Debate: In This Corner: William Dever and Israel Finkelstein Debate the Early History of Israel

042

“Israel Finkelstein has achieved an archaeological first. To my knowledge, there is no precedent in the entire literature of our field for such a full-scale attack on a senior colleague and his life’s work.”

So begins William Dever’s response to an article in the archaeological journal Tel Aviv by Israel Finkelstein entitled “Gezer Revisited and Revised.” The excavation of Gezer is Dever’s proudest archaeological accomplishment. Dever originally called his response to Finkelstein, published in the same journal, “Gezer Reviled,” but was persuaded to change it to the less flamboyant, “Visiting the Real Gezer: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein.”¹

Dever and Finkelstein are both giants in their field. For years Dever served as director of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (now the William F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research). Before that, he taught at Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem. He is probably more prolific than any other American archaeologist digging in the Near East. And the jewel in his archaeological crown is the excavation of Tel Gezer from 1964 to 1974, surely the most important American dig of its time.²

Finkelstein, who is now co-directing the dig at Megiddo, is also director of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology. He probably gets more press than all other Israeli archaeologists combined. Like Dever, he too is prolific—and smart. He is best known for his controversial “low chronology,” which down-dates by about a century the archaeological materials of the Iron Age, with the result that archaeological layers that have been attributed to the United Monarchy of David and Solomon in the tenth century B.C.E. have been asigned to their successors in the ninth century instead.^a As a result, he is also known as somewhat of a minimalist with respect to the historicity of the Biblical text.

043

It all began, like much scholarly antagonism, with a book review. Before that, as Dever notes, Finkelstein was “a friend and frequent partner in good-spirited differences of opinion.” The two would frequently appear on the same platform. Both are charming, excellent and popular speakers, and often in agreement (although not with respect to Finkelstein’s “low chronology” and some of his minimalism).

Then Finkelstein wrote (with Neil Asher Silberman) a book entitled The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.³ Dever reviewed it first in BAR (March/April 2001) and then, more extensively, in a leading scholarly journal, BASOR (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research).⁴ Dever summarized the book’s thesis: “that the core historical narrative of the Hebrew Bible … was composed only … in the late seventh century B.C. and that the result is more theological propaganda than an accurate account of ancient Israel’s history.” The book, according to Dever, “has some strong points. It attempts to provide a much-needed modest ‘revisionist’ history of ancient Israel, avoiding the extremes and the rhetoric of both the maximalist and minimalist schools on the question of how much reliable history the Bible contains.” But Dever continued: “Little, however, is really new here, certainly not enough to justify the rather grandiose title and the revolutionary 044rhetoric throughout.” Dever then called the book “an archaeological manifesto, not judicious and well-balanced scholarship. Even the non-specialist deserves better.” Dever also accused the authors of “downright misrepresentations” of Dever’s views.

On the other hand, in his review Dever says the authors are “almost certainly right in their confidence in archaeology’s potential for rewriting Israel’s history.” Dever also agrees with their “essentially minimalist reconstruction” of the Patriarchal era, with their stress on the indigenous origins (in Canaan) of most early Israelites, with their late date for the introduction of monotheism, and with their late-seventh-century B.C.E. date for the composition of the Pentateuch and the deuteronomic History (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). Dever concludes, however, by characterizing Finkelstein as “an idiosyncratic and doctrinaire archaeologist” who is not a Biblical scholar.

To put it mildly, Finkelstein (quite uncharacteristically) blew his stack. To say he was furious is a gross understatement. His fury extended not only to Dever, but to me as editor of the magazine in which Dever’s first review appeared (although, strangely, not to the editor of BASOR). Finkelstein responded by setting out to “destroy” Dever, to use the term widely circulated on the Internet and now quoted by Dever. In Finkelstein’s view, Dever was nothing but “a terribly jealous academic parasite” (a characterization, Dever says in his recent Tel Aviv response, that is “little more than a projection” of Finkelstein himself).

