Rating: 
Summary: Hackneyed Biblical Minimalism
Review: The authors belong to the radical school of archaeology known as Biblical Minimalism that ignores the value of written history in evaluating archaelogical evidence and which sacrifices true objectivity in favour of the ideological standpoint that the Old Testament must be debunked at all costs. Much of what they say has been said by others in the past and found wanting. The main weakness of the authors arguments lies in their "religious" acceptance of the old Albright stratigraphy of Israel and the ignoring of the controversies surrounding the dating of strata and archaelogical finds. When these are taken into account the authors' view of things crumbles.
Rating: 
Summary: Troublesome Positions
Review: The big idea here is that there was no glory that was Israel before the Omrides, and no glory that was Judah before Hezekiah. I don't think this is news as much as the authors seem to think. What serious biblical scholar of the last 50 years takes the biblical account of Solomon's empire at face value? What Biblical scholar has not seen the Omride Dynasty as the first in real power and prosperity. The most interesting matter here is the low estimate of the population in Judah and Jerusalem in all periods prior to the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Yet for all the debunking here of the biblical text, the authors feel compelled by the inscriptions regarding the house of David found at Tell Dan to accept a real David in Judah at about the time reported in the biblical text. They say there was nothing much in Judah before the fall of the north, but they concede David established a dynasty in Judah at the time reported in the text. They evidently can't find evidence to discount the report of a united monarchy. They refuse to say there was no united monarchy. If there was a united monarchy, evidently centered in Jerusalem-Judah at the time of David, why that doesn't conflict with their assumption from the low population and cultural remains in Judah in the early Iron Age, that there was no state in Judah before Hezekiah?
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful concepts
Review: Wow! A lot to think about. The authors, Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University, and co-director of the university's excavation at Megiddo) and Neil Silberman (Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium), have really put a great deal of material together in a small volume (355 pages). I had come across their names in other venues and become curious. In some of the popular archaeological magazines, their theories have created quite a stir--most notably the proposal that the united monarchy of David and Solomon might not have existed or at least not as it was portrayed. When The Bible Unearthed came to my attention, I decided it was a "must read" kind of book.My own areas of interest have always been Mesopotamia and Egypt. When I studied ancient history for my MA, I tended to avoid the Levant as too fragmented and confused. It almost seemed one had to have a score card to know who all the players were! I realized, however, that it was an area rich in cultural, social, and political diversity and rampant with change--as most transitional regions are--and I could well understand other students' fascination with it. The Finkelstein-Silberman work makes these facts abundantly clear. They examine the Biblical narrative from the prospective of archaeologists and political historians. I was first introduced to this more collaborative approach to biblical studies by a recent book by George Mendenhall entitled Ancient Israel's Faith and History, a work that typifies this type of multidisciplinary approach. I was very impressed. Hitherto I had been exposed only to the "Bible as history" approach, which tends to be very circular. In both books the authors start with more recent archaeological data, based on more modern methods of research and more current dating, and with external historical material to make sense of how the patriarchal age and that of ancient Israel as a political entity were likely to have fit the international venue of which they were a part. The results are very informative. Almost from the first it becomes evident that much of what the Biblical narrative records does not quite fit with what is actually seen in the material remains from the area. When making sense of the discrepancies through a more anthropological approach to interpretation, both the Mendenhall and the Finkelstein and Silberman books come up with some surprising results. Although they do not necessarily agree entirely with each other's vision, their recounting of the events of the period makes abundant sense. I found the central theme of The Bible Unearthed, namely that the narrative was a seventh century BCE redaction of popular oral traditions designed to suit a dynastic political and social agenda, to be eminently believable. Admittedly this is partly because I myself live in an environment where politically motivated propaganda is an almost daily occurrence and when historical redactions occur with every generation. Still their argument from the material data is impressive and forceful. Although the authors don't stress it until the end of the book, one might well perceive the activities of the political players of the Middle East at the time as being more of a competition of ambitions rather than of nations. Instead of seeing the populations of the territories as identifying themselves as "Assyrians," "Egyptians," "Elamites," "Edomites," etc. one might rather view them as populations controlled, to a greater or lesser degree determined by proximity, by the individual dynasties on whose "estates" they lived--much as during the European feudal period. Officially sanctioned written histories might be seen as attempting to the achieve political goals of individual rulers, in this case that of the Davidic line in Jerusalem. What makes the Biblical tale more unique than other popular tales is that by post-exilic times, this particular tale had been again redacted to take into account the on-going experiences of the people themselves, something that had not heretofore occurred. The book became not simply an account of heroes and mythical figures, it became a book of inspiration and national identity, perhaps the first time that a coherent philosophy and shared laws had been created that actually did so, the test being that the population survived a sojourn in exile and returned an identifyable body. With further redactions, including the Christian testaments, the work could become a source of personal inspiration. What finally made the Bible a more international book was probably the mass communication possibilities that alphabetic scripts, wide spread literacy, and Roman roads and internationalism created much later. At this time, the book could become a recipe for living with ones fellow man. The entire episode suggests that the "meme," a theory by Richard Dawkins, was working overtime in this instance. Each redaction of the material created a mental "animal" that was more "fit" to its environment, allowing it to be propagated into the next generation until we have the work in its present form. As the authors write, "The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality (p. 318)." In short a keeper. Great book.
Rating: 
Summary: Still unconvincing
Review: Israel Finkelstein deserves credit for his attempt to produce an honest account of the present archeological situation, in a time and a place where his stand can put him in political and religious trouble. In fact, not only Finkelstein's perspective weakens Israel's present territorial claims over a significant part of Palestine and Jerusalem, but it also turns out to validate XIX century's german nationalist, rationalist and antisemitic biblical scolarship, that ultimately led to nazism. According to this unfortunate german view (shared by many outside germany), jews are merely a rationally underdeveloped people, whose lies and myths have been given a disproportionate influence in western civilization. Something radical had to be done about that. According to this rationalist ideology (that had its own strange bed fellows), the Bible is dead (Welhausen), God is dead (Nietzche), and the People of both God and the Bible must die (Hitler). Again, Finkelstein deserves credit for daring to sustain his position. For instance, the Bible states that King David ruled for 7 years in Hebrom and for 33 years in Jerusalem. Salomon was called to build the temple in Jerusalem. Both these facts have a profound historical, spiritual and eschatological meaning. Based in the lack of evidence (for which many reasonable explanations exist), Finkelstein simply denies the existence of an United Kingom of David and Salomon. By doing this, Finkelstein directs an atack against the central spiritual tenets of judeo-christian faith and hope. This doesn't mean that Finkelstein is a bad guy. On the contrary, to be fair we sense an inherent willingness to be intellectually honest. However, due to his own assumptions and the limited character of his investigation, he overplays his explanation based on the political and ideological motives behind the Bible. According to Finkelstein, the jewish way of dealing with political and military problems in 600 bC was: "If everything else fails, try metanarrative". Religion fictions apart, Jews should be seen, above all, as experts in the art of forging documents and inventing metaphysical and moral entities. (Even Finkelstein must admit they were pretty successful at that). This view, that raises more questions than the answers it pretends to put forward, is simply not plausible. The historically sober, spiritually powerful and ethnologically sound narratives of the Bible, as well as the inherent rationality of most of its characters (recently restated by Steven Brams in the book Biblical Games, MIT), are not easily understood from the point of view of Finkelstein's framework of political and ideological convenience. I think Fikelstein's perspective is too materialistic, as far as the origin of the Bible is concerned, in the sense that he expects too much from the political, economic and social realities, and downplays the spiritual a moral forces at work. If one takes the Bible seriously, from Genesis to Revelation, it doesn't take long to realize that we are dealing with something that far transcends conjuntural power games and politics. Finkelstein is far off the mark. It happens that the Bible, as an old collection of Books, is more than used to this kind of "letal atacks" and provisional "refutations", that in the end prove themselves to be wrong. The Bible, as a surviving book, is a good example of the survival of the fittest. Actually, the creation v. evolution debate is just another example of biblical survival, as we can see when we consider the recent contributions of authors as diverse as Gish, Morris, Ham, Safarti, Humphreys, Gitt, Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Denton, Spetner, just to name a few. As a matter of fact, recent archeological findings actually support the case for the flood, the exodus, the conquest, the united kindom of David and Salomon. There are many powerful lines of criticism directed to Finkelstein's work. If it was all about politics, why waste so much time and effort on the spiritual and moral experiences and shortcomings of David and Salomon? Of course, men like Finkelstein and Herzog, among others, will probably try to ignore the evidence that contradicts their assumptions for as long as they can, as many others before them have tried to do... ultimately without success.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Primer on Current Biblical Archeology
Review: The "Bible" held an unexamined position of absolute authority for much of the past two millenia. Only in the past century has it undergone a methodogical and undogmatic scrutiny. This book serves as an excellent introduction to the current state of the archeological prong of that examination. What has been revealed is that the Bible is the product of humans and records the all too human struggles of those who wrote and redacted it over the ages. It is isn't the unerrant word of God. Israel Finkelstein holds a Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University and is also both a Professor of Archeology and the Director of its Archeology Department. As a point of correction, the previous poster makes the libelous claim that Prof. Finkelstein possesses neither a Ph.D. nor a professorship. A simple google search yielded this information a consequently there no excuse exists for that poster's ignorance. Also, the jacket of the book provides the information as well, if the poster had actually read this excellent book he would know Prof. Finkelstein has had an extremely distinguished academic career. The poster's outright lie is most probably a pathetic attempt to discredit a book that attacks his fundamentalist view on the bible.
