What do you think?
Rate this book
EARLY ISRAEL IN RECENT HISTORY WRITING
Hardcover
About the author
John Bright
74 books9 followersJohn Bright was an American biblical scholar, the author of several important books including the influential A History of Israel, currently in its fourth edition. He was closely associated with the American school of Biblical criticism pioneered by William F. Albright, which sought to marry archaeology to a defence of the reliability of the Bible, especially the earlier books of the Old Testament.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 11, 2024
At a recent conference at King’s College in Aberdeen, I happened upon a library sale. Having used Early Israel in Recent Writing as a resource (from another library) in the late ‘70s, I had never owned my own copy. As an admirer of John Bright (having read A History of Israel, The Authority of the Old Testament, and The Kingdom of God), I couldn’t resist, even though the “recent history writing” described in the title is definitely an anachronism in a 75-year-old book. Yet, it was a thrill for me to revisit Bright’s work, especially since I’d been privileged to attend a week-long colloquium with him where we had discussed many of these issues.
Written in the exact middle of the 20th century, Bright focuses on the methodological approaches prevalent in the early 20th century. For most, the Alt-Noth school will dredge up memories of a skeptical, nihilistic approach to Israel’s history. Bright takes many of the assumptions of the Alt-Noth school to task and demonstrates how certain assumptions can be taken to the ridiculous by using examples from U.S. History (some that he used as cautionary tales like the Battle of the Clouds at Lookout Mountain when we were meeting in the colloquium). However, Bright also observes the almost acritical approach of Yehezkel Kaufmann when the Israeli writer demonstrates an inconsistency in his approach to literary criticism (primarily by ignoring style to fit his presuppositions). Bright admits having more of an affinity with Kaufmann’s valuation of the historical underpinning of Israel’s traditions, but finds Kaufmann’s dismissal of archaeological evidence to be inexplicable.
Martin Noth, as many biblical students know, reduced the idea of a “people” to three factors: 1) common language, 2) common habitat, and 3) common historical experience (p. 111). Noth contended that Israel didn’t meet all three requirements with the possible exception of the “Twelve-Clan League” as an amphictyony. Yet, Bright takes him to task for his inconsistencies in this. Most significantly was the insistence that the place or place names came first in aetiological tales based on topographical locations. Bright uses the surrender at Yorktown in the War for American Independence (American Revolutionary War) as an example. Simply because the surrender took place in Virginia, did that make it a Virginia tradition (p. 102)? What about the fact that Washington throwing the dollar over the river shifted from its origin on the Rappahannock to the Potomac associated with our national identity (p. 103)? Where does a shifting legend fit into Noth’s scheme?
Mostly, Early Israel in Recent History Writing served as a roadmap for Bright’s own approach to Israel’s history. He knows that there are gaps we will never be able to fill in, but he urges historians to be neither too skeptical nor too gullible (p. 124). I have only touched on matters which served useful to me across the years and which re-reading this volume reminded me. Since the book was written well prior to Brevard S. Childs’ masterful work on canonical criticism, much of Bright’s warnings may have been superseded by that approach and rhetorical criticism. Not that literary, tradition-historical, and form criticism are no longer relevant, but that they no longer constitute the boundaries of research with the stranglehold which existed at the time Bright wrote this pithy and important volume.
Written in the exact middle of the 20th century, Bright focuses on the methodological approaches prevalent in the early 20th century. For most, the Alt-Noth school will dredge up memories of a skeptical, nihilistic approach to Israel’s history. Bright takes many of the assumptions of the Alt-Noth school to task and demonstrates how certain assumptions can be taken to the ridiculous by using examples from U.S. History (some that he used as cautionary tales like the Battle of the Clouds at Lookout Mountain when we were meeting in the colloquium). However, Bright also observes the almost acritical approach of Yehezkel Kaufmann when the Israeli writer demonstrates an inconsistency in his approach to literary criticism (primarily by ignoring style to fit his presuppositions). Bright admits having more of an affinity with Kaufmann’s valuation of the historical underpinning of Israel’s traditions, but finds Kaufmann’s dismissal of archaeological evidence to be inexplicable.
Martin Noth, as many biblical students know, reduced the idea of a “people” to three factors: 1) common language, 2) common habitat, and 3) common historical experience (p. 111). Noth contended that Israel didn’t meet all three requirements with the possible exception of the “Twelve-Clan League” as an amphictyony. Yet, Bright takes him to task for his inconsistencies in this. Most significantly was the insistence that the place or place names came first in aetiological tales based on topographical locations. Bright uses the surrender at Yorktown in the War for American Independence (American Revolutionary War) as an example. Simply because the surrender took place in Virginia, did that make it a Virginia tradition (p. 102)? What about the fact that Washington throwing the dollar over the river shifted from its origin on the Rappahannock to the Potomac associated with our national identity (p. 103)? Where does a shifting legend fit into Noth’s scheme?
Mostly, Early Israel in Recent History Writing served as a roadmap for Bright’s own approach to Israel’s history. He knows that there are gaps we will never be able to fill in, but he urges historians to be neither too skeptical nor too gullible (p. 124). I have only touched on matters which served useful to me across the years and which re-reading this volume reminded me. Since the book was written well prior to Brevard S. Childs’ masterful work on canonical criticism, much of Bright’s warnings may have been superseded by that approach and rhetorical criticism. Not that literary, tradition-historical, and form criticism are no longer relevant, but that they no longer constitute the boundaries of research with the stranglehold which existed at the time Bright wrote this pithy and important volume.
Displaying 1 of 1 review