Academic Discussion • Re: Why the Hellenistic era for ALL "Old Testament" books should be taken seriously

Saying instead that we should consider the narratives about King Josiah equivalently to narratives of the Trojan war:

Do classicists or archaeologists in other fields have this same conundrum? Yes, but from my own reading the approach is quite different to the secondary or literary sources. Homer, for example, is set aside as literature and nothing or very little more, while a picture of the Homeric age, not the Trojan war narrative, is built up from archaeological data and literary references that can be independently determined to go back to "the Homeric age".

As I try to follow your comments, I have to pause here and wonder what is meant by "we should consider the narratives about King Josiah equivalently to narratives of the Trojan war" ---- There are certainly ways in which they are not equivalent, and I could have used any other text (e.g. Gilgamesh) to make the same point.

Offering this alternative stance:

Why not simply set it aside as a narrative, a story, full stop?

And positing that:

But other historians rarely nowadays try to save some narrative core in a good ancient story in the same way biblical scholars seem often to try to salvage biblical narratives.

Offered from the perspective that the narratives about King Josiah are in the category of "a good ancient story," a category that implies that they should be approached in the same way as Homer (i.e. set aside as a narrative, a story, full stop). The perspective being assumed here can be considered further, and it is indeed worth taking seriously.

Just to be clear, I am not prejudging the narrative of King Josiah to be fiction. Not at all. That would be contrary to what my whole approach -- that I take from the normative methods of historians of ancient times themselves -- is about. The story should not a priori be assumed either fiction or based on real history. It is in a no-man's land. Only extra (independent) evidence can help us decide which category it should fall into.

It is said that a contradicting assumption "pertaining to the historical value of the biblical narrative" in a positive, favorable way is based on a cultural bias:

Yes, Josiah might have undertaken the reforms attributed to him. Uehlinger gives other kinds of evidence to support this, but they all come back to the same starting point: the presumption to accept that the biblical story has some historical validity. That is a cultural bias, I suggest.

I would not call the bias toward seeing the narrative as historical is a "contradictory" one to my position. Rather, it is pre-judging the matter without independent evidence. I can't say until there is independent evidence whether it is historical or fictional. So prejudging it as fictional would be just as "contrary" to what I am trying to set out.

Which is obvious enough, to the extent that it is true, given that nobody can dispute that a cultural bias in favor of viewing the text that way is operative in many people who write about these topics. And if we are going to talk about cultural bias in general here (and I'm not talking about you - and I've been assuming that you're not talking about me), is that all we can say about cultural bias? That it is operating in one direction in the case of the biblical narratives, that it is operating in favor of viewing the biblical narratives as being historical? No, it isn't. And I'm not simply referring to the bit where some people are coming at it from the opposite direction, having some impetus to say that it is not historical, although that is obviously also true about some.

What I meant by cultural bias in this context is the one that is acknowledged by scholars in the published scholarly literature --- that is uncontroversial -- that there has been a traditional bias among theological/biblical scholars to presume some core historicity to the biblical historical narrative. That is just a fact of life. That doesn't mean everyone is party to that bias but it has been an institutional one in Europe and America for a couple of centuries now. If this is doubted I can make the time to find many references in the scholarly literature to confirm this point.

Nor do I suggest everyone can be without some form of bias. The trick is trying to be aware of our biases and being honest enough to handle them adequately.

The question being answered by all these various assumptions is this: what kind of text is this? To what shall I compare it? This is a question. And, yes, due to cultural bias, general familiarity with the text and often some kind of importance assigned to the subject, everyone asking this question tends to have an answer that they think they already know: it is this kind of text. If someone has somehow completely overcome all cultural bias here, they are a rare specimen of a human being. And that's enough of that talk about cultural bias from me here.

I'm not as cynical on your point "they think they already know". I think many scholars, many lay people, really admit they do not know what kinds of texts are before us in this type of study. That is party of the enjoyment of the research -- learning what other people in another time were doing or thought they were doing.

To the question: what kind of text is this?

The answer is suggested: to know what kind of text it is, you must only (emphasis intended) look outside the text, specifically:

The only way to break "that word that should not be mentioned" is to appeal to independent evidence that supports the narrative itself, not just some of the background scenery to the narrative.

