What do you think?
Rate this book
The Israelites in History and Tradition
A preeminent international Old Testament historian makes an important contribution to the understanding of the complex people and culture behind the biblical literature.
- GenresHistory
246 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 7, 2026
A PERSPECTIVE OF ‘BIBLICAL MINIMALISM’ FROM ONE OF ITS SPOKESPERSONS
Bible scholar Niels Peter Lemche wrote in the Preface to this 1998 book, “After having published a study on the Canaanites back in 1901, and having claimed the biblical Canaanites to be the invention of ancient biblical historians, I soon found another volume missing, devoted to the image of Israel as found on the pages of the Old Testament. When Douglas Knight kindly offered me the opportunity to write a volume for his … Ancient Israel series… I was quite easily persuaded. It is my hope that this book will provoke a healthy discussion about the subject of ancient Israel. What was Israel really? A people? Or a state in ancient Palestine? Or something which exists only in the biblical narrative? Are all of these questions … simplifications or does every single question carry some part of the truth? While I have certainly not provided any definite answer to these questions, I at least hope to have stirred the interest of scholars and general readers alike. If the book is going to promote a more conscious approach to the identity of the ancient Israelites, it has done its job.”
He asserts in the Prolegomena, “It will be demonstrated in this book that it is hardly possible any more to uphold this idea of the Old Testament literature as a historical source in the classical sense of the word. According to the prevalent view, almost any written source should be given priority in the analysis of humankind’s historical past. It is also the aim of the author, however, to demonstrate that this may not be as severe a loss as is generally maintained. In contrast to the generally skeptical evaluation of biblical studies among Christians as well as Jewish Bible readers, some scholars and theologians may prefer to look on the present tendency of Old Testament studies as representing a kind of liberation movement. This new trend seems to be liberating the Bible from the tyranny of having to be historically accurate in the most minute detail in order to remain a Bible for Christians and Jews… It is as if the authors of such [modern] studies are convinced that biblical books are to be read as modern literature, open to all kinds of modern reading techniques.” (Pg. 1)
He notes that Martin Noth “proposed a new model for Israelite society in the period of the Judges, which… explained how early Israel could be a nation, in spite of the fact of its dispersed origin in the desert… the construction of the tribal society of the period of the Judges… centered on the common worship of Yahweh at a central shrine… This organization provided the first and most important requisite for explaining how the idea of nationhood was achieved… The empire of David and Solomon in this way became the greatest monument of Israelite nationality, and from this point it was possible to follow the history of Israel as narrated by the Old Testament almost from one end to the other.” (Pg. 8)
He argues, “In 1896 the German Egyptologist Wilhelm Spiegelberg published an inscription commemorating Pharoah Merneptah’s… victory over the Libyans. In a few lines at the end… the inscription … refers to …’Israel is laid waste, his seed is not’…The victory stele of Merneptah, however, does not confirm the date of the Hebrew conquest of Palestine; in fact, it has no bearing on that topic. It testifies only to the presence in western Asia at the end of the 13th century B.C. of something that constituted some sort of ethnic unity, which was identifiable as far as it had its own name, Israel. What this entity precisely was is… not as easy to ascertain as people may be inclined to believe.” (Pg. 35-36)
He points out, “Not a single document from the rich treasures of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions ever refers to the kingdom of Israel as Israel. On the other hand, the Assyrian and Babylonian historical texts normally refer to the kingdom of Judah as exactly that, Judah… None of them ever, however, refers to the Kingdom of Judah as the House of David.” (Pg. 51)
