Subheading: Prof. Finkelstein responds to the request of the Hidaan website about the articles of Prof. Gershon Galil from the University of Haifa that link the Kingdom of Palestine that existed in the early Iron Age to the kings mentioned in the Book of Samuel and therefore verify his claim of the existence of the Kingdom of David
Yesterday, two new articles published in journals in the field of archeology were revealed, in which Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa outlines, relying on new archaeological and epigraphic findings, the period of David's reign, the alliance he established with the Kingdom of Palestine that resided in the Syrian region, the evidence of a connection with Toei The king of Hamath, who is mentioned in the book of Samuel, and the relationship between David's kingdom and the Philistines.
In short, Prof. Galil claims that finds from the area that today lies in northwestern Syria and southern Turkey, in which the kingdom of Palestine is mentioned, which according to Galil was an ally of Israel and lived next to the kingdom of Aram which David conquered with the help of the Philistines. (See: Haifa University researcher: Evidence of the existence of kings mentioned in the description of King David's wars in the book of Samuel has been discovered). Professor Israel Finkelstein, professor of archeology at Tel Aviv University and co-director of the renewed excavations at the Megiddo site in northern Israel, winner of the 2005 Dan David Prize, says that the findings are important, but they do not shed light on David's kingdom.
"Prof. Galil tries to prove the existence of the great kingdom of David as it is described in the biblical text. His approach to the biblical text is not critical."
According to Finkelstein, the critical approach to the biblical text has seen ups and downs in the last 200 years, starting with Germany where the genre of biblical criticism was developed in the 19th century. This was followed by a conservative response, mainly from American evangelical institutions and scholars. The idea was that the historicity of the biblical story could be proven by using the tools of archeology (the prominent representative of this approach was W.P. Albright). Starting in the XNUMXs, a critical wave began that discussed the affairs of ancient Israel, for example the historicity of the conquest of the land and then the degree of historicity of the description of the United Kingdom (see The Bible - there are no finds in the field). Then, in recent years, a second conservative wave developed. Galil is not alone. He belongs to a group of researchers who seek to interpret archeological finds from recent years in such a way as to verify all or most of the biblical story. Similar things were said about revelations in Jerusalem (An archaeologist from the Hebrew University uncovered in Jerusalem the remains of a wall from the days of the United Kingdom) and also on the ruins of Kaifa (Remains of a palace attributed to King David), and now come Galil's words."
"The reconstructions of the great Davidic kingdom are not supported either by the biblical text or by archaeology. The archaeological findings uncovered by German researchers in Aleppo a few years ago, findings that indicate the existence of a kingdom called Palestine, which existed in northern Syria at an early stage of the Iron Age, constitute an important discovery and may have implications for the history of the Land of Israel. "This find allows us a glimpse into what happened in the areas to our north in the period of time between the collapse of the Bronze Age world at the beginning of the 12th century BC and the growth of the territorial kingdoms beginning in the middle of the tenth century."
But these discoveries do not confirm the biblical verse about the covenant with the King of Hamath. There is no certainty in the connection between the name Toei and the name of the king of Palestine, we do not know exactly when the latter king was, and even if there was a connection in their names, it is possible that it originated in a vague memory of the existence in the past of a great king in the region of the land where Hamat is located."
"Regarding Aram Tzuba, I do not believe that there is evidence for the interpretation proposed by Galil. In extra-biblical texts, the name Tzuba comes from hundreds of years later than the days of David. That's why I believe that the term Aram Tzuba reflects the reality of the times of the authors of the Bible. It is of course possible that the beginning of the kingdom of Damascus was in the 10th century BCE.
"And regarding David's kingdom, findings from recent years in Jerusalem and the ruins of Kaifa are known to be important for understanding the history of the region in the 10th and 9th centuries AD, but they do not teach about the existence of an Israeli empire at that time"
"The data regarding David's kingdom have not changed in recent years, not from the archaeological point of view and certainly not from the critical point of view in biblical research, which is a field in itself. David is a historical figure and he ruled from Jerusalem over a limited territory in the southern mountain region. The description of the "Kingdom of Zohar" which covers vast areas reflects the ideology and territorial aspirations in the days of the authors of the Bible, hundreds of years after the days of David. But research is an open arena and each researcher interprets according to his own way. As for me, I do not believe that there should be a comprehensive reform in the history of ancient Israel as a result of Galil's articles" Prof. Finkelstein concludes.
