Reviewed Book: Ahlström, Gösta  Werner. The history of ancient Palestine from the palaeolithic period to Alexander\u27s conquest. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993

Dion, Paul E.

English

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 20
Issue 2 In Praise of Valiant Women Article 13
11-1-1994
The history of ancient Palestine from the
palaeolithic period to Alexander's conquest
Paul E. Dion
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an
authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Dion, Paul E. (1994) "The history of ancient Palestine from the palaeolithic period to Alexander's conquest," Consensus: Vol. 20 : Iss. 2
, Article 13.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol20/iss2/13
Book Reviews 155
The History of Ancient Palestine
Gosta W. Alilstrorn
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993
990 pp. $34.95 paper
Tills posthumous work of an important Lutheran scholar may be the
most monumental history of Israel and its immediate neighbours to have
lieen written in our lifetime. After a substantial methodological Introduc-
tion and a first chapter on The Land, it deals with the whole history of
Palestine, from Prehistoric times (ch. 2, contributed by Gary O. Rollefson,
a specialist of Pre-Pottery Neolithic) to the Persian Period (ch. 21).
The only works of comparable magnitude written since the Second
World War are R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1978), and N.K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Mary-
knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979). As both of those histories end with the
time of the Judges, they do offer more detailed treatments of the periods
they cover; but the difference is less considerable than it seems. Whereas
de Vaux spends much of his time examining the biblical record and its pre-
vious interpretations, and Gottwald goes into elaborate considerations on
historical method and sociological theory, Ahlstrdm does little of that after
his Introduction. He goes ahead, working selected Old Testament data into
a detailed reconstruction of events, in which other written sources and, es-
pecially, archaeological data, outweigh the biblical material and often lead
the presentation.
The result is an astounding mine of information, which, from an ar-
chaeological standpoint, is less competent than de Vaux’ book, but more
up- to-date than this earlier work, whose original French appeared in 1971.
There is no final bibliography to collect this wealth of documentation, but
such an appendage would be ruinously long, and the users’ research in-
terests are better served by the more than eighty pages of indices, which
include, among others, a very useful Authors Index (pp. 919-938).
The iDilDlically inclined reader will soon realize that the Patriarchs are
explained away in eight pages, as reflecting the “golden age” ideal and the
disputed land claims of post-exilic times rather than the real prehistory of
the Israelites (pp. 180-187); that Moses and Joshua do not' play any part
in Ahlstrom’s reconstruction, while the emphasis lies on the settlement of
the hill country during the twelfth century (ch. 7); and that the Exodus is
not discussed, even though “one must reckon with the possibility that some
Sc'inites who had left Egypt had settled in the hills of Palestine” (p. 286;
cf. pp. 369-370).
Such decisions, as well as less sensitive ones l^earing on later times
(('.g., the relocation of the wars against Ben-Hadad from Ahab’s time to
the Jehu dynasty, pp. 575-579; or the chronological priori!}^ of Nehemiah
o\^er Ezra, pp. 880- 883) reflect a, critical stance that is widely prevail-
ing in our days, and which deserves v('i\y sericuis consideration from any
156 Consensus
serious reader of the Holy Scriptures, intent on measuring the element of
theological rethinking—and teaching—they contain, against the most likely
circumstances and developments of factual history.
Ahlstrdm’s reluctance to retell the biblical narrative is also conditioned
by a parameter of his project that deserves the utmost attention: he is not
out to write a History of Israel, but a History of Palestine, a focus unfor-
tunately difficult to find in English literature since 1931 (A.T. Olmstead,
A History of Palestine and Syria [New York: Scribner’s Sons]), although a
Hebrew book with an equivalent title was edited by I. Eph‘al in 1982. This
approach does not merely confirm Ahlstrom’s secular viewpoint, it also
accounts for his inclusion of prehistoric times; and it has the immense ad-
vaiitage of enabling him to include, on an equal footing with ancient Israel,
closel}^ related nations like the Transjordanian peoples, and neighbours like
the Philistines, who in fact gave their name to the whole country. At least
as importantly, this vantage point allows the historian to include in his/her
purview, without lack of consequence, large portions of the Land and its
population, which only gradually merged with Israel, and whose acceptance
of Israel’s religion may have been rather slow and incomplete; such as the
regions of Dor and of Akko, that always retained a Phoenician culture, or
the region of Deir ‘Alla, theoretically in Gilead, but whose v/ritten record
is neither Hebrew nor Yahwistic.
Lest we seem to commend Ahlstrdm’s accomplishment too unilaterally,
it may be useful to remind the reader that this archaeology-laden book is the
work of a philologically-trained scholar, who only discovered the importance
of archaeology when he was fifty years old. It is also the posthumous work
of a foreign-born and educated person, from which its deserving editor,
Diana Edelman, did not manage to weed out all inconsistencies (e.g., a
different title for ch. 19 in the Table of Contents and at the head of the
chapter; or, pp. 755-756, was Nabopolassar a Chaldaean, or not?) and
st}distic inconcinnities (e.g., note the want of congruence and awkwardness,
p. 845, second paragraph, first sentence). Inevitabl}q factual mistakes can
be found at the level of details, even within the compass of Ahlstrdm’s own
ideological and methodological presuppositions (e.g., Yerah‘azar’s statue
with “a version of the Osiris crown”, p. 644, n. 6); Aramaic as the official
language of the Assyrian Empire, p. 751, n. 4).
We would therefore recommend The History of Ancient Palestine very
highly, but as a resource-book for further research, to supplement shorter
and more standard presentations such as J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A
History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1986).
Paul E. Dion
University of Toronto


