Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Lloyd Barre <barre AT c-zone.net>]

Dear List members:

Many or perhaps most members on this list know there a deep, learned
skepticism prevails with regard to our historical knowledge of
pre-monarchic "Israel."  These days very few are willing to commit to
historical reconstructions regarding the eras of the patriarchs, the
exodus, the wanderings, the "conquest," or even for the so-called ear of
the Judges.  Archaeological research has been much more discomfirming than
confirming of the biblical traditions, mostly providing general cultural
information regarding these eras, or establishing interpretative parameters
of various sorts.  Even more devasting to the conclusion that the biblical
traditions provide accurate historical information has been an increaased
sensitivity to the nature of these traditions which have demonstrated the
fictional and imaginative elements that they contain.  Furthermore, form
criticism has shown that most of these traditions were not intended to
report historical information but were created for sociological and
religious purposes.  It is also very difficult to show that even if the
creators of these traditions wanted to, they did not possess the means to
"document" the past.

Given this general malaise regarding the possibility of historical
reconstruction for these areas on the one hand, the our understanding of
the nature of the traditions at our disposal, it it possible to analyze
them in a way that will yield reliable historical data?  As it turns out,
there is, but the issue has been somewhat beclouded by the American based
emperical, linguistic-archaeological school of biblical interpretation (eg.
Albright) as opposed to the German literary-critical approach (eg. Gunkel,
Noth).  The principles contained in the methodologies of form criticism,
tradition criticism and redaction criticism allow the interpreter to
extract indirectly hitorical information regarding the creaters and bearers
of any given tradition, or the redaction of previous traditions.  Therefore
it is possible to draw up profiles regarding the individuals and groups
that are responsible for them by an analysis of the traditions themselves.
Since it highly likey that the HB does contain traditions that had a
pre-monarchic origin, there is no reason why the historian cannot address
these early eras with some confidence if he or she would include an
analysis of the tradent along with that of their traditions.

Lloyd Barre