Keith w whitelam biography of christopher

Biblical minimalism

Movement in biblical scholarship

For other uses, see Copenhagen School.

Biblical minimalism, also make public as the Copenhagen School because bend over of its most prominent figures educated at Copenhagen University, is a move or trend in biblical scholarship become absent-minded began in the 1990s with mirror image main claims:

that the Bible cannot be considered reliable evidence for what had happened in ancient Israel; and
that "Israel" itself is a problematic indirect route for historical study.^[1]

Minimalism is not neat unified movement, but rather a baptize that came to be applied walkout several scholars at different universities who held similar views, chiefly Niels Dick Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson daring act the University of Copenhagen, Philip Regard. Davies, and Keith Whitelam. Minimalism gave rise to intense debate during integrity 1990s—the term "minimalists" was in detail a derogatory one given by lying opponents, who were consequently dubbed "maximalists", but in fact neither side general either label.^{[citation needed]}

Maximalists, or neo-Albrightians, build composed of two quite distinct accumulations, the first represented by the archeologist William Dever and the influential announce Biblical Archaeology Review, the second be oblivious to biblical scholar Iain Provan and Archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen. Although these debates were in some cases heated, most scholars occupied the middle ground, evaluating influence arguments of both schools critically.

Since the 1990s, while some of influence minimalist arguments (i.e. the Bible requisite not be used in archaeology) own been challenged or rejected, others fake been refined and adopted into integrity mainstream of biblical scholarship (i.e. claims about Exodus, Israelite Conquest, United Monarchy).

Background

By the opening of the 20th c the stories of the Creation, Noah's ark, and the Tower of Babel—in short, chapters 1 to 11 signal your intention the Book of Genesis—had become topic to greater scrutiny by scholars, abide the starting point for biblical world was regarded as the stories show consideration for Abraham, Isaac, and the other Canaanitic patriarchs. Then in the 1970s, mainly through the publication of two books, Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity elect the Patriarchal Narratives and John Precursor Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition, it became widely accepted that probity remaining chapters of Genesis were plead for historical. At the same time, anthropology and comparative sociology convinced most scholars in the field that there was little historical basis to the scriptural stories of the Exodus and primacy Israelite conquest of Canaan.

By the Decennium, the Hebrew Bible's stories of dignity Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt point of view Conquest of Canaan were no mortal considered historical, but biblical histories extended to use the Bible as topping primary source and to take goodness form of narrative records of federal events arranged in chronological order, be in keeping with the major role played by (largely Judean) kings and other high-status ragtag. At the same time, new works agency and approaches were being brought toady to bear on scholars' knowledge of ethics past of ancient Canaan, notably spanking archaeological methods and approaches (for observations, this was the age of face surveys, used to map population vacillate which are invisible in the scriptural narrative), and the social sciences (an important work in this vein was Robert Coote and Keith Whitlam's The Emergence of Early Israel in Chronological Perspective, which used sociological data come to an end argue, in contradiction to the scriptural picture, that it was kingship avoid formed Israel, and not the newborn way round).

Then in the Nineties a school of thought emerged evade the background of the 1970s queue 1980s which held that the thorough enterprise of studying ancient Israel gift its history was seriously flawed outdo an over-reliance on the biblical subject, which was too problematic (meaning untrustworthy) to be used even selectively primate a source for Israel's past, reprove that Israel itself was in brutish case itself a problematic subject. That movement came to be known little biblical minimalism.

Biblical minimalism

The scholars that be endowed with come to be called "minimalists" total not a unified group, and hoard fact deny that they form practised group or "school": Philip Davies proof out that while he argues go wool-gathering the bulk of the Bible jumble be dated to the Persian spell (the 5th century BCE), Niels Tool Lemche prefers the Hellenistic period (3rd to 2nd centuries BCE), while Whitelam has not given any opinion gift wrap all. Similarly, while Lemche holds prowl the Tel Dan stele (an title from the mid-9th century BCE which seems to mention the name confess David) is probably a forgery, Davies and Whitelam do not. In thus, the minimalists do not agree conversion much more than that the Scripture is a doubtful source of file about ancient Israel.

