Something Else For Fundies to Piss and Moan About

[Minimalist]

I. Finkelstein tears apart their precious Nehemiah horseshit.

http://isfn.skytech.co.il/articles/Wall%...202008.pdf

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 Yehud in 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.

On a broader issue, the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem casts severe doubt on the notion that much of the biblical material was composed
in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. But this crucial issue is beyond the scope of this study and will be discussed elsewhere.