Jeffrey Price OT510 – Critical Review 1

Section 1
A book entitled, “A Biblical History of Israel” contains exactly what a reader would expect from the
title. The authors, Provan, Long and Longman (PLL), have taken up the topic of the historical Israel
from the perspective of the theologian historian. The focus of this critical review will be on Part I of
their work which primarily deals with History, Historiography and the Bible as it relates to the
narrative of Israel’s story that has been passed down through the ages by testimony and tradition. The
Part II of their work unfolds the testimony and tradition as it has been revealed to a present day
audience through the Bible. In order to lay the foundation for their argument, the authors take the
reader on a journey through the history of the history of Israel, in which they share and expose the
epistemological and presuppositional frameworks of others and their own. Their ultimate conclusion is
that, “History does teach us things, we believe. History should teach us things,” [1] and the history of
Israel is found in the testimony and tradition of the texts we call the Bible.
The opening chapter, The Death of Biblical History?, outlines a matter of fact history of the history of
Israel touching on the generally accepted critical scholarship of our time. The quintessential position of
much of this scholarship, as PLL point out is “The responsible historian ought to ignore the biblical
text, because it presents an imagined past rather than a real one.” [2] The thrust of this position is that
biblical history is no longer a serious subject matter because the texts that comprise the Bible are no
longer seen as historical texts, but rather are seen as suspicious documents from a suspicious tradition.
[3] Since the text themselves are in question, the history that is revealed through the text is itself in
question to the point of calling ancient Israel an “imaginary entity”. [4] PLL summarize the crux of the
issue by stating, “The real disagreement in this whole debate is, in fact, about what counts as
evidence.” [5] Because the critical scholars do not see the biblical text as evidence, and have
discounted the history contained within it they surmise that biblical history is dead. However PLL
demonstrates that each scholar has an arbitrary beginning and end point at which some of the biblical
text is used as accurate representative history, “for there is no logical stopping place on the slippery
textual slope.” [6] While the biblical defense does not begin there, PLL certainly call into question the
reliability of critical scholarship in support of the evidential question at hand.
At this point, PLL take a step back from the history of the history of Israel to the broader context of
history in general. The influence of the “the French philosophes, who argued that history revealed the
transformation of a potentially rational humanity into an actually rational humanity – a story of
inevitable progress”[7] exerted a great deal of influence on the historian during the eighteenth century
through to today. The progressive or positivist movements began to dominate, and “History and
tradition were no longer assumed to be closely related to each other. Rather, history was to be assumed
to lie behind tradition and to be more or less distorted by it.” [8] This presumed distortion is what led
directly to the debate over biblical evidence as history because if the bible was part of the tradition then
it only distorted the true history that lie behind it. Essentially, the historian is no longer an artist or
philosopher engaged in the interpretation of a living past, but the “task of the historian is then to
establish the true, scientific relationship between the ‘facts’ and to progress then towards broad
generalizations and laws arising from them.” [9] The problem with that interpretation of the historical
task, as PLL rebut, is “fact is mixed with imagination and distorted by memory.” [10] This leaves both
the artist historian and the scientific historian reliant on a past that they cannot control, that they desire
to understand, and that they are both searching for a way to interpret.
