Rating: 
Summary: Biting the Dust
Review: Having read, some time ago, the competing theories on the authenticity of the Gospels, I was aware that - at least in academic circles - there was a lively debate over the authenticity of some of the First Century narrative in the New Testament. For some naive reason, however, I imagined there to be a higher degree of consensus over the Old Testament - at least from Exodus onwards. Imagine the shock when, within minutes of reading the introduction, I learn not only that there are disputes over the Jericho legends, but that the Moses story has been all but written off in the archeological community! As Silberman and Finklestein explain, the Old Testament was written MUCH later than originally thought, and much of it is infused with the internecine tensions between the Judean and Israelite peoples. Their thesis - which, they assure us, represents mainstream academic thought - will be a a startling revelation to most readers, and itself is worth the price of purchase. Inevitably, however, once you get "digging" into the details there is a lot of archeologist-speak, which slows down the game from time to time. Still, an intriguing work.
Rating:
Summary: Israel Finkelstein is doing something different...
Review: Although I do not agree with all of Dr. Finkelstein's assumptions, especially his low chronology, he should be commended for writing such a book. Never before has a book about biblical archaeology been so popular. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a general knowledge of archaeology in Israel and Syria.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't bother
Review: I am SO glad I checked this one out from the library before buying it. The authors are by no means researchers. The jump to conclusions prematurely. I was amazed it was printed before someone told these two that they need to do more research. There are better books out there...find one!
Rating:
Summary: Truth or fiction?
Review: F. & S. have all the credentials and scientific credibility one could ask for, especially Finkelstein is a specialist on MeggidoÕs archaeology. All the excavation data are correct and up to date, these people know what they are talking about. And yet there is a distinct possibility that they got it wrong whenever their dating depends on EgyptÕs regal data, because it possibly places evidence in the wrong context (see my review on RohlÕs ÒPharaohs and KingsÓ). What exactly is the issue here? Well, apart from questions of chronology (1), we need to grasp what ÒanachronismsÓ seem to indicate (2), and find an answer to the question of who had written the biblical texts, why, and when (3)? Unlike F. & S. I consider the bulk of the Old Testament as an exile and post-exile production. (1) The question of chronology: David Rohl, who incidentally refers to FinkelsteinÕs excavation results as one of his primary sources, proffers an excellent argument for redating the findings as far as they depend on EgyptÕs regal data. Such adjustment would push the Tell el-Amarna letters up from 1352-1327 BC. to ca. 1010-970 BC. (the Merentptah stele moves from 1208 BC. to 862 BC.), while JoshuaÕs conquest would become an event sometime in MB IIB (ca. 1490-1410 BC.), when the archaeological signatures of destruction on the Palestinian map correspond well with the biblical campaign track of JoshuaÕs conquest. Without such adjustment, the book Joshua appears to be sheer fiction. The archaeological evidence for the traditional date of conquest (1220-1230 BC.) reveals scarcely populated hillsides and impoverished small towns without walls in EgyptÕs backyard; this is hardly the mighty confederacy of Palestinian city-states we remember from the text. If redated, the Tell el-Amarna letters could become the most important extra biblical resource for the Palestinian situation at the time of Saul, David, and Solomon, and confirm the archaeological findings of a Hebraic principality under Egyptian influence (2 Chron. 8:11 and 1 King 9:16). Seen from a Judaic perspective, the new Hebraic kingdom might have looked impressive enough, but its archaeological remains apparently cannot compare to the achievements of OmriÕs dynasty after the breakup. (That is, if RohlÕs dating for Solomon in late Meggido VIII has to be rejected on grounds of missing evidence for contemporaneous pottery.) In fact the Davidic bias of the biblical historian in 1 Kings 9:15 may have falsely attributed to Solomon many building projects of the northern Kingdom. So F. & S.Õs attribution of Meggido IV, Gezer and Hazor to OmriÕs dynasty would remain intact as far as these data do not depend on EgyptÕs regal chronology. (2) Anachronisms: F. & S. make a big production of anachronisms, but we have to be careful: the camels in the JosephÕs novel (Gen. 37:25) are honest mistakes of a late narrator who simply doesnÕt know any better. Still this doesnÕt tell us anything either way about the veracity of JosephÕs story. SolomonÕs building sites (1 Kings 9:15) might be a fantasy of the biblical historianÕs patriotic fervor, but the geographic and demographic anachronisms in Joshua, are deliberate presentations in such terms as were current at the time of the bookÕs composition. If I told you that after 876 the Vikings had built a stronghold at Eburacum, the expression on your face will probably turn politely bland. If I tell you that the Vikings had fortified York in the North of England, everything becomes clear for the modern reader, despite the fact that neither England as a state nor ÒYorkÓ as the name of that settlement had existed at the time. Anachronisms can be informative rather than misleading. (3) Date and authorship of the texts: F. & S. try to establish an intellectually vibrant southern Kingdom. I wonder. Where do we see an opposition, educated enough, that it required convincing? JudahÕs elite of literati had barely enough card carrying members to fill a modern schoolyard and was certainly not in a habit to care much for illiterate pastoralists and peasants. Besides, of all the fundamentalist reform movements I am aware of, none strikes me as particularly creative. Except for a common iconoclastic fervor (in biblical times the continued whining about Òhigh placesÓ) and libels against opposition (thatÕs where all those ÒprophetsÓ come in) such movements appear to be rather stagnant when it comes to their basic manifestos. Besides, apart from the political threat across the borders, there was nobody around to challenge the Yahweh-cult intellectually. So except for the occasional Òtold you soÓ there simply was no need to explain or defend the cult. But forced exile opened a whole new ball game. The Hebrews had lost statehood and now their nationhood was under siege. This is a strong motive to redefine oneÕs own identity. Literacy increased and with it the spirit of debate and enquiry. From the old days, they had brought with them Judges, Amos, Hosea, the older Isaiah, Jeremiah, the rest of the minor prophets, and perhaps one or another psalm plus personal memoirs and national epics now lost to us, such as Nu. 21:14 or 2 Kings 22:8. So the rest of the Old Testament is exile and post-exile. But unlike the hodgepodge of Judges, the exilic authors thoroughly edited and redesigned their sources in a ÒmodernizedÓ prose, in order to address the needs of a specific audience. Apart from the cult, Moses couldnÕt have meant a lot for JosiahÕs period, yet to people living in actual exile, Exodus and Deuteronomy provided blueprints to regain their statehood. Also notice the references between Ex. 32:25ff or Nu. 25:1-8 and Nehemiah 13:23 or Ezra 9:2,3; 10:3,9ff. The exile author who created the rousing memoir of JoshuaÕs campaign certainly did some research on his own. Who knows what hopes he had, or what use he anticipated for his work - not every expatriate expected a peaceful return. And this adds another dimension to the ÒanachronismsÓ mentioned above. A book full of good archaeology but sometimes shaky on interpretation.
