The Copenhagen School (theology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies, also known as The Minimalist School is a school of biblical exegesis emphasizing that the bible should be read and analysed primarily as a collection of narratives and not as an accurate historical account of events in the prehistory of the middle east. This means that the theologists of the Copenhagen School read the Bible primarily as a source to the times and circumstances under which it was written. Frequently Copenhagen theologists have argued for a later dating of parts of the Bible than other scholars.

Contents 1 Origins of Minimalism 2 The dating of Events in the Old Testament 2.1 the Flood 2.2 Abraham 3 Notes 4 References

[edit] Origins of Minimalism

Minimalist theology arose from the need of scholars to deal with the contradictions that seemed to emerge from the findings of archaeology in ancient Israel and Palestine and surrounding countries, and various literalist interpretations about the Bible. The "Minimalist Method" advocates using archaeology as the primary source for reconstructing the history of Israel and Judea, and suggests that the Bible as text needs to be fitted within the context suggested by historical archaeology. As George Athas^[1] says It arose from "major discrepancies between the Bible and what archaeologists have dug up in Israel and Palestine. Or rather, what archaeologists have failed to dig up in Israel and Palestine. For decades, before biblical scholarship started to sharpen its approach, scholars interpreted archaeology in light of what the Bible said. Everything was seen through the Bible's window. That is, scholars took for granted that what the Bible said, was true - not just morally and religiously, but historically and scientifically. So, as an archaeologist back in the 19th century, you would pick up your Bible and expect to find Noah's Ark somewhere on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey, just as the Bible said; or that you could dig in Jerusalem and find the remains of David's and Solomon's palace."

The first generations of Biblical archaeologists from Flinders Petrie to William Albright and John Bright, seemed to find confirmation of the Bible in their work.

1. Leonard Woolley's excavations at Ur seemed to show the appearance of West Semites Amorites (or Martu) coming to rule in Southern Iraq close to the time spoken of for Abraham's supposed residence in the city.
2. The discovery of the Code of Hammurabi led to the suggestion of similarities with the Laws of Moses. Hammurabi of Babylon was identified with Amraphel of Shinar, one of the four kings confronting Abraham in Genesis.
3. Excavations in Egypt confirmed the existence of the "store cities" of Raamses (Per Ramses) and Pithom (Per Atum), and suggested that 'Apiru (Hebrews) had been engaged in building projects for Rameses II.
4. The discovery of the Israel stele|Merenptah stele]] mentioned a battle between Egpt and Israel in Canaan, in seeming confirmation of the settlement of the country after the Exodus by the Children of Israel.
5. John Garstang's excavations at Jericho found large walls split by cracks that seemed confirmaion of Joshua's attack as reported in the Bible.
6. William F. Albright claimed to have found the city of Ai conquered by Joshua during the settlement of Canaan by the Israelites shortly after the Battle at Jericho
7. Yigael Yadin and others found what was claimed to be Solomon's stables, enclosed by ashlar walls of fortress cities at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer.

But Minimalists claim that further research has challenged every one of these findings and shown them to be erroneous interpretations of archeological data caused by a Biblical bias.

At the same time, the development of higher or historical criticism was leading to the search for the various sources of the Biblical traditions, the nature of the genres used as forms of literature and were giving a better understanding of the purposes and intentions of the various authors and editors of the Bible. It was also leading to the suggestion that we required better understanding of the historical, political and social contexts under which the books were written. This had led to deep skepticism about whether Moses had in fact authored the first five books of the Bible as claimed by Ezra (Ezra 3:2; 6:18; 7:6). (For instance, it is difficult for an author to describe his own death and burial, as the Pentateuch does of Moses. Conservative critics claim this was inserted by Joshua, but if part of the Penteteuch was written by another, say the Minimalists, why not other parts too?)

In 1968, award winning articles by Nils Peter Lemche and suggested that Biblical archaeologists would have constructed a very different story of the history of ancient Palestine, if they had only the archaeological record and if they had not made use of interpretations drawn from readings of the Bible.

[edit] The dating of Events in the Old Testament

[edit] the Flood

Since the rejection of catastrophism for uniformitarianism in modern geology, science has almost universally rejected the theory of a universal flood. Instead, it is now generally accepted by non-fundamentalist Biblical scholars that the stories of Noah refer to a local flood which may have appeared universal to the people involved. Various possible events have been suggested as being the precursors to the Biblical story.

• The Fladrian Transgression from the Late Ice Age Maxima, associated with the rise in sea levels with the flooding of all areas between 130 meters below sea level, in 20,000 BCE and 5 metres above present sea level by 5,600 BCE.
  • The Black Sea catastrophe: The recently discovered flooding of the Black Sea has been suggested by Ryan and Pitman as the source of the Noah story.
  • The Persian Gulf catastrophe: has been suggested by Juris Yarins as the origin of the Noahide deluge, and also for the disappearance of the Garden of Eden.

The weakness of both of these alternatives is that the rise of sea levels took a long time and did not result in the forty day flooding and recession of the flood waters of the type described in the Bible.

[edit] Abraham

In 1975 John Van Seters^[2] re-analysed the history portrayed of the patriarchs, particularly the tale of Abraham. He showed that there had been a consistent bias in the archaeology, which had given preference to the earliest appearance of characteristics of the story and against elements of first millennium. For example, while camels may have been domesticated earlier than the first millennium, their widespread appearance in the Middle East as beasts of burden was with the appearance of bedouin tribes from about 950 BCE.

Again, while the purchaseof land was common in ancient Iraq and Egypt, the alienation of land, as described by the Spring of Mamre, and its selling for money is a feature which is only documented from the spread of monetary economies in the Levant during the eighth and at the earliest, the ninth century.

Similarly, the appearance of Philistines living in Gerar, with properly Canaanite names, as documented in the story of Abraham, is a late rather than an early feature, as Philistines only arrived in Palestine after the great Sea People's battles with Rameses III, in 1187 BC, and it was only much later that they gave up their Aegean cultural traits to become indistinguishable from their Canaanite neighbours.

Van Seters demonstrated to the satisfaction of most Biblical scholars, that the tales of Abraham referred to people and places set within an Iron Age context. From a literary critical point of view, the stories of Abraham seem designed to establish claims from exiles coming from Southern Iraq over lands in the vicinity of Hebron.

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Athas, George (1999), "'Minimalism' The Copenhagen School of Thought in Biblical Studies"(3rd Ed, University of Sydney, (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9246.htm).
2. ^ Van Seter, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975.

[edit] References

• Davies, Philip R., Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1998.

• Finkelstein, Israel, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 1988

• Garbini, Giovanni, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, 1988 (trans from Italian).

• Halpern, Baruch, "Erasing History: The Minimalist Assault on Ancient Israel", BR, Dec 1995, p26 - 35, 47.

• Lemche, Niels Peter, Early Israel, 1985. á Lemche, Niels Peter, Israel in History and Tradition, 1998.

• Provan, Iain W., "Ideologies, Literary and Critical Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel", Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995), p585-606. (a critique of the Copenhagen School of Thought - with responses by Davies (above) and Thompson (below))

• Thompson, Thomas L., Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974.
• Thompson, Thomas L., Early History of the Israelite People, 1992.
• Thompson, Thomas L., "A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?" Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995), p683-698. (a response to the article by Iain W. Provan - above)
• Thompson, Thomas L., The Mythic Past, 1999.

• Van Seter, John, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975.