An important point that has not been noted is that no one among those mentioned argues that there is a major issue with the degree of literacy in ancient Israel and with the biblical traditions. Neither Rollston, Schniedewind, Dever, nor I are concerned that evidence for an increase or decrease in literacy will affect some sort of long and dearly held religious or other view. The biblical witness is sufficiently general about the matter, as are the other relevant materials (e.g., Lachish letter 3), so that a variety of literacy views are compatible with what may be different analyses of these texts. 

Young, Stephen L.  “Protective Strategies and the Prestige of the ‘Academic’: A Religious Studies and Practice Theory Redescription of Inerrantist Scholarship,” Biblical Interpretation 23 (2015):1-35; idem, “Maximizing Literacy as a Protective Strategy: Redescribing Evangelical Inerrantist Scholarship on Israelite Literacy,” Biblical Interpretation 23 (2015): 145-73.

In recent essays, Stephen L. Young (2015a; 2015b) attempts an analysis of “Evangelical Inerrantist Scholarship” in which he names a variety of scholars but features myself and Alan Millard in great detail as representative examples of what he describes as a protective strategy. The editors of Biblical Interpretation have deemed this work of such significance as to devote two articles and 54 pages to its examination (Young 2015a; 2015b). It is the purpose of the present review article to examine (1) the validity of the application of such a method in this particular instance, and (2) the manner in which the elements of this protective strategy come into play in Young’s own discussion and analysis.

The Executive Editor and the editorial board of Biblical Interpretationrefused publication of this response on the grounds that (1) it could not be vetted through their double blind review process without revealing my identity as the author; and (2) the possibility of a forum in which both Young and I contributed responses was declined by Young (email communication from Tat-Siong Benny Liew, Executive Editor of Biblical Interpretation, April 22, 2015). If my brief observations accomplish anything here, I hope they will encourage the interested reader to examine the original publications, along with their evidence and arguments, in order to discern these important issues and exactly what points and rationales are presented. The contribution of additional considered voices to this discussion can only enhance the field.

While much could be addressed in this essay, I will limit my concerns to Young’s analysis made regarding my work and the manner in which it is pursued for the purposes of identifying a “protective strategy.” A characteristic of Young’s writing style is to lump together a larger group of scholars and to claim that what is true with one writer or another must be true of the entire group. While Alan Millard and I are separated out for special treatment (Young 2015b: 147-49), we are connected with the views of other “Evangelical Inerrantist Scholars” who are “more explicit” than us but “illustrate,” “provide further evidence,” and make recurrent claims with whom we can be identified (Young 2015b: 152-53, 161). One may respect many of the scholars whom Young mentions but not identify one’s views or methods with them. Their work should be evaluated on its own merits. The same is true of Alan Millard, from whom I have learned much. The concern here will be with the extensive treatment Young gives my published writings.

Points of Misrepresentation as a Means to Support Theories of Protective Strategies

On the first and second pages of Young’s “Analysis of Inerrantist Scholarship on Israelite Literacy” (2015b: 150-51), he claims that I trace Israelite literacy “back to the thirteenth century (e.g. Hess 2002: 83-88, 95).” This is not true. I explicitly and only discuss the thirteenth century B.C. (and earlier) evidence for writing in Southern Canaan on p. 85 under the section entitled “I. Pre-Israelite Canaan” (note Pre-Israelite, not Israelite). This misrepresentation with identical references is repeated on the same page of Young’s essay (2015b: 151). Repeating a false statement does not make it true. However, a repetitive style characterizes Young’s work. His use of terms such as “rhetoric” and “misrepresents,” that he applies to myself, can be applied to his own “strategy” to “protect” a particular understanding of my writings on literacy and what that understanding supposedly reveals about my intentions.

I will take time here to consider only the main points of Young’s specific discussion of what I have written on literacy. First, it is essential to Young’s strategy to establish that I hold to widespread, sophisticated literacy in ancient Israel, a “literary literacy” across the entire population. He argues that I assert, “any Israelite of any social or geographic location” would have “the ability to read, and sometimes write, complex literary texts” (Young 2015b: 153-54). However, I never make this claim. When Young attempts to assign this definition to my work he is not successful in establishing any place where I so define my use of literacy in this manner. The only evidence he musters is in a section on seals and bullae where, according to Young, “Hess himself even distinguishes between the ability to scribble one’s name and recognize it on a seal versus ‘the ability to read or write’ (Hess 2002: 92).” However, Young misrepresents my work. This quote is taken from the statement, “Although possession of a seal with one’s name on it does not prove the ability to read or write…”  I stand by that remark. Possession of a seal with writing says nothing about the individual owner being able to read or write. I go on to state that the quantity of seals with writing on them does suggest a culture where more people could read and write their names than a culture without seals with names written on them. I say nothing about “literacy” as involving more than reading and writing one’s name.

Because Young incorrectly claims that I endorse the model of a vast and widespread ability to read and write complex texts throughout ancient Israel, he can then go on to suggest that this is the understanding I use to object to Christopher Rollston’s arguments and it is the view that I ascribe to William Schniedewind and William Dever. However, in reality I do not define literacy in this manner, as “literary literacy.” For this reason, none of Young’s statements reflect what I have written. In fact, they compound the misrepresentation of my research.

Read More