Rating:
Summary: Coherent and compelling
Review: Hysterical fundamentalists notwithstanding, informed readers of the Hebrew Bible have for the past century recognized that many of its stories are exaggerations or outright fabrications. The documentary hypothesis which crystallized under Wellhausen has, overall, weathered many assaults (from both minimalist and maximalist sides!) and remains the "standard model" of favor among Pentateuchal scholars (i.e. the Pentateuch is a redacted composite created over a roughly 500 year period from ca. 900 BCE - 400 BCE). Albright's vision that archaeology would confirm the essential historicity of the Bible has evaporated with the realizations that (i) the patriarchal tales, which 50 years ago were viewed as reflective of a 2nd millenium BCE milieu, have since the work of van Seters and Thompson been reassessed and deemed to be of dubious historicity; (ii) there is nary a shred of extrabiblical evidence for the exodus; (iii) the conquest model presented in Joshua, which itself is irreconcilable with that of Judges 1, is impossible to square with the material record from Jericho and Ai and other sites; etc.Yet there also are undeniable material elements which support, if not confirm, many aspects to the biblical account. The Merneptah stele of ca. 1207 BCE mentions a people Israel. The Mesha stele refers to the Israelite king Omri (and possibly David); the Tel Dan stele very likely mentions the "House of David", and of course there are extensive Assyrian and Babylonian annals which mention many Israelite and Judahite kings and corroborate certain broad features of the history recounted in 1 and 2 Kings. In "The Bible Unearthed", Finkelstein and Silberman present a coherent and generally compelling model of Iron Age Palestine and the composition of Israel's epic history. While the authors are no match for Richard Friedman ("Who Wrote the Bible?") when it comes to making modern scholarship exciting and suspenseful, they have produced a useful and quite readable volume. The authors steer a middle course of sorts, though many will likely (and incorrectly) view them as minimalists. Finkelstein's reconstruction is based largely on an amalgamation of recent data from surveys of Samaria and the Judean hills. Such data afford, he claims, a broad view of settlement patterns in Palestine over a period of many thousands of years. Moreover, a proper understanding of settlement patterns in the highlands is more important than surveys of sites such as Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo, if one is to gain an understanding of Israelite origins. The book begins with chapters on the patriarchal tales, the exodus, and the conquest of Canaan. The authors have little to add to the consensus on the first two of these topics, and they concur that the biblical account is of dubious historicity. Their story gets more interesting and their contributions more original with the start of the Iron Age. Specifically, they claim: (1) The emergence of Israel was not a unique phenomenon in the history of ancient Palestine. Rather, it was the third in a series of settlement waves extending back to the early Bronze age. Furthermore, technological developments such as hewn cisterns and terraced landscapes were not Iron I innovations (pace Dever). (Remarkably, the incidence of pig bones in highland faunal assemblages dramatically is reduced during the Iron I settlement wave. Yet pig bones are found in the transjordanian Iron I sites.) (2) The first great Israelite kingdom was that of the Omrides, who surpassed anything ever achieved in Judah. Until the 7th c. BCE, Judah was a backwater and a weak sister to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. It was only with the destruction of Assyria in the late 7th century that Judah finally came into its own, during the celebrated reign of Josiah, the biblical description of which is still substantially inflated. David, while he probably existed (cf. Tel Dan stele), was little more than a regional chieftain presiding over a small 11th/10th c. village in Jerusalem. Finkelstein engages in a bit of patricide in downdating Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo from the 10th to the 9th century BCE, insisting that Yadin was misled by Solomon's biblical reputation as a builder. (3) The authors' model of Israelite origins is, despite their claims of uniqueness, rather similar to the "peaceful infiltration" model of Albrect Alt. It is, of course, much better contextualized by the extensive archaeological surveys and hence all the more compelling. I found the authors' forays into text criticism to be too often unrestrained and somewhat weak. They focus almost entirely on the Deuteronomistic History, ignoring some important data in early prophets such as Amos, Hosea, and Micah. (For example, the Deuteronomistic Historian(s) was/were not the first to focus on social justice, as one might conclude based on their book; Amos did it a century earlier.) This book would have been stronger had Finkelstein chosen as a coauthor a Bible scholar such as Alexander Rofe. Still, I enthusiastically recommend "The Bible Unearthed" as a strong introduction to the subject of archaeology and the Bible. As an introduction and a popular account, this book is understandably sketchy when it comes to details (though it is adequately referenced). For those interested in a readable but more complete and scholarly account of the fieldwork, see Finkelstein and Na'aman (eds.) "From Nomadism to Monarchy". Also recommended are Ahituv and Oren (eds.) "The Origin of Early Israel - Current Debate" and Silberman and Small (eds.) "The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present." William Dever's "Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research" also is a good read; I have not yet read Dever's new (2001) book, but it is on my list!
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent read on a difficult subject
Review: I thought the authors did an excellent job of presenting their research in a manner that made for an entertaining, yet enlightening, read. Most of the information they presented wasn't new, but they presented it in such a way so that you didn't have to be a scholar to understand it. Their major thesis makes much more sense than the Patriarchs, Exodus, trumpets and walls described in the bible. Archeology may eventually come up with different scenarios than what the authors described, but those scenarios will be based on science and not trying to justify theologically based works.
