Archaeology Magazine - September/October 2001 - 33

says that Solomon fortified
Megiddo, and that King Josiah
was killed here in an attempt to
restore Judah s control over the
northern territories that seceded after Solomons death.
"Everyone was basing their claims on the excavations at
Megiddo," says Finkelstein. "I saw that if the chronology
there didn't work, then the traditional view fell apart."
s expertise in textual study dovetailed with
Finkelstein s growing interest in the use of the bibHalpernlical record to interpret archaeological finds. Unlike
the minimalists, who generally argue that the Bible was
written so late as to be nearly useless as a historical
record, Finkelstein was impressed by work done by his Tel
Aviv colleague Nadav Na'aman and Harvard biblical
scholar Frank M. Cross, who noted that many details of
the Bible s stories from Genesis through Kings seemed to
reflect the political, geographical, and social realities of
the late monarchic period, in the decades before the
Babylonian conquest of 586 b.c.
Finkelsteins dating of palaces and structures interpreted
as stables, as well as a six-chambered city gate at Megiddo
to the period of Ahab, a century after Solomons supposed
reign, is one of the foundations of his later chronology.
While he is convinced he is right and gives no quarter in
arguments with his colleagues, the evidence is complex and
open to differing interpretations. Archaeological chronologies are based largely on the interpretation of potsherds
and, more recently, on radiocarbon dating of wooden beams
from the site. Both can be ambiguous and imprecise. 'You
can argue them five ways from Friday," asserts Halpern,
who disputes Finkelsteins chronology.
Finkelstein is not .one to present a balanced survey of
scholarly opinion. The Bible Unearthed is a polemic, setting
out the case for his chronology and the Josianic origin of
the biblical text with great vigor and little acknowledgement
of other points of view. That infuriates many of his colleagues. In a recent review of The Bible Unearthed , University of Arizona Bible scholar and historian William G.
Dever, a vocal conservative, calls Finkelstein "idiosyncratic
and doctrinaire." Furthermore, he charges, the books "dis-

cussion of exceedingly complex matters is
often simplistic and therefore misleading."
Finkelstein is nonplussed. "This is a
question of how you write a book and
how you do research," he says. "I don't
sum up previous scholarship. I stir up an
interesting argument and then the issues
are clarified. I believe in the efficacy of
stimulation and thinking to push scholarship forward."
Halpern is generous. "He's taken a position that in archaeology is extreme but in
historical studies is not and which in textual studies is moderate. He's made a case
for it. I disagree with it but there's nothing
c illegitimate about it. It's real scholarship
"S
and should be dealt with as such."
LU
C
Halpern also credits Finkelstein with
i bringing the biblical text back into the
O
debate, noting that over the last two or
three decades reference to the Bible has gone out of fashion in archaeology, even among the conservatives. "That,"
Halpern says, "was because archaeology used to look at
the Bible very simplistically. Now Finkelstein is looking at
it through the lens of critical scholarship. You've got to
give him a lot of credit for that."
In fact, Finkelsteins advocacy of a Josian origin for the
Bible has given him something that his opponents on both
sides lack- a narrative. It's a conceptual framework (some
of his colleagues would say an obsession) that allows him to
present a coherent account of the history of the kingdoms
of Judah and Israel and of the composition of the Bible.
In fact, at this year's seminar, Finkelstein was practically the only speaker quoting the Bible. His talk on
Goliath was laced with references to chapters and verses,
whereas "mainstreamers"
like Amihai Mazar of the
Hebrew University had stripped their talks of biblical
imagery and were referring staidly to Iron Ages IA and IB.
Ironically, Finkelstein is doing just what he did when he
was younger - and what so many archaeologists in this
part of the world did until just a couple of decades ago.
He's linking up archaeological finds to the Bible's story.
He just tells that story differently than they did.
Finkelstein is certain that a large-scale radiocarbon survey of Iron Age sites currently undeway will confirm his
later dating of monuments. Preliminary results presented
at the seminar point in this direction, although they are
still far from conclusive.
Despite that, Finkelstein expects resolution. "Within
five, six, or ten years the picture will have stabilized" and
his chronology will have been confirmed, he proclaims
with an infectious enthusiasm that is more reminiscent of
his Hasidic forebears than of the halls of academe.
Will archaeology be free of controversy then? "No," he
says, grinning. "Then we'll argue over the details."
Haim Watzman is a freelance science and academic affairs
writer in Jerusalem.

Archaeology Magazine - September/October 2001

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - September/October 2001