Customer Reviews

History of Ancient Israel

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes' A History of Ancient Israel and Judah provides a solid introduction to the methods and problems of studying the development of the kingdoms that came to be known as Israel and Judah. The book deals with events from the time of Israel's origins (the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages) to the work of Ezra and Nehemiah (the fifth and fourth centuries BCE). On the whole, A History is more cautious with the biblical texts than other histories of ancient Israel, such as John Bright's A History of Israel. Miller and Hayes spend less time offering guesses about the more speculative aspects of Israel's history, such as the patriarchs and exodus, and concentrate their efforts on the later period (tenth to fifth centuries BCE) for which conclusions are more certain. From its beginning, this study is very much set within the geographical, political, economic, and religious context of the ancient Near East and Egypt as a whole. Perhaps the most attractive feature of this work is the inclusion of both photographs and fairly complete translations of extra-biblical documents pertinent to various stages of Israel's history. A History is divided into chronological segments, and the authors proceed by summarizing the biblical texts germane to the time period, critically examining these accounts along with extra-biblical and archaeological evidence, and then drawing conclusions. If the book has a major weakness, it is the absence of either footnotes or endnotes, but the authors provide a sizable topical bibliography at the conclusion of the book, and overall, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah is sound, readable scholarship.

It's true that the OT is often the only source for the early history of Israel and Judah, but Miller and Hayes tactfully duck the question of the historicity of the many legendary early events, and begin where they can start to tie the OT account to external and archaeological sources. I found this book to be a good introduction to the topic and a useful reference to have on the shelf.

For those curious about the difference between this book and the one twice the price also listed as a 2006 paperback, there appears to be no difference between the two besides one was published by a US publishing house, and this one is printed by SCM, a UK publisher, in the US. Book length, physical size, and content as far as I can tell are the exact same for the 2006 2nd Edition. Correction to the Product Description: Paperback page length is 562 pages and publisher is scm press.

I first encountered this textbook in Seminary, when I was studying the Old Testament. This is not intended to be a commentary, rather it is intended to explore the history within the timeline conceived.

The issue is that this particular history is between 2000 and 3000 years old. Miller and Hayes are willing to confront discrepancies, look at historical realities, and help us to better understand how all of these complex factors build into the Old Testament we have today.

If you are looking for a scholarly work on what we understand about the history of the area in which the Old Testament is set, this is the "gold standard" to have in your library. However, if you are looking for a commentary on the background of the Old Testament, I recommend that you consider The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament which will be much more applicable to your studies.

This is a great book, very readable and scholarly. There exists one problem though: this book has practically nothing to add to what is written, just as clearly and just as easily accessible, in the old testament.

I read this book seeking to find a modern perspective on the old testament narrative, which would include all the findings of modern archeology and other sciences. What I found is that modern scholarship has precious little to add to what is already set down in the bible because the OT remains, with very few and mostly modest exceptions, our only source for this period. This is not the fault of the authors, of course, who are very noteworthy scholars. A few bits of history are scattered throughout the book which are not obvious from a reading of the bible, but the vast majority is just summary and interpretation (not usually very revealing) of the OT.

It goes without saying that if you are interested in the history of this period and have not read the bible, open the good book to Genesis 1 and start reading.

Wow, this book is a nearly worthless except for that at least the authors acknowledge that the Bible probably contains historical events. It's amazing how seemingly wise men put out garbage like this. An example of the utter stupidity for example is that one of the authors claims that Samuel didn't really do all the things that were claimed of him because he was described as doing different things. Why does he think that? But he thinks Samuel couldn't have been both a prophet and "king-maker" he says. Uh... CUZ? Kinda stands to reason that if a person is a prophet then yeah, they are more likely to have the standing to king someone, not if there are just some ordinary guy. Instead he claims that Samuel was probably a cult leader. LOL.

No wait they are right, God doesn't have the ability to make someone a prophet plus allow them to have any other significant roles like kinging someone one time because it's just too hard for the creator and sustainer of the universe to get someone to be someone great and do something amazing. Not.

This is preschooler dribble hoping for lobster and wine elbow rubbing with other God-haters. Jesus is worth more than paper money, a few hundred lobsters, and a cellar full of wine.