2000

The so-called ‘historical-critical’ school, which created a universe of its own, dubbed ‘ancient Israel’, has dominated the last 200 years of biblical studies. The texts of the Old Testament – in some circles called ‘the Hebrew Bible’ – were believed to refer to an ‘ancient Israel’ thought to be a historical reality. Already at an early stage of the development of historical-critical methodology, scholars accepted that the Old Testament was not simply a history book – or textbook – that told the truth and nothing but the truth about ancient Israel. In accordance with developments within the field of general history, this was not considered an insurmountable problem to biblical scholars. Historians began, during the early nineteenth century, to develop methods of source criticism that enabled them – or so they believed – to make a distinction between real information and secondary expansion. In the words of the leading historian of this period, Johann Gustav Droysen (1808–84), the historian had to distinguish between Bericht – that is, story or interpretation – and Überreste – that is, what remains of historical information. In every part of the historical narrative in the Old Testament, it would, according to this view, be possible to make a distinction between information that originates in the past and additions and commentaries on this information from a later period. Let me quote as an example of such a source analysis the story of Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem in 701 BCE: