Chapter 1
SOURCES FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS WORLD OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Before we begin discussing the religious and social world of ancient Israel, we first need to consider the various sources we have at our disposal. Each of these has its own strengths and weaknesses and can contribute to our discussion in different ways. Broadly speaking, the two main sources of evidence are the biblical text and archaeological remains.1 The latter can be divided into textual and non-textual finds.
1.2 THE BIBLICAL TEXT
Our main source of evidence for reconstructing the religious world of ancient Israel is the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch (GenesisâDeuteronomy), which tells the story of the origins of the nation from creation through to the exodus from Egypt, covenant at Sinai and journey to the borders of the promised land,2 the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings) which focuses on the period of the entrance of the tribes into the land through to the nationâs exile to Babylon (c.586 BC) and the pre-exilic prophets (esp. Hosea, Amos, parts of Isaiah, Jeremiah), who were operative from shortly before the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel (c.750 BC) until shortly after the loss of the southern kingdom of Judah. It needs to be recognized, however, that the use of the biblical text as a source for historical reconstruction, particularly of the pre-exilic period, is a debated topic in contemporary biblical scholarship.
A number of influential scholars, including Davies, Lemche and Thompson, have argued that the majority of the OT is little more than âpious fictionâ, reflecting an image of Israel that was current in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (i.e. the fourthâsecond centuries BC) rather than the earlier, pre-exilic period. Although there may be some truth to the claims of these so-called âminimalistsâ (e.g. the final form of the OT text was probably not reached until this period), correlations of biblical lore, contemporary extra-biblical inscriptions and archaeology lead me to believe that we should not simply write off the biblical text as a source for historical reconstruction â much of what we find in the OT does, in fact, faithfully represent life from the Iron Age period (c.1200â586 BC). Dever (2001: 97â243), in particular, has done much to draw attention to so-called âconvergencesâ between the biblical text and archaeology, highlighting the fact that the Bible does contain valuable historical information, at least from the time of the monarchy onwards. Thus, although these OT texts may not have reached their final form until the exilic or post-exilic periods, they undoubtedly contain significant earlier traditions that shed light on the religious leadership, beliefs and practices of the pre-exilic period, and therefore can and should be used in a study of this sort.
Furthermore, the claim of traditional, critical scholarship that the OT narratives contain fictional elements need not overly concern a study of this sort. It is well recognized that even writers of fiction tend to describe what they know to be true and thus often give a broadly accurate representation of society even while inventing characters and events along the way (Grabbe, 1995: 19).3 For example, the modern novelist Ken Follett describes his one rule for writing historical fiction as follows: âEither the scene did happen, or it might have; either these words were used, or they might have been. And if I find some reason why the scene could not have taken place in real life, or the words would not really have been said â if, for example, the character was in another country at the time â I leave it outâ (2010: 851). As King and Stager (2001: 7) have pointed out, the OT narratives must have passed a certain test of verisimilitude (i.e. of having the appearance of being real or true) on the part of the ancient Israelites for them to be transmitted and accepted. At the very least, they must have seemed to be real for their original (and subsequent) audience. Thus, even though some modern scholars may choose to label such narratives as âfictionâ, they still have the potential to shed much light on the social and religious institutions of ancient Israel.
Going deeper:
LAWS AND THE SOCIAL WORLD OF ANCIENT ISRAEL
Law can be a particularly valuable genre for reconstructing the social world of ancient Israel. As Kessler (2008: 29) has pointed out, the intention of the laws is to shape the world as they find it and therefore they must take into account both the institutions that are present within the society at the time and the problems society faces. âSince laws only regulate things that are socially relevantâ, we may assume that the issues and situations they addressed âhappened oftenâ (Kessler, 2008: 29).
Nevertheless, the OT is not without its own limitations when it comes to analysing the social world of ancient Israel. The textâs primary theological and kerygmatic focus means that almost everything that interests us in our attempt at socio-historical reconstruction appears only peripherally or incidentally. Rarely, if ever, are such concerns its major focus. To put it a different way, the text is more interested in significant events and their theological message than the circumstances in which these take place. For example, the prophetic books are dominated by the divine messages the prophet speaks but contain relatively few references to the concrete, historical world in which those messages were first spoken (note, e.g., the lack of narrative in prophetic texts in comparison with the overwhelming focus on the word of the Lord). This means, therefore, that we will need to use the OT carefully when it comes to socio-historical reconstruction. We will need to read between the lines, to bring to the fore that which is in the background, and to consider what is handed on unintentionally. Information about the social world of ancient Israel is contained within the text, but we will need to search to find it.
Have you considered?
THE MINIMALISTâMAXIMALIST DEBATE
There is much debate in contemporary OT scholarship regarding the place of the Bible in writing histories of ancient Israel. Two main approaches or options dominate the scene: maximalist and minimalist (sometimes also referred to as ârevisionistâ).* Essentially, these options are differentiated by the way they approach the various sources of evidence and, in particular, the biblical text, in order to reconstruct Israelâs history.
Maximalists (who largely represent the traditional approach) generally trust the biblical text as a historical source. They suggest that the majority of the historical portions of the biblical text were written during the monarchic period and thus the stories have a direct link to the events they describe.** The biblical text is essentially reliable because it comes from the same time period as (or shortly after) the events themselves. Other potential sources of evidence (e.g. archaeology and inscriptions) are usually viewed as being of secondary importance to the biblical text and maximalists generally argue that the archaeological and inscriptional remains tend to confirm the descriptions we find in the biblical text. The maximalist view can be summarized as follows: âeverything in the biblical text that cannot be disproven by external sources has to be accepted as historicalâ.
Minimalists, however, are generally sceptical about the historical claims of the biblical text. They suggest a late date for the biblical text as a whole and thus view the OT as an unreliable historical source for the pre-exilic period as it is far removed from the events the narrative describes. Rather than recording contemporary history, the biblical authors were imagining and creating a past whose shape was determined by their present context (which may range from the Persian to Hellenistic periods, depending on the particular scholarâs preference). The starting point for such minimalist reconstructions is external data (i.e. archaeology and ancient inscriptions), which they argue directly contradict large and important parts of the OT, especially the sections that describe Israelâs origins (e.g. not only the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges but also extending into the books of Samuel). The minimalist view can be summarized as follows: ânothing in the biblical text can be accepted as historical unless it can be verified by external sourcesâ.
Rather than approaching these as two mutually exclusive options, we need to recognize that they are, in fact, two ends of a continuum. Most historians of ancient Israel would sit somewhere between these two camps, seeking to draw responsibly upon both sources of evidence in their reconstructions and not necessarily privilegi...
