Abstract
Students of comparative religion and historians of historiography have for some time now been debating the value, or even the validity, of an “historical outlook”. Within the swamps of this impossibly large debate, one of the few points of seeming bedrock is that the historical outlook which is characteristic of Western civilization was alien to the peoples of the ancient Near East, the Hebrews possibly excepted. One awkward fact which this consensus must leave out of account is that in first-millennium Babylon there was something which looks like historical writing—the chronicles. So far as I know, they have been completely ignored in this debate.On the other hand, the chronicles have occasionally been singled out for high praise. Students of ancient historiography who, like myself, must depend on translations of the cuneiform texts, have generally supposed that of the many genres represented by these texts the most “historiographic” are the chronicles. One historian concluded that “the great Neo-Babylonian Chronicle” was indeed “the apogee of ancient Near Eastern historiography (exclusive of the Old Testament) and deserves to rank in importance with such milestones as the histories of Thucydides, Orosius and Ranke. Secular history as we know it today here first appeared”.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call