The archaeological and historical evidence of the early history of the Jews before 600 BCE.

[shunyadragon]

Regarding difficulties with Finkelstein's opinion on the Israelite settlement in the Galilee, see Dr. Zvi Gal's paper "The Northern Valleys—The Ethno-Cultural Melting Pot of the Iron Age I" [Hebrew], Eretz-Israel 30 (2011), pp. 139-144.

Regarding Finkelstein's opinion on the nomadic population of the Arabah region, see Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef's papers "Rethinking the Social Complexity of Early Iron Age Nomads", JJAR 1 (2021), pp. 155-179; "And Yet, a Nomadic Error: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein", Antiguo Oriente 18 (2020), pp. 33-60.

Regarding Finkelstein's opinion that Kiriath Jearim was an Israelite border cultic site, see Prof. Yigal Levin's paper "Was Kiriath-jearim in Judah or Benjamin?", IEJ 71 (2021), pp. 43-63. Furthermore, last year I attended a lecture by Finkelstein where he spoke about his interpretation of Kiriath jearim as an Israelite site founded by, or at least massively expanded by Jeroboam II, and then Prof. Aren Maeir, best known for directing the Tell es-Safi exacavations, gave a pre-scheduled response: In his opinion, the connection to Jeroboam is doubtful, as epigraphic evidence of Jeroboam in general is scanty at best (cf. e.g. this recent paper), but worse yet, there is currently no material evidence that the site was an Israelite site, as opposed to a Judahite site.

Some flaws in the usage of the term "proto-Israelite" (see also above in Gal's paper): Prof. Avraham Faust, "Future Directions in the Study of Ethnicity in Ancient Israel", in: Levy T. E. (ed.), Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future, London: Routledge 2010, pp. 55-68.

Some flaws in the absolute dating of the Iron Age based on pottery assemblages: Dr. Yitzhak Meitlis, "A Re-analysis of the Archaeological Evidence for the Beginning of the Iron Age I", in: Fantalkin A. and Yassur-Landau A. (eds.), Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein, Leiden: Brill 2008, pp. 105-111.

On the dating of Qeiyafa, see e.g. Prof. Yossi Garfinkel and Dr. Hoo-Goo Kang, "The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA?", IEJ 61 (2011), pp. 171-183; Garfinkel et al, "King David’s City at Khirbet Qeiyafa: Results of the Second Radiocarbon Dating Project", Radiocarbon 57 (2015), pp. 881-890.

Should I go on?

You chose a shotgun approach without specifics. P:EASE go on about the specifics. Many of the disagreements are more technical than differences in a fundamental difference in what is the evidence and conclusions of the nature of the ancient Hebrew history before 900-800 BCE, I will review these for the important points of disagreements, such as do they disagree with the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the United Monarchy existed before 900 to 800 BCE.

 

[Harel13]

You chose a shotgun approach without specifics. P:EASE go on about the specifics. Many of the disagreements are more technical than differences in a fundamental difference in what is the evidence and conclusions of the nature of the ancient Hebrew history before 900-800 BCE, I will review these for the important points of disagreements, such as do they disagree with the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the United Monarchy existed before 900 to 800 BCE.

You didn't specify any particular topic you wanted to discuss and all you said was to back up my general statement with academic sources. So that's what I did. Is there any particular topic you want to discuss in depth?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You chose a shotgun approach without specifics.

Good grief!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I will review these for the important points of disagreements, such as do they disagree with the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the United Monarchy existed before 900 to 800 BCE.

(I hate underwhelming reruns.)

Let's try something new. Do you maintain that Finkelstein's low chronology has been conclusively verified?

 

[shunyadragon]

(I hate underwhelming reruns.)

Let's try something new. Do you maintain that Finkelstein's low chronology has been conclusively verified?

No and I am not sure Finkelstein believes this, because of the tentative nature of the present evidence or better yet the lack of evidence. though at present I support low chronology, but better yet chronology over time without a specific date where the Egyptians retreated from the Levant and the Hebrews were among those that moved in, and grew in influence.

Worthy of note the only records we have are the Hebrews being defeated by their enemies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No and I am not sure Finkelstein believes this, because of the tentative nature of the present evidence or better yet the lack oof evidence. though at present I support low chronology, but better yet chronology over time without a specific date where the Egyptians retreated from the Levant and the Hebrews were among those that moved in.

Thanks for the answer. It is my understand (and I could well be wrong about this) that his low chronology is far from the consensus of those in the field. If this is true, can you tell my why you support it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for the answer. It is my understand (and I could well be wrong about this) that his low chronology is far from the consensus of those in the field. If this is true, can you tell my why you support it?

I mainly support the more gradual chronology over time, because as mentioned the down right lack of evidence to support the sudden appearance of a United Kingdom.

As I mentioned the only records we have is from their enemies defeated in battle. Not muxh reason to believe in a United Kingdom.

 

[Harel13]

Thanks!

Not really. I guess I'm looking for a balanced view of the consensus and some sense of the current trajectory of that consensus.

I didn't have time today, but I'll see if I can dig up something tomorrow.

By the way, something interesting about Finkelstein's approach is that though he pretty much doesn't believe in a united monarchy, he does believe in Shaul and has written on the topic of identifying certain findings with him. Even many maximalists barely talk about Shaul, if at all. That is one of the main reasons Finkelstein isn't a complete minimalist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good grief!

OK Charly Brown.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't have time today, but I'll see if I can dig up something tomorrow.

By the way, something interesting about Finkelstein's approach is that though he pretty much doesn't believe in a united monarchy, he does believe in Shaul and has written on the topic of identifying certain findings with him. Even many maximalists barely talk about Shaul, if at all. That is one of the main reasons Finkelstein isn't a complete minimalist.

Acknowledging Kings among tribes does not necessarily translate to the existence of a United Monarchy, Other than the Torah there is no evidence for united Monarchy before 900-800 BCE.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I mainly support the more gradual chronology over time, because as mentioned the down right lack of evidence to support the sudden appearance of a United Kingdom.

As I mentioned the only records we have is from their enemies defeated in battle. Not muxh reason to believe in a United Kingdom.

You don't support Finkelstein's low chronology because of the down right lack of evidence to support the sudden appearance of a United Kingdom? Still, you told us that ...

... at present I support low chronology ...

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't have time today, but I'll see if I can dig up something tomorrow.

By the way, something interesting about Finkelstein's approach is that though he pretty much doesn't believe in a united monarchy, he does believe in Shaul and has written on the topic of identifying certain findings with him. Even many maximalists barely talk about Shaul, if at all. That is one of the main reasons Finkelstein isn't a complete minimalist.

I've always considered him to be a stubborn centrist (somewhat comparable to R. E. Friedman). My personal opinion is that Shaul got a bum rap, so too the Omrides.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't support Finkelstein's low chronology because of the down right lack of evidence to support the sudden appearance of a United Kingdom? Still, you told us that ...

If my wording was not clear, I will clarify.

I did not say I did not support low chronology. The sudden appearance without any independent evidence would be the severe problem of any version of the early appearance of the United Monarchy earlier out of thin air before ~1000-900 BCE. Finkelstein is on the maybe list. I prefer a more evolved chronology over time a United Monarchy forming between 900-600 BCE, which would be a low chronology different from Finkelstein. The only thing I do not believe is the United Kingdom existing early as the Torah describes a rather sophisticated Kingdom like The Phoenicians and Canaanites..

Where is the evidence of Hebrews winning battles, there should be Stelle or other monuments to btttle victories? Actually no independent records whatsoever for an early United Kingdom.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Harel13 , can you suggest any discussions of the Izbet Sartah abecedary?

 

[shunyadragon]

If my wording was not clear, I will clarify.

I did not say I did not support low chronology. The sudden appearance without any independent evidence would be the severe problem of any version of the early appearance of the United Monarchy earlier out of thin air before ~1000-900 BCE. Finkelstein is on the maybe list. I prefer a more evolved chronology over time a United Monarchy forming between 900-600 BCE, which would be a low chronology different from Finkelstein. The only thing I do not believe is the United Kingdom existing early as the Torah describes a rather sophisticated Kingdom like The Phoenicians and Canaanites..

Saul may have existed as a tribal king, but the Biblical accounts of his victories are pure fantasy.

Where is the evidence of Hebrews winning battles, there should be Stelle or other monuments to btttle victories? Actually no independent records whatsoever for an early United Kingdom.

 

[shunyadragon]

@Harel13 , can you suggest any discussions of the Izbet Sartan abecedary?

Simply it is Proto-Canaanite closer to primitive Hebrew in the natural evolution of the Hebrew written language, one of a number of variations in the Levant at the time.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The Canaanite hypothesis does not explain the pathways of the Exodus. Where is parting of the sea, where is the volcano at Sinai, where is the second and third Yam Suph and so on. Therefore, if we hold to the Canaanite hypothesis, we have to throw the OT out.

The fact that there are no records written by Hebrews before 800 BCE does not cancel the Hebrew text. There is no reason why oral carrying of the text cannot be taken as genuine and true. Certainly, there may be redactions but there is no reason to throw them out, lock stock and barrel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Simply it is Proto-Canaanite closer to primitive Hebrew in the natural evolution of the Hebrew written language, one of a number of variations in the Levant at the time.

Pretentious pedantry is not helpful; it's not even remotely interesting.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Canaanite hypothesis does not explain the pathways of the Exodus. Where is parting of the sea, where is the volcano at Sinai, where is the second and third Yam Suph and so on. Therefore, if we hold to the Canaanite hypothesis, we have to throw the OT out.

The fact that there are no records written by Hebrews before 800 BCE does not cancel the Hebrew text. There is no reason why oral carrying of the text cannot be taken as genuine and true. Certainly, there may be redactions but there is no reason to throw them out, lock stock and barrel.

The origins of the Hebrews as a Canaanite tribe fits the archaeological and historical evidence.

Yes oral traditions and Babylonian and Sumerian myths are a part of the sources, but the reality of history is the Pentateuch, Noah flood, Creation myth, and Exodus are not historically accurate. Any imaginary ethnocentric involvement with India just compounds the mythology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Pretentious pedantry is not helpful; it's not even remotely interesting.

What I offered was a simply factual statement concerning the text.