Although many readers may not realize this, because of my absence over the past month, I am taking a class entitled, “The History of Israelite Religion” at Boston University this semester. So far the class is proving interesting, and I hope that such continues to be the case throughout the semester. Adam is also taking this course (as is Mandy), and has blogged his thoughts about one of the readings. Since I’ve also read the Dever article which Adam mentions, and since I managed to make my way into one of Adam’s footnotes, I thought I’d respond with some of my thoughts on the topic of Israelite Religions. For those who would like to consult the Dever article first hand, here is the relevant information: William G. Dever, “Theology Philology, and Archaeology: In the Pursuit of Ancient Israelite Religion,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (ed. Barry M. Gittlen; Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 15.
Adam gives a nice survey of his own thoughts on the matter, and I, generally speaking, agree. A few areas that I think deserve a bit more attention follow:
1. I don’t understand the penchant among scholars to insist that the Hebrew Scriptures are “orthodox” in their take on certain things, brushing under the rug the religion on the ground, as it were. Certainly the Hebrew Bible is coming from a particular idealogical standpoint. But it hardly makes it seem as if everyone in Israel was a practicing Yahwist–or if it does, it makes them out to be syncretistic Yahwists. I realize that part of the issue at hand is the argument that one cannot postulate syncretism on the part of Israel, since their religion likely grew out of the surrounding Canaanite culture. Nevertheless, I think that the textual evidence agrees quite well with the material culture.
At times I think we end up reading our own cultural battles against orthodoxy back into the Hebrew Bible, and so end up making certain assumptions that are not always the case. That is not to say that the Hebrew Bible does not represent the orthodox opinion, it does. However, the idea that it was written for the purpose of making it seem as if Israel had always had a unified faith is a bit nonsensical to me. If whoever wrote it was trying to say that the post-exilic religion was the way it had always been, he certainly did a horrible job of it. We have a Saulide with the name Ishba’al, we have David’s sons serving as priests, we have the time of the Judges, as well as the assertion that El divided the nations according to the number of the sons of God. Hardly a convincing way to argue for an orthodox religion from time immemorial. No, I find it much more likely that there are many pre-exilic pieces in the deuteronomistic history that were edited together at various points, with the final editing taking place after the exile. Certainly this came from a particular perspective, and certainly it was the minority perspective during the monarchy. It was not, as far as I can tell, a perspective that tried to more than quickly tidy some of the more “rogue” elements of Israelite religion. Quite possibly that was because the religion on the ground was, to some extent, not relevant beyond the assertion that it was not what YHWH wanted.
If anything, I find it more likely that our own presuppositions lead us to gloss over the bits of the text that clearly indicate a non-monotheistic Israelite religion early on. Such indicators are quite prevalent in much of Biblical poetry, as well as the deuteronomistic history. Perhaps it is the fact that the DH makes value judgments on these non-monotheistic elements that truly disturbs us. We would prefer, if possible, that it was more neutral in its assessment of Israelite religion, if not its communication of such.
2. Dever’s critique of the limitations of Biblical Theology is, I think, quite helpful. Although I had to wonder if he accurately acknowledged the reason many of the writers of so called Biblical theology are writing, I agree with him that it tends to denigrate the Biblical text. When authors make the point that understanding the Hebrew Bible must begin with the New Testament they have completely and utterly missed the point. Dever, in this case, is absolutely correct–although perhaps a bit polemical at times.
3. His critique of philologists I found to be overly harsh in some respects. I do not disagree that material culture and archeology must be consulted in reconstructing a history of ancient Israel, however. Dever states several times that he wants archeology and philology to work in tandem, but after reading the article, I must wonder if, perhaps, he wishes archeology to be the more equal of the two disciplines. Ultimately digging up stuff is great, and needful, but we also need texts (both sacred and secular, if we might borrow a modern distinction and apply it haphazardly to the ancient near east), to illuminate what we find. One without the other only provides an incomplete view of ancient culture/history/etc.
I look forward to discussing the article in class next week. I’d also love to hear what any one who has read the article has thought of it.
I read Dever’s Did God Have a Wife? over Christmas and found his work pretty interesting.
When it comes to Israelite historiography, I much prefer the work of N.P. Lemche, Philip Davies, Thomas Thompson, and John Van Seters (aka, the so-called ‘minimalist’ school or ‘Copenhagen’ school).
The reason is because I find it quite difficult to understand why a) Dever finds it helpful to understand the ‘religion on the ground’ via archeology and vague allusions in the Biblical text when that is only tangentially helpful in understanding the function and form of the Hebrew Bible, b) why moderns want to believe that Scripture has some sort of strong connection with history, and c) why some scholars, especially evangelical scholars, want to attempt to reconstruct an ‘historical Israel’ from the Hebrew Bible.
If one follows the Hebrew Bible and views it as history, one will find that the ultimate vision of the ‘historical’ Israel it presents cannot be upheld in light of our knowledge of the cultures of the ‘biblical’ time period.
The Copenhagen school, quite rightly, realizes this and then attempts to answer the question, ‘So what is the Hebrew Bible actually saying if it is not history?’ Their answers are, for me, much more persuasive than Dever, Longman, Hess, Walton, or other evangelical or conservative types (Dever being the later as a non-practicing Jewish convert).
Are you required to read any of the Copenhagen school’s work in this class?
Art, thanks for the comment. I imagine that Dever isn’t as concerned with the form and function of the Hebrew Bible since he is an archaeologist.
We were required to read a few essays by Davies, and one by Lemche for last week. To be honest, I think that Lemche, Davies, et al don’t completely hit the point much more than others–though that is primarily because I disagree with their dating of texts.
Do you have a book or two you’d recommend by Lemche, et al as an entrance into their work. I’ve read several articles by them, but my book-length reading on the topic of historical Israel has primarily been Stager, Dever, Mazar, etc–who I suppose would be considered “maximalists.”
Calvin,
I own Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by Davies (50cents at the last CBD sale), and The Israelites in History and Tradition by Lemche. Both are in the Library of Ancient Israel Series. You are welcome to borrow one or both.
Calvin,
I would wholeheartedly recommend The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A Critical Survey by N.P. Lemche. It’s his latest (and, IMO, best) work on the subject and reflects much of the criticism that some of his earlier work has gotten.
For a really good and easy to read introduction, I would suggest Philip Davies’ Memories of Ancient Israel. It is a short work (less that 200 pgs) and was written for intro courses, so it isn’t lodged full of footnotes like his other work. I might start off with this and then move to Lemche or to Davies’ In Search of Ancient Israel.
The fourth (and last!) that I would recommend is John Van Seters’ In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. (Side note: Van Seters was Kenton Sparks’ adviser at UNC). Van Seters does really well in comparing the historiography of the ANE with the Hebrew Bible and shows how we can better understand how the ‘history’ of the Hebrew Bible actually functioned in its original context.
Hey Calvin,
I have not read a lot of Lemche and Davies, but I am familiar with Van Seters work, especially In Search of History. Van Seters is concerned with historiography in the Bible and the formation of the text, not the history of Isrealite religion(s) per se (although those subjects are obviously connected). He concludes that the Hebrew Bible has more in common with Greek historiography than with historiographical works from other Near Eastern cultures. He also flips the classic doc. hypothesis upside down, placing the Yahwist in the post-exilic period, and proposing that J is the editor that tied everything together. (That’s a quick, probably over-simplified summary of what I got out of Van Seters.)
As long as we’re recommending other books for Calvin to read, haha, another piece of this puzzle is the work done by Mark Smith (and others such as John Day, Judith Hadley, and Pat Miller) in trying to understand the ideological (or theological) world of Israelite religion based on historical and biblical information. I would start with Smith’s The Early History of God and move to The Origins of Biblical Monotheism.
I hope you continue to enjoy your seminar. Thanks for writing about your experiences.
Thanks for the suggestions everyone!
I’m currently reading through The Early History of God and have Did God have a Wife on my shelf. I almost picked up Lemche’s The Israelites in History and Tradition, but I couldn’t justify it with all of my other recent purchases. There’s always this Summer, I suppose.