Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-a`-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008 and Beyond. Part 2.3: Some Commonalities in Approaches to Writing Ancient Israel’s History
This series of articles covers scholarly works in English which can, at least potentially, be associated with a generally positive view of biblical historicity regarding periods preceding the Israelites’ return from exile. Part 2 covers works that treat the methodological issues at the center of the maximalist–minimalist debate. Parts 2.1 and 2.2 selectively survey the works of 24 non-minimalist scholars during two decades. In the absence of consensus, this article analyzes the works in Parts 2.1 and 2.2, tracing elements of approach that are held in common, at least among pluralities of non-minimalists (possible majorities are not noted). The first commonality of approach is that history is provisional, not final. The second is that history should become fully multidisciplinary. The third commonality is that historians should receive all historical evidence on an equal footing before examination and cross-examination. The fourth and last is that historians should become increasingly sensitive to cultural aspects and coding in ancient Near Eastern materials.
biblical historicity, historical methodology, historical reliability of the Bible, history of Israel, non-minimalist
Date of this Version
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J., "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992-2008 and Beyond, Part 2.3: Some Commonalities in Approaches to Writing Ancient Israel's History” (2015). Libraries Faculty and Staff Scholarship and Research. Paper .
Biblical Studies Commons, History Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, Jewish Studies Commons, Library and Information Science Commons
This is the Author’s Accepted Manuscript of "Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992–2008 and Beyond, Part 2.2: The Literature of Perspective, Critique, and Methodology, Second Half," later published with corrections in the Journal of Religious & Theological Information, vol. 14, issue 1–2: pp. 30–48 (2015). To link to this article’s Official Version of Record, published online 29 June 2015, click on: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10477845.2015.1035197