Posted on January 18, 2007 by Jim
The Bible Unearthed: The Making of a Religion, is a new DVD produced by First Run Films based on the book of the same name by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The DVD arrived today (so I could review it) and I must say right out of the gate, I am incredibly impressed. Usually, “Bible films” and “Bible documentaries” drive me crazy with their incredibly inaccurate or downright misleading information. But this one- on the contrary, is a genuine work of scholarship as well as film art. The photography is excellent and the artistic recreations of persons and places is top notch.
In this installment I will offer my observations on the first segment of the film, Episode One: the Patriarchs. In days to come I will review the following three episodes as well.
The DVD opens with the narrator assuring us that study of the Bible has been revolutionized by modern archaeology. In this episode, how our perception of the Patriarchs is altered by this revolution is the center of focus. Israel Finkelstein appears on screen describing the excavation history of Megiddo and its 25 strata.
Next, Jacques Briend offers a brief overview of the history of biblical interpretation in terms of how archaeology has been used to “prove the Bible” (the Bible and Spade movement) and how by the 1960’s this movement (for most scholars) had become methodologically questionable and how archaeology in Palestine is now an independent discipline.
[Note- wouldn’t it be nice if the people who read Biblical Archaeology Review understood this].
This new approach, Briend suggests, has changed our perception of the biblical narrative. Now, in the words of the narrator, “books of stone shed light on works of paper” (instead of the other way around deployed in the “Bible and Spade” movement).
Thomas Römer next appears offering a brief history of the Biblical text and then the film turns to a specific examination of how the new archaeological method is shedding light on the story of the Patriarchs. How? First, the Mesopotamian texts often used to support the stories of Abraham are shown to be anything other than supportive of that story. John van Seters offers evidence that the Nuzi texts prove absolutely nothing about the historicity of Abraham. And Israel Finkelstein opines that the “biblical archaeology” movement is simply an approach that does not work, at all.
Along the same line, stories of Abraham and the other Patriarchs interacting with the Philistines cannot be historical (if Abraham lived when he was supposed to) because the Philistines did not arrive in Canaan until 1200 BCE or so. Ayelet Gilboa straightforwardly says that “there were no Philistines in Canaan in Abraham’s time!”
There were no “camel caravans” during the putative period of the Patriarchs either because camels were not domesticated until 1000 BCE according to Lidar Zapir and the Assyrians initiated such caravans in the 7th century BCE when they controlled Judah. Hence, according to Finkelstein, the evidence from archaeology shows that the events recorded in Genesis are anachronistic before the 7th century. In other words, Genesis fits the 7th century, not the 18th or 17th or 15th or 14th or 12th.
The stories of Isaac too and Jacob do not “fit” the chronology developed by the Albright, Bright, Wright school of “Bible and Spade” archaeologists. As early in the 20th century as Martin Noth, this was made quite clear. Römer suggests that the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were independent traditions combined by the writers of the Bible and that originally these independent traditions had absolutely nothing to do with one another.
These texts (i.e., in Genesis) arose in the 7th century in Jerusalem and Abraham was the central character because the traditions dealing with him stem from Judah. The purpose of the biblical genealogies in Genesis is thus to link all the families of the region to Abraham and so to claim that all of them are one great family, tracing their roots to Abraham as the source of their “family tree”.
The story of the Patriarchs is the first pillar of Judaism. Belonging to a people and belonging to a religion are one and the same thing. That is the reason these stories were created and collected.
The question of the Exodus is next.
January 19, 2007 by Jim
Before I begin this portion of the review I would like to make a comment on the cost of the film. At $490 it is, naturally, far and away incredibly unlikely that individual scholars will be able to make a copy their own. But it is quite possible that research libraries and “well to do” individuals could purchase copies and make them available to students and scholars alike. That said, on to the review of the second part…
Episode 2 of The Bible Unearthed: The DVD begins with a recap of the first episode provided by Thomas Römer of the University of Lausanne. Thomas continues then to recap as well the biblical telling of the story of Joseph which leads quite naturally to the relevant question, is there any Egyptian evidence for such a series of events? Neil Silberman journeys to the French Institute for Oriental Studies in Cairo to ask the Egyptologist Jean Pierre Cortegianni.
