bacht

Actually Finkelstein and Silberman claim that the resurgent XXVI dynasty under Psammeticus and Necho frustrated Josiah's aspiration to claim the old northern territory of Israel/Samaria that had been conquered by the Assyrians (haven't finished the book yet, there may be other relevant points).

Their general thesis is that the Pentateuch and Deuteronomic history were produced by Josiah's contemporaries in the later 7th C bce (with some northern material mixed in with the southern writings). They claim that the references to cities and peoples throughout Genesis down to Kings match the conditions of this period rather than the Late Bronze Age or early Iron Age, and that the archeological record supports this interpretation.

They seem to sit squarely between the maximalists and minimalists (again I haven't read all their conclusions).

squiz

Interesting (and fair IMO) summary of the issues here: Did David and Solomon Exist? by Eric Cline

Roland

The Bible seems to support the concept of a 15th Century exodus and conquest:

1) 1Kings 6:1 says 480 years passed between the exodus from Egypt and the building of Solomon's temple in the mid 10th Century.

2) Judges 11:26 says that 300 years separate the Israelite conquest of Heshbon and the time of Jephthah, generally dated to around 1100 BC.

3) Adding up all the timespans of the various judges, the exodus and wandering, and the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon yields a time period of over 500 years.

All these place the event firmly in the 15th Century.

Clivedurdle

480, 40 times 12, is a classic spiritual number, like 153 in the new testament.

semiopen

Jewish literalists actually believe these dates, but as Clive points out they should probably not be interpreted as hard numbers because of their mystical (for want of a better term) significance.

My rabbi points out that the destruction of the temple didn't occur in 586 BCE but rather on a quite different date based on the 480 years or whatever that the temple existed

The time of the destruction of Jericho is an important topic for this because Kathleen Kenyon's date of about 1550 BCE has withstood the test of time despite intense efforts to set this about 1400 BCE by Christian archeologists.

My rabbi points out that the destruction of the temple didn't occur in 586 BCE but rather on a quite different date based on the 480 years.

The existence of these fixed years suggests a post exilic source for the Bible. The Hasmoneans were interested in proving that 161 BCE (or so) was actually the year 4000 from creation according to Thomas Thompson. This is actually an elegant concept but seems to have some issues. Finkelstein points out that most of the bible is monarchic hebrew which is pre exilic. Maximalists are quick to agree on this as a refutation for a Hasmonean origin, but will go into a song and dance when one tries to apply this to their theories of an earlier origin.

The actual 480 years is unlikely, the end of the Book of Ruth implies twelve generations from Jacob to David. Counting a generation as 30 years this would be only 360 years. In addition Jacob's grandson Peretz was born well before the sojourn in Egypt.

The numbers just don't add up.

bacht

According to Finkelstein and Silberman the archeology doesn't support this. They conclude that there was no exodus as described, but that the Israelites were probably natives in the region already. The cities mentioned in the conquest narratives were just the areas deemed strategic targets by the expansionist ambition of Josiah, who sought to gain control over the former nothern kingdom in the vacuum after the decline of Assyria (in the event he was thwarted by the Egyptian Necho).

The united monarchy of Saul thru Solomon apparently has little evidence on the ground. They say it's more likely that there was only a small village in Jerusalem in the two centuries before the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians (722 bce). It was only in the last century of the Davidic monarchy that any kind of significant economic or literary activity is attested in Judah.

Minimalist

LOL. I know what you mean, Semi, it has happened to me, too.

You know, from about 1890 to 1950 archaeology was dominated by preachers masquerading as archaeologists. They went out with a shovel in one hand and a bible in the other with the stated purpose of "proving" the bible. Of course, they succeeded mainly by pronouncing every rock they turned over as something that Moses pissed on. They all wrote books too. Now Hess, who makes no claim to be an archaeologist, can certainly use any of those old findings to write a book which claims that it is ALL TRUE. So what? It is only in the last 30 years that modern archaeology has demolished the bible tales. Judging from his review of The Bible Unearthed, I have no doubt that is what he has done.
The maximalist school of thought has been losing ground for two generations. It would be unreasonable to expect them to yield power gracefully. It isn't their style, mon ami.

renassault

They didn't live in a camp, they took dumps in the desert somewhere and moved on quickly as the article says. We barely found one of Kublai Khan's ships from 1200 AD some few decades ago, let alone the virtually unsurvivable things the Jews would have left in the desert. Even if something could survive, there would be so little of it and it would be buried under 3 meters of sand (this is the depth at which the layer is considered 1600 BC in Mayan archaeology).

renassault

Personally I found the article very well put, not because he is more conservative than those he criticizes, but because he actually addresses their points with actual counter-arguments.

He gives several reasons why the culture is similar:

Note the first and second sentences. Also, I don't think anyone argues for an invasion from the west:

renassault

There is a better solution. Dates it to 1550 (Ahmose) BC, but on a solid biblical basis:

http://doig.net/OT_Chronology.htm

(by the way, 153 is mentioned only once in the New Testament)