He criticizes archaeologist John Holladay: “The starting point in Holladay’s version of social archaeology is obviously the biblical narrative, and he takes much of this to be historical fact, including such questionable subjects as the existence of an Israelite empire in the 10th century. By mixing Bible with archaeology his study is severely compromised, and in spite of its social approach [it is] not very different from traditional biblical archaeology as it used to be in the days of archaeologists like William F. Albright and George E. Wright.” (Pg. 82)
He contends, “The system of the twelve tribes is absolutely artificial, and the individual steps in its development can be seen as literary responses to problems presented by the main course of the narrative.” (Pg. 104)
He observes, “Following Noth, the majority of histories of Israel more or less all guided by the image of ancient Israel created by Noth and his teacher, [Albrecht] Alt. The spirit of Wellhausen was still known to be around but few read him and understood him to be on a more radical line than the figures of Alt and Noth. It is the conviction of this author that most scholars of the middle of the 20th century considered the contributions of Alt and Noth to have modified and improved Wellhausen. They did not realize that the pedigree did not run from Wellhausen to Alt, and finally to Noth, but from Rudolf Kittel, a much more conservative German Old Testament scholar than Wellhausen, to Alt and finally Noth.” (Pg. 141)
He asserts, “it is true to say that John Bright without ever really presenting a critical appraisal of Israel’s ethnicity, believed this to be an exclusively religiously defined one, thus at this point siding with the biblical tradition without any serious objections as to its veracity.” (Pg. 144-145)
He observes, “Scholars will have to realize that they have a choice to make. They can decide to keep David as a historical figure, however reduced into something quite different from the biblical towering figure of the almighty king. They can also keep the biblical figure that is a literary and not a historical figure. They cannot have it both ways.” (Pg. 156)
He concludes, “It is one of the theses of this book that the Israel found on the pages of the Old Testament is an artificial creation which has little more than one thing in common with the Israel that existed once upon a time in Palestine, that is, the name. Apart from this not absolutely insignificant element, the Israelite nation as explained by the biblical writers has little in the way of a historical background. It is a highly ideological construct created by ancient scholars of Jewish tradition in order to legitimize their own religious community and its religio-political claims on land and religious exclusivity. This literary society has been built up around a model of this league of twelve tribes of Israel, almost as borrowed from Greek tradition, and has been provided with the necessary features to make it appear to be for a people. It is, however, so far removed from the sociopolitical and religious realities of Palestine in the Iron Age that it can be difficult to find anything of relevance except the name of the God Yahweh… When trying to reconstruct this biblical Israel, it can therefore only be done as a reflection of the society and period that created it, not as a reflection of the past.” (Pg. 165-166)
‘Conservative’ and ‘Moderate’ Christians will probably not care for Lemche’s book; but those with a more questioning/skeptical attitude may find it very interesting reading.
Bible scholar Niels Peter Lemche wrote in the Preface to this 1998 book, “After having published a study on the Canaanites back in 1901, and having claimed the biblical Canaanites to be the invention of ancient biblical historians, I soon found another volume missing, devoted to the image of Israel as found on the pages of the Old Testament. When Douglas Knight kindly offered me the opportunity to write a volume for his … Ancient Israel series… I was quite easily persuaded. It is my hope that this book will provoke a healthy discussion about the subject of ancient Israel. What was Israel really? A people? Or a state in ancient Palestine? Or something which exists only in the biblical narrative? Are all of these questions … simplifications or does every single question carry some part of the truth? While I have certainly not provided any definite answer to these questions, I at least hope to have stirred the interest of scholars and general readers alike. If the book is going to promote a more conscious approach to the identity of the ancient Israelites, it has done its job.”
