"Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic" is a series of related essays on the composition of the Hebrew Bible. It is conservative in that it takes the general framework of the Biblical chronology as accurate, and Cross refers readily to "patriarchal folk", "the league" of tribes, "the empire of David and Solomon" and the "divided monarchy". Within this conservatism, Cross adheres to the relative conservatism of the Documentary Hypothesis, which is taken for granted by most scholars, but anathema to those who hold to the unity of the scriptures.

The book is radical in that Cross isolates themes and expressions derived from Canaanite mythology, particularly from mid-2nd millenium tablets found at Ugarit, written in an alphabetic script. He delves deeply into the names, titles and attributes of God, as well as into various sources which were united in the Bible as we now know it. "The Song of the Sea" rates a special chapter in which Cross demonstrates the independence of the poem from the story that surrounds it. He also reconstructs archaic precursor poems to various Biblical texts.

The book is challenging in that it is quite difficult and detailed. When I got started reading "Canaanite Myth..." 6 months ago, I quickly realized I didn't know enough to read it, so I took a few months to acquaint myself with the rudiments of Hebrew and middle-Eastern archaeology. Hebrew text, transliterations of Ugaritic, discussions of etymology and usage, sources of scribal error, and so on, using technical terms are the stuff of the volume, so it's not nearly as simple or neat as a least one of the other reviewers has suggested.

Finally, the book is debatable in that the reconstuctions of archaic texts based on the text we now have, the oldest exemplars of which date from the Hellenistic/Roman period, and projecting them backwards a millenium, and deriving political and ritual presumed practices from them seems to me highly speculative and ultimately dubious. For instance, while Cross does successfully demonstrate that "The Song of the Sea" is independent of the J and E sources, without more data, how can anyone possibly know at what point the poem became Yahwistic? The author cites archaic usage in dating, but it does not escape me that in our own culture, which is much less conservative than ancient cultures were, right into the 20th century, virtually all religious texts were translated into pseudo-King James English, which itself was archaic in 1611. Without securely dated copies, how would any future scholars date these? At the same time the book raises a number of issues which merit further study. This is not a book to read once and put on the shelf. It has much to offer for long term study.

This book provides valid theories concerning the evolution of the JudeoChristian creed from Phoenician/Canaanite religion.It will dispel many of the misconceptions perpetrated by jewish and christian fundamentalists for many centuries.Includes phonetically translated ugaritic texts semitic names and biblicaltexts, as well as detailed grammatical and linguistc essays on semitic languages.It is a must for anyone interested in near eastern mythology and language.

This book demonstrates the evolution of the Bible as we eventually wound up with it. This is NOT a book for people in possession of a conclusion searching for a premise. It will definitely offend Christian and Hebrew Fundamentalists, but then they have an enormous stake in maintaing their sense of place and livelihood with the status quo. Buy this book for an IMPARTIAL look at the history of what constitutes the bible.

(The following two edits should be applied to my review [prev])

--Paragr. 5, point (1.), parenthetical: "century" should be altered to "millenium" both times [I certainly wrote this review too late at night]

--Paragr. 6, last sentence: "references to ... Greek culture is" should be altered to "references to ... Greek culture are"

This book certainly does represent an interesting addition into the field of the history of the Biblical text and religion. Cross does raise some issues that deserve consideration (see below). He is certainly an expert in the field of what is called "lower (or better, textual) criticism," in that he and his fellow researchers are eminently meticulous with studying and analyzing the scrolls found from Qumran.

It is evident, however, that when once Cross steps over the bounds of his actual scholarship and credentials, into the arena of Ancient Near Eastern history and its bearings on the Hebrew religion and Bible, he commits some standard errors of naivete, common to many an O.T. scholar today.

He advocates not the antiquated (and incredibly errant on methodological grounds), so-called "Documentary Hypothesis," but rather, the newer "etiological tradition" school of thought, along the lines of several mid-20th century scholars -- Noth (and Alt? along with several earlier Norwegian scholars) come(s) to mind, particularly.

His assumptions (not scientific conclusions) that the Pentateuchal text comes from "various traditions" that were compiled long after historical events they "attempt (sic) to describe" are certainly based on faulty linguistic analyses, and he evidently assumes that (a) because different textual traditions existed in Palestine in the last 4/5 centuries BC (b) therefore this indicates that oral traditions (laden with exaggerations and embellishments, no doubt) were eventually compiled into the various textual traditions, each of which bore the unique marks of its oral-traditio-predecessor.