Gradually, Finkelstein’s anger at me has dissipated, and we have again become friends.^b Finkelstein and Dever also had a sulha (an Arabic word for a peace-making meal but commonly used now for any resolution of hostility). At the 2002 professional meetings of archaeologists and Bible scholars held every November, Sy Gitin, the current director of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem, got the two antagonists into the same Toronto hotel room, where they agreed that their dispute was bad for the profession. They also agreed on a joint letter to be published in BAR, publicly announcing that they had buried the hatchet. In it they expressed their joint concern at the “polemics which all too often embarrasses our profession” and vowed to keep future discussions between them “focused on the scholarly issues that concern us all.”

In early January 2003 I received a telephone call from Dever withdrawing his signature on the letter. The new issue of Tel Aviv had come out with Finkelstein’s article attacking Dever and his excavation of Gezer. The article had been in press when the two had agreed in Toronto on the joint letter, but Finkelstein had not mentioned it to Dever. Dever regarded the article as nothing less than “character assassination.” He accused Finkelstein of being “a snake in the grass” for not revealing earlier that he had already written an article attacking Dever and his excavation of Gezer. Dever saw the article as part of Finkelstein’s campaign to destroy him and a blatant violation of their agreed-upon sulha.

Finkelstein’s article is indeed harsh—and personal. The Gezer excavation, he says, is a “debacle.” “The deficiencies in the Gezer project [include] method, operation and interpretation.” Dever himself is accused of using a “somewhat simplistic argument,” and a “simplistic reading of the biblical text.” Dever “grave[ly] misunderstand[s] the interface between archaeological analysis and [biblical] text interpretation.” Dever is “not aware of years of biblical research.” He is also guilty of “circular reasoning,” although he is “unaware of what he is doing.”

Moreover, Dever even “quotes a non-existent verse [of the Bible] which he himself invented.” Dever also “ignore[s] a set of hard archaeological data” and is guilty of “somewhat twist[ing] the archaeological results.”

In sum, says Finkelstein, “The great expectations [of the Gezer excavation] have not been fulfilled … The unavoidable conclusion is that Gezer must be re-excavated.”

In reply, Dever asserts that Finkelstein has “gotten almost all his ‘facts’ wrong.” Moreover, he is “disingenuous,” “distort[s] the published evidence,” “deliberately misquotes,” “misle[a]d[s his] readers,” engages in “pure fantasy,” utters “egregious slander,” makes false accusations in an “unconscionable” way, and has either fail[ed] to read or to understand” Dever’s published reports on the excavation.

In short, Dever asserts, “Finkelstein is clever at the cost of candor.”

Dever recognizes that “It is fair for Finkelstein to criticize the Gezer project, and I welcome his doing so. But it is fair only (1) if he has his facts straight; (2) if he measures the project by the standards of the 1960s, not the 21st century; and (3) if he does not impute the project’s flaws to my supposed lack of competence and integrity.”

What sparked Finkelstein’s ire, Dever asks? It “stems largely from his admitted anger at my reviews of his magnum opus with Neil Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. These reviews did contain some negative comments; but they also commended the authors at many points.” In reaction to these reviews, Finkelstein has written an article that is “a hatchet job, with scarcely a word of appreciation for Gezer (much less for my lifetime work).”

045

Dever purports to answer every one of Finkelstein’s charges. The scholarly community will ultimately have to decide which of the contenders is correct. We cannot review here all the detailed points in this contentious exchange. A few small points and one major point will have to suffice.

For example, Finklestein accuses Dever of using a bulldozer in a short 1990 effort to clarify some stratigraphy. Using a bulldozer to excavate stratified material is the most heinous of archaeological sins. Dever replies that he used a bulldozer only to remove a dump left by a previous excavator in the early years of the century. He calls Finkelstein’s accusation “simply unconscionable.”

Finkelstein charges that Gezer turned out to be “just another mostly unpublished dig.” Dever replies that the excavators have published five large volumes and compares that record with other major digs of the 1960s, including that of such giants as Kathleen Kenyon at Jerusalem, Roland de Vaux at Tell el-Farah (north), G. Ernest Wright at Shechem and a number of leading Israeli excavators. “By any reasonable criteria, Gezer has done better than the others … Why does Finkelstein single out Gezer—unless it is part of an ideological agenda?”

