OT Historiography

Iain Provan, Philips Long, and Tremper Longman’s A Biblical History of Israel begins with several excellent chapters on OT historiography, and on historiographical issues in general. Some highlights of the discussion (highlights to me at least):

1) The authors challenge the distinction between primary and secondary sources because it is based on a faulty “scientific” understanding of historical study: “The idea goes at least as far back as Ranke himself, who proposed that texts produced in the course of events as they were happening are more worthy of the historian’s attention than texts produced afterwards. Priority is thus to be given in scientific historiography to what are called primary over against secondary and later sources. However, there is no good reason to assume in advance that so-called ‘primary’ sources are going to be more reliable than any others. The assumption has quite a bit to do with the naive belief that eyewitnesses ‘tell it like it is,’ while others inevitably filter reality through various distorting screens. As in art, however, so it is in history: close proximity to subject and canvas by no means guarantees a more ‘accurate’ picture (since the painter sometimes gets lost among the proverbal trees, and loses sight of the overall chape of the forest). On the one hand, eyewitnesses, like everyone else, have a point of view, and in the process of testifying they must inevitably simplify, select, and interpret. On the other hand, people who secondarily pass testimony along, whether oral or written, may do this not only accurately but also intelligently and with a better sense than the eyewitnesses of the way in which a particular testimony fits the larger picture.”

To built on the last point: Who has the better view of a battle in World War II? A solider on the field? A general who is overseeing the effort but does not know the ultimate outcome of the battle or the war? Or an historian who looks back to see not only the end of the war but the aftermath? For various purposes (the feel of combat, for instance), the soldier on the ground might be a better witness. But the historian is in the better position to tell the story of World War II than either of the participants. As in a novel, the historian who knows the end of the story has the ability to assess the significance of various chapters much better than the participants who are living in the chapters.

2) The authors point to the ironic fact that some OT historians operate with a bias toward narrative sources at the very same time that interest in narrative history is reviving among historians generally. They include an extensive discussion of Lawrence Stone’s 1979 (!) article about the revival of narrative history.

3) The authors frequently employ the analogy of painting and historical narrative to address various historiographic issues. For example, they quote Hans Barstad to the effect that “Narrative history is not pure fiction, but contains a mixture of history and fiction,” and respond: “One would not exactly say of a portrait that it is a MIXTURE of history and fiction. In one sense, a portrait is all history, since its essential purpose is to represent a historical subject. Ideally, every brushstroke in the portrait seves that purpose. In another sense, however, a portrait is all fiction — that is, it is all ‘fabrication,’ just paint on canvas. No brushstroke of combination of brushstrokes exactly DUPLICATES the historical subject. Taken together, however, the brushstrokes DEPICT, or represent, the historical subject . . . . In a similar way, a biblical narrative is in one sense a fabrication, because it consists of words on paper and not the actual past. Nevertheless, these words on paper, like paint on canvas, can accurately represent the historical past.”

This volume looks to be among the best histories of Israel available, and certainly the most philosophically sophisticated that I’ve come across.