[.ca] The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient ... (ISBN 0684869136)

From Amazon.com:
The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah." Yet the authors deny that their arguments should be construed as compromising the Bible's power. Only in the 18th century--"when the Hebrew Bible began to be dissected and studied in isolation from its powerful function in community life"--did readers begin to view the Bible as a source of empirically verifiable history. For most of its life, the Bible has been what Finkelstein and Silberman reveal it once more to be: an eloquent expression of "the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive," written in such a way as to encompass "the men, women, and children, the rich, the poor, and the destitute of an entire community." --Michael Joseph Gross

The Bible as Myth and Propaganda:
This book should be read in conjunction with Thomas Thompson's "The Mythic Past." Both attempt, and succeed, in this reader's opinion, in demolishing the myth of the bible as "history." Using the latest archaeological research, Finkelstein and Silberman demonstrate that the portrayal of a United Kingdom, of a prosperous pre-7th century Jerusalem, of an historical exodus, are stories. They never happened as portrayed in the the Bible. The archaeology shows that ancient Palestine was not a collection of "city states" united under a powerful monarchy at ANY period of its early existence. It certainly did not conquer the Canaanites. These were later myths projected onto an uncertain past for political purposes. While Finkelstein and Silberman opt for an earlier date for the composition and collection of these myths, Thompson makes a better case for the Maccabean era. The bible is a fiction that has been used for too long as an imperial document. A scientific study of Palestine's history, and of the fabrication of said history must be taken in order to grasp that absolute absurdity of the Zionist claim to modern-day Palestine.

Exposing the roots:
During the past century, archaeology's tool kit gained immensely in size and quality. New, accurate, dating systems pinpoint events. Researchers study humble pollen, weather conditions, changes in household implements along with building construction plans and methods. Even the "dismal science" of economics contributes information on trade, surpluses, products exchanged and records. Documents, always problematic, are subject to intense criticism and comparison. Inevitably, this investigative array has turned to the eastern Mediterranean and the societies flourishing there in "biblical times". During the 19th and early 20th Centuries, scholars rooted in the desert sands seeking evidence that Biblical episodes indeed occurred. The authors turn that process on its head, accepting the occurrence of events but challenging their dating. Biblical dating, they argue, is generally contrived. What would be the reason for fabricating excess longevity to the founding of the Jewish people? According to the authors, it was an attempt by priest-scribes to formulate a theologically-based ideology. The purpose of this propaganda document was to justify a forced reunification of the "dual kingdoms" of Israel and Judah, long sundered, but still related. Instead of a history written over strung out centuries, Finkelstein and Silberman say the authors of the Torah flourished during the 7th Century BCE. Their intent was to galvanise the people of Judah to participate in the reconquest of Israel. As the biblical writers put it, David founded a glorious kingdom, further enhanced by Solomon. This empire was centred on the Temple in Jerusalem. A centralised dogma with adherence to a single deity \ono matter how capricious\c represented by a single building in a central city was the rallying point. The Torah, then, was little more than a manifesto for conquest and unification. Past failures and successful invasions by Egyptians, Assyrians and Persians were attributed to idolatry, intermarriage with foreign women and rejection of YHWH, the all-powerful desert god. Finkelstein and Silberman credit the biblical authors with manipulating, if not fabricating past events to build the case for Jewish unity. The book's authors bring every tool in archaeology's kit to bear in constructing their case. Each chapter opens with a "biblical account" of periods and events. The archaeological evidence is then presented for comparison. The Exodus, for example, a Jewish foundation stone of tradition and celebration, lacks all support. The Egyptians, meticulous record-keepers, say nothing of large Hebrew slave populations. Pharonic border guardians, ever alert to invasions from the east, apparently missed half a million people crossing the other way. The great infrastructure projects attributed to Solomon were more likely to have come from the despised Omride dynasty of Samaria. The evidence derives from gate construction techniques. Even business makes a contribution - it was Judah's rise in commerce that improved its level of literacy. A more learned population was more susceptible to the wave of propaganda insisting Israel and Judah should be reunited. Finkelstein and Silberman avoid sinking into the morass of "biblical minimalism" prevalent in recent years. They don't contest the "historical reality" of biblical events. They do insist on better evidence for chronology, and for realistic assessment of the power of Jewish leaders. David couldn't have ruled more than a minuscule kingdom and nobody seems to have heard of Solomon. The authors acknowledge the long-term impact of the Torah and its successors in the Christian world. The reason, they argue, is that no other theological or political documents of the time reached so many people so intimately. Greeks, Persians, Egyptians and Babylonians all produced their commentators. None of these, however, could prescribe the daily lives of their readers. The Hebrew Bible's writer's provided this and other guides with a surety of purpose other societies never matched. It proved an effective, if historically flawed, document. \ostephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada\c

Interesting:
This book focuses on investigating on what archeological findings and data tell us about the Hebrew Bible and its contents. The authors do a pretty thorough job and look at the issue from many angles. In general, the authors believe that: - The Hebrews/Israelites were not immigrants who went from Egypt to Canaan, and were in fact an obscure cultural group who always lived in Canaan - The Hebrews / Israelites gradually rose to dominance, and the conquests of Canaan desribed in books such as Joshua are not true - The Biblical descriptions of King David's and Solomon's empire, conquests, and palaces are all exagerations. - There was not really a united Jewish religion for most of history in the Judah/Israel region, and at times in various regions there were other gods worshipped along with YHWH - Most parts of the Jewish Bible were written much later than the Jewish tradition tells us Overall, I would say that this bok is worth reading, although it does have its boring parts.

This is an honest and a scientific job:
This book is very interesting. It challenges the old idea that Bible was writen by men inspired by God. It shows clearly that Bible was writen by priests that had the yahwist religious, most from Judah, against people from the old baal religious traditions, most from Israel. Everything that a baalist king did, was bad before the eyes of their god YHWH, even when an heroic king like Ahab fighted strongly against Assirian domination and improved strongly the Israel economy. Everything that a Yahvist king did was good for the eyes of god, even when he was like Jehu, very subservient to Assirian empire. The book shows clearly that the prophets from that time were men like us, with great envy, prejudices and personal interests in make money with the monopoly of sacrifices centralized in Jerusalem. Complete different of it would be expected from a God's men.

Was expecting an education book:
I didn't find this book to be educational as it was lacking in true archeological definitions, actual digs, and certainly lacking substance in ever observation stated.