Finkelstein criticizes Dever for failing to do an archaeological survey of the area surrounding Gezer to place the site in geographical context. This “had to wait” until 1991–1992, says Finkelstein, when a Tel Aviv University graduate student conducted an archaeological survey of the Gezer countryside. “The results of this survey,” Finkelstein notes, “made it possible, for the first time, to understand Gezer in terms of modern archaeology.” But in the 1960s this regional approach to specific sites had not yet been developed, says Dever, adding: “I can only hope that Finkelstein lives long enough to become ‘obsolete’ himself, long enough to see others put his work into perspective.”

The most significant of Finkelstein’s criticisms, however, concerns Finkelstein’s so-called “low chronology,” which lowers the dates of Israel’s material culture by a hundred years, so that what we thought was tenth century B.C.E. (when David and Solomon lived) is actually ninth century B.C.E., and the poor, undistinguished material from the 11th century B.C.E., previously thought to be from the time of the Judges, is actually the only material we have from the time of David and Solomon. As Finkelstein has said elsewhere: “David and Solomon did exist, but they were local chiefs, who ruled from a small village.”

Dever errs, says Finkelstein, in relying on the famous passage in 1 Kings 9:15, which says that Solomon fortified Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. Similar gates have been found at all three sites and for many years were considered confirmation of this Biblical passage. Finkelstein, however, who is now excavating at Megiddo, has lowered the date of the gate to the ninth century B.C.E.; Solomon, according to Finkelstein, did not build the gate at Megiddo. Finkelstein would similarly lower the date of the gates at Hazor and Gezer. The excavators at Hazor (Amnon Ben-Tor) and Gezer (Dever), however, disagree; they continue to maintain that the gates at their sites are tenth century B.C.E. and therefore Solomonic.

Dever notes that “The overwhelming consensus is, now more than ever, against Finkelstein’s low chronology, and therefore against his ‘new vision’ of ancient Israel.” Dever points out, “as many others have,” that “there is no empirical evidence for Finkelstein’s [low] chronology.”

Finkelstein says the Biblical stories of David and Solomon were written in the late seventh century B.C.E. (Dever agrees), and they reflect the situation in the seventh century, not the tenth. The northern kingdom of Israel had been destroyed by the Assyrians in 721 B.C.E. Josiah was king of the southern kingdom of Judah; he wanted to restore Israel’s glory and perhaps annex parts of that great kingdom, so he had the history of the United Monarchy under David and Solomon written to serve his political propaganda. It was not history. As Finkelstein has written elsewhere:

“We need to acknowledge that the biblical narrative of the ancient History of Israel was put in writing in the late seventh century B.C., in the days of King Josiah, who is described in the text as the most righteous monarch of the lineage of David. The text intended to serve Josiah’s political and religious agenda, of territorial expansion into the lands of vanquished Israel and centralization of the cult in Jerusalem.”

Hence Finkelstein’s attack on the stratigraphy of the gate at Gezer: Was it Solomonic or not? Dever makes his technical stratigraphic arguments. The red-slipped burnished pottery that dates the gate is tenth century B.C.E., not ninth century, he says. The result of Finkelstein’s redating the Megiddo gate, Dever claims, is that he is left with a later monumental gate “with no city wall.” Dever adds, “Perhaps here Finkelstein could use some of the ‘common-sense’ reasoning for which he criticizes me.”

Whether Finkelstein will let it rest there or will reply to Dever remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

“Israel Finkelstein has achieved an archaeological first. To my knowledge, there is no precedent in the entire literature of our field for such a full-scale attack on a senior colleague and his life’s work.” So begins William Dever’s response to an article in the archaeological journal Tel Aviv by Israel Finkelstein entitled “Gezer Revisited and Revised.” The excavation of Gezer is Dever’s proudest archaeological accomplishment. Dever originally called his response to Finkelstein, published in the same journal, “Gezer Reviled,” but was persuaded to change it to the less flamboyant, “Visiting the Real Gezer: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein.”1 Dever […]