Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

This is one of the books by Finklestein and Silberman. Based on verified archaeological finds, they reconstruct the history of the early Bible and show it did not happen in the time period or in the way claimed by the Bible. The conservative Christian will not like this book, because it contradicts much of what many consider to be the history of the Bible. I found the book to be scholarly and very well documented. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not exist, or did not exist in the appropriate Biblical history, if David and Solomon are historically questionable and the Biblical claims are fairy tales, where does this leave Christianity, initially based on the early Jewish texts?

It is by and large impossible to read anything about biblical history without getting sucked into some convictional cesspool. There is nothing like the "ground truth" of professional archeology to wake lofty exegesis from its delusional narcissism, and this book does exactly that.
For once, here is a book on biblical history that is not a thinly veiled justification for a conclusion already formed. Instead, Finkelnstein and Silberman clearly master archeological research as well as are knowledgeable in biblical matters, and compare the two with a scientifically reasoned, rational approach and an admirable range of scholarship. As a result, they are at ease to coolly and rationally discuss conflicting views and can present their discussions in an objective and thus that much more convincing manner. Open questions are discussed as just that, conflicting evidence is exposed as just that - it's how real science works.
To anyone with half an interest in objectivity the result is, in hindsight, not surprising and thus that much more credible: The collective evidence points to the whole thing likely having been written by a priestly caste with political objectives in mind. That it was written well after the facts and that therefore the prophecies are dead on, is argued just about as convincingly as measurements show that blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light. Thus it all falls into place as a human endeavor like so many others and by showing this the authors gave the texts back some of their dignity.

Bought this for a class I was taking. Worked out as a textbook and reference. Had interesting stories pertaining to Biblical history. This is not something I would have selected for personal reading, but ended up being quite interesting even as a textbook.

Thirty years ago I read John Bright's, "A History of Ancient Israel." I found nothing in it that would offend any adherent of Judaism or Christianity. However, a great deal of work both textual and archaeological has been conducted since that date on these topics. And, in "The Bible Unearthed..." the results of that archaeological research has been painstakingly laid out by the authors along with their conclusions. In workman like fashion, Silberman and Finkelstein write a tightly reasoned assessment of the history of Ancient Israel in light of their findings. At each turn, they marshal their source materials in depth with dexterity and certainty to support their historical reconstruction. The title of the book is understated and the presentation is dispassionate to say the least. It would seem obvious that the authors were acutely aware of the incendiary nature of their findings.

If their conclusions are accepted, one must abandon the notion that the Bible provides a verifiable early history for ancient Israel. In no way, does this effect the sacral content of the Bible underpinning Judaism and Christianity, and Islam for that matter. However, one would have to view the creation narratives, the Noahic traditions, the patriarchs, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and the unified monarchy as historically questionable to some greater or lesser degree. This does not say that there are no historical truths contained in some or all of these writings. But, it does say that the scholarly state of the art does come down to "The Bible Unearthed..." This evaluation is supported by the later work of Lester L. Grabbe in a truly rigorous study, "Ancient Israel - What Do We Know and How Do We Know It." Future research may modify these findings to some extent but will not modify the general validity of the authors' work.

It is the discounting of the Biblical "history" of Israel and the world prior to the mid-ninth century BCE that makes this book so offensive to many of the religiously faithful. If in defense of Biblical inerrancy one will not accept the analysis of the material that Silberman and Finkelstein have so clearly laid out, so be it. But, if one does accept their findings, this in no way necessarily effects their religious commitments and faith. Even, Thomas L. Thompson who holds that at least the first twelve books of the Old Testament are mythic literature also holds that this in no way effects them as sacral writings and one's faith experience deriving from them. There is a remarkable intellectual divide between a belief in the the Bible as the inspired word of God or in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. This work is easily accessible to any literate adult. I highly recommend this book as an excellent presentation of the current scholarly consensus on the archaeology of ancient Israel and Israel's history. What you make of it is up to you.

Review of Biblical History using current means evaluating and dating of archaeological finds. Gives a scientific basis in evaluating biblical history. I learned a lot which increased my enjoyment of travel in the Middle East.

Since other reviewers here have covered in some detail what makes this book such a breakthough - combining the facts of archeology with the (usually imaginative) retelling of history as presented in the Bible into a coherent picture, I'll just add the following: As a sometimes student of the history of the region, I've scratched my head about the geopolitical goings on from Egypt to Mesopotamia from about 2,000 BC onward as to how the monkey-in-the middle (Palestine)was impacted; Finkelstein and Silberman lay it out. Second, this is a fun book to read - at times like a mystery story that keeps the pages turning. Most bibilical scholarship is overly pedantic and painful to read; not this book.

The bible is almost as popular as Harry Potter but lots of people take it for granted because it is so old.

Finkelstein and Silberman really bring the historical aspects to life with archaeology and such. They really explain the background behind the story. The style is good, they summarize a section of the bible at a time and then analyse that segment or historical period with all available historical aspects. Good read, nice stories.

The material is fascintaing but neither optimally organised nor presented. The syntax is often convoluted and laborious. I would have had an easier time had I been more familiar with the Old Testament, but that is my fault, not the author's. Since there are many references to local geography, more maps, or at least a map index would have been helpful. I recommend it be read with a Bible nearby, a historical map on the wall, and an open mind.

Unlike other archaelogist who have searched for evidence to support the Bible Finkelstein and Silberman set out with an open mind to relate the archaelogical evidence in ancient Israel and the surrounding area and relate them to the writings of the Bible. In doing so they shed new light on when the Bible was most likely writen and for what purpose it held as well as giving us a history lesson in the middle east in the bronze and iron age.
Most of the evidence points to the bible being written in somewhere around the 7th century BC virtually as propaganda to show the glory of the Judean king Josiah and his supposed empire. Unfortunately most of the findings indicate most of Judah was a weak empire for much of the time and hardly rates a mention amongst the more powerful Egyptian and Assyrian empires and their more reliable writings.
In response to the 1 star ratings, it was clear to me the writers had no agenda in disproving bible, just presenting the evidence and evaluating the likelihood of events and happenings occuring. In fact the Bible is praised for acheiving its original purpose far beyond its wildest dreams. The Bible effectively melds ancient myths, stories of real events and places them in the known areas of Israel at the time of writing. While real cities and geographical locations are often used in the bible for realism, the evidence would primarily indicate often these towns did not exist at the time of the supposed events or that Judah was sufficiently weak to ever threaten its stronger neighbours.
New light is shed also on famous biblical characters such as David, Solomon, Ahab and many others the findings being often unexpected compared to what the Bible has to say.
I found the Bible unearthed to provide a valuable history resource and suitable for those with an open mind. That doesn't include fundamentalists who probably won't even read a page yet vigorously deny its writings and come up with complex, inconceivable explanations to counter the evidence presented and its quite simple and understandable conclusions.

DrEwgog (Croton NY)
I have no expertise in this area; my only qualification to reviewing this book is my long-time involvement in treating with the demands of argument. I cannot speak to the accuracy of most of the data, but I can say that the writing is extremely lucid, the points are made logically, the support is provided in a convincing and very readable fashion, and the other side is handled in an effective and respectful manner. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and look forward to a rereading after I read Dever and some others on this very exciting subject matter.

Super informative, well-written, and logically put together. Blows the Old Testament myths right out of the water by way of archaeological evidence--or lack thereof. If you had the sneaking suspicion that much of the Bible was imaginative story-telling, this book will confirm your suspicions; not with rhetoric, but actual proof. And it not only gives you the how, but the why. There's a reason these stories were written down, and the authors present quite a convincing argument.

I must say this book is intriguing and presents pages of digestible data. I read it because of the high praise Christopher Hitchens has given it in many of his public addresses. If the lack of evidence cited here is enough to discredit the historical accuracy of the bible I cannot say. But with all the violence and racism and genocide in it, I can only hope the bible is fiction, and that no deity would ever sanction such madness. This book helps confirm exactly that.

From the Lavant, and across the entire Western world, religious followers are fanatically dedicated to the idea that the words of their prophets and saviours are divinely given. Yet, the West also considers itself to be the world's foremost region of learning, science, and reason.

This book dispells all of that idea into oblivion. Not only was Judaism based upon mythology, but in books like The Jesus Mysteries, we also learn that the entire Christian religion was based upon pre-existing mythologies, as well. What's more... if you read some of the companion books to the above, you find that this information about Christianity's origins was in the hands of scholars during the late 19th century, was represed, and only began to re-emerge in the late 60s. What a crime!

When will the people of the Western world wake up?

Many thanks to these wonderful authors for shining the light onto the O.T. stories. Mythology is fine when it's taught as myth. Modern man often looks down on the ancients, but at least the ancients knew that their myths were myths. What does it say about us that we are only beginning to learn that Judaism and Christianity were always rooted in pure mythology?

This book answers a lot of questions that students of belief systems ask. Many sweeping statements, that were formerly taken a 'given' by biblical adherents, are shattered by the simple means of archaeological research.

I found this book enlightening in that it provides evidence for questioners and researchers to come to their own conclusions about the veracity of biblical mythologies.

While there is more to be learned from archaeology and textual analysis, this book demolishes the inerrant view of the old testament. Recovery of the saga of Abraham, captivity in Egypt, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, The United Kingdom under David and Salomon, and the righteous king Josiah will be forever impossible. Major discoveries from archaeology and of forgotten texts seem to occur every year enhancing the extra-biblical understanding of the entire near East.

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.

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.

Utilizing Archaeological, Biblical and Historical evidence, this book claims that All The Books of The Bible from Genesis through 2Samuel are MYTH, created by the Pharisees and Scribes in Jerusalem in the 7th and 6th Centuries. God didn't promise the Land of Israel to Abraham because there was no Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, or Joseph, 12 tribes, Moses, Joshua, etc. There was no Exodus, or Blitzkrieg conquest of Canaan by Joshua. None of this stuff ever happened. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all based on FICTION. This is Scientific Theory, as valid as The Big Bang, Theory of Relativity, Gravity and Evolution, and probably, just as True.

Archaeology digs have proven without a doubt that many of the stories you read in the Bible were about events that never occurred or that the Biblical descriptions were embellished many years later.

The more you read about the authors of the old and new testaments the more you will realize that most of the Bible stories are the product of many authors up to and including the mid sixteen hundreds.
If you want to read more see the books written by Bart Ehrman. Some of the more bizar additions are that Christ left the tomb escorted by two tall Angeles and that Christ was as tall as a skyscraper followed by the cross walking behind hin as shown in the Gospel of Peter.

Biblical scholarship is centered in our universities and many students going for their advanced credentials are warned that what they will learn studying for their Doctorate degree will not set with their faith.

I have heard that in our Universities students learn how to answer their flocks that may question things they read in the Bible.

Read what the fundmentalists have to say about the inerrancy of the Bible. It states that the Bible is the word of God when it was orginally writeen but that no copies of the original Bible exits and that no current translation is correct.

it appears that almost everyone has had a hand in writing what wew have today.

I am a wruter and I can assure you that many of the stories not included in the cannon are superb examples of fiction. Look up the story of Sussana to see one of the finest short stories ever written.

Overall the author appears to be well accredited and scientific in his approach. However, the author is very reluctant and non-committal to call the shots when research either confirms or rejects traditional thought. He reviews biblical accounts which we already know. He provides very little in-line cross references to either historical or archaeological evidence and doesn't use any sort of scientific approach to the references. He also approaches the subject in what appears to be a disorganized fashion.

In my deep search for truth, I was looking for strong evidence using scientific methods that show, one way or the other, whether biblical accounts are backed up with archeology, from a neutral, unbiased, repeatable scientific perspective which is hard to find these day's. What I found was that he re-tells some biblical stories with weak scientific comments, and presents some logical data to suggest that the biblical dates as presented in traditional interpretations of the bible are probably wrong; I already knew that.

I gave it a '3' because I appreciate his sincere effort, however, not a 4 or 5 because the book appears to be unfinished, very poorly organized and lacks a true scientifically acceptable, repeatable, testable style. Assumptions are not called out and tested as assumptions. I'm looking for cold, hard evidence based on scientific reasoning, and for me, this was a disappointment. For example, the author seems to be presupposing that Israel had far less land and civilization than currently thought. In this case, he needs to assume null hypothesis, and go out and find the evidence. Not try to retro-fit the evidence to assumption.

I would encourage the author to write another book, read a good style manual first, and then blast thru the bible stories with a scientific approach that will either support, or not-support the biblical stories, and get confident about sharing to us whether scientific archaeology supports the biblical accounts, or refutes them. I look forward to another approach from this author, and strongly believe that he has the intellect, neutrality, and scientific/archaeological training to make this a worthwhile contribution to the overall human pursuit of truth.

Book is not the consensus as Finkelstein broadly proclaims. In fact, his colleagues at his own college disagree completely with him. The book's low chronology was an interesting and promising chronology when first proposed but since then we know there was a centralized government that taxed surrounding towns and shipped goods. Since the book's release we have found heavily fortified sites dating to the time of David suggesting he did indeed rule over a considerable sized kingdom. We've also found several ostracon and pottery shards with writing on them dating as far back to the 13th century, disproving Finkelstein's main contention that the Pentateuch was composed as late as King Josiah. The amount of literature written by scholars and archaeologists more competent than I is vast, and so I will briefly summarize some of the finds from the time of the monarchy that have corroborated the Deuteronomist. The fortifications at Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo that the Deuteronomist ascribed to Solomon’s reign have all been discovered and dated toward Solomon’s reign. Khirbet Qeiyafa, a massive Judean fortress located on the Philistine border and dated to the time of the united monarchy, has propelled its excavator Yosef Garfinkel to write an essay titled, “The Death of Biblical Minimalism”. Garfinkel writes:
The argument that Judah was an agrarian society until the end of tenth century B.C.E. and that David and Solomon could not have ruled over a centralized, institutionalized kingdom before then has now been blown to smithereens by our excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa. The fortress is indeed impressive, and its construction could only have been carried out by a centralized state.
An ostracon was also found at Khirbet Qeiyafa, and it may very well be the first Hebrew inscription found. This conclusion is debated fiercely however and the translations of the text on the ostracon are ridiculously contradictory towards the other. What can be said with certainty is that this ostracon dates to the early 10th century B.C., and is a new addition to the plethora of other ancient inscriptions found in the Levant that disprove the wholly unconvincing argument that literacy wasn’t widespread in Israel until the 7th century B.C.
Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has stirred quite the pot with his low chronology, a proposed redating that would take the monumental building structures of Megiddo, Hazor, and other so called Solomonic structures and instead attribute them Omri, Ahab, and Jehu. Dever writes, “The principal result [of the low chronology] was to move the Iron I–IIA transition down almost one hundred years and incidentally (?) to rob the biblical united monarchy of all its archaeological correlates”.Finkelstein’s low chronology hasn’t been adopted by many besides himself and a substantial amount of atheist fedora wearers who were introduced to his work by his 2003 popular book, The Bible Unearthed. The excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa have probably dwindled the number of supporters to one. The conclusions reached in The Bible Unearthed were untenable when it released in 2001, but I was hoping that the archaeological finds since then would influence Finkelstein to abandon his position. He is a great archaeologist, and his 1988 book, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, remains one of the most influential works for understanding early Israel. William Dever and Amnon Ben Tor, the archaeologists who headed the excavations at Gezer and Hatzor respectively, disagree with Finkelstein’s redating, believing that these impressively fortified cities are truly Solomonic. Dever has noted that the buildings constructed in the 10th century are, “...not only the earliest evidence of monumental architecture in ancient Israel but are among the most impressive”. In an essay critiquing Finkelstein’s low chronology, Amnon Ben-Tor writes, “In sum, the two main arguments for the adoption of the low chronology are not well founded, and seem to us to be unconvincing”. William Dever, outspoken as ever, writes:

Finkelstein’s idiosyncratic low chronology rests on several assertions, all of which have little or no basis in fact.
In fact, there has never been any unequivocal empirical evidence in support of the “low chronology.” Only some carbon-14 dates offer any evidence at all, and many other dates support the conventional chronology (as at Tel Rehov, which Finkelstein never cites here). At best, the low chronology is a possibility for a 40-year, not a 100-year, adjustment. Even this is not probable, and it is certainly not proven.
He continues:
...Finkelstein...is gradually distancing himself from the extremes of his low chronology—without ever admitting he is doing so—and counting on the likelihood that readers will not check his “facts.” Even he now realizes that a Judahite state did exist in the tenth century B.C.E. and that it could have extended its rule to the north. He cannot bring himself to admit that David and Solomon were real tenth-century kings since he is on record as denying the existence of any Judahite state before the eighth century B.C.E. (or lately, the ninth century)...Ever since the discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa a decade ago, where Judahite state-formation is clear by the early tenth century (and Finkelstein accepts this early date), his “low chronology” has been progressively undermined. It should be abandoned.
Tel Rehov, the city Dever writes of, is a massive 10th century Judean settlement located in the Beth-Shean valley. The site is very large, around 25 acres. According to David E. Graves it “demonstrated a thriving, well ordered, unfortified city with small piazzas, industrial areas, and sacred enclosures”. Beekeeping was apparently widespread at the time, making the Bible’s description of Canaan as, “a land of milk and honey”, very literal. Excavator Amihai Mazar elaborates on the implications this discovery has:
If there indeed were at least one hundred active hives, then we can reconstruct the presence of over one million bees. It seems most likely that only a strong central authority could have established and conducted such a well-planned apiary in the center of the densely settled town
.
It's an interesting book, well written and witty. However it's outdated (and was so on release). Read its broad claims with a dose of skepticism.

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman have earned their pay. "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" rocks. This book simply puts to rout the sickening mythology underlying Judaism and Christianity. Even though I found the lack of end or foot notes and the authors employment of 'begging the question' bothersome, the findings of modern archaeology dispel the darkness of superstition. Without the patriarchs, Moses and the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, or a unified kingdom, the basis of the three major monotheisms crumble.

This is very good. Humanity need no longer be chained to vile and destructive mind viruses. As light replaces darkness, so truth supplants lies. The Israelites were indigenous to Canaan rather than invaders from Egypt. The Northern kingdom did not succeed from the united monarchy, rather it formed as a natural expression of the times. The Omride dynasty was not the villainous evil portrayed by the bible, but were instead strong and competent rulers for their people. Despite contradictory assertions regarding the size of settlements in Jerusalem during the middle bronze age, (On page 239-240 the authors indicate the late Middle Bronze age settlement Urusalim "... was a small highlands stronghold, located in the southeastern ridge of ancient Jerusalem..." while on page 323 the authors tell us "Shechem ... Bethel and Jerusalem - all three were massive Middle Bronze strongholds.") there is much to learn from this book.

The authors conclusion regarding the Omrides is strongly at odds with the biblical tone expressed by the writers and editors of the Kings and Chronicles. On page 194 we read: "The true character of Israel under the Omrides involves an extraordinary story of military might, architectural achievement, and (as far as can be determined) administrative sophistication. Omri and his successors earned the hatred of the Bible precisely because they were so strong, precisely because they succeeded in transforming the nothern kingdom into an important regional power that completely overshadowed the poor, marginal, rural-pastoral kingdom of Judah to the south. The possibility that the Israelite kings who consorted with the nations, married foreign women, and built Canaanite-type shrines and palaces would prosper was both unbearable and unthinkable."

Indeed it was unthinkable to the blood thirsty barbaric cult of the hill god YHWH. The human and animal sacrifice practiced by the proto Judites (as well as most of the other peoples in the region) and supression of Asherah fertility cults show how unthinkable northern success was. Changing from a matriarchal to patriarchal society brought with it the mindset prohibiting acceptance of the Northern kingdom as well as the debasement of women. Finklestein and Silberman briefly touch on YHWH's married status (to Asherah ) on page 242 in the course of describing the polytheistic practices of the poor and jealous southern kingdom. This rich area of study is being harvested by others. Surely the authors of "The Bible Unearthed" could have devoted more than a couple of paragraphs to this topic as it underlies the murders and degradations heaped upon women of most cultures.

Buy this book and Finkelstein's new one. Perhaps, like the Assyrians, the time of Judaism and Xianity will come to a close.

Included in a range of topics, the book presents the view that the kingdoms of David and Solomon are portrayed in the Bible in an exaggerated format. The most recent scientific data and archaeological research seems to be leading away from the authors' viewpoint, though the issue is not yet definitively settled. Areas of recent research supporting the biblical portrayal are:

1. Thomas Levy of UC San Diego has apparently verified the existence of industrial level copper production in Edom during the era in question thereby indicating the probability of a large & well organized Solomonic state (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Oct, 2008).

2. The discovery of large walls and early Hebrew writing at Khirbet Qeiyafa from the 10th century BCE indicating a substantial, literate Jewish state (BAR March/April 2010).

3. The unearthing by Eilat Mazar of large fortifications in Jerusalem purportedly from the early years of the Davidic dynasty. If her dating proves correct, Mazar will have provided noteworthy support for extensive Davidic/Solomonic empires (Jerusalem Post, Feb. 23, 2010).

Though the data is leading away from the Finkelstein/Silberman viewpoint, the issue is not yet finally settled (e.g. Mazar's dating). Further UPDATES will be added as things develop either way.

As a complete novice with respect to Biblical archaeology, I found most of this book very interesting. Since I am not familiar with the debates within the field or the evidence available, and because there is no easy connection made between the assertions in the text and the sources used, I had to take their arguments at face value. Nevertheless, hearing plausible explanations for the beginnings of Judah and Israel and their constantly shifting fortunes was enjoyable.

My complaint is that after writing a whole book that, if true, makes a pretty convincing case that the old testament is just historical fiction written for political purposes, the authors resort to pandering to the religious in the epilogue. Bart Ehrman tends to do the same thing with respect to the new testament. It is ridiculous to me to see someone work for 300 pages to dismantle the Biblical narrative and then go on about the power of the Bible's epic saga to generate solidarity and its value in creating hope for struggling people and to complain that scholars demand the Bible to be something it is not; accurate history.

Excuse me, but Abrahamic religion is not just a playground for the intellectual stimulation of scholars. It may not matter to professors or historians that this stuff is not true, but it doesn't have much function as a religion if it is false. I think it is safe to safe that the vast majority of people over the past several thousand years who have adhered to Abrahamic religion did so because they actually thought it was real. Think of the vast amount of suffering caused by this mess.Think about the countless lives and fortunes wasted for Yahweh. People didn't kill and torture each other over this text because they simply found that the epic saga of a struggling tribe resonated with them on some level. They behaved abominably, and still do, because they really think it is all true. It matters whether this is true.

I assume that since the pool of purchasers for these types of works is small, authors don't want to alienate the religious, and so they pander to them to try to make them feel better after smashing the truth value of the text. I find it irritating and wish they would leave it out and let readers deal with it as they will.

This book discusses recent archaelogical studies in Israel and focuses on how these discoveries do not in fact substantiate the biblical record. The authors point out how most archaelogy has been done by theologians bent on proving the biblical stories but who were almost universally mistaken about the cities and objects that they thought they had found.

Silburman and Finklestein present a theory about the creation of the earliest books of the old testament: that the cult of JHWH was only one of many religions widely practiced in ancient Israel. They propose that this cult gained favor during the time of King Josiah and created the much of the story in support of Joshiah's goal of taking over all of Israel. Basically, that the Pentateuch began as war propaganda.

In support of their theory, they point to biblical anachronisms -- such as stories of camel herds owned by prophets during times when archaeology says that there were no camel herds in the regions. And further, that the oldest camel bones in the region consist entirely of adult animal skeletons -- indicating that the first camels in the area didn't live there naturally but rather were brought there in camel trains from other regions.

They also point out that there very specific professies concerning King Josiah: that he would in fact take over all of Israel and restore the true doctrine, JHWH's cult, as the dominant religion.

The book also proposes that the story of the Exodus was actually constructed in Babylon sometime between 587 and 500 BC during the Jewish exile there. Specifically, the story of the Exodus mimics the experience of the Jews in exhile in Babylon at the time was written. The story was written to give the people hope that they might eventually be freed by the hand of God.

"The Bible Unearthed" covers the archaeology of the Old Testament. It shows the layout of the bible by showing the archaeology is more about the the Torah than the prophets(I recall Amos 9:7 which suggests the Philistines were from Crete, or Minoans. One of the great things I've found that comes from learning about Israel origins is one of the greatest archaeological mysteries still - the Aegean collapse; the collapse of late bronze age civilizations, from Hittites . . . covered in this book . . . to the City of Troy, and the Minoan Greeks).

"The Bible Unearthed" is good for showing some of the other exciting things about archaeology - showing the relations between hunter gatherers and agricultural civilizations. The Israelites efforts to settle, and to wright down this experience(n a mythological way) gives a window late in this development(the first agricultural cultures started 8,000 B.C. not 1,200 B.C.). Similarly, mankind made stone tools by scraping shards off. This technology was in use till the Greeks of about 800 B.C.! So, "The Bible Unearthed" is exciting for just a purely archaeological perspective, not just the Biblical.

I can't help describing a little bit of my story of getting into Biblical everything - archaeology and mythology. The book was published in 2002. I happened to be a no longer extant library, and just happened to check out the archaeology section, and there it was. The only real archaeology book in the whole section(that's how I remember it; there seemed to me lots of 'forbidden archaeology' books that suggest mankind lived amongst the dinosaurs, and agricultural civilization goes back hundreds of thousands of years ago and so on). Previously, I never thought anyone had any real scientific understanding of anything about the bible. I soon learned about astrotheology of Jesus Christ and much else. I was going to a community college at the time, and noticed a book at a sister community college. But, I didn't get around to it, till now!

Once again, I had later stumbled upon astrotheology as well. Since then, I've seen a certain wealth of literature there, and usually, I feel that, if I'm going to read another one of those astrotheology, it better be something really new. I had read a couple. Well, I decided to buy and read Tim Callahan's "Secret Origins of the Bible" just because I remembered seeing it, and how hard could it be? What I found was that Tim Callahan's book is the comparative mythology version of "The Bible Unearthed". I'd recommend reading it side by side! I'm tempted to throw in D.M. Murdock's "Did Moses Exist" as well! But, Tim Callahan's book covers the entire Old Testament, not just Exodus(like Murdock's book). - I mean that after finding "The Bible Unearthed" and then reading all kinds of other stuff, I still found "Secret Origins of the Bible" worth reading, and 2) that it's the comparative mythology version of this book.

In THE BIBLE UNEARTHED, Israeli archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman dispel any illusions that their digs have verified the story of the Exodus: “There was no mass Exodus from Egypt.” Instead, the authors present the cold, hard facts, that “…most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan – they emerged from within it.”

It is suspicious that we have to wait until chapter 12 of Exodus to learn: “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” (Exodus 12:40) Is this true? If the archaeologist’s spade says ‘no’ to a mass exodus out of Egypt, then were there really 430 years separating the death of Joseph from birth of Moses? A simple genealogical search calls this into question. The family tree recorded by the Levite scribes has Moses being born to the sixth generation after Abraham (Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses) yet the prophet marries a woman from the fourth generation (Isaac, Esau, Reuel, Zipporah). Can you imagine wedding someone from your grandparent’s generation? On the other hand, the generations work (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses) with Moses being the son of Joseph making the prophet’s bride (Zipporah) from his own generation.

Reuel was alive when his cousin Joseph lived and shockingly is still alive long enough to become Moses’ father-in-law. How does that happen if the 430 years of bondage is true?

The idea that Moses was the son of Joseph has a long pedigree. The Roman historian Marcus Junianus Justinus (3rd century) declared it to be a well-know fact. Relying upon an earlier, now lost, source (Pompeius Trogus) Justinus wrote the following about Joseph the Viceroy of Egypt: “His son was Moses ....” And the 3rd century BC Egyptian historian, Manetho claimed that Moses had a different name at birth. This leader (born in Heliopolis) was called “Osarseph” a combination of Osiris and Joseph.

Immediately before ascending the mountain, where he will die, Moses gives a farewell speech to the children of Israel. (Deuteronomy 33). He begins by addressing Reuben: “Let Reuben live, and not die” indicating that Reuel’s cousin was alive. But according to the Levite scribes Reuben had been dead for four centuries. Why then would the prophet speak about Reuben as if he was only ill? And then Moses goes on to talk directly to Levi. But Levi also was supposed to be long, long, dead. Moses makes reference to holy relics (Thummim and Urim) that were only worn by the high priest Aaron. And Moses then hits a sore spot by referring obliquely to Levi’s role in throwing Joseph into the pit (Genesis 37:20) and then lying about it. Moses charges that Levi was the one … “Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him…” (Deuteronomy 33:9). The ‘him’ was the missing Joseph, who had been sold into slavery by his jealous brothers.

For centuries biblical scholars have puzzled over the relationship between Levi and Aaron. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) one of the founders of the ‘documentary hypothesis’ was confounded by their relationship. In Numbers the scribes abruptly stop recording Aaron’s descendants while continuing on with Levi’s family tree. Aaron was an honored ancestor and high priest. Of all the people, the scribes should have wanted to record his descendants. “The failure to mention the clan of the descendants of Aaron,” writes former Harvard Professor Frank Moore Cross (1921-2012) is “most curious.” The reason for this convenient lapse is that Levi and Aaron are not two different people. They are the same person using different names. Levi’s father, Jacob had disinherited and cursed Levi (Genesis 49:5-7). In Midian, Levi was under Reuel’s tutelage, the disgraced Levi reinvented himself by becoming the respectable high priest Aaron.

Using the power of the pen, the Levite scribes invented the four centuries of bondage in Egypt and perpetuated the myth that Moses and Joseph lived in different eras. They deployed this clever smokescreen to hide a determined agenda. Clear away the smoke and a new timeline (supported by archaeological evidence of THE BIBLE UNEARTHED) emerges that exposes the character of two powerful men, Reuel and Levi. They both had plenty of opportunity (their ‘time’ alibi is blown) and more than enough motive (Levi’s hatred for Joseph and Reuel’s hatred of Joseph’s father, Jacob) to murder Moses and to replace the prophet with a man wearing a mask. (Exodus 34:33-35). The Masked Moses was Reuel, an Egyptian-trained magician who knew the power of masks and possessed the means (acts of illusion) to successfully impersonate the murdered Moses.

Archaeology was given its birth by financial supporters hoping the new science would prove the Bible to be historically accurate. Instead, as THE BIBLE UNEARTHED reveals, the spade challenges the pen.

I give this high marks for readability and for how it summarizes a large amount of archaeological and biblical research in one volume. I have to deduct one star for not referencing the sources for their information with any kind of in-text citations; as an academic (background in linguistics & education), I find this rather odd.
As a lay theologian, some of the information cited is not unfamiliar to me, though what is new is how far this goes in questioning the face-value reading of much of the historical / historiographical writings of the Hebrew Bible. From what I've read on online reviews, criticism of this book comes from two sources: [1] valid scholarly criticism from scholars who question some of their revised chronologies and hypotheses (e.g., a review article in the Journal of Religion & Society, vol. 3, 2001), and [2] knee-jerk reactions from those who simply find this threatening to preconceived notions of what the Bible should be (i.e., religious notions that are purely defensive and not well thought-out). I am not qualified to weigh in on the scholarly debates over their claims, but it's obvious to an academic reader that F&S are not motivated by any religious or political agenda, e.g., they are not trying to "attack" the Bible, as some would claim. They are simply doing scholarly work within the tradition of academic biblical scholarship.
Certainly for me as a Christian, the information in this book is disconcerting, as I don't yet know how to integrate this with my faith. But then, the same is true for much of modern biblical scholarship (to which I'm still a neophyte). I have yet to find a theologian who can articulate a satisfying and comprehensive explanation of how to integrate these kinds of findings into my Christian theology and spiritual practice. This book at least offers one starting point to what will be a complex enterprise - namely, the idea that the Israelites and their stories came from peasant / nomadic Canaanites, and later, a simple Jewish kingdom, who somehow starting to get an understanding and spiritual vision of a monotheistic God, and who were rising up against urbanite (and/or foreign) social injustice and oppression - a sense of personal holiness and social justice that came from a nascent and developing understanding of a single, holy God, vis-a-vis competing amoral worldviews.
It may be hard for Christians to accept the results of modern scholarship, but I'd rather be honest and formulate my theology on what is true, including an understanding of how the Hebrew Bible was written and for what purposes its books were originally written.

