Rating: 
Summary: An interesting, but biased view
Review: This book is a well-presented view of the minimalist archaeological philosophy, one held by a minority of archeologists. However, the author presents the book as revealing the current accepted archaeological theories. ...This book presents a very interesting argument, but it is important to keep in mind that this is one theory, and not the most accepted theory. It would be simpler to either accept the bible in its entirety or to reject it out of hand. However, the truth is somewhere in between. Read the book, but also read your bible and think for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: A Real Eyeopener
Review: The Bible Unearthed is a good general interest survey of recent archaeological discoveries and theories in the Middle East. Its quite intriguing because it reveals that most of what we have traditionally considered the true history of the region, as revealed in the Old Testament, is inaccurate. Among the revelations: the Exodus from Egypt did not take place under Ramses II, or indeed at any other time so far as the historical record shows; the unified kingdom of David and Solomon never existed; and the monotheistic Hebrew religion developed slowly over a period of centuries.Apparently, much of the Biblical history we accepted for years was written during the reign of King Josiah of Judah in an effort to unify and inspire the Hebrews as they faced overwhelming enemies. Should this destroy anyone's religious faith? Not according to the authors, who rightfully point out that the essential teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not depend on whether every single word in every single book of the Old Testament is absolutely accurate. Instead, read and enjoy this book in the recognition that the Bible's greater truths are as inspirational as they ever were.
Rating: 
Summary: An unbalanced unearthing
Review: Although Finkelstein and Silberman provide a great deal of interesting archaeological evidence, they align themselves with a "school" called the "revisionists" who tend to see Hebrew history with a jaundiced eye. For a more balanced viewpoint, see William Dever's "What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It?" Dever writes from some thirty years' archaeological experience and as a "secular humanist", who still sees archaeological "convergences" with biblical history. Though Dever sees biblical history as starting only with the book of Judges, he is able to trace the Canaanite origins of the Hebrews and their daily life through the divided monarchy.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and readable
Review: Is what is said in the old testament true? For a long time the account given in the bible of the history of Israel was thought to be reasonably accurate. However after years of looking the archeology of the middle east it appears that this might not be the case. The bible suggests that Abraham from the city of Ur was the father of the Jewish people. His decendents moved for a while to Egypt and multiplied to the number of 600,000. They escaped from slavery there, wandered around Sinai and then conquered Canaan. A great kingdom was established under David and that later split into two kingdoms because of the failure of David's successors to follow the word of God. The consensus of modern scholars is that this account is probably rather than being literally true, was in fact a legend written in the kindom of Juda around 630 650BCE. The reasons for this are explained in this book. The early account of the book of Abraham seems to be written much later. It refers to the use of camels, where as they were domesticated later. The travel occurs mentioning cities which would not have existed at the time. The examination of settlement in the area also suggests that the people of Israel instead of coming from there, were simply always there. The account of the captivity in Egypt also appears wrong. There is no existing Egyptian material to suggest that the events of the Exodus occured. There is no mention of of the loss of an army, the mass movement of a population of 500,000 and so on. In addition there is no record of the movement of such a number in Sinai. Again the account seems to refer to Egyptian cities which were constructed hundreds of years after the supposed event. The conquest of Israel by Joshua also seems idealised. The account refers to the siege of cities such as Jericho when through the help of God mighty walls are brought tumbeling down. An examination of these sites suggest that the cities referred to in the bible at the time the conquest is meant to have occured had no walls, and were very small towns. It would also appear that there is only one suggestion that the Davidic empire ever existed. In 1993 a broken enscription was found celebrating a victory over the desendents of the house of David at Dan. Again careful examination of the archeology of the period shows that the Davidic kingdom as described in the bible could not have existed. Judah at the time the empire was meant to exist was a backwater. Jerusalem the supposed capital of this mighty empire would have had a population of around 1,500 and was a small hamlet. There is no existing material that has survied from the period. No examples of the construction of cities of historical records of anything. Thus the Davidic kingdom is at best a tribal legend. The book is not only very interesting but is a great read. It is a huge challenge to some but as the authors conclude. The fact that the bible was probably written as a political document in the late period of the kindom of Judah does not diminsh its importance as a religous document. In a way it shows the depth of the achievment. This book however does pose a challenge for biblical literalists.
