The Role of Biblical Archaeology in Exegesis: An interview with Professor Israel Finkelstein, Part 1

By Louis C. de Figueiredo

“If the historical faith of Israel is not founded in history, such a faith is erroneous, and therefore, our faith is also.” So wrote Father Roland de Vaux, the French Dominican archaeologist who excavated Qumran and the first editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Many, but not all, excavations demonstrate that text and spade point in different directions. If, therefore, archaeology is allowed to tell its own story some parts of biblical history will require rethinking. It does not signify the end of faith. It can only mean that mature faith will be needed.

This is the approach of Professor Israel Finkelstein, of Tel Aviv University, prominent Israeli archaeologist, and co-author of The Bible Unearthed: Archeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origins of its Sacred Texts.

Following are excerpts of an interview with him:

You have said that radiocarbon dates of organic material found in excavations will give a verdict on archaeology. Do you rely mostly on carbon dating?

My chronology relies mostly on radiocarbon dating because it is the only method which provides an external system independent of textual materials, the historicity of which may be debated.

You are also on record saying that we have to sort history from non-history. It is also true that every text is biased, as you also stated. So is it archaeology that can help decide what is historically accurate and what is non-history, making a clear distinction between fact and myth?

For the proto-historical period, history is constructed solely through archaeology. For historical periods, archaeology can help in a significant way, but I don’t think it can give a final verdict. Archaeology also has its problems, including methodological issues. So, if we take biblical history as an example archaeology can help tremendously because, unlike the texts, which in certain cases describe events that ostensibly took place centuries before the actual compilation, it provides real-time evidence.

What made the Israelites emerge as a distinct group in Canaan? Was it monotheism?

No, because monotheism came later. We cannot speak about monotheism even in the year 586 BCE, the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. The religion of Judah at that time can be described as monolatrism, which means that there was a deity who was more important than the others, so the existence of other deities was not denied. Monotheism, in the way we understand it, is the product of the Persian, and more so, the Hellenistic, period.

But the New Testament tells us that even during the time of Jesus, people were worshipping other gods. He accused some Israelites of worshipping Baal.

I think monotheism came relatively late. In the beginning the Israelites were part of the mosaic of people in the Levant, with their demographic and cultural roots in ancient Canaan. Then, gradually, they began to develop differently, because of territorial and political reasons. This includes religion and cult. I suppose that we can speak about full-fledged monotheism in the Hasmonean era.

You have written that the “only disadvantage of the Low Chronology — at least for some — is that it pulls the carpet from under the biblical image of a great Solomonic United Monarchy and puts the spotlight on the Northern Kingdom of the Omride Dynasty as the first real prosperous state of early Israel. Here is the dilemma: How can one diminish the structure of the ‘good guys’ and let the ‘bad guys’ prevail?”

Was Omri the ‘bad guy’ because he is said to have promoted Baal worship, referred to in 1 Kings: 23-25 as the “worthless idols”? Verses 11-7 of the same book also tell us that “Solomon built a high place for the Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon.” According to the Bible, both Solomon and Omri did evil. To take the point further, studies have demonstrated that Solomon’s Temple was built after the model of the Syro-Hittite Ain Dara temple, dated to 1300 BC, and dedicated to Ishtar or Baal.

You are right. People read the biblical text selectively, without paying attention to the many layers found in it. David had many faults and Solomon led a sinful lifestyle, according to chapter 11 of 1 Kings. Yet, they ruled over a sort of Golden Age, an age of territorial expansion and economic and cultural prosperity. This includes the construction of the Temple. Omri and Ahab are described as villains, and they were kings of the Northern Kingdom, despised and rejected by the author of Kings. Hence it was easier for many to affiliate with the founders of the Davidic Dynasty, ignore the anti-North sentiment in the text and fail to see the Northern Kingdom as described by contemporary monarchs — one of the two most important powers in the Levant of their time.

The Merneptah Stele was the most important find of Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, and that was in 1896, and it continues to be very important, in fact it is a bone of contention in biblical archaeology till today. The stele provides little information about the Israel it refers to. What is your point of view?

The Merneptah Stele refers to a group of people named Israel, who lived in Canaan in the very late 13th century, that is, close to the year 1200 BCE. Yet, it does not provide us with real information about the size of this group and its location. Some scholars have placed it in Transjordan and others have located it in the highlands west of the Jordan. The big question is how this group developed later and gave its name to the kingdom of Israel, meaning the Northern Kingdom, which emerged in the late 10th century, that is, ca. 250 years after the Merneptah campaign. With no relevant texts for the two and half centuries between Merneptah’s campaign and the rise of the Northern Kingdom, this can be answered only by archaeology, in the sense that the Merneptah Israel should be sought among the groups that settled in the highlands west and east of the Jordan starting in the late 13th century. These groups later created the territorial kingdoms of the Iron Age, among them Israel.

What can you now say about Khirbet Qeiyafa, another archaeological site that has raised controversy? Together with Dr. Alexander Fantalkin you had correctly pointed out that a finding can reverse the course of research and save the literal reading of the biblical text from critical scrutiny, an approach that was then traced to Professor William F. Albright’s assault on Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis.

Yes, conservative interpretation of the finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa is a revival of Albright’s approach, according to which archaeology can prove critical research to be wrong and support a literal reading of the biblical text. Khirbet Qeifaya is a highly interesting site, and unique in many ways. But many interpretations of the finds are possible. The layout of the site indicates a highland origin of the inhabitants, however it does not necessarily point to the expansion of early Judah to the Shephelah. Many of the finds hint at a north highlands link to the site. In other words, I think that the finds there shed light on early, 10th century BCE north Israelite territorial formation, rather than Judah in the days of the formation of the Davidic Dynasty.

Why has so much importance been given to the ostracon found at the site when ostraca cannot be compared to monumental inscriptions and papyri? Another problem is that the text is incomplete and there are no preceding or succeeding verses. Father Émile Puech, the co-editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who is also an expert in some ancient Near Eastern languages, not only published his translation in the journal Revue Biblique but also interpreted the verses as referring to the establishment of an Israelite monarchy. Both of you are world-class experts in your respective fields, he in epigraphy, you in archaeology. What can you say as an archaeologist?

The majority of scholars cannot read a clear text in this inscription, and I am one of them. As far as I can judge, this inscription should be evaluated as one of a group of Proto-Canaanite inscriptions known from the Shepelah and the southern coastal plain of that time.

Part 2 of this interview will appear in the May issue of The Ancient Near East Today.

Louis C. de Figueiredo is a journalist, reviewer, and researcher on the Bible and theology.

~~~

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this blog or found by following any link on this blog. ASOR will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information. ASOR will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. The opinions expressed by Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of ASOR or any employee thereof.