chapter does not appear in the section under his name in Mykytiuk, “Strengthening Part 2.1” 122–123. Mazar defends the concept of a “biblical archaeology” as archaeological research into the world of the Bible which maintains an essential relationship between artifact and biblical text. Without granting supremacy to archaeology for the history of ancient Israel and its neighbors, Mazar sees archaeology as a very valuable independent witness to that history and uses it as a control for discerning whether a biblical text is relevant. Despite the literary and ideological factors in the Bible, and despite the complex factors involved in the composition and transmission of the biblical text, Mazar provisionally holds to the potential for blocks of biblical material to be historically relevant and to preserve very early historical memories. For Mazar, the convergences between the Bible and royal inscriptions tend to confirm the general historical picture in the Deuteronomistic History for the ninth century—much of 1–2 Kings. Still, he finds that many intervening factors render the history revealed through the biblical text less and less clear as one attempts to view earlier and earlier periods.) | |||||
Finkelstein calls his own position “a voice from the center” (Finkelstein and Mazar Quest 9). He accepts the higher criticism founded on the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) as modified since its nineteenth-century formulations. He also accepts a revised form of Noth's hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History (i.e., the overall compositional unity of Joshua through 2 Kings). He sees the Anglo-American biblical archaeology of the twentieth century as a conservative attempt to rescue biblical studies from the higher criticism by archaeological research (as might seem justifiable based on the background of William F. Albright). Because it made the Bible central and relegated archaeology to a supportive role, Finkelstein understands it to have been a factor that contributed to stalling the development of archaeology in the Levant. He also describes the school of biblical minimalism in terms of its negative view of the Bible as a historical source and its positive view of the Bible's literary power. | |||||
Nevertheless, contra biblical minimalism, Finkelstein finds that within the Iron Age (which in the Levant enveloped 1000 to 500 B.C.E.), there is a remarkable convergence between the results of archaeological surveys and settlement studies, historical data found in extrabiblical inscriptions, and biblical traditions. He finds the lengthy geographical and administrative data in the Deuteronomistic History to be “unnecessary” (Finkelstein and Mazar Quest 15), in that they go far beyond what was needed in a concocted myth of national origins to fulfill the political function envisioned by minimalists (cf. Part 2.1 of this article series for a similar observation elaborated by E. W. Nicholson). Finkelstein also observes that linguist Avi Hurvitz showed that “much of the Deuteronomistic History is written in late-monarchic Hebrew, which is different from the Hebrew of post-exilic times” (14); this will be discussed in see the future Part 5 of this article series. Finally, the 1993 discovery of an Aramaic victory stele at Tel Dan which mentions “the house of David” using a common idiom “naming a state (Judah) after the founder of its ruling (or dominant) dynasty” struck “a major blow” to the minimalist school, which earlier had energetically contended for the non-existence of David and Solomon (14). Finkelstein's last chapter (Finkelstein and Mazar Quest 183–188) and Mazar's last chapter (Finkelstein and Mazar Quest 189–195) summarize more about their approaches. | |||||
3. Note that Vaughn's methodological views and Kitchen's (in On the Reliability) are the same on the first perception but opposed on the second.
4. This concept is set forth in Vaughn's earlier work, “Can We Write a History of Israel Today?” 368–385 (Its pre-publication title, which was replaced, was “How Can a History of Israel Be Theologically Relevant in a Post-Modern World?” mentioned in “Is Biblical Archaeology” 414 n. 13). In “Can We Write,” Vaughn credits and explicitly builds on Leo G. Perdue, The Collapse of History (1994), 264–265.
5. Vaughn also seems to suggest a cultural memory approach (cf. those in Mykytiuk “Strengthening, Part 2.1”) in saying, “the biblical writers were constantly reinterpreting past promises in order to have the old promises make sense in a new day and in a new social location” (“Is Biblical Archaeology” 430).
6. Cf. Mykytiuk “Strengthening Part 2.1” 114. Both chronological order and reverse chronological order can produce a rhetorical effect.
