首页    期刊浏览 2025年02月22日 星期六
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Israel in Kanaan: Zum Problem der Entsehung Israels.
  • 作者:Miller, J. Maxwell
  • 期刊名称:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
  • 印刷版ISSN:0003-0279
  • 出版年度:1996
  • 期号:July
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:American Oriental Society
  • 摘要:On the whole, Rosel's view of Israel's origins comes close to that advanced by G. E. Mendenhall in 1962, although Rosel is less inclined to think in terms of a violent "peasant's revolt." Regarding the possible details of its occurrence, Rosel comes close on many points to the depictions advanced in the three most recent English-language treatments of Israelite history: J. A. Soggin's A History of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), J. M. Miller's and J. H. Hayes' A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986) and G. W. Ahlstrom's A History of Ancient Palestine (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). A major weakness of Rosel's study, however, is his spotty coverage of recent literature on the topic, especially publications in English. A glaring example is Rosel's seeming ignorance of the three histories mentioned above, while using editor H. Shanks' more popular Ancient Israel (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1988). Furthermore, in his concluding chapter, Rosel quotes at some length from J. A. Callaway's chapter in the Shanks volume, which Rosel recognizes as presenting a position similar to his own. However Callaway made it entirely clear in the paragraphs leading up to the segment quoted by Rosel that he was paraphrasing my position on Israel's origins, as set forth in the Miller-Hayes history.
  • 关键词:Book reviews;Books

Israel in Kanaan: Zum Problem der Entsehung Israels.


Miller, J. Maxwell


This thin volume (fewer than ninety pages of text) consists of eleven short chapters and two excursus which combine to support Rosel's view of Israel's origins, which he summarizes in a concluding chapter. Essentially ancient Israel emerged from the heterogenous population of Canaan during the opening centuries of the Iron Age, according to Rosel, although the catalyst for this development, and the source of Israel's most distinctive traditions (including the worship of Yahweh), was a group which entered the land from outside and preserved that memory. The patriarchal stories in Genesis reflect a very early stage of this development; the conquest account in the book of Joshua reflects the end of the development, which occurred on the eve of the establishment of the monarchy and apparently involved military actions. The narrator of the Joshua account, living during the time of the monarchy and thus relatively soon after the military actions, assumed that the whole thing had been a military conquest. Rosel thinks that the term "Israel" probably referred originally to a group associated with the cultic shrine at Shiloh. Later the term came to be used more inclusively for tribal elements in the north-central hill country, and eventually for the Israelite-Judean monarchy.

On the whole, Rosel's view of Israel's origins comes close to that advanced by G. E. Mendenhall in 1962, although Rosel is less inclined to think in terms of a violent "peasant's revolt." Regarding the possible details of its occurrence, Rosel comes close on many points to the depictions advanced in the three most recent English-language treatments of Israelite history: J. A. Soggin's A History of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), J. M. Miller's and J. H. Hayes' A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986) and G. W. Ahlstrom's A History of Ancient Palestine (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). A major weakness of Rosel's study, however, is his spotty coverage of recent literature on the topic, especially publications in English. A glaring example is Rosel's seeming ignorance of the three histories mentioned above, while using editor H. Shanks' more popular Ancient Israel (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1988). Furthermore, in his concluding chapter, Rosel quotes at some length from J. A. Callaway's chapter in the Shanks volume, which Rosel recognizes as presenting a position similar to his own. However Callaway made it entirely clear in the paragraphs leading up to the segment quoted by Rosel that he was paraphrasing my position on Israel's origins, as set forth in the Miller-Hayes history.

In short, while I agree with the general thrust of Rosel's study as well as with many of the specifics, it is nevertheless bothersome to read a book which fails to engage other recent publications dealing with the same issues or to acknowledge those which have already advanced similar positions.

J. MAXWELL MILLER EMORY UNIVERSITY
联系我们|关于我们|网站声明
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有