Reading Biblical Narratives : Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible

Minneapolisix, 188 p.; 22 cm

Deuteronomy-Kings as emerging authoritative books : a conversation

Introducción: The existence of a “Deuteronomistic History,” consisting of the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, is under review.1 Is this scholarly construct an accurate understanding of what ancient writers of the Hebrew Bible conceived to be a coherent sequence of books that should be read together? Did the books ever form an independent collection, without Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers prefixed, or without Genesis- Numbers prefixed? If we are not as certain as past generations that they ever formed a recognized literary unit,2 why ask what was deemed authoritative about these five books in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods, by which time it is generally agreed they existed close to their current final forms? The purpose of the present volume is not to focus on the important debate about the status of the so-called Deuteronomistic History, though the results might contribute toward framing arguments on one side or the other. Instead, it is to try to understand the element of authority in relation to each book, which can be construed in two different ways. On the one hand, it can lead us to ask why we have each of the five individual books and what concerns led to their creation using which older materials to address those issues, because these earlier traditions carried some weight of authority for the community of scribes who penned the narratives as well as for their implied target audience(s). Currently, the dates of composition for the various books are generally assigned to the late monarchic period, the Neo-Babylonian period, or the early Persian period. In all three cases, a second question naturally arises then that needs a reasoned response: once created, why would the concerns addressed have had ongoing relevance and resonance for audiences in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods

Strengthening Biblical Historicity vis-à-vis Minimalism, 1992-2008 and Beyond, Part 2.1: The Literature of Perspective, Critique, and Methodology, First Half

This series of articles covers scholarly works in English which can, at least potentially, be associated with a positive view of biblical historicity regarding the periods preceding the Israelites’ return from exile. Part 2 covers works that treat the concepts and methodological issues at the center of the maximalist-minimalist debate. (Parts 3–5 will cover works on evidences.) This article, the first half of Part 2, focuses on works that provide a framework in which there exists the realistic possibility for large amounts of Hebrew Scripture to stand as valid historical source material— while still subject to comparison with other sources. These works are by J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, Megan Bishop Moore, Lester L. Grabbe, James Barr, Bob Becking, Amihai Mazar, Hans M. Barstad, Ronald S. Hendel, and Mark S. Smith. The article leads up to this focus by beginning with bibliographic selections in earlier works, works that offer long-term perspectives, and a summary of good effects and misguided aspects of minimalist publications. (Part 2.2 will treat works on methodology by authors who espouse biblical historicity unless it is proven wrong.