When doing so it is important to remember one thing. Finkelstein's assessment of the origin of these stories is done by political and archaeological realities of the time. There was a political entity centered on Jerusalem. As a convention Finkelstein refers to the name of this king as "Josiah" but we have no evidence in the record that such a person existed. Finkelstein uses the territorial ambition of Jerusalem's king ( whoever he might have been ) in the waning of the Assyrian empire as the basis for his conflict with 26th dynasty Egypt. However, we have nothing to indicate that these people were at all "Jewish" as the term later came to be defined. They were Canaanites probably ( but not certainly) using a henotheistic system in which Yahweh was the primary god, consorting with Asherah, and with other members of the Canaanite pantheon hanging around.
"Judaism" at such and at best seems to have been a product of the Persian-era policy of replacing Babylonian overlords with their own. These people were given a story to justify their position as rulers of the new Persian province of Yehud and from there came all the other horseshit as the priests wrote themselves into the existing folklore of the land.
However, Finkelstein's basic premise remains sound. Other than the late 7th century BCE it is hard to find a time when Egypt and the "Kingdom of Judah" were competitors...let alone enemies in the first millenium.
"Judaism" at such and at best seems to have been a product of the Persian-era policy of replacing Babylonian overlords with their own. These people were given a story to justify their position as rulers of the new Persian province of Yehud and from there came all the other horseshit as the priests wrote themselves into the existing folklore of the land.
However, Finkelstein's basic premise remains sound. Other than the late 7th century BCE it is hard to find a time when Egypt and the "Kingdom of Judah" were competitors...let alone enemies in the first millenium.