He asserts in the Prolegomena, “It will be demonstrated in this book that it is hardly possible any more to uphold this idea of the Old Testament literature as a historical source in the classical sense of the word. According to the prevalent view, almost any written source should be given priority in the analysis of humankind’s historical past. It is also the aim of the author, however, to demonstrate that this may not be as severe a loss as is generally maintained. In contrast to the generally skeptical evaluation of biblical studies among Christians as well as Jewish Bible readers, some scholars and theologians may prefer to look on the present tendency of Old Testament studies as representing a kind of liberation movement. This new trend seems to be liberating the Bible from the tyranny of having to be historically accurate in the most minute detail in order to remain a Bible for Christians and Jews… It is as if the authors of such [modern] studies are convinced that biblical books are to be read as modern literature, open to all kinds of modern reading techniques.” (Pg. 1)
He notes that Martin Noth “proposed a new model for Israelite society in the period of the Judges, which… explained how early Israel could be a nation, in spite of the fact of its dispersed origin in the desert… the construction of the tribal society of the period of the Judges… centered on the common worship of Yahweh at a central shrine… This organization provided the first and most important requisite for explaining how the idea of nationhood was achieved… The empire of David and Solomon in this way became the greatest monument of Israelite nationality, and from this point it was possible to follow the history of Israel as narrated by the Old Testament almost from one end to the other.” (Pg. 8)
He argues, “In 1896 the German Egyptologist Wilhelm Spiegelberg published an inscription commemorating Pharoah Merneptah’s… victory over the Libyans. In a few lines at the end… the inscription … refers to …’Israel is laid waste, his seed is not’…The victory stele of Merneptah, however, does not confirm the date of the Hebrew conquest of Palestine; in fact, it has no bearing on that topic. It testifies only to the presence in western Asia at the end of the 13th century B.C. of something that constituted some sort of ethnic unity, which was identifiable as far as it had its own name, Israel. What this entity precisely was is… not as easy to ascertain as people may be inclined to believe.” (Pg. 35-36)
He points out, “Not a single document from the rich treasures of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions ever refers to the kingdom of Israel as Israel. On the other hand, the Assyrian and Babylonian historical texts normally refer to the kingdom of Judah as exactly that, Judah… None of them ever, however, refers to the Kingdom of Judah as the House of David.” (Pg. 51)
He criticizes archaeologist John Holladay: “The starting point in Holladay’s version of social archaeology is obviously the biblical narrative, and he takes much of this to be historical fact, including such questionable subjects as the existence of an Israelite empire in the 10th century. By mixing Bible with archaeology his study is severely compromised, and in spite of its social approach [it is] not very different from traditional biblical archaeology as it used to be in the days of archaeologists like William F. Albright and George E. Wright.” (Pg. 82)
He contends, “The system of the twelve tribes is absolutely artificial, and the individual steps in its development can be seen as literary responses to problems presented by the main course of the narrative.” (Pg. 104)
He observes, “Following Noth, the majority of histories of Israel more or less all guided by the image of ancient Israel created by Noth and his teacher, [Albrecht] Alt. The spirit of Wellhausen was still known to be around but few read him and understood him to be on a more radical line than the figures of Alt and Noth. It is the conviction of this author that most scholars of the middle of the 20th century considered the contributions of Alt and Noth to have modified and improved Wellhausen. They did not realize that the pedigree did not run from Wellhausen to Alt, and finally to Noth, but from Rudolf Kittel, a much more conservative German Old Testament scholar than Wellhausen, to Alt and finally Noth.” (Pg. 141)
He asserts, “it is true to say that John Bright without ever really presenting a critical appraisal of Israel’s ethnicity, believed this to be an exclusively religiously defined one, thus at this point siding with the biblical tradition without any serious objections as to its veracity.” (Pg. 144-145)
He observes, “Scholars will have to realize that they have a choice to make. They can decide to keep David as a historical figure, however reduced into something quite different from the biblical towering figure of the almighty king. They can also keep the biblical figure that is a literary and not a historical figure. They cannot have it both ways.” (Pg. 156)
He concludes, “It is one of the theses of this book that the Israel found on the pages of the Old Testament is an artificial creation which has little more than one thing in common with the Israel that existed once upon a time in Palestine, that is, the name. Apart from this not absolutely insignificant element, the Israelite nation as explained by the biblical writers has little in the way of a historical background. It is a highly ideological construct created by ancient scholars of Jewish tradition in order to legitimize their own religious community and its religio-political claims on land and religious exclusivity. This literary society has been built up around a model of this league of twelve tribes of Israel, almost as borrowed from Greek tradition, and has been provided with the necessary features to make it appear to be for a people. It is, however, so far removed from the sociopolitical and religious realities of Palestine in the Iron Age that it can be difficult to find anything of relevance except the name of the God Yahweh… When trying to reconstruct this biblical Israel, it can therefore only be done as a reflection of the society and period that created it, not as a reflection of the past.” (Pg. 165-166)
‘Conservative’ and ‘Moderate’ Christians will probably not care for Lemche’s book; but those with a more questioning/skeptical attitude may find it very interesting reading.
Displaying 1 of 1 review