Religions of the Ancient Near East

by Daniel C. Snell

This book is a history of religious life in the Ancient Near East from the beginnings of agriculture to Alexander the Great’s invasion in the 300s BCE. Daniel C. Snell traces key developments in the history, daily life, and religious beliefs of the people of Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel, and Iran. His research investigates the influence of those ideas on the West, with particular emphasis on how religious ideas from this historical and cultural milieu persist to influence the way modern cultures and religions view the world. Designed to be accessible to students and readers with no prior knowledge of the period, the book uses fictional vignettes to add interest to its material, which is based on careful study of archeological remains and preserved texts. The book will provide a thoughtful summary of the Ancient Near East and includes a comprehensive bibliography to guide readers in further study of related topics.

Genres: History, Theology, Religion

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Lauren Albert]

I think this is for specialists in the Near East and religion. I found it tedious and skimmed the last 20 pages or so. I also found the fictional vignettes that started each chapter irritating. He was probably trying to make the book more readable for non-specialists but it didn't do it. Considering how little evidence remains, perhaps this is an exceptional book. But for specialists only, I would say.

[Chandler Kelley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction to understanding the ANE. Covers great periods of time and the major religions throughout the millennia. A bit boring at times. Skewed understanding of ancient Israelite religion (holds many critical theories, such as certain types of text-criticisms and source criticisms, about the roots of Judaism and its writings).

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Everything in the book is tainted with Snell's belief that ancient people think like we do in modern times. Of course the nature of people has stayed more or less the same, but world views have changed dramatically through the years. He speculates a LOT. He is a fairly poor historian who believes himself to be great. His writing preserves more acceptance of theories about history than actual history. Take for instance his analysis of Mesopotamian religion, which basically said "we don't know, but this seems to me like a good enough answer". He drew to firm of conclusions with too little evidence. Still, there were some valuable parts.
A lot of the study of ancient religions is highly speculative, but stated as firm. Snell follows suit with this practice. He is not a very good historian. He adds little "short stories" at the beginning of every chapter to try and bring history alive, but the stories reek of modern views rather than ancient ones. He failed to understand the culture, and in so doing he failed to understand the religion.
As far as his view of Israelite religion, it was atrocious. He claimed wild theories as facts, and then drew conclusions from the wild theories. Then, he built on those conclusions. He was mostly ignorant of the law and Israelite history. For instance, he says that the exodus is not historical, but with no validation to his claim. They didn't live in an Egyptian city, but they lived in a highly flooded area. We don't know what kind of houses they lived in, and they may have been tents for all we know. Egypt never recorded a defeat that would have potentially weakened the functions of the state and religion, so they wouldn't have recorded anything. And the Canaanite's didn't leave us records either. Given the phenomenal scholarship of those such as K.A. Kitchen, there is no reasonable and logical explanation as to complete dismiss the exodus. An example of his poor conclusions is this: he assumes that Israelite religion adapted from Canaanite religion, without adequately explaining where the completely new and different world view of the Israelites came from, or why it came. Then, since that his his accepted theory, then that means that Deuteronomy came much later from northern Israel, where there was a disagreement with southern Israel, even though the Law fits together. Why would they have preserved differing views anyways? How would their religion have benefited from maintaining differing views? Why would they not have "fixed " it? Then, since he believes Deuteronomy was later than even the prophets, which doesn't make sense since the prophets reference Deuteronomy, . He doesn't understand where the word Jehovah came from (through Latin, not Hebrew), he doesn't understand or really discuss Canaanite religion or how it affected Israel, he doesn't understand what the bible actually says (claiming that David appointed his sons as priests, when 2 Samuel 8:18 (falsely said to be in verse 17-18) only said that his sons were ministers and not priests - and it never said that David "appointed" them to anything), and he criticizes what God did anyways (claiming that God killed a "little" priest who did nothing wrong, even though what he was talking about was David's dishonor of God by not having the ark carried as it was supposed to have been, and the priests contact with the sign of the holiness of God). He has poor reasoning skills, selective history studies, and overall he is too biased to be good. He also blasphemed God repeatedly for no apparent reason other than his own hangups. He didn't discuss any other of the "gods" in this light, only YHWH, a God that has no contemporary in character or name in all of the ancient near east. I have no problem with biblical criticism, and in looking for answers past the traditions, but that's not what he did. Snell is a mediocre writer who covers his terrible understanding of history with broad claims, rash conclusions and baseless theories. Not a recommended book.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great short overview of the beliefs and histories of religion in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Phoenicia and Israel. Lots of sharp insights. The fictional prologue in every chapter is a very interesting feature that immerses the reader in the historical and religious world of the era / location in question and is something I would love to see more academic texts explore.

[Hudson McCormick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lucid and erudite. Thoroughly and masterfully written with fictional vignettes to pull the reader along. My one quip is a seemingly unsubstantiated position on the origin of Yahwism and the history of Israel. I would disagree with him on several of his points regarding the matter. He occasionally mis-references the Hebrew Bible as well. Other than that this book is well worth the time.