So I suppose the question becomes should we just let it lie?
It should be noted that Finkelstein and Silberman do not represent the majority of archaeologists – they are a school called “minimalists”, claiming that all of biblical history prior to about 700 BC was theological fiction, written during the Persian or Hellenistic era (say 500 - 400 BC).
Most modern archaeologists do not buy into the minimalist theory. They hold that much of the bible contains historic records, composed during the Iron Age (say 1300 - 700 BC).
You might try What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? by Willliam G. Dever, which sets forth the arguments between the minimalists and the mainstream, fairly succinctly. Dever himself is more mainstream and denies the minimalists’ claims.
Please note that early biblical stories (Adam and Eve, Noah, etc) are pretty much accepted as mythic. No one is seriously looking for the remains of Noah’s ark. Most archaeologists agree that at some point, biblical stories do represent history – the question is when the “dividing line” appears. The minimalists draw the line around the reign of Josiah or later. Others draw the line much earlier, and accept certain biblical stories as historical (although not necessarily word-for-word factual – as noted above, we have mythic stories about George Washington, but that doesn’t mean that the Revolutionary War didn’t happen.)
I should also note that by the time of later biblical stories, we do have confirmation from outside sources (for instance, the attack of Sennacherib against Jerusalem – I forget the date, I think around 700 BC – which is mentioned in II Kings and Isaiah.)
You might check out Who wrote the biblical histories?
Also, please, let’s not be hasty about condemning the entire bible just because a few historical details might be exaggerated. The ancient tomb writings of the pharoahs, the steles of the Babylonian Kings, Greek and Roman histories – all of them exaggerate the heroism of whoever they think are the “good guys” and downplay any victores by whomever they think are the “bad guys.” Ancient biblical writers were not concerned with recording history (as we know it), but with recording the threads of morality in history.
And when the bible says things like “Honor your father and mother” or “Do not murder” or “Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you”… I don’t think you’d call that a pack of lies. The bible says that all mankind come from one set of parents – you may not believe that literally, but the message is that we are all brothers and sisters, and I don’t think that’s a “pack of lies” either.
Dr. Deth, no ancient Egyptian text would even hint of any shortcoming by any Egyptian or pharoah whatsoever. Historians and chroniclers were not that objective at the time.
We’re sleeping with our distant cousins whether or not there was an Adam and Eve.
“They made love in the mountains, they made love in the streams,
They made love in the valleys, they made love in their dreams.
But when they were finished there was nothing to say,
'Cause mostly they made love from ten miles away.”
from Donald and Lydia by John Prine
I just want to say that I have found a copy of this book in my local library and will read it to respond to the relevant points intelligently. So don’t be surprised to see this thread resurrected in a week or so if it happens to scroll off before I finish the book.
The gods common is this area at this time. For instance Baal (the son of Saul would have been called Ishball, "the man of Baal), El (remember the “sons of Elohim”), etc…There are gods mentionned in a document sent by the priests of Jerusalem to a garrison of Hebrew mercenaries living in Egypt, who were asking to be allowed to buid there a shrine to YHWH and various other gods (Anat, a goddess daughter of El, they apparently considered as YHWH’s spouse or something similar, and also Bethel, Shaddai, etc…).
In the bible itself there are mentions and condemnations of people worshipping various other deities (these condemnations probably appeared when the Hebrews had completed their move Polytheism–>Henotheism–>Monotheism and worshipping others deities wasn’t any more the right thing to do)
The thing is that we know that the bible contains some historical facts. The invasion by Sennacherib is the most famous, but others are there. The bible contains other stories that most archaeologists would consider to be metaphor. The question is where and when to draw the line.
Few archaeologists would take the pre-Abrahamic stories as serious fact. Metaphor, yes – there were certainly floods in the Tigris-Euphrates basin that might have formed the basis of the Noah story, but there is no evidence of the entire planet being flooded as the story relates.
Few archaeologists reject the post-Josiah (say, after 700 BC) histories as being purely fiction.
The question is when and where to draw the line, and the minimalists (Finkelstein et al) draw the line way way way later than most archaeologists.
cmkeller, you won’t like the Finkelstein book at all. You might want to read the Dever book that I mentioned above.
