4 ms·

Finklestein's peers are mostly paid to establish the truth of biblical stories. That's why they don't like him.

Alex3917 6y ago
If you look at all the religious megaliths we have today, like the Vatican or whatever, the reasons those exist is because they were built using several hundred or even thousand years of accrued wealth. (And a significant amount of 'reappropriated' building materials.) If the second temple really was built in 586 BCE, does it make any sense whatsoever that that could have been built with only 3 generations or so of accrued intergenerational wealth? That just doesn't seem plausible. Even assuming the bible is 100% made up, common sense suggests the longer biblical timeline is probably closer to the truth. If they'd instead stumbled into Dubai-style wealth from these copper mines or whatever only a few decades earlier, surely that would have been written down somewhere.
- bjourne 6y ago
  But to be fair, the Second temple wasn't that impressive until Herod expanded it in the 1st century bc.
  - Alex3917 6y ago
    Good point, forgot about that heh.
- coliveira 6y ago
  You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. There is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a fantastic, wealthy temple built by Solomon. If there was one, it could have been a simple temple fit to a small town built by the new rulers of the Israelite tribes.
  - Alex3917 6y ago
    > You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. I was talking about the temple mount, which you can still visit today. Didn't realize it wasn't finished until 500 years later though, so not sure to what extent my argument still holds.
    - verbify 6y ago
      The remaining Western wall of the Temple mount today was rebuilt by Herod almost 1000 years later (20 BCE). You can tell by the distinctive stone-dressing - the border around the stone known as Herodian masonry. You can also see this feature on the cave of the patriarchs.
yyyk 6y ago
It's more like 'Minimalism ended up the same position we had before it* , Finklestein's research programme was a bust and he can't admit that'. * Basically: We have no archeological evidence for Exodus and conquest. In fact, what we have doesn't seem to match conquest at all. However, once monarchy and actual government sets in (around David's time), we get bookkeeping and the record is accurate once one takes into account the significant authorial slant.
- wl 6y ago
  There's no contemporary evidence for the reign of David or Solomon. The best you get is a reference to the "House of David" (Tel Dan Stele) ~150 years later and the Biblical account in Kings, which claims to be a redaction made ~450 years after the fact of royal annals that are now lost. That's not nothing, but there's still plenty of room for doubt. Especially considering the stratigraphy at Megiddo and what we should see there but don't.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    In these periods, our evidence will always be patchy, and given error margins even "contemporary evidence" aren't necessarily contemporary. Ultimately, we need to find the most plausible accounts. So what's your suggested alternative account? How does one get all those references in a way anywhere as likely as the original theory? We have zero cases of "House of David" referring to anything else, and "House of" was a typical geopolitical term. We do have direct evidence the Kings summations have basis in fact for later periods, but for earlier period the author isn't really redacting the royal annals despite him saying he did? Minimalism presented itself as based on the science, but it can't coast anymore on absence of evidence. To be credible it ultimately needs to explain what we have without taking leaps of logic equaling those of the literalists, or it would appear to be a political movement rather than a scientific one.
    - wl 6y ago
      Solomon is depicted in the Biblical accounts as fabulously wealthy and a prolific builder. That should have left a mark in the archeological record. 1 Kings 9:15-19 suggests we look at Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Lower Beth-horon, and Baalath. Some of those sites are impractical to excavate or unknown. Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, and Beth-horon have been excavated and have uncovered little that can be plausibly attributed to Solomon. And given the almost irresponsibly extensive excavation done by the University of Chicago at Megiddo in particular, that's surprising. There's plenty there from earlier and later periods. At some point, the lack of evidence that should be there is evidence (though hardly conclusive) of absence. What's my suggested account? I don't know. Perhaps David and Solomon existed but their reigns were exaggerated for political and/or nationalistic reasons. Perhaps they were invented out of whole cloth for similar reasons. What I'm more certain of is that the Biblical account here is questionable in a way it isn't in later periods.
sam_goody 6y ago
There is a MUCH greater desire to disprove the Bible than to prove it. Aside from the fame and financial interest, the personal belief of almost everyone I met is anti religious. (With the exception of Vindl Jones, but his interests are ... not archeology) I therefor would be much more suspect of a claim disproving than proving the Biblical narative. But in either case, check the facts, not the names. source: worked in the field, in Israel, for a period.
- coliveira 6y ago
  No way, religious organizations all over the world pay for anything related to archeological "findings" related to biblical stories. It may even be true that people working in the field are not religious themselves, but financial incentives don't need that to operate. Suddenly a little figment becomes a piece of "Solomon vast empire", instead of just the remains of a small village in the middle of nowhere.

