We find a wealth of ancient Near Eastern material to illuminate the historical literature of the Old Testament â far more than for other genres of Old Testament literature. Among these ancient resources are items we may classify as royal inscriptions, chronographic texts and historical literary texts. Royal inscriptions preserve an account of the achievements of kings, particularly their military exploits and their building projects. Chronographic texts delineate a sequence of historical events ranging from simple lists of kings to court chronicles or military annals. Historical literary texts are mostly poetic, epic narratives that recount the experiences of kings. These texts are occasionally carved in stone (on cliff faces or on stone reliefs or statues) but are more often inscribed on clay tablets. Some chroniclers kept records on small rectangular shaped tablets, while others used large slabs or even barrel, cylinder or brick-shaped clay polygons.
If a record of events is to be preserved for future generations, it must at some point become part of a text. But writing that record as a text requires the compiler, whether consciously or subconsciously, to work under a set of guiding principles. We call this set of guiding principles historiography, and it will vary from culture to culture, even from historian to historian. How history writers feel about the appropriate form, content and structure for preserving a record of events contributes to this historiography, but these are only surface issues. What is important about the events of the past? Why is the account being compiled? How do events come to pass? What causes or forces drive history? Are there patterns in history? Is there design in history? The answers to these questions play a significant role in determining how history is written. It goes without saying that different individuals, different cultures, will answer such questions in different ways. Thus any given historical record represents a particular perspective about the events of the past. The shape of any given historiography is determined by the questions the compiler seeks to answer. We cannot legitimately speak of ârightâ perspectives or âwrongâ perspectives concerning history. To do so would assume a commonly accepted absolute criterion. Perspectives, perceptions and feelings exist or do not exist. It is rarely a simple matter to label them right or wrong. In this light any historiography should be referred to as âperspectives on history.â Any historiography must in some sense be viewed as an editorial column.
When we study historiography, we must discover what purposes authors have in writing their documents. Otherwise we will not know how to use their work as we reconstruct the history of a period. It is important not to assume that their ideas of writing history were the same as current western ideas. When history is written in Western culture, it is often understood to be history for historyâs sake (even though that is sometimes not the case). One of the values of contemporary society is the belief that it is essential to record, evaluate and thereby preserve the events of the past â just for the record. Along with that comes a desire to reconstruct âwhat really happenedâ and to identify cause and effect.
In most ancient historiography âwhat really happenedâ appears to be far less important. A large majority of the documents that supply us with historical information are generated through the sponsorship of the royal house. These documents are designed to serve the king, not the objective interests of the historian. Royal reputation is a far greater value than reliability. Our modern terminology calls this propaganda. The historiography of the ancient Near East, whether represented in royal inscriptions or chronicles, king lists or annals, has by all accounts a propagandistic agenda. As with campaign speeches of our day, truth can be useful to the royal house, but it is not its prime objective. Propaganda is greatly enhanced when it has truth in its favor; but if it only has statistics or other random âfactsâ it will make do. The perspective on truth that these texts take will present the king in the best light. The recorder is trying to provide answers to the question âWhy should the king be considered good and successful?â In most cases it cannot be determined whether concealment or disinformation are part of the strategy, but negative information is uniformly lacking. When accounts of a particular battle are available from both sides, it is not odd for each to claim victory. It was common practice for a king to alter inscriptions by putting his own name in place of his predecessorâs (even if it was his father). An ancient king would rarely admit to a defeat, and negative assessments of a reign come rather from later kings who may be seeking only to legitimate their own rule. Historiography among ancient cultures was largely a self-serving enterprise.
Israelâs historical literature has features similar to chronographic texts and contains a few isolated examples that can be compared to royal inscriptions or historical literary texts. But the purpose of Israelâs literature is theological. It is selective, as all historical writing must be, and it has an agenda. It is not interested in preserving events for historyâs sake. Its purpose is to document Yahwehâs action in history and his control of the flow of events. In these documents the nation is more important than the king, and God is the main focus. Israelâs identity and function as Yahwehâs covenant people is the backbone of the entire historical corpus. Thus we could say that whereas the objective of much of ancient historiography is to offer the desired understanding of the accomplishments of the king, the objective of Israelite historiography is to offer the desired understanding of the accomplishments of God.
It is also important to realize that the ancient world had a different view of deityâs role in history than is common in Western culture. Until the Enlightenment it was common for a personâs worldview to be thoroughly supernaturalistic. The role of deity was admitted, and the belief in occurrences that defied natural explanation was commonplace. With the Enlightenment a significant shift occurred. The resulting historical-critical method suggested that we should accept as true only that which can be empirically proven. The new historiography was concerned only with natural cause and effect in history. This is largely the view adopted by our contemporary Western culture.
The worldview of society around us thus differs dramatically from the worldview of the ancient historians. The way in which history is written today would seem quite foreign to ancient authors. The simple recital of facts and events would be meaningless to them unless the information was put to some use. While the ancients would not deny the existence of natural cause and effect in history, they were much more interested in the divine role in history. A modern historianâs response to Israelite historiography might be âit has not provided information that is reliableâ; the Israelite historianâs response to modern historiography might be âit has not provided information that is worthwhile.â
When we study the historiography of a pre-Enlightenment culture, then, it is important to recognize the worldview that drives that historiography and to respect the integrity of it. The worldview represented in Israelâs historiography is one in which the directive activity of God is of primary importance. This view extends far beyond the recognition of occasional supernatural interventions to see Godâs activity in natural occurrences as well. In fact, it insists that all events are woven into the plan of God, which is the driving force of history.
Israelâs historiography holds much in common with neighboring ancient cultures. Historical records in Mesopotamia, while not claiming to be revelation from deity, nonetheless show great interest in discerning the activities of the gods. The polytheistic nature of Mesopotamian religion, however, impedes the development of any concept of a singular divine plan encompassing all of history. At best the reigning dynasty may identify a divine plan in establishing and sustaining that dynasty. Some documents look back into the distant past to see a pattern that led to the present (e.g., the Weidner and the Akitu Chronicles). These typically concern not what the deity has done but what has been done to the deity. In Mesopotamia it is assumed that deity plays an active part in the cause and effect process that makes up history. The gods are capable of intervention and are expected to intervene. The causation of the gods and the intervention of the gods are understood to be ad hoc rather than in accordance with any overarching plan or grand design. As in the Mesopotamian view, Israel counted God as the cause of every effect and as actively intervening to shape events. Israelâs record of history was not intended to be a record of events but a record of the ways in which God had acted in history. There is no secular Israelite historiography.
In the supernaturalistic view of the ancient world, events were revelation, the result of divine activity. Unfortunately, those events required interpretation to discern why the gods were doing what they did. Such interpretation was not provided in the polytheistic cultures surrounding Israel. Mesopotamians were left to their own devices to discern what the gods were up to. In Israelâs view, not only events but historiography was revelation. That is, God took it upon himself not only to act but to provide an interpretation of his acts, communicating why they were done and what purposes they served. In this way Yahweh was both the cause of the events and the source of the interpretation of the events. In theological terms we would say that the general revelation of history was supplemented by the special revelation of historiography.
In summary then, Israel shared with the ancient world the idea that events are revelation â the evidence that the gods were at work. This approach stands in contrast to Western historiography. But Israel distinctively believed that its historiography was also revelation, a novel view in contrast to both modern and other ancient historiography.