(November 9, 2011 at 3:20 am)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.scribd.com/doc/60564418/Finke...-JSOT-2008
Scribd is a PITA but I think you'll find the article itself interesting.
Quote:
514
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
32.4 (2008)
Conclusion
The Persian-period finds in Jerusalem and the search for Nehemiah’s wall are additional cases in which archaeologists have given up archaeology in favor of an uncritical reading of the biblical text. The dearth of archaeological finds and the lack of extra-biblical texts on Persian-period Yehud open the way to circular reasoning in reconstructing the history of this period.The finds indicate that in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods Jerusalem was a small unfortified village that stretched over an area of c.20 dunams, with a population of a few hundred people—that is, not much more than 100 adult men. This population—and the depleted population of the Jerusalem countryside in particular and the entire territory of Yehudin general—could not have supported a major reconstruction effort of the ruined Iron II fortifications of the city. In addition, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever for any reconstruction or renovation of fortifications in the Persian period. Taking these data into consideration, there are three ways to explain Nehemiah 3: (1) that it is a utopian list; (2) that it preserves a memory of an Iron Age construction or renovation of the city-wall; (3) that the list is influenced by the construction of the First Wall in the Hasmonean period. All three options pose significant difficulties—the first two more than the third. In any event, the archaeology of Jerusalem in the Persian period—as presented above—must be the starting point for any future discussion.
I have read the article and come to two conclusions, either the story of the wall building in Nehemiah was totally made up or it was a retrojection of the late Hellenistic period wall into the Persian period.
undefined