42 תגובות
Miracles at your request. Doubt your right. The information you requested:
Tel Dan tombstone
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%AA%D7%9C_%D7%93%D7%9F The days of House I. The name of the House of David is mozgar in the Golan Heights. According to Finkelstein, it is a small house, and was written by Aram.
Misha's tombstone:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A2
The name "Ariel-Duda" appears there, attributed to King David. This discovery changed the assumption that was common among certain circles in those days that the Bible is a late Hasmonean work, a Jewish myth, which does not reflect any historical truth. This discovery encouraged further attempts to find archaeological evidence for the biblical descriptions.
In addition, King Ahab of Israel appears there.
about his companions who lived in Egypt
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95
I saw an episode of The Naked Archaeologist on the names of the ancestors in the dwelling caves of construction workers in Egypt. I don't have time for a more detailed search.
Joseph,
"If you compare Greek and other mythology to the Bible, you will not find the immense humanity in the Bible." My dear, it is no coincidence that to this day we use the words drama, tragedy, comedy to describe our lives and their narrative. So many words that we use to this day to describe our feelings and the situations in our lives derive from the stories of ancient Greece (narcissism, Pandora's box, Sisyphean labor, Achilles' heel, Odyssey, hubris, Trojan horse, Oedipus complex and many others) because it is rare to encounter an emotion or mental conflict some that did not find expression in one Greek story or another.
The Greek stories, both those that were dramatized and those that were not, are considered (with absolute right in my opinion) to be some of the most human works and full of insights into the human soul.
Joseph
It's strange to me that you happen to have a exploratory - anti-religious approach. The truth is that it is not strange at all...
I would love to get sources for what you said. According to the Torah, about two million people left Egypt. In other words, half of Egypt's population disappeared... You wouldn't expect that a nation that documented every grain of wheat would document such a demographic change?
A people of two million people wandered for 40 years in the desert. And didn't leave any traces?
They passed through cities such as Kadesh Barnea and Ezion Geber - cities that only existed 1000 years after the "Exodus".
I guess there are some things true in this story...but probably closer to 20 people than two million....
The example with Daesh is bad and should not be considered.
The example with Daesh is bad and should not be considered.
If you develop an anti position it is not that different from a religious position.
There was a treasurer for Pharaoh named Yosef. There was a military people who ruled in Egypt for 200 years. They were defeated and at the end expelled in the name of their friend (Ebiru and Hebrew name) and according to engravings in caves where builders from this people lived, the names Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were common among them.
In one of the caves, a builder turns to his God and says, Save me, please. There was a belief in the One God Amon in Egypt, and after a short period there was a revolution, in which Tut-Anach-Amon's father was overthrown. Believers in one God may have migrated to the land of Canaan.
A tombstone was found in the Golan Heights where the king of Aram boasts "I have known the house of David" and he is probably talking about the murder of two twins from the house of David by Athaliah, probably to prevent that king of Aram from invading the weak Judah. There is great compatibility here with the Book of Kings. According to the findings of Professor Galili, the kingdoms mentioned in the kings are cross-referenced with information from findings about the Kingdom of Palestine in Syria. Why ignore this evidence? If a foreign ruler boasts "I have known the house of David" will he do this to a junior ruler. If the Shima of the House of David is in the Golan Heights, is this a junior ruler? These archeological findings undermine, if not contradict, Professor Finkelstein's theory and this does not prevent me from reading his books.
If you compare Greek and other mythology to the Bible, you will not find the immense humanity in the Bible. And that for nothing Christianity adopted a billion and a half Bibles and Islam a billion and a half Bibles. Even Daesh calls the Jews with the book.
Joseph
Why do you think that a person who studies history deals with the heresy of the Torah? It seems to me that you fit the role of Torquemada...
Joseph
How is the Exodus story more "convincing" than Moby Dick?
Moby Dick also has a historical basis. And in Moby Dick there is a character named Ismael...
Friends - a huge chain of 33 comments. I downloaded Israel Finkelstein's book and it was a pleasure to read. You don't have to agree with everything, but there is no doubt that it opens the mind in a different direction, which unfortunately has no chance of being taught in Israeli schools.
