ABSTRACT This article aims to contribute to debates on ‘what is history’ by evaluating the rationale of ‘empiricist-analytical’ and ‘narrative-linguistic’ theories of historying through its practice in Holocaust-related trials. Mindful of a long-standing ‘consensus of critique’, that explicitly warns against bringing historical inquiry into the courtroom, it poses two main questions: (1) can the law produce ‘good history’ as demanded by these theories of the academic form and (2) which of these theories are most appropriate as explanations of the history–law relationship? Focusing on the criminal cases brought against Adolf Eichmann and Ernst Zündel and the civil case instigated by David Irving, it argues that judicial reconstructions of ‘the Holocaust’ may have been ‘cooked’ in accordance with case-specific remits but they were also empirically accountable, ‘credible’ and ‘truth-full’ in content. The law is therefore capable of acting as a model of ‘good history’ as academically required. Furthermore, in identifying the primacy of the discursive (legal) over the empirical, the practices of judicial historying lend support to the rationale of the ‘narrative-linguistic’ genre. The article then engages with these findings to comment on the validity of empiricist and narrativist explanations of academic historying beyond the courtroom.

中文翻译：

---

大屠杀与法律：“良好历史”的典范？

摘要本文旨在通过在大屠杀相关试验中的实践评估历史的“经验主义分析”理论和“叙事语言学”理论的基础，为有关“历史是什么”的辩论做出贡献。考虑到长期的“批判共识”，明确警告不要将历史探究带入法庭，它提出了两个主要问题：（1）法律可以按照这些学术形式的理论所要求的产生“良好历史”吗？ （2）哪些理论最适合作为对历史法律关系的解释？专注于针对Adolf Eichmann和ErnstZündel提起的刑事案件以及David Irving提起的民事案件，它辩称，“大屠杀”的司法重建可能是根据特定案件的职权“煮熟的”，但它们在经验上也是负责任的，“可信的”和“真实的”。因此，法律可以作为学术上要求的“良好历史”的典范。此外，在确定话语（法律）在实证上的首要地位时，司法历史的实践为“叙事-语言”体裁的理论基础提供了支持。然后，本文利用这些发现来评论经验主义和叙事主义对法庭以外学术历史的解释的有效性。在确定话语（法律）在经验上的首要地位时，司法历史记录的实践为“叙事语言”体裁的理论基础提供了支持。然后，本文根据这些发现对法庭以外的学术历史的经验主义和叙事主义解释的有效性进行评论。在确定话语（法律）在经验上的首要地位时，司法历史记录的实践为“叙事语言”体裁的理论基础提供了支持。然后，本文利用这些发现来评论经验主义和叙事主义对法庭以外学术历史的解释的有效性。