Rating:
Summary: Not free of bias
Review: The presentation of the archeological findings relative to places, dates, and people of the bible stories is excellent, but the opinions of the authors regarding the significance of findings is as biased against the bible as perhaps one might find against archeological conclusions from the religious side. For example the authors selectively present archeological evidence to support their viewpoint and ignore evidence which does not. They conclude from archeological evidence that the bible was written in the 7th century because there is little archeological evidence the people before this time followed a specific YHWH doctrine and the portrayal of leaders before this time did not match archeological evidence. They discount the fact that settlements of Israelites before 1000BC was void of pig bones. If you ask anyone in the world today to identify the people of the world who do not eat pig, there are very few who would not identify them with being Jewish. What other society in the history of the world excluded one animal from the diet for centuries which was not revered as a god (Muslims, of course, got their ideas regarding pig from Judaism)? How is this explained if they did not have a bible of some sort to guide them. In addition, what other archeological evidence for a people following the dictates of the bible would leave archeological evidence?
The authors also conclude that since the depiction of the pre-Josiah Kings in the bible supposedly differed from their depiction in the bible, therefore, the bible is incorrect. However, the bible and archeology were not that different regarding facts, they differred in type of information. The bible stories depicted some of these leaders as evil idolators, and archeology depicts some as as strong and economicaly succesful monarchs. What is so unusual about evil but economically succesful societies and monarchs, and certainly these are not exclusive or necesarrily different charactereistics. The opposite was also true. The bible seemed to exalt and make more powerful or significant or succesful some leaders while archeological evidence suggested they were economically weak. Again this is not necesarily a difference of facts, just a difference in the meaning of "success".
Most importantly, however, the authors give no explanation for the remarkable accuracy of the bible in identifying places, dates and leaders which existed 500 years or more before the date they conclude the bible was written. They also conclude that the people were not literate before this time, so how did they keep this enormous body of knowledge if not written. Also, the authors strongest arguments were negative rather then positive. That is, almost all of the authors arguments against the information provided in the bible was they it has not (yet) found in the artifacts. Very few of any of the found artifacts disputed the bible. So on the one hand the bible is chock full of positive evidence as it names places, dates, people which it could not have known except from a historical record (e.g. an ancient bible, before 7th century), and on the other hand we have the fact that many things written in the bible have not yet been found by archeologists. Why doesn't this impressive positive evidence override the negative evidence? It would in every other science I am familiar with.
There is no doubt that "success" in the terms of the bible mean something different from sucess represented in archeological finds (afterall the great builders of buildings were not usually the great builders of ethics and morality and justice), but this is not evidence that the bible was wrong or that it was written in the 7th century.
I was amazed at how much the bible got right, at how much the bible knew about places, dates and people which existed 500 years or more before the time the authors concluded it was written. There is no doubt that the bible may have gotten some things wrong, but the authors provide no information on how they got right as much as it did.
Rating:
Summary: Knowledge vs. "faith"
Review: This book is for anyone pursuing objective knowledge of ancient history, i.e., history not shrouded by religious, mythological or mystic prejudices. Although there may be disagreement among archeologists regarding the authors' conclusions, that condition does not materially detract from the contribution of this book. Disagreements among objective scholars occurs in all fields of study. The book not only provides evidence that momumental stories in the Bible are not creditable, but also provides fascinating details on the mundane life of ancient people. Even though it is self-evident that many if not most of these stories are humongous tales, such as the origin of the Israelite tribes, it is nevertheless beneficial to know why some of these stories were written and included in the Bible. The book is deemed a valuable contribution to the pursuit of knowledge of the past.
Rating:
Summary: Modern Archaeology Opens New Vistas on the Ancient World
Review: The fundamental thesis of this book is that modern archaeology demonstrates that the remains uncovered to date in the holy land suggest a much less developed world in early Iron Age Canaan than the biblical tales would indicate. What follows from this is that the supposition that the biblical tales of David and Solomon's unified Israelite kingdom may no longer be reliable and more, that the actual post Bronze Age flowering of culture in the area didn't take place until the development of the kingdom of Israel in the northern hills, contrary to the report in the Bible which tells us that the northern kingdom was the residual portion of a mighty empire, a breakaway tribal state established after the death of Solomon. What does this mean for our understanding of biblical history? Simply put, that the Bible would have been a product of a very different set of developments than the history it reports and thus its historical veracity is questionable at best. If Israel in the north was really the first kingdom, then whence came Judah, the state ruled by the so-called Davidic kings? According to the authors, Judah came later, as indicated in the archaeological record of the area, and only reached its height after the destruction of Israel, its more sophisticated and powerful northern neighbor, had been utterly destroyed by the Assyrian juggernaut. Refugees from the more cosmopolitan, and somewhat pagan, Israel fled into the wild and more inaccessible, and less resource-rich, hills of Judah and this infusion of more cultured people of a similar ethnic heritage led to an abrupt flowering of the Judahite land. In this context, with Judah suddenly experiencing a surge in its population and seeking to assert itself in the region, the newly combined population group, reflecting the rich skills of the new immigrants and their natural interest in the land they left behind, devised for itself a common history, including a legendary unified kingdom under the Davidic kings of Judah to justify a policy of expansion into the more or less abandoned lands of ancient Israel. This, in a nutshell, is the thesis of this book and from it the authors explore the implications for the entire biblical narrative. They weave a convincing tale although much depends on current and future finds in the archaeological tels of modern Israel and Palestine. If you hold the Bible to be absolute truth, then this book will not please you. But if you have an open mind and are interested in the possibilities, wherever they lead, and you're fascinated by biblical issues and tales, then this book is for you. -- SWM
Rating:
Summary: How far can a presumption be exaggerated?