The history of ancient Palestine from the palaeolithic period to Alexander\u27s conquest

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 20Issue 2 In Praise of Valiant Women Article 1311-1-1994The history of ancient Palestine from thepalaeolithic period to Alexander's conquestPaul E. DionFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationDion, Paul E. (1994) "The history of ancient Palestine from the palaeolithic period to Alexander's conquest," Consensus: Vol. 20 : Iss. 2, Article 13.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol20/iss2/13Book Reviews 155The History of Ancient PalestineGosta W. AlilstrornMinneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993990 pp. $34.95 paperTills posthumous work of an important Lutheran scholar may be themost monumental history of Israel and its immediate neighbours to havelieen written in our lifetime. After a substantial methodological Introduc-tion and a first chapter on The Land, it deals with the whole history ofPalestine, from Prehistoric times (ch. 2, contributed by Gary O. Rollefson,a specialist of Pre-Pottery Neolithic) to the Persian Period (ch. 21).The only works of comparable magnitude written since the SecondWorld War are R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1978), and N.K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Mary-knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979). As both of those histories end with thetime of the Judges, they do offer more detailed treatments of the periodsthey cover; but the difference is less considerable than it seems. Whereasde Vaux spends much of his time examining the biblical record and its pre-vious interpretations, and Gottwald goes into elaborate considerations onhistorical method and sociological theory, Ahlstrdm does little of that afterhis Introduction. He goes ahead, working selected Old Testament data intoa detailed reconstruction of events, in which other written sources and, es-pecially, archaeological data, outweigh the biblical material and often leadthe presentation.The result is an astounding mine of information, which, from an ar-chaeological standpoint, is less competent than de Vaux’ book, but moreup- to-date than this earlier work, whose original French appeared in 1971.There is no final bibliography to collect this wealth of documentation, butsuch an appendage would be ruinously long, and the users’ research in-terests are better served by the more than eighty pages of indices, whichinclude, among others, a very useful Authors Index (pp. 919-938).The iDilDlically inclined reader will soon realize that the Patriarchs areexplained away in eight pages, as reflecting the “golden age” ideal and thedisputed land claims of post-exilic times rather than the real prehistory ofthe Israelites (pp. 180-187); that Moses and Joshua do not' play any partin Ahlstrom’s reconstruction, while the emphasis lies on the settlement ofthe hill country during the twelfth century (ch. 7); and that the Exodus isnot discussed, even though “one must reckon with the possibility that someSc'inites who had left Egypt had settled in the hills of Palestine” (p. 286;cf. pp. 369-370).Such decisions, as well as less sensitive ones l^earing on later times(('.g., the relocation of the wars against Ben-Hadad from Ahab’s time tothe Jehu dynasty, pp. 575-579; or the chronological priori!}^ of Nehemiaho\^er Ezra, pp. 880- 883) reflect a, critical stance that is widely prevail-ing in our days, and which deserves v('i\y sericuis consideration from any156 Consensusserious reader of the Holy Scriptures, intent on measuring the element oftheological rethinking—and teaching—they contain, against the most likelycircumstances and developments of factual history.Ahlstrdm’s reluctance to retell the biblical narrative is also conditionedby a parameter of his project that deserves the utmost attention: he is notout to write a History of Israel, but a History of Palestine, a focus unfor-tunately difficult to find in English literature since 1931 (A.T. Olmstead,A History of Palestine and Syria [New York: Scribner’s Sons]), although aHebrew book with an equivalent title was edited by I. Eph‘al in 1982. Thisapproach does not merely confirm Ahlstrom’s secular viewpoint, it alsoaccounts for his inclusion of prehistoric times; and it has the immense ad-vaiitage of enabling him to include, on an equal footing with ancient Israel,closel}^ related nations like the Transjordanian peoples, and neighbours likethe Philistines, who in fact gave their name to the whole country. At leastas importantly, this vantage point allows the historian to include in his/herpurview, without lack of consequence, large portions of the Land and itspopulation, which only gradually merged with Israel, and whose acceptanceof Israel’s religion may have been rather slow and incomplete; such as theregions of Dor and of Akko, that always retained a Phoenician culture, orthe region of Deir ‘Alla, theoretically in Gilead, but whose v/ritten recordis neither Hebrew nor Yahwistic.Lest we seem to commend Ahlstrdm’s accomplishment too unilaterally,it may be useful to remind the reader that this archaeology-laden book is thework of a philologically-trained scholar, who only discovered the importanceof archaeology when he was fifty years old. It is also the posthumous workof a foreign-born and educated person, from which its deserving editor,Diana Edelman, did not manage to weed out all inconsistencies (e.g., adifferent title for ch. 19 in the Table of Contents and at the head of thechapter; or, pp. 755-756, was Nabopolassar a Chaldaean, or not?) andst}distic inconcinnities (e.g., note the want of congruence and awkwardness,p. 845, second paragraph, first sentence). Inevitabl}q factual mistakes canbe found at the level of details, even within the compass of Ahlstrdm’s ownideological and methodological presuppositions (e.g., Yerah‘azar’s statuewith “a version of the Osiris crown”, p. 644, n. 6); Aramaic as the officiallanguage of the Assyrian Empire, p. 751, n. 4).We would therefore recommend The History of Ancient Palestine veryhighly, but as a resource-book for further research, to supplement shorterand more standard presentations such as J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, AHistory of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1986).Paul E. DionUniversity of Toronto

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1737&amp;context=consensus

The history of ancient Palestine from the palaeolithic period to Alexander\u27s conquest

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University