 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Israel Finkelstein interview... |
|
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Matt Giwer... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A "Centrist" at the Center of Controversy
BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein
A debate rages among Biblical archaeologists: Was there a United Monarchy
under David and Solomon? Should impressive ancient structures throughout
Israel be attributed to Solomon or were they built a century later? How old
is the text of the Bible? A key figure in this debate is Israel Finkelstein,
codirector of the Megiddo excavations and head of Tel Aviv University's
Institute of Archaeology. He recently shared his views with BAR editor
Hershel Shanks.
Hershel Shanks: Israel, how long have you been the director of Tel Aviv
University's Institute of Archaeology?
Israel Finkelstein: Six long years. I hope to retire soon--if possible.
You're a young man. How old are you?
An old man. I'm 53 and I should retire soon and write more.
How about digging?
Well, David Ussishkin and I are going to continue the excavation at Megiddo.
It's an enchanting site. It's been the cradle of archaeology in this
country, Biblical archaeology if you wish. It's providing us with a window
into the history of this country. And there's a nice swimming pool in the
kibbutz. So I see no reason why not to continue excavating there.
We have new insights in almost every spot we dig, almost every issue we
touch on. We are excavating in six different fields. There's a big advantage
in going back to a site that has been excavated before, because you have
these windows into the belly of the mound. And you can excavate at the same
time in the Early Bronze Age, the Middle Bronze Age, the Late Bronze Age and
the Iron Age.
Starting from the Early Bronze I (c. 3500-3100 B.C.), we are uncovering the
largest temple compound ever excavated anywhere in the country from the
entire Bronze Age--a monumental temple with evidence of animal sacrifice.
Only one small piece of wall from that building was previously known. We
opened the rest of the area.
In Early Bronze I, Megiddo was the largest site in the country; it covered
an area of between 50 and 60 hectares [between 120 and 140 acres]. It was a
huge site, probably at least partially fortified.
That tells you that as early as the fourth millennium, you probably already
had some sort of territorial entity. You need a significant population in
order to build a temple like this. You cannot establish something like this
with only 300 or 400 people. You must have some sort of a central site with
a countryside relationship. You already have some sort of evolution of a
territorial entity, call it a chiefdom, call it an early city state, call it
whatever you want. It's the first time that we have, not on the level of
theory, but on the level of what we find in the ground, definite evidence
for something like this in the late fourth millennium B.C.
The site also flourished in the Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 B.C.). The city
was then destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age, in the 12th century
B.C. This is what we may call Canaanite Megiddo. But, when the city
recovered from the shock, from the destruction, it was still Canaanite in
its material culture.
Who destroyed it?
Possibly one of the Sea Peoples.
The Philistines? They were one of the Sea Peoples.
Possibly. There's no way of knowing. We don't have an inscription saying so.
Could it have been destroyed by another Canaanite army?
It could have been destroyed by a neighboring city state, if you wish, but I
think one of the Sea Peoples is the best candidate.
Is there any possibility that the Israelites were the people who did
the conquering?
Well, not according to my point of view.
Why not?
I don't know what an Israelite is in the 12th century B.C.
In other words, archaeologically, you don't feel you can identify an
Israelite.
Yes. If you think that a gang of `Apiru or Habiru, an uprooted population,
or Shasu, or whatever, in the 12th century could be identified as Israel,
and, that in the turmoil of the 12th century, they took over a city, then
it's a possibility. But I don't believe in a functioning, coherent ethnic
entity named Israel as early as the 12th century.
When would you speak of such an Israel?
I suppose that in the Canaanite highlands, there were groups who identified
themselves as Israel as early as the time of the Merneptah Stela. You do
have some people identifying themselves--or being identified by the
Egyptians--as Israel.
When was that?
In the late 13th century, almost around 1200.
The question, however, is not whether you have a group of people, `Apiru or
Shasu, one of whom is called Israel. The question is when something larger
and more significant grew out of that, something that has a territorial
aspect to it. When we speak about a territorial entity, I would say
definitely by the tenth century and possibly before. But how much before,
that's a big question.
The Bible portrays mainly the realities of the time of its compilation
(regarding the book of Joshua, the seventh century B.C.) and a little bit
before. It also includes earlier material; there is no doubt about it. The
Deuteronomistic history [Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings]
includes material that reflects earlier memories. There is no doubt about
that. How early, I don't know. I mean these things are not reachable. They
are beyond our knowledge. The Bible may even preserve some sort of a very
vague memory or myth or folk tales about the turmoil of the 12th century.
Who knows? I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say
that there was a Joshua or an Abraham, and I will not go to court to say
there was no Joshua or Abraham. There may have been some sort of a figure in
the very ancient past. I don't know. I can only tell you that the text we
have reflects the realities and needs and, if you wish, also the propaganda,
politics, ideology and theology of later periods.
But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was an
Abraham. You say you would not go to court on that question. Isn't it true
that archaeology is irrelevant to that question?
Archaeology is almost completely irrelevant to that. Archaeology is relevant
when somebody tells me that the patriarchal material in Genesis reflects the
realities of the second millennium B.C. Then archaeology is in full steam to
prove that he is wrong. Then, for instance, you can compare the names of the
sites; you can go to the sites to see whether they existed at that time.
There are things archaeology can contribute, but archaeology cannot recreate
Abraham and archaeology cannot deny the existence of a person in the very
early past.
You wouldn't expect to find in archaeology evidence of a particular family.
Of course not. But the Bible in my opinion doesn't give us any solid
information about early Israel in the late second millennium B.C., except
for possibly shreds of memories here and there, which I cannot trace. They
are irretrievable.
But what you just said is beyond your expertise as an archaeologist. Maybe
you are right, but not as an archaeologist, not based on your archaeological
knowledge.
My dear Hershel, let me remind you that there are two approaches to
archaeology. Some archaeologists see themselves as dealing only with
material culture; and this is perfectly okay with me. I see myself, however,
as an historian practicing archaeology. So I'm looking at matters from a
completely different point of view. I'm trying to put together all possible
pieces of evidence. Archaeology is one. And from my point of view, of
course, it is a central one, maybe the most important one, but not the only
one. I'm looking at the same time at the Biblical text, and at other ancient
Near Eastern texts.
Every text is biased, both the Bible and every other Near Eastern text. They
are all written from a particular point of view.
And the interpretation of archaeological materials can also be biased.
I agree with you.
And even with an unbiased approach, there are differences in
interpretation of material culture.
I agree. But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove
the existence of a person named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if
you ask me whether archaeology can or cannot shed light on a theory that the
material in Genesis depicts realities of the second millennium B.C., then
archaeology is very relevant.
An earlier generation of Biblical archaeologists tried to show that the
patriarchal age could be fixed, archaeologically, in the early second
millennium B.C. This proved not to be the case. They were wrong. But that
doesn't mean that there were no patriarchs or that the Bible's patriarchal
narratives contain no history. It only means that we have failed
archaeologically to place them in a particular period.
At the end of the day, the patriarchal narratives reflect basically and
mainly the needs, the ideology, the perspectives of the time of the
compilation of the text.
You keep coming back to the ideology of a later period when the text was
composed, and I keep coming back to the questions that our readers are
interested in, and that's the matter of historicity. In the case of the
patriarchs, people sometimes assume that because we can't place the
patriarchal narratives in a particular period archaeologically that there
was no patriarchal age. But that's not correct. There may or may not have
been a patriarchal age. We just don't have archaeological evidence to
support it or disprove it. No, you are wrong, Hershel. The descriptions are
fully immersed into the realities of Late monarchic times, into the toponyms
of late monarchic times, into the states of late monarchic times, into the
realities of the seventh, sixth and fifth centuries B.C. Since the
patriarchal narratives are immersed in these realities, we have no reason to
go and look for a patriarchal age.
I look at it from the point of view of the composition; it does have
importance, great importance and great beauty and great meaning and great
value. The value is not whether there was or was not a patriarchal age and
the value is not in historicity, either. The value is in the message that
you have in the text. There is a historical value to the stories, but the
historical value is at the time when the stories were put into writing. I
have never understood why this history is less interesting than the history
of something that may or may not have happened in the second millennium B.C.
When people ask me what's the difference between the way I understand the
history of early Israel and traditional Biblical archaeology, I say there
are two main differences. The first is that in the classical form of
Biblical archaeology, archaeology was expected to decorate the story.
Archaeology was not expected to give its own testimony. Archaeologists
started their investigation from the Biblical story, and archaeology was
expected to give some sort of illustration, nice slides for a talk. My
opinion is that archaeology is not in the business of decoration of any
text, a Biblical text or another text. Archaeology has its own voice.
Archaeology speaks with real-time evidence, and in many cases it provides
the most important testimony, sometimes the only evidence. And true, its
testimony is sometimes problematic. I'm not saying that archaeology is free
of problems and difficulties.
The second difference is about the role of archaeology. In classical
Biblical archaeology, the idea was that you followed the ancient history of
Israel from early to late (in the Biblical order of events), with
archaeology at times decorating and at times correcting the story. You start
with Abraham and the patriarchs and then you go down to Egypt and then you
have the Exodus, the Conquest and so on. My point of view is [and this is
the main line of The Bible Unearthed, written with my friend Neil
Silberman--I.F.] that you have to look at the history of Israel in the
opposite direction, from late to early. From the Biblical text point of view
also, you have to go from late to early: First, you understand the periods
of the compilation of the text, and then you try to work back from that
point into earlier history, in the opposite direction.
I start with people who are interested in the Bible as a text.
Me, too.
For example, whether the Red Sea parted is not a question of history, it's a
miracle. You either believe it or you don't. It's a matter of faith. It's
outside the function of archaeology or even of history to demonstrate that
this happened or that it didn't happen.
I agree. It's also beyond the reach of explanations that come from the realm
of nature. If the Red Sea parted because there was this natural phenomenon,
for the believer, that is blasphemy, because God's power is enough to do
whatever God wants without being explained later by all sorts of simplistic
natural phenomena.
On the other hand, someone may reason that the ancients understood a
phenomenon like the parting of the Red Sea as a God-given miracle, when in
fact there is a natural explanation for it. To such a person who sees this
text as sanctified by time and as representative of an early people's
understanding of an event, they may ask themselves, "What inspired that
understanding in ancient people thousands of years ago?" That is also a
legitimate question. I believe there are no illegitimate questions, only
illegitimate answers. To such a person, he or she may be interested in
whether or not there was some natural event that the ancients understood as
a miracle. And to such a person I say, "That's a legitimate question." It
may not interest you, it may not interest me--or it may. Would you agree
that that's a legitimate question?
