Minimalist

I have great respect for Finkelstein. But he did not stick to his own methodology when it came to Josiah. Throughout The Bible Unearthed he produced charts which showed extra-biblical or archaeological attestation for various people/events.

Josiah is noticeably lacking.

outhouse

Probably because so many scholars follow Josiahs historicity as good as he is attested in scripture.

Agreed each letter is in question, but I personally follow the middle of the road, avoiding all maximalist and extreme minimalist.

Tenorikuma

Do you take the same approach with Homer, Virgil, and the Book of Mormon?

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.

Tenorikuma

@SRD44 I think that's a spot-on assessment of the evidence we have. The DH does seem to have drawn on genuine records of late Samarian and Judean kings, as source criticism and archaeological evidence has shown.

Religious developments are more dubious. Margaret Barker seems to think there was a schism that tossed out some of the Jerusalem priests, whose traditions were evident in Judaism as later practiced in other places (e.g. Elephantine). I'm currently reading through her new book The Mother of the Lord (or via: amazon.co.uk).

(I don't buy all her conclusions, but she has a knack for drawing interesting connections from disparate data.)

Sheshbazzar

The big thing with the Josiah kingship is the reported 'finding' of The Book of The Law (2 Kings 22:8, 23:2) Which provides much of the reason for the skeptical view that the law of YHWH did not actually exist in the completed Torah textual form that became familiar from that point.
The implication being that this is the identifiable point in ancient history where the Judean Priesthood finally took the initiative and assembled older writings and popular folk legends into a fabricated 'national history' of Israel, that work now known as Torah.

The Book of The Law of YHWH served as a strategic political propaganda tool to be employed to more effectively standardize and extend the influence and dominance of the YHWH cult (which actually held much less sway than portrayed) over a formerly free minded and polytheistic people who would thenceforth fight against its Judean 'Judaisms' Jewish Priestly claims and impositions on their lives for centuries.

Thus it is quite understandable why Finkelstein and other archaeological investigators, and skeptics of the Bible story would wish to preserve and to maintain the credibility of Josiah, and particularly the account of 2 Kings 22-3 and 2 Chron. 34 as being valid historical admissions.
Its either that, or pretty much being stuck with the fundamentalist dogma that the entire content of ALL five books of the Torah actually originated from the hand of the mythical Moses just as the Torah tale tells it.
As it were, with the account of 2 Kings and the Yahwhistic reforms of Josiah, there is a line drawn in the sand. Anyone that crosses it does so at the peril of their freedom and sanity. You buy into the Yahwhistic priesthoods line of invented historical hooey or you don't. You will take your stand on one side of that line or on the other.

Minimalist

Outhouse, "Moses" is attested in scripture, too. So what? This stuff never happened. As far as "Josiah" goes we have one episode in Kings where he meets Necho and Necho has him killed. The much later Chronicles invents a battle for him in which he can heroically die. (Apparently, the Egyptians did not know they won a battle that day.)

Just because a figure appears in a novel does not make it real. Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star. Are you going to apply the same "attested in a book" to him or are you merely doing some thinly disguised special pleading for your bible?

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.

outhouse

Your not addressing one aspect of credible scholarships on the subject with a rant like that.

I understand moses is a 100% mythical creation. Does that make the OT 100% fiction? No it doesnt. Everything is on a word by word basis.

The main difference is were not digging up a charactor from 1400 BC, were doing one from a point of plausibility. That is why only the extreme minimalist question it.


Determining what is credible and not, is excellent work towards Josiah.



Here is an old scholarship but still valued.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/log/log02.htm

outhouse

And this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah

Josiah is credited by most historians with having established or compiled important Hebrew Scriptures during the Deuteronomic reform that occurred during his rule.




Ok so you follow the minority, I dont think you have really addressed with any credibility why the minority view should be taken over the majority.


Finkelstein like it or not, is still the gorilla on the top of the hill in archeology.