butswana

I am currently reading "Who Wrote the Bible". In it the author claims that there is archeological evidence of Saul and lots of evidence for David and even more for Solomon.
But in "The Bible:Unearthed"(if my memory serves me), the authors claimed there was no evidence for Saul with the only evidence for David was a broken stele piece and not much more for Solomon,including Oded Golans' bogus pomogranite.
What gives?

Mageth

I just finished Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?, and I don't recall him making any positive claims about (solid) archaeological evidence for the existence of Saul, David or Solomon. Have I just forgotten it? I'll have to reread those sections if so.

I would note that Friedman does seem to work with the assumption that these characters (probably?) existed in his evaluation of how the "First Bible" came to be, but I took that more as a concession on his part to write the work he did, which is, of course, more concerned with who wrote the Bible (Torah) than whether or not the characters described therein actually existed. IOW, I don't think his reasons for writing the book included establishing, or even claiming, that the stories described therein are historicall accurate.

Celsus

Hi butswana

[begin gratuitous self-plug]
I just wrote some things pertaining to this topic in Introduction to Archaeology III. You may substitute maximalists like Friedman with Dever and get essentially similar results. I highlight Dever vs. Finkelstein in the piece, so you can make up your mind on their versions of events. In Part IV, I'll be dealing with the claims on monarchy specifically, so look out for that--I'll post a notice so long as it's acceptable to the moderators here. Elsewhere, my review of Dever was linked here recently, it is at my forum here.
[end gratuitous plug]

Joel

DrJim

Mageth,
I think you're right about Friedman, but IIRC, his case seems to depend very heavily on the general outlines of Samuel-Kings being accurate: it gives him his early Israelite / Judean monarchies to hang "early" biblical passages on.

I'm working through WWtB, and he is basically paraphrasing Sam-Kings to provide a "history" of the kingdoms. As you say, he is not trying to "prove" it true, he is relying on others: for example, regarding Solomon's administration, he refers to some work by B. Halpern, praising him for sorting stuff like that out, but not really getting into the details of the argument.

As far as I've gotten in the book (and its not that far), there seems to be no indication at all that questions about the existence of the Israelite United Monarchy and empire could even be raised. All that is in question is the details. In this day and age, Friedman's 1987 work seems pretty obsolete, at least in this respect. I'll reserve judgment on the his main point till I get to it, but all indications are that the early rise of a powerful Judah is an important stage in developing the details of the political / relgious scenarios which become premises in his identifying at least some of the biblical writers. If so, then the strenght of his thesis will be weakened.

for instance, on p. 49 he writes:

We can see a bit of the importance of his paraphrastic history later when he is discussing "Two Kingdoms, Two Writers" (chap3). He says that the northern "E" source "disdains the Judean policy of missim", the levy of labour imposed by Solomon. Call into question the existence or even the biblical details about Solomon's policies, and Friedman looses this connection. More telling, he links the E source to disenfranchized priest of Shiloh (an event he reconstructs from Samuel). This gives him the "motive" for E to write.

Therefore, his interpretation of E is dependent upon his perception of the history of the kingdoms as he understands it. Take away that history, and one might not only take away his date, but perhaps more of his theory, too. Haven't finished it, so I won't comment more.

You are right, then, that Friedman has not produced a book on history, but it is one that seems to hang an awful lot on one view of history. That view, however, is now being attacked from many biblical critics and scholars.


JRL

Mageth

DrJim:

Agreed. Good points.

Doctor X

I am not certain how much Friedman "believes" the history. If anything he demonstrates the different authors changing the history. In his later book, The Hidden Book of the Bible he argues that the Court History is also a J text. Whether you buy that or not, it does rather imply that it is a literary work rather than historical.

Anyways, scholars have rather "assumed" that "some history" existed "back then" that the OT reflects. It is difficult to remove such, frankly, belief. Notice the reactions to the likes of Finkelstein and Thompson.

Friedman more argues that the texts reflect the values of, say Judah for J and Israel for E. The stories divide neatly geographically in a way that reflects that division. That does not make Saul, Samuel, or anyone else "real."

Hard evidence such as archaeology wins pretty much over a story. His major "date point" is the Assyrian destruction of Israel which forced people into Judah in 722 BCE. If someone proves that never happened then contact Friedman or, better yet, his detractors--you may get a free dinner.

Speaking of problems with "history:"

--J.D.

Amlodhi

Hi Doctor X,

I was wondering when you would come out with that. As I mentioned previously, I had read through Friedman's WWtB once or twice back around 1990 or so when it first came out. Later, when the new edition came out in 1997, I picked this up to have my own copy. I'm now in the process of reviewing this book again because my memory is . . . is. . . what was I saying . . .

Well, anyway, I recently started Friedman's new book and, when I read the passage you quoted, I knew it wouldn't be long until I saw it here.

As you have probably noticed, I have been trying to keep up with Celsus and spin in the continued discussion of this very subject. I haven't yet responded to Celsus' last post, but the question there directly reflects the quote you gave from Friedman's book.

The point being that Friedman's divided kingdom origins for the sources simply makes a great deal of sense. Because it is apparent that there are at least two parallel traditions in many of the stories contained in the pentateuch, attributing these sources to the post-exilic period is (to me) much harder to explain. For instance, it has been stated that perhaps the sources originated by there being one tradition developing in Babylon during the captivity while another was developing from among the refugees left in Jerusalem. Yet, if there were no sources predating this period, each faction would necessarily be relying on collective memory and invention to construct their particular version. And regardless of the differences between the parallel versions we have, it seems to me that the tremedous similarity that is also present is too great to be attributed to mere collective memory and invention.

