ABSTRACT
Historical criticism was never meant to be one valid option among many it was supposed to yield truth, and truth independent of the outlook of the investigator. Here, then, is one way in which so-called historical and so-called literary interpretations are close in practice, however different in theoretical aims and intentions. A more modern style of literary criticism might question whether this is really appropriate, and ask whether we might not see the Deuteronomistic History as altogether a more accidental piece of writing. The work of Robert Alter presents interesting examples. Alter's assumptions seem not unlike those of canonical criticism, though of course without the theological implications. The divide in biblical studies here runs, not so much between historical and literary criticism, but between redaction-critical investigation, on the one hand, and both source and modern literary interpretation, on the other.