Among issues that Cross glosses over, whether out of carelessness or out of deliberate refusal to acknowledge (several) other eminent scholars (some with far weightier credentials than himself), are the questions of: (1.) legal/treaty forms (1st century vs. 2nd century BC--several large sections of the Pentateuch correspond almost precisely with the latter, not the former); (2.) the question of "late" words being introduced into a complete Pentateuchal text by later scribes (which would tend to corroborate the results obtained by Mendenhall's, Kitchen's, formgeschichte cited above); (3.) the extensive studies showing that Hebrew literature was, in fact, *not* very closely related to the surrounding Canaanite literature/tradition at all (e.g., Heidel's findings RE: the unimpressive factual correlations between Gilgamesh and the OT).

Moreover, his assertion that "Mesopotamian literature was orally circulated, generally, before being written," and that this "corroborates the idea that the Hebrews followed the same methods in compiling the OT," is very fragile, resting on wholly erroneous assumptions, all of which directly contradict the actual conclusions of specialists in Ancient Oriental history--namely, that Mesopotamian cultures (and Egyptian, as well) most often practiced the "oral dissemination" (NOT transmission) of (already) *written* documents (as A. L. Oppenheim has long since indicated, along with several others). Cross's references to ancient Greek culture is wholly superfluous, affording, as any specialist in Ancient Oriental studies would affirm, no substantiation of his theories and indicating his lack of expertise in the Ancient Near East.

Thus, although Cross's work here represents something that should certainly be studied (and purchased) by both advocates of his theory AND by opponents, it certainly should be treated with a healthy skepticism, and by no means should it be accepted as an authoritative work, because of its simplistic, superficial treatment of issues which Cross has no mastery over. Old Testament history teachers and Biblical teachers should especially approach the work with caution, and refrain from giving it to students as an "authoritative text," per se. Rather, it would be wise to merely suggest it for further reading, or to select readings from it and leave it open to criticism from the students to enhance their critical-analysis abilities--esp. seeing as to how the text will likely be out of date in ten, twenty, or thirty years, as Biblical criticism proceeds towards more scientifically and logically sound methodologies.

This book is a worthy and very interesting successor to "Canaanite Myth And Hebrew Epic", exploring a number of issues relating to the history of Israel that were not addressed in the earlier work. Essays cover the relation of kinship to covenant, traditional narrative, the dubious fortunes of Reuben, the old gods of the ancient near east, OT descriptions of the tabernacle tent and temple in context, highly technical essays on Hebrew verse, two essays on the post-exilic restoration with an emphasis on the rift between Samaria and Jerusalem, two essays on the fixation and stabilization of the canonical text, and kind of an afterthought essay on pottery sherds and alphabets.

For me, the most interesting articles were the 'olden gods' essay, which places a number of themes present in the Bible firmly in the context of Canaanite mythology, and the the Samaria essay, which brings a lot of insight to the "Samaritan Problem". Just about as compelling are the essays dealing with the canonization of the Biblical texts, which brings the Dead Sea Scrolls and other contemporary evidence in to clarify the conerns and procedures. The most difficult and arcane (and beyond my interest) were the essays dealing with Hebrew verse.

My reservations stem from what seem to me to be omissions in the argument. Cross regularly makes the statement "there is no reason to doubt" one thing or another which is by no means proven, either in this work or any other that I know of, regarding practices and institutions of the "tribal league" and the "empire". He alludes to the existence of tribal leagues and their distinct religious forms from the Bronze Age to the modern era without much discussion of evidence. He also attests that at Ugarit patriarchal and specifically urban forms co-existed. This is interesting and I would like to know more about it. If the tribal and urban practices mingled throughout history, this does not give us "no reason to doubt" the historical accuracy of a Biblical account in which patriarchal religion and politics totally gives way to some national type of religion, nor does it help secure the dating of patriarchal narratives, or the dating of the conversion to Yahwism of Canaanite mythic themes. Cross's assertion of an orally transmitted prose epic seems unlikely, and no evidence is presented here to change my mind.

My reservations do not decrease the value of this book, however. In fact, they increase it, because of the issues raised. Overall, a must read.