Summary of, ‘The Bible Unearthed,’ by Finkelstein and Silberman.
In this book the authors examine the Old Testament narrative in the light of the archaeological evidence, in particular the results of excavations and large scale surveys of the region carried out over the past 35 years, with reference also to contemporary non-biblical documentary sources (mainly Egytian, Assyrian and Babylonian). These data, together with textual analysis of the scriptures themselves and the references they contain, indicate when, how and in what cultural context the books of the Old Testament were compiled.
Their conclusions are as follows:
The timescales in the OT are wildly incorrect.
Some of the scriptures were probably based on orally transmitted myths and folk traditions predating the period of the two kingdoms.
The stories of the Patriarchs appear to have been based on such legends and hero tales. The most that can be said of them is that the archaeological evidence suggests circumstances in which they might have originated. For example, there seems to be a recurrent pattern in which some of the people of the region shifted back and forth from a nomadic and pastoral way of life in times of political stability and prosperity, to agricultural subsistence when things were more unsettled.
The captivity in Egypt did not occur as described, nor did the Exodus; and the details given in the account are anachronistic, but Semitic peoples from Canaan did periodically move into the region of the Nile Delta and settle there, the most notable instance being the immigration which led to the Hyksos establishing a ruling dynasty in Egypt c.1670 BCE (later accounts depict this as a violent invasion, but the archaeology suggests otherwise). The Hyksos were eventually defeated and driven back into Canaan.
There is no evidence for Joshua’s conquest of Canaan as depicted in the biblical account; in fact the Israelites were Canaanites. There was widespread destruction of Canaanite cities during the 13th century BCE, but this is more properly understood in the context of a general upheaval and political crisis throughout the eastern Mediterranean region.
There is, however, evidence to suggest that there was a common culture in Palestine, which might loosely be termed Israelite, from about 13th century BCE onward (there is, for example, an absence of pig bones in certain sites), but this cannot be seen as intrusive.
There was no united monarchy and the accounts of the ‘empire’ of David and Solomon have no historical basis. The north and south kingdoms were always separate and, of the two, the north kingdom (Israel) was the wealthier and more populous. If David and Solomon existed at all they were likely to have been local tribal chieftains from the hill country of Judah, ruling over very small populations. There is, nevertheless, some independent evidence that the rulers of Judah traced their descent from David, namely the inscription from Tel Dan, in which Hazael of Syria boasts of his defeat of Jehoram, king of the House of David c.835 BCE. The authors also note the correspondence between the tales of David as chief of an outlaw band and the 14th century BCE and Egyptian accounts of the Apiru as a class of brigands on the fringes of Canaanite society.
The first scriptures (The Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Kings) were compiled during the final days of the monarchy in Judah during the reign of Josiah (7th century BCE); incorporating records from both kingdoms, although there were further redactions and additions during and just after the Babylonian exile (6th century BC).
The monotheistic cult of YHWH only rose to prominence during this time – 7th and 6th centuries BCE.
Much of the motivation for the writings was to demonstrate the superiority of Judah and, in particular, its king Josiah.. The northern kingdom had already been destroyed by the Assyrians, which is the reason it gets a bad press in the OT – history is written by the victors, or at least the survivors. The authors stress what they see as the religious as well as political motives of Josiah – the wish to establish the cult of YHWH as the sole religion of the people of Judah.
Manasseh was a successful monarch presiding over a long period of peace for Judah (and not as depicted in the OT), whereas Josiah is more likely to have precipitated the events leading to the destruction of the kingdom through his overt ambition, which was seen as a threat to the Babylonian empire.
The Authors: Israel Finkelstein is director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. Neil Asher Silberman is director of historical interpretation for the Ename Centre for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation in Belgium.
Summary of, ‘Who Wrote the Bible,’ by Richard Elliott Friedman.
There are four main sources for the OT books of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. There is also a redactor (R) who put them together.
The earliest two versions of the Torah (Pentateuch), except Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written at about the same time before (probably just before) the destruction of the northern kingdom in 722 BC. These are called J, where God is referred to throughout as YHWH (or Yahweh) and E, derived from His name, Elohim (which just means ‘God’ in ancient Hebrew). J was composed in Judah and E in the north. E was brought south after the fall of the northern kingdom by its custodians (probably Shilohite priests). These were from the Mushite (Moses) succession of priests.
