What do you think?
Rate this book
From the Stone Age to Christianity
Book by Albright, William Foxwell
372 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1940
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 4, 2019
Albright, William F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957.
Reading this book was like being introduced to an old friend. No one can read widely in Old Testament studies without coming across the name of William F. Albright. But one might not have read him: some of his major works are out of print. In any case, Albright was a scholar of the highest caliber. Albright’s methods are more critical than mine, but he does defend the basic historicity of the Old Testament. While sections of the book are tedious (e.g., the dating of various pottery), the book as a whole is a literary joy to read. He writes with that old school style, somewhat similar to Arthur Lovejoy.
There is something of elitism in this book. Albright has little patience for amateurs. He’s probably justified, though. Amateurish lexicography has ruined many sermons, for example. Albright writes, “In few fields of learning has more nonsense been perpetrated by amateurs, i. e., by enthusiasts who are unwilling to submit to the painfully rigid discipline of the linguistic method” (Albright 45). He then explains how proper linguistic analysis proceeds: induction, deduction, and analogical reasoning (42-43). In other words, he helps you avoid the word = concept fallacy. “Actually, no competent lexicographer in any language fixes the precise meaning of a word by its etymology but rather by collecting as many passages where the word occurs as possible or practicable and by listing all meanings and shades of meaning in them” (46).
He explains why Hegelianism was so popular among Old Testament scholars in the 19th century. It was something of a necessity (pardon the pun). Scholars read the OT and saw a wide variety of data representing different time periods. One doesn’t even have to accept the documentary hypothesis to realize that some parts of the Old Testament represent a more “prophetic” cast while others have a “priestly” accent. Hegel allowed the reader to put all of these facts into a coherent system. He was wrong in the end, to be sure, but his system had great explanatory power.
While we don’t have to accept an evolutionary development of Israel’s worship (which Albright himself doesn’t advocate), we have to be honest that Israel didn’t fall out of the sky with a fully intact Old Testament. We know that, but examining the history can be messy at times.
We also have to deal with the problem of monotheism. The word is something of an anachronism and doesn’t really explain all the data in the Old Testament. There is only one Yahweh. No one is like him. Sui Generis. For a while it was fashionable to posit henotheism: Israel worshipped Yahweh, but other nations worshipped their gods. That doesn’t really explain the evidence, either. Those who advocate henotheism are usually pushing an evolutionary worldview, anyway. So, henotheism is out of the question. Nonetheless, we still have to deal with apparent henotheistic passages. Jepthath’s response in Judges 11:24 sounds henotheistic: “Wilt thou not possess what Chemosh thy god has given thee?” Albright fails to connect this with Gen. 10-11 and Deut. 4 and 32: God allotted the nations to various beney ha-elohim. That solves the henotheism problem.
Albright’s comparisons with other religions of the time are quite interesting, yet he doesn’t always draw the most powerful inference. He notes of Ninurta that she “spans the whole cosmos and all the gods and goddesses may be symbolically equated with parts of his cosmic body” (218). This doesn’t sound anything like monotheism or henotheism. Rather, it is almost a pure monism. And while Albright notes of monotheistic-sounding religious movements in Egypt, he cautions against reading too much into them. When men like Akhenaten or even Plato spoke like this, this was hardly a religion. These “monotheisms” were so rarified and abstract tha the masses would never fall for it. Sort of like medieval scholasticism. This is why Yahweh, perhaps ironically, is always described in anthropomorphic terms. Calling him “The Ground of Being” or the “essence beyond essence” would have guaranteed failure, and rightly so.
Albright has a quite good account of the Joshua narrative, although speculating that Joshua 10 and Judges 4-5 are probably the same event (275). He also notes clear editorializing in Judges (18:30). He then suggests a striking line of argumentation: there might have been Hebrews in Palestine before Joshua. There is very little spoken of the conquest of north-central Palestine, except for a list of conquered towns in chapter 12 (277).
This book was a joy to read. However, it is only for the intermediate level student.
Reading this book was like being introduced to an old friend. No one can read widely in Old Testament studies without coming across the name of William F. Albright. But one might not have read him: some of his major works are out of print. In any case, Albright was a scholar of the highest caliber. Albright’s methods are more critical than mine, but he does defend the basic historicity of the Old Testament. While sections of the book are tedious (e.g., the dating of various pottery), the book as a whole is a literary joy to read. He writes with that old school style, somewhat similar to Arthur Lovejoy.
