Originally Posted by srd44

True to your name-say. But I just don't understaand the stance you take, and furthermore what's behind it. First, it certainly seems misleading to assume if an individual is not mentioned in any primary archaeological data, then that person did not exist. That is not a logical argument, nor one that can be cooborrated with data. That's kinda like me saying that in the 21st century, if yo're not in Google, you don't exit. Sorry, I never heard of you.

Second, there are, and I imagine will continue to be, good solid archaelogical data that cooborates biblical figures that existed much earlier than Josiah. Assyian records attest to the fact that Ahab and Jehu payed tribute to their Assyrian overlords, Pharaoh Shisanq is attested in Egyptian sources, The Moabite stela mentions Omri and his son, and these are only the examples that come to mind.

Third, Is it that 2 completely different sets of queries are being mixed up here. I don't doubt the existence of Josiah; however, a religious reform spearheaded by him or his Deuteronomic writers, that's more questionable. Looks good on paper, but I don't think such a reform ever existed, i.e., that centralization ever really happened. The relatively high probable claim that Josiah existed, doesn't necessarily lead to the second.

Originally Posted by Minimalist

#1 - Don't lose sight of the fact that Prof. Finkelstein spent much of his time citing the archaeologocial attestation for various characters. Josiah has none. While his absence from the archaeological record could be overturned by the next shovel which goes into the ground the simple fact remains that he is nowhere to be found as yet. Therefore, to suddenly turn around and start referring to him as if he did this or that is assuming facts which are not in evidence. There is nothing which indicates that any form of Judaism existed prior to the Persian period. No inscriptions. No manuscripts. No relics from any alleged temple. NADA. All that exists is a book which was written later - and certainly edited much later than that.

#2 - Finkelstein, in David and Solomon, makes the point that Sheshonq himself in his wall inscriptions at Karnak not only does not mention "Jerusalem" or any other town in Judah. His target seems to have been the richer, northern areas which were the traditional seat of Egyptian hegemony over Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. One would not expect a pharaoh to be shy about his conquests. If he took a major city - or even reduced it to tributary status - one would expect him to make a big deal about it.
Yes, Ahab and Omri etc make it into the story. The American Civil War happened, too. Atlanta was burned by Sherman. That does not make Gone With the Wind less of a novel.

There is a tendency to make more of Judah than it actually was. Herodotus visited the ANE in the early 5th century BC without so much as mentioning the Persian province of Yehud. Throughout most of the first millenium BC Judah was a small, under-populated, poverty-stricken region. The bible tends to overstate everything about it. In fact, archaeology has had little trouble in showing that it was little more than a rathole.

#3 - You don't doubt Josiah but you do doubt his accomplishments all of which stem from the same book. That's an interesting distinction.

Originally Posted by outhouse

True, there was a reform going on, one way or another.

There was a change from polytheism to monotheism about this time.