Somebody in Judah (we don’t know who) combined them to produce a reasonably coherent narrative. The reason why both versions needed to be represented is because there were lots of refugees from the northern kingdom in Judah and if the southern account only had been proposed as the true version there might well have been trouble. This is why there are so many repetitions, inconsistencies and contradictions – two schools representing two different interests.
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were written by one person mainly during the reign of Josiah in Judah (late 7th or early 6th century BC) but partly after its destruction by the Babylonians in 587 BC. That author was Jeremiah (with help from his scribe, Baruch), who fled to Egypt after the Babylonian invasion. He deliberately wrote from a Mushite perspective and emphasising Josiah as the Davidic successor and an example of a good king. This bit is accepted almost in its entirety by Finkelstein and Silberman
The fourth element is termed the priestly (P) source and was responsible for most of the Torah as we have it now, including all of Leviticus. It was written from an Aaronid (the line of Aaron) perspective and composed during the reign of Hezekiah (7th century BC) – Josiah’s grandfather.
There were two priestly traditions – those who traced their ancestry to Moses and those to Aaron – and both of their writings were combined to produce what we now know as the Torah and histories by a redactor. This redactor was Ezra and it was all put together by him after the building of the second temple following the release of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. He was an Aaronid priest.
Friedman takes as read that the Egyptian captivity happened and that Moses and Aaron were real people. He also seems to believe that David and Solomon reigned over a united kingdom. He does not go so far as to suggest that the Patriarchs existed. His brief is not an archaeological history of the Bible lands but a textual critique of certain bits of the OT.
Summary of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus.’
Ehrman is an expert on New Testament biblical textual analysis and chairs the department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. His personal spiritual journey is interesting. He grew up an average church-going child whose parents were religious but more by custom than conviction. In his later teens he joined a group who took the bible literally as the perfect and unadulterated word of God. Gradually, through his theological studies at university, he began to have doubts. These doubts grew as he detected more and more inconsistencies and contradictions. It was then that his interest in textual criticism really took flight as he tried to understand what the underlying message might be and how these variations arose. He is now agnostic.
The earliest fragment we have of anything from the New Testament is dated early second century AD and anything more substantial dates from the third century onwards.
There have been a huge number of alterations over the years for a number of reasons:
- Copyist error (the most common cause);
- Correcting what was thought to be an earlier error;
- Deliberate manipulation of the text to suit the scribe’s views; and
- Organised changes to make the document conform to the theological views of the group commissioning the copy.
Errors of the first kind were more prevalent during the early years before the advent of professional scribes. Most of the copies then were written by barely literate Christians, literate slaves and/or by dictation.
All scribes were prone to amending text to say what they thought the document should have said.
As most scribes were Christian many were tempted to alter text to suit their own views and prejudices, and to conform to the mores of their own era.
The last form of textual corruption was a consequence of the power struggle between various sects and doctrines. As the victors write the history, what we are left with is the proto-orthodox version.
Ehrman details various techniques used to sort the sheep from the goats and attempts to reconstruct what the original authors might have written.
He also points out that the earliest extant texts are not necessarily the most reliable and that most English translations, including the King James, are not to be relied upon. The best, in his view, is the NRSV – but it is still no substitute for reading the original Greek.
What we are left with are copies of copies of copies of copies etc, each with their myriad errors, compounding one on the other; and then poor translations of these.
Most of the errors are trivial but some are of fundamental importance to Christian beliefs. He cites many examples:
- The last 14 verses of Mark are later additions;
- The woman taken in adultery in John was added later;
- The only reference to the Trinity is fake; and
- Many of Paul’s letters were amended to reduce the importance and role of women in the early church.
He does not, however, try to identify the historical character of Jesus, who provided the inspiration for the letters of Paul and the Gospels. His email response to the question, ‘Why not?’ was that he was concerned solely with establishing the likely authenticity of the text and not the historical events that the NT depicts. He agreed, however, with our view that Geza Vermes is an expert on the subject who is well worth reading.
Elephantschild and Boltonian
By: boltonian on December 8, 2007 
By: Elephantschild on December 9, 2007 
By: 
By: Casual Comment on December 15, 2007 