OT60

Are the “historical books” an accurate account of the early history of Israel? Yes and no.

No, in the sense that they are not word-for-word transcripts of events that occurred long ago, and they misjudge the time when worship at the Jerusalem temple was mandated as the sole place of worship for all Israelites. The events recorded and the time and place of those doing the recording are so far removed from one another—often by many centuries—that the very capacity of Dtr and Chr to know the past in great detail is thrown into doubt, and the sources at their disposal lack no more than scraps of eyewitness testimony. The sources they depended on mostly showed so little interest in doing history as we know it that we do them an injustice to measure them against the practices of present-day historiography.

Both “historians” certainly had an urgent reason for writing as they did. Their overwhelming concern was to describe the past as best they could in order to lay a foundation for rebuilding a new “Israelite/Judahite” community after the destruction of Jerusalem. They differ, however, in what they conceive that “foundation” to be. Writing after the temple is rebuilt, Chr asserts that the future of Israel lies in faithful worship at the restored temple led by priests and Levites according to the arrangement prescribed by David and Solomon. Writing before the restoration of Judah, Dtr has in mind that the society prescribed in the book of Deuteronomy should be the basis of the restored community. However, Deuteronomy’s laws had been so infrequently observed in the history that it seemed unthinkable for Dtr to anticipate an independent Judah. That would require the dubious return of the dynasty of David, not to mention permission and support from the imperial overlord, Neo-Babylonia or Persia. He is so deeply uncertain about Israel’s future that he can offer no more than the hint of the future by relating the favor accorded to the captive king of Judah by the Neo-Babylonian king. Concerning the condition of the survivors of the fall of the northern kingdom, Dtr and Chr seem to have no knowledge and little historical interest.

Yes, Dtr writes a trustworthy “history,” provided we allow a fairly broad conception of history-writing and correct for anachronisms. However, when Chr introduces material not in Dtr, it is of uncertain worth. The genre in which Dtr and Chr have cast their narratives is sometimes called “history-like tradition.” In short, they are works of the historical imagination, employing the sources at hand but shaped by the imaginative vision of the writer. Dtr presents an amazing array of portraits of the past, some being better anchored historically than others. Chr presents a monochromatic view of the past, single-mindedly focused on the ascent and triumph of David and erection of the temple by Solomon, with no more than a glance at other aspects of Israel’s past. Chr’s account is narrowly and unrelentingly religious, with no interest in Joshua, Judges, or events in the life of David before he ascends the throne.

In assessing the accuracy of Dtr, it is essential to understand his mind-set. Dtr is primarily interested in the religion of ancient Israel. He traces the fortune of the belief and practice of Yahwism, reaching heights under David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah but lapsing into idolatry and prohibited behavior for long stretches of time under judges and kings. Sadly, a majority of the populace of both kingdoms has abandoned the cult of YHWH or clings to corrupt forms of worship. In Dtr’s view, God has tolerated this faithlessness and corruption for centuries. In exasperation, God finally abandons both kingdoms and delivers them to conquest by the Assyrian Empire and the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Over the centuries, the erring people of Israel and Judah have become so apostate that God delivers both kingdoms into the hands of the great empires, who not only defeat them militarily but destroy their political and religious institutions as well, leaving them bereft of resources to rebuild community. The troubled and agitated mind-set of Dtr is preoccupied with this tale of the cataclysmic end of both kingdoms.

As he writes, Dtr knows that these terrible events have left the people in despair. YHWH has warned Israel through Moses and subsequent leaders that it risks annihilation if it abandons exclusive worship of the deity. The defecting populace has no excuse, but they have come to overly rely on the promise to David of an eternal kingdom. Surely, out of his love for David, God will not break his promise and the line of David will continue to give the people confidence in God’s forbearance and shelter from foreign aggressors. Surely, they reasoned, God would not cut off the dynasty of David or permit desecration of the holy sanctuary. But Dtr, the leaders, and the people were wrong. So, even though it is difficult to establish the facticity of many of the details in these history-like traditions, the overriding “fact” is the threatened demise of stateless Israel, which the author is seeking to forestall by telling the amazing story of the people through multiple generations.