Rating: 
Summary: Making Sense of the Bible
Review: The average reader of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) probably assumes that most of the questions about its historical accuracy have to do with Genesis: Adam and Eve, Noah, the tower of Babel. They may also be aware of questions about Abraham and the Patriarchs. From Moses and the Exodus on, however, doubts are primarily about what to do with the miracles found in some of the stories. Those with college or seminary background may also be aware of uncertainty about events told in Joshua and Judges. On the whole, however, the historical narrative of the founding and travails of biblical Israel are thought to be largely accurate and supported by archaeological and historical study.It is the great accomplishment of The Bible Unearthed to show how all of this has changed. My guess is that even informed church and synagogue goers will be stunned by what is reported here. Those of a fundamentalist persuasion will, of course, react in horror. Those from moderate religious backgrounds will wonder where they have been that they missed all this. The more pointed question is, Where have their clergy been? As Finkelstein and Silberman show, however, this is "new stuff." What is new is not so much the archaeological findings themselves, but a new perspective and honesty in interpreting those findings, accumulating now for over a century and a half. A reversal has taken place in just the past thirty years. Namely, rather than interpreting findings based on the Bible's history, we are now interpreting the Bible's history based on archaeological findings. And with that switch a whole new picture has come into view. The fundamental conclusion reached is simply that the Bible is not history. History as we understand it, the concern for a factual retelling of past events, did not come into being until the Enlightenment. Ancient peoples were incapable of and uninterested in such history. The Bible is theology from start to finish. The biblical authors sought to answer the question, "What does it mean to be the people of God?" Who did what, when and where is of great interest to us but not to them. Rather, the people and events of the past provided materials for them to weave stories that answered deep human and theological questions that challenged them, and us. That is why these stories still speak today. The Bible Unearthed is fascinating and very readable, intentionally geared to the non-expert. The dramatic findings it reports have implications for everything from what ought to be taught in Sunday School to achieving peace in the Middle East. We will be hearing about this for a long time. This is an important book. Note: for further reading, try The Mythic Past by Thomas Thompson (1999). Somewhat more dense and controversial, but it also does more with how the Bible should be interpreted in light of archaeology's new conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating History
Review: I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in archaeology or religion. No doubt it will iritate many. His general thesis that the kingdom of Judah was an undeveloped hinterland that benefitted from it's geographic isolation by surviving the Assyrian onslaught and later re-writing the history of the region is well-supported. While many of Dr. Finkelstein's other assertions await further evidence, it is clear from the book that a revolution in biblical archaeology has occurred in the last 30 years, and the next 30 years will fill in many of the gaps in our understanding. The archaeological method will (hopefully) only get more scientific and more objective. There is plenty more digging to be done. Can't wait to read the revised version of this book then! Hopefully by then, it will feature better drawings and maybe a photo or two.
Rating:
Summary: The riddle of the Old Testament
Review: This is a tremendously important book detailing the results of a great deal of new research that has been little known to the public, but that has been gestating in the works of scholars for some time. Indeed, some of its basic perspective goes back to the nineteenth century, in the work of such as Wellhausen. Yet the stubborn lag in its public presentation is almost a scandal. Semi-secualarized histories of Israel are legion, and the type of John Bright's hybrid History of Israel, presenting a few archaeological touches on the traditional account in a manner not far short of disinformation, is hopefully gone forever. Many such works have delayed the inevitable in an almost cruel deception, as anyone forced to protest his own dishonestly hyped education well knows. Best to be finished with the matter. The mystery of the Bible's composition (cf. also Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible, and Fox, The Unauthorized Version) has to a great degree been unravelled, as its confusing layers are sorted out. The very late composition of the final forms of the Biblical text, its political context and significance in relation to the Israel just before and after the Exile,leave the traditional account in a virtual shambles. The Patriarchs, the Exodus, the invasion, even the accounts of the era of David and Solomon, are now across the threshold in the realm of myth. The plain fact is that the Old Testament always had a curious resemblance, as to its evidentiary status, to the Iliad, and these parallel myths create a new riddle of another kind: the clear 'Axial' age parallelism of the ancient world in the indicated time-frame of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In a strange way, an irony is seen in the fact that as the evidentiary basis collapses, the broad outline, as pure periodization, remains and forces a new and different question that might make the Bible almost more interesting as a secular archaeological text documenting a universal history, if this can refrain from any further rearguard mythifications of the type that should have disappeared soon after the birth of Biblical Criticism in the nineteenth century. There are still debatable points in this account, but overall it must constitute indispensable reading. Taken in this form, the great irony is that the secularist ends by enjoying the archaeological shards of this mysterious work more than the religionist. Time flies, on to the next civilization. Almost essential reading.
Rating:
Summary: Keep Digging
Review: Maybe archaelogy ultimately will put to rest all the unknowns of the old testament. Until then, I hope to see a lot more books covering this topic. There are sure to be theories to suit as well as offend everyone. I hope to read and reflect on every one, although I doubt anyone living today will be around when all the questions are answered. And given all the bashing the New Testament has taken by it's discreditors, it's nice to see the old testament receiving the attention.
Rating: 
Summary: Diappointing
Review: I was disappointed at the fact that many of Finkestein and Silberman's "facts" weren't even accurate. I'm a History Student with a minor in Archaeology. Obviouly, I am always interested in the newest finds in my field. Finkelstein and Silberman claim that there is NO evidence of the lineage of David. Either the authors didn't want to acknowledge the evidence, or they were simply unaware of it.There IS evidence inside and outside of Israel, including foreign stone tablets that record the victory of a foreign king over a king of the "house of David". What makes the author's credibility worse is that many of the ways in which they attempt to disprove the credibility of the Christian sriptures are usurped by more recent evidence (some of which has appeared in non-archaeological related publications like Reader's digest). I was very disappointed with the book, hoping to find some good points of study. However, it tended to be rather weak. Very diappointing.
