The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel: Invited Lectures Delivered at the Sixth Biennial Colloquium of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October 2005 by Israel Finkelstein

The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel: Invited Lectures Delivered at the Sixth Biennial Colloquium of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October 2005 Reviews

• 
  Jonathan

  An interesting back-and-forth between two of the leading archaeologists of Iron Age Israel. In point of fact, their points of view differ very little from each other. Mazar feels that the United Monarchy is almost certainly is a historical fact, while Finkelstein thinks that it almost certainly isn't, and there are some differences on the chronology of the era, moving events and people back or forth about 100 years or so. Other than that, we are treated to two extremely knowledgeable and experienced "Biblical Archaeologists" (though we're not supposed to call them that any more) expounding upon how and why ancient Israel came to be, and just how this is expressed - rightly or wrongly - in the Old Testament. Both are rigorous scholars, with their feet planted firmly in reality, so there is no literalism (i.e., taking the Bible word for word) or revisionism (claiming that the Old Testament was made up in the post-Exile Hellenistic era, or even later) to be found here, but there is lots to learn about the nuts and bolts of Iron Age Land of Israel, it's inhabitants (most of whom weren't Israelites) and how one goes about discovering what life was like back in the day. It probably shouldn't be the first book you read about archaeology in the Southern Levant, but it could be the second.
• 
  Denise

  Few years ago I read Mr. Finkelstein's book Bible Unearthed. So far I've enjoyed this book, it seems like a recap of what I read in the first. I seem to recall getting through the material of the first book easier.
  
  In archeology that overlaps with handed down stories whether it is Hebrew scriptures or the Illiad, archeologists start by heavily relying on what the text says. If they're honest they'll adjust as evidence is uncovered.
  
  conservative view = reliable record
  -this is countered by archeology in that much of what is written in the OT and Torah either does not show up in the archeological record or the archeology tells a very different story
  
  minimalist view = complete fictional mythology
  -this is countered by archeology in that some of the findings, such as the Tel Dan description, do offer support for the OT and Torah stories
  
  center view = a somewhat reliable record close to the time the stories were written and increasingly unreliable the further back in history the author(s) were writing about. Also, the point of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic histories were not accuracy of historical events but to convey theological, cultural, and political messages.
  
  With numerous digs in areas mentioned in the bible, the central view appears to be appropriate. For me, the history of Jericho has been one of the most interesting stories to follow. Though I threw out the notion of the Sun standing in the sky shortly after learning about how the solar system works, the idea of ancient people possibly using resonance to bring down a city seemed pretty cool (even if slaughtering the residents, not so much). Turns out the city is prone to earthquakes and any wall tumbling that happened did so long before Joshua supposedly visited. In fact, many of the cities in the stories written about his battles weren't inhabited at the time or show no signs of being attacked.
  
  I am old enough to remember when no extra-biblical evidence of King David or Pilot existed. Currently, King David has made it out of myth and back into history, even if his Kingdom was slightly less than boasted in the scriptures. Very little is known about Pilot. The small scrap that has been uncovered gives him a different title than the one found in the Greek accounts.
  
  One story I still follow has to do with Pompeii. When the volcano blew, a library in a private home was buried in ash along with so much else. Some of the library has been recovered, but efforts for retrieving any other scrolls halted over concerns that the process of excavation is not advanced enough. Even if the library is ever completely sifted through, it isn't likely to yield historical documents relevant to bible archeology. However, I like to dream anyway. Wouldn't it be marvelous to uncover a cash of history that could fill gaps.
• 
  Matt MacFarline

  Excellent. A slight critique in that unless one is directly plugged into the archaeological scene in Israel, you might assume Mazar and Finkelstein don't diverge very much in their overarching opinions. This is a valid criticism, and even though I found the viewpoints counter-balanced well, it would have been more provocative to hear from a third voice perhaps further on either end of the ideological spectrum. Well worth the read for an introduction on the hot-button topic of sifting through archaeological evidence to find the historical Israel.
• 
  Barbara Ruth

  If you're the sort of person interested in understanding the historical Israel that lies behind the mythological history of the Hebrew Bible, this is your jam. If there's a complaint to be made, it's that there really isn't that much disagreement betweem these two scholars, so between them and the editor's summary of each position, it's a lot of repetition.
• 
  Sally

  Finkelstein's views are better expressed in "The Bible Unearthed," but Mazar's views provide an interesting counterpoint.
• 
  Mike

  This is a good introduction to the archaeological debate about the origins of Israel and the United (or never United?) monarchy. Finkelstein takes a more minimalist view - he sees Jerusalem becoming prominent much later than Mazar. Mazar has a much more conservative view - he leaves open the possibility that a United Monarchy/Kingdom existed under David and Solomon, sees Jerusalem "existing" earlier than Finkelstein, etc.
  
  To me, both Finkelstein and Mazar take a central or "middle" position regarding the archaeological evidence. Both leave open the idea that the text of the Old Testament contains ideas and beliefs that are older than when they were put down in writing (700s-600 BC). The essays were well done and their points were made in such a way to leave the reader to decide. There are ways to "triangulate" much of the text, and some things we take on faith. To Finkelstein, whether or not Moses existed doesn't matter. To him, the idea of Moses is inspiring and that is enough. He said:
  
  What I am trying to say is that faith and historical research should not be juxtaposed, harmonized, or compromised. When we sit to read the Hagadah at Passover, we do not deal with the question of whether or not archaeology supports the story of the Exodus. Rather, we praise the beauty of the story and its national and universal values. Liberation from slavery as a concept is at stake, not the location of Pithom. In fact, attempts to rationalize stories like this, as many scholars have tried to do in order to "save" the Bible's historicity, are not only sheer folly, but in themselves an act of infidelity. According to the Bible, the God of Israel stood behind Moses and there is no need to presume the actual occurrence of a high or low tide in this or that lake in order to make His acts faith worthy. (p. 187)
  
  I like this. And I also don't like it. Clearly the Bible is bigger than we are, and it is messy. It is complicated. It isn't 100% historical, but it also speaks to my soul. It has the Spirit in the text. But as a human being in the West, with a Western education, I have expectations of the text. We have to fight our tendency to have everything in the Bible be 100% history. We see this if we just read the text. There are issues. But there is also beauty.
  
  See also:
  https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
  
  At the end of the book there is a "further reading" section. It is worth the price of the book. The authors give you the reader several options for study which they have categorized into ultra-conservative, conservative, moderate-critical, and revisionist approaches. This is valuable work. Some of the subjects that are separated out include:
  
  1. General books on the history of Israel
  2. The Patriarchal, Exodus, Conquest, and Settlement traditions & narratives
  3. The Tenth-Century Debate: David, Solomon, and the United Monarchy
  
  This section is a great starting point if this subject interest you and you want to increase your base of knowledge about this time period in the Bible.
• 
  Dan

  A good idea, having two archaeologists with opposing views on Iron Age Judah and Israel write alternating essays setting out their cases. It works even though they're both centrists, rejecting the fundies on the one hand and the minimalists, who regard ancient Israel as wishful thinking by Persian- and Hellenistic-era Jews, on the other. They make their cases well, though they talk past each other on some points regarding the existence of the United Monarchy and the question of whether Judah was even a proper territorial state, as opposed to a barely settled backwoods, before the decline and fall of the northern kingdom. Lots of information here for nonacademics, even if neither one persuades the other.
• 
  Yakub

  Watching two Jews argue about Biblical archeology sounds like the average Bar Mitzvah, but in this case you will have to supply your own Manischewitz.
  
  I read this for a class I took in college about Biblical archaeology. If you are into Biblical archaeology, this is the book for you. Gives you a nice overview of the subject, shows a bit of the tension within the field. Perfect length.
• 
  Tomas Adamek

  Both authors worth reading, but Mazars clearly wins over Finkelstein.
• 
  Greg

  This is a nice little book, not particularly important in the history of the field, but it does a nice job of framing the debate within the "middle ground" of the archaeology of the Southern Levant. The main debate is around chronology and whether there was a united monarchy in Iron IIA.
  
  Specialists will already be familiar with the issues and there is no new information here, however, the readers of the middle-brow journals, BAR and NEA, who don't work in the field will find it stimulating.
• 
  Olya Ianovskaia

  Finkelstein and Mazar go head to head over questions concerning biblical history vs archaeology.