Tamen Usque Recurret

In a just released book review, Emanuel Pfoh, laments that twenty years after he thought that the idea of a historical bible had been so "deconstructed and transformed" that he hoped "it would never recover," he instead finds to his chagrin it "to be as vital as it was more than twenty years ago."

Welcome to mortality Professor Pfoh. The real issues never go away and every generation gets to answer them again for themselves.

Professor Pfoh finds it so abhorrent that anyone would take the historicity of ancient Israel seriously that he must provide "some critical comments" against anyone who would dare take it seriously. After all "nowadays it [the existence of an “Israelite people” before the Iron Age and outsidePalestine] would hardly be considered a historical fact supported by archaeology and epigraphy". But, according to Pfoh, "one should not attack so much the genre as the very procedures of history writing typical in a genre like the aforementioned." Apparently taking an ancient historical account seriously as history is a crime that deserves to be attacked at all costs.

Pfoh asks, "Is there a “people of Israel” as a coherent, self-conscious, homogeneous group in Iron Age Palestine?" Fair enough. Was there a coherent, self-conscious, homogeneous group of Luwians in the Iron Age Levant? I have read books about them that treat them as historical, but there is less historical evidence for them than there is for ancient Israel, and the historical evidence for them shows them to be much less homogeneous than ancient Israel. After looking at his publications, it is not surprising to find out that Professor Pfoh does not indicate that he has ever tried to reconstruct any ancient history of any place. It might be an informative exercise for those who doubt the historicity of ancient Israel to pick a large tell in the ancient Near East and try to write a history of the site. Until they do, they will, like the graduate school professors they studied under, just keep trying to drive out nature with a pitch-fork.

Ancient Israelites More Literate Than We Thought

This news item in the New York Times argues that ancient Israelites were more literate than previously thought. We went through this all last year. I pointed out that:

• the Hebrew Bible notes its historical sources, 


• when those sources survive, they end up being accurately represented as sources,


• epigraphic sources indicate that Israelite scribes kept annals, 


• the epipgraphic finds from ancient Israel indicates widespread Israelite scribes (with a number now noted for the eleventh century)


• the epigraphic finds indicate a professional and literate scribal class,


• the epigraphic finds enable a rough calculation of the amount of literary material in the country,

This all serves to indicate that scribes and scribal activity in ancient Israel was greater than some biblical scholars would like it to be, and all this while not requiring literacy to be as widespread as the New York Times claims. Will some people believe it now that the New York Times says it?

Types of Evidence

People who do not work across disciplines can sometimes be confused about various categories of evidence and how they are used to reconstruct the past.

Historical evidence is written evidence about the past.

Archaeological evidence is material evidence about the past.

These categories of evidence are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An inscription found in situ (in place) on an archaeological dig is both archaeological evidence and historical evidence.

We attempt to reconstruct the past from various types of evidence. Generally, historians have no training in or competence with archaeological evidence, and archaeologists generally have no training in or competence with historical evidence. There are some very notable exceptions to those generalizations; a number of scholars successfully work with both types of evidence and certain disciplines routinely work with both types of evidence.

Archaeological evidence and historical evidence provide different pictures about what happened in the past. These viewpoints might be complementary or contradictory. In both cases we can only deal with the evidence we have.

For example, the inscriptions from Til Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar) indicate that the dynastic succession at Masuwari was complicated; they do not, however, give us the names of all the rulers involved. So we can only work with inadequate evidence.

To show how the archaeological and historical record give different pictures, consider Nicaea. From historical sources we know that Nicaea was near Constantine's summer residence. We have no archaeological evidence that he was ever there or ever paid any attention to the place. The lack of archaeological evidence does not prove Constantine was never there. On the other hand archaeological evidence tells us that the theater seated 15,000. I know of no historical evidence that provides us that information. The lack of historical evidence does not mean there was no theater.

Sometimes historical and archaeological evidence overlap. Sometimes they conflict. Most of the time they do neither. Each provides its own sort of evidence. One cannot just expect the two types of evidence to corroborate each other. Much of the material in the Bible, for example, is not and cannot be corroborated archaeologically. There are points at which the archaeological record does corroborate the Bible. But archaeology does not necessarily corroborate every point one might like.

Historians not used to dealing with archaeology have a tendency to overestimate the extent to which the archaeological evidence can be expected to corroborate the historical evidence.

More on the New Hebrew Inscription

As a follow-up on my post of yesterday, I saw this post by Christopher Rollston where he comes to the same conclusion about what the new inscriptions mean (I cite only the fourth of his six observations):

(4) The script of this inscription is that of a trained scribal professional. There is no doubt about this. The morphology of the letters was executed with precision and deftness. The spacing between words was careful and precise. The word dividers were nicely done and consistent. This inscription constitutes further evidence for the presence of trained scribal professionals in the southern Levant during the late 11th and early 10th centuries BCE (see Rollston 2006 for primary and secondary literature on scribalism and scribal education during the 9th through 6th centuries BCE). Those who wish to argue that there were no trained scribal professionals in ancient Israel and Judah during the 10th and 9th centuries continue to find themselves defending a position that is flying in the face of the epigraphic evidence for the entire southern Levant.

The Latest on Hebrew Inscriptions

Back in January, I listed the various Hebrew inscriptions according to date and in a series of posts (here, here, here, here, and here) discussed some of the implications of them.

The latest issue of BASOR arrived this week. Garfunkel, Golub, Miagav and Ganor mention that there are now six eleventh century inscriptions from the area of Israel.

This demonstrates how the accident of discovery impacts our reconstruction of history. By my count (which is subject to change) there are more eleventh century inscriptions known than there are tenth century ones.

What these new inscriptions mean is that the Israelite scribal apparatus dates about a century earlier than we previously thought.

It also shows that in certain areas it only takes a single find to completely change the subject.

The Daily Grind

Most ancient literature was written by elites for elites. The concerns of the typical peasant does not enter into the question. The peasants were normally not noticed. It comes as something of a pleasant surprise when a mention does appear, such as this one, from a tamitu text that has a lot of Old Babylonian (ca. 2000-1600 BC) material though the tablet seems to be Neo-Assyrian (ca. 900-650 BC) in date (at earliest it dates to the time of the patriarchs, at latest it dates to just before Jeremiah's time):

the oxen, the sheep, the donkeys, the people, the ploughing oxen, the oxherds, and their supervisors, the bird-catchers, the look-outs, who leave this city daily, and in the environs of this city, moving about for one league, a half, or two-thirds, by day-time perform the duties assigned to them, by night entering this city for their rest:

(W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2007], 29.)

A number of things is interesting about this ancient description of the daily commute. The modern commute is generally from the suburbs to the city. This commute is from the city to the fields outside. Both the people and the domestic animals live and sleep within the city and work in their fields outside the city walls, and these could be up to more than ten kilometers away on foot. This gives some indication of what daily life was like for the poorer classes of people in ancient Mesopotamia.

On Historical Discrepancies

One of the disciplinary leitmotifs of biblical studies is the search for discrepancies or inconsistencies or contradictions in the text. Supposedly discrepancies or inconsistencies indicate different sources since we all know that human beings in general and source critics in particular are entirely free from inconsistencies. Supposedly inconsistencies with historical or archaeological evidence indicates that the account is not historical.

Unfortunately, inconsistency is a staple with ancient history. Take for example the history of Til-Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar). A poetical account from Assyria tell us that in 856 BC. the Assyrians under Shalmaneser III conquered the Aramaean forces of Bit-Adini under the ruler, Ahuni, at Til-Barsip, resettled Assyrians in the city, reorganized it as a royal residence, and renamed it Kar-Shalmaneser.

