2001

In the good old days – not so long ago – a biblical text was usually dated by its historical referent. A text that seemed to include historical information might well belong to the age when this historical referent was likely to have existed. This was the general attitude. The referent was the decisive factor. If the information included in the referent was considered precise or at least likely, the text that provided this information was considered more or less contemporary with the event – that is, the historical referent, though the only source for such an event, was often the text in question. Everyone spoke of a ‘hermeneutical circle’ and it was generally accepted that the study of ancient Israel was based logically on a circullus logicus vitiosum. Nobody within biblical studies believed that it was possible to avoid this logical fallacy. A classical example of such ‘methodology’ – or lack of methodology – relates to studies dealing with the last years of Judah's history. It has become common to argue that the united monarchy of David and Solomon never existed. It is also accepted, in regard to the early days of the independent kingdoms of Israel and Judah, that most information in the books of Kings is legendary. Nevertheless, when it comes to the closure of the history of Judah, scholars consider large sections of the Deuteronomistic History to include vital historical information about Judah in the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE.