The Quest for the Historical Israel: Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

The debate between Israeli archeologists Finkelstein and Mazar is intriguing and complex; demonstrating the current state of research. Essentially, while rejecting the traditional maximalist position that the biblical record is historical both scholars argue that the archeology supports a more nuanced view than the full recital of the minamalist school. Finkelstein argues that while the David likely existed there was no United monarchy and that it's existence was the creation of a pan Israelite ideology in Judah trying to unify the region and state after the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Mazda is open to a stronger belief in the historicity of the United monarchy , although he relies upon the ninth century Tel Dan inscription citing the rule in Judah of the "House of David," while lacking contemporaneous evidence to show the existence of a Davidic or Solomonic empire. In fact, he concedes that if a United monarchy did exist; it would have been a modest territorial enterprise. This is a fascinating topic.

In this collection, two prominent Israeli archaeologists share their credo and philosophy as well as their views on the history of early Israel. They are not far apart. Both make it clear that they differ from revisionists or minimalists like Philip Davies and Thomas Thompson and also from the biblical school founded by William Albright. Finkelstein calls his position the center between those extremes.The view from the center is that the Deuteronomistic History, Torah, and many prophets were compiled and edited in the late monarchy, not in the post-exilic or Hellenistic periods as revisionists claim. This view also maintains that there is historical value in the biblical historical accounts. Finklestein makes it clear that he cannot go along with revisionists who maintain that much of the Hebrew Bible was invented out of thin air. He says: "It is unthinkable that the biblical authors invented stories only in order to serve their aims. Had they done that they would have lost credibility among the people of Judah, their target population." (p. 18)These lectures also bring out significant disagreements between Finkelstein and Mazar. Mazar still maintains there was a united monarchy under David and Solomon while Finklestein argues that David and Solomon were no more than chieftains in an underdeveloped south that was not yet a state. Mazar also stretches the period of biblical origins to the eighth through the seventh centuries rather than limiting it to the reign of Josiah. He criticizes Finklestein as seeing too much of the Deuteronomistic History as a reflection of Josiah projected backward, for Mazar thinks the collecting and editing involved passing down recollections showing the influence of earlier periods. Both scholars believe in viewing history retrospectively by honing in on the period of Josiah and looking backward from that point as through a telescope to see what parts of early history have value.All in all, these scholars are not far apart on most of what they have to say. One of their biggest differences is that they use different approaches to dating Yigael Yadin's discoveries at Megiddo, thus leading to their divergences over the united monarchy.This collection can be recommended to anyone interested in seeing how archaeology impacts the history of early Israel. I would also recommend the statements of personal philosophy in the first and last lectures they give.

The views of two Israeli scholars are presented on what kind of light has been shed on the Bible's historicity as regard Israel's history. While both differ on some points, they seem to agree that archaeology does not vindicate the Bible's presentation of Israel's history as regards Israel being in an Egyptian bondage, then an Exodus, and a Conquest of Canaan. Neither does archaeology seem to support the Bible's notion that David and Solomon had a mighty empire from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. Both seem to believe the Pentateuch was not written by Moses circa 1446 BC a date embraced by some devout Bible scholars, but that it was written circa the 7th century BC and edited in the Exile. This notion is based on the fact that certain sites (for example, Bozrah) mentioned in the Pentateuch did not come into existence until the 8th century BC and it is impossible that a 1446 BC Moses would know of such places.

Excellent!

Great archaeology book on Israel!

He is the only Hebrew that understands where the Jews got the knowledge about the Golden Calf, and that it is actually a BULL.

It is very useful for academic purposes. However, Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Amihai Mazar evocate the moderated-critical approach to the ancient texts of the Hebrew Bible. The dialogue between both approaches (even within a moderated-critical perspective) establishes reflexion in order to provoke analysis. The "Quest for the Historical Israel" maintains a very balanced view on archaeological evidence and data. It reflects the tension between Bible and Archaeology of the Bible Lands and its history.In general, and according to this book, ancient Israelites were a mixture of canaanites with other races that developed its culture and religion in Canaan two millennia B.C.E. (approximately).In regard to the Pentateuchal narratives, it proposes a telescopic view on ancient history. The more ancient the narratives are, the folktales got more distorted through oral transmission. However, they preserved vague memories of the ancient past. The book never negates the authority of Hebrew ancient texts, but stands for the scientific evidence of the history of the Ancient Israel, rather than affirming the Hebrew Bible's prominence in the historical reliability.

The cover is scratched

A really valuable overview of the current state of discussion on the implications of recent biblical archaeology and how much our understanding of the narrative covered by the Bible has changed over the last few decades. Given the fact that most people do not seem to be aware of these implications - that the Bible can no longer be taken as a credible historical source to any of its major claims such as the origin of Monotheism, Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the kingdom of David and Saul, etc - this should be essential reading to anyone with a religious interest or pastoral responsibility. One may also add politicians, such as prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donal Trump - the first Kingdom of Israel had nothing to do with David, Judea or Jerusalem.

OK

Excellent condition and most helpful during my academic studies

Israel Finkelstein's the man.