Quote:The F&S book practically worshiped Josiah.
Yes, it did. Like I said, The Bible Unearthed has charts interspersed which show the archaeological attestation for the various kings claimed in the bible. On page 272 he lists extrabiblical evidence for Hezekiah and Manasseh but none for "Josiah." The archaeoligcal "evidence" is merely the continued propsperity in Beersheba and recovery in the Shephelah in addition to aniconism in seals and seal impressions. But nothing about this so-called most righteous of kings. Anybody could have continued to rule over the Assyrian trade routes which passed though his kingdom.
I once got my head handed to me in a discussion with Niels Peter Lemche when I suggested that we know there was a king in Jerusalem at the time ( there were kings everywhere) so what is the harm if we call him "Josiah?" ( It beats "Hey You" or "Joe Blow." Lemche replied that the problem with accepting biblical stories without evidence of them being true is that they come with a whole pile of other baggage which then also works its way into the story. So the question becomes where do you draw the line?
F&S suggest a ruler with a grandiose plan to occupy northern territories. Someone makes up a horseshit story about how these two kingdoms were once united under "David" ( by this time, a legendary figure...like Romulus). Such a ruler did not need to be a "Jew." That happy horseshit could have been written in later.
There are precious few moments in the entire first millenium when Egypt and Judah were in expansionist modes at the same time. The late 7th century was one of them. And both got their asses kicked by the Babylonians.
