Prof. Israel Finkelstein, archaeologist, Tel Aviv University: "In principle, Prof. Herzog is right. At the beginning of the century, the archeology of the Land of Israel was done with a much more fundamentalist approach. Only at a later stage did the disillusionment and casting doubt on the reliability of what is said in the Bible regarding the period of the ancestors, the conquest of the land, etc.
Dafna Levy-Yanowitz
Prof. Israel Finkelstein, archaeologist, Tel Aviv University: "In principle, Prof. Herzog is right. At the beginning of the century, the archeology of the Land of Israel was done with a much more fundamentalist approach. Only at a later stage did the disillusionment and casting doubt on the reliability of what is said in the Bible regarding the period of the patriarchs, the conquest of the land, and the like. In some subjects and regarding some periods, the findings in the field are unequivocal, and teach that the biblical story does not correspond to reality. In other parts everything is still open to interpretation.
"The front of the debate today is the question of whether the united kingdom of David and Solomon was indeed a great and glorious kingdom. In view of the archaeological findings, it is debated whether to read the Bible literally. The written material is after all very ideological, and every researcher must learn to read through the shit.
"Most people just don't want to hear. They are uncomfortable. For researchers these things are quite clear, they know where there is no agreement and where there is, but they cannot force the public to listen to them. Most modern research respects faith, and does not want to force anyone to convert to their religion, so we did not force anyone to listen to our findings. Today, over 90% of researchers agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% believe that the conquest of the land did not take place as described in the Bible, and about 50% agree that there was no united mighty kingdom.
Prof. Magen Brushi, archaeologist, Israel Museum: "The idea of conquering the land in the book of Joshua is nothing more than an epic. Already in the 180s, the German researcher Abelrecht Alt insisted on this, but the dominance of a genius figure like William Albright influenced global research, and he alone was able to postpone the recognition that the conquest of the land did not happen as described. Although the Israeli scholars were not religious, they were very happy to receive confirmation that the text we accept is indeed a reliable text. Alt did this because he found internal contradictions in the book of Joshua, and the archaeological survey and excavations did show that the picture on the ground differs by almost XNUMX degrees from what is described in the old history books. I don't think there is a serious researcher today in Israel and in the world who does not accept this position.
"Herzog represents a large group of Israeli researchers and he is actually at the center of the consensus. Even I already wrote these things 20 years ago, and even then I was not an innovator. The archaeologists simply do not bother to bring their findings to the public's attention. Even for extreme leftists, completely secular, it is difficult to accept the fact that the stories we grew up with are not true, that the greatness of David and Solomon is only epic and not historical. I tried it on my friends and they just won't listen.
"The Bible is a fundamental book of culture, and the schools are expected to have a difficult task in dealing with the questioning of its historical authority, but in the end it will permeate. Only when the education system starts to deal with it seriously will it have a political effect, and then the shouting will also start."
Prof. Adam Zertal, archaeologist, University of Haifa: "My archaeological career was dedicated to this problem. Since 1978 I have been conducting an archaeological survey, a comprehensive and complete systematic mapping in Samaria, and this is actually my life's work. Herzog and others who make claims like his were not there at all, and although I appreciate him as an excellent archaeologist, I do not understand his relevance to the matter. It is not related to the beginning of Israel at all. It's like asking me to write an article about brain surgery.
"According to the Bible, the children of Israel crossed the Jordan between Beit Shan and Yerich and entered the land from there. I dug for eight years at Mount Ebal and debated whether this was the site where Joshua's altar was erected. We found there almost certain proof that the story of entering Israel is very reliable. The relevant material is in the field, you just have to look for it. The whole debate about the credibility of the Bible begins with the entry into Israel and the building of the altar on Mount Ebal. Until recently there was also an agreement about the period of David and Solomon, and only now people are starting to eliminate this period as well. They are right to think so, but I found a ritual site, well dated, that proves the most basic traditions. The altar is a prototype of all later altars of the Ascension and it is an incomparable proof of the national and religious formation in such an early period.
"I have no proof of the Exodus, and I also think it is too big a task to take 500 years of such a complicated history and try to prove it. The Bible has such a great influence on the entire human race that to me it seems against common sense to casually dismiss it, and even more so by a person unrelated to the subject."
Prof. Michal Artzi, biblical archaeologist, University of Haifa: "There are researchers who think that Herzog's degree of relevance to the subject is irrelevant. I worked mainly in the seaside area, and from the findings I found there it is difficult for me to accept Adam Zertal's theories. I have not found evidence for the reliability of the biblical story. Most of the reinforcements for the story of the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land are based on various ceramic findings, which these tribes apparently brought with them. When I dug south of Atlit I found ceramic pieces exactly like this, and they date well to the 13th century BC, long before the Israelites settled in the land. I suffered a lot when I discovered these findings, but in the end other researchers had no choice but to accept them."
