The Bible Unearthed

“The Bible Unearthed,” by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, is an attempt to establish a moderate position on how much “history” is in the Hebrew Bible. This is certainly not a “the truth must be somewhere in the middle” approach to reconcile the “minimalist” view of the Copenhagen School with the “maximalist” view of Conservative Christians, rather it strikes me as a honest attempt to understand what the combination of the Bible, extra-biblical sources and modern archaeology is telling us about the history of Canaan and the development of the Bible itself.

I’m still in the process of studying the book, but I’ve run into a commentary about the book by Finkelstein and Silberman and I thought some of the quotes in that commentary were interesting.

“Our main contention is that the historical narratives of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History can be convincingly linked to the ideological and political program of the Judean kingdom in the 7th century BCE.”

In other words, the forensic evidence seems to line up very much with the Documentary Hypothesis which places the authorship of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1& 2 Kings in the reign of Josiah and identifies the motive behind the history as a desire to legitimize the territorial aspirations of the King of Judah toward the lands which previously formed the northern kingdom of Israel..

"…we lay out the argument for this contention by examining how weak is the archaeological evidence for the patriarchs, Exodus, conquest of Canaan, and United Monarchy of David and Solomon."

Weak appears to be something of an understatement. The authors make a very strong case that the story of Joshua, for example, demonstrates clear evidence of it being written in the 7th century BCE if for no other reason than the match in the description of the geography of the area. They find NO evidence for the patriarchs or the Exodus. While the lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, they argue, rather convincingly, that there SHOULD be evidence of the Exodus. Not finding evidence where one should find it is generally recognized as evidence that something didn’t actually happen.

More about the United Monarchy later.

"While hardly anyone these days gets exercised over the suggestion that the Mahabarata’s Hindu Prince Arjuna might be a powerful literary creation rather than a specific historical figure, or that a particular Achaean named Achilles might not have slain a particular Trojan named Hector, something strange and emotional seems to happen when doubt is cast on the historical character of the kingdom of David and Solomon."

That’s because there aren’t any Fundamentalist Homerians around that think the Iliad is the inerrant “Word of God” and should be interpreted literally. Philosopher Michael E. Berumen makes the observation that “people of a religious bent are especially apt to confuse their beliefs with understanding or knowledge.”

I believe it, therefore it must be true and any disagreement is viewed as persecution. Berumen also observes that the religious have “an overwhelming need to have others believe the same things…By their very existence, nonbelievers, deviants, and apostates shake a believer's confidence in his view of the world, which he finds wholly intolerable.”

This is why very religious people tend to react so strongly to any criticism or mockery of their beliefs. I understand the sensitivity, I’m just not prepared to allow it to prevent me from saying what I believe needs to be said.

"For the last two centuries archaeologists and biblical scholars have been engaged in a continuous struggle to separate the purely theological or mythic narratives of the Bible from those that contain what might be regarded as reliable history."

A struggle which I might point out has occurred largely below the radar of the average person. However, with the emergence of the Communications Age, and in particular the Internet, the information about this struggle is slowing seeping its way into the general public. The effect, if any, of that seepage is unclear to me. I suspect that for some it will mean abandoning any remaining vestiges of belief and for others it will mean digging in their heels and trying to censor the positions that contradict religious dogma. But the overwhelming majority will probably just shrug and ignore the whole thing.

"…today, the scholarly disputes over the historicity of a seven-day creation of the world, of the Garden of Eden, and the story of Noah’s Ark are over —even though some nasty skirmishing occasionally flares up at school board meetings."

Yeah, pathetic ain’t it? Even biblical scholars agree with scientists that evolution is a fact. This is clearly a swipe at the U.S. and we deserve it. It is incredible to me that this level of ignorance exists in a so-called modern nation. Then again, see Berumen’s observation above.

"Long gone also are the serious scholarly attempts to trace archaeologically the progress of the Exodus of 600,000 Israelites across Sinai toward Canaan."

In other words, most modern archeologists are convinced that the Exodus, as described in the Bible, never happened. To be honest, I’ve yet to locate a non-Evangelical Christian archeologist, historian or Egyptologist that still thinks it did.

"The extensive surveys carried out in the West Bank by Israeli archaeologists during the 1970s and 1980s showed that the settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Canaan was not a lightning invasion but a complex process of social transformation."

Clearly no Exodus equals no campaign in Canaan. It appears that there is a pretty wide consensus that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah evolved over time from indigenous people in the southern and northern highlands and the forensic archeological and extra-biblical evidence seems to support that consensus.

"Today, the frontline has come to rest in the era of David and Solomon. Indeed there is now an ongoing scholarly free-for-all debate over the historical reality of the Kingdom of David and Solomon in which tempers have sometimes flared, names have been called, and sneering accusations of hidden political and religious agendas have been tossed back and forth."

At least Finkelstein and Silberman are not denying the existence of King David as a historical figure. Even I’d have a big problem with that one. If King David didn’t exist, he should have, so let’s not rock the boat. What they do argue, is that it’s rather unlikely a United Kingdom of Judah and Israel ever existed or, if it did, that it was as spectacular as the bible implies.

They make a strong case that the northern kingdom of Israel was a major power under the Omride Dynasty while the southern kingdom of Judah existed as a sort of poor rural cousin. The Omrides, and especially Ahab who married Jezebel, was absolutely demonized in 1 Kings and the Bible wasn’t too happy with Jezebel either.

I have to say that reading “The Bible Unearthed,” as well as other papers by the authors, has built up a healthy respect in me for them as dedicated scientists and honest men. They’re not out to further a cause, they’re just trying to understand, as best they can, what the evidence is telling them.

Obviously I have no way of independently verifying their conclusions and, unfortunately, all of the counter-arguments I’ve been able to locate are from Christian Apologists and are about as compelling as the Creationist arguments against evolution. In other words, pending further evidence, I have to accept the author’s general conclusions as probably true.