History books in the Old Testament?

Answer 1

Little of the "history" in the Old Testament seems valid.

AnswerThe way the question is put is somewhat ambiguous, although both have answers. If the question relates to what books of the Old Testament are books specifically of history, then the answer is immediately below. If the question is inquiring about the historical nature, or otherwise, of the Old Testament books, then an answer is given below relating to this question, which is what the first answer began to address.

Although probably every single Old Testament book contains something of historical value, the books which are commonly regarded as specifically historical are these:

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 & 2 Samuel

1 & 2 Kings

1 & 2 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

Esther

The first five books of The Bible, commonly referred to as the Pentateuch, or Torah, cover the early history of the world and include the origin and development of the nation of Israel up till the time of the entry into the promised land. The book of Joshua contains details of this entry and subsequent conquest, which follow chronologically in time from the Pentateuch.

Answer 2

A:The principal history of early Israel and Judah is the Deuteronomic History, consisting of the Books of Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 2 Kings. Although traditionally regarded as having been written over a period of many centuries by different authors in different times and even different cultures, they actually form a well-integrated set of works that are, in large part, by the same hand. This is the same hand that also wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, thus the designation of the series as the Deuteronomic History.

Another history that parallels this and may have been intended to replace it is found in 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles. The books of Chronicles differ in some significant respects from the Deuteronomic History, particularly in the role of King David.

The Old Testament does not give history as we understand the term. For example, Carol A. Redmount (The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Bitter lives) says that the biblical Exodus account was never intended to function or to be understood as history in the present-day sense of the word. For most occasions, and especially for documents that expressed deeper truths and fundamental values, facts as such were not always valued, consistency was not always a virtue, and specific historical particulars were often irrelevant and therefore variable.

In another example, Carol Meyers (ibid, Kinship and Kingship: The Early monarchy) says that the Book of Ruth seems to provide evidence about the premonarchic period, but much suggests that the book comes from a later period: several features of its language, the explanation in 4:7 of the custom of the redemption around which the end of the story revolves, and the denouement that traces the roots of the Davidic monarchy. She says the book of Ruth may tell us nothing about the era of the judges beyond what an Israelite storyteller of a later period knew of it, although even that is worthwhile information.