Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context (review)

Book Reviews 183 In "The Use of Hebrew Scripture in Stephen's Speech," Robert T. Anderson examines the use of cultic traditions from the Hebrew Bible in Acts 7:45b-50 to argue that Luke appealed to sectarian Jewish groups that were alienated from "orthodox" Judaism, by which he seems to mean the Temple-based Davidic;Zion tradition. In "The Role of Isaiah in the Development of the Christian Canon," William R. Farmer examines Tertullian's rebuttal of Marcion's assertion that the G-d of the "Law" and Prophets was different from the G-d who spoke through Jesus Christ. Tertullian employed Isaiah as an example of previously unfulfilled prophecy that unites "Law" and Prophets with Gospel by means of the promise to the nations. In "The Tabernacle in Samaritan Iconography and Thought," James D. Purvis examines Samaritan drawings of the Tabernacle as examples of artistic expression in an aniconic culture. In "The Bible in Recent English Translation: The Word and the Words," Ernest S. Frerichs explains the current multiplicity of Bible translations in relation to the many "political" differences in defining Jewish and Christian understandings of the Bible. Finally, in "Biblical Hermeneutics and Contemporary Mrican Theology," Robert G. Rogers provides a survey of modern Mrican theologians that distinguishes the "Old Guard" of the 1960s and 1970s, who are reluctant to enter the political realm, from the "New Guard" of the present generation who are quite anxious to confront the "oppressive regime." It is a pity that Lewis M. Hopfe, the editor of the volume, did not live to see the publication of this fine tribute to his teacher. Marvin A. Sweeney School of Theology at Claremont Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, edited by A. R. Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, and David W. Baker. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. 354 pp. $34.50. The casual reader might feel that there is some dissonance between the title and subtitle of this book: the title suggests an interest in the relationship between belief and biblical history, while the subtitle suggests that the intersecting areas to be examined are biblical and ancient near eastern history. As the book's preface makes clear, however, the two inquiries are intimately related: the editors believe that careful study of ancient near eastern texts shows that a relatively conservative approach to the Bible is correct, thus justifying the ultimate connection between 184 SHOFAR Spring 1996 Vol. 14, No.3 ancient near eastern texts, biblical history, and certain (largely conservative Protestant) views concerning the truth of the Bible. It is a significant question, to which I will return at the end of this review, of whether the same issues need concern Jewish readers of the Bible; the main focus of this review, however, will be on whether the models provided by the eighteen essays in this volume, which originate from a conference given in November 1990 at Wheaton College, succeed in showing that ancient near eastern texts do favor the basic veracity of ancient Israelite history as the Hebrew Bible tells it. It is not surprising that a disproportionate number of the essays focus on Joshua and on the early chapters ofJudges, which concern the biblical traditions of conquest, since it is these traditions which have been questioned most as a result of recent archaeological discoveries. (See, for example, the summary in William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and BiblicalResearch [Seattle: University ofWashington Press, 1990], pp. 37-84 ["The Israelite Settlement in Canaan: New Archaeological Models" ].) How can these discrepancies be resolved? One solution, adopted in the highly problematic introductory essay by Edwin Yamauchi, "The Current State of Old Testament Historiography" (pp. 1-36), is to be highly skeptical of all archaeological evidence that suggests that the Bible is not historically accurate. For example, he states (p. 17), "In summary, I conclude that the archaeological evidence for the Conquest and the origins of the Israelite Settlement is at present mixed and inconclusive." This is a most unfair summary of the evidence: it is certainly mixed, in that it suggests that some cities in Canaan were destroyed by someone in the late second millennium, while most cities which according to Joshua...