Rating: 
Summary: What about E?
Review: Finkelstein's and Silberman's thesis that the Patriarchal and Exodus traditions were commited to writing during the reign of Josiah is embarassed by the E document that conntains Patriarchal and Exodus traditions and yet was written no later than the 8th century. Their argument would have been more persuasive had they distinguished J and E since a dating to the reign of Josiah could only apply to J. Consequently, their argument as it stands is flawed if not confused. ... I have found the book to be very informative reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Why Yet Another Review?
Review: Why yet another review of this book?After 50 plus reviews, why yet another? The answer is that I don't really think that previous reviews have described what _The Bible Unearthed_ is about. There are appraisals and arguments for and against the authors and there are a few reviews which seek to promote someone like David Rohl. Finkelstein and Silberman acknowledge that their book was conceived in the early 1990's when the battle over the historical reliability of the Bible began to attract considerable attention outside scholarly circles. (One may recall the works of Thompson and Van Seters from the 1970's.) What F&S had in mind was a presen-tation of the archaeological and historical evidence for a "new understanding" of
ancient Israel. So F&S find that there were no Patriarchs. There was no Exodus. Jerusalem existed in the 10th century BCE, but it was not the center of a United Monarchy. Israel easily lead Judah until the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in the 8th cenury BCE. Then Jerusalem had its population swell and Hezekiah sought to throw off the ssyrian yoke. The "history" of the Hebrew Bible originates from the time of Josiah. Other traditions are gathered. The DtrH needs to be revised due to the death of Josiah. Are F&S fair enough? If one listens to the like of William Dever, one would probably say that F&S are "revisionists." But what do other scholars say? For a long time, the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the Primieval History, have been generally accepted as other than history. John Walton's _Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context_ points out that there is no parallel to the family memiors of the Patriarchal Narratives. James Hoffmeier's _Israel in Egypt_ fights a rear guard action for the historicity of the Exodus. It could have happened, but if anything happened, it did not look like what the Bible describes. So where's the history? William Dever himself wrote against the conquest account found in Joshua and Judges. Most of the destruction sites mentioned as they have been identified were not the result of a blitzkrieg or even an extended invasion. Few scholars believe in a conquest of any sorts any more. F&S do not deny the existence of a 10th century Jerusalem. In fact they are willing to accept that the Tel Dan inscription mentions a Judahite leader. But they are not willing to concede that the Golden Age of David/Solomon existed. F&S can point to the topography of the Bible as belonging to the Saite Period and so ask for a later date for the Bible.They can point to Livy's history of early Rome in order to show that history and legend were intermixed in ancient "histories." On the other hand, how do they account for the settlement pattern of the four-chambered house in the 10th century? Does this indicate a common culture between Israel and Judah and so a united monarchy at some time? Or how do F&S account for the difference in identity between the various Assyrian inscriptions and the Merneptah Stela? The debate goes on.
Rating: 
Summary: Useful, readable tutorial on the evidence
Review: Finkelstein and Silberman are able tour guides through a long list of archaeological sites bearing on what took place in biblical lands in ancient times. Their commentary is up to the minute, their narrative sufficiently orderly to help keep straight (for me, for the first time) the succession of Middle Eastern potentates who impacted Israel's fortunes, as well as the succession of fashionable theories over the last century within the discipline of biblical archaeology. Aside from their general clarity, what I liked best was their clarity in distinguishing the facts (pottery style X found in layer Y of site C) from the generally accepted interpretations, and from their own interpretations. I liked that, because these excellent tour guides are carrying a certain amount of their own baggage, much of which I found myself taking exception to. They are not minimalists: They accept the historicity of the Davidic monarchy, they reject the often voiced view that the Hebrew Bible was mostly composed after the Babylonian exile, and they are open to the view that much of the Pentateuch draws on early iron age traditions. Nor, certainly, are they maximalists: they regard the Exodus story as purely legendary, and their central original thesis is that although there was a Davidic monarchy in Judah, there never was a "united kingdom". They believe David and Solomon ruled only over Judah, and had no influence over the more prosperous and advanced northern kingdom of Israel. I found a number of their arguments persuasive: for a distinct Isrealite culture in the northern highlands, dating from the early Iron Age (based on the absence of pig bones there); for a time of composition of the Deuteronomic History (the books from Joshua through II Kings) during or shortly after the time of Judah's King Josiah in the late seventh century, after Assyria destroyed the Northern Kingdom; and against the view that Judah in the time of David enjoyed significant military or economic power. On the other hand, their leap from "the north was more materially advanced than Judah" to "Judah could never have exercised political control over the north" seems unjustified; a charismatic leader doesn't need opulence to command allegiance - and in small societies, his plain living can even add to his authority. If the book has an agenda, it is certainly not debunking the Bible. Perhaps there is a political agenda of a more narrowly Israeli kind: if there never was a "united kingdom" before Josiah, there never was an "aretz Israel", from which it would follow that there would be no religious betrayal involved in a treaty ceding the West Bank back to the Palestinians. But whatever their motives, F&S present their case straightforwardly, clearly, and concisely, and along the way they dish out what is, for such a short book, a surprising quantity of hard information that will be useful to anyone interested in the issues they raise, from maximalists to minimalists to those of us in the middle.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Book for an Open Mind
Review: This attractive book contains 12 chapters in three parts, an epilogue, 7 appendixes, a bibliography, an index of names and places, besides the traditional prologue and introduction. Owners of refined prose, the authors take the reader carefully by the hand and guide him in a fascinating adventure through the world of ancient Israel. In the last years the archaeological controversy on the biblical subject grew a lot, besides with personal accusations of political motivations, involving the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinian. Was there an Exodus? Did a conquest of Canaan exist? Did David and Solomon rule over a great empire? Questions like these have attracted journalists, arrived to the great public and created polemic theological debates, resulting even in discussions about the religious faith of this or of that scholar. To Finkelstein & Silberman this imposed the need of the writing of this book. The authors' proposal: to do a reassessment of the discoveries of the oldest excavations and of the continuous discoveries done by the new archaeological excavations in Palestine, which make clear that the scholars now should approach the problems of the biblical origins and of the ancient Israelite society of a new perspective, completely different from the previous and to reconstruct a history of ancient Israel very different from the habitual ones. Which is the central thesis of Finkelstein & Silberman? The authors propose that the world where the Bible was born was that of Jerusalem of King Josiah Reform in the seventh century BCE. For Finkelstein & Silberman the archaeology offers today enough evidence to support this new proposal. A proposal that says to have been the historical core of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History shaped in the seventh century BCE, in defense of the ideology and needs of the kingdom of Judah, providing validation for particular political ambitions and religious reforms. This doesn't imply, for the authors, that ancient Israel had no genuine history, nor that the biblical narratives should be discarded, but that, assisted by archaeological finds and by the extrabiblical records, "we will see how the biblical narratives are themselves part of the story, not the unquestioned historical framework into which every particular find or conclusion must fit" (p. 23).
The Bible is, in this perspective, a characteristic artifact that, together with the pottery, the architecture and the inscriptions, helps us to understand the society in which it was produced.
I commend this book as safe guide for all that want to be informed on the current researches of the History of Israel. The book is today a bestseller!
Rating: 
Summary: A very focused book
Review: This is a good book showing why historically and through archaeology, a late date for the Exodus (anywhere from the 14th to 11th centuries BCE) would be impossible. Unfortunately, the authors do not even consider an earlier date for the Exodus. To receive a balanced look at all the possibilities, and a more equitable treatment of a wider range of archaeological finds, check first
with William Stiebing's book, "Out Of The Desert?" This book came out quite some time ago, but much of the information is still current. Even though Stiebing himself is of the opinion the Exodus did not happen, a careful study of the archaeological finds presented shows the Exodus could have happened in the 15th century BCE, exactly where the Bible places it. (For those who think the Egyptian New Kingdom in the 15th century BCE was too powerful for an Exodus to take place, get a hold of Robert Drews outstanding book "The End Of The Bronze Age.")
Rating:
Summary: Good, but at times too cautious and biased.
