Reviews for Babel and Bible: A Lecture on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, Deli...

The average rating for Babel and Bible: A Lecture on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, Deli... based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-06-18 00:00:00 Jean Vega Needed more on the myths otherwise rather extensive. No etymology over names but lots of references to the old testament. Touching a bit the Hellenic culture but forgot that Pythagorean cult followed necromancy. Good to understand the evolution of religion

Review # 2 was written on 2016-09-07 00:00:00 Miguel Fernandez If it’s unseen, immortal, or a behaviour associated with these, and in the Bible, you find it in this book, albeit briefly. That Oesterley manages to cover so much ground in just over 200 pages is a testament to the concision and precision of his writing. He really knows his Bible, and knows it in Hebrew. Excellent Biblical references. Excellently presented arguments. Very clearly written so you can easily work out whether or not you agree with them. The book is not perfect. References to non-Biblical literature and now hopelessly out of date, and many in German which may cause problems for some readers. There are really only a couple of authors which would still be useful today. It predates Kathleen Kenyon, so Oesterley lacks meaningful feedback from archaeology. He can’t really talk about sites and periods as a contemporary author could. Instead he connects culture and race. He sees culture not as different ways of doing something but as a progression from uncultured to his own culture. You might suspect, from a few comments he makes, that Oesterley was a fascist. Having read a couple of his other books I can confirm that this would not be libellous. He sees race as he sees culture; as a ladder with Africans at the bottom and Europeans at the top. This is quite handy for Oesterley as it means he’s virtually at the right hand of God. Presumably his death in 1950 has moved him even closer to Him. These prejudices lead to some risible conclusions when discussing the development of Judaism. In the absence of evidence he assigns beliefs and practices to later periods the more closely they resemble his own. This book is a bit like an old piece of machinery that needs to be watched constantly and really needs to be replaced. I don’t know if there is such a book on the market, but if not, there’s a job here for a budding theologian.