On the Biblical Studies list presently there’s a pretty interesting discussion in progress concerning history and methodology. To this point the following have contributed postings that may be worth reading if you are interested in the thorny and much discussed and debated topic:
Philip Davies- here.
Jim West- here.
John Staton- here.
Philip Davies responds here.
And most recently, Niels Peter Lemche here.
It all kicked off with a simple ’starter’ comment here, and the search for clarification was entered into by Joseph Calandrino, Cynthia Edenburg and Kevin Edgecomb.
As further relevant observations are made you can visit the list site to view them or subscribe.
The issue of ‘history, historicity, and methodology’ has been at the heart of virtually everything done in Biblical studies in the past two decades. Presently, there’s no consensus on even something so central as what the various disputants mean when they use the word ‘history’ or ‘historical’. Our inability to speak ‘to’ one another rather than ‘past’ one another is directly related to this confusion of terminology. We may not solve the problem in our discussion, but we certainly should be able to come to some agreement at least concerning what we don’t mean when we use the terms involved. If you have some thoughts on the subject we would certainly love to hear from you.