Review: This book provides a thorough, but highly readable, survey of what modern archaeology now knows about ancient Israel, and how that agrees/disagrees with the OT Bible viewed as an historical document. Needless to say, the Bible (at least as history) does not look too good in the full light of modern science and archaeology. There are a few things about this book that are a bit annoying, however: 1) The authors are too cautious at times and tiptoe through material that should simply be stated for what it plainly is. I can only assume this is because they do not want to offend readers coming from a very religious background. 2) This book is also often biased, viewing history and monotheism from a strictly Jewish/Judeo-Christian perspective that completely disregards the important contributions, history, and viewpoints of other cultures. I don't know if this is unintentional and merely due to ignorance, but I found two examples to be so egregious that I felt the need to point them out here: On page 316 the authors state:
"... Mesopotamian and Persian religious epics offered cosmic secrets but neither earthly history nor a practical guide to life." This is simply untrue. The Gathas of Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) tell the story of the Prophet as he tries to lead his society to a more peaceful and progressive existence, and these "songs" contain moral and ethical principles that easily rival anything that can be found in the OT... and they pre-date the OT by a number of years. And on page 2:
"Henceforth, Jerusalem's Temple,... would be recognized as the only legitimate place of worship... In that innovation, modern monotheism would be born." This appears to be qualified somehow by a note on the same page, and it isn't entirely clear what the authors really meant here. However, the statement as written is wrong. From all the evidence available now, it is more likely that "modern monotheism" started in the lands of ancient Persia with the Prophet Zarathustra. It is also interesting to note that there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that Jewish religious thought was possibly altered following contact with Zarathustrian monotheism during and following the exile (when most of the OT was written and/or redacted), something the authors do not address at all in this book. Despite the minor problems though, this is a book that I would certainly recommend.
Rating:
Summary: Revealing
Review: Over all I found this book enlighting. The only problem I had with the book was the appendixs'. I think the authors should have just included this information in the chapters so as to keep the reader from flipping back and forth. An excellent book for the novice or expert.
Rating:
Summary: Unearthing inconsistencies...
Review: An interesting and compelling read, well researched and relatively accessible to the layman. Did the events of the Christian Bible unfold as told in its pages? Did the Exodus from Israel ever take place? Who were the Israelites and where did they come from? The questions and others are answered in terms of the archaeological record and how it ultimately refutes the timeline offered in the Bible. Was the Bible penned as a rallying point, a sense of identity for an historically dispossessed group of people? Was it penned at a time when a group of people needed something to believe in, something to justify and validate their actions? It seems likely, at least and presented in this book. At pivotal times in history, certain texts have become the clarion call to power for a group to unify, to claim its place in the greatness of the flow of time. Mein Kampf, The Koran and The Bible are just a few examples. Interesting read for both arcaheological types (like myself) as well as sceptics and questioners of all kinds. Of course, those who take the Bible as canon would definitely not agree with me. But then, I'm not prone to absolutism or one interpretation of a situation. I found it enjoyable and educational and would recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but hyper critical
Review: Finkelstein pursues odd logical processes. His 'there was no exodus' stems merely from lack of evidence of a migration of millions or hundreds of thousands. Surely, in the light of texts describing Habiru fleeing Egypt into Sinai, this does not exclude the possibility of some kind of Exodus or Exodi? Indeed, some of the more persuasive pieces of evidence in favour of some kind of Exodus is a) why invent a servile origin and b) the ancient Egyptians themselves did not deny an Exodus: Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE simply describes it as an expulsion of lepers, rather than a divine act of liberation. However, one suspects that Finkelstein's interpretations suffer from a common ailment of modern Syro-Palestinian archaeology: over-specialization. Albright and his school made many errors of methodology, but they had at least one redeeming feature: they were formidable philological and historiographical polymaths who could spot cross cultural and traditional connections and continuities across the ancient Levant. One of the most tiresome features of Finkelstein's book is the inordinate space he gives to paraphrasing the Hebrew tradition, along with his assumptions and prejudices as to what it 'means', at the start of each chapter, and then debunking it in the rest. A more normal history would note convergences and divergences between texts and artifacts in a continuous narrative: the book seems to be consciously written as an exercise in debunking. He adduces the city-states of Bronze Age Canaan, as revealed in the Tel Amarna letters, to show the impossibility of a Hebrew invasion-infiltration. But the letters portray an insecure region, with cities attacked by outsiders (including Habiru) as well as each other. Finkelstein says that Egyptian