Debate: Minimalists on Parade

016

At a recent conference on reconstructing Israelite history held in Rome, the so-called Biblical minimalist position was upheld by a number of prominent scholars. This position is not monolithic, however, and different minimalist scholars stressed different arguments. Among them:

• The Bible cannot be used as a historical source.
• Neither can archaeology, which can only tell us whether ancient Israelites ate from a bowl 20 or 30 centimeters wide. A history of Israel based on archaeology is useless.
• There was no Exodus.
• The famous Tel Dan inscription mentioning David, excavated by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran, is probably a forgery; and the Hebrew words in the inscription that read “House [Dynasty] of David” probably mean something else.
• David and Solomon are only symbolic characters, not real characters.
• The Biblical accounts of the United Kingdom of Judah and Israel under David and Solomon are simply later projections into a distant mythic past.
• Judah did not even become a state until about a hundred years after David—if he lived.
• Scholars who defend aspects of Biblical history come from a Biblical tradition; their conclusions are derived not from pure historical research, but from theological considerations.

The presentations were summarized by an official reporteur, from whom we quote below:

Giovanni Garbini of the Università di Roma La Sapienza:

The name Jacob “is clearly an artificial creation of post-exilic age [after the Babylonian Exile]. It was not Jacob who became Israel, but Israel who became Jacob …

017

“A critical analysis of the [Biblical] text shows that the Egyptian origin of the Jews was a later ideological construction.”

Jan Alberto Soggin of the Università di Roma La Sapienza:

“Old Testament [scholarship] has shifted in recent years …[shifting] the kingdom of David into the realm of legend …

“The foundation of the state by David cannot any longer be considered a historical fact, because the [Biblical] narrative is based on a foundation of the books of Samuel and Kings, which are Deuteronomistic (transmitted half a millennium after the events); seven centuries later the book of Chronicles was composed, in which David is not guilty of anything. The quality of the sources is not reliable. This does not mean that David and Solomon never existed. It is possible that Israel and Judah were unified under two kings called David and Solomon. But we cannot use the biblical narrative on David itself as a historical source.”

What about the famous Tel Dan inscription that mentions the House of David (BYT DWD), discovered only in the 1990s? Professor Soggin addressed that question: It is “too contentious a piece of evidence” because it may not be genuine (that is, it may be a forgery) and the meaning of BYT DWD is “too contentious” because some minimalists contend this does not mean “House of David.”

Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen:

“Archaeological data have now definitely confirmed that the empire of David and Solomon never existed. The Tel Dan inscription, even if it were authentic (and this is very doubtful), does not give any proof of the existence of a United Kingdom …

“David and Solomon are two symbolic characters, who may be compared with Romulus and Numa [the second ruler of Rome] in the legend of Rome: The first is the ideal founder (of the town or, in David’s case, of the dynasty); the second, the first king who accomplished important cultic acts. Just as in the case of Romulus-Roma [the goddess of Rome], in the name of Solomon we find a particular relationship with the name of Jerusalem.”

Mario Liverani of the Università di Roma La Sapienza:

“There are no extra-biblical sources mentioning the United Kingdom of Judah and Israel, but maybe this is due to the fact that such sources never existed …

“When was the tradition of a United Kingdom created? In a period of expectations for the future, when present times were not satisfactory for Judah’s political ambitions. The idea of a redemption, of future glory and power, was then projected into a distant, mythic past.”

Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University:

“Judah shows signs of state formation only at the end of the ninth century [B.C]. The first building activity in Jerusalem begins in the ninth century, or maybe at the very beginning of the eighth century. [David and Solomon, if they lived, reigned in the tenth century B.C. when there was no state of Judah—Ed.]

Professor Garbini:

In concluding remarks, Professor Garbini lamented that “The critical study of the Bible is being carried out in a context that is marked by strong ideological tensions and, consequently, by polemics.” According to Professor Garbini, Biblical scholarship “is in fact dominated by conservative positions.” Scholars who “reconstruct a history of Israel that is different from the one narrated in the Bible” are therefore naturally “diffident.” According to Professor Garbini, we are not living in a time that is particularly appropriate for “a discussion free of prejudice and with a merely scientific intent, on a theme that was never so hot [as now].” What Professor Garbini calls “‘progressive scholars’ are isolated voices in the predominant choir of the ones who do not intend to do without [Biblical events like] … the Exodus.”

Professor Garbini notes that “almost all the scholars who deal with the history of Israel, including the archaeologists, are Biblical scholars, or at least have received ‘Biblical’ training. [This] implies a substantial refusal [to consider] the non-canonical written sources, from ‘apocryphal’ texts to the Jewish Hellenistic ones and to the classical sources. This exclusion clearly derives from theological considerations and is therefore inadmissible in historical research.”

Professor Garbini also took to task another speaker, Professor William G. Dever of the University of Arizona, who regards himself as a centrist, neither conservative nor minimalist. Indeed, at one time Professor Dever suggested that the term “Biblical archaeology” be abandoned in favor of “Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” He has since abandoned this position and defines Biblical archaeology as a dialog between archaeologists and Biblical scholars. A history of Israel can only be written, he says, by a “collaboration” between the two. Both sides are necessary, according to Professor Dever. If a history of Israel were written without the Bible, “It would be anonymous, partial, mutilated of names and of the history of ideas. We do not need this extreme solution. The Bible is a historical source.”

Professor Garbini decried this position. He accused Dever of “offer[ing] a lively polemic against ‘minimalist’ historians and [making] a passionate apology for ‘Biblical archaeology.’” In Professor Garbini’s view, Dever’s “new history of Israel, [which] can be written only with the contribution, not exclusive but nevertheless essential, of archaeology, assumes that archaeology can only confirm and enrich the Biblical narrative. With such premises, it is clear that this kind of history of Israel will be a useless and clumsy repetition of the biblical text. And ‘Biblical archaeology’ becomes useless: Knowing that ancient Israelites used to eat in dishes with a diameter of 20 or 30 cm does not add anything to the lentils of Esau’s meal.”

At a recent conference on reconstructing Israelite history held in Rome, the so-called Biblical minimalist position was upheld by a number of prominent scholars. This position is not monolithic, however, and different minimalist scholars stressed different arguments. Among them: