Six lectures given by the renowned German Egyptologist Jan Assmann in the period 2000-2004, and almost all of them revolve around the religious ideas Six lectures given by the renowned German Egyptologist Jan Assmann in the period 2000-2004, and almost all of them revolve around the religious ideas in the earliest antiquity, more specifically the question of polytheism and monotheism. Assmann examines how these two relate to each other (he rejects the thesis that the second developed from the first as far too simplistic), what evolution they each went through, and in particular what the relationship is between monotheism and violence. The latter is related to the discussion after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, about the possible ‘inherent’ nature of exclusion, xenophobia and violence against others in Islam, and by extension also Judaism and Christianity, the three great monotheistic religions. Assmann’s analyses are, as always, at a particularly high level, but – as I had noticed before – he sometimes tends to run himself ragged in not always well-founded statements. Very interesting, certainly, but also to be read with the necessary critical sense. More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
For three months I read intensively about the earliest history of the area of Israel/Palestine, and how Jewish culture came into being there in the fiFor three months I read intensively about the earliest history of the area of Israel/Palestine, and how Jewish culture came into being there in the first millennium BCE. I know that libraries have been filled with books about this, so it was no more than a first introduction. What immediately struck me is how fierce the debates about this early period are, both inside and outside the academic world. This obviously has to do with the political implications for today's world (the legitimacy of the state of Israel and the rights of the Palestinian people), with the fundamental tension between a (agnostic) scientific and a religiously inspired approach, but also with a number of methodological questions of historical research.
The latter concerns the question to what extent the stories of the Hebrew Bible can be used as a historical source. Opinions on this range from “absolutely not”, biblical history largely is a fictional story with minimal historical references and only archaeology can provide us with anything reliable (radically minimalist), to “mostly true”, biblical stories are based on hard historical events that have been passed down for centuries and eventually recorded fairly faithfully in writing (radically maximalist).
Of course, between these extreme positions there is a whole range of opinions that lean more in one direction or more in the other. And this diversity is logical, because – as with much of antiquity – we are dealing here with a striking lack of written and material sources, and reasoned speculation is the only way to present a sound historical story. The dozen books that I read on this subject made it clear to me that the last word on this has not yet been written, and perhaps never will be.
In its own way, the book under review is a daring attempt to shed more light on this thorny issue. Jacob L. Wright (Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia) focuses on the redaction history of the Hebrew Bible, and attempts to explain why the biblical stories were written, especially since they are so atypical of the rest of the writings we know from the ancient Near East. His angle is political: the conquest and dismantling of the “Jewish states” (here Jewish is of course an anachronism) by Assyria in the late 8th century and early 6th century BCE caused a shock, and that trauma was transformed into the view that a nation is defined not so much by kings and courts, but by culture (language, customs, religion, etc.). That view was transformed into numerous stories, sometimes long-standing ones, sometimes completely invented ones, and which set in motion a dynamic that effectively – like a self-fulfilling prophecy – led to a Jewish nation. As Wright stresses, it's the first example of internal nation-building in history (followed by many more, inspired by this 'model').
