Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating account of ancient history
Review: I have only had this book for about a month, and the dust jacket is already dog eared. This book is just fascinating. I always assumed that the story of the Exodus had at least some basis in fact, but not only given the lack of archaeological evidence, but the history of this time period, and the anachronisms found in the story, it couldn't possibly have happened. We have evidence that there was a ancient trade route between the ancient Egyptians, and the South american Indians. This trade route is basically proven by the chocolate, and nicotine remains found in a mummy discovered in 1996. If archaeologists can find evidence for an unlikely truth such as this than they should be able to find some evidence for the Exodus, but they have found nothing. This book isn't strictly about debunking at all. It is an honest piece of research that really gives some insight as to why the Old Testament was written. It covers the patriarchs, exodus, and the prophets up until about 300BC. It gives alternate theories as well. I highly recomend this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Not careful readers
Review: Two reviewers on these pages (Justin S and Shindore) dismiss this book because, they say, the authors continue to claim that King David is only myth notwithstanding clear evidence to the contrary. These readers haven't read very carefully. On page 129, the authors clearly state that the "House of David" inscription found in 1993 (apparently what those two reviewers are referring to) proves the historical reality of a King David. I found this book well written and enjoyable with a balance between "scientific fact" and reverence for "religious truth." Religious truth is not undercut because its "historical accuracy" is disproven by modern scientific research. The Bible authors had little concept of history as we know it. No wonder they didn't do a very good job of writing "history."
Rating:
Summary: Science Marches On
Review: The loud contingent which maintains that the Bible is literally true on all matters won't accept Evolution or the universe millions of years old, of course, and increasingly it is being faced with more scientific data it will have to reject as well. While it is accepted by most people that the Old Testament is not a science book, it was still held to be the history of Jewish people. Now even that claim is questionable, with scientific archeology rewriting the history of the Holy Land. Archeologists digging there now have no particular religious ax to grind, and are coming up with data unfound by archeologists who set out to prove the Bible true. Israel Finkelstein is chairman of the Archeology Department at Tel Aviv University, and with journalist and archeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, he has told about the new archeology in _The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts_ (The Free Press). While some of Silberman's claims are more controversial than others, most of them are accepted by archeologists, but no Bible fundamentalists will accept any. They are, however, well explained in a clear style here, and ought to be attended by anyone who thinks the Bible is an important book. Take, for example, the very idea of the exodus out of Egypt. Biblical historians have always had to confront the fact that while the Egyptians were very good record keepers, none of them had recorded this particular slave revolt or miraculous defeat. The explanation used to be that it was just too embarrassing for the Egyptians to describe, but now it seems that there may have been nothing to record. There were strongly guarded forts established that would have made an escape of thousands of Israelites impossible, or at least, well noticed. The biblical story about Moses and the troop wandering around in the Sinai desert also lacks any sort of archeological confirmation. There has never been evidence of any such encampment, not the slightest shard of pottery, left in the area, even around Kadesh-barnea where most of the time was to have been spent. This and other sites mentioned in the stories are real ones, some famous. The archeology shows that some were occupied well before and some well after the exodus occurred, but they were empty during the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness. The locales mentioned were occupied in the seventh century BCE, lending credence to the idea of composition of the legends around that time. The legends succumb: The walls of Jericho didn't fall because it had no walls at the time, and wasn't even occupied. Solomon's Temple cannot be found. The despised Ahab may have been the best builder and best ruler of Israel. There is plenty more in this fascinating look at the light modern digs are throwing on the old stories. The literalists will have to ignore such findings, of course, and those less literal will have to reassess the Old Testament. As _The Bible Unearthed_ says, after casting doubt on so many venerable stories, "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. It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive."
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly and Accessible
Review: In "The Bible Unearthed," Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman display a rare talent among scholars--the ability to make specialized research accessible to a general audience. In this book the authors reveal how recent archaeological research forces us to reconsider the historical account woven into the Hebrew Bible. Among the conclusions they draw are: 1) The tales of patriarchs such as Abraham are largely legends composed long after the time in which they supposedly took place. This is seen in anachronisms such as the use of camels, not domesticated in the Near East until nearly 1000 years after Abraham's time, in many of the stories. 2) There is good reason to believe that the Exodus never happened. Had migrants to the number of even a small fraction of the 600,000 claimed in the Bible truly sojourned in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, archaeological evidence of their passage would be abundant. In fact, there are no traces of any signifant group living in the Sinai at the supposed time of the Exodus. 3) The Israelite "conquest" of Canaan, such as there was, was far from the military invasion of the books of Joshua and Judges. Many of the cities described as being conquered and destroyed did not even exist at the time, while those that did were small, unfortified villages, with no walls to be brought down, by blowing trumpets or otherwise. 4) While there is evidence that a historical David existed, and founded some sort of ruling dynasty known by his name, there is good reason to believe that he did not rule over the powerful united monarchy described in II Samuel. One reason for doubt: Jerusalem, portrayed as the great capital of a prosperous nation, was during the time of David little more than a village. 5) Neither Israel nor Judah emerged as organized kingdoms until significantly after the supposed period of the united monarchy. Israel does not appear as a recognizable kingdom until the time of the Omrides of the 9th century BCE, while Judah does not appear as such until the late 8th century BCE, at the time of kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. Along with their revision of the biblical account of history, Finkelstein and Silberman attempt to explain the origins of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the composition of much of the Bible can be tied to the religious agenda of King Josiah of Judah during the late 7th century BCE. While the origins of the Bible will never be known with certainty--there simply isn't enough evidence--Finkelstein and Silberman definitely provide a plausible interpretation. The authors, as I noted above, do a superb job of making their work understandable to non-specialists; since even college history majors often don't study the ancient Near East, they take care to include sufficient background information for the reader to understand the context of their account. Anyone with an interest in the subject will find "The Bible Unearthed" to be fascinating reading. And anyone who thinks the Bible is an accurate history book should definitely read it.
