Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction To Issues And Sources, edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess

As I was reading the introduction to this book, whose editors praised the writings of historians like Kitchen [1], Longman and Long (whose history of ancient Israel is a classic in my own personal library), I felt the pleasure of seeing that the editors of this book, at least, share a certain taste when it comes to ancient history, as the historians they praised the most were those whose insight in biblical history and respect for the Bible as a historical source of the highest order are particularly notable in a field filled with those whose rejection of the Bible leads them into subjectivist folly, merely reading into ancient times the sort of views and worldviews that they already possess. This book’s materials do not fully match the excellence of its introduction, but at the very least, anyone reading this book will be aware of the issues and sources (biblical and otherwise) that address certain areas of history.

It should be noted, though, that this warm recommendation of the book’s contents comes with some caveats and limitations. For one, the authors of the thirteen essays that are part of this book do not always seek to come to conclusions, which is itself a good thing where definitive textual or architectural evidence is lacking. For another, at least a few of the authors of the essays show themselves to be a bit too enamored with the documentary hypothesis, or a priori assumptions about the late date of “second” Isaiah and Daniel, although it should be noted that most of the authors have a much higher regard for the value of biblical books, including prophecy and psalms, as historical sources of the highest worth once the Bible is properly understood and taken fully seriously. In terms of the book’s material, the thirteen essays of this book deal with the following subjects: Genesis, Exodus and the Wilderness, Covenant and Treaty, Early Israel and its appearance in Canaan, the Judges and the early Iron Age, the story of Samuel, Saul, and David, the United Monarchy, the biblical prophets in historiography, late 10th and 9th century issues, eighth century issues, Judah in the 7th century, 6th century issues, fifth and fourth century issues, and the Hellenistic period. The essays themselves total a little more than 450 pages, making this book an introductory read for its subject material and breadth of scope, but a demanding read for many readers.

If it is a demanding read, though, it is a worthwhile one despite its limitations. For one, the wide variety of views among the essay writers themselves, and discussed by the essay writers, put paid to any belief in a rigid uniformity of views among knowledgeable specialists within the field. Many of the authors, and the scholars whom they cite, are critical of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, often oversimplifications, of the biblical record and show themselves to be very astute and close readers of the scriptures with a keen desire to understand the Bible on its own terms. To give but a couple examples among many that could be chosen, one of the authors points out that according to the biblical standard Jehoshaphat is a far more notable king than Ahab, but by human standards Ahab was among the greatest rulers of his time, viewed with respect by the Assyrian monarch who was his opponent at Qarqar. We must not confuse the biblical perspective with the way that we view our own leaders in our contemporary political scene, because that which is well regarded by God is not always respected by men and women, and vice versa. Likewise, the common understanding of biblical history tends to be fairly flat, when the Bible itself is a work of considerable nuance and complexity and layers that are often not well understood by those readers who glide along the surface and do not recognize its tensions. For example, there is a fairly serious difference between the perspective of the historical prophets and Jeremiah on the one side, for example, and that of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. This is not to say that either source is without great worth, or that only one of them is inspired by God, but rather that the people who served God saw matters differently whether they remained in Judah after the exile or whether they were taken from Judah as part of the exiled elites and then returned two generations later with the desire to regain their elite standard in the restored community, a desire that was not always straightforwardly appreciated by those left behind. We would do well to remember that when God calls us, we do not always leave our backgrounds or our perspectives behind, and we can confuse disagreements about politics with far more serious conflicts over belief systems. This was as true in biblical history as it is today, and it is comforting to know that despite the wide gulf between the times of the Old Testament and our own, we are not so different after all.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/book-review-on-the-reliability-of-the-old-testament/