The biblical stories bear the traces of that centuries-long process of highly complex redaction history, with different versions and different intentions. I could write much more about this (some more in my review in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), but let me suffice to say that Wright's book made a great impression. His focus may be somewhat narrowly political (nation-building), and thus he ignores many spiritual aspects of the biblical stories, but to me this book was the first thoroughly argued synthesis that allowed me to place and interpret the whole, complex process of the emergence of the specific Jewish culture. Of course, it's very thorough and edging academic, but it comes highly recommended!...more
A few weeks ago I read Understanding Genesis by the Jewish Bible expert Nahum Sarna, a commendable little book, but already 60 years old. And so I optA few weeks ago I read Understanding Genesis by the Jewish Bible expert Nahum Sarna, a commendable little book, but already 60 years old. And so I opted for one of the most recent commentaries on Genesis, by the American writer Marilynne Robinson, whose heavily loaded novels (especially the Gilead series) I read with increasing enthusiasm. Much of what Robinson writes was similar to Sarna, and that is not surprising: I guess there are only a limited amount of views on old texts like this one possible. But Robinson writes in her typical very condensed writing and reasoning style, which automatically makes this a much richer book, with many valuable insights. But a few things bothered me. For instance, that she systematically quotes passages and references from the New Testament to illustrate and explain the texts of the Old Testament; as a historian I have a hard time with that. But also the lack of structure in Robinson’s argument is disturbing and even discouraging: at times this seems more like a rather loose collection of reflections and explanations, where certain aspects are seriously explored, others not at all. And finally, Robinson completely ignores the discussion about the redaction history of the Bible stories and their historical value. Bothersome, because it is precisely from this redaction history that it can be concluded how constructed and multi-tracked the Bible texts are, including Genesis. In her introduction she refers to this briefly, and then claims that despite this complex redaction history there still is a great deal of coherence and homogeneity in the Old Testament: “I take it that in the course of their development the Scriptures were pondered very deeply by those who composed and emended them, and that this created a profound coherency, stabilizing difficult concepts or teachings to the point that earlier and later passages can be seen as elucidating one another”. Now, I don’t understand that. It is precisely those contributions by so many anonymous writers (scribes), from different times, with different backgrounds, inspirations and intentions, that make the coherence of the Old Testament writings not so great at all. And that’s no problem: it is precisely that diversity that seems to me to be the richness of those texts. It is a pity that Robinson, like many others, so stubbornly sticks to the one track, and the one truth, narrowing rather than enriching. Too bad....more
This book is almost 60 years old, which at first seemed to me to be rather problematic in my reading program on the earliest history of Israel/PalestiThis book is almost 60 years old, which at first seemed to me to be rather problematic in my reading program on the earliest history of Israel/Palestine. But, apparently, Nahum N. Sarna (1923-2005, Brandeis University US) is still well regarded for his pedagogical work in translating the biblical texts to a contemporary audience. In this book he emphasizes the relationship and the striking differences of the Biblical book of Genesis with Mesopotamian myths, such as on the creation, the flood, and so on. According to Sarna, Genesis was a clear reckoning with those ‘pagan’ stories, and that comes across well. The other components of the Genesis story are also well described and interpreted.
This book is much less up-to-date with regard to the historical background of the biblical stories. For example, Sarna clearly still assumes that the patriarchal stories (Abraham and his descendants) are based on a historical core, and that the extensive Joseph story (the stay in Egypt) is also historically true. He even refers to the classical Hyksos theory, which has now been dismissed by almost all experts. Perhaps there are better introductions that deal with both the substantive relevance and the historical value of the book of Genesis in a much better way. Of course, as a mythical and religious document this Bible-book still appeals to the imagination....more
Smoothly written book that provides some insight into who the authors were behind the Hebrew Bible and related writings. ‘Authors’ is a misleading terSmoothly written book that provides some insight into who the authors were behind the Hebrew Bible and related writings. ‘Authors’ is a misleading term here, because we spontaneously think of individual writers. And although the books of the Bible are often attributed to a specific author (the Prophets, for example), there usually is a tangle of scribal communities behind them. William Schniedewind (° 1962 University of California, Los Angeles) is an expert in the archaeology of Israel and the study of ancient Hebrew. And his focus in this book is to outline exactly how the scribal communities in Israel/Palestine and the diaspora evolved and what role they played in the creation of the biblical texts. It is a commendable and very interesting approach that provides a good insight into how ancient cultures in the Ancient Near East and specifically the Levant functioned. But also how limited our view is of the specific scribal communities behind the Bible. Ultimately, I found that Schniedewind’s approach doesn’t add much to the whole debate about the historical value of the books of the Bible. More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