Rating:
Summary: A different story with the same evidence
Review: The physical evidence that Finkelstein/Silberman present is public, precedes the publishing of this book, and is available elsewhere as well. Finkelstein only digs at Megiddo, Silberman is not even an archeologist. They have an agenda they want to present and they do so in this book. However, a completely different analysis of the same evidence is presented in other books, for instance in Israel in Egypt by James K. Hoffmeier (1999). The evidence is there, it's just what story you make up to try and fit the evidence. Archeology is a very inexact field, and when you find a pottery shard or a wall, you can fill your mind with almost any story. Since Finkelstein/Silberman come with well known biases and predispositions, I don't give their stories too much heed, and most Israeli archeologists don't agree with them either.
Rating:
Summary: Yada yada yada
Review: The latest timewaster from a pair of authors popular with those who want to write their own moral code by denying the reality of the Commandments of the Creator. By attempting to deny the historicity of the Bible (to the ludicrous extent of erasing Moses and Abraham) Finkelstein and Silberman have not only poured scorn upon their Jewish upbringing, but also eliminated any basis for independent verification of their claims, which become mere opinion. For a much more realistic and satisfying approach to interpretation of the Bible in the light of history, science and our God-given human reason, I would recommend instead The Science of Historical Theology, by John F. McCarthy (ISBN 0895554410). As director of the Roman Theological Forum, his work ... provides some genuine scholarship in the area of Biblical exegesis.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Scholarship
Review: I just finished The Bible Unearthed and I have one overall word to say about it: EXCELLENT! First of all, the authors provide a complete and easy to read explanation of ALL of the "hot" issues currently debated in the field of archaeology and biblical studies. Should the reader not find full agreement with the authors' final conclusions, he or she will have the data available to express this disagreement, especially since the authors place their arguments in the context of what is believed by both majority and minority scholarly opinions. They provide an excellent summary of the opposing arguments; summaries that are fair and complete. Too often people are quick to dismiss Finkelstein as a "biblical minimalist" because these readers are often misinformed or have misread Finkelstein's work. In "The Bible Unearthed," Finkelstein and Silberman are clear to disassociate themselves from the biblical "minimalists" while affiming the questions that they raise, questions that even the most "maximalist" scholar must honestly deal with in light of the paucity of archaeological evidence associated with the time of the ancestors through the rise of the Omride dynasty in 9th century Israel. One of the major questions plaguing the field of biblical studies is the one concerning David and Solomon. Do they really exist? Finkelstein and Silberman unequivocally state that both David and Solomon are historical beings. The magnitude of their kingdom, however, is the issue at hand. Based on the archaeological evidence, the authors suggest that the biblical account of these kings is a mixture of both fact and some embellishment by later authors, most likely writing during King Josiah's reign in 7th century Judah. Finkelstein and Silberman argue convincingly that Josiah, wanting to expand his kingdom to include the now fallen kingdom of Israel, found it useful to weave together the "histories" of the northern and southern kingdoms to create one unified and sacred text uniting the peoples of these two kingdoms. This understanding is not so far afield from earlier scholars who attribute the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua--2 Kings) to the time of Josiah and later. As a seminary professor and an ordained Christian minister, I am not willing to throw David and Solomon out and I struggle with those who argue that the Bible was constructed in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Finkelstein and Silberman are not amond these minimalists and are well within what is argued by mainline scholars, especially those trying to come to terms with how the Bible and the archaeological data coincide and differ. Yes this book will rankle feathers yet it isn't far afield from what has been recently argued by biblical experts. This book will be assigned to my students because I want these people, who will be church leaders and scholars, to struggle with these issues. It is a well written and researched book and has a great deal to offer the reader. Besides, should questions threaten one's faith, one must question the veracity of the faith that was threatened.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read Book
Review: A Must Read Book if you want to know about the historicity of the Bible. It will be informative to the biblical conservative how the archeological data does not support the historicity of the Exodus and the Conquest. The author presents the evidence for the conclusions in a logical way. The authors views are those of a large number of biblical archeologists. They just present them well. The author says that David and Solomon may have existed but the united kingdom as presented in the Bible is not found in the archeological data. Anyone interested in the archeological data of the holy land should read this book. You may not agree with the interpretation of the data but only by knowing about this data can one understand the arguments of the Biblical Minimialists. The authors point out how the archeological data actually supports the views of the German biblical scholarship that lead to the founding of Biblical Archeology in an attempt to disprove their views by Conservative Theologians.
Rating: 
Summary: Who has a bias here?
Review: That the bible is not exactly what a fundamentalist or even the average believer makes it to be, should be evident for every one else who has his brain still switched on. It still remains to be a great book, a treasure of literature, and it only can get better, the sooner we learn to read and appreciate it as an ordinary book. Northrop Frye made a point, that the Book should be seen as a deliberate composition, there is an intentional unity, handed down to us by the latest editors who had put together the canon. Finkelstein & Silberman present a well researched hypothesis which makes sense of the true nature of this unity, as far as the Old Testament is concerned. It would not be my hypothesis, my own research led me to exile and post-exile dating of the texts which the authors place into the era of King Josiah, but it is a defendable and well researched position, it makes plenty of sense, and deserves consideration. My own objection would be based on form criticism. For Josiah's period one would expect the documents to be written in heroic verse meters; prose is a much later innovation and points to late exile and post exile. Post exile would provide similar political dynamics as Josiah's period though a strong point in F.&S.'s favour is the dynastic bias of the whole compilation. After exile there was no dynasty left, though a dynastic resurrection might still have been the agenda. A thought provoking book.
|