Every question, almost every question is legitimate. I don't want to go into
the philosophy of whether every question is legitimate here.
Getting back to the historicity of events in early Israel, I started with a
miracle, the parting of the Red Sea. Let's take another one: God told
Abraham to "go forth to a land that I will show you" (Genesis 12). Whether
God said that of course is a miracle. That's beyond history. That's a matter
of faith. But someone may legitimately ask, did Abraham come from the east?
Does archaeology have anything to contribute to that question?
I'm not sure. I think the question should be, why did they tell the story in
late monarchic times?
That's your question. That may not be someone else's question.
But the question before was your question.
That's right.
Who are you representing? The lawyer Hershel Shanks, are you representing
the ancient people?
No, I'm trying to understand your views.
Okay, so I'm trying to tell you what my question is.
That's your question, though.
You just told me a minute ago that every question is legitimate.
Yes, your question is legitimate, too. But our readers would like to know
whether archaeology has anything to contribute to my question.
My method is to start with the question of why the story was told. What's
the purpose of telling this story in the text, a text that was put into
writing only at quite a late date?
Didn't the people who put together the Biblical text use sources? They
didn't just make up a story, did they?
Definitely not. Do you mean written sources?
They had some written sources.
How far back do the written sources go?
Probably to the tenth century.
Well, on that we don't agree. Take the Book of Joshua, for instance. I
cannot imagine the Deuteronomistic historian, who in my opinion sat in
Jerusalem in the late seventh century B.C., inventing stories out of his
imagination, to sell to the people as the story of the conquest of Canaan.
Had he done that, he would have lost his credibility immediately.
Definitely, the stories in the Book of Joshua must reflect some sort of
traditions, memories, myths, local legends about the destruction of
Canaanite cities.
Written sources?
I'm not sure. What the ancient historian wants to do is to tell a story
about the "early" history of Israel based on memories, but to present it in
a way that will be useful for his ideology and theology. Is that right? I'm
asking you.
Yes. I agree.
So the question then is whether there are written sources that he is using.
Right.
And here I think we don't agree. Here archaeology enters the story. The
question now is whether there are written sources and how early they are.
Yes, there are written sources, in my opinion. The answer is positive.
There are written sources?
I think so. The question is how far back they go. We need to look at Judah,
right?
I would say any sources.
Okay, but we're speaking mainly about Judah, because Judah is in the center
of the whole thing. Judah is the place where the history is compiled. And
Judah is also the center, from an ideological perspective. So we're speaking
about Jerusalem from the seventh century B.C., and whether there were
written sources for the historian to use.
You're saying the final compilation of the text was centered in Judah,
because Israel (the northern kingdom) had been destroyed by that time.
Right, and also because the text reflects only the ideology of Judah. And
then, since you have just mentioned the tenth century B.C., the question is
whether the historian, when describing the time of Solomon, rushes to the
archive in Jerusalem to ask for tenth-century royal correspondence or
histories. The answer is negative.
The ultimate compiler in Judah may have used Israelite sources, even sources
from the United Monarchy.
[bsba280603900.jpg] Israelite, yes. United Monarchy only according to your
viewpoint, Hershel. I don't think there are written sources from the time of
the United Monarchy. Anyway, we look around to see, first of all, whether we
have written material, in Israel or Judah, in the what, twelfth century,
eleventh century, tenth century? When do we start getting a flow, a
reasonable, a meaningful quantity of written material? This is related to a
second question: When do we start getting a flow of official inscriptions,
ostraca, etc., that may attest to literacy and real statehood in Judah?
As far as I know, there is no evidence for meaningful writing in Judah, in
Jerusalem, in Israel, before the eighth century B.C. Maybe ninth.
What about the Gezer calendar, which is ...
Wait, wait, wait ...
No, no ...
Wait, wait, wait. I mean, yes, theoretically, it's possible that there's a
single inscription in the ninth century. The Gezer calendar, in my opinion,
is ninth century B.C. [not tenth, as many scholars think.--Ed.]. In the
second half of the ninth century we do have inscriptions in Moab--the Mesha
stela--and in Damascus--the Tel Dan stela [mentioning the "House of David"],
which was written by Hazael. Why not Israel? It's possible. We don't have
such an inscription from the Northern Kingdom yet, but we may expect one ...
The Gezer ...
Wait!
The Gezer ...
Calm down, let me calm you down. I said, it's possible.
The Gezer calendar indicates that there's probably a school. This is a
schoolboy's practice text.
Yes, in the ninth century. Something is going on at Gezer and the Izbet
Sartah inscription [a student's practice text] is probably a bit older. So
what? And I even think that there is a possibility that there were royal
[Judahite] inscriptions in the ninth century. My friend Nadav Na'aman
pointed out--and I think rightly so--that the [Biblical] story of the coup
of Athaliah [c. 841-835 B.C.] and then the counter-coup of Jehoash [c.
835-801 B.C.; see 2 Kings 11-12] comes from some sort of a royal
inscription. It's a possibility. Why not? But a full flow of writing you get
only from the eighth century B.C.; in fact, only in the seventh century.
Also from the point of view of state formation and evolution of society in
Judah and in Jerusalem, I don't see a reality before the late eighth century
B.C. when you would expect to have some sort of major writing industry, if
you wish to call it that.
This is after the time of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon.
Yes, at least two centuries later.
So you say that there was no state of David and Solomon in the tenth century
B.C.?
That depends on what the definition of a state is. We'll talk about that
later.
What do you do with the texts in the Bible that are dated even before the
tenth century B.C., even going back perhaps to the 12th century B.C.?
Like what?
Like Exodus 15, the Song of Moses (or the Song of Miriam if you want to call
it that).
I am not expert on this. I don't want to speak about it [though the two are
considered by some to be of different source and age--I.F.], but personally,
I do not think that there is in the Hebrew Bible written material that can
be proven to be earlier than the ninth or eighth century, except for vague
memories, myths and folk tales. You're speaking about written material,
aren't you, Hershel?
I'm speaking about a particular poem, in Exodus 15, which Frank Cross [of
Harvard], for example, and other leading philologists and experts in the
history of language date to that very early period.
But there are other leading experts who say different things. It's like the
question as to whether material in the book of Samuel contains written
material from the tenth century B.C.
Your colleague Baruch Halpern believes that it does.
I know. And then [John] Van Seters [of the University of North Carolina]
comes and says something completely different.
Wouldn't it be relevant to your inquiry whether the Song of Moses had been
written out in that early period?
You caught me here. I'm not ready to answer you at this point. I should go
home and look at what scholars wrote, because I don't remember now. If you
give me ten minutes in the library, I'll give you an answer. [Biblical
scholars have dated the Song of Moses to anywhere between the 12th and
second century B.C.; the early date is advocated by only a few scholars,*
with most preferring a date in late-Monarchic or post-Exilic times.--I.F.]
I don't remember the Song of Moses, but I know the Song of Deborah [Judges
5], which is also early. I find it extremely difficult to buy this--that you
have 12th or 11th century B.C. written material in the Hebrew Bible. There
is no evidence of that whatsoever; not a single inscription.
Don't you think the Song of Deborah is early?
I don't think it's as early as that. There may have been oral transmission,
but I don't think that it depicts a real, historical situation of the 12th
century B.C.
That's a question that's really central to your inquiry, isn't it?
And I am answering you.
Shall we get back to the question about the United Monarchy of David and
Solomon? You said we'd come back to that later.
Okay, let's talk about the United Monarchy. I see the fire in your eyes,
Hershel, that you want me to speak about the United Monarchy. How can I let
you down? You traveled all the way from Washington to Tel Aviv to sit with
me and talk about the United Monarchy. Ask me, please.
Well, there are a couple of questions. Of course, the historical question
relates to whether the United Monarchy existed, whether David and Solomon
ruled over a united Israel, and what the nature of this entity was--a state
or a chiefdom or some other kind of entity. And of course this relates to
the question of your now-famous low chronology, in which you date things
that were traditionally dated to the tenth century B.C. down to the ninth
century B.C. According to you, what was traditionally considered the poor
material from the 11th century B.C. now becomes tenth century B.C., the
period of the United Monarchy. So we want to see if we can explain to our
readers this so-called low chronology of yours.
Let me start by saying that I see myself as a scholar standing somewhere in
the center between the more conservative camp, on one hand, and the more
critical camp, on the other. Being in the center is a very tricky business.
If you stand on one side, you are attacked only from one side; but if you
are in the center, you are always being attacked from both sides. So
sometimes some of my friends from the more conservative camp accuse me of
belonging to the more nihilistic approach (or the very critical approach),
denying the existence of the United Monarchy. This is not the case. For many
reasons I do not deny the existence of David and Solomon. The Tel Dan
inscription is one of them.
There was a memory already in the ninth century B.C. that the founder of the
dynasty in the capital of Judah was a person named David. I do not deny the
existence in history of a David and a Solomon. I must put this on the table,
once and for all, in order to make things clear.
However, I definitely have a different view on the extent, on the nature of
the entity which was centered around Jerusalem in the tenth century. There
was something there in the tenth century, but exactly what it is is the big
question.
In order to understand what was there in the tenth century, we have to go
back to the matter of dating.
In Jerusalem itself, regardless of the low chronology, we are in an
extremely difficult situation. I'm not saying that there is nothing from the
tenth century in Jerusalem. But whether you go with the low chronology or a
more conservative chronology--the more conventional dating of 10 or 20 or 30
years ago or for many people even today--you are still in big trouble,
because you don't have real monuments in Jerusalem from the tenth century.
You definitely have [pottery] sherds. There definitely was a settlement
there in the tenth century, but it was not the monumental, glorious,
illustrious city described in the Bible.
Before you ask me about the famous Stepped-Stone Structure in Jerusalem, let
me answer you. Sure, we have there some sort of terraced construction from
the Iron Age I (1150-1000 B.C.) that was renovated in the eighth century
B.C. So it was probably used in the tenth century for the village or
settlement that was there, but it was not constructed in the tenth century
..
The conventional dating that we have been using--I'm not using it anymore,
but many scholars are--is the system that was established mainly on the
theory of Yigael Yadin based on the results of his excavations at Hazor and
Megiddo. Yadin did a great job excavating at Hazor and a great job at
Megiddo as well. You and I both knew him very well. He was a great scholar.