Lester L. Grabbe (° 1945, emeritus University of Hull, England) is one of the most eminent experts on the early history of Israel and the Hebrew BibleLester L. Grabbe (° 1945, emeritus University of Hull, England) is one of the most eminent experts on the early history of Israel and the Hebrew Bible. And, apparently, he is a very methodical person. In this book he explores in a systematic way which sources are available to reconstruct that history and especially to assess the historical value of the Hebrew Bible. That is very useful in a field of research where many experts sometimes stand opposite each other with drawn knives. Very interesting, but I fear that this is not immediately for the layman. Anyone who wants to take a short cut will find what they are looking for in the summary of this book. More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
Dit boek biedt wat de ondertitel suggereert: een inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament. Hans Ausloos, prof aan de Franstalige Université cathDit boek biedt wat de ondertitel suggereert: een inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament. Hans Ausloos, prof aan de Franstalige Université catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve, overloopt de belangrijkste aspecten, zoals de (vermoedelijke) geschiedenis van het vroege Israël, de opbouw en redactiegeschiedenis van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel en andere geschriften, en vervolgens de kritische studie ervan. Dit is grondig en degelijk, erg informatief, maar ook wel een beetje academisch. Het boek is intussen bijna 20 jaar oud, weliswaar regelmatig herdrukt, maar ik heb de indruk dat de tekst niet meer bijgewerkt is, alvast niet de literatuurlijst. In het eindeloze debat tussen minimalisten en maximalisten neemt Ausloos eerder een tussenpositie in. Meer in mijn History account op Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
Solid, comprehensive and in-depth overview of both the earliest history of Israel, and the editorial history of the Hebrew Biblical texts. Kratz's appSolid, comprehensive and in-depth overview of both the earliest history of Israel, and the editorial history of the Hebrew Biblical texts. Kratz's approach is critical-sceptical with regard to the historical value of the Hebrew Bible, certainly when it comes to the period 1200-800 BCE, but also afterwards. He rightly indicates that we simply cannot make any sensible historical statements about a number of essential issues (the patriarchs, the stay in Egypt and the Exodus, the 'conquest' of Canaan, the Unified Kingdom), unless that the Biblical version is rather improbable. The same goes for the origin of the Biblical texts, since - according to Kratz - it was only in the Persian and Hellenistic period (i.e. after 400 BCE) that the 'classical' monotheism of Judaism crystallized around the Torah and the temple in Jerusalem (and not during or shortly after the exile as was thought until a few decades ago). And then again, even then there were still different forms of Jewish thought, and practices and religious views continued to evolve. If this book makes anything clear, it is that both the historical and Biblical history of Israel is an extremely complex subject, with many gaps and therefore still room for further research and debate. Fascinating! More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
This primarily is a political history of early Israel, roughly the period 1200-63 BCE. You will find little here on religious evolution. Bernd SchippeThis primarily is a political history of early Israel, roughly the period 1200-63 BCE. You will find little here on religious evolution. Bernd Schipper (° 1968, professor of Old Testament at the Humboldt University in Berlin) clearly belongs to the minimalist movement. That is to say, for him the historical value of the Hebrew Bible is very limited, if not non-existent. “The history contained in the Hebrew Bible offers little in the way of solid foundations upon which to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel, though in particular cases one might still look its theologically-influenced depiction of history in hope of finding a historical kernel”. Time and again in this book he points out which passages in the Bible are completely fabricated, or anachronistic. And of course one should certainly approach the historical value of the Bible critically. But to my taste he assumes a bit too much that non-Biblical sources, textual or archaeological, are almost by definition reliable. This does not take away from the fact that this still offers a concise and interesting overview of the earliest history of Judaism. More in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.......more
This book was the starting point of my reading series on the earliest history of Israel. The latter has been the subject of intense academic and non-aThis book was the starting point of my reading series on the earliest history of Israel. The latter has been the subject of intense academic and non-academic debate for decades, of course for both political and religious-ideological reasons. This book examines the various historical episodes, from the Abrahamic patriarchs to the Hellenistic period, in 14 articles, each written by a different specialist. Each time, the state of affairs in historiography is presented (early 21st century), and the most thorny points of discussion. In most cases, this revolves around the question of whether the biblical version has (historical) foundation or not.
In the introduction, the compilers claim to adopt a neutral stance: “we chose to assume neither a negative stance toward the biblical literature nor a naive fideism on difficult issues”, and at first sight that seems commendable. But in practice, this appears to vary considerably from contribution to contribution. Some authors carefully screen which biblical stories are plausible and which not, but others clearly have a more apologetic approach. The latter try to prove as much as possible that the Biblical stories are not just fabrications (as most skeptical currents in this field of research claim), but do indeed have a historical core if not more, and that is a rather risky, and often not so trustworthy exercise. More about that in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... ...more
"The discovery of Urk", Urk being a former island in the Dutch "Southsea", since the 1930's attached to land through the famous Dutch 'land reclamatio"The discovery of Urk", Urk being a former island in the Dutch "Southsea", since the 1930's attached to land through the famous Dutch 'land reclamation' program. It's still a nucleus of fundamentalistic protestant faith, but this journalistic work uncovers there's more going on under the surface. Only available in Dutch, so Dutch review below.