Cortegianni indicates that, yes, indeed, there were Semites who were in Egypt and some of them became quite powerful. And yes, Pi-Ramses was constructed by Ramses II, though few vestiges remain because the stones were later removed and taken to construct Tanis.
So the tales about Joseph are possible, but not demonstrable. And what of Moses? What are the historical facts concerning Israel, Egypt, and the Exodus? Cortegianni observes that the only mention of Israel in Egyptian literature from the period in question is the famous mention in the Stele of Merneptah, line 27, from the 14th century BCE. Hence, if there were an “exodus” it would have to have taken place before that stele was erected.
Next, Silberman visits Donald Redford at his excavation in Mendes, Egypt, to enquire concerning the route of the Exodus. Redford opines that there were a line of Egyptian garrisons on the “Way of Horus” (the “northern route”) and any attempt by any large group of people to go that way would have been thwarted. This leaves the “southern route” as the only possible choice, which seems to accord with the biblical account.
Still, there are archaeological problems with this since, according to the Bible, the people of Israel journeyed to Kadesh-Barnea and stayed there a good while. But there are no 13th century remains in Kadesh-Barnea and in fact there are no remains along the entire route, which is certainly inexplicable if a group of 600,000 men plus their families and herds made way through the desert. If the Israelites left Egypt to the tune of nearly 2 million, this would have left Egypt virtually depleted of population, since the entire country only had a population of 3.5 million in the 13th century! Such a depletion most certainly would have been remarked upon and left traces in economic upheaval.
There are other clues which give good indications that the writer of the Exodus account was familiar with Egypt not in the 13th century but the 7th. It wasn’t until, for instance, 600 BC that Pithom was built. In fact, the geographical clues (cites and towns listed) in Exodus reflect the situation in Egypt between 664 and 525 BCE. Hence, according to Finkelstein et al, Exodus was composed sometime in the 7th century BCE. The exodus described in that book could not have taken place in the 13th century BCE.
But why would a writer in the 7th century tell a story like Exodus?
When Israel (the northern kingdom) was destroyed by the Assyrians a flood of refugees left the north and came to Judah. Hezekiah’s Jerusalem grew 10 fold (from 6 to 60 hectares) and Hezekiah entered upon expansion and defensive building projects, including the famous tunnel which bears a paleo-Hebrew inscription. Ronny Reich points out that the tunnel of 500 meters was not a straight line but an S shape, making the fact that the two teams of excavators meeting in the right spot truly remarkable. And Silberman notes, quite correctly I think, that it is now, in its history, that Judah begins to memorialize its accomplishments. For the first time it has a centralized government and literate bureaucrats.
Dominique Charpin raises the important question at this point- would Judah capitulate to being an Assyrian vassal or would it remain independent with Egypt’s help? It chose independence which led to the disaster of Lachish. That disaster, David Ussishkin points out, resulted in Judean vassalage but economic prosperity. A genuine government was then set up and an impressive state was born.
The Assyrians withdrew in 630 to deal with the Babylonian threat. With Assyria absent Judah began to dream of a greater kingdom, looking north to the former lands of Israel. It is during this period that Josiah “finds” the scroll in the Temple and initiates his grand “pan-Israelite” reform. The cult was centralized and Judah became the center of the government and faith. Unfortunately for Josiah, at the same time as he wishes to expand north, Egypt has the same intentions. Under its Pharoah, Egypt renewed its desire to retake portions of Canaan. Hence, Egypt was all that stood in Josiah’s way.
Exodus was composed, then, to assure a small group of people that they could overcome an Egyptian Empire if they followed their divinely inspired, law giving leader. Josiah is the “new Moses” who will lead his people to victory, just as Moses led the people to freedom. This established the second pillar of Judaism, the Law. It is this Law which serves to coalesce the children of Abraham.