Rating:
Summary: What Really Happened
Review: I found this to be an interesting, thought provoking book. Not knowing much about archeology, I learned a great deal from Finkelstein and Silberman. Their research and scholarly presentation is impressive. They state in the prologue that their goal is to separate history from legend and they do an admirable job. This is a serious book. It does not diminish the significance of the Bible; it puts it in historical context.
Rating: 
Summary: Does a wonderful job of citing outdated evidence.
Review: I found this book rather boring. I bought it with hopes and aspirations of having many of my traditional ideas concerning the Bible and its historical accuracy shaken up, only to find that it only disappointed me. The authors cited an apparent lack of evidence in attempting to "mythicize" the Biblical King David. What was utterly disappointing was that this is not even a valid opinion anymore, as more recent evidence from external nations to Israel provide evidence of King David, and his lineage. What provided the most diappointment is that this information was provided in a Reader's Digest article, rather than in a "heavily researched" work like this one. Could Finkelstein and Silberman have been 'scooped'?
Rating:
Summary: The Bible vs. Archaeology
Review: I enjoyed the book. Being personally widely read on the issue of biblical archaeology vs. the veracity of Bible, there wasn't much new for me. For those not aware of the problems the book gives a good overview of why many archaeologists have given up the notion that there was ever an Exodus and Conquest of Canaan under Joshua. What surprised me was the authors' notion of a Hyksos expulsion in 1570 BCE, no mention being made of a 1540 BCE (favored by Prof. Kitchen and Hoffmeier) or 1530 BCE (favored by Dr. Bietak and Prof. Dever). Another surprise was that the authors appeared to be unaware of a period of 574 yrs elapsing between the Exodus and Solomon's 4th year (965/954 BCE)placing the Exodus in 1540/1530 BCE, associating that event with the Hyksos expulsion(cf. Acts 13:18-21; 1 Kings 2:10-11; 6:1).
Rating:
Summary: Bible History through the Looking Glass...
Review: This book turned my view of the Bible inside out. When my vision cleared, many things made sense for the first time. -------- The basic argument of this work is that "archeology can show that the Torah and the Deuteronomistic History bear unmistakable hallmarks of their compilation in the seventh century BCE... [and that] much of the biblical narrative is a product of the hopes, fears, and ambitions of the kingdom of Judah, culminating in the reign of King Josiah at the end of the seventh century BCE." -------- The commonsensical implications Finkelstein and Silberman draw from this are earth shattering. Did Abraham ever exist? Did the Jews live in Egypt, and follow a man called Moses into the Sinai desert? Did the invasion of The Promised Land occur - and were the battles at Jericho and Ai actual events? Was Solomon a historic figure, and if so, was he a king over a large nation - or only a minor tribal chieftain? Ditto, David? Did they build an empire - or was that just a myth? And how late was it that the Jews really became monotheists? --------If the archeological record and the biblical accounts meshed, this book could not have been written. The fact that they do NOT makes this a fascinating adventure into the past. Much of the archeological proof of the authors' thesis is of recent provenance: the last 30 years... Finkelstein and Silberman typically present the Biblical story or stories, then their critique of that narrative, and finally, their alternative explanation. They focus on (1) uncovering historical truth and attempting to distinguish it from myth; and (2) explaining the motivations of the author(s) of the Biblical narrative. I believe that they have done a scholarly job of both. One useful characteristic of this tome is that it is liberally strewn with maps (13), drawings (14) and tables (9) that definitely round out the text. -------- Despite the title, "The Bible Unearthed" is strictly a study of two-thirds of the Tanakh (or Old Testament) - specifically The Torah (aka Pentateuch), and The Prophets (Neviim). [Not included are the non-historical accounts known as The Sacred Writings (Ketuvim), which were written between the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE and the first century BCE.] -------- I find it difficult to understand how one could substantially disagree with the authors' thesis but even those who disagree with the authors' conclusions should read this enthralling book. One can learn a lot from it, no matter what one's ideological stance
Rating:
Summary: SOLID SCHOLARSHIP
Review: The Bible Unearthed is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to understand the Bible and the world of the Bible. Finkelstein and Silberman bring thorough and multi-disciplinary research to address questions relating to the history of biblical Israel. Well-respected and an accomplished archaeologist, Finkelstein provocatively presents to the general public questions and conclusions that have long been discussed in circles of biblical scholarship. As they investigate the who-what-when-where-how-why questions about the writing of the Bible, Finkelstein and Silberman accentuate the importance of Israel's King Josiah who reigned in the 6th century B.C.E. They are unafraid to acknowledge the genius of the biblical material, and in doing so they present a credible portrait of ancient Israel in biblical times.
Rating: 
Summary: Old news - Bible was in Arabia
Review: This is a good book to list the lack of evidence but we have known this since Kenyon's work in the 1950's. The Old Testament is a mostly a true account but its elocation was between Medina and Yemen and to a lesser extent on the Ethiopian plateau where the only inscriptions are to be found prior to 600 BCE mentioning Hebrews. The Saudis take this theory very seriously and have been destroying sites associated with the OT.
|