Rating: 
Summary: Digging for Dialectical Materialism
Review: This book fails as logical and historical reasoning. Contrary to their billing by the usual professional shills as "objective and scientific," at least one of the authors, Silberman, is a spin-meister whose recent book, "Digging for God and Country," is a political manifesto. I admit I've seen the hard evidence presented worse, but their logic -- the way they draw inferences from that evidence -- is what is truly pathetic. For example: (1) The authors claim David was merely a local chieftain who never united an empire, because his Jerusalem was just a large village, and because Israel and Judea had not yet emerged as organized kingdoms. Applying this logic to Charlemagne, Aix-la-Chapelle was a large village (if that) and France and Germany had not emerged as organized kingdoms, therefore Charlemagne was merely a local chieftain. Yet we know Charlemagne united most of Christendom, notably France and Germany, into a vast empire the like of which Christian Europe has never seen before or since. So the hard evidence, far from "differing sharply," chimes just perfectly with the inference that David was ancient Palestine's Charlemagne. How can the authors imply that the "unparalleled" magnificence of Jerusalem couldn't have described a small town, while ignoring that the whole description concerns all of TWO -- count 'em, one, two -- buildings: Temple of the Lord and King's Palace? Our own mediaeval kings, Charlemagne included, built the most magnificent cathedrals and castles amid (by our standards) the smallest mud-and-wattle towns. HELLO? (2) The authors claim the Sinai Peninsula contains no evidence of the Exodus, yet they suppress recent discoveries of striking evidence in Saudi Arabia, detailed in books like "The Mountain of Moses" by Larry Williams. One of his main points: the Sinai Peninsula is exactly the WRONG place to look for evidence of the Exodus. Especially detestable is how the authors' see-no-evil know-nothingism in this matter condones the Saudi goverment's ongoing demolition of irreplaceable artifacts in situ. (3) The authors claim Abraham anachronistically kept camels long before they were tamed [such "facts" are notoriously prone to re-dating, but let it go], therefore the redactors confabulated all the stories about him and others. Haven't they seen 15th-century paintings depicting the Apostles wearing Florentine attire? Yet they wouldn't dare suggest the painters fabricated Christianity, or so much as altered it in even one essential. Lamer still is their argument the Tanakh was "uniquely" suited to further 7th-century BC politico-religious agendas, therefore the men of the age invented it. What if all traces of civilization before 1400 were lost millennia hence? A couple of future wiseguys could use the same overreaching logic to "prove" the Florentines invented Christianity, which sure was uniquely suited to further 15th-century agendas. It's AT LEAST as logical (if not truer to human nature) to say people derive their agendas from their religion, as their religion from their agendas. How then should a religion not be uniquely suited to further agendas derived from itself? Our heroes are just "projecting." The New World Order uniquely is sacrilegious enough to fabricate a World Religion to promote an agenda. (The organs of demagogy like Time magazine are quite open about it.) To give this monster a color of justification requires making its archrival, Judeo-Christianity, appear to be an agenda-driven concoction too. Finkelstein and Silberman don't believe their own "logic." They're just splashing headlines that will play in Peoria and motivate the masses to embrace the new religion. For all its pretensions to being "archaeological fact," this book does an EXPERT job of selling the public two controlling attitudes vital to their eventually buying into that religion: (1) "Your own favorite religion, folks, is also an agenda-driven confabulation," and (2) "What's the matter with agenda-driven confabulations? Go ahead, grab the comfort." Why else, amid debunking a religion they obviously scorn, do the authors strain to conserve the emotion of reverence itself? Religion for sure is nothing but a booby prize for prize boobies if it's nothing but a "deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive." But this is precisely what a New World Order needs in order to survive: a religion that can be as plastic and manipulative as it wants to be, and still lay claim to our reverent submission. Underlying the scheme is the authors' unswerving allegiance to the Materialist Paradigm, of which Democritus gave the classic aphorism over 2000 years ago: "The only reality is atoms and the void; everything else is opinion." [That this is not science but metaphysics is illustrated by the medical investigation of after-death experiences. Every last vital sign is flat; thus 100.0% of the EMPIRICAL (truly scientific) evidence says the patients are dead, 0.0% says they're alive. If ANY evidence of life existed, doctors could tell the dead from the near-dead; but they can't. Yet Materialists insist revived patients only had a "near-death" experience -- because the PARADIGM (not the evidence!) says dead configurations of atoms can't revive. All the facts contradict, but The Paradigm still wins; the fanatic just fantasizes it will be vindicated somehow by future facts.] Occasionally the facts do unequivocally support Finkelstein and Silberman's theories, but when they don't, the facts are never allowed to support what might be a stronger theory if that doesn't square with The Paradigm. Most glaring in a book about the Bible is the rigorous exclusion of God as anything but a figment of human intellect. The implications of this are on display if one reads between the lines: human beings are configurations of atoms to be managed like any other configurations, and "religion" is how it's done, though God doesn't exist as He isn't a configuration. The agenda of animal instinct is everything; no spiritual agenda can exist. Our brave new world, then, is destined to belong to the subtlest manipulator of all....