I believe that there is a kernel of truth in the stories of the Bible, but there is no doubt that there was bias and there is a fundamental issue here. Were there Exodus from Egypt, and David's kingdom as told in the Bible or not. The stories in the Bible sound so human and firsthand that if they weren't, this is the biggest fiction in history.
The codex of the New Testament as it is known today was also signed in 300 AD and I have not seen so many Christian scholars dealing with its heresy. According to the earlier versions, Judas Iscariot was not a traitor, and Jesus kissed Mary as a way of loving his beloved. Probably in the Jewish genius to dig. I will request Galili's articles by mail.
Hello Prof. Galil,
A fascinating article was published in Haaretz on the subject of the founder of monotheism: Akhenaten
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/.premium-1.2508927
In the article, among other things, it is written as follows:
"He was brought up on the knees of about 2,000 idols: goddesses with the body of a woman and the head of a cow, a cat and a lioness, gods with the body of a man and the head of a falcon, a crocodile and a jackal. He rebelled against all these after he saw the light and realized that the only god is Aton, the sun, who has no body or image, but an abstract representation as a golden disk. He changed his name to "the glorious choice of Aten", abandoned the capital Na-Amun and founded Akhtaton in the desert, "the horizon of Aten", where he ordered the construction of huge, roofless temples, where the wheel of heat could be worshiped directly. He did so in only ten years and on the backs of thousands of slaves, who were touched by these theological nuances like the skins of the onions and onions that the Israelites yearned for in the desert.
The army was sent to destroy the names of the gods on the monuments and obelisks, and the word "gods" itself was replaced by the word "god". Textbooks for school children were rewritten and the king himself committed unceremonious murder in bad faith, in front of thousands of unemployed priests. They wandered indignantly through the marketplaces, drinking fermented wheat beer and agitating the frustrated generals, who feared losing the outlying provinces to the neglect of Pharao, who was engrossed in sunbathing and the slips of his beautiful wife, Nefertiti. The flattering letters of supplication written by the rulers of these promiscuous countries were found in 1887, in El-Amarna, the place where Akhenaten's capital used to be, and they are full of polite desperation along with a proper internalization of the terminology of the new religion. "To the king, my Lord, my God, my sun," Shardwata, the governor of Gat, opens his address, "Thus said your servant, the dust of your feet." At the feet of the king, my lord, to me, seven times and seven times I fell."
״
Is the claim made in the article, regarding the torture of monotheism, really the consensus among historians?
Is the description about the school children's books familiar or is it just a dramatization of the article?
Thanks
According to Prof. Galil, the books of Samuel were compiled at the time of David and Solomon
This is a mistake. The language of their time did not match the language of the books of Samuel, whose composition began at the end of the eighth century, but it is possible that they contain remnants of chronicles from the times of David, such as Samuel 8 XNUMX
Finkelstein's claim that my approach to the biblical text is "not critical" is in terms of slander, and baseless slander, as evidenced by dozens of studies that focused on the Bible, and in which a critical approach to the writings is taken. Finkelstein also claimed in the above article that "the reconstructions of David's great kingdom are not supported by the biblical text" - this is a false and misleading claim - since the Bible describes in detail the establishment and internal organization of David's empire, and emphasizes that the kingdom of David and Solomon stretched from the border of Egypt to the Euphrates River , see for example Malachi XNUMX:XNUMX "And Solomon was ruler over all the kingdoms from the river in the land of the Philistines to the border of Egypt" - one can debate the historical reliability of the biblical description - but not the simplicity of the Bible. Therefore his claim that "the reconstructions of David's great kingdom are not supported by the biblical text" is a lack of understanding of the Bible and what is being read.
Prof. Gershon Galil
"How can it be based on late and imaginary texts (for his understanding - or lack of understanding) in the case of Saul - and it is not possible to base them on in the case of David?"
If you wanted to point out Finkelstein's inconsistency then you succeeded. But the fact that Finkelstein claims that Saul's kingdom was a large kingdom that encompassed Judea and Samaria and the eastern Transjordan without sufficient archaeological evidence means that he is probably wrong about this. The fact that he makes an error on this subject does not necessarily mean that his words here regarding the kingdom of David are incorrect.