There is something of elitism in this book. Albright has little patience for amateurs. He’s probably justified, though. Amateurish lexicography has ruined many sermons, for example. Albright writes, “In few fields of learning has more nonsense been perpetrated by amateurs, i. e., by enthusiasts who are unwilling to submit to the painfully rigid discipline of the linguistic method” (Albright 45). He then explains how proper linguistic analysis proceeds: induction, deduction, and analogical reasoning (42-43). In other words, he helps you avoid the word = concept fallacy. “Actually, no competent lexicographer in any language fixes the precise meaning of a word by its etymology but rather by collecting as many passages where the word occurs as possible or practicable and by listing all meanings and shades of meaning in them” (46).
He explains why Hegelianism was so popular among Old Testament scholars in the 19th century. It was something of a necessity (pardon the pun). Scholars read the OT and saw a wide variety of data representing different time periods. One doesn’t even have to accept the documentary hypothesis to realize that some parts of the Old Testament represent a more “prophetic” cast while others have a “priestly” accent. Hegel allowed the reader to put all of these facts into a coherent system. He was wrong in the end, to be sure, but his system had great explanatory power.
While we don’t have to accept an evolutionary development of Israel’s worship (which Albright himself doesn’t advocate), we have to be honest that Israel didn’t fall out of the sky with a fully intact Old Testament. We know that, but examining the history can be messy at times.
We also have to deal with the problem of monotheism. The word is something of an anachronism and doesn’t really explain all the data in the Old Testament. There is only one Yahweh. No one is like him. Sui Generis. For a while it was fashionable to posit henotheism: Israel worshipped Yahweh, but other nations worshipped their gods. That doesn’t really explain the evidence, either. Those who advocate henotheism are usually pushing an evolutionary worldview, anyway. So, henotheism is out of the question. Nonetheless, we still have to deal with apparent henotheistic passages. Jepthath’s response in Judges 11:24 sounds henotheistic: “Wilt thou not possess what Chemosh thy god has given thee?” Albright fails to connect this with Gen. 10-11 and Deut. 4 and 32: God allotted the nations to various beney ha-elohim. That solves the henotheism problem.
Albright’s comparisons with other religions of the time are quite interesting, yet he doesn’t always draw the most powerful inference. He notes of Ninurta that she “spans the whole cosmos and all the gods and goddesses may be symbolically equated with parts of his cosmic body” (218). This doesn’t sound anything like monotheism or henotheism. Rather, it is almost a pure monism. And while Albright notes of monotheistic-sounding religious movements in Egypt, he cautions against reading too much into them. When men like Akhenaten or even Plato spoke like this, this was hardly a religion. These “monotheisms” were so rarified and abstract tha the masses would never fall for it. Sort of like medieval scholasticism. This is why Yahweh, perhaps ironically, is always described in anthropomorphic terms. Calling him “The Ground of Being” or the “essence beyond essence” would have guaranteed failure, and rightly so.
Albright has a quite good account of the Joshua narrative, although speculating that Joshua 10 and Judges 4-5 are probably the same event (275). He also notes clear editorializing in Judges (18:30). He then suggests a striking line of argumentation: there might have been Hebrews in Palestine before Joshua. There is very little spoken of the conquest of north-central Palestine, except for a list of conquered towns in chapter 12 (277).
This book was a joy to read. However, it is only for the intermediate level student.
June 2, 2020
An older work by an archaeologist and biblical scholar from a previous generation. A middle ground between evangelical and more critical scholarship.
August 20, 2011
If you want to understand the history of the study of the Ancient Near East, Israel and the Bible during the first sixty years of the twentieth century, this is an essential book, written by one who lived through it all, an eyewitness. For all specialists in Old Testament studies, this is required reading.
March 20, 2025
From the Stone Age to Christianity, by William Foxwell Albright should have begun it with an explanation of the Stone Age. Instead, he begins with two chapters describing scholarly ways to understand the development of history. For example, he writes:
“Max Weber’s partially correct explanation of modern capitalism as an outgrowth of Calvinistic culture.”
John Calvin was a French theologian who spend most of his life in Geneva, Switzerland. His theology had little influence in England, where the industrial revolution began. His theology had no influence in the development of capitalism in South Korea, and Japan, which became industrialized in the twentieth century.
Albright claims,” nearly all basic elements of Chinese civilization penetrated from the West at different periods.”