Rating:
Summary: A Scholarly View of Biblical Myths
Review: The authors' endeavor to separate Jewish history from the Biblical myth is to be applauded. I also enjoyed "The Mythic Past". I was compelled to seek out both of these books after reading the book "An Encounter with A Prophet" which told me things which I knew in my heart were true, but which soundly contradicted Biblical "facts". I am grateful to all of these authors for their work. Thanks Guys!
Rating:
Summary: The Light the Archaeology Sheds on the Bible
Review: If you have a serious interest in the roots of the Bible and of Judeo-Christian culture, this book will make a great read. The authors undertake to educate the general reader on the light that modern archaeology can shed on ancient Semitic culture. Their contention, which I find compelling, is that archaeological digs in the Middle East can give us insight into the Biblical text. This book will make you see the stories that you learned as a child in a whole new way. This book will serve both believers and non-believers very well. Whatever perspective you bring to this book, you will come away impressed by the cultural richness and complexity that the archaeolical record reveals. The amazing stories of the Bible become even more amazing when seen in the context of the culture revealed by recent digs. While I recommend this book highly, I have downgraded it to 4 stars because the book lacks charts and maps that would have demonstrated to the casual reader the cultural and political changes in Canaan over time. Otherwise, a genuine education on the history of the Judeo-Christian cultural foundations
Rating:
Summary: Challenging thesis & reading
Review: Phew, quite the challenge here, both to faith and intellect. Take the latter first: Finkelstein and Silberman are not brilliant writers; i found quite a bit of repetition in the text, which was itself rather stilted at times. One must take into account, of course, their purpose, which is to be as clear as they can about their thesis ~ that most of the history in the Bible is, as far as the evidence of archæology is concerned, made up to suit the purposes of the priests and rulers of Judah in the late Seventh Century BCE ~ especially since it is such a challenge to established interpretations of the evidence, and to faith. The challenge to faith. Finkelstein and Silberman have issued a challenge to the understandings of Judaism and Christianity which hold the scriptures to be of God, and therefore truth (if not inerrant Truth); their interpretation of the archæological history of Palestine is that pretty much nothing written about the times before Josiah (c.639-609 BCE) can be taken to be true. This would include the patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the united monarchy, as well as the divided kingdoms, the origins of the Israelites, and the foundations of monotheism. What is one to think? I am certainly in no position to make a judgement for or against this interpretation; i can merely restate in my mind my belief that God is in the history of Israel, in the details as well as the broad strokes, and wait for a more learned rebuttal ~ which i may or may not either see or understand, though i hope i do both. I must simply look at the readability, and report that to a degree it fails. Because this book will be reacted to with almost reflex rejection, in preparation for that rejection some points are made as strongly as they can. The result is that certain horses (Meddigo, e.g.) are beaten to, if not past the point of death. One is tempted to think that the structure of the hypothesis is weak, since so few (repeated) points hold it up. It makes for annoying reading, to be sure.
|