In my opinion, the book of Samuel was compiled in the days of David and Solomon - in the tenth century and reflects a real reality. This claim is based on a thorough study of the book, the process of its creation and its purpose. The research will be published in my book that will be published soon. There is only 3% in the book of Samuel that was added by the Deuteronomist in a later period - but 97% of the book is ancient and was composed in the tenth century, in the days of David and Solomon. In addition to the details mentioned in the press release above, there is much more non-biblical evidence for the existence of the kingdom of David and Solomon, and I dedicated a separate article to this topic that will be published in the coming year.
I draw your attention to Finkelstein's book that was published a year ago and can be downloaded for free - see link below
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9781589839106_OA.pdf
In the second chapter (p. 37 onwards) he claims that Saul's kingdom was a large kingdom that encompassed Judea and Samaria and across the eastern Jordan (see map on p. 48). Note that there is no archaeological evidence or literary evidence other than biblical evidence for the existence of Saul's kingdom - and the description is entirely based solely on the Bible, that is, according to his method, on texts that he claims were composed in the days of Josiah. So I ask him and you - how can we base ourselves on late and imaginary texts (for his understanding - or lack of understanding) in the case of Saul - and it is not possible to base ourselves on them in the case of David? In the opinion of other researchers about his above-mentioned book, see for example http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/
Shmulik
As for the religious community, in particular what concerns the madmen of Beit Shemesh, I have attached an article I wrote entitled "Taliban with hoods or a junta of Straymals:
http://www.yekum.org/2013/02/%D7%98%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%91%D7%9F-%D7%A2%D7%9D-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%95-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99/
First, I would be happy to send electronic prints of my articles to anyone who asks me here is my email ggalil@univ.haifa.ac.il or on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/gershon.galil
The articles were published in English - and soon a Hebrew version will also be published. A good historian must take into account all the literary and archaeological sources and try to understand the picture as a whole. Each source must be examined on its own merits - and then it must be examined in relation to the other testimonies. In the last decade, many epigraphic and archaeological evidences have been discovered - which teach that the biblical story about the kingdom of David and Solomon - is reasonable and possible and fits well with the new findings. But it is natural that researchers who had a different opinion find it difficult to admit their mistake. It's human but unfortunate. It is our duty as historians to tell the public of researchers and the general public in Israel and the world the truth as it is reflected in the new evidence. The debate is not personal between me and Lefinkelstein - but a debate about the interpretation of the sources and their understanding. In this debate - I am right and he is wrong. His approach to the Bible is wrong and inconsistent, and his use of the archeological findings is biased. In the next response I will bring you examples to prove these claims.
Haim,
Thanks for the explanation and I will go over it several times.
Read some things from what I wrote here on the site, I'm about the opposite of religious. I am what can be called an anti-theist, that is, I really hope there is no big brother in the sky and despise everything implied by the principled dictatorship that exists in religion
Shmulik
The Bible is actually a mixture of history, literature, religion and legends. The latter are found mainly in the fruit of the Torah. From an examination I conducted and on which I wrote a series of articles, there is no historical sense in them. The articles are on the science website. One of them discusses the story of the exodus from Egypt and it is called "the exodus made up narrative" a link to the article is attached
https://www.hayadan.org.il/egypt-exsodus-061104 In the whole story there is no historical grief about one of the battles of Babylon in Israel there is a record in the Babylonian scriptures. In Egyptian literature, Jerusalem is mentioned for the first time in the 12th century BC, the Roman historian Tacitus specifically refers to the Jews living in the land. As for the Iliad, in the 19th century a German archeology enthusiast named Schleiman came to the place where Troy was supposed to be found and he did find it. A pile of 23 cities on top of each other. In the book of Hasmoneans II, the first chapter, Jeremiah is mentioned. In the book of the Babylonian historian Borsus who lived in the 3rd century BC there are references to the events mentioned in the Bible. The book has been lost, but historians of his time and a little later bring quotations from him. Flavius also refers to what was in the land read the ancients of the Jews. When examining a history book from ancient times, a number of tests are done to test its reliability, such as stylistic uniformity, finding or not finding contradictions in terms of the content of what is said in it. Regarding the Pentateuch, today it is known with certainty that it was written by four writers. The book of Isaiah was written by two people and some say even three. As for the story of the flood, it is found all over the world. The first mention is in the Shomir literature "Galgamesh stories". The names of the months of the year in the Jewish calendar correspond one to one to the names of the months in Babylon. I have read history books of antiquity and there is something to base my words on. I understand from your words that you are a religious person. I am not. My approach to the Bible is first and foremost from a historical perspective. Sociology and political science. Read Hammurabi's laws, if possible in the original, and you will find where the Bible drew some of his laws from. I return again to my basic argument. Please treat the Bible in a balanced way compared to other cultures. Since Plato's writings left their mark on the entire Western culture, they can equally be regarded as the book of books and without any religious connotation. This does not detract from Judaism, but the point of view takes a broad view of the culture as a whole. It is very arrogant to look at the Bible as a superior book over other books.
