Customer Reviews

Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches

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

 

 

Zevit has written his magnum opus. His avowed thesis is to establish the ethnic "particularity"(a new ethnic group in Canaan) of a people. He views the conclusions of some archaeologists such as Broshi, Finklestein and others as being inadequate. The central issue being: are there "ethnic markers" clearly present, as revealed in the work of Syro-palestinian archaeologists, demonstrating the distinctiveness of the tribes of Israel.

Zevit claims his method surpasses the work of those who affirm there are no ethnic markers...those scholars who say these people were Canaanites. Zevit is clear on his point of departure. He says"...this study proceeds from the premise...that the dominant ethnic group in Cisjordanian, Iron Age Palestine was not descended from its late Bronze inhabitants."

Using the notably awkward term "parallactic" to describe his method he offers detailed analysis of cult objects/places and texts which to his mind reveal the sure distinctiveness of the worshipers of Yahweh. He does not hestitate to provide clear opinions. For example, he describes Donald Redford's work and concludes, "Barring some significant new discovery, his book closes the door on those seeking to find evidence of Israel in Egypt...". Dr. J. K. Hoffmeier please note! Even so, and I think curiously, he refers to "...Israelites, those who underwent the Egyptian experience...". Maybe I am missing something here.

Who were they if not Canaanites? Here Zevit is a bit vague seeming to group Shasu, Habiru and others as the coterie of Yahwists. My continued study of this significant work may prove me to be wrong on this point.

The Religions of Ancient Israel, A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches is encylopedic in scope. It strikes this writer as a most useful, even necessary, complement to David Noel Freedman's, Anchor Bible Dictionary which is, of course an encylopedia not a dictionary. Lastly, the reader of this review must ask, "Yes...but did Zevit make his case? Do the cult artifacts sustain the idea of "ethnic particularity" and are they sufficient
in their totality?

Good people can disagree. Zevit is a careful and meticulous scholar. Given his thesis, much, much more needs to be added to his discussion of worldview and ethnicity. As William Dever announced
two years ago in a BAS meeting this study " is monumental." Zevit maintains his major thesis
while noting additional work needs to be done!

Rev 2-26-2002 psb

Recently taking a biblical archaeology course with Dr. Zevit, and referring frequenlty to this book for further understanding, I found this book easy to read, well organized and insightful. I recommend it highly to anyone interested in learning more about ancient Israel.