We know Aramaeans were in the city because tablets bearing Aramaic inscriptions were found there. The Assyrians also left a provincial palace which is attested archaeologically, as is an expansion of the town to cover 50 hectares. Assyrian statuary, murals, and mosaics have been found.

So from Assyrian sources we know that the Assyrians conquered the Aramaic speaking nation of Bit-Adini in Til-Barsip in 856 BC. These seem to be supported archaeologically.

Now, as it so happens, a number of inscriptions from the ninth century BC. were also discovered at Tell Ahmar. From these inscriptions, in Hieroglyphic Luwian, we learn that Tell Ahmar was the home of a pair of dynasties of Luwian speakers throughout the entire ninth century. The kingship seems to have passed from Hapatilas to Ariyahinas to Hamiyatas's father (whose name is missing) to Hamiyatas to Hamiyatas's son (whose name is also missing) and back to Ariyahinas's son. These Luwian speaking rulers ruled a country called Masuwari.

The Hittite style architecture and the statuary is also attested archaeologically at the site.

So the contradictions here are huge. They include the name of the country (Bit-Adini vs. Masuwari), the names of the rulers (Ahuni vs. Hamiyatas or Ariyahinas), and whether or not there was an Assyrian invasion. There have been a variety of attempts to make sense of the historical and archaeological record but the inconsistencies are plainly there. None of those who have dealt with the evidence (Lipinski, Hawkins, Akkermans and Schwartz) seem to deny that any of the evidence that they work with was not historical or accurate; none of them deny the Assyrian conquest or the account left in poetic form.

Tell Ahmar is now on a island in a lake created by the Tishrin dam on the Euphrates and part of the tell has washed away. It is also located in the Kobane province of Syria and so not an ideal place to excavate at the moment. So it is unlikely that there will be any additional help from archaeology for a resolution of the contradictions at the moment.

Inconsistencies and discrepancies are a standard part of the historical and archaeological record. The existence of inconsistencies does not mean that the events did not take place or were not historical, nor does the fact that the historical accounts were couched in poetic form, despite what some biblical scholars might think. Navigating through such discrepancies is what historians do. Different historians will propose different theories to resolve the discrepancies in the historical evidence. The usual method of deciding which historical theory is to determine which theory best accounts for the available evidence.

Notes on Modern Scribal Training II

In a previous post, I looked at the requirements to get a doctoral degree in Hebrew Bible from a good school. A number of people thought I was looking down at those programs. Not at all. They are good programs. They may not require everything but they require some good things. To see this, lets take a look a what it takes to get a doctoral degree in biblical studies from other schools.

Concordia Seminary

Concordia Seminary is a fine Lutheran school with a distinguished list of alumni including Martin E. Marty, Frederick W. Danker, Jaroslav Pelikan and Richard John Neuhaus. According to their catalog to get a degree in Hebrew Bible requires the following coursework:

A total of 36 quarter hours of classroom work for credit at the 800 level, generally, two courses per quarter for two years.

They must demonstrate command of Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, German and one other language. And they must take the following courses:

EO804 Advanced Hebrew Readings
EN804 Advanced Greek Readings
EO80X Old Testament Issues
EN80X New Testament Issues
E8XX Advanced Biblical Theology
Two Major Figures Courses (6 credits)
One Old Testament and one New Testament course (6 credits) 

Neither history nor archaeology is required for the Ph.D.

Claremont

The Claremont School of Theology offers a degree in Hebrew Bible.

Students in the Hebrew Bible track must pass research language exams in French and German as well as an examination in Biblical Hebrew and demonstrate competence in Aramaic. Students are also required to study at least one additional Semitic language. Normally, the additional language will be Akkadian, although Ugaritic, Syriac, Arabic, and other relevant languages may be substituted with the permission of the student’s program advisor.

 Students are specifically required to take courses in the following:

T HB4033: Aramaic 4 units
Minimum 16 credit hours in Hebrew Bible 16 units
Free Electives 8 units
Hebrew Bible Track Additional Requirements – 20 units
Additional Hebrew Bible Electives 16 units
One additional Semitic language, such as Akkadian, Ugaritic, Syriac, or Arabic 4 unit

But that is not all:

In addition, students may take up to two courses (8 credits) in religious traditions outside of Judaism.

So neither history or archaeology is required here either.

Illif School of Theology

The Iliff School of Theology is a Methodist university that offers doctorates in biblical studies. The course requirements are:

Theories and Methods in the Study of Religion
Lived Religion Colloquium
Conceptual Approaches to Religion Colloquium
Text, Image, and Artifact Colloquium
Pedagogy and the Teaching of Religion
Dissertation Proposal Seminar

Additionally students must pass an exam in a modern language (and modern language classes do not count toward graduation requirements):

Typically French, German, or Spanish, this language allows the student to read scholarship in the field of religious studies.

 And just in case you thought they forgot it:

Students focusing in biblical studies must acquire additional languages such as Hebrew, Greek, and/or Aramaic, as primary content in their field.

The artifact colloquium may or may not cover archaeology. History is not required and it looks as though only one ancient language is required and there is no indication how much.

Dallas Theological Seminary

The Dallas Theological Seminary is one of the top evangelical universities in the country. PhD students in Hebrew Bible are required to pass a proficiency exam in Hebrew grammar and then take the following two courses:

OT103	Introduction to Hebrew Exegesis	3 hours
OT104	Principles of Hebrew Exegesis	3 hours

 Then they are allowed to proceed to stage two of the process:

For Biblical Studies majors, 9 hours of course work are required in divisional courses. In addition to this core curriculum, each student must take 12 hours in a concentration, either Old Testament Studies, New Testament Studies, or Bible Exposition and complete a 3-hour dissertation in their major field. Each student also has 11 hours of electives.

This includes numerous courses including mainly exegesis but also could include things like Akkadian, Ugaritic, or Northwest Semitic Inscriptions. What is on the books may not be offered all the time but this semester they are offering Hebrew grammar classes, two different courses on exegesis and an introduction to Ugaritic.

And, by the way:

Doctoral students are required to demonstrate ability to read scholarly French and German.

So neither history nor archaeology is even offered and languages other than Hebrew, German and French are not required.





Fazit

As can be seen, a doctorate in Hebrew Bible from some programs does not necessarily mean that one will have much more than a rudimentary grasp of Hebrew. It is possible in some programs not to have studied any other Semitic language. Some programs require only one modern foreign language though most seem to require two. Some programs not only do not require history or archaeology, they do not even offer them. A doctoral degree in Hebrew Bible may be very rigorous or extremely lax. You never know when you encounter someone with a doctorate in Hebrew Bible how much they might actually know or not know. At the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) meetings I have seriously met professors of Hebrew Bible who teach Hebrew at universities but who had never read more than a dozen chapters of the Bible in Hebrew. At SBL meetings one meets individuals who run the entire gamut from the prodigiously learned and frightfully competent to the abysmally ignorant and dreadfully incompetent and everything in between. I have avoided pointing fingers at any specific individual even though I have used specific examples of real programs. One cannot assume much of someone who has a doctoral degree in biblical studies. That may not be how it should be, but that is how it actually is.

Using Historical Information to Answer Old Testament Questions

What use is history in the study of the Old Testament?

A friend asks the following question about Joshua 1:3-4 ("Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast."):

What do you make of the fact that Israel never attained the borders described here? 1 Kings 5:1 describes Solomon as ruling this entire land, but rather than rule directly, he ruled through vassal states that owed him tribute. The people of Israel did not occupy that land even when Solomon controlled it.