There's no doubt about it, really brilliant. In the 1960s and the 1950s
there was probably no other way to describe the finds at Hazor and Megiddo
other than the way Yadin described them. We cannot judge Yadin now from the
point of view of what we know in 2002 and go back with this knowledge and
try to impose it on the 1950s at Hazor. Yadin stated that he had dated
Stratum X at Hazor and the contemporaneous material at Megiddo to the tenth
century based on stratigraphy, pottery and then the Biblical text. But in my
opinion, he based it only on the Biblical text. Stratigraphy doesn't give
you a date; it just tells you what's early and what's late. Pottery? I have
not seen a sherd with a label, "I was made by Solomon." Maybe you have. Have
you?
No.
Good. So then the whole business of archaeology is to find a way to tie the
relative chronology that we have established, from pottery and stratigraphy,
to tie it into a system of absolute chronology. How do we do that? In the
12th century B.C. there is no difficulty because you have strata with
Egyptian monuments mentioning Ramesses III. [This gives us an absolute date
because we know when Ramesses III lived--c.1184-1153 B.C.--Ed.] Basically,
we know where we are.
In the eighth century B.C., we are in the same situation. We know where we
are because we can identify the Assyrian destructions of Tiglath-pileser III
[744-727 B.C.] at Megiddo in the north, of Sennacherib [704-681 B.C.] at
Lachish in the south, etc.
The question is what we do about the eleventh, tenth and ninth centuries? In
these centuries there's no way to tie the relative chronology to an absolute
scale. There is the Shishak stela at Megiddo [dated by most scholars to
about 925 B.C.], but it was found in a dump [not in a stratified level]. The
same kind of thing is true elsewhere.
So the only way for Yadin to establish an absolute chronology was to look at
the Bible. There was no other way in the 1950s. So he came up with this
idea: You have similar gates at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer. And the Bible says
that King Solomon fortified these three locations (1 Kings 9:15). Solomon
lived in the tenth century. Therefore the strata with these gates must date
to the tenth century B.C.
This whole paradigm is based on a single Biblical verse, 1 Kings 9:15. But
this verse may reflect a reality different from the time it describes. It
was compiled in Jerusalem in later times. Whether it describes a memory from
the tenth century or whether it reflects a memory from the eighth century or
the ninth century, we don't know. Now, almost 50 years later, when we look
at this, there is ample evidence coming from different directions to tell us
that something is wrong here, really wrong. First of all, you have wider
theoretical, historical questions that need to be addressed, for instance
whether Jerusalem--possibly a limited village at the time, not a very
significant settlement, not a very elaborate one--could be the capital of a
United Monarchy extending over the northern part of the country, with its
palaces at Megiddo, not in Jerusalem. It's a question that must be
addressed.
Then you have evidence of state formation in the Levant, the western part of
the ancient Near East. If you look at Moab, Ammon, Aram Damascus and the
northern kingdom of Israel, you see that they developed into real states
only in the ninth century B.C. That does not mean there could be no great
state before them--in the tenth century. But we need to remember that if you
say there was a great state in the southern Levant in the tenth century B.C.
centered in Jerusalem, then it's the only one; it's unique, and it left no
evidence. Other peoples in adjacent regions did not reach the level of state
formation at that time.
Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, but it's highly unlikely. This is
just one set of questions--there are many others--that lead me to the
conclusion that the conventional dating must be rechecked.
Then, we have more direct evidence that cannot be brushed under the carpet.
The first one is the similarity between the pottery assemblage from Jezreel,
which was destroyed apparently in the middle of the ninth century B.C., and
Megiddo, which according to the conventional theory was destroyed in the
tenth century. There's a problem there--the two assemblages are identical.
In my opinion, the only way to deal with this is either to pull one down or
to push the other up. Pushing Jezreel up to the tenth century is not an
option.
Then there is the similarity in architectural details between the palaces at
Samaria (clearly ninth century B.C.) and Megiddo, conventionally dated to
the tenth century. Again, you either have to push one down or pull the other
up. There's no way to pull the palace at Samaria up to the tenth century.
The only way is to push the palaces at Megiddo down to the ninth century.
Some of my friends tell me, "Here you are in a trap, Israel. How can you
accept the Biblical text ascribing the building of Samaria to the [ninth
century] Omrides, yet reject the Biblical text ascribing the construction of
Megiddo to Solomon?" This was the question of Hershel Shanks also.
Here's the answer: Whoever asks a question like this does not understand the
meaning of Biblical studies in the last two centuries. The study of Biblical
history is all about sorting history from non-history; accepting one verse
and rejecting another. As for Samaria and the Omrides, on the one hand, and
Megiddo and King Solomon, on the other, there are several reasons for a
difference. There's a big difference between the tenth century B.C. and the
ninth century in our historical and archaeological knowledge. In the ninth
century, we have evidence for the greatness and the strength and the
prosperity of the Omride dynasty in the northern kingdom of Israel. We have
the Assyrians referring to the Omride state as Beit Omri, the house or land
[dynasty] of Omri, which means they knew there was a monarch named Omri who
was the founder of the dynasty and the founder of the capital. So in my
opinion there is ample evidence that comes from both extra-Biblical texts
and archaeology for this understanding of the Biblical text.
So you depend on the Biblical text for dating the palace at Samaria?
Not necessarily, but why not? I'm not rejecting the entire Biblical
text. I'm a Biblical archaeologist, Hershel. Well, I can see now that
this will be the title of the interview. "`I am a Biblical
archaeologist,' says Israel Finkelstein." You see, I gave it to you.
But it's different with the stories of David and Solomon. With the Omrides,
the text and the archaeology support one another, so why not use the text?
Whoever tells me that I have either to accept all the Biblical material or
reject it all is talking nonsense, in my opinion.
Then there's the question of carbon 14, radiocarbon dates [of organic
material found in excavations]. I think that at the end of the day, this
will give us a verdict on the chronology, in maybe 20 years. Not now,
because for the time being we don't have enough samples, and we are still
far from agreement on the interpretation of the results.
When you say we may have a verdict in 20 years, does that reflect your own
uncertainty or are you saying that you will be shown to be right?
No, what I'm saying is, that for the time being, the results from Tel Dor,
even from Tel Rehov and from Megiddo, support the low chronology. It's more
probable, but it's not definite. It's not the end of the story.
For you, is it an open question as to whether the low chronology is correct,
or are you certain it's correct?
I am certain.
This is very technical material. I think what our readers would like to know
is why so many senior ...
You are stepping into a trap. I'm warning you.
Many of your remarks seem to be addressed to the fact that I oppose your
views. My purpose here is to allow you to expose your views to the readers
of BAR. So okay, I'll step into your trap. Why is it that so many leading
scholars do not accept your low chronology--Ephraim Stern of Hebrew
University, Amnon Ben-Tor, also of Hebrew University, Amihai Mazar, also of
Hebrew University, Americans like Lawrence Stager of Harvard, Seymour Gitin
of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem, Timothy Harrison of the University
of Toronto. Even your close colleagues at Megiddo, David Ussishkin of Tel
Aviv University and Baruch Halpern of Penn State University, have not come
out in favor of it. They take a more stand-offish view. How do you account
for this? Is it that they are obtuse, or have they some motive? What is the
source of this intense disagreement?
There is a difference between intense disagreement and a list of names. It's
a funny question, I must say. It's the funniest question you have asked me
today because it's not relevant whatsoever. If I'm right, I'm right; if I'm
wrong, I'm wrong. It's irrelevant that X and Y and Z and A and B and C are
against me, and D and E and F and G and H are for me.
Ten years ago there was a great debate in the archaeology of the Levant
about the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. One scholar argued for one
position; the other scholars argued for another position. When all the
ammunition was presented by the lone scholar who argued for an earlier date,
the final doomsday weapon was to say that this scholar was wrong because
everybody was against him. Ten years later, the scholar who stood alone was
proven right. And the scholars who accused him for standing alone were
proven wrong. What does it mean? It means nothing. There's no relevance to
this question whatsoever.
But I'm ready to play your game. You are right about one thing here, that
it's a very complicated matter. In my opinion, Hershel, the number of people
who really understand what this is all about--not in slogans, but who are
really ready to go into the nitty-gritty of the pottery and the texts and
the architecture and the scarabs, and the paleography--is extremely
limited--maybe 20. You can judge only according to those people who publish
articles about this debate, not people who say in an article yes, I support
it, or not.
In an article that is going to be published soon in BASOR [the Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research], I give a temporary list of those
who support the low chronology in one way or another. It's a very long list,
Hershel. [Since you mention names, let me do the same. The list includes
Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel
Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na'aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin
Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead and
Orna Zimhoni--I.F.]* So in my opinion, I am in the majority. You simply have
not acknowledged that yet. You have not understood what's going on. If you
take away all the declarations and all the big names, all the small names
and whatever, and you really look at people who publish articles on one
aspect of the debate or another, either on the pottery or about the
architecture or about the stratigraphy, I seem to be in the majority.
There is support for my view on the basis of history, on the basis of
paleography, on the basis of amulets and scarabs, and so on, from every
point of view, from every angle. Some of my opponents are great scholars,
and they do publish, so I accept them fully, and their view is extremely
important to me. They are real scholars who know exactly all the small
details of this debate. But the number is extremely limited. Incidentally,
you, Hershel, think that the world, the entire world, is centered in one
place in this country, and maybe one place in America. But the world is more
complex than that.
You mean Jerusalem and Harvard.
I don't mean anything, I'm just describing your point of view. I will name
one other place. It's not an important place. Negligible, on the margin. No
real education there, no scholarship, no history writing, no Biblical
history or criticism there. But maybe it is a little bit important. Its name
is Europe. Have you heard the name Europe? Europe is the place between the
two places, one in America and one in this country, and over there, for
instance, I'm definitely in the majority. So what does that say? Does it say
that I'm right? No. It doesn't mean that I'm right. But I'm not impressed by
any list of supporters or opposers. I am impressed only by evidence.
And I must tell you that I am definitely impressed by the evidence provided
by some of my opponents. Some of them are doing a great job, and putting on
the table new material, which is extremely valuable.
Would you name those people?
Amihai Mazar, for instance. He's a great scholar who really understands the
problem, including the smallest detail in the debate. I'm not going to go
farther than that. There are people who really understand the nitty-gritty,
and I respect them. I oppose them; we fight each other in writing; we debate
each other in lectures; but I hope that we respect one another. I definitely
respect them.
At one point I remember your saying that Ami Mazar was halfway to your
position. Do you still maintain that?
Well, you have to ask him. I think so.
In what respect?
Well, I cannot speak for Ami Mazar. You have to speak to him. But the way I
understand his position is, first of all, he understands that there's a real
problem with the conventional chronology. Secondly, I think he would admit
that some of my arguments are strong and should be addressed. He has
published scientific articles on several issues related to the debate, and
has provided new information, not only saying, you know, X and Y and Z and D
and F are against him, and that's why he's wrong. You'll never get this from
Mazar. This is not scholarship, it is name-dropping.
I take it you know that you are a controversial scholar, that ...
What's the meaning of "controversial scholar"? The meaning is you disagree
with me.
I'm not talking about my view: I'm talking about the world of scholarship.
One of the things we haven't spoken about is the debate in Biblical studies
between the so-called minimalists and the maximalists, the minimalists being
the people who tend to deny the historicity of the Bible in general. They're
broadly represented by a group in Copenhagen, Denmark, and in Sheffield,
England--Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas Thompson from Copenhagen, and Philip
Davies and Keith Whitelam, for example, from Sheffield. I know that you are
offended sometimes because you are lumped with these minimalists. I don't
believe I have done that, but it's often done. I was looking at something
from a very respected European archaeologist who recently wrote in a very
obscure German publication about the utter skepticism "of the Biblical
tradition" by those called "minimalists." And then he puts in parenthesis
the names of Lemche and Thompson, and, "from an archaeological angle, I.
Finkelstein." Now, I assume that you would disagree with this, that you are
not a minimalist, yet things like this get into print. There are many such
instances. I wonder if you would explain your position.
First of all, you, Hershel, play a major role in the incitement. You have to
admit this. You play a really important role in inciting people against each
other. I respect and have respected a lot of what you have done throughout
the years. But there are points that I don't respect. You know exactly what
they are. We have known each other long enough to know where we disagree.
The only problem in the last year or two has been that I felt that the
disagreement between the two of us got a twist into a hostile direction that
really surprised me.
But let's put this aside for a minute. It's not a matter of being offended
or not. I am not offended by being put with the minimalists or with the
conservative people. The only question is whether my positions are being
portrayed properly.
I think that the minimalists--the people you call minimalists--are good
scholars, and they are important scholars, and they have contributed a lot
to historical and Biblical scholarship. We have to listen to them carefully,
even when they are wrong. Sometimes they are right. It depends on what, it
depends on where; but they have steered this debate--which is a positive
debate, an important one. Whatever the verdict is, the debate is important,
and the debate is there, thanks to their publications. So we have to be very
grateful for their publications. This has nothing to do with whether I agree
or disagree with them, but I respect them and I respect their scholarship in
the same way that I respect good scholarship from the conservative side, so
it has nothing to do with being offended, this way or that way.
In any event, I think that I stand in the middle. When we speak about right,
left or middle, we are speaking about the history of Israel. When we speak
about the history of Israel, we are speaking about the text of the Bible. I
stand in the middle. On one side you have the conservative camp, which
follows basically the lines of the Biblical description of the history of
Israel, from early to late. On the other hand, you have the minimalist camp.
They argue that all or most of the material is Persian or Hellenistic
[fourth-third centuries B.C.], and it has nothing to do with the real
history of early Israel. What they are saying then is that the text was put
in writing in the Persian or Hellenistic period and therefore has no value
for understanding the history of Israel in the Iron Age.
My position lies between the two. What I'm saying is--and I'm not alone
here--that the material was put in writing in late monarchic times, and that
it reflects the realities of late monarchic times (the seventh century,
possibly also the eighth century B.C.), and that there is earlier material
which found its way as memories into these texts.
That is why I don't think that you can put me either with this group or with
that group. And the center camp is a big camp. You guys--and here I'm
talking to you too, Hershel--you have always tried to eliminate the center
camp, or you have ignored the center camp, or you have twisted the ideas of
the center camp. But the center camp will prevail. There are many scholars
in the center camp--in this university, in America, in Europe, in Biblical
studies, in archaeology, in history. Why eliminate it? Why describe me as
minimalist? With all due respect to the minimalists, I'm not arguing for a
date of the text in the Hellenistic period. I'm not arguing for a text that
reflects the tenth century B.C. either. So, I'm not offended. I just want my
views to be properly portrayed. Please try to respect this modest wish of
mine.
Thank you, Israel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SolomonW... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote:3325f5a25a]Israel Finkelstein
[/quote:3325f5a25a]
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
David and Solomon existed? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Per Rřnne... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW <SolomonW at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
[quote:1cb0232dac]On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
David and Solomon existed?
[/quote:1cb0232dac]
Due to the Dan Stele's reference to Judah's King Ahaziah from "the House
of David" ...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele>
--
Per Erik Rřnne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
[quote:55f502fedb]Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
believes that King David and Solomon existed?
[/quote:55f502fedb]
I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
case, the one who has been throwing around Finkelstein
as if he were the undisputed authority on every subject.
When I pointed out that, far from an authority, the guy is
a magnet for controversy, the Tom P. nut went mental. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matthias M. Giwer... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
[quote:e6a4be33a7]On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
David and Solomon existed?
[/quote:e6a4be33a7]
How could anyone's belief matter in the least to this discussion?
I posted this as a convenient source to rebut those who are
misrepresenting him. I thought to do it after someone declared him an
authority on middle east archaeology. In fact he declares himself expert on
only one period of Palestinian archaeology which is after the time the bible
claims David and Solomon existed.
He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt. Yet people
here are claiming to know what it meant in that century. I ask them how they
know that Finkelstein does not know.
I am always interested is reviewing the evidence he presents in
support of his considered interpretations. I have no interest in his beliefs
nor should anyone else. Nor should anyone have any interest in anyone's
beliefs on any subject as that is a fallacious appeal to authority. It does
not differ in the least from a Catholic reciting the faith of famous
Catholics as evidence Catholicism is the true faith.
Is this clear enough?
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Oct 16 04:39:48 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote:49956d035c]SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
believes that King David and Solomon existed?
I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
case,
[/quote:49956d035c]
How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
Remember, I didn't call Finkelstein a member of the Copenhagen School.
Giwer did.
[quote:49956d035c]the one who has been throwing around Finkelstein
as if he were the undisputed authority on every subject.
When I pointed out that, far from an authority, the guy is
a magnet for controversy, the Tom P. nut went mental.
[/quote:49956d035c] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom P wrote:
[quote:5836d331b8]JTEM wrote:
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
believes that King David and Solomon existed?
I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
case,
How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
Remember, I didn't call Finkelstein a member of the Copenhagen School.
Giwer did.
[/quote:5836d331b8]
Never did. Never would. Never gave the name of any "member" of the so-called
Copenhagen school. Never could as it has no membership roles.
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Oct 16 21:32:26 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jerry warner... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW wrote:
[quote:93d6a1b033]On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
David and Solomon existed?
[/quote:93d6a1b033]
"But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was an
Abraham."
"I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say that there was
a Joshua or an
Abraham, and I will not go to court to say there was no Joshua or Abraham. "
"But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove the
existence of a person
named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if you ask me whether
archaeology can or cannot
shed light on a theory that the material in Genesis depicts realities of the
second millennium B.C.,
then archaeology is very relevant."
Got it? Read the whole thing again! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jerry warner... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote:59f3816a83]SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
believes that King David and Solomon existed?
I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
case, the one who has been throwing around Finkelstein
as if he were the undisputed authority on every subject.
When I pointed out that, far from an authority, the guy is
a magnet for controversy, the Tom P. nut went mental.
[/quote:59f3816a83]
You seem to have a large focus/sensitivity... to the
mental state of others. This seems to reflect YOUR
mental state! Take a pill Homer. Get Jethrow one too! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| jerry warner... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nice post!
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote:be16863db9]A "Centrist" at the Center of Controversy
BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein
A debate rages among Biblical archaeologists: Was there a United Monarchy
under David and Solomon? Should impressive ancient structures throughout
Israel be attributed to Solomon or were they built a century later? How old
is the text of the Bible? A key figure in this debate is Israel Finkelstein,
codirector of the Megiddo excavations and head of Tel Aviv University's
Institute of Archaeology. He recently shared his views with BAR editor
Hershel Shanks.
Hershel Shanks: Israel, how long have you been the director of Tel Aviv
University's Institute of Archaeology?
Israel Finkelstein: Six long years. I hope to retire soon--if possible.
You're a young man. How old are you?
An old man. I'm 53 and I should retire soon and write more.
How about digging?
Well, David Ussishkin and I are going to continue the excavation at Megiddo.
It's an enchanting site. It's been the cradle of archaeology in this
country, Biblical archaeology if you wish. It's providing us with a window
into the history of this country. And there's a nice swimming pool in the
kibbutz. So I see no reason why not to continue excavating there.
We have new insights in almost every spot we dig, almost every issue we
touch on. We are excavating in six different fields. There's a big advantage
in going back to a site that has been excavated before, because you have
these windows into the belly of the mound. And you can excavate at the same
time in the Early Bronze Age, the Middle Bronze Age, the Late Bronze Age and
the Iron Age.
Starting from the Early Bronze I (c. 3500-3100 B.C.), we are uncovering the
largest temple compound ever excavated anywhere in the country from the
entire Bronze Age--a monumental temple with evidence of animal sacrifice.
Only one small piece of wall from that building was previously known. We
opened the rest of the area.
In Early Bronze I, Megiddo was the largest site in the country; it covered
an area of between 50 and 60 hectares [between 120 and 140 acres]. It was a
huge site, probably at least partially fortified.
That tells you that as early as the fourth millennium, you probably already
had some sort of territorial entity. You need a significant population in
order to build a temple like this. You cannot establish something like this
with only 300 or 400 people. You must have some sort of a central site with
a countryside relationship. You already have some sort of evolution of a
territorial entity, call it a chiefdom, call it an early city state, call it
whatever you want. It's the first time that we have, not on the level of
theory, but on the level of what we find in the ground, definite evidence
for something like this in the late fourth millennium B.C.
The site also flourished in the Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 B.C.). The city
was then destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age, in the 12th century
B.C. This is what we may call Canaanite Megiddo. But, when the city
recovered from the shock, from the destruction, it was still Canaanite in
its material culture.