© Published in "Haaretz" on 29/10/1999
It has no meaning ("Haaretz Supplement"
29 / 10 / 99)
Reactions of public figures
Dahlia carpel
Yitzhak Ben Aharon: "These are very old arguments. What's new? Herzog is not innovating anything, this thesis exists in dozens of university textbooks (for example, the studies of the German researcher Walhausen). This view that everything written in the Bible is a collection of legends and stories also drawn from other sources, and many from Babylonian sources, has no meaning regarding "our right to the land".
Yossi Sharid: "I don't know the material, but it sounds interesting. I will ask the chairman of the Pedagogical Secretariat, Professor Michel Abitbol, to go over the material, and since in the new era at the Ministry of Education we are very interested in students being exposed to all versions, so I see no reason why, if it is interesting and if it is important and if it is well-founded, that it should not be shown in the schools as an approach and as an option".
Naomi Shemer: "I don't know archeology, but what does it matter if it was or wasn't? It has been said that the Bible was not and was not created, but a parable was - in my opinion this parable is more alive than all the stones."
Yosef Lapid: "Prof. Herzog's thesis sounds completely absurd, after all, there are dozens of archaeological finds in Israel that confirm what is written in the Bible. In all the histories of the ancient nations there are the periods of legends. Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus who were descendants of the Zaba, so now a Roman archaeologist will come and say that no remains of the Zaba tribe have been found. It seems to me a cheap search for sensation. I am a Ben-Gurionist, and I adhere to the Bible as our basic finding. No nation in the world has a book like the Bible, so what
Prof. Herzog confuses the mind?"
Prof. Yehoshua Porat: "I refer you to Lodes' important essay: (The Prophets and the Rise of Religion of Israel), which proves that everything began in the time of the prophets and took shape in the Babylonian exile. When I wrote about Retosh I tried to understand where the historiosophical theory of the Canaanites came from and I realized that it was derived from the Lods theses that were already prevalent in Paris in the thirties. I don't see anything new or revolutionary in Herzog's thesis. It's a new wave of old opinions. What's more, the researchers of the last 20 years are basing themselves on stronger findings than the archaeological surveys they did after '67 in Yosh.
"If you are looking for topical relevance to Herzog's claims, then you will only find it in the question of our self-identity, and this, in my opinion, is another nail in the false Jewish consciousness that the Jewish religion has existed for three thousand years, and that King David lived according to the Halacha and that the Torah was given at Mount Sinai."
Hanan Porat: "These things are not new. This is a theory of biblical scholars that has been going up and down for 50 years. Ben-Gurion at the time delved deeply into it in order to prove that in fact the people of Israel never left the land. To me these things are nonsense. Whatever Prof. Herzog says, I do not intend to respond. The things will disappear like foam on the water like many theories that were disproved later have disappeared."
Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun: "They have been saying this nonsense for two hundred years, and Prof. Herzog completely ignores the work of the archaeologist Adam Zertal, a secular man who does not live in Yeshua and is not committed to blind faith in the Bible, who said exactly the opposite based on archaeological research. Why is no one at "Haaretz" ready to deal with Zertal's research? I condition the publication of my response on the condition that it be an orderly response and not in a few sentences, by Adam Zertal who is a professor of archeology who thinks exactly the opposite, based on the research he personally conducted for about twenty years, in the Samaria survey, in the Mizrachim valleys survey and the finding he brings is the relevant finding that in the Ze'ev Herzog burrow Did not work in the relevant place. He worked in Beer Sheva, and I know and use his important work in Tel Sheva."
MK Rehabam Zaevi: "I am not an archaeologist, but I try to visit all the archaeological excavations that are done in Israel. I have been a member of the Society for the Investigation of AI and its Antiquities for fifty years, buy and read all the literature on the subject, and my findings are one hundred and eighty degrees opposite to the findings of the learned professor. In my opinion, everything that is discovered, both in archaeological excavations and in other ways, verifies and confirms what we received in the Bible."
Natan Zach: "Archaeologists and historians who were based on the research of the former have long since raised most of the claims. On the other hand, the smaller the Hebrew political entity may have been, the greater the wonder of the creation of the Bible, one of the most ingenious creations that mankind has produced."
Prof. Yosef Ben Shlomo: "I am not an archaeologist, but I know enough that archaeology, like the study of the Bible, is not an exact science. What is decisive and what Mr. Herzog does not understand because he is apparently narrow-minded, and does not see a general cultural vision, is that the story of the Exodus, invented or not, which appears in the Bible, has become one of the greatest symbols of humanity."
