What do you think?
Rate this book
The View from Nebo: How Archaeology is Rewriting the Bible and Reshaping the Middle East.
In The View from Nebo, Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Dockser Marcus investigates how modern archaeology is changing not only our understanding of the Scriptures, but the face of the Middle East today. With a blend of science, history, politics, and biblical scholarship, Marcus takes the reader on a tour through the books of the Old Testament to reveal startling new discoveries about the history of that time.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
48 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 28, 2024
Twenty-five years after publication, this book mostly remains relevant as a reminder that for nearly all of the 20th century archeologists working in the Levant were only concerned with demonstrating the Bible was factual history. It was only in the 1990s that the Arabic nations and western archeologists working in the region started to connect the Hebrew sites to other regional cultures and found that the Hebrew settlements were actually very similar to their neighbors.
So no surprises, but a correction to pretty much every popular archeology publication of the past.
That's basically all this book is, but it does it well.
So no surprises, but a correction to pretty much every popular archeology publication of the past.
That's basically all this book is, but it does it well.
October 2, 2024
A PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST SUMMARIZES CURRENT RESEARCH IN BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Amy Dockser Marcus is a journalist with the Wall Street Journal who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for Beat Reporting; she has also written Jerusalem 1913: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. She wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 2000 book, “This book is the result of seven years I spent living and working in the Middle East, from 1991 to 1998.” (Mount Nebo, by the way, is the place to which [according to Deut 34:1-4] Moses ascended to view the future land of Israel, that he would never enter: “I will give it unto thy seed; I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.”)
She notes, “William Foxwell Albright… helped establish Palestinian pottery chronology… Nelson Glueck, a rabbi and archaeologist … was one of the early pioneers in archaeological surveys… But the fact remains that, whatever their methodology, the Bible, and finding a way to make archaeological discoveries correlate with the Bible, remained at the heart of their work. ‘Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the Bible as a source of history,’ wrote Albright in his 1932 classic work, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible. Albright, Glueck, and a small group of other archaeologists and Bible scholars dominated the world of Middle East archaeology from 1920 up until the 1970s.” (Pg. 19)
She observes, “Despite Abraham’s continuing hold on the lives of so many people, a vastly different situation exists among Bible scholars, archaeologists, and historians where Abraham is concerned. They still debate vociferously the extent of David’s empire and argue passionately about whether Solomon built a certain building… In their many acrimonious disagreements exists the conviction that biblical history remains open to interpretation and is a worthy subject of vigorous academic debate and scholarship.
"The one glaring exception to this breadth of inquiry is Abraham and his times. There is virtually no interest at all in investigating what used to be called the patriarchal age. ‘Most Bible scholars and archaeologists have abandoned the question of the patriarchs altogether,’ says Ronald Hendel, himself a Bible scholar. ‘They don’t regard Abraham as having anything historical to say.’ Until the 1970s archaeologists were bent on proving the historical accuracy of the patriarchal narratives. But the belief that it was possible for archaeology to validate such an ancient religious story instead led to serious mistakes.” (Pg. 31)
She points out, “The Bible never specifically names the pharaoh who figures so prominently in Exodus… That image of Pharaoh as misguided tyrant has survived throughout the millennia, and these days many archaeologists and historians even put a name to him. If the exodus was in fact a historical event, the consensus is that the Pharaoh in question was Ramses II. Part of the presumption about his identity is based on chronology. Ramses II ruled Egypt from around 1304 to 1237 B.C.E., an unprecedented sixty-seven year reign during a time period that would correspond with the subsequent emergence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan. He was also one of ancient Egypt’s most prolific builders.” (Pg. 63)