Review: I'm not quite sure how a biblical archeologist can start off any worse than to deny that Abraham's stories are true, claim the exodus never happened, and that Joshua's conquests are myths. I particularly thought it quite interesting to note that his reasons included that the Bible wasn't written until the time of Josiah and the cities mentioned did not exist at the time of the exodus. How absurd. Most people are aware of the fact that the Bible didn't take on its final form until later so why would anyone think they would use ancient names for cities that have been renamed when most of the uneducated populous at that time it was written wouldn't have any idea where they were referring to. That is hardly proof. What amazed me was that his use of the names of the cities were a major portion of his proof for redating the entire chronology of the patriarchs and the exodus. One of his "problems" with the current belief system is that people take the Bible as fact but then would use wording from Herodotus? This is the same person that has been called, "the father of lies." The only thing I thought that was worthwhile was his exposition on the late period of Hebraic history.
If you want to read something more scholarly, with better presumptions (IMO), I suggest David Rohl or even Immanuel Velikovsky. Leave this one to be sold at one of those book clearance sales.
Rating:
Summary: Bible Bashing at its Best!
Review: As many reviewers have already mentioned, Finkelstein and Siberman are up-standing scientists from respected universities. Their theories relating to the stories of the bible will no doubt commence a chain reaction of hand-waving from the Judeo-Christian fundamentalist community that will last for quite a while. I am confident that at this very moment there are those from the above-mentioned camps that are enlisting archaelogists and writers sympathetic to their cause, feverishly tapping away at their keyboards to formulate a cohesive rebuttal to the "destructive" force that is the "Bible Unearthed". Some of the theories contained within this volume are indeed very bold, however the arguments are well researched and are backed up with large amounts of physical evidence. Finkelstein is an archaelogist with years of experience under his belt including extensive excavations in the middle-east. From the very beginning I was curious and enticed as to the subject matter to be covered. Although the book spans 12 chapters covering material from the patriarchs right up to the exile and return of the israelites in 440 BCE, I found the most interesting chapters (which unfortunately happened to be the shortest) were the first five relating to the Patriarchs, Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan. Upon my first reading, I found the authors' arguments pertaining to the above-mentioned topics very convincing. In particular I found Finkelstein's fountain of archaeolgical knowledge extremely impressive. With regards to the Exodus, the reader is simply amazed at the complete lack of evidence that exists for the wanderings of the Israelites. However the attack on the Bible's veracity doesn't end their. Joshua's conquest of Canaan is also discredited by archaelogical evidence which points to the fact that some of the cities that were supposedly destroyed did not even exist or were insiginificantly small at the time that Joshua suposedly lived. Finkelstein and Silberman continue their analysis up to the Davidic and Solomonic period whereby they cast doubt on the size and power of the united monarchy. Although I found this book to be a gem and I am in agreement with the authors' findings in most areas, I can't help but be a tad bit skeptical. Specifically I refer to the fact that there are still quite a large number of scholars in the fields of archaeology and biblical scholarship that are convinced that the Bible is an authentic historical document. These scholars are referred to as "maximalists". In some cases, the maximalists accuse scientists such as Finkelstein and Silberman of re-writing history. The camp that Finkelstein and Silberman belong to are called "minamalists". I wasn't even aware of this terminology nor of the fierce debate that is alive and well amongst scholars over biblical arcaeology until I read James Hoffmeier's book: _Israel in Egypt_. This book opened my eyes to the fact that no scholar can claim to be certain about events that occured in the biblical period. I personally believe that there is far too much speculation prominent from both the maximalist and minimalist camps. I would therefore recommend that interested readers examine both sides of the story before making any concrete decisions about the historicity or lack thereof of the Bible and its stories.
Rating:
Summary: Well written, well documented, very interesting
Review: They bend over backwards to be even-handed here, and perhaps we will have to wait another generation to be sure of the conclusions they draw, but it is convincing. The conclusions may be difficult for many to swallow. The authors seem to be aware of this and thus make a gradual progression through the physical evidence and alternative theories. This may make it slow at times, but it's a necessary slowness, and fills in a lot of important details.
|