Dex, no doubt I’ll have my issues with it, but since it’s the premise of this thread, I can hardly debate it without knowing what I’m debating.
I’m a big boy.
But, if I see this Dever book you mention in my library, I’ll take a look at it as well.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I didn’t get the impression from reading Finkelstein that he drew a hard and fast line. Their position, if I remember correctly, was that Solomon, for instance, was a real king, but a king who did not do all the things credited to him. The reason given for the description of the Davidic empire was to justify Judah’s claim to the former Israel. That is not far fetched, since some of the controversy surrounding the book is that it worked against the claim of modern Israel to the West Bank, which was based in part on the existence of a greater Israel during Davidic times.
One thing I didn’t get was whether there were pre-existing legends of a glorious empire in the olden days, or whether this was made up for political reasons. Do you know of any information on folklore and legends extant at the time the Bible was written?
To be fair, they had a lot of artifacts until a few weeks ago.
cough Carry on.
No, sorry Bryan. The few “big ticket” items that appear to have been stolen in the last looting were not really items that they needed for archaeological uses. Such items have been well studied & cataloged, and even if destroyed would not mark any significant setback in ARCHAEOLOGY. Now, the cultural loss would be significant.
If someone steals & melts down King Tuts solid gold coffin- it would be a disaster from a cultural & artistic viewpolint, but no real loss in archaeological knowledge would ensue.
Until we develop new technology or someone has a new idea.
You would probably have said that if someone had burned the Shroud of Turin in 1940 it would be a disaster from a cultural & artistic viewpolint, but no real loss in archaeological knowledge would ensue. It was well documented, described, illustrated, photographed etc. In short it was totally analysed using the techniques of the day.
We know now of course that it would have been a major archeological loss because new dating and imaging technology and new research techniques have provided loads of new information.
Unfortunately the same will be true of these peices. If they aren’t recovered then archeologists 200 years from now will be bewailing the loss of information from them.
cough whoosh cough
I decided to revive this thread because I came across an online copy of Daniel Lazare’s review of the book in question. Click on http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1822_304/83553507/print.jhtml.
See also the following reviews:
http://www.rense.com/general18/bible.htm
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2003/BibleUnearthed-BookReview_Mar-03.html
http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=651
http://www.bibleandscience.com/unearthed.htm#The%20Bible%20Unearthed
http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm
I hope this will go some way toward filling in the blanks in my OP, which merely repeated Finkelstein and Silberman’s conclusions without reviewing their evidence. These reviews do the job better than I could.
In retrospect I should have named this thread, “Is the OLD TESTAMENT a pack of lies?” Finkelstein and Silberman’s book has absolutely nothing to do with the New Testament.
I just bought this book and read it myself (thanks for the recommendation, BrainGlutton. I have to say, it’s pretty persuasive. I haven’t seen any rebuttals to their conclusions but it looks like it would be difficult, if not impossible, to refute the archaeology. This book was quite an eye-opener. I’m surprised that all of this latest evidence has not gotten any more media attention than it has. I guess that it has to do with pro-religion bias. The media doesn’t want to offend people by reporting that things like the Exodus and the conquest of Canaaan have been definitively disproven. The debunking of the unified kingdom would also have huge political ramifications in Israel in that there is no longer a historical basis for many of their territorial claims. There’s some pretty explosive stuff going on with the current archaeology.
There are definite references to Omri (I Kings 16:23-28) in the Assyrian records and IIRC also some to Jeroboam II (II Kings 14:23-29). There’s a highly controversial reference to David in the archaeological finds at one of the Syrian cities (Ebla? Ugarit?), but contextually it appears to be a title rather than a proper name.
Ancient Egypt almost never, ever chronicled anything, anything, anything bad happening to either the pharoahs or the citizens. Of course you won’t get evidence of the plagues or passover from them.
That’s not what Finkelstein and Sibler base their conclusions on. The archaeology in Israel show that there was never any migration of Israelites into the region from the outside. Israelite culture arose organically in the region and expanded.