She states, “What few people ever realize is that the fortress where the museum is located, called David’s Citadel, was actually built in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries… David’s Tower wasn’t built by David but nearly a thousand years later, by King Herod… King David’s name appears more than one thousand times in the Old Testament; there are at least fifty-nine mentions in the New Testament. He continues to dominate the geography of Jewish and Christian traditions and popular imagination. But the historical David is nowhere to be found in the landscape of the city most closely associated with his rule.” (Pg. 106)
She recounts, “The gap that exists between the Bible’s portrait of rulers of a glorious empire and the picture that is now emerging of rules of a far more modest entity has caused a group of scholars in Europe to dismiss the Bible altogether. The current controversy can be traced back to the 1992 publication of In Search of "Ancient Israel" by Philip R. Davies… His basic premise is that the literature in the Hebrew Bible was composed after the fact and therefore yields no real history. There was no ancient or biblical Israel as it is described in the Bible, he contends. It was not before the Hellenistic period, in the second and third centuries B.C.E., that the concept of Israel as an ethnic and religious self-identification even emerged, under the Maccabees… Davies and his fellow scholars have been dubbed the Copenhagen School… Their critics, and there are many, call them biblical minimalists and revisionists.” (Pg. 117)
She says that “[William] Dever has been the most passionate critic of the Copenhagen School. He never misses an opportunity to bash them… Dever told me that he objects to the Copenhagen group so vociferously because he thinks their ideas about David, Solomon, and the rise of the Israelite state are dangerous.’ They strip away history, but they don’t replace it with anything else,’ he said. ‘They are nihilists, and nihilism leads to a vacuum…’ … Dever, who spent his childhood as a boy preacher… and giving sermons with his father, later converted to Judaism. He now considers himself an agnostic and hates it when [Thomas L.] Thompson and the others call him a fundamentalist… but when it comes to the history of ancient Israel, he is a true defender of the faith.” (Pg. 122-123)
She explains of the Babylonian exile, “‘Judah was in exile,’ the Bible laments… But Judah was not empty after all. Most of the population remained behind, living in the same places they had lived before, except now under Babylonian rule. Just a few miles down the road in Jerusalem, there is virtually no sign of any destruction at all. In fact, archaeologists digging in these areas have discovered that many of those cities actually expanded and flourished under the Babylonians. The people living in them weren’t all poor peasants either. Burial caves in use during the Babylonian period have been found to contain gold and silver jewelry… and other luxury items that reflected the owners’ considerable status and wealth, rather than the poverty described by the Bible.” (Pg. 155)
This is an absolutely fascinating “journalistic” account of current/recent archeological research and controversies; it will be of great interest to anyone studying biblical history and archaeology.
Amy Dockser Marcus is a journalist with the Wall Street Journal who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for Beat Reporting; she has also written Jerusalem 1913: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. She wrote in the Acknowledgements section of this 2000 book, “This book is the result of seven years I spent living and working in the Middle East, from 1991 to 1998.” (Mount Nebo, by the way, is the place to which [according to Deut 34:1-4] Moses ascended to view the future land of Israel, that he would never enter: “I will give it unto thy seed; I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.”)
She notes, “William Foxwell Albright… helped establish Palestinian pottery chronology… Nelson Glueck, a rabbi and archaeologist … was one of the early pioneers in archaeological surveys… But the fact remains that, whatever their methodology, the Bible, and finding a way to make archaeological discoveries correlate with the Bible, remained at the heart of their work. ‘Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the Bible as a source of history,’ wrote Albright in his 1932 classic work, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible. Albright, Glueck, and a small group of other archaeologists and Bible scholars dominated the world of Middle East archaeology from 1920 up until the 1970s.” (Pg. 19)
She observes, “Despite Abraham’s continuing hold on the lives of so many people, a vastly different situation exists among Bible scholars, archaeologists, and historians where Abraham is concerned. They still debate vociferously the extent of David’s empire and argue passionately about whether Solomon built a certain building… In their many acrimonious disagreements exists the conviction that biblical history remains open to interpretation and is a worthy subject of vigorous academic debate and scholarship.
"The one glaring exception to this breadth of inquiry is Abraham and his times. There is virtually no interest at all in investigating what used to be called the patriarchal age. ‘Most Bible scholars and archaeologists have abandoned the question of the patriarchs altogether,’ says Ronald Hendel, himself a Bible scholar. ‘They don’t regard Abraham as having anything historical to say.’ Until the 1970s archaeologists were bent on proving the historical accuracy of the patriarchal narratives. But the belief that it was possible for archaeology to validate such an ancient religious story instead led to serious mistakes.” (Pg. 31)
She points out, “The Bible never specifically names the pharaoh who figures so prominently in Exodus… That image of Pharaoh as misguided tyrant has survived throughout the millennia, and these days many archaeologists and historians even put a name to him. If the exodus was in fact a historical event, the consensus is that the Pharaoh in question was Ramses II. Part of the presumption about his identity is based on chronology. Ramses II ruled Egypt from around 1304 to 1237 B.C.E., an unprecedented sixty-seven year reign during a time period that would correspond with the subsequent emergence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan. He was also one of ancient Egypt’s most prolific builders.” (Pg. 63)
She states, “What few people ever realize is that the fortress where the museum is located, called David’s Citadel, was actually built in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries… David’s Tower wasn’t built by David but nearly a thousand years later, by King Herod… King David’s name appears more than one thousand times in the Old Testament; there are at least fifty-nine mentions in the New Testament. He continues to dominate the geography of Jewish and Christian traditions and popular imagination. But the historical David is nowhere to be found in the landscape of the city most closely associated with his rule.” (Pg. 106)
She recounts, “The gap that exists between the Bible’s portrait of rulers of a glorious empire and the picture that is now emerging of rules of a far more modest entity has caused a group of scholars in Europe to dismiss the Bible altogether. The current controversy can be traced back to the 1992 publication of In Search of "Ancient Israel" by Philip R. Davies… His basic premise is that the literature in the Hebrew Bible was composed after the fact and therefore yields no real history. There was no ancient or biblical Israel as it is described in the Bible, he contends. It was not before the Hellenistic period, in the second and third centuries B.C.E., that the concept of Israel as an ethnic and religious self-identification even emerged, under the Maccabees… Davies and his fellow scholars have been dubbed the Copenhagen School… Their critics, and there are many, call them biblical minimalists and revisionists.” (Pg. 117)
She says that “[William] Dever has been the most passionate critic of the Copenhagen School. He never misses an opportunity to bash them… Dever told me that he objects to the Copenhagen group so vociferously because he thinks their ideas about David, Solomon, and the rise of the Israelite state are dangerous.’ They strip away history, but they don’t replace it with anything else,’ he said. ‘They are nihilists, and nihilism leads to a vacuum…’ … Dever, who spent his childhood as a boy preacher… and giving sermons with his father, later converted to Judaism. He now considers himself an agnostic and hates it when [Thomas L.] Thompson and the others call him a fundamentalist… but when it comes to the history of ancient Israel, he is a true defender of the faith.” (Pg. 122-123)
She explains of the Babylonian exile, “‘Judah was in exile,’ the Bible laments… But Judah was not empty after all. Most of the population remained behind, living in the same places they had lived before, except now under Babylonian rule. Just a few miles down the road in Jerusalem, there is virtually no sign of any destruction at all. In fact, archaeologists digging in these areas have discovered that many of those cities actually expanded and flourished under the Babylonians. The people living in them weren’t all poor peasants either. Burial caves in use during the Babylonian period have been found to contain gold and silver jewelry… and other luxury items that reflected the owners’ considerable status and wealth, rather than the poverty described by the Bible.” (Pg. 155)
This is an absolutely fascinating “journalistic” account of current/recent archeological research and controversies; it will be of great interest to anyone studying biblical history and archaeology.
