rob117

I don't think Friedman has commented directly on Finkelstein's claims because he's not qualified to- Friedman deals with the text, Finkelstein with the archaeology. If Finkelstein is correct, Friedman's basic reconstruction would not have to change very much anyway- his dating of the Court History of David (and therefore J and E) to the late 9th century would likely have to be down-dated to perhaps the mid-8th in order to accomodate time for the United Monarchy story to develop, but that's about it.

Dean Anderson

Indeed - I'm currently re-reading The Bible Unearthed, and in that book Finkelstein quotes Friedman as an authority and agrees with his basic conclusions (barring the slight dating change you mention).

Rick Sumner

Finkelstein and Silberman make a convinincing case, both for how the narrative developed, and what the "real" David and Solomon may have looked like. They offer challenges to those who, in the spirit of Rost, see the narrative as political propoganda, and to those who, in the spirit of P Kyle McCarter, see it as apologia (this latter, IMO, is the epitome of the dangers inherent in the arbitrary nature of the criteria of embarassment).

Perpetually on the outskirts, obliquely challenged, are the "minimalists," whose conclusions face numerous, if indirect, criticisms throughout the book. Direct challenge to the minimalists is relegated to Appendix I, which offers several caveats on p.263, followed by discussion of the Tel-Dan inscription. I think they have perhaps hinged too much on this latter (which has been beaten to death anyway), while their earlier indirect challenges offer more to chew on (for example, they note in the first chapter that the geographical descriptions in the text are tenth century realities, and cannot be pushed much later than that. To use their wording "...later generations would not have known and could not have made up." (p.37)).

Refreshingly, challenges--both direct and incidental--to the minimalist case are presented level-headedly. The weapon of choice is reason, not rhetoric, something that has been sadly lacking in more recent dialogue on the matter. The absence of the customary invective makes for a pleasant read. Hopefully it can serve as an example for future discussion.

Prior to reading this book, I had been inclined to view David as an entirely legendary creation. Now I'd tend more toward agnosticism on the matter--he may have more in common with Billy the Kid than Ulysses, at least in regards to historicity. Still, perhaps there were no David or Solomon, but if there were, then I think Finkelstein and Silberman have offered a compelling case on who they were, and why the story developed as it did.

A must read for anyone interested in the subject matter, though that may be a little redundant. Anyone interested in the subject matter would consider it a must read on the basis of the authors alone.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Anat

I'm reading it now. What do you guys think of the suggestion that Shoshenk's campaign could have taken place earlier, in the days of Saul and David, and that several of the mentions of Philistines in Samuel actually refer to Egyptians or forces with Egyptian support?

Anat

Here is a short interview with Neil Asher Silberman.