Finkelstein and Silberman argue that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the...

>Finkelstein and Silberman argue that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture.[20] Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BCE in which villages appear in the previously unpopulated highlands; these settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the Late Bronze Age collapse of the Canaanite city-culture.

>Although the book of Samuel, and initial parts of the books of Kings, portray Saul, David and Solomon ruling in succession over a powerful and cosmopolitan united kingdom of Israel and Judah, Finkelstein and Silberman regard modern archaeological evidence as showing that this may not be true. Archaeology instead shows that in the time of Solomon, the northern kingdom of Israel was quite small, too poor to be able to pay for a vast army, and with too little bureaucracy to be able to administer a kingdom, certainly not an empire; it only emerged later, around the beginning of the 9th century BCE, in the time of Omri. There is little to suggest that Jerusalem, called by the Bible David's capital, was "perhaps not more than a typical hill country village" during the time of David and of Solomon, and Judah remained little more than a sparsely populated rural region, until the 8th century BCE.

Is the Old Testament basically the biggest WE WUZ in human history?

Philistines didn't have that kind of helmet but the famous feathered cap one

>Is the Old Testament basically the biggest WE WUZ in human history?

There is a lot of competition for that title, but the OT is full of wewuzzery, sure. But I mean, so is Greek mythology. Just because the world is still full of retards who actually believe one and not the other doesn't make it inherently worse.

(((Finkelstein and Silberman)))

Considering the Exodus, considering that Finkelstein and Silberman are the final authority on the issue isn't going to be accepted by every OT scholar out there.

>Finkelstein and Silberman are the final authority on the issue isn't going to be accepted by every OT scholar out there.
That's because biblical archaeology is an extremely conservative field, and lots of scholars just aren't willing to accept anything that contradicts the biblical narrative. This is partly because the field itself is somewhat behind in terms of theory compared to other fields of archaeology, and partly because (and this is a big reason why the point I just mentioned is true) many people in the field aren't actually archaeologists. Basically the field is split between archaeologists and biblical scholars (mostly actual academics, but sometimes fundies motivated by religious goals) more concerned with literary study. In general, they don't keep up-to-date with archaeological findings, or know how to interpret them. It makes biblical archaeology one of the most frustrating areas in the field, to be honest. There's some good, groundbreaking work going on, but there are also a ton of people who are opposed to anything that isn't focused on validating the biblical narrative.

For most people who are just curious about the field, it really comes down to which side you want to believe, and what kinds of credentials you want to take more seriously.

They were right next to Babylon, Hittites, and Egypt, never stood a chance. Their petty Canaanite states were fought over like Italian city states. The Canaanites most likely enjoyed some success though as short lived conquers and Pharaohs of Egypt

>these settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the Late Bronze Age collapse of the Canaanite city-culture.

There's no evidence of a dairy industry in Natufian Culture, and dairy laws are a major part of the pastoralist Israelite transition to a sedentary lifestyle.

It's absurd to claim that the Levant, one of the most desirable stretches of clay for thousands of miles in any direction, wasn't settled until after nomadic pastoralism had already mastered dairy

Philistines were literally see peoples. Some historians reckon they might be a mix of greeks who fled the greek dark age post 1100BC after the troad adventures; some phoenecian rapebabies from cyprus; or even returning libyan-mixed hyksos from egypt who took to piratry.

And yes, Old testament is a lot of shit. There are some truths, or rather semi-truths, once you get to the israel & judah stage. And it gets more accurate once you get to the neo-assyrian/neo-babylonian/persian time period since deportations have been confirmed practices. They probably were a mix of arameans/chaldaeans/or just that soup of canaanite people living between the levant and babylon that never really achieved anything for centuries upon centuries. Probably a lot of anachronism thrown into the mix thanks to the magic of oral tradition.

Arameans & Chaldaeans were apparently "new-comers" as far as the egyptians, babylonians and everyone above from anatolia was concerned. They brought camel domestication with them, but I don't think camel riding has much to do with hebrew culture.

Hard to trace them by their mythology as well, since they literally ripped off shitloads of stuff from the gilgamesh epic and enuma elis. And then later they absorbed a lot of shit from the zoroastrians because they were cyrus fanboys.

And since most of it was only put to paper after the babylonian exile of 600BC, it's hard to trust their origin myths about anything.