Who destroyed it?
Possibly one of the Sea Peoples.
The Philistines? They were one of the Sea Peoples.
Possibly. There's no way of knowing. We don't have an inscription saying so.
Could it have been destroyed by another Canaanite army?
It could have been destroyed by a neighboring city state, if you wish, but I
think one of the Sea Peoples is the best candidate.
Is there any possibility that the Israelites were the people who did
the conquering?
Well, not according to my point of view.
Why not?
I don't know what an Israelite is in the 12th century B.C.
In other words, archaeologically, you don't feel you can identify an
Israelite.
Yes. If you think that a gang of `Apiru or Habiru, an uprooted population,
or Shasu, or whatever, in the 12th century could be identified as Israel,
and, that in the turmoil of the 12th century, they took over a city, then
it's a possibility. But I don't believe in a functioning, coherent ethnic
entity named Israel as early as the 12th century.
When would you speak of such an Israel?
I suppose that in the Canaanite highlands, there were groups who identified
themselves as Israel as early as the time of the Merneptah Stela. You do
have some people identifying themselves--or being identified by the
Egyptians--as Israel.
When was that?
In the late 13th century, almost around 1200.
The question, however, is not whether you have a group of people, `Apiru or
Shasu, one of whom is called Israel. The question is when something larger
and more significant grew out of that, something that has a territorial
aspect to it. When we speak about a territorial entity, I would say
definitely by the tenth century and possibly before. But how much before,
that's a big question.
The Bible portrays mainly the realities of the time of its compilation
(regarding the book of Joshua, the seventh century B.C.) and a little bit
before. It also includes earlier material; there is no doubt about it. The
Deuteronomistic history [Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings]
includes material that reflects earlier memories. There is no doubt about
that. How early, I don't know. I mean these things are not reachable. They
are beyond our knowledge. The Bible may even preserve some sort of a very
vague memory or myth or folk tales about the turmoil of the 12th century.
Who knows? I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say
that there was a Joshua or an Abraham, and I will not go to court to say
there was no Joshua or Abraham. There may have been some sort of a figure in
the very ancient past. I don't know. I can only tell you that the text we
have reflects the realities and needs and, if you wish, also the propaganda,
politics, ideology and theology of later periods.
But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was an
Abraham. You say you would not go to court on that question. Isn't it true
that archaeology is irrelevant to that question?
Archaeology is almost completely irrelevant to that. Archaeology is relevant
when somebody tells me that the patriarchal material in Genesis reflects the
realities of the second millennium B.C. Then archaeology is in full steam to
prove that he is wrong. Then, for instance, you can compare the names of the
sites; you can go to the sites to see whether they existed at that time.
There are things archaeology can contribute, but archaeology cannot recreate
Abraham and archaeology cannot deny the existence of a person in the very
early past.
You wouldn't expect to find in archaeology evidence of a particular family.
Of course not. But the Bible in my opinion doesn't give us any solid
information about early Israel in the late second millennium B.C., except
for possibly shreds of memories here and there, which I cannot trace. They
are irretrievable.
But what you just said is beyond your expertise as an archaeologist. Maybe
you are right, but not as an archaeologist, not based on your archaeological
knowledge.
My dear Hershel, let me remind you that there are two approaches to
archaeology. Some archaeologists see themselves as dealing only with
material culture; and this is perfectly okay with me. I see myself, however,
as an historian practicing archaeology. So I'm looking at matters from a
completely different point of view. I'm trying to put together all possible
pieces of evidence. Archaeology is one. And from my point of view, of
course, it is a central one, maybe the most important one, but not the only
one. I'm looking at the same time at the Biblical text, and at other ancient
Near Eastern texts.
Every text is biased, both the Bible and every other Near Eastern text. They
are all written from a particular point of view.
And the interpretation of archaeological materials can also be biased.
I agree with you.
And even with an unbiased approach, there are differences in
interpretation of material culture.
I agree. But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove
the existence of a person named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if
you ask me whether archaeology can or cannot shed light on a theory that the
material in Genesis depicts realities of the second millennium B.C., then
archaeology is very relevant.
An earlier generation of Biblical archaeologists tried to show that the
patriarchal age could be fixed, archaeologically, in the early second
millennium B.C. This proved not to be the case. They were wrong. But that
doesn't mean that there were no patriarchs or that the Bible's patriarchal
narratives contain no history. It only means that we have failed
archaeologically to place them in a particular period.
At the end of the day, the patriarchal narratives reflect basically and
mainly the needs, the ideology, the perspectives of the time of the
compilation of the text.
You keep coming back to the ideology of a later period when the text was
composed, and I keep coming back to the questions that our readers are
interested in, and that's the matter of historicity. In the case of the
patriarchs, people sometimes assume that because we can't place the
patriarchal narratives in a particular period archaeologically that there
was no patriarchal age. But that's not correct. There may or may not have
been a patriarchal age. We just don't have archaeological evidence to
support it or disprove it. No, you are wrong, Hershel. The descriptions are
fully immersed into the realities of Late monarchic times, into the toponyms
of late monarchic times, into the states of late monarchic times, into the
realities of the seventh, sixth and fifth centuries B.C. Since the
patriarchal narratives are immersed in these realities, we have no reason to
go and look for a patriarchal age.
I look at it from the point of view of the composition; it does have
importance, great importance and great beauty and great meaning and great
value. The value is not whether there was or was not a patriarchal age and
the value is not in historicity, either. The value is in the message that
you have in the text. There is a historical value to the stories, but the
historical value is at the time when the stories were put into writing. I
have never understood why this history is less interesting than the history
of something that may or may not have happened in the second millennium B.C.
When people ask me what's the difference between the way I understand the
history of early Israel and traditional Biblical archaeology, I say there
are two main differences. The first is that in the classical form of
Biblical archaeology, archaeology was expected to decorate the story.
Archaeology was not expected to give its own testimony. Archaeologists
started their investigation from the Biblical story, and archaeology was
expected to give some sort of illustration, nice slides for a talk. My
opinion is that archaeology is not in the business of decoration of any
text, a Biblical text or another text. Archaeology has its own voice.
Archaeology speaks with real-time evidence, and in many cases it provides
the most important testimony, sometimes the only evidence. And true, its
testimony is sometimes problematic. I'm not saying that archaeology is free
of problems and difficulties.
The second difference is about the role of archaeology. In classical
Biblical archaeology, the idea was that you followed the ancient history of
Israel from early to late (in the Biblical order of events), with
archaeology at times decorating and at times correcting the story. You start
with Abraham and the patriarchs and then you go down to Egypt and then you
have the Exodus, the Conquest and so on. My point of view is [and this is
the main line of The Bible Unearthed, written with my friend Neil
Silberman--I.F.] that you have to look at the history of Israel in the
opposite direction, from late to early. From the Biblical text point of view
also, you have to go from late to early: First, you understand the periods
of the compilation of the text, and then you try to work back from that
point into earlier history, in the opposite direction.
I start with people who are interested in the Bible as a text.
Me, too.
For example, whether the Red Sea parted is not a question of history, it's a
miracle. You either believe it or you don't. It's a matter of faith. It's
outside the function of archaeology or even of history to demonstrate that
this happened or that it didn't happen.
I agree. It's also beyond the reach of explanations that come from the realm
of nature. If the Red Sea parted because there was this natural phenomenon,
for the believer, that is blasphemy, because God's power is enough to do
whatever God wants without being explained later by all sorts of simplistic
natural phenomena.
On the other hand, someone may reason that the ancients understood a
phenomenon like the parting of the Red Sea as a God-given miracle, when in
fact there is a natural explanation for it. To such a person who sees this
text as sanctified by time and as representative of an early people's
understanding of an event, they may ask themselves, "What inspired that
understanding in ancient people thousands of years ago?" That is also a
legitimate question. I believe there are no illegitimate questions, only
illegitimate answers. To such a person, he or she may be interested in
whether or not there was some natural event that the ancients understood as
a miracle. And to such a person I say, "That's a legitimate question." It
may not interest you, it may not interest me--or it may. Would you agree
that that's a legitimate question?
Every question, almost every question is legitimate. I don't want to go into
the philosophy of whether every question is legitimate here.
Getting back to the historicity of events in early Israel, I started with a
miracle, the parting of the Red Sea. Let's take another one: God told
Abraham to "go forth to a land that I will show you" (Genesis 12). Whether
God said that of course is a miracle. That's beyond history. That's a matter
of faith. But someone may legitimately ask, did Abraham come from the east?
Does archaeology have anything to contribute to that question?
I'm not sure. I think the question should be, why did they tell the story in
late monarchic times?
That's your question. That may not be someone else's question.
But the question before was your question.
That's right.
Who are you representing? The lawyer Hershel Shanks, are you representing
the ancient people?
No, I'm trying to understand your views.
Okay, so I'm trying to tell you what my question is.
That's your question, though.
You just told me a minute ago that every question is legitimate.
Yes, your question is legitimate, too. But our readers would like to know
whether archaeology has anything to contribute to my question.
My method is to start with the question of why the story was told. What's
the purpose of telling this story in the text, a text that was put into
writing only at quite a late date?
Didn't the people who put together the Biblical text use sources? They
didn't just make up a story, did they?
Definitely not. Do you mean written sources?
They had some written sources.
How far back do the written sources go?
Probably to the tenth century.
Well, on that we don't agree. Take the Book of Joshua, for instance. I
cannot imagine the Deuteronomistic historian, who in my opinion sat in
Jerusalem in the late seventh century B.C., inventing stories out of his
imagination, to sell to the people as the story of the conquest of Canaan.
Had he done that, he would have lost his credibility immediately.
Definitely, the stories in the Book of Joshua must reflect some sort of
traditions, memories, myths, local legends about the destruction of
Canaanite cities.
Written sources?
I'm not sure. What the ancient historian wants to do is to tell a story
about the "early" history of Israel based on memories, but to present it in
a way that will be useful for his ideology and theology. Is that right? I'm
asking you.
Yes. I agree.
So the question then is whether there are written sources that he is using.
Right.
And here I think we don't agree. Here archaeology enters the story. The
question now is whether there are written sources and how early they are.
Yes, there are written sources, in my opinion. The answer is positive.
There are written sources?
I think so. The question is how far back they go. We need to look at Judah,
right?
I would say any sources.