The authors wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 2001 book, “Almost eight years ago… the idea for this book was born. The debate about the historical reliability of the Bible was again beginning to attract considerable attention outside scholarly circles and we came to the realization that an updated book on this subject for general readers was needed. In it, we would set out what we believed to be the compelling archaeological and historical evidence for a new understanding of the rise of ancient Israel and the emergence of its sacred historical texts. Over the intervening years, the archaeological battle over the Bible has grown increasingly bitter… Despite the passions aroused by this subject, we believe that a reassessment of finds from earlier excavations and the continuing discoveries by new digs have made it clear that scholars must now approach the problems of biblical origins and ancient Israelite society from a completely new perspective… we will present evidence to bolster that contention and to reconstruct a very different history of ancient Israel.” (Pg. v-vi) [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 385-page hardcover edition.]

They wrote in the Introduction, “Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how their built their cities, and with whom they traded… Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered… But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all.” (Pg. 5) But they point out, “By the end of the twentieth century, archaeology had shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel and in the entire Near East and the world described by the Bible to suggest that the Bible was late and fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all. But at the same time there were too many contradictions between archaeological finds and the biblical narratives to suggest that the Bible provided a precise description of what actually occurred.” (Pg. 19-21) They clarify, “But suggesting that the most famous stories of the Bible did not happen as the Bible records them is far from implying that ancient Israel had no genuine history.” (Pg. 23)

They observe, “Indeed, the Bible provided a great deal of specific chronological information that might help… pinpoint exactly when the patriarchs lived… we arrive at a biblical date of around 2100 BCE for Abraham’s original departure for Canaan. Of course, there were some clear problems with accepting this dating for precise historical reconstruction, not the least of which were the extraordinarily long life spans of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… In addition, the later genealogies that traced Jacob’s descendants were confusing, if not plainly contradictory. Moses and Aaron, for example, were identified as FOURTH-generation descendants of Jacob’s son Levi, while Joshua, a contemporary of Moses and Aaron, was declared to be a TWELFTH generation descendant of Joseph, another of Jacob’s sons. This was hardly a minor discrepancy.” (Pg. 34-35)

They assert, “The conclusion---that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible---seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert… and where some archaeological indication---if present---would almost certainly be found.” (Pg. 63) They add, “The saga of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt is neither historical truth nor literary fiction. It is a powerful expression of memory and hope born in a world in the midst of change… To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story’s deepest meaning. Passover proved to be not a single event but a continuing experience of national resistance against the powers that be.” (Pg. 70-71)

They state, “Only recently has the consensus finally abandoned the conquest story. As for the destruction of Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, and other Canaanite cities, evidence from other parts of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean suggests that the destroyers were not necessarily Israelites.” (Pg. 83) They add, “If, as archaeology suggests, the sagas of the patriarchs and the Exodus were legends, compiled in later periods, and if there is no convincing evidence of a unified invasion of Canaan under Joshua, what are we to make of the Israelites’ claims for ancient nationhood? … archaeology surprisingly reveals that the people who lived in those villages were indigenous inhabitants of Canaan who only gradually developed an ethnic identity that could be termed Israelite.” (Pg. 98) They summarize, “the Bible’s stirring picture of righteous Israelite judges… has very little to do with what REALLY happened in the hill country of Canaan in the Early Iron Age. Archaeology has revealed that complex social transformations… far more than the later biblical concepts of sin and redemption---[were] the most formative forces in the birth of Israel.” (Pg. 122)

They explain, “many of the archaeological props that once bolstered the historical basis of the David and Solomon narratives have recently been called into question. The actual extent of the Davidic ‘empire’ is hotly debated. Digging in Jerusalem has failed to produce evidence that it was a great city in David or Solomon’s time. And the monuments ascribed to Solomon are now most plausibly connected with other kings. Thus a reconsideration of the evidence has enormous implications. For if there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan---and no prosperous united monarchy under David and Solomon---can we say that early biblical Israel, as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel, ever existed at all?” (Pg. 124) They add, “There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there were no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what WAS the nature of David’s realm?” (Pg. 142) They suggest, “the evidence reveals a complex demographic transformation in the highlands, in which a unified ethnic consciousness began only slowly to coalesce.” (Pg. 150)

They conclude, “We can never know how reliable were the traditions, texts, or archives used by the biblical authors to compile their history of the kingdom of Israel. Their aims were not to produce an objective history of the northern kingdom but rather to provide a theological explanation for a history that was probably already well known, at least in its broad details.” (Pg. 222)

While some theological conservatives may hate this book, it is an excellent summary of current research, and will be of great interest to students of biblical history and archaeology.

The authors wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 2001 book, “Almost eight years ago… the idea for this book was born. The debate about the historical reliability of the Bible was again beginning to attract considerable attention outside scholarly circles and we came to the realization that an updated book on this subject for general readers was needed. In it, we would set out what we believed to be the compelling archaeological and historical evidence for a new understanding of the rise of ancient Israel and the emergence of its sacred historical texts. Over the intervening years, the archaeological battle over the Bible has grown increasingly bitter… Despite the passions aroused by this subject, we believe that a reassessment of finds from earlier excavations and the continuing discoveries by new digs have made it clear that scholars must now approach the problems of biblical origins and ancient Israelite society from a completely new perspective… we will present evidence to bolster that contention and to reconstruct a very different history of ancient Israel.” (Pg. v-vi) [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 385-page hardcover edition.]