Haim,
I think you are wrong about my intentions. What I wanted to find out concerns what you wrote in that the Bible is a type of documentation.
How can the Bible be a kind of record, if there is no other external record to support what is described in it? This refers mainly to the books of the Torah. Due to a lack of documentation, I received the Bible for the Iliad and the Odyssey.
By the way, did I understand correctly and for later parts of the Bible there is already external documentation?
Shmulik
Narrative is one thing and historical documentation is another. Nothing will help but the historical record of the biblical period is not enough. It is nothing like, for example, the writings of Herodotus or Livius, a Roman historian who wrote the chronicles of Rome in 137 books, equivalent to 40-50 books today. It is a shame that the number of his surviving books is small. As for the story itself, it is possible to adapt a story to the stories of Greek mythology. In Greece in the 5th century BC, the stories of mythology were treated as stories only. All the stories of mythology are basically stories about people, loves, hates, desires for power and what not, and thus they are no different from the Bible. For example the story about King Meads. From this story you can learn what happens to a person whose pursuit of greed drives him crazy. The book of Kohalat in terms of its messages is no different from Aesop's fables. So please don't lose proportion and it doesn't hurt to know what is about the world. As someone who has read the Iliad and the Odyssey, they are masterpieces no less than the Bible. Would you like to answer please, but not theological answers, they will be dismissed outright.
Haim,
The Bible has a narrative. Does the record of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Chinese also have a narrative?
I'm actually asking, isn't the Bible, certainly the Torah, more like an Odyssey than a history book?
What do you say about the article "The man who believed in God before the Jews" Akhenaten?
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/.premium-1.2508927
Miracles
The documentation exists but it is minimalist and it is the Bible and indeed there is a big problem here in terms of historical documentation. The Bible mentions the names of 20 books that were lost or were lost
Life
On the one hand we are "with the book". On the other hand, we didn't record anything. The Assyrians recorded, the Egyptians and the Babylonians, and of course the Greeks and the Romans. Isn't it a little weird?
Miracles
Explain your intention. There is a tone of disdain in your words. From a person with an extensive education like yours, one can expect a slightly more respectable response. Fortunately, I'm not a water-breather and certainly not Raphael.
Joseph,
The tombstone you are referring to is from Tel Dan and not from the Golan. The Egyptian god who was made for thirty years the sole god of the king of Egypt Achan Aton is Aton the sun god and not Amon.
Even if Galil's interpretation of the written findings is correct, it is possible that David controlled no more than 2000 km. We have no evidence that he ruled in the north of Israel.
Life
With an elk book...
The problem regarding the confirmation or refutation of various events from the biblical period stems from one reason only. There were no history writers in Israel like in Greece and Rome. The only historian, albeit from a different period, is Flavius. To illustrate, the Greek historian Thucydides wrote a book about the Peloponnesian Wars. A period of 30 years was covered in a book that has over 400 pages.
This type of writer was not in Israel during the biblical period
The debate is whether it is possible to refer to Tanach from the time of David or only a few hundred years later from the time of Josiah, during which time the kingdom of Israel was conquered and many refugees from it came to Judah, and it was necessary to invent a common past for them. According to this idea, Saul was king of Israel and David was king of Judah. Israel and Judah were geographically neighboring nations, sometimes they fought each other and sometimes they were in an alliance. Large parts of the Tanach were written during the time of Josiah, and therefore they reflect the politics of that time, and certainly cannot be relied on when it comes to events that the Tanach itself indicates took place several hundred years earlier.
The Golan Heights monument to a foreign ruler refers to the House of David. A foreign ruler refers only to a powerful enemy.
If the Shema Beit David reached the Golan Heights, then it is a powerful royal house.
In addition, the sentence there corresponds to the killing of the 2 twins by Ataliah, probably to prevent a foreign invasion of Judah.
This indicates full compliance with the Book of Kings on this subject. If the book corresponds to an Aramaic source, then it can be trusted to describe the House of David.
The second figure of Professor Galili. If the findings of the Kingdom of Palestine are in coordination with the Book of Kings, then again the book can be relied on as correct as far as David and his house are concerned.
gift
Finkelstein's claim is the lack of signs of a strong royal government of the House of David, which is spoken of in the books of Samuel Angels and Chronicles. In a strong royal government there must be large public buildings (palaces, forts, houses of worship, storehouses, corrals for farm animals). In a strong royal government there must also be characteristic pottery (such as urns with an engraving on who the urn belongs to and the multitude inside). A strong royal government has inscriptions carved in stone of proclamations or laws. Finkelstein does not rule out the possibility that the House of David was a tribal clan.
Shay Greenspon
Your approach is very trendy. In your opinion, the Odyssey is also true, as long as it is not proven otherwise.
Absence of proof is not proof. If there are not enough (according to Prof. Finkilstein) findings that confirm this or that biblical story - their non-existence is not proof of the story's inaccuracy. Only proof of the impossibility of the story (let's say - clear and sharp proof of the existence of another kingdom in the place and at the time when David's kingdom is expected to be found) - can negate the biblical story.
Regarding the possibilities for the findings: since we are talking about a society that is mostly illiterate (usually this includes the kings as well...), and since the majority of the inscription (which is very little anyway) was not in stone but in clay, leather and papyrus - it is clear that every discovery is a miracle in itself.
In addition - David's kingdom was probably overlordship over tribes with a tradition of independence, and it is possible that it was a wide kingdom - but with the character of a tribal alliance, which would leave almost no archaeological finds. So to rule out the existence of a blanket rule over non-literate tribes based on the absence of a written finding - this is an excessive aggravation, with a suspicion of political bias.
The story about Jesus being different is also based on crucifixion sources for the New Testament. In the Talmud there is a story about Rabbi Yeshua. There is no certainty that this is the same Jesus but there is a similar context. In the New Testament version of the year 50 which is found in the Genizah in Egypt (the Copts are ancient Christians) in contrast to the modern version from around the year 300, there is a slightly different story in which Judas the Keriot was asked by Jesus to betray him.
And in the Roman writings there is a mention of Jesus. I think it's very beautiful to see history as a relatively accurate science, and how the religious writings, they have a grain of truth.
In another comparison the theory of the scrolls = the criticism of the Bible that Professor Finkelstein talks about, a fascinating analysis like no other for five Torah Pentacles. The study sheds light on Josiah's reform of the temple and the revelation of Deuteronomy.
Ezekiel Koipman's book is fascinating that we are not the main stream that the Israeli belief in one God has its roots at least 3000 years old, and it is true that along the way it was maintained mainly by prophets and priests.
agree. The Golan Heights tombstone is quite conclusive evidence, and the findings of Professor Galili G.C.
Weaker findings but present in the stone:
In addition to the Egyptian sources being a similar event to the Exodus and under similar circumstances, and there being a treasurer for Pharaoh named Joseph, and the names of the ancestors found in the cave carvings of the Hebiru tribe, at the stage when the Egyptians transformed it from a warrior military nation to a nation of builders, all these do not rule out the partial veracity of the biblical story.
And it is good to have a great skeptic. I would not dare to doubt the correctness of the biblical story as someone who grew up in Israeli educational institutions. The Bible maintains a certain historical correctness, but there is a late and trendsetting editing here.
It is good that there are those who study the kingdoms of Israel and Judah from a secular and non-biblical point of view.
Finkelstein's problem is that he is based on negation instead of findings. The evidence found should be given a little more credit than Finkelstein gives. Perhaps Finkelstein is a great archaeologist, but so are his opponents who do not fall for him, and they bring findings to the table and do not establish facts based on negation. The more his theory shatters (and it happens even more in recent years, what is also important to remember that in the most important place for understanding David's kingdom you cannot dig because of the Muslim temples), the more he clings to straw. No one asked him to confirm David's kingdom, but I suppose that in light of the findings that have been found recently, perhaps he should have adopted an approach that does not rule out, but rather says that at least if it has not been proven, it is already at a stage where it is also difficult to rule out completely. It's a shame that his political doctrine and academic heritage make it difficult for him.