Okay, but we're speaking mainly about Judah, because Judah is in the center
of the whole thing. Judah is the place where the history is compiled. And
Judah is also the center, from an ideological perspective. So we're speaking
about Jerusalem from the seventh century B.C., and whether there were
written sources for the historian to use.
You're saying the final compilation of the text was centered in Judah,
because Israel (the northern kingdom) had been destroyed by that time.
Right, and also because the text reflects only the ideology of Judah. And
then, since you have just mentioned the tenth century B.C., the question is
whether the historian, when describing the time of Solomon, rushes to the
archive in Jerusalem to ask for tenth-century royal correspondence or
histories. The answer is negative.
The ultimate compiler in Judah may have used Israelite sources, even sources
from the United Monarchy.
[bsba280603900.jpg] Israelite, yes. United Monarchy only according to your
viewpoint, Hershel. I don't think there are written sources from the time of
the United Monarchy. Anyway, we look around to see, first of all, whether we
have written material, in Israel or Judah, in the what, twelfth century,
eleventh century, tenth century? When do we start getting a flow, a
reasonable, a meaningful quantity of written material? This is related to a
second question: When do we start getting a flow of official inscriptions,
ostraca, etc., that may attest to literacy and real statehood in Judah?
As far as I know, there is no evidence for meaningful writing in Judah, in
Jerusalem, in Israel, before the eighth century B.C. Maybe ninth.
What about the Gezer calendar, which is ...
Wait, wait, wait ...
No, no ...
Wait, wait, wait. I mean, yes, theoretically, it's possible that there's a
single inscription in the ninth century. The Gezer calendar, in my opinion,
is ninth century B.C. [not tenth, as many scholars think.--Ed.]. In the
second half of the ninth century we do have inscriptions in Moab--the Mesha
stela--and in Damascus--the Tel Dan stela [mentioning the "House of David"],
which was written by Hazael. Why not Israel? It's possible. We don't have
such an inscription from the Northern Kingdom yet, but we may expect one ...
The Gezer ...
Wait!
The Gezer ...
Calm down, let me calm you down. I said, it's possible.
The Gezer calendar indicates that there's probably a school. This is a
schoolboy's practice text.
Yes, in the ninth century. Something is going on at Gezer and the Izbet
Sartah inscription [a student's practice text] is probably a bit older. So
what? And I even think that there is a possibility that there were royal
[Judahite] inscriptions in the ninth century. My friend Nadav Na'aman
pointed out--and I think rightly so--that the [Biblical] story of the coup
of Athaliah [c. 841-835 B.C.] and then the counter-coup of Jehoash [c.
835-801 B.C.; see 2 Kings 11-12] comes from some sort of a royal
inscription. It's a possibility. Why not? But a full flow of writing you get
only from the eighth century B.C.; in fact, only in the seventh century.
Also from the point of view of state formation and evolution of society in
Judah and in Jerusalem, I don't see a reality before the late eighth century
B.C. when you would expect to have some sort of major writing industry, if
you wish to call it that.
This is after the time of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon.
Yes, at least two centuries later.
So you say that there was no state of David and Solomon in the tenth century
B.C.?
That depends on what the definition of a state is. We'll talk about that
later.
What do you do with the texts in the Bible that are dated even before the
tenth century B.C., even going back perhaps to the 12th century B.C.?
Like what?
Like Exodus 15, the Song of Moses (or the Song of Miriam if you want to call
it that).
I am not expert on this. I don't want to speak about it [though the two are
considered by some to be of different source and age--I.F.], but personally,
I do not think that there is in the Hebrew Bible written material that can
be proven to be earlier than the ninth or eighth century, except for vague
memories, myths and folk tales. You're speaking about written material,
aren't you, Hershel?
I'm speaking about a particular poem, in Exodus 15, which Frank Cross [of
Harvard], for example, and other leading philologists and experts in the
history of language date to that very early period.
But there are other leading experts who say different things. It's like the
question as to whether material in the book of Samuel contains written
material from the tenth century B.C.
Your colleague Baruch Halpern believes that it does.
I know. And then [John] Van Seters [of the University of North Carolina]
comes and says something completely different.
Wouldn't it be relevant to your inquiry whether the Song of Moses had been
written out in that early period?
You caught me here. I'm not ready to answer you at this point. I should go
home and look at what scholars wrote, because I don't remember now. If you
give me ten minutes in the library, I'll give you an answer. [Biblical
scholars have dated the Song of Moses to anywhere between the 12th and
second century B.C.; the early date is advocated by only a few scholars,*
with most preferring a date in late-Monarchic or post-Exilic times.--I.F.]
I don't remember the Song of Moses, but I know the Song of Deborah [Judges
5], which is also early. I find it extremely difficult to buy this--that you
have 12th or 11th century B.C. written material in the Hebrew Bible. There
is no evidence of that whatsoever; not a single inscription.
Don't you think the Song of Deborah is early?
I don't think it's as early as that. There may have been oral transmission,
but I don't think that it depicts a real, historical situation of the 12th
century B.C.
That's a question that's really central to your inquiry, isn't it?
And I am answering you.
Shall we get back to the question about the United Monarchy of David and
Solomon? You said we'd come back to that later.
Okay, let's talk about the United Monarchy. I see the fire in your eyes,
Hershel, that you want me to speak about the United Monarchy. How can I let
you down? You traveled all the way from Washington to Tel Aviv to sit with
me and talk about the United Monarchy. Ask me, please.
Well, there are a couple of questions. Of course, the historical question
relates to whether the United Monarchy existed, whether David and Solomon
ruled over a united Israel, and what the nature of this entity was--a state
or a chiefdom or some other kind of entity. And of course this relates to
the question of your now-famous low chronology, in which you date things
that were traditionally dated to the tenth century B.C. down to the ninth
century B.C. According to you, what was traditionally considered the poor
material from the 11th century B.C. now becomes tenth century B.C., the
period of the United Monarchy. So we want to see if we can explain to our
readers this so-called low chronology of yours.
Let me start by saying that I see myself as a scholar standing somewhere in
the center between the more conservative camp, on one hand, and the more
critical camp, on the other. Being in the center is a very tricky business.
If you stand on one side, you are attacked only from one side; but if you
are in the center, you are always being attacked from both sides. So
sometimes some of my friends from the more conservative camp accuse me of
belonging to the more nihilistic approach (or the very critical approach),
denying the existence of the United Monarchy. This is not the case. For many
reasons I do not deny the existence of David and Solomon. The Tel Dan
inscription is one of them.
There was a memory already in the ninth century B.C. that the founder of the
dynasty in the capital of Judah was a person named David. I do not deny the
existence in history of a David and a Solomon. I must put this on the table,
once and for all, in order to make things clear.
However, I definitely have a different view on the extent, on the nature of
the entity which was centered around Jerusalem in the tenth century. There
was something there in the tenth century, but exactly what it is is the big
question.
In order to understand what was there in the tenth century, we have to go
back to the matter of dating.
In Jerusalem itself, regardless of the low chronology, we are in an
extremely difficult situation. I'm not saying that there is nothing from the
tenth century in Jerusalem. But whether you go with the low chronology or a
more conservative chronology--the more conventional dating of 10 or 20 or 30
years ago or for many people even today--you are still in big trouble,
because you don't have real monuments in Jerusalem from the tenth century.
You definitely have [pottery] sherds. There definitely was a settlement
there in the tenth century, but it was not the monumental, glorious,
illustrious city described in the Bible.
Before you ask me about the famous Stepped-Stone Structure in Jerusalem, let
me answer you. Sure, we have there some sort of terraced construction from
the Iron Age I (1150-1000 B.C.) that was renovated in the eighth century
B.C. So it was probably used in the tenth century for the village or
settlement that was there, but it was not constructed in the tenth century
.
The conventional dating that we have been using--I'm not using it anymore,
but many scholars are--is the system that was established mainly on the
theory of Yigael Yadin based on the results of his excavations at Hazor and
Megiddo. Yadin did a great job excavating at Hazor and a great job at
Megiddo as well. You and I both knew him very well. He was a great scholar.
There's no doubt about it, really brilliant. In the 1960s and the 1950s
there was probably no other way to describe the finds at Hazor and Megiddo
other than the way Yadin described them. We cannot judge Yadin now from the
point of view of what we know in 2002 and go back with this knowledge and
try to impose it on the 1950s at Hazor. Yadin stated that he had dated
Stratum X at Hazor and the contemporaneous material at Megiddo to the tenth
century based on stratigraphy, pottery and then the Biblical text. But in my
opinion, he based it only on the Biblical text. Stratigraphy doesn't give
you a date; it just tells you what's early and what's late. Pottery? I have
not seen a sherd with a label, "I was made by Solomon." Maybe you have. Have
you?
No.
Good. So then the whole business of archaeology is to find a way to tie the
relative chronology that we have established, from pottery and stratigraphy,
to tie it into a system of absolute chronology. How do we do that? In the
12th century B.C. there is no difficulty because you have strata with
Egyptian monuments mentioning Ramesses III. [This gives us an absolute date
because we know when Ramesses III lived--c.1184-1153 B.C.--Ed.] Basically,
we know where we are.
In the eighth century B.C., we are in the same situation. We know where we
are because we can identify the Assyrian destructions of Tiglath-pileser III
[744-727 B.C.] at Megiddo in the north, of Sennacherib [704-681 B.C.] at
Lachish in the south, etc.
The question is what we do about the eleventh, tenth and ninth centuries? In
these centuries there's no way to tie the relative chronology to an absolute
scale. There is the Shishak stela at Megiddo [dated by most scholars to
about 925 B.C.], but it was found in a dump [not in a stratified level]. The
same kind of thing is true elsewhere.
So the only way for Yadin to establish an absolute chronology was to look at
the Bible. There was no other way in the 1950s. So he came up with this
idea: You have similar gates at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer. And the Bible says
that King Solomon fortified these three locations (1 Kings 9:15). Solomon
lived in the tenth century. Therefore the strata with these gates must date
to the tenth century B.C.
This whole paradigm is based on a single Biblical verse, 1 Kings 9:15. But
this verse may reflect a reality different from the time it describes. It
was compiled in Jerusalem in later times. Whether it describes a memory from
the tenth century or whether it reflects a memory from the eighth century or
the ninth century, we don't know. Now, almost 50 years later, when we look
at this, there is ample evidence coming from different directions to tell us
that something is wrong here, really wrong. First of all, you have wider
theoretical, historical questions that need to be addressed, for instance
whether Jerusalem--possibly a limited village at the time, not a very
significant settlement, not a very elaborate one--could be the capital of a
United Monarchy extending over the northern part of the country, with its
palaces at Megiddo, not in Jerusalem. It's a question that must be
addressed.
Then you have evidence of state formation in the Levant, the western part of
the ancient Near East. If you look at Moab, Ammon, Aram Damascus and the
northern kingdom of Israel, you see that they developed into real states
only in the ninth century B.C. That does not mean there could be no great
state before them--in the tenth century. But we need to remember that if you
say there was a great state in the southern Levant in the tenth century B.C.
centered in Jerusalem, then it's the only one; it's unique, and it left no
evidence. Other peoples in adjacent regions did not reach the level of state
formation at that time.
Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, but it's highly unlikely. This is
just one set of questions--there are many others--that lead me to the
conclusion that the conventional dating must be rechecked.
Then, we have more direct evidence that cannot be brushed under the carpet.
The first one is the similarity between the pottery assemblage from Jezreel,
which was destroyed apparently in the middle of the ninth century B.C., and
Megiddo, which according to the conventional theory was destroyed in the
tenth century. There's a problem there--the two assemblages are identical.
In my opinion, the only way to deal with this is either to pull one down or
to push the other up. Pushing Jezreel up to the tenth century is not an
option.
Then there is the similarity in architectural details between the palaces at
Samaria (clearly ninth century B.C.) and Megiddo, conventionally dated to
the tenth century. Again, you either have to push one down or pull the other
up. There's no way to pull the palace at Samaria up to the tenth century.
The only way is to push the palaces at Megiddo down to the ninth century.
Some of my friends tell me, "Here you are in a trap, Israel. How can you
accept the Biblical text ascribing the building of Samaria to the [ninth
century] Omrides, yet reject the Biblical text ascribing the construction of
Megiddo to Solomon?" This was the question of Hershel Shanks also.
Here's the answer: Whoever asks a question like this does not understand the
meaning of Biblical studies in the last two centuries. The study of Biblical
history is all about sorting history from non-history; accepting one verse
and rejecting another. As for Samaria and the Omrides, on the one hand, and
Megiddo and King Solomon, on the other, there are several reasons for a
difference. There's a big difference between the tenth century B.C. and the
ninth century in our historical and archaeological knowledge. In the ninth
century, we have evidence for the greatness and the strength and the
prosperity of the Omride dynasty in the northern kingdom of Israel. We have
the Assyrians referring to the Omride state as Beit Omri, the house or land
[dynasty] of Omri, which means they knew there was a monarch named Omri who
was the founder of the dynasty and the founder of the capital. So in my
opinion there is ample evidence that comes from both extra-Biblical texts
and archaeology for this understanding of the Biblical text.
So you depend on the Biblical text for dating the palace at Samaria?
Not necessarily, but why not? I'm not rejecting the entire Biblical
text. I'm a Biblical archaeologist, Hershel. Well, I can see now that
this will be the title of the interview. "`I am a Biblical
archaeologist,' says Israel Finkelstein." You see, I gave it to you.
But it's different with the stories of David and Solomon. With the Omrides,
the text and the archaeology support one another, so why not use the text?
Whoever tells me that I have either to accept all the Biblical material or
reject it all is talking nonsense, in my opinion.
Then there's the question of carbon 14, radiocarbon dates [of organic
material found in excavations]. I think that at the end of the day, this
will give us a verdict on the chronology, in maybe 20 years. Not now,
because for the time being we don't have enough samples, and we are still
far from agreement on the interpretation of the results.
When you say we may have a verdict in 20 years, does that reflect your own
uncertainty or are you saying that you will be shown to be right?
No, what I'm saying is, that for the time being, the results from Tel Dor,
even from Tel Rehov and from Megiddo, support the low chronology. It's more
probable, but it's not definite. It's not the end of the story.
For you, is it an open question as to whether the low chronology is correct,
or are you certain it's correct?
I am certain.
This is very technical material. I think what our readers would like to know
is why so many senior ...
You are stepping into a trap. I'm warning you.
Many of your remarks seem to be addressed to the fact that I oppose your
views. My purpose here is to allow you to expose your views to the readers
of BAR. So okay, I'll step into your trap. Why is it that so many leading
scholars do not accept your low chronology--Ephraim Stern of Hebrew
University, Amnon Ben-Tor, also of Hebrew University, Amihai Mazar, also of
Hebrew University, Americans like Lawrence Stager of Harvard, Seymour Gitin
of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem, Timothy Harrison of the University
of Toronto. Even your close colleagues at Megiddo, David Ussishkin of Tel
Aviv University and Baruch Halpern of Penn State University, have not come
out in favor of it. They take a more stand-offish view. How do you account
for this? Is it that they are obtuse, or have they some motive? What is the
source of this intense disagreement?
There is a difference between intense disagreement and a list of names. It's
a funny question, I must say. It's the funniest question you have asked me
today because it's not relevant whatsoever. If I'm right, I'm right; if I'm
wrong, I'm wrong. It's irrelevant that X and Y and Z and A and B and C are
against me, and D and E and F and G and H are for me.
Ten years ago there was a great debate in the archaeology of the Levant
about the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. One scholar argued for one
position; the other scholars argued for another position. When all the
ammunition was presented by the lone scholar who argued for an earlier date,
the final doomsday weapon was to say that this scholar was wrong because
everybody was against him. Ten years later, the scholar who stood alone was
proven right. And the scholars who accused him for standing alone were
proven wrong. What does it mean? It means nothing. There's no relevance to
this question whatsoever.
But I'm ready to play your game. You are right about one thing here, that
it's a very complicated matter. In my opinion, Hershel, the number of people
who really understand what this is all about--not in slogans, but who are
really ready to go into the nitty-gritty of the pottery and the texts and
the architecture and the scarabs, and the paleography--is extremely
limited--maybe 20. You can judge only according to those people who publish
articles about this debate, not people who say in an article yes, I support
it, or not.
In an article that is going to be published soon in BASOR [the Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research], I give a temporary list of those
who support the low chronology in one way or another. It's a very long list,
Hershel. [Since you mention names, let me do the same. The list includes
Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel
Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na'aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin
Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead and
Orna Zimhoni--I.F.]* So in my opinion, I am in the majority. You simply have
not acknowledged that yet. You have not understood what's going on. If you
take away all the declarations and all the big names, all the small names
and whatever, and you really look at people who publish articles on one
aspect of the debate or another, either on the pottery or about the
architecture or about the stratigraphy, I seem to be in the majority.
There is support for my view on the basis of history, on the basis of
paleography, on the basis of amulets and scarabs, and so on, from every
point of view, from every angle. Some of my opponents are great scholars,
and they do publish, so I accept them fully, and their view is extremely
important to me. They are real scholars who know exactly all the small
details of this debate. But the number is extremely limited. Incidentally,
you, Hershel, think that the world, the entire world, is centered in one
place in this country, and maybe one place in America. But the world is more
complex than that.
You mean Jerusalem and Harvard.
I don't mean anything, I'm just describing your point of view. I will name
one other place. It's not an important place. Negligible, on the margin. No
real education there, no scholarship, no history writing, no Biblical
history or criticism there. But maybe it is a little bit important. Its name
is Europe. Have you heard the name Europe? Europe is the place between the
two places, one in America and one in this country, and over there, for
instance, I'm definitely in the majority. So what does that say? Does it say
that I'm right? No. It doesn't mean that I'm right. But I'm not impressed by
any list of supporters or opposers. I am impressed only by evidence.
And I must tell you that I am definitely impressed by the evidence provided
by some of my opponents. Some of them are doing a great job, and putting on
the table new material, which is extremely valuable.
Would you name those people?
Amihai Mazar, for instance. He's a great scholar who really understands the
problem, including the smallest detail in the debate. I'm not going to go
farther than that. There are people who really understand the nitty-gritty,
and I respect them. I oppose them; we fight each other in writing; we debate
each other in lectures; but I hope that we respect one another. I definitely
respect them.
At one point I remember your saying that Ami Mazar was halfway to your
position. Do you still maintain that?
Well, you have to ask him. I think so.
In what respect?
Well, I cannot speak for Ami Mazar. You have to speak to him. But the way I
understand his position is, first of all, he understands that there's a real
problem with the conventional chronology. Secondly, I think he would admit
that some of my arguments are strong and should be addressed. He has
published scientific articles on several issues related to the debate, and
has provided new information, not only saying, you know, X and Y and Z and D
and F are against him, and that's why he's wrong. You'll never get this from
Mazar. This is not scholarship, it is name-dropping.
I take it you know that you are a controversial scholar, that ...
What's the meaning of "controversial scholar"? The meaning is you disagree
with me.
I'm not talking about my view: I'm talking about the world of scholarship.
One of the things we haven't spoken about is the debate in Biblical studies
between the so-called minimalists and the maximalists, the minimalists being
the people who tend to deny the historicity of the Bible in general. They're
broadly represented by a group in Copenhagen, Denmark, and in Sheffield,
England--Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas Thompson from Copenhagen, and Philip
Davies and Keith Whitelam, for example, from Sheffield. I know that you are
offended sometimes because you are lumped with these minimalists. I don't
believe I have done that, but it's often done. I was looking at something
from a very respected European archaeologist who recently wrote in a very
obscure German publication about the utter skepticism "of the Biblical
tradition" by those called "minimalists." And then he puts in parenthesis
the names of Lemche and Thompson, and, "from an archaeological angle, I.
Finkelstein." Now, I assume that you would disagree with this, that you are
not a minimalist, yet things like this get into print. There are many such
instances. I wonder if you would explain your position.
First of all, you, Hershel, play a major role in the incitement. You have to
admit this. You play a really important role in inciting people against each
other. I respect and have respected a lot of what you have done throughout
the years. But there are points that I don't respect. You know exactly what
they are. We have known each other long enough to know where we disagree.
The only problem in the last year or two has been that I felt that the
disagreement between the two of us got a twist into a hostile direction that
really surprised me.
But let's put this aside for a minute. It's not a matter of being offended
or not. I am not offended by being put with the minimalists or with the
conservative people. The only question is whether my positions are being
portrayed properly.
I think that the minimalists--the people you call minimalists--are good
scholars, and they are important scholars, and they have contributed a lot
to historical and Biblical scholarship. We have to listen to them carefully,
even when they are wrong. Sometimes they are right. It depends on what, it
depends on where; but they have steered this debate--which is a positive
debate, an important one. Whatever the verdict is, the debate is important,
and the debate is there, thanks to their publications. So we have to be very
grateful for their publications. This has nothing to do with whether I agree
or disagree with them, but I respect them and I respect their scholarship in
the same way that I respect good scholarship from the conservative side, so
it has nothing to do with being offended, this way or that way.
In any event, I think that I stand in the middle. When we speak about right,
left or middle, we are speaking about the history of Israel. When we speak
about the history of Israel, we are speaking about the text of the Bible. I
stand in the middle. On one side you have the conservative camp, which
follows basically the lines of the Biblical description of the history of
Israel, from early to late. On the other hand, you have the minimalist camp.
They argue that all or most of the material is Persian or Hellenistic
[fourth-third centuries B.C.], and it has nothing to do with the real
history of early Israel. What they are saying then is that the text was put
in writing in the Persian or Hellenistic period and therefore has no value
for understanding the history of Israel in the Iron Age.
My position lies between the two. What I'm saying is--and I'm not alone
here--that the material was put in writing in late monarchic times, and that
it reflects the realities of late monarchic times (the seventh century,
possibly also the eighth century B.C.), and that there is earlier material
which found its way as memories into these texts.
That is why I don't think that you can put me either with this group or with
that group. And the center camp is a big camp. You guys--and here I'm
talking to you too, Hershel--you have always tried to eliminate the center
camp, or you have ignored the center camp, or you have twisted the ideas of
the center camp. But the center camp will prevail. There are many scholars
in the center camp--in this university, in America, in Europe, in Biblical
studies, in archaeology, in history. Why eliminate it? Why describe me as
minimalist? With all due respect to the minimalists, I'm not arguing for a
date of the text in the Hellenistic period. I'm not arguing for a text that
reflects the tenth century B.C. either. So, I'm not offended. I just want my
views to be properly portrayed. Please try to respect this modest wish of
mine.
Thank you, Israel.[/quote:be16863db9] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matthias M. Giwer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, jerry warner wrote:
[quote:763bda5efd]Nice post!
[/quote:763bda5efd]
Just to let the man speak for himself after believers started
elevating him to the world's greatest authority -- almost as great as Dr.
Irwin Corey.
The man says he is a biblical archaeologist. That automatically puts
him at a disadvantage if for no other reason than wasting his time going
verse by verse and trying to decide which to discard and which to consider
as of possible historical value. Then he has to waste time on the degree of
historical value. And he limits himself to his judgment of that
determination.
Additionally he brings with him the baggage of the present day
religious view of the OT stories. He accepts the idea they were considered
in the manner that a fundamentalist views Genesis instead of as in the manner
of the tales of Hercules as did everyone else in those days. He insists Jews
were very strange and backwards people compared to the rest of the world in
those days.
Why would anyone assume the people in Judea were dumber than the
Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Persians and the rest? What is the point? There
is no physical evidence the Judeans took their stories any more seriously
than anyone else. Why do the biblical types assume they did?
For what it is worth it at least lets the man speak for himself and
this being an interview of interest because the interviewer is very like the
people who are disagreeing with me and JTEM and several others who have
departed until this infestation of believers ends -- hopefully soon. The
interviewer is trying to trap him into saying exactly the words our present
believers are attributing to him.
--
Hodie decimo sexto Kalendas Octobres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Sat Oct 17 04:38:38 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matthias M. Giwer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, jerry warner wrote:
[quote:731b26a1a2]SolomonW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that
King David and Solomon existed?
"But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was
an Abraham."
[/quote:731b26a1a2]
But he does restate that later on to further limit it to say "person
named Abraham" which is again a way to say something that does not upset
believers too much. I have no problem with saying there was a person named
Arthur in post-Roman England. In both cases that is a far cry from saying
there was the Arthur of the Camelot tales or the Abraham of the Genesis and
Exodus tales.
For example if the question is, was their an Abraham who interacted
with the king of Egypt as told in Genesis the answer is hell no as that
Egypt never existed. The king of Egypt was a living god who would have
killed Abraham to resolve the problem if for some strange reason he gave a
rat's ass about marrying a married woman. Instead we see the king of Egypt
paying reparations to a criminal con artist.
Obviously there may have been a person named Abraham but not the
Abraham as described in the OT.
[quote:731b26a1a2]"I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say that there
was a Joshua or an Abraham, and I will not go to court to say there was no
Joshua or Abraham."
[/quote:731b26a1a2]
But he would have to say there was no Abraham who interacted with
the king of Egypt as in Genesis -- assuming his position as a biblical
archaeologist does not blind him completely.
[quote:731b26a1a2]"But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove the
existence of a person named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if you
ask me whether archaeology can or cannot shed light on a theory that the
material in Genesis depicts realities of the second millennium B.C., then
archaeology is very relevant."
Got it? Read the whole thing again!
[/quote:731b26a1a2]
Noting he avoids the Abraham as described in Genesis in reciting
what those realities might be. Even as a biblical archaeologist he is quite
carefully avoiding phrasing questions in a manner which would reject the
issues torah-thumpers want to corner him on.
Also note the interviewer does not ask these obvious question as not
just a man named Abraham but a man who did what is attributed to Abraham.
The believer is comfortable with what the bone he was thrown and does not
want to raise the obvious next question.
--
The boundary between the sciences and the humanities is unbreechable. Any
scientist can obtain a degree in any of the fine arts if he is interested.
The opposite is not possible.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4182
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Sat Oct 17 05:13:11 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote:8524972ba9]A "Centrist" at the Center of Controversy
BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein
[/quote:8524972ba9]
Now that everyone has had a fair shot at this let me point something out to
you biblethumping newbies. This interview was posted in these newsgroups when
it was first published. You newbies missed it. And you newbies wonder why we
do not take your rehash of long settled issues seriously.
--
Holocaust denial is not as bad as the Goldstone Report on Gaza.
Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, September 2009
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4195
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Sat Oct 17 06:01:45 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SolomonW... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:12:44 -0500, jerry warner wrote:
[quote:9b094a6ddf]SolomonW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
David and Solomon existed?
"But archaeology has nothing really to say about whether or not there was an
Abraham."
"I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say that there was
a Joshua or an
Abraham, and I will not go to court to say there was no Joshua or Abraham. "
"But again, if you ask me whether archaeology can prove or disprove the
existence of a person
named Abraham, archaeology is irrelevant. But if you ask me whether
archaeology can or cannot
shed light on a theory that the material in Genesis depicts realities of the
second millennium B.C.,
then archaeology is very relevant."
Got it? Read the whole thing again!
[/quote:9b094a6ddf]
Irrelevant!
The question I said what David and Solomon and I suspect if you did go to
court about whether these two existed you would win. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whiskers... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-16, Matthias M. Giwer <matt at (no spam) localhost> wrote:
[quote:cc8522ee13]On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
[/quote:cc8522ee13]
[...]
[quote:cc8522ee13] He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt. Yet people
here are claiming to know what it meant in that century. I ask them how they
know that Finkelstein does not know.
[/quote:cc8522ee13]
[...]
He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite the
opposite:
I suppose that in the Canaanite highlands, there were groups who
identified themselves as Israel as early as the time of the Merneptah
Stela. You do have some people identifying themselves--or being
identified by the Egyptians--as Israel.
When was that?
In the late 13th century, almost around 1200.
He has no argument with the stele's reference to Israel; he even agrees
with it's depiction of them as 'a people' but not as 'a city' or 'a
kingdom' or 'a territory'. (Which happens to agree with what seems to be
described in the Book of Judges). As an archaeologist he has no finds to
either identify uniquely with such a group, or to suggest there was no such
group. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
He does seem to be convinced of a more substantial entity by the tenth
century BC:
The question, however, is not whether you have a group of people,
`Apiru or Shasu, one of whom is called Israel. The question is when
something larger and more significant grew out of that, something that
has a territorial aspect to it. When we speak about a territorial
entity, I would say definitely by the tenth century and possibly
before. But how much before, that's a big question.
[...]
There was a memory already in the ninth century B.C. that the founder
of the dynasty in the capital of Judah was a person named David. I do
not deny the existence in history of a David and a Solomon. I must put
this on the table, once and for all, in order to make things clear.
However, I definitely have a different view on the extent, on the
nature of the entity which was centered around Jerusalem in the tenth
century. There was something there in the tenth century, but exactly
what it is is the big question.
In order to understand what was there in the tenth century, we have to
go back to the matter of dating.
In Jerusalem itself, regardless of the low chronology, we are in an
extremely difficult situation. I'm not saying that there is nothing
from the tenth century in Jerusalem. But whether you go with the low
chronology or a more conservative chronology--the more conventional
dating of 10 or 20 or 30 years ago or for many people even today--you
are still in big trouble, because you don't have real monuments in
Jerusalem from the tenth century. You definitely have [pottery] sherds.
There definitely was a settlement there in the tenth century, but it
was not the monumental, glorious, illustrious city described in the
Bible.
I don't disagree with that assessment at all. When the author of the
first Book of Kings, chapter 10, writes
23 King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other
kings of the earth.
24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God
had put in his heart.
25 Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift—articles of silver
and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.
we are clearly in 'lost golden age' and 'the good old days' territory -
looking back (possibly from the exile in Babylon) to a time when the
Israelites were much better off than in the author's own time.
Exaggeration of past glories is a common human trait.
What Solomon actually built and achieved may well have been deeply
impressive to people who'd only experienced tents and small buildings and
insecurity before, but it was obviously not on the same scale (either in
duration or substance) as Egypt or Babylon. Perhaps the roughly
contemporary (10th - 9th century BC; late "Dark Age" to early "Archaic"
period) Greek city-states were somewhat comparable with the real Jerusalem.
That Solomon's kingdom split on (or before) his death (if it was ever
really as 'united' as the first Book of Kings suggests) indicates that it
really wasn't as powerful and stable as all that. Even the modern
manifestation of Israel has managed to out-live David Ben-Gurion and last
half as long again as the Biblical 'United Kingdom'.
But Judah managed to survive for about 300 years, which isn't bad going for
a tiny land-locked state sitting on major trade routes and squeezed on all
sides by great empires and traditional enemies.
This period of history is the aftermath and recovery from what some call
"The Bronze Age Collapse"; a period largely devoid of written records.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:32 pm
|
|