Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

This whole discussion seems to be divided into two camps: (1) those who 
propose that the ancients had the same sense of 'history' as we moderns do; 
and (2) those who propose that the ancients had a different sense of 
'history' to us moderns.

Firstly, our modern sense of history has only really arisen since the 
printing press made the dissemination and preservation of information 
commonplace. The rise of the newspaper and journalism also helped 
considerably in preserving memories of factual events. Prior to that, history 
was often a creative enterprise, including memories of factual events; 
pre-scientific hypotheses about the past, such as aetiologies; retrojection, 
whereby the past was described like the present; propaganda, whereby the past 
was moulded to a desired shape; dramatic techniques, to make it memorable and 
entertaining; and many other phenomena.

In terms of Esarhaddon's vassal treaties: I'd say it was a fairly common 
notion that if an underling failed in their treaty obligations that they 
would be cursed, and blessed if they met them. The notion is really not that 
unique. So, the blessing/cursing concept of Deuteronomy could come from just 
about any time - Bronze Age right through to Hellenistic Era. What is 
interesting, however, is to compare the specific blessings and curses and see 
where the closest parallels for Deuteronomy are from. This, of course, 
doesn't give us a date for Deuteronomy, but it could be one brick in a larger 
argument to say that Deuteronomy could be from the era of its closest 
parallel, or even slightly after it.

And no, Gabe has not mistaken the force of the historical task.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au