It is hard to know where to start with a question like this. As phrased the question reflects a profound ignorance of both the ancient world and the Bible. My friend has unfortunately only read the scriptural text and has had a little second-hand exposure to literary-critical scholarship, but never really delved into history or archaeology. The description of the lands that Solomon ruled over is in 1 Kings 4:21-24, not 1 Kings 5:1:

And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life. . . . For he had dominion over all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah even to Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river: and he had peace on all sides round about him. (1 Kings 4:21, 24)

So the biblical text actually says that in the days of Solomon Israel did attain the borders described in Joshua. (Azzah is modern Gaza; Tiphsah is on the Euphrates). But what about the rule through vassal states?
 
It was actually typical to rule over this territory through vassal states as we know from Hittite inscriptions, the El-Amarna tablets, the Idrimi inscription, the Azitiwada inscription from Karatepe, and the Assyrian inscriptions. The Hittites, Egyptians, and Assyrians all had empires covering this area that were ruled through vassal states. Judah and Israel themselves became, at times, vassal states. Even the book of Judges describes the typical functioning of vassal states. It is not clear why Solomon should be an exception.

Here the inscriptional evidence discovered by archaeology can help.

The following maps show where monumental Neo-Hittite inscriptions (mostly royal inscriptions) left by various kingdoms north of Israel. Monumental inscriptions attest independent kingdoms.

These are the locations of inscriptions that date to the tenth century. This is the time of Solomon.

Neo-Hittite States in the Tenth Century B.C.

At this time, the kingdoms of Karkamesh and Melid (known from the eleventh century) are joined by the kingdoms of Kummuh, Gurgum, Masuwari and Halab. Halab is the furthest south that an independent kingdom exists.

In this map we see inscriptions dating to the ninth century. This is the time of Elijah:

Neo-Hittite States in the Ninth Century B.C.

At this time, kingdoms of Unqi, Hamath, Que, and those of the region of Tabal join the list (although Melid is not attested at this time).The Tabal region needs a special note as this is a region populated by individual independent kingdoms on a smaller scale than the larger kingdoms in the south east. So while the colored dots represent parts of larger states, the grey ones are independent.

The kingdom of Hamath, which is mentioned in the Bible as being immediately north of Israel, appears as an independent entity at this time.

To the east of Hamath was the Aramaean state of Aram-Damascus. But

It is only towards the end of the 10th century B.C. that Damascus becomes a significant political entity in the Levant as capital of an Aramaean state.

(Edward Lipinski, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion [Leuven: Peeters, 2000], 367.)

In fact:

With the death of Solomon and the division of his kingdom into two small rival states of Israel and Judah began the political ascendancy of Damascus in southern Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan.

(Lipinski, The Aramaeans, 370.)

So Aram-Damascus mainly comes into play in the ninth century.

In the last map, we see inscriptions dating to the eighth century. This is the century of the Assyrian conquests:

Neo-Hittite States in the Eighth Century B.C.

During this time, the Assyrian empire swallowed up many of these kingdoms. The inscriptions come from the earlier part of the century.

So looking at these maps, one of the things that we can notice is precisely at the time period of Solomon, we do not have independent kingdoms in the area of Solomon's empire while we do have them later. This is not proof that Solomon controlled all this area but is evidence consistent with that hypothesis.

Thus the archaeological and epigraphic evidence supports the biblical account of Solomon controlling the area up to the Euphrates. If Israel controlled that territory, this would mean, in turn, that Israel did obtain the borders that the Lord described in Joshua even if they did not hold the territory long. Unfortunately, the basis of my friend's question is thoroughly wrong. From a historical background, the question does not even make sense.

This example illustrates why it might be useful to know something about the history, archaeology, and epigraphy of the ancient world and not limit ourselves to literary, theological, or philosophical approaches to scripture.

Notes on Modern Scribal Training

In consequence of something I mentioned earlier (here), A friend of mine (who is a physician) asked if it is true that one can become a biblical scholar without taking any archaeology or history classes.

Here are only the coursework requirements (not teaching, writing, or dissertation requirements) from a number of Ph.D. programs in biblical studies. All of these programs have good reputations:

Brandeis:

A certain amount of coursework is required:

Three years of full-time residence are required at the normal rate of at least seven term courses each academic year.

These courses could cover many subjects but the following are required:

Students in the Bible and Ancient Near East concentration (BANE) must establish competence in biblical Hebrew, Akkadian, Northwest Semitic Languages, and two secondary research languages (normally German and French); in addition, students focusing on Bible must establish competence in modern Hebrew as a research language. 

Aside from demonstrating competence in five different languages, no other courses or subjects are listed as required.

This is supported by this paragraph:

Students in the BANE doctoral program take courses for the first three years. Typically a student will take four courses each semester (the minimum full time load is seven courses per year). In a typical semester, a student will take a course in Hebrew Bible, Akkadian and Northwest Semitics, with a fourth text or content course. (The latter includes courses such as Ancient Near Eastern Religion and Mythology, Women in the Bible, Near Eastern Law, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) The fourth course may be chosen in accordance with a student's ultimate specialty. Students interested in grammar or semitics are encouraged to study Arabic; those who want to do textual criticism should study Greek. Each student is to consult with all BANE faculty members about course selection at the beginning of each semester.

So Brandeis does not require courses in archaeology or history.

Harvard:

This is complicated because there are a number of different degrees. If one wants to get a degree in Religion with an emphasis in Hebrew Bible, then the following is required:

A high standard of reading proficiency in two modern languages of secondary scholarship relevant to a student's course of study (in addition to English) is required. This proficiency is to be demonstrated through coursework or by exam after enrollment in the program. A student and his or her adviser will determine the choice of the two modern languages, which should not be confused with primary source languages necessary for the specialization. Typically French and German are selected as modern languages of secondary scholarship, however in certain fields other modern languages are more relevant.

In addition:

The committee requires of each student satisfactory completion of two common seminars in the first two years (normally in the first and fourth term of study), and in addition two courses outside the specialty, focusing on a religious tradition, a geographical-historical complex or a methodological approach other than the one a student elects as the context of study.

 For Hebrew Bible specifically, the requirements are:

The field of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament requires students to pursue a number of languages to attain the requisite proficiency of a scholar in the field. These include biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and German. Students often study others, such as Akkadian, Ugaritic, Egyptian, Modern Hebrew, and French, as well.

No other specific courses are required. The student will face the following four examinations:

1. The language and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.
2. Issue in Biblical Scholarship, which concentrates on literary, historical, theological, and hermeneutical issues.
3. An area of concentration, of which the most common are (a) the religion of ancient Israel and the comparative study of religion, (b) pre-exilic history, (c) post-exilic Second Temple history, (d) late Second Temple, early rabbinic, and early Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, and (d) theology of the Hebrew Bible. Students work out their area of concentration with the faculty.
4. A special topic, to be worked out in consultation with the relevant faculty.

Through the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, two different Ph.D. programs are offered: Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and the Hebrew Bible in its Jewish Interpretive Context. Both have the following course requirements:

PhD candidates are required to complete a minimum of sixteen half-courses or the equivalent. Particular requirements of certain fields of study may require additional coursework.

The primary language requirements are:

The major language of the student’s field of research is normally one of the fields of the general examinations.
In addition, all students are expected to have or acquire knowledge of a second departmental language. The minimum level of competence expected in this requirement is a grade of B in the final examination of a second-year course in the language.
Instead of such language coursework, a student may demonstrate the equivalent level of competence in a required language by taking a special examination administered by a member of the faculty.
If a second departmental language is included in the general examinations, the level of competence will be significantly greater than that ­required in a second-year language course examination.