rule would have been too strong for a Hebrew invasion/infiltration to succeed, despite it being precisely Egypt's lack of power in Canaan that the letters portray. On the one hand, he attests that nomads' or semi-nomads' settling down is a demonstrable feature of 'Palestinian' ancient history; on the other hand, he seems to exclude the possibility that the last, longest and greatest of these, at the end of the 13th century BCE, can be identified with 'Israel', or proto-Israel. He argues that there could never have been a united kingdom given that Judah was much less populated than northern Israel in the early Iron Age. But the bible never pretends otherwise -Judah was merely one of 12 tribes. Finkelstein doubts the extended kingdom of David and Solomon, and few scholars would dispute that the Hebrew tradition is a typically Near Eastern text in its exaggerations and embellishments. But Alexander conquered a vast area, establishing a Hellenistic empire that lasted for centuries, with comparatively few men, disciplined, armed and motivated. David and Solomon's kingdom, as recorded in the bible, was far smaller, even allowing for exaggerations, and lasted only a fraction of the time. In the 18th century, a Palestinian sheik established a sheikdom, comprising northern Palestine and southern Lebanon, with weapons not that different from David, independent of the Sublime Porte, that, like the united monarchy, lasted mere decades. Again, Finkelstein seems to have overspecialized: he cannot see parallel events or models outside his own narrow field. This is evinced by his recent pooh-poohing of Adam Zertal's attributing an 'Israelite' city to Sea Peoples from Sardinia. More interestingly, Finkelstein down-dates remains, specifically the gate cities of Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer et al. from the 10th to the 9th century, attributing them not to Solomon, but to Omri or his successors. He has much to recommend this, including radiocarbon dating. Interestingly, this down dating corresponds with David Rohl's attributing of these remains to post Solomonic Israel. Rohl has argued for decades that David and Solomon are late Bronze, not early Iron-age kings, and that remains conventionally dated late Canaanite should be reclassified as early Israelite. This, of course, chimes with recent scholarship that sees a large Canaanite component to ancient Israel. It is a shame that Finkelstein should have claimed the disappearance of much of ancient Israel. But one suspects that what has obscured it is Finkelstein's own narrow methodology. He dismisses the possibility of significant 10th century remains, despite the fact that most must be inaccessible beneath the temple mount. Moreover,'monumental' remains exist, according to the conventional chronology, in the eleventh century, excluding their being tenth century Solomonic on a technicality, as though the conventional chronology is 'set in stone'. On the contrary this was the consequence of 19th Victorians, 'spade in one hand, Bible in the other'. If a monumental Jerusalem exists close to the conventional 'Solomonic' period, it seems legitimate to me to ask, 'Is the conventional chronology correct?'. A not undistinguished cadre of historians and archeologists maintain the chronology of the entire eastern Mediterranean needs revision. This thesis, promulgated, most famously, perhaps, in 'Centuries of Darkness', sees the Third Intermediate Period of Egyptian chronology as over extended by several hundred years. The consequence of this thesis, tentatively approved by no less than Colin Renfrew, perhaps the most distinguished British archeologist of the late 20th century, is that ancient Israel needs be sought, not in early Iron age 1, where the evidence is scant, but middle and late Bronze ages, where it is plentiful. Such a conclusion could only have been reached through interdisciplinary dialogue between different fields, a dialogue, between archaeology and philology that William G. Dever strongly advocates. Alas, with such over-specialization as, I think, characterizes Finkelstein, such dialogue is becoming increasingly unlikely: the tendency in modern historiography and scholarship is to 'know more and more about less and less'. The consequence is 'non-histories about non-events', with works such as this begging more questions than answering them. The truth is, the Hebrew account remains the oldest indigenous attempt at 'history' by ancient 'Palestinians' in ancient 'Palestine' in an ancient 'Palestinian' dialect. The fact is, the Biblical authors knew of such things as fortified cities in Hatzor, Megiddo and Gezer and, lo and behold, we find them. They are, as such, unique witnesses, not to be discarded lightly.
Rating:
Summary: An Interesting Book in the Archaeology/Bible Debate
Review: The archaeologists Isreal Finklestein and Neil Asher Siblerman have presented a wonderful and readable synthesis of recent archeological exploration in the lands of the Hebrew Bible in The Bible Unearthed (Archaeololgy's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts). Instead of looking at archaeology as a way to provide evidence to the stories of the Bible, they have looked at the archaeological evidence alone for what it can say about what was happening at the time and then compared that to the stores contained within the bible. Their conclusions turn the Bible away from being a book of true history into a being a political creation and a well-crafted book of mythmaking for the state of Judah as it grew and consolidated its power. The tale is fascinating and they do give much room to the other dissenting opinions, of which there are many. At times, the repetition of pounding their themes home can be a bit much but, overall, it is an interesting read and a good place to start to look at the fascinating world of Biblical archaeology. A good read.
| 
