About book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision Of Ancient Israel And The Origin Of Its Sacred Texts (2002)
I found this book through a referral on, of all places, /r/AskHistorians on reddit, and, more to the point, the "How Much of the Bible is Historical" question linked to in the subreddit's FAQ where it was referred to as a decent reference. Having not read much Biblical Archeology in a while and finding the book in Amazon's Kindle Store, I downloaded it to my Kindle.The Bible Unearthed is a dry, fairly technical text dealing with matching Archeology with books of the Old Testament, mainly Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings and pieces of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and lesser Prophets. Working from the beginning with Abraham and concluding at the Exile into Babylon, the authors methodically dissect the Old Testament chapter by chapter and, in some places, verse by verse and compare it to the known archeological evidence to prove their core supposition: the Old Testament and the Torah were compiled, and in no small part written, in the mid-to-late 7th Century BC in Judah for a combination of political and religious aims by likely two Kings: Hezekiah and, later, Josiah. These are not historical recordings of mid-Bronze Age wanders but of Iron Age Kings under the Assyrian yoke who were trying to forge a national identity through myths, tales, stories of various tribal peoples, and political propaganda, stamp out the local religions and create a theocratic state. Although the book is a little out of date, as it was written in 2000, the evidence presented is pretty plausible stuff if one can slog through chapters based on the settlement patterns of Iron Age bedouins and their village layouts or read 100 pages on pottery sherds at different strata. The authors present:* No historical record of the patriarchs in any form;* Moses's Pharaoh is far more the Pharaoh of Late Period 26th Dynasty and not a New Kingdom Monarch;* Joshua conquers cities that do not exist in the 12th century BCE but certainly do in the 7th, and those that did exist likely collapsed in the Bronze Age Collapse at different times over a hundred years;* No sign exists of David's Kingdom and all that remains is that of a small hill fort and David's name in secondary sources;* No sign exists of Solomon or his works;* The Omrides, who kindly left heaps of archeological evidence and secondary sources, were likely quite good Kings;* Israel was likely a victim of its enduring financial success making it a tempting target for a sack;* Deuteronomy written in the format of an Assyrian legal document to a vassal describing the rules and rights therein;* Etc... it goes on like this for ~400 pages.All signs point to a 7th century BC compilation of books, tales and sources into one unified whole, smoothing over the lumps and presenting the people -- many suddenly pouring into Judah from the sack of Samaria -- a new complete identity with their One God. One shouldn't besmirch the power of an enduring document that managed to forge a people, see them through the Babylonian Exile, and then become the root of three major world religions. But no archeological evidence points to the Old Testament being a reliable historical document, either. For me, it's fascinating book showing the pressures and the prejudices of a people who were living in uncertain times with two crazed superpowers (the Assyrians and the Late Egyptians) on their borders and smaller enemies all around them and just before the Phoenicians would become "a thing." These were Kings who wanted to reconquer Israel back from Assyria and return it to its once financial glory, and they saw the way forward was to unite all these people pouring into their tiny kingdom filled with bedouins under One God and One Temple. The plan didn't work out because sticking a finger into the side of a crazed kingdom loaded with mercenaries and a religion that tells them to kill and bathe in blood _never_ works out well but the legacy of that time endures.It's doubly fascinating to think this: in the 7th Century BCE, the great Egyptian Kingdom of Ramesses II, the Hittites, the fall of Sumeria and founding of Assyria, were as far away from them as the /Fall of Rome is from Modern Day/. The time of great civilizations and great kings was destroyed by the Bronze Age Collapse and left huge mounds where cities once stood -- and no one of Iron Age II knew why. No one read those languages. No one did satellite-based archeology. This is something to think about -- the time of Moses and Joshua and Judges were all distant myth at a time when real 7th century enemies were on the doorstep. Why _wouldn't_ there be stories about how those ancient dimly remembered cities? Why _weren't_ there be ancient kings and great heroes and an explanation of how those civilizations of the great antiquity fell? Why wouldn't those stories be forged in one narrative of one God who destroyed them in the past and will destroy them now?Not for the highly religious, obviously. Interesting if one wants to read the constant debates on reddit, though.ALSO: if you have no time to read the book, the BBC did a 4 part series with the authors which is available on Youtube some years ago.
First published in 2001, Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's fine book will challenge people with an orthodox view of the Bible because, as the archaeological record shows, many of the events recorded in it,did not take place quite as the narrative says.As Finkelstein and Silberman – both archaeologists – show, the archaeological record tells a very different story from the traditionally accepted one. Their story is more believable and, as it turns out, more accurate than the orthodox view of the Bible is historically pretty accurate, and events like Joshua’s battle against Jericho, the Exodus, and the great kingdoms of David and Solomon were true. Archaeology shows that they could not be, because there is no record of them where and when there should be.“The power of the biblical saga,” they write “eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive” (page 318). The biblical saga is woven together from myth, folktale, origin and hero stories, songs and poetry from different times creating a story that met the political needs of specific times. “The authors and editors of the Deuteronomistic History and parts of the Pentateuch gathered and reworked the most precious traditions of the people of Israel to gird the nation for the great national struggle that lay ahead” (page 283). What was needed was “a great national epic of liberation for all the tribes of Israel, against a great and domineering pharaoh, whose realm was uncannily similar to its geographical details to that of” pharaoh Pammetichus, who reigned during the 7th century BCE.The archaeological record shows conclusively that the great events of Hebrew history (the Exodus, the origins of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Yaakov, the great kingdoms of David and Solomon) did not happen as written, and that there was no place in geography called “Eden” where God once wandered in the forest. Biblical history “was not history writing in the modern sense. It was a composition simultaneously ideological and theological” (page 284). In other words, the Deuteronomistic History and the Bible itself are compilations woven together over time to tell the religious and cultural story of a people, much in the way that the Popul Vuh (Book of the People) – a collection of mythistorical narratives of the Post Classic Quiché kingdom in Guatemala's western highlands – were collected.This is not a point of view that will go down well with fundamentalists who insist on making science conform to their literalistic reading of the Bible as accurate history. But it makes the Bible – these ancient stories – more acceptable to people like me because it makes the narrative more real and “true” as myths are “true”. And in ancient times, myth and factual events were more often interwoven than not. George Washington, for instance, didn’t have to actually chopped down a cherry tree for me to understand the “truth” of the story – that George Washington could be trusted because, when asked about the tree, he told the truth.Reading the Bible this way, it is easy to place various parts of the narrative within their historic context (such as specific dress and dietary rules) rather than having to see them as truths-for-all-time-and-all-people, as the literalists see them. I found the book both fascinating and a joy to read.
Do You like book The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision Of Ancient Israel And The Origin Of Its Sacred Texts (2002)?
The authors of The Bible Unearthed successfully collate new findings and information that has been known for awhile to present clear and concise rethinking of The Old Testament at the time of kings and Biblical archaeology in general. Once the confirmation bias of the Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other has been removed,and modern scientific techniques applied, the Old Testament can be set in the context of politics and nation building rather than a history in the traditional sense.The authors themselves characterise the book as :"our attempt to formulate a new archaeological vision of ancient Israel in which the Bible is one of the most important artifacts and cultural achievements [but] not the unquestioned narrative framework into which every archaeological find must be fit." Well worth reading.
—Duntay
I am struggling with this book, bBut at the same time I am enjoying it as well. Many scholars have labeled Israel Finkelstein a Biblical Minimalist, and I have to agree with them. But for arguments sake I will take his side to say that those who are minimalist say that Israel is a Maximalist. Israel finds himself somewhere in the middle, a centrist. However, he does not believe the first 5 books of the Bible (The Torah) were written by Moses, but were written by a scribe in around the seventh century B.C. Using not earlier texts and versions of the sacred scriptures but was using word of mouth folk tales of his people to create a national histories of his people the Isrealites. Israel Finkelstein says that the problem with the maximalist that they assume to literally the historical content of the Bible. But when taking the Bible's background it is hard to not take it literally when it is known to have been divinely inspired by God.His reason for believing that a seventh century B.C. scribe is the writer of the Torah text is because of the of the use of some seventh century language found in the Torah which is supposed to have been written in an earlier period. Here's what I think on this, the scribe was writing from earlier scrolls of the Bible and used more recent words that had meaning in the current era. Much like we have today in the King James version of 1611 and the now New King James Version, many of the words in the KJV are antiquated and hard to understand therefore needed updating. The reason now for why I'am struggling with this book is Dr. Finkelstein's take on the Bible when comparing it with Archeology of the area, when presented with some proof of the Biblical text he merely looks at the proof and says that the archeological data presented is not in sync with the timeline given with the Bible. My response is something must be wrong with the timeline of the archeological data.The reason that I'am enjoying it is because of the archeological data he uses as proof is what strengthens and affirms my faith in the Bible as Gods word.
—Edward Barnett
This book's thesis is that the Old Testament, though shaped by true events and traditions, was constructed in its current form as a common bond and political instrument in support of the short-lived resurgence of the kingdom Judiah and the subsequent Yahedic society that appeared after its collapse in the 7th century b.c. More hopeful archaeology from the previous 30 years was driven significantly by those who accepted the historic date range of 2100-2500 B.C. as fact and looked for supporting evidence. The authors use archaelogic evidence to refute this and form a different theory. Some of their supporting evidence is very basic. For example, while the progenitors were camel traders, camels were not found in the region until 1000 years later. It also shows how some of the oldest stories both explained the various peoples in the region and established the superiority of the Israelites (e.g. Lot's daughters as the roots to Moam and Ammon; Jacob and Esau establishing the legitimization of Israel as having bestowed the birthright). The Exodus story is explained as an explanation of how the people reached their current lands, but the actual events are judged as not fitting against the time, Egyptian span of control, or place names. The authors later argue that the Exodue story's numerous parallels to the later resurgence of Egypt demonstrate that it was the basis for people seeing what they should and can do at present. [return][return]The authors also show where archaelogy supports what we do know. For example, the highlands settlements thought to have been Isaelite indeed are the only in the are lacking pig bones. David and Solomon are portrayed as tribal chieftains sans the great empires and wealth but still of note. A slab from c. 853 mentions the destruction of the "House of David" Perhaps most notably in support of the political argument, Josiah, who lived in the current era, was prophesied by name as being someone to be followed. The archaeology aside, this book provides a great political history of the relationships between the northern Israelite and southern highland Judahite peoples -- their differences, Israel's rise and fall, and Judah's fortunate timing to emerge as Israel's Assyrian conquerers fell. Judah was less developed and attracted less attention. Following it's emergence, kings were deemed good or bad based on their enforcement of strict laws, particularly around a monotheistic, YWHE-est worship. With the strong and continuous saga of historical reminders, one can see how Israel today maintains such unity and success. As for the history of the texts, the authors show that how references to the "Book of the Law" were later modified by new found scripts and formed into Deutoronomy, and then later a final redaction was made (perhaps by Ezra). The final text has elements of Greek epic, Assyrian vassal contract, and Egyptian style. It also coincided with the first spread of literacy.
—JP