Are Finkelstein et al right in their fascinating historical reconstruction? So far it seems so. But there are two segments left so a final assesment will have to wait till all the evidence is in.
In the next Episode: The Kings
January 20, 2007
In the 3rd Episode we are treated, again, at the beginning, with a recap of the preceding 2 episodes. We find ourselves, then, on Mount Nebo where discussion of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua is the topic. Thomas Römer again serves as our “tour guide” through the Biblical account of the conquest, which he describes as a “Blitzkrieg” dated to the 2nd half of the 13th century BCE.
Hazor was one of the cities listed in Joshua as conquered so naturally, Finkelstein visits and interviews Amnon ben-Tor who posits a destruction level at the 13th cenury BCE strata, which naturally supports the chronology of Joshua. Footage of Yadin’s excavation demonstrates that he too saw the Biblical account as “historical”. But was he right?
At Jericho, Kenyon has already demonstrated that its ruins predate the 13th century BCE and that the city was unoccupied at the time the conquest was supposed to have happened. Further, Finkelstein expresses the suggestion that many of the cities supposedly conquered by Joshua were not occupied in the 13th century and that the destruction of those cities spanned over a century.
Further suggesting against the historicity of the biblical account of conquest is the fact that the Egyptians held Canaan from the 14th century BCE until the 12th. Proof of this is contained in the El Amarna tablets and in the fact that Beth-Shean was an Egyptian bastion during that same time. So, if Joshua is historically inaccurate, how are we to explain the destruction of those cities and the list of sites in Joshua?
According to Römer, the stories in Joshua and Judges serve as prelude to Kingship. Judges, in fact, shows that without a King there can be no stability or nation. So Samuel comes on the scene and anoints Saul and David.
But was there really a David? According to Finkelstein, yes, there was, as the inscription discovered at Tel Dan illustrates. But does that mean that David was head of an Empire? Or that there was an Empire in the 10th century BCE when David ruled? Not if the archaeology is to be believed. In the 10th century the City of David was very small, more a town than anything else, with a very small population, according to Ronny Reich. Its extent was no more than 3-4 hectares.
Was Solomon his son a great builder and ruler over an extensive Empire? Again, the answer is no if the archaeological evidence is taken seriously. Jerusalem remained a tiny village and the cities Solomon is ascribed as building, Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer were not built until a full century after Solomon, by Omri!
The archaeological evidence seems to indicate that Israel was the wealthy kingdom in the 10th century and Judah was nothing more than a small, poor, insignificant kingdom. But after the destruction of Israel, it fell to Judah to “tell the family story” and so Judah ascribed to itself the achievements of the Northern Kingdom and to its kings the accomplishments of those Northern Kings.
When the Assryians departed Judah to deal with the Babylonians, Josiah saw his opportunity to reclaim the territory of the North. And this is where the stories of Joshua and David and Solomon become important. Joshua delineates the territory Josiah wishes to control and the stories of David and Solomon provide the model for the great Empire Josiah envisaged.
History had other plans for Josiah, however, and he perished at the hand of the Egyptian Pharoah. This traumatic event provided, in the estimation of our film-makers, the catalyst for the third pillar of Judaism- its hope for a King who will come one day to bring to fruition David’s Empire and Josiah’s dream.
Finkelstein’s chronological reconstruction is eminently “possible” and save his acceptance of the Tel Dan inscription as proof of a historical ‘David’, I think he’s right on target. Indeed, the archaeological evidence is certainly on his side.
on the seal before the resh in Rephaihu is a lamed, making the line read “Belonging to Rephaihu”. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/message/7515 (Thus, my theorizing that perhaps the sign was an unsuccessful and incomplete attempt to incise the first resh has gone out the window, although that first lamed does not quite match the lamed on the second line in Shalem/Shallum or the curved-bottom ca. 700 BCE lamed on Ada Yardeni’s “Alphabets Ancient & Modern” chart.)
5 Comments | 
archaeology, biblical studies | 
Permalink
Posted by Jim