As Part I is the ground work for understanding Part II, Chapter 1 sets the context for the argument that
PLL unfolds in Chapters 2 through 5. Beginning in Chapter 2, Knowing and Believing: Faith in the
Past, PLL state both their epistemological and presuppositional framework for working through
history. Of primary concern though is answering the question, how we know, what we know about the
past. Their answer: “We know about the past, to the extent that we know about it at all, primarily
through the testimony of others. Testimony lies at the very heart of our access to the past.” [11] And it
is testimony that carries through to the subsequent chapters by connecting this epistemological
argument to the history of Israel specifically. “We ‘know’ what we claim to know about the history of
Israel, we assert here, by listening to testimony, to interpretation, and by making choices about whom
to believe.” [12] Again, the crux of the argument is what evidence to use in the pursuit of the
knowledge of knowledge, and PLL argue that testimony or the narrative history is the true and reliable
story about the past. While Chapters 2 and 3 argue for the basis of testimony in epistemology, chapters
4 and 5 expand on that point by focusing the application of testimony on the biblical history of Israel as
“a sequence of non-randomly connected, actual events of the past.” [13] Thus PLL reveal their value
based presupposition as “metaphysical and methodological theist[s]” who read the Bible as reliable
testimony about true history that can be believed. While it is not always easy to interpret, the Bible can
be understood and used to construct an Israelite history.[14]
Section 2
The heart of Part I and the strength of PLL’s argument is in Chapter 2, where they succinctly
summarize their point of view on the biblical history of Israel. “We cannot avoid testimony, and we
cannot avoid interpretation. We also cannot avoid faith.” [15] Here lies the real strength of their
argument as they clearly state both their epistemology and presuppositions based both on biblical texts
as testimony and the faith that we must have in the validity and truthfulness of those texts to reveal a
true history of Israel. It is the interplay of testimony, interpretation and faith that play such a pivotal
role in clearly demonstrating the strength of a biblical argument for the history of Israel, and this is also
where the authors point out the shortcomings of critical scholars who inconsistently deal with evidence
and obfuscate their presuppositions. PLL consistently apply sound historical and theological
perspectives demonstrating their cohesive arguments for a true history of Israel.
First, PLL deal with the epistemological validity of using testimony in support of historicity. “Our
knowledge of the past is dependent on testimony. This being the case, and biblical testimony being the
major testimony about Israel’s past that we posses, to marginalize biblical testimony in any modern
attempt to recount the history of Israel must be folly.” [16] Not only does PLL argue here for the value
of testimony, they excellently point out that the basis for understanding the past is always dependent
upon testimony. To suggest that we cannot rely on the testimony of Israel on Israel when other ancient
histories are based on the testimony of their traditions is to both inconsistently and arbitrarily denounce
biblical history as unreliable. Furthermore, PLL demonstrate that “Knowing any history aside from the
history in which we are personally involved requires trust in unverified and unverifiable testimony.”
[17] That is the key to understanding the interplay between testimony and faith. We see testimony as
evidence, and we trust in the evidence to show us truth. Thus our understanding of the past is advanced
by “the incorporation of a living past into the present.” [18]
This leads to the second point that PLL elucidates for us. Not only is testimony epistemologically
valuable, on the basis of this knowledge and truth we are able to consistently interpret history through
the presuppositional framework of the Bible. “Value-free academic endeavor does not exist,” [19]
therefore, it is important to recognize that all scholarship on the history of Israel comes from a value set
of propositions. PLL clearly state, in regards to their work, that “this biblical history of Israel is written
by people who are themselves caught up in the flow of history and have a particular sense of where that
history is heading and what it means, who possess a particular worldview, who hold a particular set of
beliefs and values, and indeed possess particular motivations in writing as they do.” [20] Other
scholars are not so quick to recognize, nor do they ever admit that they are operating within the same
context and are not objective observers or interpreters of history. Their critical analysis comes with a
set of value propositions that are truthfully out of accord with the value propositions of the Bible. It is
amazing to think that scholars who do not take the text seriously, but suspiciously,[21] could
understand and interpret the text better than PLL who “take the text deeply seriously in terms of its
guidance to [them] about the past of which it speaks.” [22] It is the presuppositional context of faith in
the Bible as God’s testimony, “through whose metanarrative human beings can come to understand
themselves in relation to their world,”[23] that we understand how faith assists with both the
interpretation and understanding of history.
Finally, we are able to connect our epistemology, in the context of recognizable presuppositions, to the
history of Israel. The self-described art historians, PLL, beautifully describe the connection to history
using the metaphor of a portrait artist’s work. “Like a portrait, a biblical narrative is in one sense a
fabrication, because it consists of words on paper and not the actual past. Nevertheless, these words on
paper, like paint on canvas, can accurately represent the historical past.” [24] The art transcends the
medium and provides the viewer and reader alike, with the ability to see, understand, interpret, apply
and live out the truth found in the Bible, of which the history of Israel is one of its most primary
concerns. In fact, for the fact finder scientific historians, the Bible answers the problem for them and
their inability to find the type of evidence that they most treasure – archeological. “The history of
Israel itself – overrun constantly by armies, absorbed successively into great empires and greatly
resettled over the course of time – does not help the [scientific] historian in this regard.”[25] That
failure, however, does not demonstrate the lacking historicity of Israel. But it does demonstrate the
lacking epistemology of scientific historians who inconsistently apply their presuppositions in an effort
to deny the history of Israel, by demanding proof of Israel’s history rather than supplying proof that
biblical history is “aimed at glorifying a past that never actually existed.” [26] The history of Israel is
the biblical history of Israel and they are inextricably linked. PLL make strong and cogent arguments
for that on the basis of epistemologically valid testimony, presuppositionally consistent interpretations
and faith in God’s testimony to be true.
