| Abstract: | In reviewing two new books on archaeology's relationship with the Bible, Thompson points out a series of issues in which he is in agreement with William Dever, particularly in regard to the understanding of the Bible as a composite literary product, a library involving many different genres which was completed in the Hellenistic period, and having a wide range of surviving remnants of the past. These, however, are much more substantial than Dever allows and involve a much more complicated, secondary discourse than Dever recognizes. The central issue with which he disagrees with Dever relates to the origins of an "Israelite ethnicity," especially in regard to the reading of the Merneptah stele and the early settlements of Iron I Palestine. Finally, Thompson concludes that Dever's concentration on the analysis of realia , as the primary value of archaeology for history writing does not respond to the promise of an independence of Palestinian archaeology in history writing. In contrast, Thompson finds Neil Silberman and Israel Finkelstein's book to offer a much more coherent understanding of the problems of integrating the Bible with archaeological results and recognizes their new thesis as valuable. Their discussion of the Omride character of the legends of the United Monarchy brings scholarship much further along the way in the discussion of biblical origins and the Bible's relationship to the history of Palestine. He raises some problems with their dating of the deuteronomistic history to the time of Hezekiah and Josiah and questions their historical evaluation of the supersessionist quality of the biblical texts. |