Dit is zonder twijfel een doorwrocht journalistiek werkstuk waarin je een zo goed als volledig beeld krijgt van de eigen aard en het functioneren van een bijzondere leefgemeenschap die zich hardnekkig lijkt te blijven weren tegen de komst van de moderniteit. Dat is tenminste het vertrekpunt van Declercq: Urk, het vroegere eiland in de Zuiderzee, werd in de jaren 1930 via inpoldering aan het land geklonken, maar heeft met veel strijd toch zijn eigen, vooral door (ultra-protestantse) godsdienst getekende karakteristieken behouden. De auteur heeft zijn verhaal erg didactisch en tot op zekere hoogte zelfs spannend opgebouwd, beginnend met de romantiserende aankomst per boot, de kennismaking van de ‘malle Belg’ met alle eigenaardigheden van de oude kern van het dorp, en in de tweede helft van het boek geleidelijk de ontmaskering van de schaduwkanten ervan. (spoiler alert) Blijkt uiteindelijk dat Urk toch min of meer de moderniteit heeft binnengehaald en er zelfs op een heel slimme manier dik aan verdient, met alle uitwassen vandien. Het wordt nergens expliciet gezegd, maar op het eind heb je de indruk dat Declercq naar Urk kijkt met een heel klassieke bovenbouw-onderbouw-bril, waarbij de religieuze façade maar een misleidend uithangbord is die de gigantische visindustrie die Urk op zijn kleine grondgebied heeft afschermt. Zo’n benadering houdt tot op zekere hoogte steek, maar reduceert de “kern van Urk” toch maar tot een heel simplistisch schema. Ik heb zeker genoten van de vlotte pen van deze journalist en van de grondige schets die hij presenteert, al verdrinkt hij de vis (pun intended) naar mijn smaak iets te veel in een opeenstapeling van feitjes, en doet zijn verhaal me uiteindelijk toch net iets te geconstrueerd aan....more
The short book of Ecclesiastes, included in the Tanakh of the Jews and in the Old Testament of the Christians, has always intrigued me. It offers no nThe short book of Ecclesiastes, included in the Tanakh of the Jews and in the Old Testament of the Christians, has always intrigued me. It offers no narrative but is a collection of sayings of a man, traditionally attributed to King Solomon, though this certainly not is correct. Apparently, it was compiled in the 4th or 3rd century BC, perhaps within the very lively Jewish community in Ptolemaic Egypt.
Like many other ancient texts, it is a very hybrid collection, and the discourse seems to go in all directions. But all in all, the text exudes a remarkably unambiguous message: all human endeavor is illusory, wealth-enjoyment and even wisdom are but vain things; moreover, there is no such thing as (human) justice, everything simply is in the hands of God. Through modernist, western eyes, this message has a striking sobering effect, hitting hard in our mental core.
But on closer reading, especially the last part of the message predominates: everything is as it should be, just put your fate in God's hands. With this, Ecclesiastes is strikingly in line with the book of Job, which, by the way, belongs to the same category of wisdom books. I guess the appeal of this book lies in the fact that it is way more 'down to earth' than the sometimes arrogant and conjuring tone of other biblical parts....more
This is a hugely stimulating book, and not just because it gives very interesting interpretations of bible texts, but so much more. First and foremostThis is a hugely stimulating book, and not just because it gives very interesting interpretations of bible texts, but so much more. First and foremost, it gives a good insight into the current scientific views on religion: both historical-linguistic research (the editing and composition of the texts), the sociological-psychological-anthropological research, and especially the evolutionary-biological research. The latter is the authors' own angle of view, and in their own words a very original one.
The authors assume that the psychological household of man, the homo sapiens, got its shape in the time he was a hunter-gatherer; because this period lasted tens of thousands of years, it still is anchored deeply in our thinking and feeling, namely in things that we now mainly attribute to intuition (our first nature): the importance of group cohesion, the care for fellow men, a sense of justice, a tendency to egalitarianism and democratic debate, and according to the authors also religiousness, the intuition to ascertain a higher power behind things.
