There is another round of the minimalist vs. maximalist debate going on in certain parts of the biblioblogosphere right now. It appears to have started with Claude Mariottini’s post of Mario Liverani’s Israel’s History and the History of Israel. Jim West and Christian Brady have offered follow-up posts on the subject, as have a number of others.
I haven’t jumped into this debate when it has shown up in blogs before. I would probably call myself a medialist, since I fall somewhere between the minimalists and the maximalists. But I first got into this debate about ten years ago while I was in my doctoral program at the Johns Hopkins University. In order to make sure we got all sides of the debate, my dissertation director P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. invited Thomas Thompson, Israel Finkelstein, and William Dever to campus. In the course of one academic year, we go to hear papers by all three and have discussions with them afterwards. It was quite an experience.
I wanted to offer three thoughts on the debate.
First, I think arguing about whether what minimalists or maximalists do is right or wrong is a mistaken approach to the entire problem. We cannot say that all texts are historical reliable or that all texts are historically reliable. Some texts are and some texts are not, while most texts fall somewhere in between. The reliability of a text has to be determined on a case–by–case basis. If a minimalists has determined that an entire text is historically unreliable (as Liverani has done), we cannot argue against his position by claiming that all minimalists deny the historicity of the text (as Mariottini does). That is simply begging the question:
- Liverani denies the historicity of the biblical text.
- Liverani is a minimalist.
- All minimalists are wrong because they deny the historicity of the biblical text.
- Therefore, Liverani is wrong.
We have to look at the actual arguments made by the minimalists and show that they are wrong or — if we want to be intellectually honest — look at the arguments to determine whether they are right or wrong (we should not go into the debate assume that one side or the other is wrong). The best way to do this is to examine their claims about the origin of the text. Liverani claims that the DtrH is an invention of the post–exilic period. That in itself is a historical claim and is therefore open to debate. If we want to engage his argument, we have to look at the evidence he presents as well as the evidence of those who claim it is from an earlier period. Simply castigating him for using a minimalist approach will only convince people he is wrong if they are already convinced that the minimalists approach is wrong. As enjoyable as it is to argue in favor of something people already accept, it is not going to convince those who don’t already agree.
Second, I wanted to take issue with the claim made by West that it is the historian’s job to offer proof. Proof, however, is a luxury that we do not have as historians. All we have is evidence. That evidence may point in a certain direction, but it will never amount to proof. West is right that we cannot prove that Moses didn’t exist, but at the same time we cannot prove that he did exist either. All we can do is examine the evidence — both textual and artifactual — and attempt to write a history that best explains the evidence we have. Given the paucity of evidence, it is no surprise that people will come to different conclusions. As I always tell my students, writing the history of ancient Israel is like doing a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle when you only have 173 pieces and no picture on the box. The best to which we can aspire is to put the pieces in a meaningful order and sketch in what the other pieces might have looked like.
Third, we are doing things backwards when we are trying to use history to prove the biblical text. Our reconstruction of Israel’s history may inform our understanding of the text, but it cannot prove it because the reconstruction is based in large part on the Bible itself. Instead of using archaeological data and historical reconstructions to prove the text, we should be using archaeological data and the text to make historical reconstructions.
On January 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
[…] of Dr West’s constructed history in direct contradiction to his intent. All this while a post from Kevin Wilson, who describes himself as a “medialist” on the issue, becalms the […]
On January 31st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
[…] a sigh of relief). Perhaps I will take time later to offer some reflections of my own, but for now, Kevin Wilson gets my vote for the most sensible post of the whole lot. Bookmark It Hide […]
On January 31st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Nice post. Also, I tagged you with a meme. No need to thank me.
On February 1st, 2008 at 6:37 am
Spot on! Scholars are responsible for their individual views and have to judged as such not be held responsible for the views of others because of some label (so-called maximalist or minimalist). It is just sloppy scholarship to attribute views to someone that they do not hold.
The last sentence about the nature of historical reconstructions (and earlier that our critical judgements on the nature of the evidence differs) is also spot on.
On February 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
[…] The Thoughts of a Medialist - Kevin Wilson has a good read with a nice little anecdote about his own time at Johns Hopkins. What is perhaps most interesting in this entire debate is that almost everyone wants to say they are in the middle. William Dever does not consider himself a maximalist. Of course, Kevin doesn’t consider himself one either–though perhaps he considers Dever one, I don’t know. He also has some good thoughts on what amounts to demonizing people in order to “win” the debate. Which reminds me of a recent post by Art. […]