In the article "The Chronicler as Historian: A Comparativist Perspective," Kenneth Hoglund attempts to situate the Chronicler as an historian of his times by comparing the techniques employed by the Chr and the roughly contemporary classical historians of the period. Hoglund deftly avoids the issue of direct or indirect influence that has plagued other attempts to compare biblical and classical histories. In doing so, Hoglund makes a strong argument that accepts the Chr’s work as historiography and rejects as anachronistic the accusations of plagiarism and deceit leveled against the Chr. Judged against his own thesis, Hoglund largely succeeds in his analysis of the problem.
However, Hoglund's arguments are not without their problems. The parallels in technique that Hoglund identifies between the Chr and the classical historians are not quite as compelling as they may seem. For instance, while it is true that Greek historians often demonstrated an interest in genealogies, there is no extant case, even in the examples Hoglund cites, of the type of sustained and prolonged genealogies found in 1 Chr 1-9. Furthermore, the genealogies of the Greek historians often did not have the same purpose as that which Hoglund attributes to the Chr's genealogies. The Greek genealogies were often theogonies and so, by definition, concerned with the origins of the gods or the relationship of a hero to a god or gods. While the general concept of origins and status play a part in the Chr's genealogies, the Chr's genealogies operate on a primarily human, rather than divine, plane. They also reflect broader concerns than simply origins and status. Hoglund quotes De Vries, who observes that the Chr’s genealogies are concerned with issues of social, economic, religious, military, and political organization. It is, therefore, important to recognize that the common interest in genealogies in the ancient world by no means reflects a common purpose in the use of them, particularly in written texts.
There is a similar problem in Hoglund's analysis of the role of prophets. In this case, Hoglund overlooks the fact that the wise counselors (as well as oracles) in Herodotus are primarily used to expose the causes (usually among others) for a certain action. As Herodotus writes in his proem, he is interested in the causes (aitie) that led to the wars of the Greeks and the Persians; oracles and the advice of wise counselors are among those causes. In contrast, the prophets of the Chr rarely serve this function. Rather, the prophets of the Chr, as interpreters of the divine will, present the consequences of a certain action.
In these cases and others, Hoglund does not adequately address the nuances that create significant differences in the parallels he draws. Even so, this failure on the part of Hoglund does not necessarily compromise the essential thrust of Hoglund's argument. One can easily anticipate Hoglund's rebuttal: the differences are only reflections of divergent ethnic, religious, socio-economic, and political milieus out of which biblical and classical historians arose. The strength of the parallels is sufficient to establish that, whatever the differences, both groups of historians employed a comparable genre, that is historiography. Indeed, this rebuttal may solve the problem but only if one additional problem, which Hoglund does not even address, is worked out: intent.
Of course, with the problem of intent, we encounter a quagmire, an investigatory nightmare. How do we recover the intent of a real, or even implied, author? Unfortunately, no matter how difficult it is to recover intent, this is the only criteria that can ultimately resolve the issue.
As Hoglund's article proves, there is a strong prima facie case to support the position that Chr is history. Not only does Hoglund observe in his introduction that Chr "presents us with a narrative more or less chronologically arranged and more or less focused on the political events affecting Jerusalem and the southern kingdom of Judah" and that "'history' would be an appropriate label for such a narrative," but Hoglund also demonstrates that "those well-known tendencies of the work that have given scholars difficulty in applying the designation 'history'" are explainable on the basis of the nature of ancient historiography itself. Yet, as compelling as this may seem, it is not very difficult to prove that throughout the history of literature, there are works that employ the genre of "history" but still are not history. While perhaps the stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood are the first to come to mind, the case can also be made with a simple appeal to the classical works of Homer or even to books within the biblical canon itself, such as Esther, Ruth, and Jonah. All these works conform to a definition of "history" that does not take into account intent. They are "more or less chronologically arranged" and give every appearance of attempting to describe or construct a past reality. (So much so, in fact, that there are still biblical scholars who defend the historicity of the biblical books just mentioned.) It is only once we entertain the notion of intent that genres such as historical fiction or fictionalized history, short story, legend, and myth are applied to these works.
So, how do we analyze the intent of an author? How do we recover the unrecoverable? If genre is a deceptive criterion, is historical accuracy a suitable criterion? Unfortunately, this does not work: bad history is still history. Unavoidably, regardless of any pretense of objectivity or applied methodology, the final determination is necessarily subjective. We must read Chr and compare it with other works as Hoglund has done and decide for ourselves if the narrative claims for itself the status of "history." Sometimes the character of the narrative makes it easier to make this determination. Most of the classical historians provided insight into their intent by writing in the first person and/or making programmatic statements concerning their aims and purposes (though one cannot always trust these statements either; it may simply serve the author's purpose to construct themselves in a certain way, e.g. as an historian). Herodotus, for instance, writes:
Herodotus of Halicarnassus here displays his inquiry (istoria), so that human achievements may not become forgotten in time, and great and marvelous deeds—some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians—may not be without their glory; and especially to show why the two peoples fought with each other.
The rest of Herodotus's narrative, regardless of how one judges its historicity, demonstrates a strong and consistent antiquarian and ethnographic interest. Similarly, the character of Thucydides's narrative also suggests a work of history. Scholarly consensus confirms my own subjective opinion of these two classical historians.