Read
July 28, 2011Archaeological finds are changing the stories that we have read inside of the bible. Things are not always what they seem. It is a work that is not entirely true and it is a work that is not entirely false. Some things can be proven while others are not so easily proven. Moses the great prophet of Israel was buried on top of Mount Nebo. He died before he was allowed to enter the promised land. It was his punishment for losing his teemper and hitting a stone which produced water. He was supposed to be able to see from Beer Sheba to the Dan. Of coursee from the Peaks of Nebo such wide area is not visible. Turns out that Nebo was burial place for many people. Many Dolmen were found which would mean that Moses was not the only one to use it. The Byzantine later built a Church and Monastery over it. It is currently in use as a religious sight for a Catholic Order of monks.
The biblical figure of Abraham is not so easily proven. In fact it cannot be proven. Many scholars don't show much interest in this person or period. However, scholars have proven that cultural practices are consistent with timing of the narrative and that there was migration to Canaan during the supposed time of the patriarchs. Originally Abraham was not connected with the City of Hebron. That is believed to be added in during the Time of David in order to boost the cities importance. Hebron is a small Satellite city of Jerusalem were the people are insular and prone to fanaticism. It never really had a strong economy. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are a bit easier to prove. Numeira and Bab edh Dhara correspond. One city was completely abandoned along with a cemetery in use since the Bronze age. It showed what village life was like at that time. Numeira showed sing s of catastrophe it was covered in ash which meant volcanic activity. People blocked themselves in and things were preserved like grapes thanks to the ash. An area in Tel Dan has a city that was built using clay molding techniques from Mesopotamia . It fell apart due to extensive amounts of rain. This showed evidence of a migration in Canaan from Mesopotamia.
Proof that Exodus occurred is difficult as well. In Egypt there were workers and there were slaves . Slaves were of all ethnicities. Slaves were the ones who built the cities for Ramses. Workers were in charge of building the Pyramids. Workers were fed by local village folk, they received proper medical care and were given housing. They took spare material and built themselves burial chamber modeled after those of the Pharaoh's there was a classification system for regular worker and the foremen. Those with more status got better treatment. There is no extra biblical reference to any of the events of the Exodus. There is no mention of Moses either save for something written about him by an Egyptian priest called Manetho. It says that he was a renegade priest who has a follower of Lepers. He set off with them for the desert. Rameses himself many Egyptians feel is oft maligned. He was according to Egyptian documents a much loved ruler who was very wise and compassionate. No one is sure which of sons was the first born to die because he had so many of them. He later retreated into religious life and let his sons handle the running off his kingdom. Hence they may have been the Pharoah written about in Exodus. The Sinai desert was not a barrier to Canaan rather it was a bridge. Pottery finds indicate a mixture of Egyptian styles and Canaanite Styles. Often times the two groups met in the region in order to trade. Some scholars believe that there was not one Exodus but possibly several or none.
The origin of the Israelites is shrouded in mystery, many scholar believe that they were originally Canaanites. The Israelite had the same building style, religious holidays and even worshiped some of the same Gods that that the Canaanites worshiped. It is believed that the Israelites started their communities in the Hills and slowly moved down. There is no proof for the lightning victories of Joshua. The Canaanites are also believed to bee the ones who built the water tunnel from the spring into the walled City of Jerusalem. The Canaanites had a high degree of Culture regardless of what the Bible says.
The search for David and Salomon remains elusive. There is no proof that either existed. Excavations have failed to turn up any signs of Salomon's building activity. In fact during the time of David Jerusalem was relatively small. Due to maybe famine the cities population was in a decline. Many building like Hazor which are attributed to Salomon may have been built by Northern Israelites during the divided Monarchy. Whether there was ever a united monarchy is questionable. Hazor many Archaeologist are finding out was built by King Ahab and his son Omri . Ahab was a powerful king one who was to be respected. THE Kingdom of Issrael was shown to begin about 100 years earlier then it's southern neighbor Judea . Judea was too poor to maintain a building program that kept pace with Northern Israel. When the Babylonians came there was proof that they decimated Jerusalem inordr to quell any resistance AND the Elite were sent to Babylon where they live quite well. The rest of the Judeans were allowed to remain and till the land. In fact the Babylonians brought wealth and prosperity to the area.