The modern language requirements are as follows:

Each student must demonstrate reading proficiency in two modern languages of secondary scholarship (other than English) of direct relevance to their proposed subject of study. One of these languages must be either French or German.

But one should note the following:

Courses in the languages of modern scholarship do not count toward the required sixteen half-courses or the equivalent (see above).

Though courses are offered in biblical archaeology, it does not appear that anyone is required to take them. Courses in history seem to be encouraged but not required.

Johns Hopkins:

This is the university where Albight taught. A number of languages are required:

The study of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible forms the core of the program.  Students read a wide variety of texts in Hebrew each semester.   The three-year cycle of courses currently includes Archaic Biblical Poetry, Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomistic History (Book of Kings), Prophetic Literature (The Book of Ezekiel), Wisdom Literature (The Book of Job, Qohelet [=Ecclesiastes]) and Persian Period Texts. The approach of each course varies yet common methodologies include textual criticism, historical linguistics, literary criticism, and the application of socio-scientific methods.

Other ancient languages are also required:

 The academic study of the Hebrew Bible as an ancient Near Eastern text requires additional training in cognate languages.  In addition to a student’s minor language (two-three years of Akkadian and/or Egyptian, on which see below), students must also master other languages in the Northwest Semitic language family especially Aramaic and Ugaritic.

Johns Hopkins is one of the rare programs in biblical studies to emphasize epigraphy:

Students are trained in epigraphic methods (both conventional and digital) through dedicated courses covering epigraphic Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician and Moabite as well as texts that resist easy classification such as the TransJordanian Deir Alla texts.  In addition, the advanced course in Aramaic deals almost exclusively with epigraphic Aramaic (especially concentrating on Old Aramaic inscriptions).  All Ugaritic texts are read from the original alphabetic cuneiform inscriptions.

They also emphasize placing the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern milieu which means studying history:

Most noticeable is our requirement that all students complete a three-year Near Eastern history cycle--a year each of Egyptian history, Mesopotamian history, and Syro-Palestinian history.  Seminars (e.g. The Seminar in Israelite Religion) regularly situate topics under discussion (e.g. Divinity, Royal Cult, Domestic Religion, Sacred Space, Blood Rituals, Divination) in their broader ancient Near Eastern cultural context.

Johns Hopkins is exceptional in emphasizing material culture:

All students in Hebrew Bible/Northwest Semitics are strongly encouraged to study material culture.  Through the efforts of William Foxwell Albright, Johns Hopkins was the institution that gave birth to the discipline of  Syro-Palestinian Archaeology (formerly termed “Biblical Archaeology”). We have a very strong graduate program in Near Eastern Archaeology, one of our four areas of concentration. 

The strong encouragement is good, but there seems to be no archaeology requirement but history is required.

Yale:

There are three different ways to study the Hebrew Bible at Yale: One is through the Department of Religious Studies, one is through the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations.

In Religious Studies, one must take the following languages:

Language prerequisites for admission to graduate study in the field are as follows: two or more years of Biblical Hebrew (most applicants have more than two years); some Greek; and a reading knowledge of German and French. Proficiency in German must be demonstrated on entrance and proficiency in French must be demonstrated before the beginning of the third year. Proficiency in German and French is demonstrated by (1) passing an examination administered by the department; (2) by accreditation from a Yale Summer School course designed for this purpose; or (3) by achieving a grade of A or B in one of Yale’s intermediate language courses. During the first two years of course work, students must take at least one semester of Biblical Aramaic, if they have not already studied that language, and they must take a full year of Ugaritic. Students normally take at least a year of another ancient language, usually Akkadian, although in some cases Arabic, Greek, Egyptian, or further work in Aramaic may be appropriate.

Additionally, they must take other courses:

Each student must take at least one graduate seminar in OT/HB and at least one of the following advanced Hebrew courses each semester: Rapid Reading and the Syntax of Hebrew Prose, Problems in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, Problems in the History of the Hebrew Language, Text Criticism. Students normally fill in the remainder of their course schedules with aditional language work, biblical seminars, or courses in related fields, such as New Testament, Judaic Studies, Classics, Anthropology, or Literary Criticism.

There is no archaeology requirement and no history requirement and no courses are listed.

Through Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, things have changed:

 The Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations no longer maintains an active independent doctoral program in Northwest Semitic languages, Bible, or Comparative Semitics, although courses in Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and cognate languages are regularly available in the Department. Students interested in doctoral study in Bible and Northwest Semitic languages or in the history, culture, and religion of Israel are advised to consult the Department of Religious Studies.

 So neither archaeology nor history is required.

Fazit

So the short answer to the question is that one can get a good Ph.D. in biblical studies from a very reputable university without any exposure to archaeology. This does not, of course, mean that all those with doctoral degrees from these institutions have necessarily gotten their degrees without exposure to archaeology or history, just that such courses of study have not been required. That top programs in biblical studies do not require either history or archaeology says something about how biblical studies in conceived by its practitioners.

Assessing Historical Authenticity of the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible

Many biblical scholars argue that biblical historical narratives (think things like Kings) were written, or for some scholars made up, years after the fact. Certainly in their current form, they can date no earlier than "the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin" (2 Kings 25:27) about 561 B.C. Some scholars, nevertheless date them to the Persian period or Hellenistic period rather than the Neo-Babylonian period. The claim is that Kings presents a fictive narrative made up years after the fact to provide Judah with a national history that it never had.

What does a fictive narrative put together years after the fact look like? The apocryphal book of 1 Esdras is a good candidate. I am comfortable with a Hellenistic date for 1 Esdras but am willing to consider other options. I will briefly summarize the narrative adding actual historical dates in parentheses.

• The narrative begins when "Josiah (640-609 B.C.) conducted the Passover to his Lord in Jerusalem." (1 Esdras 1:1).


• Then "Pharaoh, king of Egypt, came to wage war in Carchemesh on the Euphrates" and Josiah was killed (1 Esdras 1:23-29). The source for this is the book of Kings (1 Esdras 1:31).


• Then Jehoahaz (609 B.C.) became king of Judah (1 Esdras 1:32).


• Then Jehoiakim (609-598 B.C.) became king of Judah (1 Esdras 1:37).


• "Against him arose Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon" (1 Esdras 1:38).


• So Zedekiah (597-586 B.C.) was appointed king over Judah (1 Esdras 1:44).


• In the first year of the reign of Cyrus (585-550 B.C.) as king of Persia (1 Esdras 2:1).


• Then came the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC) as king of Persia (1 Esdras 2:12).


• Then Darius (550-486 B.C.) ruled over the Persian empire (1 Esdras 3:1).

The author of 1 Esdras cannot get the reigns of the Persian rulers in proper order. The only place where he gets the rulers in the right order is when he is relying on the book of Kings, which he cites as a source.

This can be contrasted with the order of Assyrian rulers in the books of Kings:

• First comes the reign of Pul who is also called Tiglath-pileser (745-727 B.C.) (2 Kings 15:19, 29; 16:7, 10).


• Second comes Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.) (2 Kings 17:3; 18:9).


• Third comes the reign of Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) (2 Kings 18:13; 19:16, 20, 36; cf. Isaiah 36:1; 37:17, 21, 37).


• Then comes the reign of Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.) (2 Kings 19:37; cf. Isaiah 37:38).

The book of Kings gets the Assyrian rulers in the correct order even though, when its final form was written, the Assyrian empire no longer existed (and had not for at least a couple of generations), nor did its records (which were discovered over two millennia later in situ). Given the hash of history that 1 Esdras presents us with, why would we expect that the writer of Kings would get the order of an earlier dead empire correct if he did not have access to more or less accurate historical records?