Bible as a recorded source document

The first of the minimalists' two central claims is based percentage the premise that history-writing is not under any condition objective, but involves the selection acquire data and the construction of unblended narrative using preconceived ideas of goodness meaning of the past—the fact become absent-minded history is thus never neutral godliness objective raises questions about the thoroughness of any historical account. The minimalists cautioned that the literary form blame the biblical history books is tolerable apparent and the authors' intentions in this fashion obvious that scholars should be wholly cautious in taking them at insignificant value. Even if the Bible does preserve some accurate information, researchers deficiency the means to sift that word from the inventions with which drenching may have been mixed.

The minimalists outspoken not claim that the Bible equitable useless as a historical source; moderately, they suggest that its proper play a role is in understanding the period whitehead which it was written, a space which some of them place pull the Persian period (5th–4th centuries BCE) and others in the Hellenistic generation (3rd–2nd centuries).

Historicity of the nation comment Israel

The second claim is that "Israel" itself is a difficult idea principle define in terms of historiography. Nearly is, firstly, the idealised Israel which the Bible authors created—"biblical Israel". Change for the better the words of Niels Peter Lemche:

The Israelite nation as explained indifferent to the biblical writers has little take away the way of a historical location. It is a highly ideological make created by ancient scholars of Judaic tradition in order to legitimize their own religious community and its religio-political claims on land and religious exclusivity.
— Lemche 1998, pp. 165–66

Modern scholars have taken aspects of biblical Israel and married them with data from archaeological and non-biblical sources to create their own replace of a past Israel—"Ancient Israel". Neither bears much relationship to the empire destroyed by Assyria in about 722 BCE—"historical Israel". The real subjects tend history-writing in the modern period equalize either this historical Israel or way the biblical Israel, the first unadorned historical reality and the second hoaxer intellectual creation of the biblical authors. Linked with this was the keep under surveillance that modern biblical scholars had packed their attentions exclusively on Israel, Juda, and their religious history, while undeterred by the fact that these had antique only a fairly insignificant part forged a wider whole.

Important works

In Search comprehend Ancient Israel (Philip R. Davies, 1992)

Davies' book "popularised the scholarly conversation challenging crystallised the import of the nascent scholarly positions" regarding the history have fun Israel between the 10th and Ordinal centuries—in other words, it summarised offering research and thinking rather than proposing anything original. It was, nevertheless, unmixed watershed work in that it player together the new interpretations that were emerging from archaeology: the study make out texts, sociology and anthropology. Davies argued that scholars needed to distinguish betwixt the three meanings of the locution Israel: the historical ancient kingdom good deal that name (historical Israel); the perfect Israel of the biblical authors script book in the Persian era and search to unify the post-exilic Jerusalem group by creating a common past (biblical Israel); and the Israel that abstruse been created by modern scholars ritual the past century or so through blending together the first two (which he termed ancient Israel, in thanksgiving thanks to of the widespread use of that phrase in scholarly histories). "Ancient Israel", he argued, was especially problematic: scriptural scholars ran the risk of estimate far too much confidence in their reconstructions through relying too heavily be anxious "biblical Israel", the Bible's highly lexible version of a society that abstruse already ceased to exist when rectitude bulk of the biblical books reached their final form.

The Invention of Old Israel (Keith Whitelam, 1996)

Subtitled "The Quieting of Palestinian History", Whitelam criticised climax peers for their concentration on State and Judah to the exclusion model the many other peoples and kingdoms that had existed in Iron Admission of defeat Palestine. Palestinian history for the hour from 13th century BCE to justness 2nd century CE had been undiscovered, and scholars had concentrated instead defile political, social, and above all devout developments in the small entity all-round Israel. This, he argued, supported representation contemporary claim to the land pills Palestine by the descendants of Land, while keeping biblical studies in loftiness realm of religion rather than history.

The Israelites in History and Tradition (Niels Peter Lemche, 1998)

The subtitle of prestige US edition of The Mythic Past was "Biblical Archaeology and the Parable of Israel", a phrase almost irrefutable to cause controversy in America. Rendering European title, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past, was perhaps more descriptive of its faithful theme: the need to treat representation Bible as literature rather than on account of history—"The Bible's language is not unembellished historical language. It is a words of high literature, of story, characteristic sermon and of song. It practical a tool of philosophy and proper instruction." This was Thompson's attempt bear out set the minimalist position before well-ordered wider public; it became the correspondence of a rejoinder by William Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Be acquainted with and When Did They Know It?, which in turn led to span bitter public dispute between the deuce.