Many may believe from reading the Bible that Israelites were at odds with the Ammonites. It was believed that the Ammonites were destroyed by the Babylonians. Fact is that they survived several centuries after words thank to underground cave cities, openness to foreigner and strong tribal organization. They helped Judean renegade against Babylon after they assassinated the Gedalia , the governor appointed by the Babylonians. The Edomites were not always enemies either in fact their copper mining and smelting brought them riches especially when the Assyrians were running the show. They did trade inside Judean Negev and set up religious center there as well. This surprised many people.
The Persian period under which the Israelite returned is mostly over looked. Yet many changes were a result of Persian policy. Judea renamed Yehud was fortified to withstand Egyptian rebellion. The bible itself was rewritten several times and Ezra ws not the final editor. There was also a rift between the Judeans who were left behind the strict fanatics returning from Babylon . In the final chapter the book covers the causws for the Jewish revolt againt the Roman along with how the Elite cooperated with the Roman.
The biblical figure of Abraham is not so easily proven. In fact it cannot be proven. Many scholars don't show much interest in this person or period. However, scholars have proven that cultural practices are consistent with timing of the narrative and that there was migration to Canaan during the supposed time of the patriarchs. Originally Abraham was not connected with the City of Hebron. That is believed to be added in during the Time of David in order to boost the cities importance. Hebron is a small Satellite city of Jerusalem were the people are insular and prone to fanaticism. It never really had a strong economy. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are a bit easier to prove. Numeira and Bab edh Dhara correspond. One city was completely abandoned along with a cemetery in use since the Bronze age. It showed what village life was like at that time. Numeira showed sing s of catastrophe it was covered in ash which meant volcanic activity. People blocked themselves in and things were preserved like grapes thanks to the ash. An area in Tel Dan has a city that was built using clay molding techniques from Mesopotamia . It fell apart due to extensive amounts of rain. This showed evidence of a migration in Canaan from Mesopotamia.
Proof that Exodus occurred is difficult as well. In Egypt there were workers and there were slaves . Slaves were of all ethnicities. Slaves were the ones who built the cities for Ramses. Workers were in charge of building the Pyramids. Workers were fed by local village folk, they received proper medical care and were given housing. They took spare material and built themselves burial chamber modeled after those of the Pharaoh's there was a classification system for regular worker and the foremen. Those with more status got better treatment. There is no extra biblical reference to any of the events of the Exodus. There is no mention of Moses either save for something written about him by an Egyptian priest called Manetho. It says that he was a renegade priest who has a follower of Lepers. He set off with them for the desert. Rameses himself many Egyptians feel is oft maligned. He was according to Egyptian documents a much loved ruler who was very wise and compassionate. No one is sure which of sons was the first born to die because he had so many of them. He later retreated into religious life and let his sons handle the running off his kingdom. Hence they may have been the Pharoah written about in Exodus. The Sinai desert was not a barrier to Canaan rather it was a bridge. Pottery finds indicate a mixture of Egyptian styles and Canaanite Styles. Often times the two groups met in the region in order to trade. Some scholars believe that there was not one Exodus but possibly several or none.
The origin of the Israelites is shrouded in mystery, many scholar believe that they were originally Canaanites. The Israelite had the same building style, religious holidays and even worshiped some of the same Gods that that the Canaanites worshiped. It is believed that the Israelites started their communities in the Hills and slowly moved down. There is no proof for the lightning victories of Joshua. The Canaanites are also believed to bee the ones who built the water tunnel from the spring into the walled City of Jerusalem. The Canaanites had a high degree of Culture regardless of what the Bible says.