But with the start of agriculture and permanent settlements lots of new phenomena disturbed this way of life: there were a lot more diseases, the introduction of property and of social hierarchies also brought violence and injustice with them, which eventually led to outright war. All these phenomena were experienced as "mis-matches", colliding with our first, intuitive nature. In religion answers were sought and found for these shocking changes, and also a system of prevention was developed to forestall new evil. The authors of this book call this the arrival of the intellectual-institutionalised religion. In the case of the Jewish people and the Bible, this was the invention of radical monotheism, as opposed to the more intuitive religion like animism and polytheism of foregone times.
Van Schaik and Michel in detail zoom in on the Bible stories, as illustrations of the cumulative cultural process in which the Bible authors sought to respond to the very profound and shocking changes, and in doing so in different steps introduced the radical monotheism. These (anonymous) writers gradually rewrote the older Bible texts, with a very bloodthirsty, cruel Yahweh in the lead. But because this intellectual institutional religion collided with the intuitive religiosity, gradually the former was softened a bit, and for example, the image of the compassionate God was introduced. In a nutshell, according to Van Schaik and Michel the Bible reflects that fight between intuitive and intellectually-institutionalized religion.
This may all sound quite abstract, but the authors of this book illustrate their theory with countless examples, and they also work very pedagogically: in separate steps important aspects of religion, human psyche and cultural evolutions are revealed. Impressive!
But of course there are some flaws. For instance, not everything in this book is really as new as they pretend (as far as I can judge as a layman). And in their zeal to illustrate their propositions as much as possible, they sometimes loose themselves in exaggerations, which makes certain reasonings rather hermetic and others a bit surreal (for example, they see Jesus of Nazareth as a successful leader of a hunter-gatherer group!). Occasionally, the authors are also victim of the coercion to coherence and reductionism they despise in others; often they seem to present their evolutionary-biological view as the only key to understanding the Bible and religion. Plus, a rather sensitive point to me, as a historian: the image they present of hunter-gatherer behavior is a bit too utopian to my taste, too much based on parallels with current (or just extinct) groups of hunter-gatherers, a shortcoming that you can find in many other studies.
But nevertheless, despite these remarks this is a fascinating and stimulating book that gives a refreshing view on the Bible and on religion in general. (3 1/2 stars)...more
Rating 3.5 stars. This is one of those novels that early on are a bit unruly and tedious. While reading you chew and you chew on it, and you feel thatRating 3.5 stars. This is one of those novels that early on are a bit unruly and tedious. While reading you chew and you chew on it, and you feel that there's definitely something resonating, but you can't put your finger on it. I have to admit that the book only around half way really started to captivate me, but then all of a sudden with a very intense fire. And then it turns out this is not just a collection of corny letters from the old Reverend John Ames to his still very young son (he married at 67), full of good advice and great truths. No, it is the honest soul searching of Ames that works so disarming and moving: his struggle with life, with friendship and love, and with the great religious truths of which he should be the proclaimer. Moreover, behind the letters there's also a wonderful story line, ending in a quite moving finale.
There are two messages in this book I was particularly struck by: the fundamental loneliness of each man (or woman), and the incredible grace of existence itself. The Christian context,-Ames is, after all, a pastor – is certainly relevant, but not decisive. Essentially he's talking about the human condition, whether it is translated in religious language or not. This is a book to reread and cherish.
"It has seemed to me sometimes as though the Lord breathes on this poor gray ember of Creation and it turns to radiance - for a moment or a year or the span of a life. And then it sinks back into itself again, and to look at it no one would know it had anything to do with fire, or light .... Wherever you turn your eyes the world can shine like transfiguration. You don't have to bring a thing to it except a little willingness to see. Only, who could have the courage to see it? .... Theologians talk about a prevenient grace that precedes grace itself and allows us to accept it. I think there must also be a prevenient courage that allows us to be brave - that is, to acknowledge that there is more beauty than our eyes can bear, that precious things have been put into our hands and to do nothing to honor them is to do great harm.”...more
Loading...