And so the idea of "circularity" becomes a defense for the proposal of the "only way" to answer the questions of what kind of text this is -- "to appeal to independent evidence" regarding matters of historicity -- which allows us to make progress on all the other questions. The idea that this is the "only way" to answer the questions about what kind of text is here produces the necessity of taking up the perspective offered: that is, the category of "a good ancient story" that should be "simply set it aside as a narrative, a story, full stop" without "independent evidence." A few things happen along the way here:

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that by taking up independent evidence one is prejudging the matter? Or one somehow selects independent evidence to make it fit one's presuppositions about the text?

If that is what you mean, I must say that is quite, very mistaken. I have not seen any instance of such a procedure in the scholarly literature. Independent evidence is independent because it is recognized by all parties as independent. If the independent evidence indicates the narrative is to some extent historical, then that's what it does. That's not prejudging the nature of the text.

If there is no independent evidence to suggest historicity, but if other independent texts are seen by all parties to be of type X, and if our Josiah narrative fits type X also, and if X = fiction, then so be it.

There is no selecting the evidence that we want to prove our supposed presuppositions.

(1) There is a certain quietude and finality of a verdict. After reviewing "independent evidence," we're done. That's it. Maybe something new turns up, rarely, but a person can say they've probably reviewed all that is currently out there.

That's not the process of the scholarly research that I read. There is always deeper and clearer understandings of anything in the ancient past. If a text is found to be based on history that is only the beginning of the inquiries. Ditto if the text is found to be something else. Each little step is not "a finality" but one more stepping stone in a long line out to the horizon.

The widely acknowledged (and demonstrated) circularity of the traditional diachronic Documentary Hypothesis is only the beginning of a whole new set of inquiries. The questions relating to Judah's history and biblical literature are only just beginning to open up.

(2) There is a certain claim of objectivity. This procedure leading to a verdict - "independent evidence" or lack thereof - can be argued to have been performed correctly according to "the same principles other historians are familiar with," leading to a conclusion that is sometimes not accepted due to a "cultural bias."

It's more than a claim. It is a procedure that is acknowledged and accepted by a good number of scholars. Certain "traditionalists" do not dispute the finds but try to explain them in different ways. There is always a different way to explain "an objective fact per se".

(3) There are fewer avenues through which the verdict could be rendered differently. The limits of discussion are set as being those that involve "independent evidence." Anything else is taken off the table.

What else is there to take off the table?

How else can we make any assessment about any claim or writing or testimony without us allowing it to confirm itself? This applies not only in history but in all areas of life.

(4) A simple response is available for anything else that is offered that isn't "independent evidence." The response is that this necessarily entails "circularity."

What else can be offered? Can you give an example?

(5) The question of whether there is anything to "salvage" in "historical value" is answered: no, there isn't. This provides a limited purpose answer to the question of what kind of text it is: it isn't the kind of text from which historical value can be salvaged.

By no means. A text (whether historical or fictional) is itself a historical document that opens up insights into the society that produced it.

Historians look at all of the evidence. It's not about "salvaging" stuff so much as simply trying work out what's what -- to clear out the cobwebs of our presuppositions (either way, whatever they are), and try to understand/reconstruct what was going on. That's not a closed thing. It's a wide open field to explore.

It's not a black and white thing. It's not about debunking anything. It's about understanding "what the ancient writers were doing" -- whether Akkadian, Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian..... Bible texts have had a special set of issues for obvious reasons. It's about exploring things biblical in the same way historians explore any other ancient culture and literature. There's nothing negative or closed about it.

(6) This limited purpose answer can be derived without needing to solve the full question of what kind of text it is and without needing to bring in any detailed consideration of the text otherwise.

I don't accept your view of what you see as a "limited purpose". Far from it. Again, it's not about true or false, black or white, debunked or verified.... That's not what historical inquiry is about --- except in special cases such as trying to disprove a conspiracy theory, for example.

If you have a look at any of the scholarly works raising questions or alternatives to the DH, and even the Josiah narrative, you will not find any of them with "a limited purpose" -- unless maybe apologists trying to prove the bible true, or some anti-christians trying to prove the bible false. But those groups do not interest me or any of the scholars I am interested in.

Statistics: Posted by neilgodfrey — Fri Mar 01, 2024 3:35 pm

---