7. R. D. Miller “Yahweh and His Clio” 149.
8. Regarding Hayden White, see the sections on Kofoed and Long.
9. The term evangelical (which in English has an accent on the third syllable) signifies belief in the gospel, normally as set forth in the New Testament, or a person or group holding such belief. In a German context, the term evangelical (accent on the last syllable in German) refers to the state church in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church and thus signifies Protestant.
For a definition of the gospel, many Christians, including evangelicals, appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, which defines the essence of the gospel in the New Testament as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Emphatically, 1 Corinthians 15:12–19 goes on to inform readers that if the resurrection of Jesus were not an actual, historical event, Christian faith would be useless. Following in that general direction, encouraged by the New Testament presentation of Jesus’ own affirmations regarding the Bible, and deeply impressed by Jesus’ submission to it in fulfilling his mission, evangelicals generally tend to favor biblical historicity. | |||||
Although not all evangelical biblical scholars are maximalists, and not all maximalist scholars are evangelicals, there is substantial overlap between the two groups. For a sample list of publications of leading evangelical scholars and the recognition they have earned, see Hoffmeier “Open Letter.” | |||||
10. For example, regarding merely literary interpretation of purportedly referential historical texts, see the section on V. Philips Long below.
11. A book-length view of the theological imperative is set forth (e.g., in Wenham Christ and the Bible). Other works that support similar views of the Bible, which are termed high views, are J. I. Packer God Has Spoken, and Telford Work Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation.
Speaking of a few evangelical scholars who are theologically quite conservative, John Kelsay observes, “For these authors, there is no way around the notion that the texts in question are in some way ‘the word of the LORD’; this means, among other things, that the technical skills and findings associated with the modern historical-critical study of the Bible must be utilized in ways that honor the authoritative status of the texts” (“Foreword” to A History of Modern Scholarship on the Biblical Word Herem ii). | |||||
For an application of the above-mentioned views to the question of biblical historicity, see Long's discussion of the question, “If Jericho was not razed, is our faith in vain?” (Long Art 116–118). | |||||
12. Short of reading a large number of sometimes fragmentary texts written in more than one difficult ancient language, a useful, accessible resource for coming to understand ancient genres largely via English translations is Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible (2009). Sparks demonstrates sensitivity to nuances of genre in the literatures of the ancient Near East and tries to include as many as possible of the most important writings of the entire ancient Near East in each genre.
On another matter, although not all evangelicals, and certainly not all maximalists, hold to a doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the teaching that the original manuscripts of the Bible were without error, yet in some conservative circles which hold to this doctrine, it needs to be squared with the matter of interpreting according to ancient genres. See Hays “Inerrancy” 120–121. Approaching the Hebrew Bible in a manner which is culturally sensitive to its ancient way of writing history might conceivably be included in what Hays refers to as “fine tuning” in the context of clarifying the meaning or use of the terms inerrancy and inerrant as applied to the Bible (127–132). | |||||
13. Younger has a noteworthy quotation from Iggers and von Moltke which seems to improve the common translation of von Ranke's much-quoted phrase, “wie es eigentlich gewesen,” usually rendered in English as “as it actually occurred,” to a translation that was a possible alternative in the German language of von Ranke's day: “as it essentially occurred” (“Underpinnings” 312 n. 35, referring to Ranke Theory and Practice xix–xx). The fact that such a translation allows for generalization and approximation makes von Ranke's phrase not as easy to reject.
14. Hoffmeier “Evangelical Contribution” 77–82.
15. Kitchen's note 24 attached to the last word in (6), “data,” advises, “See, for an exemplary study … that by R. S. Hess, ‘Fallacies in the Study of Early Israel: An Onomastic Perspective,’ Tyn[dale] Bul[letin] 45 (1994): 339–54.”
