Class #2 Herodotus and Novi – Early sources of History

How would you compare the two readings that you did last night?

Why is Herodotus considered to be the “Father” of History? Why not Joshua?

Herodotus has certain strengths. He gathers information from a variety of sources. Herodotus is culturally neutral. He creates a sympathetic image of the Persians as well as the Greeks. Finally, Herodotus tries to keep his views out of the narrative. “I have included many accounts but I will not pick one as true” Here we see the origins of the Historians objectivity.

On the negative, Herodotus sees no purpose in History. If one looks at the episode of the Boar and Croesus. Croesus’s son is destined to die. The oracles proclaimed it. There is no avoiding the fact. Reading this History and seeing the folly of standing in a circle to throw spears at a boar will not save anyone in the future. If it is destined it is destined. People make decisions that on the surface might seem rational. But the hands of fate direct those decisions to a particular outcome.

For Herodotus there is no practical benefit to History. The benefit of History for Herodotus is not for the living. It is for the dead. History is a living memorial. It records the heroic exploits of individuals so that their memory can live on.

“So that human achievements may not be forgotten in time, and great and marvelous deed- some displayed by Greeks, some by Barbarians – may not be without their glory” (Herodotus, as quoted in Burrow pg 2)

What about Joshua? What are the strengths and weaknesses of his History? Joshua does not introduce the work with a statement of purpose so we must infer.

There are those that criticize the Hebrew Prophets as being tied up with a religion and thus not objective. Yet, these same critics seem to give Herodotus a pass. Herodotus can talk about oracles, visions, and signs, without the least bit of criticism (Burrow 2007 pg 22) . He can explain losses on the battlefield, as caused by a hero’s relationship with a Temple and the various cults associated with it. Still Herodotus as seen as an objective rationalist and Joshua is considered a biased religious text.

Joshua is not mentioned as the father of History. Yet, one can see in the prophets and in the Torah itself before, the roots of History. In fact, Eliade posits that Jewish History introduced the whole concept of History. (Bernstein, 1993)

For Jews, Eliade advances, there is a linearity to time. It begins with creation and will end with the Messiah. In between, there is a story that will unfold with a beginning and an end. (Bernstein, 1993) The Greek concept of time is cyclical. There is no linearity, according to Aristotle, there is no beginning or end. Things just are. We strive not to improve. For improvement implies moving along in time. Rather, according to Aristotle we strive to acquire knowledge and connect to Universal truths. History as was mentioned in the first lecture is particular. It is not Universal.

Funkenstein presents a critique to Eliade. Jewish History is not exactly linear. (Bernstein,1993) The traditional view if one takes a close look is spiral (Bernstein,1993) .

What examples can one find in the spiral nature of History from Joshua?

In Joshua we see the redemption of the spies. In Bamidbar, numbers, parshat Shelach, Moses sends out spies. They come back and give a difficult report of the land of Israel and as a result the Jewish people are forced to wander in the desert for 40 more years. In Joshua, instead of 12 spies, Joshua sends out just two. As opposed to the previous story with the 12 spies, the two spies are successful in their mission.

Here we see a direct lesson from History. A generation earlier, only two spies were successful, ten failed. The next time the nation sends out spies, they learn from their mistake and send out 2 instead of 12.

Here we see an introduction for meaning in History. In the Jewish paradigm, one is able to learn from History and correct the nation’s previous mistakes.

We see this spiral pattern numerous times in Jewish history. The forefathers go down to Egypt again and again. Each time they go, the story is similar but different. It is not accurate to say that History repeats, nor, is it accurate to say that History progresses along a linear path.

There are many themes that repeat again and again in the Torah. The story of Sarah and Rivka is just one example. Both Abraham and Isaac defend their lives by telling people that their wives are their sisters. The stories are similar, yet, slightly different. So too, is the story of the spies. There are those that talk about History “repeating”, but, in the Jewish account, we actually see the repetition.

We also see in Jewish History an explicit purpose. Jewish History is not just stories about heroes. Rather, it is the development of a relationship between G-d and the Jewish people. All history for Jews is essentially divine. History is the unfolding of G-d’s will in the physical universe. It is evidence of what Maimonides refers to as G-d’s cunning in History (Moyn,2008)

Rationalists, will decry the presence of the divine as unbefitting true history. Yet, these same rationalists are the first to acclaim Herodotus. They also don’t seem to mind Hegel’s Spirit of History. So perhaps something else is going on.

So here are the differences –

Herodotus – Believes that History about heroes, time is cyclical, there is nothing to learn in History, oracles dreams and visions proclaim a deterministic future that cannot be avoided. In this context he desires to be a dispassionate observer.

Tanach – History is about a people, time is spiral, one can and must learn from History, Prophets can only see a potential future it is one’s responsibility to heed the prophetic warning and change one’s ways. In the Jewish version of Caesus, keeping one’s son out of danger would have saved his life. Ultimately there is a purpose to History beyond memorial and entertainment. Not objective at all. There is a purpose to History and that purpose involves the Jewish people.

Now what are the similarities?

Access to multiple sources

Where else do we see multiple versions of stories?

Genesis – has two versions of creation. Devarim repeats much of the material from Shmot and Bamidbar.

Compare this to Herodotus’ use of multiple sources.

The other similarity is the use of narrative. The Torah has a great narrative. The characters are developed and the story draws one in. In the same way, Herodotus’s best chapters have a great narrative.

The universal message that these texts convey, over and above their particular cultural heritage is the presence of great narrative.

Ultimately, the tool of History at this stage is a narrative flow. History rises or falls based on the Historians effectiveness as a story teller. Because, the details and content of the past fade into oblivion, only those messages that we constantly choose to attenuate to rise to the top and actually exist.

Take the History of History for instance. Herodotus had many contemporaries. Barrow lists many of them.(Burrow, 2007) But, the material that these individuals left has been lost. Only experts in the History of ancient Greece know who they are.

Even Herodotus fades to oblivion in our modern culture. Who remembers his stories? How popular are they today? The memorial that Herodotus wanted to leave for the ages, is it strong? If you hadn’t taken this class would you have known about it?

Think about this, in an era of youtube videos and the internet with its constant stream of information what sense of History do we have? Can we name the presidents? The major milestones of American History?

Think about it on a larger scale. With 24 hours of Youtube videos being uploaded every minute, which of these videos will achieve monument status? Which ones will be watched a year from now, two years from now, a decade from now, thousands of years from now?

What do we select as having historical relevance.

Assignment for tonight – think about your life. Choose an event in your life that is connected to your personal History. Write a narrative account of that event. Think about the strengths of the narrative of Joshua and Herodotus. How can their example impact your story?