Interest in ancient Israelite scribal education has blossomed in the last two decades, in large part due to the increased attention to scribal education in Assyriology. Scholars such as Karel van der Toorn and David Carr have used data from Egypt and Mesopotamia to draw new conclusions about the composition of the Hebrew Bible.Footnote ¹ Schniedewind likewise draws from cuneiform and Egyptian educational data, though his contribution departs from those of his predecessors in several ways. Most importantly, Schniedewind focuses not only on comparative data but also on “hard evidence” for Israelite education, in the form of inscriptions, with special attention to Ze'ev Meshel's recent publication of inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.Footnote ² Moreover, Schniedewind makes what he himself identifies as a “bold claim”: namely, that the rudiments of Israelite scribal education were adapted from the Mesopotamian educational system at the end of the Late Bronze Age (18). As such, Schniedewind does not simply use the comparative evidence as an analogy for reconstruction, but rather seeks to identify actual lines of continuity between ancient Near Eastern and ancient Israelite scribal cultures.

The most compelling and provocative contribution of the book lies in Schniedewind's reinterpretation of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions as scribal exercises. He notes that interpretations of this site have been dominated by the sensationalized reference to “Yahweh and his Asherah,” and as such, the site continues to be wrongly classified (as is evidenced by Meshel's title) as “religious.” Schniedewind reexamines the evidence in context and instead chooses to highlight its abundant pedagogical features. Focusing on the inscriptions on Pithos A and B, he emphasizes the erasure marks on certain inscriptions, a common indicator of pedagogical practice; the conspicuous repetition of the Hebrew letter yod; the fragments of abecedaries; and the apparent combination of novice and experienced hands at work. These observations set the stage for his reinterpretation of inscription 3.6, the letter from Amaryaw (“Say to my lord, are you well? I have blessed him to YHWH of Teman and his asherah.”) as a pedagogical “model letter,” akin to the model letters known from Ugarit.Footnote ³ In this context, Schniedewind draws clever parallels between the other inscriptions and various ancient Near Eastern pedagogical genres (e.g., lexical lists, proverbial sayings, hymns) in turn, reinterpreting all of the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud content as scribal exercises. These readings are followed by a helpful discussion of the connections between soldiers and scribes, both here and in Egypt.

Schniedewind also offers new (pedagogical) interpretations of the Gezer Calendar and various biblical phrases, passages, and genres. While he is not the first to regard the Gezer Calendar as a school exercise, his discussion of it within the context of the Mesopotamian lexical series Ura = ḫubullu is both innovative and persuasive. The same goes for his recognition of echoes of letter formulae in various biblical texts; linguists will especially delight in his discussion of the repurposing of לאמר and ועתה in Standard Biblical Hebrew. Even when I thought that he stretched the evidence too far (e.g., with the claim that the reference to Solomon's discourse on trees alludes to knowledge of the cuneiform lexical list of “trees and wooden objects”), I found myself tantalized by the freshness of his observations.

The book does have a few drawbacks. First, there is a fair amount of repetition—some intentional and some not. The same quotations from Niek Veldhuis are repeated on pp. 21 and 32 and on pp. 14, 37, and 159. Three of the transcriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud are provided in full on multiple occasions. Second, the reader who is interested in delving deeper will not find much more in the endnotes, which mostly provide bibliographic references. This may have been intended to make the book more accessible, but I often found myself wanting more discussion or justification for various claims, as when Schniedewind makes reference to social or linguistic theory or to the stance of “many scholars.” Beyond these matters, I found myself questioning Schniedewind's usage of the term “curriculum,” especially with regard to the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud material. There is a major difference between identifying a text as a school exercise and claiming that it belongs to an Israelite “curriculum,” particularly if the source is available in only a single attestation.

Overall, Schniedewind offers abundant food for thought to laypeople and specialists alike. Jewish studies scholars in the areas of Hebrew Bible, Biblical Hebrew, and epigraphy will especially appreciate the linguistic discussions and fresh textual and archaeological interpretations, yet the book is also refreshingly accessible for a wider audience. By reading familiar texts with fresh lenses, Schniedewind breathes new life into them (וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים, Gen 2:7), treating his readers to rewarding glimpses of the ancients’ “fingerprints.”