hem aside for lack of evidence. Were an authoritative history of Israel to rely solely upon hard facts, it would force a scientific policy of constant and tentative revision upon all adherents of Old Testament lore. Most students of religious history have little use for such an exercise. In this, John BrightÆs account, first written in 1959, should not be rejected for its lack of veracity in archaeological terms. It should merely be regarded as a religious rather than an historical account. An examination of BrightÆs principal outline of IsraelÆs history is now prudent, bearing in mind all that has been expressed above. Later, those perspectives that most thoroughly contradict BrightÆs own will be given another, more thorough viewing.
In a sense, BrightÆs history is intended to be more than merely a national history of the Jewish people; it is an interpretative foray into the Old Testament, with every effort made to render the cultural and political situation in the ancient Near East as completely as possible. This includes a survey of prehistoric times, which Bright addresses in his prologue, entitled, ôThe Ancient Orient Before ca. 2000 BC.ö In this section, Bright places ancient Israel in its surroundings, beginning ôwith the migration of the Hebrew patriarchs from Mesopotamia to their new homeland in Palestine.ö Bright continues, surveying the predynastic cultures of lower Mesopotamia and Egypt, the Classical Sumerian Age, and the foundations of polytheism among the Egyptians. He concludes the Israeli prehistory by glimpsing the Palestinian nomads, noting that around the first phase of the Middle Bronze Age, these bands of wanderers began to settle down ôboth east and west of the Jordan, in the Jordan valley, and as far south as the Negeb.ö The stage was not set for the ôAntecedents and BeginningsöùPart Oneùof IsraelÆs world history.
Bright breaks up IsraelÆs history after ca. 2000 into six p...