Hebrew Inscriptions

Recent discussion on the Old Testament assumes that literacy was not common. It may not have been, but the assumption appears to be that it was less common than it may have actually been. One of the larger problems is that the arguments proceed on the basis of assumptions without actual data. It is worth looking at how much inscriptional evidence from pre-exilic Israel there actually is. The following information is culled from F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, J. J. M. Roberts, C. L. Seow, and R. E. Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). I have only included the provenanced inscriptions.

Tenth Century (3 inscriptions; 1 from Israel, 2 from Judah)
Amal 1
Tel Batash 1
Gezer 1

Ninth Century (11 inscriptions; 5 from Israel, 6 from Judah)
Arad 101
Bethsaida 1
Eshtemoa 1-3
Tell el-Hammah 1
Hazor 1-4
Meggido 2

Eighth Century (391 inscriptions; 126 from Israel, 260 from Judah, 5 from Assyria)
Arad 40-42, 44, 46-57, 59-69, 71-80, 89-90, 92-93, 96, 98, 99
Aren 1
Beersheba 1-10
Tell Beir Mirsim 1-6
Beth-Shean 1
Tel Dan 1
En-Gedi 2
Gezer 2
Gibeon 1-62 (83 inscriptions only mentioned)
Hazor 5-9, 14
Tell el-Hesi 1
Tel Ira 4
Jerusalem 4-5, 7-11, 17-18, 23-24, 28, 32, 34-35, 78
Kadesh Barnea 7
Kuntillet Arjud 2-3, 5-11, 14-15, 18-21
Megiddo 1
Tell en-Nasbeh 2-5
Nimrud 1-5
Tell el-Oreimeh 1-2
Tell Qasile 1-2
Khirbet el-Qom 3-4, 6-9
Ramat Rahel 1
Samaria 1-107, 111-19
Siloam Tunnel 1
Silwan 1-2, 4

Seventh Century (56 inscriptions; 54 from Judah, 2 from Persia)
Arad 24-28, 32-39, 58
Aror 2
Tel Batash 2
En-Gedi 1
Tel Ira 1-3, 6-7
Jerusalem 1, 3, 6, 19, 25-27, 29-31, 33, 79
Kadesh Barnea 2-3, 9
Mareshah 1
Mesad Hashavyahu 1-2, 4-7
Khirbet el-Meshash 1, 3
Wadi Murabbaat 1
Khirbet el-Qom 1-2, 5
Susa 1-2
Horvat Uza 1-4

Sixth Century (68 inscriptions; all from Judah)
Arad 1-23, 29-31, 110-112
Kirbet Beit Lei 1-7
Jerusalem 2, 16
Ketef Hinnom 1-2
Lachish 1-9, 11-13, 16, 18-22, 25-34

Unknown (9 inscriptions; 3 from Israel, 6 from Judah)
Arad 81, 88, 97, 104
Beth-Shean 2-5 (counted as one inscription)
Hazor 15, 18
Kadesh Barnea 6, 10

Many of the eighth century inscriptions might be seventh century. At any rate, during pre-exilic times a scribal culture is well attested in Judah and Israel. We should note that the inscriptional material listed is confined to ostraca (potsherds), pottery vessels, and stone surfaces. This, however, it not the main writing surface that was used in ancient Israel and Judah. While animal skins are a possibility, the best attested writing surface archaeologically is papyrus. This is because bullae, mud seal impressions with impressions of the papyri and sting on the back attest to papyrus documents being used even if the papyrus no longer survives.

The year that Hebrew Inscriptions came out, another tenth century inscription was found at Tell Zeitah in Judah (see Richard Hess, "Writing about Writing," Vetus Testamentum 56/3 (2006): 342-46.

The tenth century inscriptions include two inscriptions indicating ownership, a scribal exercise, and a list of agricultural activities. The scribal exercise indicates that there is some form of scribal training. The ownership inscriptions have be taken to indicate how few people wrote. "What they imply, however, is a greater number who could read well enough to distinguish one name from another." (Alan Millard, The Journal of Theological Studies 49/2 [1998]: 701-702.) There is no point of putting your name on something if no one can read it and know that it is yours. If people are going to mark objects with their names enough people have to read enough to know whose name it is. These are words not personal or corporate logos.

A significant number of the inscriptions come from large caches of texts (such as Arad, Lachish, Samaria, Gibeon). In only takes one of these to drastically change the picture.

Writing is more frequent in Judah than it is in Israel. The attested inscriptional evidence does not support a hypothesis that writing started in Israel and then moved to Judah. There is also no real basis for claiming that Judah was less "articulate" than Israel.

It might be possible that David and Solomon were able to run their empires without writing (though I doubt it). The Bible does not credit David with annals. Jeroboam, however, had spent time in the royal courts in Egypt and had seen what use writing could be. Solomon certainly had some exposure to the practices of courts in other countries as well. These are the kings that the Bible starts to attribute annals to. The inscriptional evidence shows a wide-spread scribal network throughout the Israelite monarchies. The tenth century, though, has enough inscriptional evidence to argue that the rise of Israelite literacy coincides with the rise of the Israelite state (which is what we find in both Mesopotamia and Egypt). We could always wish for more evidence, but we should not underestimate what we do have.

Notes on Israelite Scribal Training I

There is an argument making its rounds that (1) the historical authenticity of the scriptures (2) is unnecessary because (3) the biblical authors did not do history because (4) they did not cite sources, because (5) their sources were all made up, because (6) ancient Israelite scribes did not keep historical records like annals. I have been involved in this discussion. Point (1) is important. I see point (2) as misguided. I see point (3) as a silly opinion, and I see points (4) - (6) as factually wrong. I have dealt with points (4) - (6) before and here I am only going to deal with point (6).

In dealing with point (6) I adduced a lengthy list of biblical evidence that ancient Israelite scribes kept annals and I cited two scholars of divergent ideological persuasions (K. A. Kitchen and D. B. Redford) who agreed on the scribal practice (here). It is claimed here (and here) that my citing of K. A. Kitchen's remarks about the annals of the kings of Judah and Israel is flawed. Kitchen said:

First, it was common custom for ancient kingdoms (from the third millennium onward) to keep a series of running records for hardheaded, administrative purposes, on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. Naming of years after significant events, and compiling lists of these years with their events, perhaps formed rudimentary chronicles that recorded actual facts and happenings of all kinds. Daybooks became customary, whether called such or not, in the guise of running records as in first-millennium Babylonia, or annotated lists of annual eponym officers in Assyria. From these detailed running series of "annals" a variety of writers could draw, in order to compose their own works on historical matters. Such efforts could vary from such as the Babylonian Chronicle, which gave a compact, objective digest of mainly political events (military campaigns by successive kings, etc.), to more partisan texts as in the Synchronous History (Grayson, no. 21, probably derived from a stela) asserting Assyrian military and moral ascendancy over Babylonia. Or we find "special interest" chronicles, such as the Akitu Chronicle (no. 16), whose author noted years in which the Akitu feast of Marduk was not celebrated in Babylon, along with contemporary events, and the "Religious Chronicle" (no. 17), whose author noted celebration or otherwise of temple feasts and was obsessed with wild animals straying into Babylon (and there killed), among other phenomena.