In my opinion, Finkelstein takes his profession seriously and strives for the truth to the best of his understanding.
This is an archaeologist and historian at an international level in the first row!. There aren't many of them.
Since Zvi Yaevetz and the philosopher Isaiah Leibovitz left us, we don't have many such trailblazers.
Therefore we cannot give them up.
The paucity of findings from this period - makes it difficult to get an unequivocal result. The fusion between the voice of the great skeptic Finkelstein, and the voice of the proponent in the Bible as a text of certain historical importance, hearing both voices is important.
The truth, in my opinion, is really in the middle. There was an uncle, it is not clear how strong he was. For about 2000 years of settlement, the defenders of the faith in one God fought, and I don't know if they were a Jewish gang in Jerusalem or spiritual giants.
Every archaeologist finds what he is looking for.. A leftist dwarfs the Jewish presence in the region and a rightist sees it everywhere.
It is worth noting that Professor Israel Finkelstein is the winner of the Dan David Prize, the head of a well-known department at Tel Aviv University, and is currently considered a senior archaeologist and perhaps also historians in Israel. Much to his credit, it can be said that he shatters conventions in a positive sense. In view of this resume, I hesitate to disagree with him, what's more, I'm an amateur.
He forced me through his books to think logically about the 2 parts of the people known as Israel: one from Ur Kasdim and one from Egypt. And also that there may not have been a settlement but a gradual maturation of Canaanite peoples. Even if history is not always 100% in one direction. And on the maturation of faith in God, a step towards faith in one God, more abstract. and about the competition between the temple in Judea of a relatively modest kingdom with priests who were hypnotic compared to the temples that were in regions like Tel-Megiddo. And the very finding of it is probably horse stables, probably of Ahab's iron chariot, and Jeroboam's seals at Tel-Megiddo. And a thousand more impressive achievements.
In the XNUMXth:
There is evidence of the existence of belief in one God in Egypt, Amun, and there is evidence of the expulsion of these believers in the revolution, as well as the existence of a military people named Khabiru (perhaps this is his offense) and in addition to the existence of a treasury minister for Pharaoh with a name similar to Joseph, and the use of the Khabiru names Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
And in XNUMX a less naive interpretation of the Bible is mainly due to Professor Israel Finkelstein.
For the sake of accuracy and perspective, Finkelstein does not, in my opinion, challenge the existence of the prophets but rather the existence of great kings in Israel before Ahab and in Judah before Josiah. In addition, he disputes perhaps the division of the kingdom, but Josiah's theory of annexation following the passage of the king of Assyria in the Land of Israel and the destruction of a large nearby kingdom, called Israel in the Bible.
In my opinion, in a parallel context, the concept of Professor Ezekiel Koipman regarding the existence of the Israeli belief in one God in the core of the prophets and priests, while the belief in one God in a whole people gradually developed, is correct, mixed with the German concept of the theory of the scrolls according to which the belief took shape at a late stage. There are professors in the Old Testament who insist that the Jewish people only existed from the time of Rabbi Akiva (50 CE?). In my opinion, the prophets were and acted. and reached very high levels of insight regarding what is moral and what is not moral.
How does the Golan tombstone agree with Professor Finkelstein's interpretation, whom I respect. The Golan tombstone found in the Golan states something along the lines of "I knew the house of David" and it tells an approximate parallel to the story of the killing of the 2 brothers by Athaliah, who was seen in the Bible as evil but perhaps did it to prevent an Aramaic invasion of Judah. If King David is mentioned in the Golan Heights and the House of David, how is it possible that this is a local fringe royal house, according to the professor. More and more extra-biblical sources are being discovered which challenge Professor Finkelstein's opinion. I have great respect for his books which provoked in me a critical thought towards the Bible. But in my opinion, in recent years there are already 2 references from non-biblical sources for the correctness of the biblical text as a historical source, even if the dating is slightly different. The years that have passed have erased historical evidence, but 2 evidences refuse to be erased: the Golan Tombstone and the discovery of Professor Galili.