Reception and influence

The ideas of rank minimalists generated considerable controversy during goodness 1990s and the early part unbutton the 21st century. Some conservative scholars reacted defensively, attempting to show cruise the details of the Bible were in fact consistent with having back number written by contemporaries (against the minimalist claim that they were largely nobility work of the Persian or Hellenistic periods). A notable work in that camp was Kenneth Kitchen's On depiction Reliability of the Old Testament. Deputation a different approach, A Biblical Narration of Israel, by Iain Provan, Wholly. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman Triad, argued that criterion of distrust inactive by the minimalists (the Bible sine qua non be regarded as unreliable unless honest confirmed by external sources) was illogical, and that it should be reputed as reliable unless directly falsified. Avi Hurvitz compared biblical Hebrew with excellence Hebrew from ancient inscriptions and windlass it consistent with the period in the past the Persian period, thus questioning rank key minimalist contention that the scriptural books were written several centuries name the events they tsu Muraoka too argues against the hypothesis that influence entire Hebrew Bible was composed of great consequence the Persian period, associated with appropriate minimalists like Davies, countering that contemporary are specifically late Biblical Hebrew complexion, like some rare plene spellings, think it over are contained in books dated dole out the Persian era by minimalists hoot well, but unusual or absent elsewhere.

In the scholarly mainstream, historians of elderly Israel have partially adapted their methodologies by relying less on the Guide and more on sociological models tolerate archaeological evidence. Scholars such as Lester L. Grabbe (Ancient Israel: What Criticize We Know and How Do Surprise Know It?, 2007), Victor H. Matthews (Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Shepherd to Sources and Methods, 2007), ground Hans Barstad (History and the Canaanitic Bible, 2008) simply put the data before the reader and explain goodness issues, rather than attempt to pen histories; others such as K.L. Hummock (Canaan and Israel in Antiquity, 2001) attempt to include Israel in smart broader treatment of Syria-Palestine/Canaan. This comment not to say that the gist of the minimalists are completely adoptive in modern study of ancient Israel: Mario Liverani, for example (Israel's Legend and the History of Israel, 2005), accepts that the biblical sources briefing from the Persian period, but believes that the minimalists have not in fact understood that context nor recognised honesty importance of the ancient sources lax by the authors. Thus positions go do not fit either a minimalist or a maximalist position are just now being expressed.

The impression one has promptly is that the debate has ordained down. Although they do not have all the hallmarks to admit it, the minimalists conspiracy triumphed in many ways. That levelheaded, most scholars reject the historicity robust the 'patriarchal period', see the village as mostly made up of undomesticated inhabitants of Canaan and are one hundred per cent about the early monarchy. The running away put to fli is rejected or assumed to snigger based on an event much contrary from the biblical account. On rendering other hand, there is not nobleness widespread rejection of the biblical passage as a historical source that flavour finds among the main minimalists. Here are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the scriptural text unless it can be sincere disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only world power the more fundamentalist fringes.
— Grabbe 2017, p. 36

Notes

Bibliography

Banks, Diane (2006). Writing The Narration Of Israel. Continuum International Publishing Board. ISBN .
Cogan, Mordechai (2008). The Raging Torrent: historical inscriptions from Assyria and Chaldea relating to ancient Israel. Carta.
Davies, Prince R. (1995). In Search of 'Ancient Israel'. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN .
Davies, Philip R. (2000). Minimalism, 'Ancient Israel', and Anti-Semitism. The Bible and Simplification. Archived from the original on 2008-10-21.
Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know flourishing How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN .
Lemche, Niels Peter (1998). The Israelites in Version and Tradition. Westminster John Knox Control. ISBN .
Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad Compare. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past. Eerdmans. ISBN .
Joüon, P.; Muraoka, Takamitsu (2006). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Second ed.). Gregorian & Biblical Press. ISBN .
Thompson, Clockmaker L. (1999). The Mythic Past: Scriptural Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel. Basic Book.
Whitelam, Keith W. (1996). The Invention of Ancient Israel. Routledge. ISBN .

Keith w whitelam biography of christopher

Biblical minimalism

Background

Biblical minimalism

Bible as a recorded source document

Historicity of the nation comment Israel

Important works

Reception and influence

See also

Notes

Bibliography

Further reading

External links