So too with biblical Kings and Chronicles. These works are not the official annals of Israel and Judah, but they explicitly refer their readers to the official annals or daybooks (Heb. "daily affairs") of the kings of Israel and Judah. From Wenamun, it is clear that the kings of Byblos in the early eleventh century kept daybooks, incorporating records of past sales of timber to foreign kingdoms such as Egypt. At two removes, the king list of Tyre cited by Josephus after Menander of Ephesus (from the latter's history of Tyre and neighbors) clearly draws upon quite accurate tradition when compared with other evidence. Neo-Hittite kingdoms such as Carchemish, Malatya, and Gurgum maintained their royal traditions, as is implied by their known hieroglyphic texts. Thus there is good reason to credit Israel and Judah with the same practices as everyone else in their world, namely, keeping running records upon which others (such as the authors of Kings and Chronicles) could draw for data in writing their own "special interest" works. To dismiss references to these "annals" of Israel and Judah is wholly unjustified in this cultural context.

(K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003], 48-49.)

After quoting part of the passage I quoted, one respondent remarks:

No! Not so with biblical Kings and Chronicles! You really can’t do that!

Well, why not?

like many other Near Eastern studies in the past, Kitchen’s work is suspect if for no other reason than as an Egyptologist (who also deals with Mesopotamian texts), Kitchen fails to view biblical material in its own unique historical and cultural context. Israelite scribal traditions are not the same thing as Mesopotamian scribal traditions. I’m going to be direct. Near Eastern scholars like Kitchen who fail to properly contextualize this material often create a type of “parallelomania” in Near Eastern society, which results in the absorption of various distinct cultural and religious aspects into a meaningless synchronic whole.

Apparently, Israelite society was wholly different from its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. You see, according to this line of thought, Judah just was not sophisticated enough to have annals:

The first evidence of an inland Canaanite script appears in Israel during the 10th century BCE. We have alphabetic writing and official seals from what would have been the period of this United Monarchy (if the Biblical account is correct that such an entity existed). Hebrew doesn’t exist as a written language until the 9th (perhaps 10th, depending on how you classify “Hebrew”) century BCE. This means that during the time period of biblical heroes such as Samuel, Saul, and David that a written form of Hebrew was only beginning to take shape. So the stories about these men do not stem from a contemporary written royal record.

The northern kingdom of Israel seems to have developed a fairly advanced society during the 8th century BCE. During this time, the southern kingdom of Judah was much smaller and far less articulate. By the end of the 8th century, however, Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians (think of the famous “lost ten tribes”). Twenty years after the destruction of Samaria, the Israelite elite had established a significant presence in Judah, and that presence changed everything, including the development of scribal texts that would eventually find their way into our Bible. During the century or so between the Assyrian destruction of Israel and the later Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, the kingdom of Judah followed Israel’s lead and developed an extraordinary literary culture. By 586 (the year Babylon destroyed Jerusalem), the Judean scribes had created their own literary texts that developed Judean authority. And these texts would eventually find their way into our Bible. This is the basic historical background for the development of writing and literary sources in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This is the historical background that must be taken into consideration in a study of “historical reliability” in the scribal works that appear in the Bible.

This line of argumentation is problematic. I think that this line of argument is wrong about what epigraphy says about the development of writing in Israel and Judah, but I will save that for another post. The fact that the response to my post cites only a portion of Kitchen's book that I quoted and the disgruntled review of someone whose position was demolished by Kitchen and the characterization of Kitchen as "an Egyptologist (who also deals with Mesopotamian texts)" makes me wonder: Could it be that the author of the response has not read Kitchen's book and is even familiar with Kitchen's vast and varied output.

The argument also seems to have constructed something of a straw man. The sources I cited (here and here) do not claim annals for David and is divided about whether there were such for Solomon, although they do claim records for both. Annals are not consistently cited until the reigns of Jeroboam and Rehoboam.

Apparently, so the response would lead us to believe, real biblical scholars do not think that scribes from Israel and Judah drew up ancient annals of their kings.

Who would know about such a thing? Christopher Rollston received his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, and is currently Associate Professor of Northwest Semitic languages and literatures at George Washington University. He has taught courses in "Gods and Goddesses of the Ancient Near East, Dead Sea Scrolls, Critical Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), Pentateuch, Deuteronomistic History, Wisdom Literature, Prophetic Texts, Second Temple Jewish Literature, Archaeology of Syria-Palestine, Gender and Ethnicity in the Bible, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Biblical and Epigraphic Aramaic, Biblical and Epigraphic Hebrew, Hellenistic Greek, Septuagint, Sahidic Coptic, Critical Introduction to the New Testament, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible." He has published in such venues as the Journal of Biblical Literature, and is the editor of Maarav. He is a biblical scholar and one of the best Hebrew epigraphers in America. He also has literally written the book on ancient Israelite scribal practice: Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel.

This is how Rollston describes the status of scribes in ancient Israel and Judah:

The scribe was an esteemed member of elite society. Note, for example, that the majority of the biblical references refer to scribes associated with the palace and temple. For example, the term sōpēr ham-melek, "scribe of the king," and "royal scribe" (2 Kgs 12:11; 2 Chr 24:11; cf. Esth 3:12; 8:9) suggest the close association of certain scribes with the palace (and thus in a position of power and status). There is also a reference to a šĕkat sōpēr, "scribal chamber" located within the royal palace (Jer 36:12), and the "house of Nathan the scribe" was under royal auspices (Jer 37:15, 20). Producing and maintaining royal records such as "the chronicles of the kings of Israel," "the chronicles of the kings of Judah," and "the chronicles of Solomon" were certainly among the responsibilities fulfilled by royal scribes (1 Kgs 11:41; 14:19, 29). Recording decrees and taking dictation were probably among the duties of scribes (Jer 36:32; Esth 1:19; 8:9-14; Dan 6:8). Furthermore, the epigraphic record demonstrates that scribes were also responsible for maintaining certain economic dockets (e.g. Reisner Samaria Ostraca). Within the Hebrew Bible, the term sōpēr śar has-sābāʾ, "scribe of the commander of the army" (2 Kgs 25:19; Jer 52:25) suggests that certain scribes were responsible for aspects of the military (e.g., mustering the troops, ordering rations, and so on), another indication of the royal affiliation on certain scribes. Naturally, scribes would be included among the śarîm, "officials," as also demonstrated by the presence of scribes in lists of officials (e.g., 2 Sam 8:17; 20:25; 2 Kgs 12:11; Jer 36:12). Because of the royal scribe's status as a literate high official, certain responsibilities connected with the temple sometimes devolved to the royal scribe (e.g., 2 Kgs 12:11; 22:3). The fact that a scribe was present, along with additional officials, during negotiations with Sennacherib's delegation, is also indicative of the power and prominence sometimes attained by a royal scribe (2 Kgs 18:18).

(Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel {Atlanta: Society  of Biblical Literature, 2010], 88-89, emphasis added.)

This is the evidence for the status of scribes in ancient Israel and Judah from the Hebrew Bible. It is worth noting that the functions of scribes in ancient Israel and Judah parallel those of scribes in ancient Mesopotamian and Egypt. The production of royal annals by royal scribes from Judah is not the mere fantasy of some third-rate scholar drunken with "parallelomania." Rollston, by analyzing biblical sources, independently confirms Kitchen's comparative analysis. So here we have a top-notch biblical scholar who agrees with Kitchen's view about the existence of the annals of the kings of Judah and Israel. (Rollston's analysis is supplemented by his immersion in the epigraphic material, which I will look at later.)

I am not saying that Israel and Judah were identical in all cultural respects, much less that either was culturally identical to ancient Assyria, or Babylon, or Egypt. Nevertheless, the basic social situation of scribes in each of these cultures seems similar. Scribes were attached to the palace or the temple, or representatives of those institutions in a local setting. They generated records to help in the management of all of those institutions. These records included economic, legal, literary, and (yes) historical texts (however biased they may have been). I am not arguing that these cultures were identical in all respects. Suggestions that ancient Judah was somehow dramatically different is special pleading and betrays a lack of basic knowledge of scribal practice in both ancient Judah and the ancient Near East.

