Table of contentsIntroductionKnowledge and sourcesRelevant historiographyConclusion“All history is present history in the sense that the concerns of the present are bound to affect in some way or on the other, the way history is studied. and wrote. ~ Paul Anthony CartledgeSay no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayIntroductionHistoriography is perhaps one of the most effective, and arguably even the best, ways of truly knowing the past. As Paul Anthony Cartledge's quote points out, it is inevitable that people (historians and laypeople alike) are likely to put their own spin on history, associating it with a narrative, a philosophy, a faith, a personal opinion or even a specific emotion. . Historiography offers the opportunity for those who wish to understand history as it actually happened to take a critical approach, examining not only the events of history, but also the way in which those events were treated by history. This is not necessarily an easy process; especially for ancient history, the distinction between history and historiography poses many challenges. However, the main advantage is clear: adopting an approach that takes historiography into account is likely to result in a more robust, and even more relevant and precise, picture of the past. With this in mind, this research paper examines the ancient Israelites in the context of the ancient Near East; however, rather than simply presenting a historical picture of the Israelites in this ancient historical context, the article considers the historiography of the ancient Israelites in this context. This arguably provides more information than any other historical approach. There are a large number of academic articles, books and other forms of research on ancient Israelite historiography in the ancient Near East and this research paper cannot come close to examining them all, let alone with precision. and concisely describing everything they have to say. While this article is certainly not exhaustive, the range of sources (in the sense of substance, style, and timing) provides a relatively holistic picture of this specific body of historiography and presents some of the most authoritative texts on the subject. In order to address the topic of ancient Israelite historiography in the context of the ancient Near East, the article first turns to a discussion of relevant scholarship and sources; this includes both a description of the sources used and a definition of terms. The article then turns to the historiography in question, examining ten unique academic sources to gain insight into the subject. Overall, the article shows that an accurate understanding of this historiography is perhaps the best way to understand the ancient Israelites. As one academic source states: “Not knowing the way forward is getting lost. To have forgotten how we got there is to be doubly lost… the double loss that results from insufficient effort to retrace the path that led to the current situation. The starting point of this volume is therefore to take a look back. In other words, to avoid getting lost in the vast subject that is ancient Israel, it is crucial to approach history in relation to an already completed subject – this is historiography at its best. As the author notes, understanding how the topic has been handled in the past will help us understand how to move forward in the future. This thought also recalls a particular set oflyrics from The Clash that ring true for history and archaeology: Wait a minute, my friend, Don't let me pass for dead As Babylon crumbles to the sand A sweet flower blooms in my hand Another day ends for you For In this historiography article, two things are clear: ancient Israelite history is far from dead, and historiography offers the sweet flower. Simply continuing the historiography is enough for the story to flourish in the hand. Knowledge and Sources As noted above, this article uses a variety of sources in order to accurately and concisely complete a historiography of the ancient Israelites in the context of the Near -Ancient East. More specifically, the article examines five journal articles and five academic history books, each treating the historiography of the ancient Israelites in a comprehensive discourse, and each having its own slightly different approach. Each of the resources will be discussed in turn and in detail below; however, for now it is worth noting the general composition of the historiography. The sources used in this article range from over seven decades ago (from 1940) to just a few years ago, so there is definitely a balanced view presented here since everyone has a slightly different perspective. Additionally, most sources deal specifically with the historiography of the ancient Israelites of the Ancient Near East, rather than historical accounts, so this article serves as something of a secondary analysis of the results found in these primary sources. Due to the limited scope and timing of this article, this is the best way to achieve a balanced and holistic view of current historiography. Before continuing, it is also important to define the subject more precisely. Israelite historiography, for the purposes of this article, can be defined as "all writings on the past of the people, from their origins to their development as a people and nation in Palestine and their ultimate fate in the hands of the powers imperial powers of the Middle East. In other words, historiography in this case is any record of that specific group of people in that specific geographic context. This is the experience of the Israelites, not only within themselves, but in context both familiar (i.e. Canaan) and foreign (i.e. Mesopotamia and Egypt ) that they discovered. Another conception of historiography in relation to the Old Testament is that of "a form of narrative which refers to past events in the history of the nation in chronological sequence from the time of human and national origins to 'to the historical period of the author'. This is what makes this subset of historiography so fascinating: it has to do with the formation, solidification, and emergence of the Israelites as an ethnic group. It is an identity that, at least in some form, remains to this day. Relevant Historiography Now that the identification of sources and the definition of the main concept of this article have been established, the discussion can now turn to an overview of how the academic literature discusses the historiography of the ancient Israelites in the context of the ancient Near East. The most complex aspect of historiography and the Bible is the question of whether to treat it as history or simply as a text: "It is both the burden and the opportunity to a new generation of historians to rethink the fundamental presuppositions that guide the interpretation of ancient texts. texts and the way in which the historian reconstructs a past from them. Thus, one of the major questions of historiography in this context is how to treat textssame which constitute the history of the ancient Israelites. However, this makes historiography all the more interesting: “This should… be seen as a necessary development, which requires historians to also be interested, at least in a practical way, in epistemological and ontological questions. » In other words, historians should be just as concerned with the theoretical implications of this story as with the narrative ones; however, this does not necessarily require a positivist approach to biblical history. With this in mind, the historiography of the ancient Israelites can be complicated to say the least. However, this complication of historiography should not interfere with the insight that historians are able to gain from this approach. As one scholar notes: "For the first part of this spectrum, there is no ancient distinction between myth, legend, and history, so that in current tradition the story of Israel's past begins with creation," with the intended expression of how the foundation of "the corporate identity of the ancient Israelites, their social and moral values, their politics" and religious institutions, their relationship with the land and their place in the vast family of peoples of the Near -East. In this conception, it is hardly necessary to distinguish between history and myth, since the story remains the same. This becomes even more important when we consider the fact that the biblical passages from Genesis to the end of 2 Kings were not written by a single person. author, but by many different writers over a vast and distant period of time. This makes the non-positivist, narrative approach to historiography and the history of the ancient Israelites even more compelling. It is also the approach that is likely to result in the broadest historical understanding, since it does not limit these passages, but rather expands on them using outside sources. This ideation of historiography is confirmed by another work by John Van Seters, who states that "Israelite historiography does not criticize its sources of information about the past, which may include myths and legends about origins, even if she remodels them for her own presentation. " In yet another work, the same author concludes that "historical writing is a specific form of tradition in its own right... Any explanation of the genre as a simple accidental accumulation of traditional material is inadequate." In other words, the approach to biblical history need not necessarily be humanistic or purely religious, as long as the historian (by adopting a historiographical approach) recognizes the influence that the subjective development of the history of the ancient Israelites has had on modern knowledge. But what type of development did the ancient Israelites experience in the context of the ancient Near East? What does historiography say about this development? There are several interesting ideas to answer these questions. First, the general theological theme of the story of the ancient Israelites is clear: “The theological connotations appear in a highly schematized narrative pattern. » From the reproach of the kings for having distanced themselves from God in the eyes of the Deuteronomists until the exile of the people, the story is presented as "a long and coherent account of the chosen people who completely and at all times broke the contract with… his God." In other words, from a historiographical point of view, the main theme of the ancient Israelites of the ancient Near East is not only the formation of a people, but also the formation and reformation of the relationship of this group of people with their deity This statement is confirmed by another academic source, which states that.the historiography of the ancient Israelites does not claim to be a communication from God, but rather “serves as a communication to the deity… Therefore, the audience is neither the future kings nor the gods – it is the people of the covenant . " Moreover, the historiography is not always positive, but for individuals and the Israelites as a whole, which puts an end to certain fears of political or even theological bias: "Consequently, this material would be very ineffective for a political controversy… The Bible also clearly indicates that its purpose is not to offer the revelation of a particular person or group, but to serve as a revelation to Yahweh of himself. This is confirmed by another scholar, who contrasts the theology of the ancient Israelites with that of their Mosopotame neighbors: "The nature of the gods could not provide any sense of certainty and security in the cosmos... Man has always found himself confronted to the formidable forces of the universe. nature, and nature, especially in Mesopotamia, proved cruel, indiscriminate [and] unpredictable. In this way, it becomes clear that the historiography of the ancient Israelites is intimately linked to their theology, to the extent that it directly influences the way they interact with other groups and become an ethnic group themselves. But how is all this known? How is historiography really formed, particularly in our time? To answer these questions, two major sources enlighten the historian: WF Albright, from 1940, who can be considered one of the cornerstones of biblical historiography, and Mark W. Chavalas, writing more than one half a century later and which responds to Albright's positivism with a more social and historiographical approach. First, Albright states that there are four main groups of "ancient Near Eastern religious literature" that shed light on the ancient Israelites: "Egyptian, Mesopotamian (Sumero-Accadian), Horito-Hittite, and West Semitic (Canaanite , Aramaic, South Arabic). From these sources, the historian carries out "decipherment and approximate translation, development of grammatical and lexicographic studies" and "detailed dialectical and syntactic research, accompanied by monographic studies of selected classes of documents." This is how historians are able to gain the knowledge they have about the ancient Israelites and the ancient Near East as a whole. However, the biggest problem is how these sources are handled. As Albright continues: “When dealing with the ancient Near East, we must carefully evaluate the degree of confidence with which we can translate our documents and interpret our archaeological materials. » That's the whole idea of ​​historiography. In this regard, Chavalas contrasts the modern approach to ancient history with that of the past: "Previous generations turned to the study of theology and literary criticism, usually by theologians who often had not trained as a historian. ; » In contrast, historians who discuss the same history in more recent years “focus instead on socio-economic, anthropological and historiographical questions”. In other words, even the same sources described above can vary depending on the method of interpretation – whether theological, literary, anthropological, or sociological. This applies not only to the modern historian, but also to the historians who wrote the texts in question. As Chavalas continues: “What was the relationship between the antiquarian writer and the concerns of his own era? … Synchronous interests guided his interpretations but did not determine them. In this way, any reading of texts.