They wrote in the Introduction, “Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how their built their cities, and with whom they traded… Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered… But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all.” (Pg. 5) But they point out, “By the end of the twentieth century, archaeology had shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel and in the entire Near East and the world described by the Bible to suggest that the Bible was late and fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all. But at the same time there were too many contradictions between archaeological finds and the biblical narratives to suggest that the Bible provided a precise description of what actually occurred.” (Pg. 19-21) They clarify, “But suggesting that the most famous stories of the Bible did not happen as the Bible records them is far from implying that ancient Israel had no genuine history.” (Pg. 23)

They observe, “Indeed, the Bible provided a great deal of specific chronological information that might help… pinpoint exactly when the patriarchs lived… we arrive at a biblical date of around 2100 BCE for Abraham’s original departure for Canaan. Of course, there were some clear problems with accepting this dating for precise historical reconstruction, not the least of which were the extraordinarily long life spans of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… In addition, the later genealogies that traced Jacob’s descendants were confusing, if not plainly contradictory. Moses and Aaron, for example, were identified as FOURTH-generation descendants of Jacob’s son Levi, while Joshua, a contemporary of Moses and Aaron, was declared to be a TWELFTH generation descendant of Joseph, another of Jacob’s sons. This was hardly a minor discrepancy.” (Pg. 34-35)

They assert, “The conclusion---that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible---seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert… and where some archaeological indication---if present---would almost certainly be found.” (Pg. 63) They add, “The saga of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt is neither historical truth nor literary fiction. It is a powerful expression of memory and hope born in a world in the midst of change… To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story’s deepest meaning. Passover proved to be not a single event but a continuing experience of national resistance against the powers that be.” (Pg. 70-71)

They state, “Only recently has the consensus finally abandoned the conquest story. As for the destruction of Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, and other Canaanite cities, evidence from other parts of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean suggests that the destroyers were not necessarily Israelites.” (Pg. 83) They add, “If, as archaeology suggests, the sagas of the patriarchs and the Exodus were legends, compiled in later periods, and if there is no convincing evidence of a unified invasion of Canaan under Joshua, what are we to make of the Israelites’ claims for ancient nationhood? … archaeology surprisingly reveals that the people who lived in those villages were indigenous inhabitants of Canaan who only gradually developed an ethnic identity that could be termed Israelite.” (Pg. 98) They summarize, “the Bible’s stirring picture of righteous Israelite judges… has very little to do with what REALLY happened in the hill country of Canaan in the Early Iron Age. Archaeology has revealed that complex social transformations… far more than the later biblical concepts of sin and redemption---[were] the most formative forces in the birth of Israel.” (Pg. 122)

They explain, “many of the archaeological props that once bolstered the historical basis of the David and Solomon narratives have recently been called into question. The actual extent of the Davidic ‘empire’ is hotly debated. Digging in Jerusalem has failed to produce evidence that it was a great city in David or Solomon’s time. And the monuments ascribed to Solomon are now most plausibly connected with other kings. Thus a reconsideration of the evidence has enormous implications. For if there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan---and no prosperous united monarchy under David and Solomon---can we say that early biblical Israel, as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel, ever existed at all?” (Pg. 124) They add, “There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there were no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what WAS the nature of David’s realm?” (Pg. 142) They suggest, “the evidence reveals a complex demographic transformation in the highlands, in which a unified ethnic consciousness began only slowly to coalesce.” (Pg. 150)

They conclude, “We can never know how reliable were the traditions, texts, or archives used by the biblical authors to compile their history of the kingdom of Israel. Their aims were not to produce an objective history of the northern kingdom but rather to provide a theological explanation for a history that was probably already well known, at least in its broad details.” (Pg. 222)

While some theological conservatives may hate this book, it is an excellent summary of current research, and will be of great interest to students of biblical history and archaeology.

The authors wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 2001 book, “Almost eight years ago… the idea for this book was born. The debate about the historical reliability of the Bible was again beginning to attract considerable attention outside scholarly circles and we came to the realization that an updated book on this subject for general readers was needed. In it, we would set out what we believed to be the compelling archaeological and historical evidence for a new understanding of the rise of ancient Israel and the emergence of its sacred historical texts. Over the intervening years, the archaeological battle over the Bible has grown increasingly bitter… Despite the passions aroused by this subject, we believe that a reassessment of finds from earlier excavations and the continuing discoveries by new digs have made it clear that scholars must now approach the problems of biblical origins and ancient Israelite society from a completely new perspective… we will present evidence to bolster that contention and to reconstruct a very different history of ancient Israel.” (Pg. v-vi) [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 385-page hardcover edition.]

They wrote in the Introduction, “Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how their built their cities, and with whom they traded… Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered… But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all.” (Pg. 5) But they point out, “By the end of the twentieth century, archaeology had shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel and in the entire Near East and the world described by the Bible to suggest that the Bible was late and fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all. But at the same time there were too many contradictions between archaeological finds and the biblical narratives to suggest that the Bible provided a precise description of what actually occurred.” (Pg. 19-21) They clarify, “But suggesting that the most famous stories of the Bible did not happen as the Bible records them is far from implying that ancient Israel had no genuine history.” (Pg. 23)

They observe, “Indeed, the Bible provided a great deal of specific chronological information that might help… pinpoint exactly when the patriarchs lived… we arrive at a biblical date of around 2100 BCE for Abraham’s original departure for Canaan. Of course, there were some clear problems with accepting this dating for precise historical reconstruction, not the least of which were the extraordinarily long life spans of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… In addition, the later genealogies that traced Jacob’s descendants were confusing, if not plainly contradictory. Moses and Aaron, for example, were identified as FOURTH-generation descendants of Jacob’s son Levi, while Joshua, a contemporary of Moses and Aaron, was declared to be a TWELFTH generation descendant of Joseph, another of Jacob’s sons. This was hardly a minor discrepancy.” (Pg. 34-35)

They assert, “The conclusion---that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible---seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert… and where some archaeological indication---if present---would almost certainly be found.” (Pg. 63) They add, “The saga of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt is neither historical truth nor literary fiction. It is a powerful expression of memory and hope born in a world in the midst of change… To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story’s deepest meaning. Passover proved to be not a single event but a continuing experience of national resistance against the powers that be.” (Pg. 70-71)

They state, “Only recently has the consensus finally abandoned the conquest story. As for the destruction of Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, and other Canaanite cities, evidence from other parts of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean suggests that the destroyers were not necessarily Israelites.” (Pg. 83) They add, “If, as archaeology suggests, the sagas of the patriarchs and the Exodus were legends, compiled in later periods, and if there is no convincing evidence of a unified invasion of Canaan under Joshua, what are we to make of the Israelites’ claims for ancient nationhood? … archaeology surprisingly reveals that the people who lived in those villages were indigenous inhabitants of Canaan who only gradually developed an ethnic identity that could be termed Israelite.” (Pg. 98) They summarize, “the Bible’s stirring picture of righteous Israelite judges… has very little to do with what REALLY happened in the hill country of Canaan in the Early Iron Age. Archaeology has revealed that complex social transformations… far more than the later biblical concepts of sin and redemption---[were] the most formative forces in the birth of Israel.” (Pg. 122)

