http://aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_2_The_Bible_as_History.asp
By: Rabbi Ken Spiro
We assume that people throughout human history always
studied history, but that's not true. As a matter of fact, if you go back
more
than a couple of thousand years you'll find people
had no interest in history. The first historian in the West is Herodotus,
a Greek who
lived in the 5th century BCE. And he's given the
title: Father of History.
Columbia University historian, Joseph Yerushalmi,
who wrote an excellent, highly-praised book called Zahor: Jewish History
and Jewish
Memory, says that "If Herodotus was the father of
history, the father of meaning in history was the Jews."
This is a profound idea.
First, not only were Jews recording history well
before Herodotus, but while Herodotus might record the events, the Jews
were looking
at the deeper meaning, and that deeper meaning can
be found most importantly and most significantly within the Bible itself.
The first of these stories that we will examine in
the future installments of this series pre-dates Herodotus by about 1,300
years. It is the
story of Abraham and it is takes place around the
18th century BCE, or 3,700 years ago.
Now don't make the mistake of thinking the Bible
is a history book. For example, Abraham, when he appears in the Book of
Genesis is
already 75 years old. He's one of the most significant
figures in Jewish history and the Torah doesn't tell us about him as a
child or as a
young adult -- we pick up his story when he is an
old man already.
The Bible is not concerned with giving us all the
details of Abraham's life. It is interested only in history as a means
of teaching us the
important lessons of life -- it's a book of theology
in Jewish worldview first and foremost. Therefore, it focuses on the basic
information
that we need to know.
HOW ACCURATE IS THE BIBLE?
An article was published recently in the Israeli
newspaper Ha'Aretz, smashing the Bible, and in the same week, an article
was published
in US News and World Report -- a cover story, no
less -- supporting the accuracy of the Bible vis-a-vis archeology.
Why such diametrically opposed views? Because archeology is a very complicated field. So a few words of caution are in order.
The definition of archeology is "the discovery and
interpretation of the physical remains of previous civilizations and peoples."
Note
that within the definition of archeology is the
word "interpretation". How one archeologist interprets the meaning of a
particular find can
be very different from how another archeologist
interprets the meaning of the same find.
Archeology is not a hard science. When an archeologist
finds a piece of rock, a vessel, or a piece of a building, he tries to
decide what it
means. The find has no label on it, unless it's
a written document, and even written documents are open to interpretation.
So when people make definitive statements about what
archeology does or doesn't say, you have to be very careful, because the
bias of
the archeologist affects how he interprets the information.
As the early books of the Bible are concerned, there
is little direct evidence for the characters in the Bible. There is, however,
a huge
amount of indirect or circumstantial evidence --
names, places, business contracts, marriage contracts, migratory patterns.
An
enormous amount of information in the Bible has
been borne out by archeology.
That is as far as the early books of the Bible are
concerned, but once we get to later books, like the Book of Kings, for
example, there is
excellent direct evidence, written records of other
emperors, etc. But the early events exist more or less in a historical
vacuum and,
unfortunately also in an archeological vacuum.
Keep in mind that the same thing that applies in
a court of law applies to archeology: Lack of evidence is no evidence of
lack. The fact
that I haven't found Abraham's camel saddle doesn't
mean Abraham didn't have a camel or a saddle. And, indeed, there is a huge
amount
of circumstantial evidence supporting the basic
historicity of the Bible.
Archeology doesn't definitively prove the Bible,
and it certainly doesn't discredit it. In fact the more we find, the more
we see that there's
a tremendous amount of historicity in the text.
In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet
it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology.
It's a
book of teachings, and it's the ideal way to learn
the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we're
learning history
is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special
attention to what is going on in the Bible.
PATTERNS IN JEWISH HISTORY
The actions of the fathers are assigned to the children. (Nachmanides)
This is a very famous Jewish saying and Nachmanides was not the only one to say it. What does it mean?
On the microcosmic level, within the stories of Genesis
in the Bible, we're going to see that happens to the ancients will be repeated
by
their children.
On a macrocosmic level, the personalities and interactions
of the early forefathers -- the patriarchs and matriarchs -- are going
to be a
model for all of Jewish history, and all of human
history. This is why we have to pay extra special attention to what's going
on at this
early phase of the Bible, because here is where
the patterns are set.
Additionally, we must remember that the Jewish people
are arguably the oldest surviving people on the Planet Earth, and because
they've have been spread out throughout the world,
when we learn Jewish history we have to pay attention to all of human history.
It's a
great framework. To understand Jewish history means
to build a great deal of general knowledge of the history of the world
at large.
We can't appreciate Jewish history (or the history
of any people for that matter) without understanding the larger context
in which it
takes place.
In the next installment we are going to zoom out and take a macro look at the world into which the first Jew, Abraham, was born.
NEXT: THE WORLD OF ABRAHAM
Copyright © 2000 Aish.com