Is the Chr an historian? I think so. Even though there is no proem in Chr comparable to the one Herodotus wrote nor is there any first person narrative, the character of the narrative suggests to me a genuine antiquarian impulse. Certainly, this antiquarian impulse is filtered through an especially strong ideological program but the commitment to the past remains a strong characteristic of the overall work. Perhaps, this is best illustrated when one considers the character of genealogies. While genealogies in tribal cultures are as much about the present as they are about the past, they nevertheless derive their significance in the present from the past. This axiom seems to characterize not only the Chr's genealogies but the entirety of the Chr's work. While Chr is a book as much about the Chr's present as about his past, it nevertheless derives the significance of the present from the past. In this respect, the Chr is a historian and Chr is history.
Note: I appreciate this is a somewhat perfunctory conclusion and warrants some further elaboration but the assignment for which this was originally written had a word count and this seemed the best place to leave off. Perhaps, I will expand on this short essay in a future blog entry.
The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures has published my review of Kalimi's monograph, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. For more of my published book reviews as well as an updated list of my forthcoming book reviews, check out my Published Reviews.
My mom recently forwarded me this link to storyboards of the Bible using LEGO blocks. So far, the site, called "The Brick Testament", has quite an extensive collection, including LEGO reproductions of Genesis, Exodus, The Wilderness [Wanderings], The Law, Joshua, Judges, The Gospels, Acts, and The Epistles. Before showing these storyboards to kids though, you'll want to pay attention to his rating scheme, which includes warnings of nudity, sexual content, violence, and cursing. This isn't your ordinary kids Bible.
In a recent blog entry, Tyler highlighted an excerpt from a newly released book of conversations between journalist Michka Assayas and U2 lead singer Bono. I encourage you to read the excerpt and even buy the book. To give you a taste, this is the Q&A that caught my attention:
Assayas: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn't so "peace and love"?
Bono: There's nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that's why they're so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you're a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.
That's an interesting take on the relationship between the testaments. While I might quibble a bit with the dichotomy that Bono implies, he presents his ideas well and, for the most part, advances a very useful perspective. More than that though, I'm impressed by his rejection of a namby-pamby sort of definition of love. Not often a celebrity shows some theological muster. Moreover, the rest of the excerpt is similarly insightful and interesting. Bono really impresses me for the person of Christ he honestly seems committed to be. I sincerely pray that God richly blesses this man's ministry.
I recently discovered a new study Bible on the market that actually looks quite interesting. The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Study Bible is edited by Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and Walter Brueggemann among others. The former, Willard and Foster, are two of the more impressive contributors to the Christian spirituality genre while the latter, Brueggemann, will be known to most students of the Bible. The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Study Bible includes contributions from well-known biblical (generally conservative) scholars, such as Walter Kaiser, James Crenshaw, Tremper Longman III, Ralph Klein, Bill Long, Catherine Taylor, and biblioblogger Ben Witherington III. It uses the NRSV translation, includes the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books, and features essays, notes, and character sketches as well as comments on the spiritual disciplines. Reviews at amazon.com seem very positive. You can buy it from amazon.com in leather or hardcover. To learn more about Renovaré, visit their website.
Firefox has a lot of really cool features, including some great extensions that add covenient functionality to the browser. Today, I went in search of a Wikipedia extension so that I could search the encyclopedia direct from Firefox's integrated search box like I do Google, Merriam-Webster, IMDB.com, and other sites. In my search, I discovered a pretty nifty feature built right into Firefox. To search Wikipedia in Firefox, all you need to do is type wp [your search term] in the URL address field. Now that is cool!
The excavations of Yigal Shiloh, recent excavations by Reich and Shukron, and now the excavations by Eilat Mazar in the City of David and Jerusalem have and are yielding impressive finds. Most recently, it has been reported in various online articles that Eilat Mazar has uncovered the foundations of a significant building, which she dates to the 10th or 9th century on the basis of pottery at the walls. (HT: Jim West)
King David's fabled palace: Is this it? By Steven Erlanger, The New York Times
FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2005
JERUSALEM An Israeli archaeologist says she has uncovered in East Jerusalem what she believes may be the fabled palace of the biblical King David. Her work has been sponsored by the Shalem Center, a neoconservative think tank in Jerusalem, and funded by an American Jewish investment banker who would like to help provide scientific support for the Bible as a reflection of Jewish history.
Other scholars who have toured the site are skeptical that the foundation walls Eilat Mazar has discovered are David's palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important - a major public building from around the 10th century B.C. with pottery shards that date from the time of David and Solomon and a government seal of an official mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah. cont'd
Regardless of whether Mazar's dating or her sense that this is a royal palace holds up, this building will likely remain an important find. If her interpretation, or at least the dating, is proven accurate, it will undoubtedly rank among Reich and Shukron's work at the Siloam Pool, Yigal Shiloh's Persian Period Stratum 9, and a growing handful of other finds as truly field-changing discoveries in City of David and Jerusalem archaeology of the past 20-30 years.
The Book of Chronicles as History
The excavations of Yigal Shiloh, recent excavations by Reich and Shukron, and now the excavations by Eilat Mazar in the City of David and Jerusalem have and are yielding impressive finds. Most recently, it has been reported in ![[Valid Atom]](http://anduril.ca/blog/themes/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom Feed"){kind=small}