Positing that royal scribes did not keep royal annals is untenable given that we have preserved examples of royal inscriptions found in archaeological contexts in both Judah (Siloam Inscription) and Israel (Tell Dan Inscription). If royal scribes did not write these things, who did? Furthermore the author of Kings refers to one of these inscriptions by citing the royal annals (2 Kings 20:20) that it is argued did not exist because the theory preferred is not able to accommodate the basic historical and archaeological facts.

One problem with those who do not take the historical authenticity of the Hebrew Bible seriously is that they cannot seem to do much with the historical information actually contained in the Bible. Many of them have been trained solely in literary approaches to the Bible and the ancient Near East. (For example, when I took Ugaritic we only read literary texts from Ugarit; we did not read any of the historical ones; I discovered the historical texts later on my own.) Literary approaches have some merit, but they are only one approach and not always the best one. Lacking training with historical documents, some biblical scholars can only deal with ancient texts as literature and sometimes lack any feel for using documents to answer historical questions. Many biblical studies programs simply do not teach their students about history or archaeology. I feel sorry for those who come out of such programs.

Another Thought on Historicity

Craig Blomberg is an inerrantist. I am not. Blomberg still takes a more skeptical view of biblical historicity than I do. Nevertheless, Blomberg makes an interesting point about the historicity of the Old Testament and the Old Testament writers' views of historicity:

The purpose of the miracle stories [in the Old Testament] is to counter the suggestion that any god but the Lord of Israel exists; only real events, not just mythical stories, could accomplish this.

(Craig L. Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible? [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2014], 211.)

Once More on the Chronicler's Sources

I have been informed that in certain circles I am considered hopelessly naive for taking the sources in Chronicles seriously. Any good biblical scholar (it is supposed) knows that the Chronicler made up all his sources. Those sources never existed. Unfortunately that argument does not wash. Consider the following list of sources he Chronicler cites and what they supposedly contained:

The book of Samuel the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) supposedly contains accounts of David that the Chronicler drew on.

The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29) supposedly contains accounts of David and Solomon that the Chronicler drew on.

The book of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) also supposedly contains accounts of David that the Chronicler drew on.

The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29) supposedly contains accounts of Solomon that the Chronicler drew on.

The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles 9:29, 12:15) supposedly contains accounts of Solomon, Jeroboam and Rehoboam that the Chronicler drew on.

The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15) supposedly contains accounts of Rehoboam that the Chronicler drew on.

The book of the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Chronicles 9:1; 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18; 35:27; 36:8) supposedly contains records of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, and Jehoiakim that the Chronicler drew on.

The vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 32:32) supposedly contains records of Hezekiah that the Chronicler drew on.

Of course, any real biblical scholar is supposed to know that all of these sources are fictional and none of them actually contains any records of those kings that the Chronicler was supposed to have drawn on. Except the book of the kings of Israel and Judah actually does exist, and does contain records of those kings, and it certainly appears that the Chronicler used it. The same is true for the vision of Isaiah.

So 60% of the time that the Chronicler cites a source, that source exists and has an account that the Chronicler claims to have drawn on, and appears to have actually drawn on. What does that tell us about the accuracy of the Chronicler? Sixty percent is the lowest passing grade; the bottom of the 'D's; but it is still a passing grade.

Look at it another way, though, one-hundred percent of the time when the Chronicler cites a source and that source exists, it has an account that covers more or less what the Chronicler says it does and that the Chronicler seems to have used in his account. With that sort of success rate, I am willing to trust that a source that the Chronicler had access to and claimed existed in his day probably did even though we do not have that source today.

Did the Chronicler shape the narrative his sources gave him to fit his own ends? I think he did, just like modern historians do. Did the Chronicler make some things up? He may have; modern historians sometimes do too. Was the Chronicler 100% accurate? Perhaps not, but neither are all modern historians. The point is not whether biblical authors were accurate, or tendentious, or objective, but whether they had some sense of history. Like a modern historian, the Chronicler used preexisting sources to tell the story that he was interested in and cited his sources.

I think it funny that some source critics will look everywhere for sources but will only accept as genuine the ones that they make up themselves.

The Israelite Sense of History

David Bokovoy recently made the following statement as part of a larger argument:

Biblical authors were not historians, at least not in the modern sense of the term. They were storytellers. Their accounts were certainly sacred, but they were also entertaining, and sometimes even political and crude. Biblical stories tell us something about the way their respective authors understood the past, but they don’t always tell us something about “the” past. The original authors who produced the Bible created stories about prophets, kings, and heroic warriors that were carefully crafted to teach valuable ideas concerning divinity and its relationship to humanity, especially the family of Israel.

It’s important for modern readers of the Bible to recognize that biblical historians were not motivated to write their accounts out of antiquarian interest. The past was far too important a tool for these authors to simply recount what really happened. Instead, biblical authors used history as a tool to covey themes concerning the God of Israel and his relationship to his chosen people.

Bokovoy's larger argument is that members of the Church need not view their scriptures as historical, because, after all, the Israelites did not see their scriptures as historical. He sees Latter-day Saints who view their scriptures as historical as holding a problematic view:

For Hoskisson, if the scriptures do not present true history, they have little value as a religious force. Whether right or wrong, this view is difficult to reconcile with the way ancient authors traditionally viewed “scripture.”

Bokovoy's original statements, however, do not square with the biblical record. In the books of Kings and Chronicles, the authors are consistently citing earlier sources:

And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? (1 Kings 11:41)

And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (1 Kings 14:19)

Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 14:29)

Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 15:7)

The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 15:23)

Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 15:31)

Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:5)

Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:14)

Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:20)

Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 16:27)

Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (1 Kings 22:39)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (1 Kings 22:45)

Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 1:18)

And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 8:23)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 10:34)

And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 12:19)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 13:8)

And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might wherewith he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 13:12)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 14:15)

And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 14:18)

Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 14:28)

And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 15:6)

And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:11)

And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:15)

And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2 Kings 15:21)

And the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:26)

And the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 15:31)

Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 15:36)

Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 16:19)

And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 20:20) 

Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 21:17)

Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 21:25)

Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 23:28)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Kings 24:5)

The books of chronicles are not those of our Bible, they are annals, written records of the accounts of historical deeds of the rulers. While they have not been preserved, we have comparable annals from other ancient Near Eastern cultures like Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. The annals of Hezekiah record his fashioning a conduit to bring water (2 Kings 20:20) for which the commemorative inscription has been discovered archaeologically. These ancient annals were produced for many of the same reasons that modern historical records of heads of state are preserved. The books of Kings cite them just as a modern historian would cite his sources. The tradition of keeping specific historical annals in both Israel and Judah starts after the reign of Solomon, which is an indication that this is not a formulaic phrase thrown in for effect.

The sources for the books of Chronicles are more varied:

they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression. (1 Chronicles 9:1)

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, With all his reign and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries. (1 Chronicles 29:29–30)

Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chronicles 9:29)

Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? (2 Chronicles 12:15)

the acts of Asa, first and last, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chronicles 16:11)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel. (2 Chronicles 20:34)

Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon him, and the repairing of the house of God, behold, they are written in the story of the book of the kings. (2 Chronicles 24:27)

Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel? (2 Chronicles 25:26)

Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all his wars, and his ways, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. (2 Chronicles 27:7)

Now the rest of his acts and of all his ways, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chronicles 28:26)

Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chronicles 32:32)

Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. (2 Chronicles 33:18)

And his deeds, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. (2 Chronicles 35:27)

Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 36:8)

Whoever wrote Chronicles no longer had access to the various annals, but they did have recourse to the book of Kings, which was more or less the book of Kings that we have. We can check their references. They also reference records kept by various prophets and priests, who are precisely the type of people in the ancient Near East who were known to be literate and so could keep records. When they refer to the vision of Isaiah, this appears to be some form of the book of Isaiah that we still have and which contains at least some of this information. All of this shows the keeping of various historical records and referencing them similar to the way that modern historians do it.

Citation of earlier records also appears in other records. Here is a small sample:

Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, And at the stream of the brooks that goeth down to the dwelling of Ar, and lieth upon the border of Moab. (Numbers 21:14–15)

As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses (Joshua 8:31)

Is not this written in the book of Jasher? (Joshua 10:13)

Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses (Joshua 23:6)

Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher. (2 Samuel 1:18)

We also know that in ancient Israel books were written for reference purposes so that they could be consulted in the future:

Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. (1 Samuel 10:25)

Here a record is made so that it may be consulted in the future. Similar reasons are cited in Hammurabi's stele establishing his law code. This is standard procedure in the ancient Near East.

Furthermore, prophetic books make records to known historical events that serve to anchor the events they talk about historically:

The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. (Amos 1:1)

The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. (Hosea 1:1)

The word of the Lord that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem. (Micah 1:1)

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. (Isaiah 1:1)

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. (Isaiah 6:1)

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, (Isaiah 7:1)

In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, (Isaiah 20:1–2)

The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin: To whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month. (Jeremiah 1:1–3)

The word which came unto Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah (Jeremiah 35:1)

The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king (Jeremiah 3:6)

And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia (Ezra 4:7)

These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe. (Nehemiah 12:26)

The word of the Lord which came unto Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hizkiah, in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah. (Zephaniah 1:1)

Prophetic books also cite previous historical prophecies:

Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. (Jeremiah 26:18)

This is a quotation of Micah:

Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest. (Micah 3:12)

Prophetic books also point to known events in the past as historical references:

they have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah (Hosea 9:9, referring to the episode in Judges 19:12-30)

yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah (Zechariah 14:5)

All of this points to a historical consciousness among biblical writers. (I have deliberately excluded the Pentateuch which David seems to think is completely unhistorical, but one can find the same concerns there as well.)

At this point, it is worth citing a much more experienced and distinguished scholar of the ancient Near East on the subject:

First, it was common custom for ancient kingdoms (from the third millennium onward) to keep a series of running records for hardheaded, administrative purposes, on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. Naming of years after significant events, and compiling lists of these years with their events, perhaps formed rudimentary chronicles that recorded actual facts and happenings of all kinds. Daybooks became customary, whether called such or not, in the guise of running records as in first-millennium Babylonia, or annotated lists of annual eponym officers in Assyria. From these detailed running series of "annals" a variety of writers could draw, in order to compose their own works on historical matters. Such efforts could vary from such as the Babylonian Chronicle, which gave a compact, objective digest of mainly political events (military campaigns by successive kings, etc.), to more partisan texts as in the Synchronous History (Grayson, no. 21, probably derived from a stela) asserting Assyrian military and moral ascendancy over Babylonia. Or we find "special interest" chronicles, such as the Akitu Chronicle (no. 16), whose author noted years in which the Akitu feast of Marduk was not celebrated in Babylon, along with contemporary events, and the "Religious Chronicle" (no. 17), whose author noted celebration or otherwise of temple feasts and was obsessed with wild animals straying into Babylon (and there killed), among other phenomena.

So too with biblical Kings and Chronicles. These works are not the official annals of Israel and Judah, but they explicitly refer their readers to the official annals or daybooks (Heb. "daily affairs") of the kings of Israel and Judah. From Wenamun, it is clear that the kings of Byblos in the early eleventh century kept daybooks, incorporating records of past sales of timber to foreign kingdoms such as Egypt. At two removes, the king list of Tyre cited by Josephus after Menander of Ephesus (from the latter's history of Tyre and neighbors) clearly draws upon quite accurate tradition when compared with other evidence. Neo-Hittite kingdoms such as Carchemish, Malatya, and Gurgum maintained their royal traditions, as is implied by their known hieroglyphic texts. Thus there is good reason to credit Israel and Judah with the same practices as everyone else in their world, namely, keeping running records upon which others (such as the authors of Kings and Chronicles) could draw for data in writing their own "special interest" works. To dismiss references to these "annals" of Israel and Judah is wholly unjustified in this cultural context.

(K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003], 48-49.)

Now, lets consider the opinion of another scholar of the ancient Near East from a very different ideological perspective:

The [Egyptian] Middle Kingdom confronts us with a genuine and well-attested resuscitation of the past, albeit one which was consciously designed to serve the ends of the 12th Dynasty regime in power.

During the New Kingdom:

Interest in the past and its memorials increased. Sometimes it was genuine, if not academic, interest in the past for its own sake; mostly it involved piety attendant upon refurbishing ancestral monuments.

(Donald B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History [Missasauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1986], 334-35.)

If there is academic interest in the past for its own sake in Egypt in the last half of the second millennium B.C. there is no specific reason to suppose that there could not be academic interest in the past next door in Israel in the first half of the first millennium B.C. And, as we have seen, the Bible provides evidence for that sort of academic interest.

So the records left by ancient Israel show that they have some sense of history comparable to the modern sense of history. They kept historical records and referenced them to compile accounts of what actually happened in the past. They may have been biased and tendentious, and maybe even inaccurate at times, but they were historical. They meant to preserve a record of the past for their own and future generations. Ancient Israelites viewed the Bible (or at least significant portions of it) as historical records of actual historical events. Their view was much closer to Hosikisson's than Bokovoy would like it to be. Bokovoy's first premise does not hold and no sound argument can be based on it.

Dever on Israelite History

William Dever has an interesting paragraph summary of ancient Israelite history:

Political conditions were so deplorable that the writers of the biblical books of First and Second Kings approved of only two kings. They predicted the collapse of the state and were proven correct by the Babylonian destruction in 586 B.C. The political history of both Israel and Judah was "nasty, brutish, and short," as the saying goes, characterized by dissension, treachery, corruption, frequent bloody assassinations, and ultimately the failure to create a viable state. (William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005], 15-16.)

That about sums it up.

Today's Maxwell Quote

From this talk:

Even as believers, however, when we are a part of encapsulating events, we can scarcely savor all that swirls about us. It is unlikely, for instance, on that night so long ago in Bethlehem, that Joseph and Mary looked at the newly born Christ child’s feet with the realization that those feet would, one day, walk the length and breadth of the Holy Land. And, further, that, later on, spikes would pierce those feet.

As a loving Mary grasped those tiny hands, and, as in the months ahead those tiny hands clasped her, did she know that those hands, when grown, would ordain the original Twelve or, still later, carry the rough-hewn cross?

As she heard her Baby cry, did she hear intimations of Jesus’ later weeping at the death of Lazarus or after blessing the Nephite children? (See John 11:35; 3 Ne. 17:21–22.) Did she foresee that those baby-soft knees would later be hardened by so much prayer, including those glorious but awful hours in Gethsemane? (See Matt. 26:36–56.)

As she bathed that Babe so many times to cleanse His pores, could she have been expected to foresee that one day, years later, drops of blood would come from His every pore? (See Mosiah 3:7.)

There is such a thing as cheerful, believing participation—even without full understanding—when you and I keep certain things in our hearts and are nourished as we ponder them! (See Luke 2:19.)