Prelude to Israel's Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity (review)

170 SHOFAR Fa112000 Vol. 19, No.1 twentieth century. The strength of Yovel's treatment of Nietzsche is the careful explicationofhis views concerning ancient Judaism: Nietzsche was generally favorable toward the Jews ofthe Old Testament, but he inveighs frequently against the "priestly caste" in its Second Temple variety, since he locates in this transformation ofJudaism the origins of Christianity, the quintessential religion of ressentiment. Although Yovel has difficulty drawing any general conclusion from his investigations , he does demonstrate with sufficient rigor that the Jews had an "ambiguous centrality" (p. 185) in the writings of these two major German philosophers. While at times a bit too harsh with regard to Hegel and somewhat too lenient in discussing Nietzsche, Yovel has provided a well balanced and dispassionate study of a topic that probably is more important philosophically than previous scholarship has conceded. Robert C. Holub Department of German University of California at Berkeley Prelude to Israel's Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity, by Niels P. Lemche. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. 245 pp. $19.95. This book is a slightly revised translation of Lemche's 1996 work, Die Vorgeschichte Israels: Von den Anfiingen bis zum Ausgang des 13. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopaedie, 1: Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). The English version adheres to the intentions ofthe original German volume, which was meant for students and a general audience. Thus the degree ofdocumentation via footnotes is relatively limited, in order to make the text more readable. In addition, the usefulness of the book as a reference tool is enhanced by the bibliographies which appear at the outset of each of its subsections. These structural considerations, combined with the stimulating views presented in the book, make it easy to recommend. The book is divided into four parts. Part I (pp. 1-65) reviews the biblical accounts, found in Genesis through Numbers, concerning the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the sojourn in the wilderness ofSinai. Lemche argues that these biblical stories are literary compositions and not historical sources. As works of art, the accounts may not be used to reconstruct ancient Near Eastern history. To make this case, Lemche mentions anachronisms and other disjunctures between the biblical narratives and the actual Near Eastern milieu. In sum, the Pentateuchal narratives cannot pretend to be historical documents pertaining to Israel's past; rather, they represent literary imaginings which Lemche compares to modem "period" films. The makers of such films may pay close attention to proper clothing and speech patterns, but nevertheless they cater to contemporary sensibilities. Thus Lemche maintains that "no reasonable historian studies Book Reviews 171 ... Errol Flynn's portrayal ofRobin Hood to reconstruct medieval English history" (p. 65). In a similar vein, no one should view the Pentateuch as a reliable historical source. Part II (pp. 66-148) offers a historical reconstruction of Syria and Palestine from the early Bronze Age to the Habiru and the Sea Peoples ofthe twelfth century RC.E., the supposed time period for much ofthe Pentateuchal narratives. Among other topics, Lemche discusses: (1) several literary texts from Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Egypt; (2) pertinent archaeological evidence; (3) the geography and ecology ofthe Near East; and (4) the lifestyle and economy of the Near Eastern social system. Part III (pp. 149-213) covers aspects ofthe "religious thinking and culture" ofthe period. Lemche takes up additional ancient texts, and discusses various features ofhow gods and humans were viewed. Part IV (pp. 214-232) steps back to consider the purpose ofthe Pentateuchal texts if they do not constitute actual history. Lemche ponders four possible dating schemes for the narratives: the tenth century; the seventh century; the exilic period, or the postexilic period. Lemche himselffavors a postexilic date, though he does not advocate it strongly: "The point here was to emphasize that the important themes and distinctives ofthe Pentateuch fit very well with the postexilic period, characterized as it was by the interaction between the Jews ofthe Diaspora and their homeland. But here we can only suggest this line of argument; this is not the place to carry it through" (p. 225). This reticence is a pity, because this is an area where one would like to have more discussion, not...