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.