Israel and the Nations: The History of Israel from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple Book

As noted by the scholar who prepared the revised edition of this classic history book by the late F.F. Bruce, many scholars of biblical history and archaeology are skeptical of the history recorded in the Bible on account of the theological agenda of the biblical writers. F.F. Bruce did not hold this view, and I completely agree with him. Every writer of history from the beginning of time has had an agenda of one sort or another that affects his choice of facts to record and how he presents them. The agenda of a historian is not by itself sufficient grounds for an a priori assumption that his history is unreliable. That said, a history that is adequate for a historian's agenda may be incomplete or even cause a reader failing to understand this point to get a wrong impression. For example, in the English language, a person described as philistine is being characterized as ignorant or uncultured. This is a result of the negative portrayal of the Philistines in the Bible. Yet, archaeology has demonstrated that the Philistines were more advanced and more cultured than their Israelite neighbors. How can this be? Is the Bible wrong about them? The Bible condemns the Philistines for their pagan morality and their enmity with Israel, the people of God, and, by extension, their enmity with God. Our extrapolation of this condemnation to include cultural sophistication is a commentary on our reading comprehension, or lack thereof, not on the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Because this history book covers the time period from the exodus to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., it provides a wealth of supplementary historical material up to the intertestamental period as well as intertestamental history not available at all in the Bible. When the Bible describes acts of war by other nations against Israel, it is often characterized as an act of divine judgment. Yet, the leaders of these other nations do not see themselves as God's agents; rather, they had their own agenda and tended to give little to no thought to the God of such a minor nation. One of the few examples of the Bible addressing this was Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem when Hezekiah was king of Judah. Why? To draw attention to Sennacherib's failure to perceive God's hand in events and to emphasize God's sovereignty over Sennacherib's actions. One of my favorite aspects of Dr. Bruce's supplemental history is his discussions about the motivations behind actions taken by non-Israelites. For example, the Bible describes how God, on account of Solomon's idolatrous practices, raised up adversaries for him who were under the protection of the Pharaoh. Why would the Pharaoh protect them from Solomon? As Egypt was recovering from a period of weakness, the Pharaoh was looking for opportunities to expand his sphere of influence and to control trade routes along the east coast of the Mediterranean. At the time, these trade routes were under the control of Israel and other nations north of it. The Pharaoh protected these individuals so that they could re-enter their own nations at an opportune time and cause instability that would give Egypt an opportunity to flex its muscles in the region. He almost sounds like a modern ruler; nothing has changed.

So, if you want a better understanding of biblical history, I highly recommend this book. Dr. Bruce was an outstanding scholar who had a knack for wording things such that non-scholars could understand him.