Biblical Studies and Classical Studies: Simple Reflections about Historical Method

Author(s): Arnaldo Momigliano

Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 45, No. 4, (Autumn, 1982), pp. 224-228
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209767
Accessed: 11/06/2008 20:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Bible, Archeology,and History

Biblical Studies and Classical

Studies: Simple Reflections
about Historical Method
by Arnaldo Momigliano
- - -

I have never foundthe task of

interpretingthe Bible any
more or less complex than
that of interpretingLivy or
Herodotus.

P rinciplesof historicalre-
search need not be different
from criteria of common
sense, and common sense
teaches that outsiders must not tell
insiders what they should do. I
shall thereforenot discuss directly
what biblical scholars are doing;
they are the insiders.
Perhapswhat I can do useful-
ly is emphasize as briefly as po?si-
ble threeclosely interrelatedpoints
from my experience as a classical
scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars:
(1)Our common experience
in historical research;
(2)The serious problems we
all have to face because of the
currentdevaluation of the notion
of evidence and of the correspond-
ing overappreciationof rhetoric
and ideology as instruments for the
analysis of the literary sources;
(3)What seems to me the most
fruitfulfieldof collaboration
between
classical and biblical scholars.
Let me admit from the start
that I am ratherimpervious to any
claim that sacredhistory poses
problemswhich are not those of
profanehistory. As a man trained
from early daysto read the Bible in
Hebrew,Livy in Latin, and Herod-
otus in Greek, I have never found
the task of interpretingthe Bible
any more or less complex than that
of interpretingLivy or Herodotus.
Livy is of course less self-assured
concerning the truth of what he
tells us about Romulus than the
Pentateuch is about Abraham.
But the basic elements of a sacred
history are in Livy as much as in
the Pentateuch. It so happens that
the Romansentrustedtheir priests
with the task of registeringevents,
and in one way or another the
priestly code of Rome contributed
to the later annals written by
senators or by professionalwriters.
It is unnecessary to addat
this eleventh hour that the prob-
lems about understandingthe
texts, guessing their sources, and
determining the truth of their
information are basically the same
in Roman as in Hebrew history.
The similarity extends to the means
and methods of supplementing
and checking our literarysources
by archeology,epigraphy,numis-
matics, and what not. Whether
biblical or classical historians, we
have also learnedthat archeology
and epigraphycannot take the
place of the living tradition of a
nation as transmitted by its liter-
ary texts. At the same time we
have been cured of early delusions
that the reliability of historical
traditions can be easily demon-
stratedby the spade of the archeolo-
gists.
A nice example was provided
two years ago by the discovery,by
now famous, of an archaic Latin
inscription in the town of Satri-
cum. What is now known as the
Lapis Satricanus is a simple dedica-
tion to Mars (Mamers)by the
companions (sodales) of Publius
Valerius.This is the text from P.
Stibbe'sedition (LapisSatricanus,
Rome: Dutch Academy, 1980) of
two lines with something missing
at the beginning:
.. .ei steterai Popliosio Valesiosio
suodales Mamertei
The date of the inscription is un-
likely to be earlier than 530 B.C.
or later than 480 B.C. Roman tradi-
tion tells us of a Roman consul
Publius ValeriusPoplicolafor the
firstyearof the Republic(tradition-
ally 509 B.C.), but the reality of this
consul had been doubted,for good
and badreasons. Are we now to
regardthe Publius Valeriuswho
has appearedin Satricum as identi-
cal with the Roman consul of 509
B.C.? And can we claim this identi-
fication as a vindication of tradition-
alism? Biblical scholars are used
to such problems.

224 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982


On the other hand, we have
learnedthat archeology allows us to
pose problems which the literary
tradition does not even suggest.
When we catalogue the furniture
of the tombs of 8th-century B.C.
Latium, we are by implication
asking questions about the material
culture of IronAge Latium and its
relations to Etruriaor Greece, ques-
tions which are simply outside
the literarytradition. But of course,
there is a differencebetween ask-
ing intelligent questions and produc-
ing plausible answers.Wehave to
learn to live with a disproportion
between the intelligent questions
we can ask and the plausible an-
swers we can give. This is the
only consolation I can offerto my
biblical colleagues who have not
yet found a plausible answer to their
intelligent questions about Gene-
sis 14 and who do not delude
themselves that the Eblatablets
are going to oblige in this respect.
The most dangeroustype of re-
searcherin any historical field is the
man who, because he is intelli-
gent enough to ask a good question,
believes that he is good enough to
give a satisfactoryanswer.
If I said there is no basic
differencebetween writing biblical
history and writing any other
U-*-
*gk
Daniel praying in the lions' den. From
Johann Ulrich Kraus'sHistorischer Bilder-
Bibel (1705). Copy held in the Abram and
Frances Kanof Collection of Judaic Art,
Rare Books Collection, Perkins Library,
Duke University.
history,it is because I wanted to
introducewhat to my mind is the
really serious problemabout writing
anyhistory today.There is a
widespreadtendency both inside
and outside the historical profes-
sion to treathistoriographyas anoth-
er genreof fiction. The reduction
of historiographyto fiction takes
variousforms and is justified with
varyingdegreesof intellectual sophis-
tication. It is sometimes presented
in the simple form of reducingany
literaryproduct (including histor-
iography)to the expression of
ideological points of view: that is, of
explicit or concealed class inter-
ests. It is also offered,with greater
sophistication, as an analysis of
historical works in terms of rhetori-
cal postures;and, finally, it is
elaboratedby combining ideological
and rhetoricalanalysis with the
purposeof provingthat any histori-
cal account is characterizedby a
rhetoricalposture which in its turn
indicates a social and political
bias. The conclusion is in all cases
the same: there is no way of
distinguishing between fiction and
historiography.
I shall not speak about the
specificformsthis rhetoricalanaly-
sis takes in biblical studies. At
present, the most eminent repre-
BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982
sentative in this country of the
combination of the rhetoricalwith
the ideological approachin order
to dissolvehistoriographyinto fiction
is my friendHaydenWhite. He is
a dominatinginfluence in the two
periodicalsHistory and Theory
andNew LiteraryHistory and, re-
markablyenough,has found strong
supportin PeterMunz's recent book,
The Shapeof Time.A New Look
at the Philosophyof History, pub-
lished in 1977. This supportis
particularlyremarkablebecausePeter
Munz by origin and formation
representsGermanhistoricismfiltered
throughEnglishanalyticalphiloso-
phy.Needless to say,HaydenWhite's
main work is Metahistory, 1973.
His volume Tropicsof Discourse,
Essaysin Cultural Criticism col-
lects importantpaperswhich are
partlyearlierand partlylater than
Metahistory.Among his most recent
papersI note his discussion of
Droysen'sHistorik in History and
Theory, 1980, No. 1, and the essay
on "Literaryand Social Action"in
New LiteraryHistory,Winter1980,
No. 2.
In his earlierwork Hayden
White emphasizedthe rhetorical
postures of the historians. Going
back to GiambattistaVico, he tried
to reduce all historiographyto four
225
Bible, Archeology, and History
basic attitudes, expressedor perhaps
rathersymbolized by the rhetori-
cal figuresof metaphor,metonymy,
synecdoche, and irony.Metaphor,
accordingto White, prevailedin the
16th and 17th centuries, metony-
my in the 18th century,synecdoche
in the early 19th century,irony in
the late 19th century,followed by
the present-dayirony about irony.
The book on Metahistory,however,
provedthat these chronological
distinctions had little importance
forWhite, as he showed there that
all fourrhetoricalmodes were vital
and competitive in the 19th centu-
ry when Ranke stood for synecdo-
che, Michelet for metaphor,Tocque-
ville formetonymy,andBurckhardt
for irony.Nor is it clear that these
figuresof speech really represent
differentpoliticalandsocial attitudes,
for three conservativeslike Ranke,
Tocqueville, and Burckhardtwrote
in differentrhetoricalkeys.
More recently White seems to
attributeless importanceto rhetori-
cal categories.He has been treating
literature(includinghistoriography)
as a commodity which comes into
the market with the peculiarity of
being able to speak about the condi-
tions of its own production.He
has also stated that in the 19th
centuryhistoriographiesof whatev-
226 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982
Daniel has much in common
with Iranian and Babylonian
texts, but not about the suc-
cession of universal empires.
er kind servedto defendthe status
quo, which may cause some sur-
prise in regardto KarlMarx.
Now, all this may be right or
wrong, but it is irrelevantto the
fundamentalfact about history-
that it must be based on evidence as
a conditio sine qua non, whereas
other forms of literatureare not
compelled to be so based, though
of course nothing prevents a novel
or an epic poem from being pedanti-
cally foundedupon authentic ar-
chival documents. One is almost
embarrassedto have to say that
any statement a historian makes
must be supportedby evidence
which, accordingto ordinarycriteria
of human judgment, is adequate
to provethe reality of the statement
itself. This has three consequences.
First,historians must be preparedto
admit in any given case that they
are unable to reach safe conclusions
becausethe evidenceis insufficient;
like judges,historians must be ready
to say,"Not proven."Second, the
methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually
be scrutinizedand perfected,because
they are essential to historical
research.Third, the historians them-
selves must be judgedaccordingto
their ability to establish facts. The
form of exposition they choose for
their presentation of the facts is a
secondaryconsideration. I have of
course nothing to object in principle
to the present multiplication in
methods of rhetoricalanalysis of
historical texts. You may have as
much rhetorical analysis as you
considernecessary,providedit leads
to the establishmentof the truth-or
to the admission that truth is
regretfullyout of reach in a given
case. But it must be clear that
Judgesand Acts, Herodotus and
Tacitus, are historical texts to be
examined with the purpose of recov-
ering the truth of the past. Hence
the interesting conclusion that the
notion of forgeryhas a different
meaning in historiographythan it
has in other branchesof literature
or art. A creative writer or artist
perpetratesa forgeryevery time he
intends to mislead his public about
the date and authorship of his
own work. But only a historian can
be guilty of forgingevidence or of
knowingly using forgedevidence in
orderto supporthis own historical
discourse. One is never simplemind-
ed enough about the condemna-
tion of forgeries.Pious fraudsare
frauds,for which one must show
no piety-and no pity.
I shall only addthat I have
purposelyconfined my remarksto
 Judith holding the head of Holophernes.
After B. Sprangerby H. Goltzius, no date.
Courtesy of the Rare Books Collection,
Perkins Library,Duke University.

rhetoricalanalysis and refrained of later Jewishhistoriographyon have we so fardiscoveredthe

from any generalizationabout form Greekhistoriographywhich have notion of succession of universal
criticism, of which rhetoricalanal- seldom been formulatedwith the empires, as Daniel knew. The
ysis is only a variety.I am very necessary clarity.I shall give two only propercomparisonis with the
conscious that at least in men like examples. The idea of the succes- Greeks. Daniel has much in com-
HermannGunkel, form criticism sion of the universal empires is to mon with Iranianand Babylonian
has been a powerfulinstrument be found first in Greekhistorians texts, but not about the succes-
forhistorical understanding,not a from Herodotusto Dionysius of sion of universal empires. Wemust
sign of helplessness beforereali- Halicarnassus, passing through thereforeask the question wheth-
ties. Ctesias, Polybius, and that strange er the authoror rather,authorsof
Romandisciple of the Greeks, Daniel-beginning with the author
Aemilius Sura,probablyan elder of Chapter2-got the idea from the
contemporaryof Polybius. It is a Greco-Macedoniansrulingthe East
notion dependenton the basic Greek afterAlexander.Personally,I answer
To conclude, I may well ask discoveryof political history. Out- positively to this question. Until
myself where a classical scholar can side Greekhistorical thought, the evidence to the contraryis provided,
help biblical scholars most useful- idea of succession of empires ap- I take it that about 250 B.C. a Jew,
ly. My answerwould be that in the pearsfirst in Daniel 2, if we date either in Mesopotamiaor in Pales-
field of political, social, and reli- this chapter,as I believe we must, tine, got hold of the Greek idea of
gious history differencesare more to about 250 B.C. I must state succession of universal empires and
importantthan similarities-and explicitly that no theory of univer- transformed it.
thereforeknowledge of Greco-Roman sal succession of empires is to be I am less positive about another
history can be useful only for foundin Tobit 14, whatever may question of this kind. In the last
differentialcomparison.Hence the be its date. half of Herodotus'Book VII,the
failurein the attempt to import The idea of succession of military scene is dominatedby the
the Greeknotion of amphictyony reignswith differentdegreesof perfec- defense of the pass of Thermopylae.
into the farmore complex history tion is of course familiarto Iran- The ideological scene is dominat-
of the Hebrew tribes. ian thought, but only with reference ed by the conversationbetween
But Jewish historiographydevel- to the IranianState. On the other Xerxesand the SpartanDemaratus,
oped at least from the 5th century hand, the Babyloniansof the Hellen- who explains to Xerxeswhy the
B.C. amidst conditions sharedby istic age registeredin their chroni- Greeks,andespeciallythe Spartans,
Greekhistoriography.Both constant- cles (orso-called propheticchroni- will not yield to the Persians:they
ly had to referto the reality of the cles) the succession of rulersof do not obey individual men, but
PersianEmpire.More specifically, differentnationality in Babylonia. the Law.In the book of Judith,
there are questions of dependence Neither in Irannor in Babylonia beforeJudithherself appearson

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982 227

Bible, Archeology, and History
the scene, our interest is concentrat-
ed, on the military side, on the
JewishThermopylae,the mysterious
place Bethulia.The ideological
backgroundis filled by the conversa-
tion between Holophernesand
Achior- the latter of whom is not a
Jew,but unpredictably(becausehe
is an Ammonite) will become one.
Achior explains to Holophernes
that the Jewswill not yield so long
as they obey their Law.
When Judithappears,she pres-
ents herself to the Assyrians as
the person who can reveal the secret
path throughthe mountains, exact-
ly as the traitorEpialtes does in
Herodotus.
The structureof the second part
of HerodotusVIIand the first
section of the book of Judithis
articulatedon the same sequence
of an ideological dialogue and a
peculiarmilitary situation. We
must ask ourselves whether the
author of the originalHebrew
Judithknew Herodotus directly or
indirectly. Here, as I have said, I
am less sure about my answer,but
my inclination to give again a
positive answeris reinforcedby
another,better-knowncoincidence
between the book of Judithand a
Greek historical text. It has long
been recognized that the five days
228 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982
Like judges,historiansmust
be ready to say, "Not proven."
that the thirsty Jewswho were to the Greeks. But we are now
besieged in Bethulia give to them- beginning to make some progress.
selves beforesurrenderinghave This is my favorite field for ex-
their exact counterpartin the five change of information between
daysthat the thirsty Greeks who classical and biblical historians.
were besieged by the Persiansin
Lindosgive to themselves before
surrendering.The Greek story is
contained in the Chronicle of
Lindos,a compilation from previous
sources written in 99 B.C.
Whateverhis date, the author of
the originalHebrew text of Judith
seems to have been acquaintedwith
stories reportedby Greek histori-
ans about the wars of the Greeks
against Persia.If there was any-
thing which conceivably could inter-
est the Jews,it was what the
Greek historians thought about ori-
ental empires and especially about
Persia.Daniel and Judithmay per-
haps be defined as texts which in
Hellenistic time and under Greek
influence tried to present an image
of the Jewsas subjects of the previ-
ous universal empires; this image
was of course very relevant to what
the Jewscould do or could hope
under the Greco-Macedonianuniver-
sal empire.
Notwithstanding the example
providedby EduardMeyer,classi-
cal historians have been slow in
understandingwhat Persiameant