16. For example, his 2002 dissertation opens by describing as “both inevitable and necessary” the minimalists’ deconstruction of the methodological foundations of the prior consensus of the Alt-Noth school and Albright school (Text and History ix, x, 4). Further, as Philip R. Davies has stated with apparent appreciation, Kofoed is “unusual” in that he “recognizes the validity of the minimalist option while insisting that a maximalist one is also reasonable” (Davies Memories 158). (Of course, any statement about validity has no relevance to the question of whether the assertion[s] under consideration is correct or true. “Validity” here only means that minimalism's own essential approach—and, yes, one can assert, tenets—do not violate the rules of logic. Further, validity tends to imply that minimalism, in its essence, is without internal contradiction.)
17. Kofoed wrote his dissertation, which opposes the views of Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson for being too skeptical, after he had participated in seminars led by Thompson and Lemche at the University of Copenhagen.
18. Cf. Anthony' J. Frendo's introductory comment that “the real crux of the problem of the emergence of ancient Israel lay not so much in adducing some new datum or in drawing up a solid synthesis of the puzzle, but in the various presuppositions (often diametrically opposed) with which scholars approached the subject … the first principles, assumptions, axioms, and pre-understanding with which scholars approached both the relevant archaeological and biblical data. It was therefore also a problem of how to correlate textual and archaeological evidence in a methodical manner.” (Frendo Pre-Exilic Israel ix).
Kofoed goes on to state that his methodological approach “means, however, that this study cannot stand alone. The thesis cannot be further substantiated until case studies and analytically-oriented research have been done. We need new methodologically-conscious case studies on the books of Kings and other apparently historical books of the Hebrew Bible” (Text and History 247). Midway through the book, Kofoed says, “What we do not need … are histories that do not present to the readers a full discussion of the philosophical and epistemological assumptions that have determined their choice of methods and the basis for their assertions” (112). | |||||
19. In later articles of this series, Parts 3–4 on external evidences for historicity of the Hebrew Bible is to cover extrabiblical texts (treated in Kofoed's chapter 4), and Part 5 is to cover internal evidences in the Hebrew Bible, including linguistic dating of biblical texts (treated in Kofoed's chapter 3).
20. Works cited by Kofoed at this point question the applicability of quantitative treatments in view of insufficient data from ancient history, question the adequacy of quantitative means for social and historical analyses and oppose the dismissal of the significance of tradition for understanding people's motivations.
21. Cf. Philip R. Davies’ helpful observation of two views of the Old Testament: German scholars Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth, and Gerhard von Rad viewed it as ancient Israel's traditions, whereas American scholars William F. Albright and John Bright viewed it a collection of witnesses to past events (Davies Memories 151).
22. Kofoed observes that “many scholars” currently view biblical traditions as “literary fictions,” texts that have been “selected and shaped” in ways that meet “the demands of the social world of the writers. … [T]he Hebrew Bible is now increasingly used by scholars as a historical source for Hellenistic Period Palestine and of little or no use as witness to the earlier periods it purports to describe” (24, emphasis his). To compare the views of Mark S. Smith, his preference for case-by-case consideration of potential historicity seems to differ, but his view that the text, even if based in historical realities, was shaped to meet then-current needs (Mykytiuk, “Strengthening Part 2.1” 127) seems to agree with what Kofoed observes.
23. The problems with this approach are “demonstrated” (Text and History 26) in the more complete treatment in Kofoed “Epistemology.”
24. Here Kofoed's footnote 82 cites Millard: “So, e.g., A. R. Millard, ‘Story, History, and Theology’. …” (Millard, Hoffmeier, and Baker Faith, Tradition 37–64).
25. As an example of central thrust, in the study of the Synoptic Gospels, according to K. E. Bailey, storytellers had freedom to change other elements, but not the “central thrust,” which included “[t]he basic flow of the story and its conclusion,” the names, and the “summary punch line” (Bailey “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition” 7, quoted in Text and History 73–74).
26. Kofoed's chapters 3 and 4 may contribute to future articles in this series.
27. “Ricoeur defines ‘testimony’ as ‘a declaration of a witness who says three things: (1) I was there (2) believe me or not (3) if you don't believe my word ask somebody else’” (Text and History 202, quoting Ricoeur “Humanities between Science and Art” 7).
