Israel Finklestein and Amihai Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Invited Lectures Delivered at the Sixth Biennial Colloquium of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October 2005. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

In this collection, two prominent Israeli archaeologists share their credo and philosophy as well as their views on the history of early Israel. They are not far apart. Both make it clear that they differ from revisionists or minimalists like Philip Davies and Thomas Thompson and also from the biblical school founded by William Albright. Finkelstein calls his position the center between those extremes.

The view from the center is that the Deuteronomistic History, Torah, and many prophets were compiled and edited in the late monarchy, not in the post-exilic or Hellenistic periods as revisionists claim. This view also maintains that there is historical value in the biblical historical accounts. Finklestein makes it clear that he cannot go along with revisionists who maintain that much of the Hebrew Bible was invented out of thin air. He says: “It is unthinkable that the biblical authors invented stories only in order to serve their aims. Had they done that they would have lost credibility among the people of Judah, their target population.” (p. 18)

These lectures also bring out significant disagreements between Finkelstein and Mazar. Mazar still maintains there was a united monarchy under David and Solomon while Finklestein argues that David and Solomon were no more than chieftains in an underdeveloped south that was not yet a state. Mazar also stretches the period of biblical origins to the eighth through the seventh centuries rather than limiting it to the reign of Josiah. He criticizes Finklestein as seeing too much of the Deuteronomistic History as a reflection of Josiah projected backward, for Mazar thinks the collecting and editing involved passing down recollections showing the influence of earlier periods. Both scholars believe in viewing history retrospectively by honing in on the period of Josiah and looking backward from that point as through a telescope to see what parts of early history have value.

All in all, these scholars are not far apart on most of what they have to say. One of their biggest differences is that they use different approaches to dating Yigael Yadin’s discoveries at Megiddo, thus leading to their divergences over the united monarchy.

This collection can be recommended to anyone interested in seeing how archaeology impacts the history of early Israel. I would also recommend the statements of personal philosophy in the first and last lectures they give.
About the Author: male perfect body