Footnotes

1.

Orbis Books: Maryknoll, New York, 1979. xxv + 916 pp.

2.

See “From These Hills … ,” BAR 04:02.

3.

An amphictyony is a sacral-religious league organized around a central sanctuary. The term is used to describe Israelite tribal structure by analogy drawn from the Greek institution of this name.

4.

See Roland de Vaux, “Was There an Israelite Amphictyony?” BAR 03:02.

Endnotes

1.

John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 3rd edition, 1981), p. 15.

2.

Ibid., pp. 98–103, and see A. Alt, “The God of the Fathers,” Essays in Old Testament History and Religion (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966, reprinted from 1929), pp. 1–77.

3.

Ibid., p. 75.

4.

Ibid., pp. 83, 85, 133, 138, 140.

5.

Ibid., p. 73.

6.

Ibid., p 78.

7.

Ibid., p. 84.

8.

Ibid., p. 90 note 48.

9.

Ibid., p. 126 note 43.

10.

Ibid., p. 124.

11.

Ibid., pp. 127, 168 note 57.

12.

Ibid., p. 127.

13.

Ibid., p. 147.

14.

Ibid., p. 75.

15.

G. E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” Biblical Archeologist 25 (1962), pp. 66–87; idem, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1973).

16.

N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–1050 BCE (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979).

17.

Bright, History, pp. 129, 132–133.

18.

Ibid, pp. 133, 174.

19.

Ibid., p. 132.

20.

Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, pp. 592–599.

21.

Ironically Bright stands on one side of a frustrating split among scholars who have managed to move beyond earlier models that ignored the social foundation and framework of the early Israelite movement or simplistically equated it with pastoral nomadism. Recent theories have been one-sided and incomplete, lacking comprehension of the specific social and religious mix of factors that ignited Israel. One scholarly trend, typified by C. H. J. de Geus (see C. H. J. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis (Assert/Amsterdam: van Gorcum, 1976)) and W. R. Wifall, Jr. (see Walter R. Wifall, Jr., “Israel’s Origins: Beyond Noth and Gottwald,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 12 (1982), pp. 8–11), grasps the sociocultural unit of Israel as an ethnicity formed of many strands such as intermarriage and grass roots communal discussion and decision-making. The other trend, voiced by Bright and Mendenhall, has laid hold of the hitherto missing key of social revolution as the catalyst for forging Israel.

Regrettably, those who see the organic sociocultural and religious unit at Israel’s birth miss the revolutionary matrix of that unity, while Bright and Mendenhall have not been able to formulate and elaborate the dynamic unity of the social and religious facets as a single process within the revolutionary matrix. Far from opposing one another, these hypotheses separately possess the partial insights that complement and fructify one another in the theory of a combined revolution—at once social, political, cultural and religious—with roots and forerunners that reached a decisive detonation point in the late 13th-early 12th centuries B.C.

22.

See Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, pp. 903–913 for the implications of the studies of Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and Lynn Clapham on “divine warrior” theology for Israel’s way of relating nature and culture to covenant, and for a critical reflection on Walter Brueggeman’s, “Israel’s Social Criticism and Yahweh’s Sexuality,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion Supplement 45/3 (Sept. 1977) B: 739–772.

23.

Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, pp. 650–663.