It has also been suggested that perhaps there was a scribal school which, when divided during the captivity, developed separate traditions which were later conflated in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. And yet, if there was a scribal school in existence before the separation, that would seem to imply the existence of written source material before the separation, which would seem to actually support Friedman's position.

I will, however, continue to review and read new information provided here and elsewhere and perhaps someday a coherent picture will emerge.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

capnkirk

Sometimes I think that the naysayers on this forum get a little carried away. Granted, being able to claim that none of it ever happened wraps everything up in a neat little bundle, but it's almost never that simple.

There IS one convincing piece of archaeological confirmation for the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE. It is the Assyrian account of that campaign (among others), found in excavations at Nineveh. It is the Prism Inscription of Sennacherib, which Friedman erroneously places in the London Museum and erroneously describes it as having eight sides. It has six sides, with the account of the campaign against Israel on side 3. It resides in the Mesopotamian Gallery of the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago. I saw it there shortly after the gallery reopened last fall.

While there is independent confirmation that the conquest happened, it does absolutely nothing to support any claims of supernatural events. Just as the evidence at Jericho shows destroyed walls (but from the wrong time period), it also shows that while the OT account of the battle of Jericho was (at the very least) exaggerated to mythical proportions, "some" Jews probably did pass that way, saw the ruins and imagined that a mighty battle had taken place there. They themselves may have even clashed with Canaanites near there. But that's about the upper limit of the historical kernel. Likewise the Prism inscription of Sennacherib validates that he did conquer the northern provinces and deport or kill its population, that Jerusalem was a capital city with a king named Hezekiah, that he laid siege to it, and that the seige was lifted without breeching the city walls, apparently for a ransom.

What we CAN be relatively sure of is that there were competing accounts of Jewish history, and Friedman does a good job of showing how those accounts got woven together into the Hebrew Bible. Sorting out how much historicity is beneath the epic veneer is obviously another matter.

Doctor X

Indeed, which is why I do not find them necessarily incompatible. Scholars develop their opinions over time, and certainly Friedman notes where he changes his mind between editions of WWtB. What is funny is that by his second edition and The Hidden Book of the Bible he utterly discards any speculation as to the sex of J. Indeed, he rather goes after Bloom for basing a book on what what was basically a "hey guys, here is a neat thought!"

--J.D.

DrJim

Doctor X,
I think we may be talking past each other here a little. I accept the gist of what you say, but still, Friedman does not just read the biblical accounts of early monarchic history as only literary artefacts. I'm not try to suggest that he ignores their status as written documents. Yet, Friedman also uses Sam-Kings as sources of information for real life events: events which he then uses to explain the political and ideological backgrounds of the writers he posits produced the biblcal texts. Teh assyrian invasion may be the first firm date he gives, but his analsysis is dependent on a lot of history prior to that date: a history he gains by a rationalized paraphrase of the Bible.

His use of the texts as sources of history is evident in chapter one of WWtB: "The World that Produced the Bible 1200-722 bce" The purpose of the chapter is not to provide a synopsis of the biblical story of early Israel to inform them about the Bible: rather it paraphrases the biblical account to provide his reader with what Friedman think the real history of early monarchic Israel was like. Certainly he sees the writer's art and invention behind some it, but in many cases that does not really seem to concern him.

I think it misrepresents Friedman to say that he does not believe at least the general outlines of the biblical accounts of Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon. That may be fair enough, but he sure blurs any distinction between the depiction of Israel in the Bible and the real world entity. Even if a history is very "accurate", there is always a fundamental distinction between real past events and its literary representation. Freidman's "World that Produced the Bible" is really little more than the world depicted in the Bible.

Notice what he says on p. 41:
Here, the people and events of "that world" must the be folk and events of the real historical world. So he says to study that, we should read the Bible' accounts of the Royal family. So he is constructing the "real" history of the Israel's royalty from the biblical stories. He doesn't however meantion the stories of the royal family as stories, but jumps right back to the "real world" speaking of the "relationships, conflicts, and political alignments" that influenced history (Certainly the relationships of literary characters can't do that, they can only represent or even mis-represent them!). Then he turns around again and jumps back into describing how these purported real life relationships etc affected the "character of the Bible".

Now, what if part of the "character of the Bible" involved creative descriptions of the relationships of real life royal folks? There goes his "real life" history, or at least enough detail to find a hisotircal justification for the "character of the Bible."

Friedman hinges a lot on his "history". While I suspect his case for separating redactional layers and sources may be quite good, if his dating and isolation of the setting of the sources depends on a history reconstructed in this fashion then it is methodologically naive.

As far has his recollection of conversations between Miller and Van Seters what does this prove? All that is demonstrated is the Van Seters has a hole in his own case: it proves nothing about the strenght of any alternatives to Van Seters. The real issue for Friedman is whether or not Sam-Kings is as old and as reliable IN DETAIL as he needs it to be, and that is the very thing he is avoiding. He is more evasive than Van Seters!

Look at the number of details that Chronicles changes when it adapts the ealier Kings narratives. How can he be so sure that transmitters of kings did not play havoc with many details of episodes in earlier versions or source material while keeping the kinglists and basic history of imperial history more or less intact?

Perhaps he makes a good case for the JEPD source theory on the merits of word use, duplications etc. I will wait till I can read it in detail. The history of Israel upon which he hangs it in WWtB, however, I have read quite closely over the past few days and in view of all the recent advances in methodology, it is an illusory history. If he subjectied it to the same degree of demands he makes on Van Seters, it would collapse instantly, existing only as his assumption.