Section 3
The compelling arguments presented in Chapters 2 through 5 came as a refreshing wind of
change from the first chapter, which was presented as merely factual for the most part. The history of
the history of Israel, while helpful in gaining perspective at times leaves the reader wondering if the
authors agree or disagree with the perspective. The detail of factual history presented in the first
chapter could have been made stronger if PLL had infused more of their perspective into it. In fact, if
one is not careful, chapter 1 could indeed unravel your assurance of the history of Israel altogether
through the arguments of the critical scholars presented. “Each scholar in turn can thus be accused of
arbitrariness, for there is no logical stopping place on the slippery textual slope; and by degrees this
leads to the death of biblical history entirely.” [27] PLL unravel the arguments of each of these
scholars and their basis for using the biblical text at all in their arguments, not in the direction of
reliance on the text but in the direction of the text they do rely on as not being reliable. Understandably
this occurs in PLL’s application of the inconsistencies of the critical scholars work, but that is not
always made very clear. Conversely, what is made clear unfortunately is that it seems “inevitable that
any truly critical scholar will adopt a principled suspicion of the whole Old Testament in respect of
historical work.”[28] This is more confusing than it is helpful in understanding the authors’ point of
view, and could lead some to question the history of Israel for themselves rather than strengthen their
appreciation of it.
Secondly, there is a constant drum beat about testimony being the epistemological source of
knowledge, to the extent that testimony is over emphasized. While testimony, and in this case the
biblical testimony, is God’s testimony, that fact is under emphasized. When the Bible is cast as God’s
objective truth, the power of the testimony is made stronger not weaker. Presenting the Bible as
Scripture would prevent more confusion about the trustworthiness of the history of Israel found within
its texts. “We are, in short, intellectually reliant upon what others tell us when it comes to what we call
knowledge. This statement simply represents the fact of the matter, whether we like it or not and
however much we are aware that the testimony of others may sometimes be untrustworthy.”[29] God’s
testimony or γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (God-breathed Scripture) is always trustworthy, and therefore we can
know that the biblical history of Israel is the true history of Israel. Finally, not only is the objective
truth minimized, but so is the subjective work of the Holy Spirit in the power of God’s living word.
While the content of the text may be taken seriously, at least in this treatise on the Bible, PLL fall short
in their expression that the bible is God’s majestic, powerful and living word.
In conclusion, the strength of PLL’s historical work laying the foundation for understanding
the biblical history of Israel far outweighs their shortcomings in articulating a complete doctrine of
Scripture. While I see the value in strengthening those elements of apologetics, I recognize their self-
described role as art historians, who seek “through interpretation of a portrait to help the audience
understand both the past and the portrait better than before.”[30] Their skills in this area came shining
through in “A Biblical History of Israel”, as they shared their expertise in the fine art biblical history.
[1] Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman III 2003, 104
[2] Ibid, 18
[3] Ibid, 32
[4] Ibid, 4
[5] Ibid, 8
[6] Ibid, 15
[7] Ibid, 20
[8] Ibid, 24
[9] Ibid, 23
[10] Ibid, 25
[11] Ibid, 37
[12] Ibid, 53
[13] Ibid, 84
[14] Ibid, 4
[15] Ibid, 37
[16] Ibid, 73
[17] Ibid, 74
[18] Ibid, 41
[19] Ibid, 39
[20] Ibid, 101
[21] Ibid, 32
[22] Ibid, 99
[23] Ibid, 102
[24] Ibid, 86
[25] Ibid, 61
[26] Ibid, 11
[27] Ibid, 15
[28] Ibid, 54
[29] Ibid, 45
[30] Ibid, 104