They explain, “many of the archaeological props that once bolstered the historical basis of the David and Solomon narratives have recently been called into question. The actual extent of the Davidic ‘empire’ is hotly debated. Digging in Jerusalem has failed to produce evidence that it was a great city in David or Solomon’s time. And the monuments ascribed to Solomon are now most plausibly connected with other kings. Thus a reconsideration of the evidence has enormous implications. For if there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan---and no prosperous united monarchy under David and Solomon---can we say that early biblical Israel, as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel, ever existed at all?” (Pg. 124) They add, “There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there were no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what WAS the nature of David’s realm?” (Pg. 142) They suggest, “the evidence reveals a complex demographic transformation in the highlands, in which a unified ethnic consciousness began only slowly to coalesce.” (Pg. 150)

They conclude, “We can never know how reliable were the traditions, texts, or archives used by the biblical authors to compile their history of the kingdom of Israel. Their aims were not to produce an objective history of the northern kingdom but rather to provide a theological explanation for a history that was probably already well known, at least in its broad details.” (Pg. 222)

While some theological conservatives may hate this book, it is an excellent summary of current research, and will be of great interest to students of biblical history and archaeology.

The authors wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 2001 book, “Almost eight years ago… the idea for this book was born. The debate about the historical reliability of the Bible was again beginning to attract considerable attention outside scholarly circles and we came to the realization that an updated book on this subject for general readers was needed. In it, we would set out what we believed to be the compelling archaeological and historical evidence for a new understanding of the rise of ancient Israel and the emergence of its sacred historical texts. Over the intervening years, the archaeological battle over the Bible has grown increasingly bitter… Despite the passions aroused by this subject, we believe that a reassessment of finds from earlier excavations and the continuing discoveries by new digs have made it clear that scholars must now approach the problems of biblical origins and ancient Israelite society from a completely new perspective… we will present evidence to bolster that contention and to reconstruct a very different history of ancient Israel.” (Pg. v-vi) [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 385-page hardcover edition.]

They wrote in the Introduction, “Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how their built their cities, and with whom they traded… Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered… But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all.” (Pg. 5) But they point out, “By the end of the twentieth century, archaeology had shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel and in the entire Near East and the world described by the Bible to suggest that the Bible was late and fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all. But at the same time there were too many contradictions between archaeological finds and the biblical narratives to suggest that the Bible provided a precise description of what actually occurred.” (Pg. 19-21) They clarify, “But suggesting that the most famous stories of the Bible did not happen as the Bible records them is far from implying that ancient Israel had no genuine history.” (Pg. 23)

They observe, “Indeed, the Bible provided a great deal of specific chronological information that might help… pinpoint exactly when the patriarchs lived… we arrive at a biblical date of around 2100 BCE for Abraham’s original departure for Canaan. Of course, there were some clear problems with accepting this dating for precise historical reconstruction, not the least of which were the extraordinarily long life spans of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob… In addition, the later genealogies that traced Jacob’s descendants were confusing, if not plainly contradictory. Moses and Aaron, for example, were identified as FOURTH-generation descendants of Jacob’s son Levi, while Joshua, a contemporary of Moses and Aaron, was declared to be a TWELFTH generation descendant of Joseph, another of Jacob’s sons. This was hardly a minor discrepancy.” (Pg. 34-35)

They assert, “The conclusion---that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible---seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert… and where some archaeological indication---if present---would almost certainly be found.” (Pg. 63) They add, “The saga of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt is neither historical truth nor literary fiction. It is a powerful expression of memory and hope born in a world in the midst of change… To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story’s deepest meaning. Passover proved to be not a single event but a continuing experience of national resistance against the powers that be.” (Pg. 70-71)

They state, “Only recently has the consensus finally abandoned the conquest story. As for the destruction of Bethel, Lachish, Hazor, and other Canaanite cities, evidence from other parts of the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean suggests that the destroyers were not necessarily Israelites.” (Pg. 83) They add, “If, as archaeology suggests, the sagas of the patriarchs and the Exodus were legends, compiled in later periods, and if there is no convincing evidence of a unified invasion of Canaan under Joshua, what are we to make of the Israelites’ claims for ancient nationhood? … archaeology surprisingly reveals that the people who lived in those villages were indigenous inhabitants of Canaan who only gradually developed an ethnic identity that could be termed Israelite.” (Pg. 98) They summarize, “the Bible’s stirring picture of righteous Israelite judges… has very little to do with what REALLY happened in the hill country of Canaan in the Early Iron Age. Archaeology has revealed that complex social transformations… far more than the later biblical concepts of sin and redemption---[were] the most formative forces in the birth of Israel.” (Pg. 122)

They explain, “many of the archaeological props that once bolstered the historical basis of the David and Solomon narratives have recently been called into question. The actual extent of the Davidic ‘empire’ is hotly debated. Digging in Jerusalem has failed to produce evidence that it was a great city in David or Solomon’s time. And the monuments ascribed to Solomon are now most plausibly connected with other kings. Thus a reconsideration of the evidence has enormous implications. For if there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest of Canaan---and no prosperous united monarchy under David and Solomon---can we say that early biblical Israel, as described in the Five Books of Moses and the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel, ever existed at all?” (Pg. 124) They add, “There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there were no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what WAS the nature of David’s realm?” (Pg. 142) They suggest, “the evidence reveals a complex demographic transformation in the highlands, in which a unified ethnic consciousness began only slowly to coalesce.” (Pg. 150)

They conclude, “We can never know how reliable were the traditions, texts, or archives used by the biblical authors to compile their history of the kingdom of Israel. Their aims were not to produce an objective history of the northern kingdom but rather to provide a theological explanation for a history that was probably already well known, at least in its broad details.” (Pg. 222)

While some theological conservatives may hate this book, it is an excellent summary of current research, and will be of great interest to students of biblical history and archaeology.

I enjoyed Mr. Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed." The only reservation I have is that he seems to offer more of a primer on the biblical story rather than focusing on the archaeology.

Mr. Finkelstein is definitely an accomplished archaeologist. I wish he had focused more on the finds than on the biblical text. To be fair, I think this work was directed more to the uninitiated than to those who already "know the story."

For those of us who have already studied the history, much of this text is redundant and boring. I found myself skipping many pages to get to the archaeology, which is good, but sparse.

If you need background on the OT, this is good. But if you are already familiar with the biblical story, you may find yourself bored.