If you look at all the religious megaliths we have today, like the Vatican or whatever, the reasons those exist is because they were built using several hundred or even thousand years of accrued wealth. (And a significant amount of 'reappropriated' building materials.) If the second temple really was built in 586 BCE, does it make any sense whatsoever that that could have been built with only 3 generations or so of accrued intergenerational wealth? That just doesn't seem plausible. Even assuming the bible is 100% made up, common sense suggests the longer biblical timeline is probably closer to the truth. If they'd instead stumbled into Dubai-style wealth from these copper mines or whatever only a few decades earlier, surely that would have been written down somewhere.

bjourne 6y ago
But to be fair, the Second temple wasn't that impressive until Herod expanded it in the 1st century bc.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  Good point, forgot about that heh.
coliveira 6y ago
You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. There is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a fantastic, wealthy temple built by Solomon. If there was one, it could have been a simple temple fit to a small town built by the new rulers of the Israelite tribes.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > You're assuming that veracity of stories about the grandiosity of Salomon's temple. I was talking about the temple mount, which you can still visit today. Didn't realize it wasn't finished until 500 years later though, so not sure to what extent my argument still holds.
  - verbify 6y ago
    The remaining Western wall of the Temple mount today was rebuilt by Herod almost 1000 years later (20 BCE). You can tell by the distinctive stone-dressing - the border around the stone known as Herodian masonry. You can also see this feature on the cave of the patriarchs.

yyyk 6y ago

It's more like 'Minimalism ended up the same position we had before it* , Finklestein's research programme was a bust and he can't admit that'. * Basically: We have no archeological evidence for Exodus and conquest. In fact, what we have doesn't seem to match conquest at all. However, once monarchy and actual government sets in (around David's time), we get bookkeeping and the record is accurate once one takes into account the significant authorial slant.

wl 6y ago
There's no contemporary evidence for the reign of David or Solomon. The best you get is a reference to the "House of David" (Tel Dan Stele) ~150 years later and the Biblical account in Kings, which claims to be a redaction made ~450 years after the fact of royal annals that are now lost. That's not nothing, but there's still plenty of room for doubt. Especially considering the stratigraphy at Megiddo and what we should see there but don't.
- yyyk 6y ago
  In these periods, our evidence will always be patchy, and given error margins even "contemporary evidence" aren't necessarily contemporary. Ultimately, we need to find the most plausible accounts. So what's your suggested alternative account? How does one get all those references in a way anywhere as likely as the original theory? We have zero cases of "House of David" referring to anything else, and "House of" was a typical geopolitical term. We do have direct evidence the Kings summations have basis in fact for later periods, but for earlier period the author isn't really redacting the royal annals despite him saying he did? Minimalism presented itself as based on the science, but it can't coast anymore on absence of evidence. To be credible it ultimately needs to explain what we have without taking leaps of logic equaling those of the literalists, or it would appear to be a political movement rather than a scientific one.
  - wl 6y ago
    Solomon is depicted in the Biblical accounts as fabulously wealthy and a prolific builder. That should have left a mark in the archeological record. 1 Kings 9:15-19 suggests we look at Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Lower Beth-horon, and Baalath. Some of those sites are impractical to excavate or unknown. Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, and Beth-horon have been excavated and have uncovered little that can be plausibly attributed to Solomon. And given the almost irresponsibly extensive excavation done by the University of Chicago at Megiddo in particular, that's surprising. There's plenty there from earlier and later periods. At some point, the lack of evidence that should be there is evidence (though hardly conclusive) of absence. What's my suggested account? I don't know. Perhaps David and Solomon existed but their reigns were exaggerated for political and/or nationalistic reasons. Perhaps they were invented out of whole cloth for similar reasons. What I'm more certain of is that the Biblical account here is questionable in a way it isn't in later periods.

sam_goody 6y ago

There is a MUCH greater desire to disprove the Bible than to prove it. Aside from the fame and financial interest, the personal belief of almost everyone I met is anti religious. (With the exception of Vindl Jones, but his interests are ... not archeology) I therefor would be much more suspect of a claim disproving than proving the Biblical narative. But in either case, check the facts, not the names. source: worked in the field, in Israel, for a period.

coliveira 6y ago
No way, religious organizations all over the world pay for anything related to archeological "findings" related to biblical stories. It may even be true that people working in the field are not religious themselves, but financial incentives don't need that to operate. Suddenly a little figment becomes a piece of "Solomon vast empire", instead of just the remains of a small village in the middle of nowhere.