Rating: 
Summary: What's Missing
Review: The Bible Unearthed presents a theory that the Patriarchs (Abraham, Moses, et al) didn't exist, the Exodus never happened, and in fact, the whole idea of a single god wasn't "invented" until over a thousand years later than claimed in the bible. As proof of their theory, the authors offer primarily the LACK of archeological evidence (i.e. if there was an Exodus, there would be pottery fragments in the desert and since we haven't found any, there must not have been an Exodus). Their writing style is to present the Bible's point of view (often very well done), the conclusions of other archeologists, and then show how the REAL DATA supports their point of view. The problem is that the point of view they debunk is either a literal interpretation of the Bible or a strawman, so selected, that it can be discredited. They seem to ignore some other obvious alternatives. In the case of the Exodus, does it really have to be all or nothing? A more likely explanation is that the story is based on a real event, the telling of which evolved over time. If the Exodus didn't happen, where did the Ark of the Covenant come from? (yes, the one in Raiders of the Lost Ark) If we are to adopt the authors' point of view, we must believe that people of the time didn't notice it suddenly showing up as if nailed together by some temple priest in his garage. It almost certainly existed, and the authors themselves seem to acknowledge that point. The Ark plays a part in too many events (battles) and traditions (temple rituals) to be a LITERARY creation. There are other cases where relevant data seems to be ignored either because it doesn't fit into the authors' point of view or they aren't aware of it. For example, the authors view the 12 tribes of Israel as something brought into the narrative because with them, it would be "more powerful and timeless than the fleeting adventures of a few historical individuals herding sheep in the highlands of Canaan." DNA sequencing now allows us to determine not only ancestry but the passage of time based on rate of mutation. This method has been applied to the tribes of Israel (i.e. the Levi tribe which can be separately identified in the population) and supports the Bible's view of events as opposed to the one presented in this book.
Rating:
Summary: Best analysis of bible and archaeology to date
Review: I have read *many* books on who wrote the Bible and why and this is by far the best of them. The authors write in a style that is highly readable for including a lot of academic material. Nor did I detect any bias theologically. They just "lay it on the line" as to which material in the Bible corresponds with the facts as uncovered by archaeology and which do not. In doing so, they show that the Bible was written to advance theological and cultural and nationalistic ends. Far from ignoring any other evidence, such as lack of pig bones, they cite this evidence which helps to give a sense that the religion explicated in the Bible was of long and slow growth, as one might expect given the nature of human society. This books makes the historical context and the meaning of the Bible clear for perhaps the first time. Bible-worshippers may not like this, but those who appreciate facts and reason will.
Rating:
Summary: It ain't necessarily so
Review: The Bible Unearthed "debunks" a few myths that were already understood to be myths 30 or 40 years ago, and adds a few myths of its own. The authors have assembled enough evidence to show that ancient Jewish history did not happen as portrayed in the Bible, but we already knew that. Their version of what did happen is not very convincing. The authors expend too much effort retelling the readily available and well known biblical stories, and not enough effort in documenting their claims. It is always good to get several points of view and additional evidence on a subject, but this narrative consists mostly of reciting passages from the Old Testament and then asserting "it didn't happen." It is indeed hard to provide evidence if most of your arguments are based on negative findings. Since they could find no evidence of a united Israelite kingdom at the time of the rule of King David, they insist there was none, and that the entire history of Israel was reinvented about 600 BC by King Josiah, who somehow managed to hypnotize everyone and convince them to forget the recent past and substitute a new one, for his own political purposes. Unless you were raised in a fundamentalist or Orthodox Jewish household and educated in those traditions, you are not likely to find that the points made in this book are very revolutionary or upsetting. One might be justifiably skeptical about stories of 100 year old women giving birth, and walls coming down because someone blew a trumpet. George Gershwin pointed out that "the things that you're liable, to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so." Some people carried this idea to an extreme. Previous generations of philologists and archeologists who "debunked" the myth of Troy, the existence of Sargon and the authenticity of all Biblical traditions got their their comeuppance when they were eventually refuted by the evidence. If you are really interested in learning about biblical archaeology, this should not be your first book. If you are anxious to prove some dubious political point about the Palestine-Israel controversy, or you want to read another opinion about the old testament, this polemic may be of interest.
Rating:
Summary: What was said in 350 pages...........
Review: ........could have been said in 120 pages. The Bible Unearthed seem to drag from page to page, then from paragraph to paragraph then from word to word, ultimately making the book one big bore. The writing style of the book is devoid of any passion/excitement and gives the reader the effect that they are reading a textbook. now on to the guts of the book but before I start, I will claim I am a skeptic on religion (so you will know in advance where I am coming from) The whole basis of the book is that Jerusalem (Judah) was more a fiefdom then a kingdom, thus blokes like David and Solomon did not rule over "great" kingdoms but in fact ruled over a bunch of insignificant shepherds. The evidence that Mr. Finklestein is giving, that seems to corrubulate this theory is quite banal. He has the unique ability to state something (or argue) then counter himself!!! What he is trying to do is to be fair and give both sides of the story but the book is so poorly presented that it frustrates more then enlightens. For example, he will give a nice argument against the "historic" David, then after he is done assessing him, he will say (in only one quick little line) that David existed because his name was found on a seal. on to other things Mr. Finklestein claims that pretty much all of the Old Testament is historically inaccurate and that the persons stated in the Bible are historic characters that were mythicized. ***brilliant*** What knobhead who knows anything on the subject does not know the parting of the Red Sea, the great Kingdom (Fiefdom) of Israel and assorted other nonsense is myth (with quite possibly not a hint of history in them). *sigh* This book might be seen as radical if you were a Baptist, but in today's society, this book is not all that enlightening. thank you for your time (and dealing with my awful spelling)
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable and enlightening
Review: I will start by noting that on the purely personal level, it matters not a whit to me if the Bible (or, more accurately, the Old Testament, which is what's under consideration here) is an historically accurate account or not. If it is, it is; if it's not, it not. Neither way makes any difference in my spiritual, moral, and ethical convictions. However, as someone interested in history, I am interested in what, if anything, the Bible can tell us about the people and world of its time - that is, how much of an historical source it can be. The more reliable it is, the more we can know. Unfortunately, as Finkelstein and Silberman show in these pages, modern archaeology is showing that the answer to the question of how much the Bible can tell us is "Not much." Traditional Biblical archaeology was devoted to "proving" the Bible. The assumption, that is, is that the Bible was correct so the archaeological evidence had to match, somehow. Finkelstein and Silberman do it the other way around: They look at the evidence to see what it says and then see how the Bible compares to that. And in a number of ways, the Biblical story simply does not even come close to matching the evidence. The book is well-researched and for the most part well-written. (I did find I had to read some parts of their proposed new chronology more than once to be sure of what they were saying.) I would agree with other reviewers who have noted that the thesis presented here is not universally accepted; however, I would add that the issue is by and large no longer one of "Is the Bible historically accurate?" - it's not - but rather "How much historical information can be extracted from the Bible?" since even folk tales and oral histories can provide important clues for archaeologists. That is a position even William Dever (who a number of reviewers have cited as in opposition to Finkelstein/Silberman) would accept, as he, too, agrees that significant portions of the Bible are later-redacted myths. Finally, a note for those who continue to try to dismiss modern scholarship and cling to an unerring Bible by flinging around that latter-day cliche "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." You're right, it's not. But absence of evidence *where*there*should*be*evidence* is. And that's the place we're at now. I highly recommend this book.
| 
