| Abstract: | This response to Lester Grabbe's review of Th.L. Thompson's The Bible in History marks out substantial differences in their approach to history. It argues that Grabbe appears to overlook the book's intention to offer a critique of historicism and its rhetoric of objectivity. Particularly, Grabbe's understanding of the Bible as historiographical is disputed, and the understanding of social-historians and their concentration on Tendenz critique - a commonplace in ''second temple'' studies - is not shared by the author. Accepting a loss in both detail and accuracy, he rather recommends an approach which uses anthropological and archaeological insights, supplemented by the unwritten implications of texts, geo-political trends and intellectual history. Against Grabbe's strong objections, the necessity of caution in accepting the historicity of specific unconfirmed kings in the synchronisms of Judean and Samaritan kinglists, implied by 2 Kings, is re-asserted. On the other hand, Grabbe's charge of casting greater doubt on biblical texts in contrast to his treatment of extra-biblical texts is falsified by the author's Historicity of 1974 and subsequent known practice. He corrects Grabbe's misunderstanding of his treatment of the deity Yahweh, and, after objecting to the personally derogatory innuendoes of Grabbe's presentation of his understanding of early Judaism, he addresses the question of whether stories lie by addressing the rhetoric of story. In closing, a brief exegesis of Mark 7, 31-37 is offered as an illustration of how historicism has distorted biblical scholarship. |