28. “The books of Kings cannot be categorized as either narrative or nonnarrative. It depends on whether one focuses on the whole or its parts, because it is a multigenre product. If narrative is defined broadly as anything told or recounted, the books of Kings as a whole undeniably qualify as narrative. … Beneath the surface, however, the text is clearly a composite text, consisting of various text types” such as annotated lists, chronicle-like information, and so forth. (236).
29. Much of material in these chapters in Biblical History is also found in Provan's chapter titled “Knowing and Believing” in Bartholomew, “Behind” the Text (229–266).
30. Thomas L. Thompson, “A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?” Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995): 683–698. Provan observes that “This article is a response to Provan, ‘Ideologies’, and itself finds an answer throughout Provan, ‘Stable’” (“Knowing and Believing: Faith in the Past,” “Behind” the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al. [Grand Rapids, MI: 2003], 229n1).
In the same journal issue, along with Thompson “Neo-Albrightean” and Provan “Ideologies” is an article by Philip R. Davies, “Method and Madness: Some Remarks on Doing History with the Bible” (699–705). Provan states that “In the Stable with the Dwarves” contains a “full response to these articles” (i.e., those by Thompson and Davies cited here; “(Perhaps the) Last,” note 2). | |||||
31. As part of his note 46 attached to the end of this paragraph, Provan writes, “Cf. also Halpern First Historians, p. 28: ‘… history cannot base itself on predictability … Lacking universal axioms and theorems, it can be based on testimony only.’”
32. E.g., in the late John H. Hayes’ list under the heading, “Some Guiding Principles”: “Fifth, when external evidence derived from archaeological and/or epigraphic data clashes with evidence derived from the Bible, priority must be given to the nonbiblical data” (Hayes “Historiographical Approaches” 203).
33. Lewis Last Battle 124–135, cited in “In the Stable” 281 n. 1.
34. A Biblical History of Israel has been criticized for not devoting as much space to periods in which relatively abundant evidences are extant as it devotes to periods from which there is little surviving evidence. This is a curious parallel to John J. Collins’ Bible After Babel, as observed in Mykytiuk, “Strengthening Part 1” 78 n. 3. Although the development of arguments from scant, indirect evidences can require a disproportionate amount of space, it is also important to give areas of strength their due.
35. Much later, Grabbe rejects this argument (Grabbe “Big Max” 215–234, esp. 215–217). As the editor of the volume, Grabbe fair-mindedly included in the same volume, along with ibid., a response from the three co-authors of A Biblical History of Israel: Provan, Long, and Longman “‘Who is the Prophet Talking about’” 235–252.
36. Whitelam Invention 35, 69.
37. J. Albert Soggin, A History of Israel (1984); J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. (1986). Twentieth-century histories of ancient Israel generally tend to adopt later and later starting points, such as the patriarchal period beginning with Abraham, then the exodus beginning with Moses, then Israel's conquest or settlement in the land of Canaan, or the period of the Judges (Miller and Hayes), or the united monarchy of David and Solomon (Soggin).
38. Cf. the view that within their culturally conditioned perception (as distinguished from ours) the authors of the Hebrew Bible considered even its earliest and most theology-laden portions to be historical. In a similar way, “the [Sumerian] ancients themselves did not see this [Sumerian-theology-saturated account] as ‘fiction.’ The ‘theology’ of the composition was simply treated as an essential part of their true ‘history’ (in the sense of historically accurate ‘history writing’). … Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible Genesis 1–11 is presented as ‘history’, not ‘myth’ or ‘fiction’. (Averbeck “Sumer” 109).
39. Contrast the immediately preceding note.
40. For more on Provan's view of Whitelam's approach, see Provan “End of (Israel's) History?” 283–300.
41. This view of the biblical text in relation to historical criticism is consistent with John Rogerson's observation of “deep divisions today among scholars” as “merely the contemporary version of the issues that inevitably came to the fore once it was accepted that the actual history of ancient Israelite religion and sacrifice was different from that presented in the Old Testament” (Rogerson “Setting the Scene” 12, emphasis mine).
