My only complaint with The Bible Unearthed, X-P, is that Finkelstein follows an exacting methodology right to the end...and then goes off the rails with Josiah. Throughout the book he carefully details the archaeological attestation from extra-biblical sources for various rulers and places. He glosses over the deficiencies of the Tel Dan stele but a lot of people did and it is only now that an understanding is spreading that bytdwd does not mean "House of David" in the sense of a dynasty. (See George Athas' "The Tel Dan Stele")
But in Josiah's case there is no archaeological attestation for his existence. Not a coin. Not an inscription. No reference in Assyrian, Egyptian or Babylonian records. The Book of Chronicles, a late 4th century work at best, creates a battle in which Josiah was heroically killed fighting Necho. Presumably later writers felt this was more dignified than the 2 Kings version in which Necho summons Josiah to a meeting and has him whacked, mafia style. In any case, the Egyptians do not seem to know they won a battle that day. I can't attribute that to uncharacteristic "modesty."
We have no indication, beyond the OT itself and that is the document under scrutiny, that there was anything particularly "jewish" about 7th century Judah. William Dever ("Did God Have A Wife" )paints a picture in which there was a perpetual struggle between the priests in the capital who were trying to establish a Yahweh-based male-dominated cult and the more traditional folk religion of the countryside in which the Canaanite pantheon, particularly the female fertility goddess Asherah is an integral part and even Yahweh's "consort." Unlike the bible-thumpers, however, Dever has evidence in the form of inscriptions and fertility figurines and shrines in the bamah (high places) which even the OT admits.
Dismissing the Davidic Empire for the sheer nonsense it is, Finkelstein is correct that the late 7th century is one of the few periods in the entire first millennium when Egypt and Judah would have been potential rivals. Egyptologist Donald Redford has reached the same conclusion using evidence from the Egyptian side of the border in the form of anachronisms written into the story. But the story does not need "judaism" to work. All it needs is the one heroic creator god for the people to rally around. Babylon had promoted Marduk to the position of "king of the gods" and his fortunes rose and fell as the city did. This model would have been obvious to the Judahites who, like the Babylonians at this time were part of the Assyrian Empire.
I find Philip Davies work about the introduction of the male creator god cult in the aftermath of the Persian conquest of Babylon to be the most convincing. Again, this is a political not a religious driven-event but the Yahweh who emerges in the Persian period seems to mirror the Persian Ahura Mazda. And Cyrus the Great was quite a hero to the "jews."
But in Josiah's case there is no archaeological attestation for his existence. Not a coin. Not an inscription. No reference in Assyrian, Egyptian or Babylonian records. The Book of Chronicles, a late 4th century work at best, creates a battle in which Josiah was heroically killed fighting Necho. Presumably later writers felt this was more dignified than the 2 Kings version in which Necho summons Josiah to a meeting and has him whacked, mafia style. In any case, the Egyptians do not seem to know they won a battle that day. I can't attribute that to uncharacteristic "modesty."
We have no indication, beyond the OT itself and that is the document under scrutiny, that there was anything particularly "jewish" about 7th century Judah. William Dever ("Did God Have A Wife" )paints a picture in which there was a perpetual struggle between the priests in the capital who were trying to establish a Yahweh-based male-dominated cult and the more traditional folk religion of the countryside in which the Canaanite pantheon, particularly the female fertility goddess Asherah is an integral part and even Yahweh's "consort." Unlike the bible-thumpers, however, Dever has evidence in the form of inscriptions and fertility figurines and shrines in the bamah (high places) which even the OT admits.
Dismissing the Davidic Empire for the sheer nonsense it is, Finkelstein is correct that the late 7th century is one of the few periods in the entire first millennium when Egypt and Judah would have been potential rivals. Egyptologist Donald Redford has reached the same conclusion using evidence from the Egyptian side of the border in the form of anachronisms written into the story. But the story does not need "judaism" to work. All it needs is the one heroic creator god for the people to rally around. Babylon had promoted Marduk to the position of "king of the gods" and his fortunes rose and fell as the city did. This model would have been obvious to the Judahites who, like the Babylonians at this time were part of the Assyrian Empire.
I find Philip Davies work about the introduction of the male creator god cult in the aftermath of the Persian conquest of Babylon to be the most convincing. Again, this is a political not a religious driven-event but the Yahweh who emerges in the Persian period seems to mirror the Persian Ahura Mazda. And Cyrus the Great was quite a hero to the "jews."
