Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] minimalist/maximalist

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] minimalist/maximalist
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:29:04 +0200


----- Original Message ----- From: "JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:19 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] minimalist/maximalist


At the risk of sounding like the only ignorant one around
here, what exactly is a minimalist or a maximalist?

Dear James,

In very broad terms, a minimalist is someone who thinks that the Bible is of minimal value in reconstructing the "real" history of Iron Age Israel, and that any "facts" stated by the Bible that are not specifically corroborated by archaeological and/or epigraphic evidence should be considered suspect. This view is generally based on: a. the ideological/theological/literary character of the biblical text, b. the uncertainty about the process of transmission of the text and its sources, and c. a view of the Bible as having been composed very late, making its preserving a lot of authentic information very unlikely.
In the same very broad terms, a maximalist is one who considers the Bible to be of great value in reconstructing the "real" history of Iron Age Israel, basically that any "facts" stated by the Bible can be considered to represent "history", unless either very unlikely or unless specifically disproved by archaeological and/or epigraphic evidence. This view is generally based on: a. the view that many of the books of the Bible were originally written much closer to the events that they describe, making it more likely that they preserve real historical memories, b. a view that the biblical story, at least in general terms, is basically consistent with both the known outlines of the history and culture of the Ancient Near East and of the archaeological evidence, and c. a view that the biblical story, at least in general terms, is also internally consistent and logical.
I do make a distinction between this type of "maximalist", who does recognize that a lot of the details of biblical history are NOT corroborated by archaeological and/or epigraphic evidence and DOES recognize the ideological/theological/literary character of the biblical text, and what I would call "fundamentalists", who, whether they admit it or not, base their belief in the historicity of the Bible on their religious faith.
Obviously, there is a lot of ground in between. The most extreme minimalists claim that the Bible is a Hellenistic composition with (almost) no historical value, and that the entire "history" of Israel, from the patriarchs, through the exodus, the conquest, the monarchy and the exile and restoration, never happened, at least not in any way close to the way the Bible describes it. The Bible is a Hellenistic-period Jewish manifesto, written in order to justify the Jews' conquest of "Palestine".
Less extreme minimalists realize that a lot of what the Bible says about the later monarchy is corroborated by archaeological and epigraphic evidence, which shows that the writers, whatever their ideology might have been, did make use of archival sources from the pre-exilic period. The descriptions of the "golden age" of Joshua, David and Solomon, however, are mostly myth.
The most extreme maximalists (remember, I'm not including religiously-motivated fundamentalists) consider the patriarchal narratives, the exodus, the conquest and all the rest to be based on "historical memories", even if many of the specifics have become garbled. Less extreme, is the view that the patriarchs and exodus, and maybe the conquest, are "foundation myths", but that the story of the foundation of the Israelite state, the united monarchy and later history, are indeed based on archival sources and historical memories, all the while not ignoring the ideological/theological/literary character of the biblical text.

The "hot" debate between the two camps over the past few decades has been the United Monarchy - history of myth? But this is largely a matter of fads. Often, the views which were once considered minimalist later become maximalist - then the pendulum swings back.

Hope that helped.

Yigal Levin





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page