42. Grabbe introduces his essay, “Are Historians,” as a “rough and ready” exercise, intended only to arrive at a general picture. In that picture, he finds that “the biblical framework for Israelite and Judean kings from the mid-ninth century onwards is reasonably accurate,” but that “the details of the biblical accounts are at times misleading, inaccurate, or even invented” (“How Reliable” 384). Long's closer examination, however, certainly seems to show that Grabbe's second generalization is “unsupported by the evidence” (382) and opens the possibility that it might have arisen from “preconceived notions” (383).
43. From the preface by series editor Moisés Silva (Long Art 10).
44. The Art of Biblical History names only two minimalist leaders: Niels P. Lemche once in a note, and Thomas L. Thompson, who receives mention only for his view that historicity does not matter. That view serves as a foil to John Goldingay's point that historicity of biblical events does matter. “Goldingay demonstrates how biblical writers viewed present faith as resting on prior events. …” (98).
45. Cf. Millard “Story, History.”
46. Chapter 1. History and the Genre(s) of the Bible: Is the Bible a History Book? 2. History and Fiction: What is History? 3. History and Truth: Is Historicity Important? 4. History and Modern Scholarship: Why Do Scholars Disagree? 5. History and Hermeneutics: How Then Should We Read the Bible “Historically”? 6. An Extended Example: The Rise of Saul (chapter titles excerpted from Long Art 7–8).
47. Some other scholars find Thompson, Davies, Lemche, and Whitelam to be modern rather than postmodern in their approach. For example, Barstad finds that minimalists are, rather, “the first of the last modernists” (Barstad “History and the Hebrew Bible” 13).
48. First, a chronologically distant source is not necessarily unreliable, for example, Manetho (Hoffmeier Ancient Israel 17–18; Mykytiuk, “Strengthening Part 2.1” 130–131 n. 16). For his second point, Hoffmeier quotes David Hackett Fischer, “in writing history, ‘evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms—it is not evidence at all’” (19–20, quoting Fischer Historians’ Fallacies 47). This point regarding the nature of evidence appears to undergird the much-repeated observation that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Third, the Bible should be treated as any other book is treated, but in fact it is not (Hoffmeier Ancient Israel 20–21, citing Dever What Did 127 and Hallo “Limits” 189). Instead it is rejected as tendentious, theological, and ideological, while ancient non-biblical texts which are also tendentious, theological, and ideological escape the “hermeneutics of suspicion” and are readily accepted without question as historical evidence (20).
49. The term phenomenology is used by religionists in three senses:
First, it is used in a general way for investigating the phenomena of religion. Second, it is a system of classification of various religious phenomena and of studying them in a comparative manner, and third, it regards the phenomenology of religion as a branch working within Religionswissenschaft (scientific study of religion). It is this third understanding that has been most widely followed, for it utilized many of the critical methods and ways of reading texts, but departed radically from the rationalistic or “scientific” treatments in favor of more sympathetic ones. (Hoffmeier Ancient Israel 28–29, relying on Allen “Phenomenology” 11:272–285) | |||||
50. Mircea Eliade (1907–1986) was professor of the history of religions at many prestigious universities in Europe and lastly at the University of Chicago 1956 to 1986. The author of The Sacred and Profane (1959), A History of Religious Ideas (1978–1985), and many other works, he co-edited History of Religions (1961–1986), edited the 16-volume Encyclopedia of Religions (1987), and received ten honorary doctorates.
51. Otto Idea.
52. Among these works, which characteristically contain both essays by scholars of very diverse points of view and Grabbe's closing “Reflections on the Discussion,” are: Lester L. Grabbe, ed., Can a ‘History of Israel’ Be Written? (1997); idem, ed., Leading Captivity Captive: ‘The Exile’ as History and Ideology (1998); idem, ed., Good Kings and Bad Kings (2007); idem, ed., Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E., 2 vols. (2008); idem, ed., Enquire of the Former Age: Ancient Historiography and Writing the History of Israel (2011); Bob Becking and Lester L. Grabbe, eds., Between Evidence and Ideology: Essays on the History of Ancient Israel Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch Werkgezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009 (2011).