If this was true, the Chinese would have adopted an alphabet. To write one of the Chinese dialects one must learn several thousand characters. This has always been difficult. It is becoming more difficult with the widespread use of computer technology. No keyboard can have nearly that many characters.
Albright points out that the first alphabet was invented by an Egyptian scribe and used in the Saini Peninsula. Egyptian scribes suppressed it in Egypt, because they had spent their lives learning Egyptian hieroglyphics. From there the alphabet spread to Phoenicia, which we now know as Lebanon. The Greeks adopted it to their language. From there it spread to all of Europe. The Israelites adopted it to their language. From there it spread to India and the Arabs, and eventually to Egypt, when the Egyptians converted to Islam.
Different cultures adopted various systems of writing. It is to one anonymous Egyptian scribe that most literate people owe the alphabet.
Albright argues that with the last two verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis the Bible is a record that is essentially historical. Those last two verses mention Abraham. Although no mention of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has been discovered apart from the Bible, Albright believes that the Patriarchs did live.
Albright should have said more about Christianity. He ends his book with:
“we are in a world which is strangely like the Graeco-Roman world of the first century B.C. we need awakening of faith in the God of the majestic theophany on Mount Sinai, in the God of Elijah’s vision at Horeb, in the God of the Jewish exiles in Babylonian, in the God of the Agony at Gethsemane…”
“Max Weber’s partially correct explanation of modern capitalism as an outgrowth of Calvinistic culture.”
John Calvin was a French theologian who spend most of his life in Geneva, Switzerland. His theology had little influence in England, where the industrial revolution began. His theology had no influence in the development of capitalism in South Korea, and Japan, which became industrialized in the twentieth century.
Albright claims,” nearly all basic elements of Chinese civilization penetrated from the West at different periods.”
If this was true, the Chinese would have adopted an alphabet. To write one of the Chinese dialects one must learn several thousand characters. This has always been difficult. It is becoming more difficult with the widespread use of computer technology. No keyboard can have nearly that many characters.
Albright points out that the first alphabet was invented by an Egyptian scribe and used in the Saini Peninsula. Egyptian scribes suppressed it in Egypt, because they had spent their lives learning Egyptian hieroglyphics. From there the alphabet spread to Phoenicia, which we now know as Lebanon. The Greeks adopted it to their language. From there it spread to all of Europe. The Israelites adopted it to their language. From there it spread to India and the Arabs, and eventually to Egypt, when the Egyptians converted to Islam.
Different cultures adopted various systems of writing. It is to one anonymous Egyptian scribe that most literate people owe the alphabet.
Albright argues that with the last two verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis the Bible is a record that is essentially historical. Those last two verses mention Abraham. Although no mention of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has been discovered apart from the Bible, Albright believes that the Patriarchs did live.
Albright should have said more about Christianity. He ends his book with:
“we are in a world which is strangely like the Graeco-Roman world of the first century B.C. we need awakening of faith in the God of the majestic theophany on Mount Sinai, in the God of Elijah’s vision at Horeb, in the God of the Jewish exiles in Babylonian, in the God of the Agony at Gethsemane…”
August 1, 2019
To be honest, this book was a hard slog. But the early years of the 20th Century were a fascinating period in the study of the Bible, and Albright’s dense book is a great insight. It’s worth noting this was written before the Dead Sea Scrolls were rediscovered, and before the age of the Internet etc. It reveals an era where scholars were proficient in multiple modern and ancient languages, where they published prolifically, even when only tentative conclusions trying to spur on others to debate.
Much has happened in the 80 years since the book was first published, but it was built on the shoulders of people like Albright. I’d have loved to have a beer with William.
Much has happened in the 80 years since the book was first published, but it was built on the shoulders of people like Albright. I’d have loved to have a beer with William.
July 3, 2011
First half of the book (200 pages) on the history of archeological method and philosophy, philology, etc. that concerned the topic at hand. I was interested in what I understood of everything, but I'm wondering who Albright's audience was. They must have been scholarly contemporaries. With all of his genre-crossing knowledge, I wish he had written books for the layman as well.
March 27, 2008
The author expected me to know a lot more than I did, thereby depriving me of getting as much out of this book as I could have.
Want to Read
December 14, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Bibliography.
July 14, 2016
This book was more focused on the process of research by the academic community than on the actual history. A disappointment.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews