The Bible Unearthed is a very dense book which covers a huge amount of ground and took me quite a while to read, but IIRC the conclusion on this issue is that there is no extra-Biblical evidence that a united Judah+Israel ever existed: not under Saul, David or Solomon, or at any other time. During the Bronze Age, the archaeological evidence indicates that it was used mainly by nomadic pastoral herders, with few signs of any kind of settlement.

Israel was of course a much larger, richer and more populous country and Judah always seemed to be the "poor country cousin" with no significant urban development until after Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians in 724 BC. Jerusalem only became a significant city (and Judah a sophisticated state) in the 7th Century BC, only about a century or so before it was destroyed - and that was the century in which the history of the Israelites is believed to have been written.

Yes, The Bible Unearthed spends some time discussing the various different theories concerning the actual history of the Israelites and of Judah which have been explored, and makes assessments of the evidence for them. The conclusion of all of the evidence, including the latest archaeological research, is summarised as follows:

"Judah was a rather isolated and sparsely populated kingdom until the 8th century BCE....Literacy was very limited and its capital, Jerusalem, was a small, remote, hill-country town."

On the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites returning from Egypt described in the Bible, the authors say this:

"As with the Exodus story, archaeology has discovered a dramatic discrepancy between the Bible and the situation within Canaan at the suggest date of the conquest, between 1230 and 1220 BCE. There is abundant evidence from Egyptian texts of the Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 BCE) on affairs in Canaan [much description of evidence, mostly letters from the rulers of Canaanite cities including Jerusalem]. In the Bible, no Egyptians are reported outside the boundaries of Egypt and none are mentioned in any of the battles within Canaan. Yet contemporary texts and archaeological finds indicated that they managed and carefully watched over the affairs of the country. The princes of the Canaanite cities (described in the book of Joshua as powerful enemies) were, in actuality, pathetically weak. Excavations have shown that the cities of Canaan in this period wrer not regular cities of the kind we know in later history. They were mainly administrative strongholds for the elite, housing the king, his family and his small entourage of bureaucrats, with the peasants living scattered throughout the surrounding countryside in small villages. The typical city had only a palace, a a temple compound, and a few other public edifices....there were no city walls. The formidable Canaanite cities described in the conquest narrative were not protected by fortifications!"

The book goes on to say that it is clear that Egypt retained a very tight grip on Canaan throughout this period, including their own strongholds in the area, so the probability of an Israelite army rampaging through the area conquering cities, all without comment or intervention from Egypt, is exceedingly small.

Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

A different aspect of the book which rather amused me concerned the verdicts expressed in the Bible on the various kings of Judah and Israel. The one whom the Biblical writers vilify the most was Manasseh of Judah (698-642 BCE), who is described as doing "evil in the sight of the Lord". His immediate predecessor, Hezekiah, is warmly praised for his piety despite the fact that he initiated a revolt against the local power, the Assyrians, which led to Judah being overrun and devastated. Manasseh sensibly got the message and steered a careful political course throughout his astonishingly long (56 year) reign, avoiding all conflict and greatly enhancing the wealth of Judah. So why is he so vilified? Because he tolerated the practice of other religions alongside the worship of the Israelite God, and didn't insist that Israelites must marry only among themselves.

I have to say that the writers of these Biblical texts do not come over very well. They were a racist, bigoted, intolerant crew, who judged everything that happened purely in the context of their view of religion. Were it possible for me to meet them, I suspect that I would dislike them intensely. Manasseh, in contrast, sounds like my kind of ruler!

Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Exactly. I agree. The intent and purpose of the anthology is neither archeological or straight historical or even anthropological except indirectly: it is a book describing trials of faith and a relationship

If a guy writing then described something as a city and today we think it a town--it has nothing to with the gist of what is being communicated. If there were some blue states in David’s red state kingdom and the kingdom was a postage stamp but still called a kingdom in the jargon of the time--it has no bearing on the thrust of the story which was David’s journey and trials of faith.

Taking the bible out of it’s context by the faithful can lead to preposterous claims such as the earth is 6500 years old. Being deliberately obtuse to the role of the bible by those that which to deconstruct it can lead to a quagmire of details about Bronze-age politics and self-identity that are beyond the direct or scope the bible was ever meant to be taken in.

I was taught that much of the bible is myth. Myth being defined as: “A story, unconcerned with facts, that tells a larger truth.”

Maybe it’s nice when the Discovery Channel does a nice special on the Exodus and finds a wealth of archeological evidence just as it’s head scratching when we learn Jerusalem might have had some Blue State/Red State divides in its borders, no walls and an imprecise timeline.

But neither one is foundational to the experience of faith.