The search for David and Salomon remains elusive. There is no proof that either existed. Excavations have failed to turn up any signs of Salomon's building activity. In fact during the time of David Jerusalem was relatively small. Due to maybe famine the cities population was in a decline. Many building like Hazor which are attributed to Salomon may have been built by Northern Israelites during the divided Monarchy. Whether there was ever a united monarchy is questionable. Hazor many Archaeologist are finding out was built by King Ahab and his son Omri . Ahab was a powerful king one who was to be respected. THE Kingdom of Issrael was shown to begin about 100 years earlier then it's southern neighbor Judea . Judea was too poor to maintain a building program that kept pace with Northern Israel. When the Babylonians came there was proof that they decimated Jerusalem inordr to quell any resistance AND the Elite were sent to Babylon where they live quite well. The rest of the Judeans were allowed to remain and till the land. In fact the Babylonians brought wealth and prosperity to the area.
Many may believe from reading the Bible that Israelites were at odds with the Ammonites. It was believed that the Ammonites were destroyed by the Babylonians. Fact is that they survived several centuries after words thank to underground cave cities, openness to foreigner and strong tribal organization. They helped Judean renegade against Babylon after they assassinated the Gedalia , the governor appointed by the Babylonians. The Edomites were not always enemies either in fact their copper mining and smelting brought them riches especially when the Assyrians were running the show. They did trade inside Judean Negev and set up religious center there as well. This surprised many people.
The Persian period under which the Israelite returned is mostly over looked. Yet many changes were a result of Persian policy. Judea renamed Yehud was fortified to withstand Egyptian rebellion. The bible itself was rewritten several times and Ezra ws not the final editor. There was also a rift between the Judeans who were left behind the strict fanatics returning from Babylon . In the final chapter the book covers the causws for the Jewish revolt againt the Roman along with how the Elite cooperated with the Roman.
January 31, 2016
A curious but inconclusive whiste-stop tour of emerging trends in scholarly research into the real history of the old testament. One may be surprised by how much is vindicated by real historical investigation. On the other hand, one may be left with the feeling that we have been left with a very idosyncratic account of the continuity of peoples from which to form our entire cultural frame of reference.
Historical trends that loosely touch upon the proud but small empire of Moses, David and their forefathers/descendants loom much largely in significance than the experiences of the sons of Israel, or any of the sons of Abraham, for example the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, counting just some, and ultimately Romans until our era's creations of the Ottoman and British empires.
I chose this extract to illustrate how the book manages to illuminate the preocupations of the bible's authors:
Historical trends that loosely touch upon the proud but small empire of Moses, David and their forefathers/descendants loom much largely in significance than the experiences of the sons of Israel, or any of the sons of Abraham, for example the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, counting just some, and ultimately Romans until our era's creations of the Ottoman and British empires.
I chose this extract to illustrate how the book manages to illuminate the preocupations of the bible's authors:
While the Scriptures treat the Ammonites with unremitting contempt, the feeling they express about the Edomites, the Israelites' neighbors in southern Jordan, are much more complex. Like all the tribes in the region, the Israelites and the Edomites share a long history. Over the course of hundreds of years, they try to conquer each other and often find themselves competing for the best access to important trade routes. Despite the-ongoing tensions, the Bible admonishes the Israelites, "You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother."
...What exactly the Edomites might have done, though, is never made clear in the biblecal text. Take the story about Jaoob and Esau, twin sons of Isaac and his wife Rebecca. They are portrayed as aways fighting. They fight in the womb over who is going to be born first, and Esau emerges with Jacob's hand wrapped around his ankle. They fight over the all-important birthriught of the firstborn son, which Jacob eventually wins through deceit, his mother's timely assistance, and the face that the dying Isaac is too blind to see which son stands before him demanding a blessing. All this certainly explains why Esau, and his descendants might harbor ill will toward Jacob and Jacob's descendants, and yet the story doesn't permit such an interpretation. Jacob and Esau, after years of not seeing each other, eventually meet up again. Jacob expects war, and comes offering gits, hoping to placate Esau. Instead, Esau greets him warmly, says he's prospered since they last met, and the two part on friendly, if not brotherly, terms.
....Indeed, the archaeoogical work done in the Negev in the past few yeras has turned up a wealth of pottery and religious objects traditionally associated with the Edomites, who at the very least cast along cultural shadow there in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. This is also the period during which, Bible scholars believe, the Jacob and Esau traditions were either written or revised to show some sort of kinship between Judah and Edom.
July 29, 2008
The thesis of this book is that the Old Testament is not reliable as a historical account of the Israelites. Marcus supports her view with numerous convincing examples of archaeological studies that conflict with the accounts in the Old Testament. For instance, the OT gives the impression that only Judaism prohibited its members from eating pork. When archaeologists looked at collections of animal bones found in surrounding regions, they found very few pig bones anywhere. They hypothesize that pigs need much more water than other livestock; therefore, nomadic tribes like the Israelites and their neighbors did not raise pigs.
The OT leads us to believe that when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem that the majority of Jews were exiled to Babylonia. Digs show that actually many Jews continued to live in the area surrounding Jerusalem, and the population even increased during what was supposed to be the exile.
There are many more explanations of archaeological evidence that contradicts the OT. It is fascinating reading because Marcus makes the science and techniques understandable. I recommend the book to anyone who wants to explore the nature of the Holy Land, even if you take the OT literally. Marcus is not insulting; she doesn't challenge the faith of others. Her focus is the historicity of the OT, not its validity as a testament of faith.
The OT leads us to believe that when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem that the majority of Jews were exiled to Babylonia. Digs show that actually many Jews continued to live in the area surrounding Jerusalem, and the population even increased during what was supposed to be the exile.
There are many more explanations of archaeological evidence that contradicts the OT. It is fascinating reading because Marcus makes the science and techniques understandable. I recommend the book to anyone who wants to explore the nature of the Holy Land, even if you take the OT literally. Marcus is not insulting; she doesn't challenge the faith of others. Her focus is the historicity of the OT, not its validity as a testament of faith.
July 25, 2012
Interesting, if somewhat surface, look at the newest debates in the world of biblical archaeology. Not as much analysis of how these tensions are "reshaping the Middle East" (which the title promises) as I had hoped for, but some neat insights. And a reminder of how vicious some of the Old Testament is. Ezra, known widely as perhaps one of the first to canonize the Torah after the Babylonian exile, is an especially complicated figure when you contrast historical and biblical understandings of his significance. Marcus suggests that some argue he was as much an *interpreter* as anything else and that his interpretations were often harsh: see for example the mandatory divorces he may have presided over of those who intermarried during the exile. The text has lots of those types of moments and Marcus does a nice job always acknowledging the debate that surrounds our understanding of these figures and events. Slow at times but worth the effort.
May 1, 2010
Archaeology is a fairly new and evolving field. The author has extensive notes and does a good job in making the subject matter interesting, yet she is still a journalist and not an archaeologist or an historian, so I'm not sure where her ignorance may have biased her writing, although it is nice to hear an intelligent third party speak to these issues. The examples of how scholars in the field generally believe the Old Testament had been altered and embellished per the political climate of the time of the Babylonian exile was very provocative.
February 12, 2017
A fascinating and engaging book for anyone interested in Syria-Palestine/the Holy Land/whatever you want to call it. It's also a great introduction to the practice of archaeology in Syria-Palestine (also called biblical archaeology by some) and its political roots and ramifications. Deals with the national politics involved and the politics of the academics and field archaeologists - and there are some strange characters digging pots in the middle east!
September 11, 2011
I enjoyed reading this book, especially Chapter 7 which talks about Hesban and Umayri, excavated by the Madaba Plains Project. My knowledge isn't extensive enough to have an opinion on the various ideas that historians, archaeologists and theologians have, but it is interesting to hear what some of them are. I'd especially like to hear how others view the theories.
Want to read
January 15, 2010Library
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews