RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.

qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 371

History of Ancient Israel:

Archaeology and the Biblical record –
the view from 2015

Introduction
Nearly 15 years ago I published an article in which I discussed my
approach to the relationship between archaeology and the biblical text
when attempting to reconstruct the history of Ancient Israel.1 For sev-
eral reasons – one general and two personal – the years that have
passed call for an update of my views on this matter. The first reason
is the incredible pace of archaeology in Israel. New data have been as-
sembled and new methods deployed. Especially important is the revo-
lution in the concept of dating finds; radiocarbon dating of Iron Age
strata, which made its debut in the very late 1990s and intensified in the
next decade, now makes it possible to establish the chronology of Iron
Age remains on solid, unbiased foundations and liberate the researcher
from traditional, highly conjectural theories which in many cases were
based on one’s understanding of the biblical text. The second is the fact
that my interest in critical biblical exegesis has continued to grow and
with it my associations with (mainly continental) scholars, who have
influenced my work. Third, and naturally, I suppose, as the years have
passed my revolutionary fervor has somewhat waned, making it easier
for me to seek the middle road when necessary. In what follows I
therefore describe my current approach – but in no way make a com-
mitment not to do this again in another 15 years from now.

1 I. FINKELSTEIN, «Archaeology and Text in the Third Millennium: A View from the

Center», in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume Basel 2001 (VT.S 92), Leiden 2002, 323-
342.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 372

372 RivB LXIII (2015)

A Brief History of Research

The pendulum in the reconstruction of Ancient Israel’s history has
swung back and forth in the last two centuries, between the two poles
of traditional and critical interpretations. The tense dispute preceded ar-
chaeological research. It commenced with Spinoza’s critical exegesis
over three centuries ago and peaked in the 19th century with Well-
hausen and others. As for archaeology, much of the early work in Pale-
stine, by Sellin and Petrie, for example, had been professional, that is,
not subjected to an uncritical reading of the biblical text. This changed
with the rise of the Albright-led traditional biblical archaeology in the
early 1920s, which was aimed at fighting-off critical theories and to
prove biblical history to be an accurate account of the past. Israeli ar-
chaeologists, first and foremost Yadin, joined this camp (for cultural
rather than theological reasons) in the 1950s. Conservative biblical ar-
chaeology held the upper hand for much of the 20th acentury. The re-
action has been an ultra-critical («minimalist») approach that appeared
in the 1990s, arguing against the traditional use of archaeology in re-
constructing the history of Ancient Israel in the Iron Age and advocat-
ing the view that biblical texts which refer to the history of Ancient
Israel were all compiled in the Persian and Hellenistic periods and thus
have no real value for understanding earlier periods (e.g., Davies;
Thompson).2 And since Minimalism is about one’s approach to the bib-
lical text, «accusing» archaeologists of being Minimalists3 demonstrates
a misunderstanding of the entire discipline. Parallel to the work of the
Minimalists, a school which can be described as promoting a «view
from the center» has developed. This school, to which I belong, takes a
critical attitude toward both text and archaeology, but differs from the
Minimalists in arguing that a significant number of biblical records date
to late-monarchic times and that other accounts, which were put in
writing later, include traditions that reflect realities in the Iron Age (for
this approach, which has recently been ingeniously described by Jean-
Marie Durand as deconstruction positive, see, e.g., Liverani;4 Miller and

2 P. DAVIES, In Search of Ancient Israel, Sheffield 1992; T.L. THOMPSON, The Mythic

Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel, New York 1999.
3 Y. GARFINKEL, «The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism», in Biblical

Archaeology Review 37(2011), 46-53.78.

4 M. LIVERANI, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, London 2005.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 373

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 373

Hayes;5 Na’aman;6 Knauf;7 Finkelstein and Silberman8). The «view

from the center» group is far from being homogeneous; evidently, I am
describing here only my understanding of it.
As could have been expected, the expansion of the critical ap-
proach, especially the one «from the center» – which has been con-
ceived, in a way, as posing a greater threat – brought about a series of
attempts to prove it wrong and re-establish a conservative reconstruc-
tion of the history of Ancient Israel. Ironically, though the neo-tradi-
tionalists are all archaeologists, their interpretation is text-based; their
advances can be seen as a revival of the Albright school’s assault on late
19th/early 20th century developments in critical biblical research in
Europe and yet again, they come from different cultural milieus. The
current conservative trend is best demonstrated by recent claims that:
– The palace of King David has been found in the City of David in
Jerusalem (E. Mazar; but see rejoinder in Finkelstein et al.);9
– Finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah provide evidence for a
developed kingdom in Judah in the 10th century BCE and can be read
against the background of biblical texts ostensibly describing events
which had taken place at that time (e.g., Garfinkel et al.; rejoinders in
Na’aman; Finkelstein and Fantalkin);10 the ostracon retrieved there
demonstrates the possibility of composition of biblical texts as early as
the 10th century BCE (Galil; Puech; rejoinders in Rollston; Millard);11

5 J.M. MILLER – J.H. HAYES, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Louisville, TN
2006.
6 N. NA’AMAN, «Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria», in Tel Aviv 21(1994), 235-254.
7 E.A. KNAUF, Data and Debates: Essays in the History and Culture of Israel and its
Neighbors in Antiquity, Münster 2013.
8 I. FINKELSTEIN – N.A. SILBERMAN, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision

of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, New York 2001.
9 E. MAZAR, Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the

Visitors Center Area, Jerusalem 2007; ID., The Palace of King David, Excavations at the
Summit of the City of David, Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005-2007, Jerusalem 2009;
I. FINKELSTEIN – Z. HERZOG – L. SINGER-AVITZ – D. USSISHKIN, «Has the Palace of King
David in Jerusalem been Found?», in Tel Aviv 34(2007), 142-164.
10 Y. GARFINKEL – S. GANOR – M. HASEL, «The Contribution of Khirbet Qeiyafa to

Our Understanding of the Iron Age Period», in Strata. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel
Archaeological Society 28(2010), 39-54; N. NA’AMAN, «Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context», in
UF 42(2012), 497-526; I. FINKELSTEIN – A. FANTALKIN, «Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Un-
sensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation», in Tel Aviv 39(2012), 38-63.
11 G. GALIL, «The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa/Netafim», in UF

41(2009), 193-242; É. PUECH, «L’Ostracon de Khirbet Qeyafa et les débuts de la royauté

en Israël», in RB 117(2010), 162-184; C. ROLLSTON, «The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon:
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 374

374 RivB LXIII (2015)

– Copper production at Khirbet en-Nahas and Timna in the

Arabah is connected to the economic endeavors of King Solomon (e.g.,
Levy et al., returning to Glueck’s ideas about Solomon the copper king
without a single piece of evidence for the presence of Judah there).12
More subtle but no less misleading are interpretations of sets of da-
ta from past excavations, for instance regarding the «Israelite fortress-
es» in the Negev Highlands (Faust; proven wrong by recent radiocar-
bon dates that put the sites in the 9th century BCE – Boaretto et al.),13
and concerning an ostensible change in the settlement patterns of the
10th century BCE which was interpreted as indicating organization of
a developed kingdom in Ancient Israel (Faust).14 Both examples
demonstrate incorrect methodology, because they select and set the
data in a way that leads to the requested result.15
Apart from the uncritical approach to the biblical text, in all these
cases the reader should note another methodological problem: where
and how to draw the line between archaeological facts on (or rather,
under) the ground and interpretation of the text.

How to «View from the Center»?

Let me begin by saying that the researcher must detach him/herself
from the «historical concepts» of the biblical authors. Traditional bib-
lical archaeology and reconstruction of the history of Ancient Israel
are based on accepting the most basic perception of the author of the
text – that the history of Ancient Israel from the patriarchs in Genesis

Methodological Musings and Caveats», in Tel Aviv 38(2011), 67-82; A. MILLARD, «The
Ostracon from the Days of David Found at Khirbet Qeiyafa», in Tyndale Bulletin
61(2011), 1-13.
12 T.E. LEVY – T. HIGHAM – C. BRONK RAMSEY ET AL., «High-Precision Radiocarbon

Dating and Historical Biblical Archaeology in Southern Jordan», in Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 105(2008), 16460-16465.
13 A. FAUST, «The Negev “Fortresses” in Context: Reexamining the “Fortress”

Phenomenon in Light of General Settlement Processes of the Eleventh-Tenth Centuries

B.C.E.», in Journal of the American Oriental Society 126(2006), 135-160; E. BOARETTO
– I. FINKELSTEIN – R. SHAHACK-GROSS, «Radiocarbon Results from the Iron IIA Site of
Atar Haroa in the Negev Highlands and their Archaeological and Historical
Implications», in Radiocarbon 52(2010),1-12.
14 A. FAUST, «Abandonment, Urbanization, Resettlement and the Formation of the

Israelite State», in Near Eastern Archaelogy 66(2003),147-161.

15 Cf. I. FINKELSTEIN, «[De]formation of the Israelite State: A Rejoinder on

Methodology», in Near Eastern Archaeology 68(2005), 202-208.

RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 375

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 375

to the Return in Ezra and Nehemiah is a genuine description of a se-

quential history of the nation. This is not the case;16 I look at biblical
history from a point of view once described by the French annals
scholar Marc Bloch as histoire regressive. The idea is that in a situation
of uncertainty (and stories such as the patriarchs, Exodus, conquest
and judges clearly belong to this theme) the researcher must base
him/herself in a period for which the testimony – historical, econom-
ic, social and material culture – is well-defined, and then start recon-
structing back, step by step. In the case of Ancient Israel, the safest pe-
riod to serve as a point of departure is the time of the first authors, that
is, in late-monarchic days (more below). Keeping to the «rules» I will
describe, this reconstruction must be done with as reliable a grip as
possible over the question of transmission of traditions – oral and/or
written – and the ideological/theological goals of the authors.
In certain cases, intuitively traditional biblical archaeologists and
historians inherited another concept from the authors – that episodes
in the history of Ancient Israel were unique in the chronicles of the
Levant. The best example is the collapse at the end of the Late Bronze
Age, which was viewed as a singular event. I believe that archaeology
– especially what it tells us about settlement history – forces the re-
searcher to view the history of Canaan/Israel along the lines of anoth-
er French annals concept, that of the longuedurée. According to this
notion, many of the processes that characterize the region in the
Bronze and Iron Ages – at least until the Assyrian takeover – were of
a cyclical nature, influenced by geographical conditions. This is true
for waves of settlement and periods of decline in the highlands and the
arid zones, as well as cycles of urban growth and collapse in the low-
lands. Moreover, the history of Canaan/Israel cannot be detached from
events and processes in the surrounding lands – in the ancient Near
East and the eastern Mediterranean. The most obvious example is the
necessity to deal with destructions at the end of the Late Bronze Age
as part of the broader phenomenon of the «Crisis Years» in the eastern
Mediterranean.17

16 Cf. T. RÖMER, «La périodisation de l’histoire de l’Israël ancient: constructions bi-

bliques et historiques», in Atala, cultures et sciences humaines 17(2014), 87-100.
17 W.A. WARD – M. SHARP JOUKOWSKY (edd.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century

B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, IA 1992.

RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 376

376 RivB LXIII (2015)

The crucial question, of course, is what to do when archaeology and

the biblical text provide conflicting stories. In such a case, which of the
two has the upper hand?18 For archaeology, two factors are dominant:
1) intensity of the evidence, including size of the area exposed and good
representation of the different parts of the settlement, in the case of a
large site; 2) good control over the data; only in the case of secure
stratigraphy, clear ceramic assemblage and good radiocarbon dates
does archaeology provide reliable, unbiased, real-time evidence. Yet, it
goes without saying that even in near perfect conditions the archaeo-
logical evidence may be open to different cultural and historical inter-
pretations. Regarding the text the most important question is the time
distance between the ostensible events described and the time of com-
position. In the case of chronological proximity and texts of a chronis-
tic nature (that is, free of theological stances expressed in, e.g., speech-
es and prophecies), the text may be regarded as providing dependable
evidence. When the ostensible events are centuries earlier than the time
of authorship, and the account is not chronistic in nature, the text is less
likely to provide reliable testimony of the past. All this means that in
the case of Ancient Israel we are not dealing with a black-and-white
situation and there is no single, check-list attitude to the question of
historicity; each case must be dealt with according to its specific cir-
cumstances (examples below).
Having set the stage, I now wish to turn to what I see as the basic
rules of thumb that must be taken into consideration when dealing
with biblical history.

It’s All About Dating

In order to properly use archaeology in historical reconstruction
one needs to be in full control of absolute chronology. By «full con-
trol» I mean that the finds must come from secure stratigraphic con-
text, with good command of relative chronology, that is, of the ceram-
ic assemblage that originates from this context. Since the association of

18 See discussion in N. NA’AMAN, «Does Archaeology Really Deserve the Status of

A ‘High Court’ in Biblical and Historical Research?», in B. BECKING – L.L. GRABBE

(edd.), Between Evidence and Ideology (Oudtestamentische Studien 59), Leiden 2010,
165-183; I. FINKELSTEIN, «Archaeology as High Court in Ancient Israelite History: A
Reply to Nadav Na’aman», in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10(2011), Article 19.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 377

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 377

a historical event with archaeological finds such as destruction layers

is a tricky endeavor, and since some of the biblical texts on which
scholars build their theories cannot be dealt with as straightforward
historical accounts, reliable and independent absolute chronology is
mandatory. It can be achieved mainly by deploying a rigorous pro-
gram of radiocarbon dating.
The problem is that radiocarbon dating typically results in an un-
certainty of several decades, which – in the case of biblical history –
may lead to utterly different historical reconstructions. One obvious
example is the dating of the late Iron IIA palaces at Megiddo: a differ-
ence of 70-80 years (say, between ca. 940 and 860 BCE) puts them in
utterly different settings – either at the time of the supposed United
Monarchy or in the days of the Omride Dynasty of the Northern
Kingdom. An even tighter situation is the dating of finds in the north
to the first or second half of the 9th century (e.g., between ca. 850 and
830 BCE!) – the former in the days of the Omrides and the latter in the
period of Damascene hegemony in the region. A third example is the
dating of activity in the Negev Highlands sites; putting their main pe-
riod of occupation in the mid-10th century or in the first half to the
middle of the 9th century results in a different geo-political situation
vis-á-vis the Sheshonq I campaign, copper production in the Arabah
and the period of Damascene hegemony in the southern Levant.19
Here, then, is what needs to be done in order to deploy radiocarbon
dating successfully:
– Only short-lived samples (grain seeds, olive pits, etc.) should be
dated. Charcoal is risky because it may lead to «old wood effect», that
is, the sample may come from a piece of old timber, reused many
decades if not centuries after the tree had been felled.
– Dating according to a single radiocarbon determination is not re-
liable because a sole result can always be an outlier.
– Dating of a site should preferably be done in a sequence of ce-
ramic phases or strata, because setting the results in a Bayesian model
and imposing the stratigraphy on the data can significantly diminish

19 Cf. BOARETTO – FINKELSTEIN – SHAHACK-GROSS, «Radiocarbon Results from the

Iron IIA Site of Atar Haroa in the Negev Highlands and their Archaeological and
Historical Implications».
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 378

378 RivB LXIII (2015)

uncertainties. This can be achieved by arranging dates from different

(preferably neighboring) sites whose relative sequence can be correlat-
ed according to their pottery assemblages,20 or by deploying data for a
dense sequence of well-separated strata at a single site.21
– In the case of a single-layer site, the results should best be set in-
to a regional context, with layers representing a sequence of ceramic
phases. Note, for example, Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah: when
dated alone, the results fall in the second half of the 11th century;22
when put in context (especially versus Iron I sites in its vicinity) the
site is dated in the first half of the 10th century BCE.23
– Averaging of results can be done only when there is reason to be-
lieve that the original samples represent a short period of no more than
a few years in the history of the given settlement. If this is not the case,
the results must be plotted rather than averaged.24
Diverting from these rules may lead to mistaken dates, that is, er-
roneous historical settings.

The Israel-Judah Dichotomy

When reconstructing the history of Ancient Israel, differences be-
tween southern and northern traditions embedded in the Bible must be
taken into consideration.25 Of course, the biblical text reflects a south-
ern perspective; this is discernible, for example, in the arrangement of
the Book of Genesis: the patriarchal narrative opens with the southern

20
Cf. I. FINKELSTEIN – E. PIASETZKY, «Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers: A
Skeleton for Iron Age Chronology in the Levant», in Oxford Journal of Archaeology
28(2009), 255-274.
21 For Megiddo see M.B. TOFFOLO – E. ARIE – M.A.S. MARTIN – E. BOARETTO – I.

FINKELSTEIN, «Absolute Chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron
Ages: High-Resolution Radiocarbon Dating», in Radiocarbon 56(2014), 221-244.
22 Cf. Y. GARFINKEL – K. STREIT – S. GANOR – M.G. HASEL, «State Formation in

Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories, and Radiometric Dates at

Khirbet Qeiyafa», in Radiocarbon 54(2012), 359-369.
23 Cf. I. FINKELSTEIN – E. PIASETZKY, «Radiocarbon Dating Khirbet Qeiyafa and the

Iron I-IIA Phases in the Shephelah: Methodological Comments and a Bayesian Model»,
in Radiocarbon 57(2015), 891-907.
24 Opposing views in GARFINKEL – STREIT – GANOR – HASEL, «State Formation in

Judah», and FINKELSTEIN – PIASETZKY, «Radiocarbon Dating Khirbet Qeiyafa».

25 Cf. D.E. FLEMING, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the

Reinscribing of Tradition, Cambridge 2012.

RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 379

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 379

Abraham who is made the grandfather of the northern Jacob. In the

so-called Deuteronomistic History all northern kings are evaluated
negatively and in the Books of Chronicles the Northern Kingdom is
almost totally ignored. This southern reworking of major parts of the
Hebrew Bible has influenced scholars, who in many cases «inherited»
the southern perspective.
Yet, extra-biblical texts and archaeology both demonstrate that his-
torically, Israel had been the leading force among the Hebrew king-
doms. Israel was demographically and economically developed long
before Judah. The northern territories on both sides of the Jordan
River had already been densely settled in the Iron I, when the marginal
Judean highlands were still depleted demographically. At that time the
population ratio between the highlands parts of Israel (including the
Gilead) and Judah can be estimated at 25:1. Even in the mid-8th cen-
tury (that is, before the takeover of the Gilead by Damascus), the de-
mographic ratio between Israel and Judah can be estimated at ca. 4:1.26
Judah started developing in a significant way in the end-phase of the
late Iron IIA (late 9th century),27 and reached a real peak of prosperi-
ty only in the Iron IIB-C, that is, starting in the late 8th century
BCE.28 Population can, of course, be translated to military and eco-
nomic strength; indeed, the power of Israel in the days of the Omrides
is clearly depicted in Shalmaneser III’s list of participants in the Battle
of Qarqar in 853 BCE and hinted at in the Tel Dan and Mesha in-
scriptions; it is also portrayed in biblical references to both the reign of
the Omrides and the somewhat later days of Joash and Jeroboam II. In
addition, Israel controlled more fertile regions, such as the Jezreel
Valley, and trade routes, such as the international highway along the
coast and northern valleys and the King’s Highway in Transjordan. It
was also better connected to the coast and other neighboring regions.
All this promoted the North’s agricultural output and revenues from
trade. In short, demographically, economically, militarily and geo-po-

26 Cf. M. BROSHI – I. FINKELSTEIN, «The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II», in

BASOR 287(1992), 47-60.
27 Cf. A. FANTALKIN – I. FINKELSTEIN, «The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th

Century Earthquake: More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I-
Iron IIA», in Tel Aviv 33(2006), 18-42; O. SERGI, «Judah’s Expansion in Historical
Context», Tel Aviv 40(2013), 226-246.
28 Cf. D.W. JAMIESON-DRAKE, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah, Sheffield

1991.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 380

380 RivB LXIII (2015)

litically Israel was the dominant power during most of the time when
the two Hebrew kingdoms existed side by side. These factors must be
taken into consideration when analyzing biblical narratives.

No Evidence for Compilation of Complex Texts

before the Early 8th Century
In a recent article Benjamin Sass and I studied afresh the West
Semitic alphabetic inscriptions from the Levant that date from the Late
Bronze to the early phase of the Iron IIB, that is, until the early 8th
century BCE.29 We concluded that Hebrew inscriptions appear for the
first time in the late Iron IIA at Gath in the south and Rehob in the
north. But at that time (the 9th century BCE), apart from a single
Proto-Canaanite inscription from Jerusalem, they are not found in the
heartland of Israel and Judah. It is especially significant that not a sin-
gle Hebrew inscription comes from the major cities of the Omride pe-
riod – Megiddo, Samaria, Jezreel, Yokneam and Hazor. And the in-
scriptions that do appear in the 9th century (and before) do not testi-
fy to the ability to compose elaborate texts. Monumental stone in-
scriptions appear in the late 9th century BCE. But here again, the abil-
ity of dynastic scribes to compose royal inscriptions (or, theoretically
speaking, administrators to put together lists of commodities) cannot
be compared to an ability to author biblical texts. The first significant-
ly long and elaborate inscriptions in a genre which recalls biblical com-
positions appear in the first half of the 8th century on plaster in the
Northern Kingdom – the Tell Deir Alla Balaam text30 and a Kuntillet
Ajrud text recently interpreted by Na’aman as possibly connected to
the Exodus story.31
The observations above seem to exclude the possibility of compo-
sition of biblical texts before the first half of the 8th century BCE. This
statement includes theories regarding early Pentateuchal materials and

29 I. FINKELSTEIN – B. SASS, «The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze

II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology», in Hebrew Bible

and Ancient Israel 2(2013), 149-220.
30 Summary in S. AHITUV, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions

from the Biblical Period, Jerusalem 2008, 433-465 and bibliography on 465.
31 N. NA’AMAN, «The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Through the Lens of

Historical Research», in UF 43(2011), 1-43.

RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 381

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 381

pre-Deuteronomistic materials in the Books of Samuel such as the Rise

of David to Power and the Succession History.32 And this makes per-
fect sense historically: the sudden appearance of developed texts in the
first half of the 8th century, probably in the days of Jeroboam II, is
connected to the general prosperity in this period, early Assirian in-
fluence on the North and probably related to a re-organization of the
kingdom at that time.

Early Traditions in the Bible: How Far Back Can They Go?
What has just been said about the spread of writing may lead to a
conclusion that materials which describe events that ostensibly took
place in the early phases of the history of Ancient Israel, centuries be-
fore the compilation of biblical texts or even the ability to put texts in
writing, should be considered fictitious – an invention of the later au-
thors, aimed to advance their goals. Another way to formulate this
would be to argue that the early «history» of Ancient Israel is a-his-
torical. This statement is not accurate.
Archaeology, extra biblical texts and advanced biblical exegesis
show that the Hebrew Bible contains what I would describe as early
«memories» – historical or, preferably, quasi-historical – that originat-
ed centuries before the earliest possible date for composition of bibli-
cal texts. They would have had to be transmitted orally until they were
put in writing, and can be taken as preserving references to early his-
torical situations, though certainly not as accurate descriptions of the
past. As read today they are sometimes concealed in later textual lay-
ers and wrapped in the ideology of the period/s of the author/s. Let me
give a few examples.
The first comes from my excavations at Shiloh over three decades
ago. Archaeology has shown that Shiloh prospered in the early to mid-
dle Iron I and was utterly destroyed before the end of the period.
Radiocarbon results put this destruction in the second half of the 11th
century BCE.33 There was no significant settlement at Shiloh in the Iron

32 Cf. B. HALPERN, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, Grand

Rapids, MI 2001 (tr. it. I demoni segreti di David. Messia, assassino, traditore, re, Brescia
2004); W. DIETRICH, The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E., Atlanta,
GA 2007.
33 Cf. FINKELSTEIN – PIASETZKY, «Radiocarbon-Dated Destruction Layers».
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 382

382 RivB LXIII (2015)

II and Persian periods. Remains dating to these periods are meager and
of no special importance; they revealed no sign of a cult place or of de-
struction by fire. It is impossible, therefore, to read the Shiloh sanctu-
ary tradition against an Iron II or later background and for this reason
it is unfeasible to associate the tradition regarding the devastation of this
cult place, as related in the Book of Jeremiah, with the conquest of the
Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians in the late 8th century.34
Thus, one cannot escape the conclusion that there was a strong
memory in late-monarchic Judah of an early cult place at Shiloh. This
could have been an orally-transmitted North Israelite tradition that
reached Judah after 720 BCE. Judahite recognition of the importance
of this cult place could have catered to the ex-Israelites, who seem to
have comprised a major element in the population of Judah in late-
monarchic times (below). At the same time, the biblical tradition in
Jeremiah takes a strictly Judahite point of view in subordinating Shiloh
to Jerusalem. The stories regarding the sinful behavior of the priests at
Shiloh, the defeat of Israel and the transfer of the Ark from Shiloh to
Jerusalem could have served the Deuteronomistic ideology as a cultic
parallel to the rejection of Saul (and the North) and the election of
David (see also Psalm 78:60-71).35 In the case of Shiloh we have evi-
dence, then, for the preservation in the Bible of memories – vague as
they may be – of events that probably took place in the second half of
the 11th century BCE.
Other, better-known Northern traditions that belong to an early
date are embedded in the Pentateuch. The first is an early layer in the
Jacob Cycle, which seems to have originated from the area of the
Jabbok River in the Gilead. It deals with the border between Israelites
and Arameans in this region and possibly also with the foundation of
the temple at Penuel. Based on both exegetical and archaeological evi-
dence (for the latter mainly settlement patterns) Thomas Römer and I
proposed to date the (oral) origin of these stories before the middle of
the 9th century BCE.36 The Exodus narrative may have originated
from an even older tradition, which some scholars propose to associ-

34 Contra, e.g., R.A. PEARCE, «Shiloh and Jer. VII 12, 14 and 15», in VT 23(1973),

105-108.
35 MILLER – HAYES, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 133.
36 I. FINKELSTEIN – T. RÖMER, «Comments on the Historical Background of the

Jacob Narrative in Genesis», in ZAW 126(2014), 317-338.

RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 383

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 383

ate with the geo-political situation in the Levant at the end of the
Middle Bronze Age37 or in the Late Bronze Age.38 Evidently, both tra-
ditions have later layers, which include their incorporation into late-
monarchic Judah and then a post-exilic tier. A good example of early
memories that found their way into relatively late compilations is the
Moab narratives in Numbers 21–22. These chapters preserve traditions
related to the Israelite conquest of the mishor of Moab in the days of
the Omride Dynasty, traditions which are supported by both archae-
ological finds39 and the Mesha Inscription.40
The Books of Samuel include pre-Deuteronomistic traditions that
come from both the North and the South.41 Regarding the former I re-
fer to what I would call the «positive» Saul narrative. The stories are
focused on the highlands of Benjamin and the area of the Jabbok,
demonstrating close similarity to places listed by Sheshonq I following
his campaign in Canaan in the second half of the 10th century. The
highlands of Benjamin feature a system of fortified sites dated to that
century, possibly testifying to its being the hub of an early territorial
polity.
The early Southern tradition in Samuel deals with the Shephelah and
the southern (fringe) sector of the Judean highlands. The Rise of David
to Power narrative puts Gath as the most important of the Philistine
cities. Gath is described as ruling over the entire southern part of the
Shephelah, from Ziklag in the southwest and the Beer-sheba Valley in
the south to the Soreq Valley in the north. Excavations at Tell es-Safi –
the location of biblical Gath – show that in the first half of the 9th cen-
tury BCE it was the largest and probably most prosperous city in the
southern lowlands. It was violently destroyed in the late 9th century,
probably by Hazael king of Damascus, and never fully recovered from

37 Cf. D.B. REDFORD, «An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative», in

A.F. RAINEY (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the
Biblical Period, Tel Aviv 1987, 137-161.
38 M. BIETAK, «Comments on the “Exodus”», in RAINEY (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai,

163-171; R. HENDEL, «The Exodus in Biblical Memory», in JBL 120(2001), 601-608; N.

NA’AMAN, «The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historiographical
Composition», in Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 11(2011), 39-69.
39 Cf. I. FINKELSTEIN – O. LIPSCHITS, «The Genesis of Moab», in Levant 43(2011),

139-152.
40 Cf. A. LEMAIRE, «The Mesha Stele and the Omri Dynasty», in L.L. GRABBE (ed.),

Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty, London 2007, 135-144.
41 HALPERN, David’s Secret Demons; DIETRICH, The Early Monarchy in Israel.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 384

384 RivB LXIII (2015)

this event.42 According to the Great Summary Inscription of Sargon II,

in the late 8th century Gath was a subordinate of Ashdod, and it does
not appear among the Philistine cities in early 7th century Assyrian
sources and in late-monarchic prophetic works. The dominant role of
Gath in the early David material must therefore represent a pre-
840/830 BCE reality.43 Preservation of what can be described as «Apiru
ambiance» in the Rise of David to Power narrative44 must also predate
the late 9th century, when the Judahite settlement system expanded to
the area south of Hebron; in other words, it is reasonable to assume
that by the middle of the 9th century, there was no longer room for ac-
tivity of Apiru bands in this region.
Not all narratives that describe the early days of Ancient Israel have
a historical germ in them. Not a single tradition in the Conquest sto-
ries in the Book of Joshua can safely be associated with events that
took place at the end of the Late Bronze Age, not to mention that
many of the sites referred to had not been inhabited at all at that time.
Still, even in this case some stories may preserve old roots. I do not re-
fer here to the example cited by many – the reference to Hazor as for-
merly «the head of all those kingdoms» (Josh 11:10); this is probably
an etiological story – a tale which «explains» the massive ruin of an-
cient Hazor as observed by the locals in the later phases of the Iron
Age. But reference to turmoil in the Jezreel Valley may be a reminis-
cence of unrest at the end of the Late Bronze (late 12th century BCE)
and more so to the end of the late Iron I (the 10th century BCE), when
many of the centers in the region were attacked and put to the torch.
I wish to summarize this brief discussion of materials in the Bible
representing early phases in the history of Ancient Israel with two
comments: First, many of these old materials came from the North,
which had a more significant population, emerged to dominance earli-
er than Judah and was probably capable of composing complex texts

42 A.M. MAEIR, «The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An

Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Safi/Gath», in VT 54(2004), 319-334; A.M.

MAEIR, «The Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project 1996-2010: Introduction,
Overview and Synopsis of Results», in ID. (ed.), Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996-2005
Seasons Volume I: Text, Wiesbaden 2012, 1-88.
43 M AEIR, «The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An

Archaeological Perspective from Tell es-Safi/Gath».

44 N. NA’AMAN, «David’s Sojourn in Keilah in Light of the Amarna Letters», in VT

60(2010), 87-97.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:29 Pagina 385

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 385

before the Southern Kingdom. Second, it is archaeology that plays an

important – not to say crucial – role in identifying such early traditions.

Accumulated Memories
Needless to say, having been transmitted over centuries, first orally
and then in writing, old memories or traditions must have absorbed lat-
er layers, which came from additions and elaborations, and which may
depict the realities of passing time. The results are texts, some extensive
and others just short references, that can be described as representing
accumulated, or to use a term from archaeology, stratified traditions.
One of the best examples of stratified traditions is the David narra-
tive in 1 Samuel. It presents realities that come from several different
historical settings. The three that look to me most obvious are men-
tioned here. As noted above, the core story describes David and his
band as mercenaries active on the arid fringe of Judah south of Hebron
and on the border of Philistine Gath. This material represents a phase
in the history of the region before the demographic (and hence also ad-
ministrative) expansion of Judah into these areas, that is, before the late
Iron IIA (in this case probably before the later phase of the period in
the second half of the 9th century BCE). Descriptions of wars con-
ducted by King David seem to portray realities of later times when the
territorial kingdoms of the Levant – including their armies – have al-
ready been consolidated.45 A still later layer is embedded with refer-
ences to the Philistines as Greek mercenaries and is characterized by
Deuteronomistic language; therefore, it fits a situation not before the
late 7th century BCE.46
I regard the Solomon chapters in the same way. The early section (1
Kings 1–2) belongs to the Succession History which may depict late
8th century needs. The traditions that portray Solomon as a great
monarch – builder and merchant – reflect realities of both the 8th cen-
tury before the fall of the North and the following «Assyrian century»
in the history of Judah. The reference to Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer
as important centers of Solomon’s kingdom (1Kings 9:15), the descrip-

45 Cf. N. NA’AMAN, «In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with
Israel’s Neighbors», in IEJ 52(2002), 200-224.
46 On all this I. FINKELSTEIN – N.A. SILBERMAN, David and Solomon: In Search of the

Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, New York 2006.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:30 Pagina 386

386 RivB LXIII (2015)

tions of his horses and stables, as well as the reality behind the story of
cities given to Hiram king of Tyre must come from the Northern
Kingdom. But stories such as the visit of the queen of Sheba and trade
expeditions sailing off from Ezion-geber reflect the participation of
Judah in the Assyrian-led Arabian trade, probably in the days of
Manasseh – a period of great prosperity in the South. Finally, the con-
demnation of Solomon in 1Kings 11 portrays an unmistaken Deute-
ronomistic tone of the late 7th century, that is, after the Assyrian with-
drawal. These layers represent not only different historical stage-set-
tings but also different ideologies.
A good example of a short, accumulated tradition is the reference
to Aram Beth-rehob and [Aram] Zobah in 2Samuel 10:6-8 and 2Sam
8:3, 5, 12. The author created a story here from separate memories that
come from different centuries. Hadadezer probably refers to
Hadadidri king of Damascus, the ally of Ahab in the battle of Qarqar.
The idea of a strong Aramean king hostile to Israel seemingly refers to
the figure of Hazael.47 Rehob in the Beth-shean Valley – probably a
late-Canaanite city-state (Aramean-influenced from the point of view
of material culture) – is confused with Beth-rehob in the Beqa of
Lebanon, which could not have survived as an independent principal-
ity after the Damascene expansion to the west in the second half of the
9th century BCE. This confusion probably stems from the importance
of Zobah=Subat as an Assyrian administration center in the days of
Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II. And all this is «telescoped» back to
the 10th century by a late 7th century BCE author.

How Were Old Northern Traditions Preserved

and Transferred to Judah?
A major riddle is, how were old stories preserved, especially during
the time before they were put in writing? One possibility is that they
were kept (first orally and then in a written form) in regional shrines,
which preserved and promoted local traditions. For instance, the Jacob
Gilead cycle may have been preserved at the Temple of Penuel, the
Exodus narrative could have been venerated at Samaria and early tra-
ditions regarding the presence of Israel in the mishor of Moab could

47Cf. NA’AMAN, «In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with
Israel’s Neighbors».
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:30 Pagina 387

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 387

have been memorized at Nebo, referred to as a location of an Israelite

shrine in the Mesha Inscription. Viewing this from the perspective of
what I noted above regarding the history of scribal activity, this seems
to indicate that the transition from oral to written tradition should be
placed sometime around 800 BCE or slightly later in Israel and per-
haps the late 8th century in Judah. In the North, historical considera-
tions seem to point to the days of Jeroboam II, when Israel reached its
peak prosperity and when the kingdom was apparently re-organized,
including «centralization» of the cult in several regional shrines.48 In
the South transition to written traditions may have taken place some-
what later under Assyrian domination.
The second question – when and how Israelite traditions «migrat-
ed» to Judah – is essential for reconstructing the history of Ancient
Israel and, in fact, for establishing a foundation for understanding the
composition of the Hebrew Bible. This is so because of the large num-
ber of such traditions and their relatively early date (above). This is
connected to another issue – why these traditions – some of them hos-
tile to Judah – were incorporated into the Southern canon; after all,
Judahite authors could have simply ignored the North, as did the au-
thor/s of Chronicles centuries later. Several scholars pointed to the pos-
sibility that Northern traditions came to the South with Israelites who
settled there in the decades after 720 BCE.49 Archaeology seems to pro-
vide support for this theory – mainly in the realm of settlement pat-
terns. I refer to the massive demographic growth in Jerusalem in par-
ticular and Judah in general in the late 8th/early 7th centuries BCE. As
far as I can judge the demographic transformation of Judah cannot be
explained otherwise.50 And this population upheaval could have been
the trigger for the rise of the pan-Israelite ideology in Judah. In its ear-
ly days, under the domination of Assyria, it was pan-Israelite within –

48 N. NA’AMAN, «The Abandonment of Cult Places in the Kingdoms of Israel and

Judah as Acts of Cult Reform», in UF 34(2002), 585-602.

49 M. BROSHI, «The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and

Manasseh», in IEJ 24(1974), 21-26; K. VAN DER TOORN, Family Religion in Babylonia,
Syria and Israel, Leiden 1996, 339-372; W.M. SCHNIEDEWIND, How the Bible Became a
Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel, Cambridge 2004.
50 For the debate over this matter see I. FINKELSTEIN – N.A. SILBERMAN, «Temple and

Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology»,
in JSOT 30(2006), 259-285; N. NA’AMAN, «When and How did Jerusalem become a
Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth-Seventh
Centuries B.C.E.», in BASOR 347(2007), 21-56.
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:30 Pagina 388

388 RivB LXIII (2015)

directed at the new mix of Judahite and Israelites in the Southern

Kingdom, in an attempt to create a shared identity. Only later, after the
Assyrian withdrawal from the region, was the pan-Israelite ideology
«exported» to address Israelites who lived in the territories of the ex-
Northern Kingdom. This was the moment of the rise of the Davidic
territorial ideology that finds expression in the description of the
Golden Age of David and Solomon – the great United Monarchy to be.

Theology versus History

Evidently, the biblical description of the history of Ancient Israel is
immersed in the political ideology and theology of late-monarchic and
post-exilic authors. The question, then, is how to read this history
without succumbing to the ideological program of these authors. Of
course, the first distinction that must be made is between chronistic re-
ports and theology-laden statements, speeches and prophecies. If one
takes the story of Jeroboam I in 1Kings 12:25-29 as an example, it is
quite clear that the report about Shechem and Penuel in v. 25 is of a
chronistic nature, while vv. 26-29 are of cult-evaluation character.
Indeed archaeology indicates that Dan was probably not inhabited in
the days of Jeroboam I.51
In this connection I wish to come back to the question of whether
biblical accounts are more historical when they describe times close to
the days of the authors. Here the answer is both positive and negative.
Let me take as an example the «Assyrian century» in the history of
Judah, between ca. 730 and ca. 630 BCE. Three kings ruled in
Jerusalem at that time – Ahaz, Hezekiah and Manasseh. The frame-
work of their reigns – their dates, years on the throne and connection
to Assyrian monarchs – is fully historical, but theology is obviously at
work in the manner in which their stories are told.52 Ahaz is evaluated
negatively, while archaeology demonstrates that he reigned when
Judah made its enormous progress as a densely populated, economi-
cally prospering kingdom. Hezekiah is evaluated favorably, while ar-

51
E. ARIE, «Reconsidering the Iron Age II Strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and
Historical Implications», in Tel Aviv 35(2008), 6-64. For the biblical text see A.
BERLEJUNG, «Twisting Traditions: Programmatic Absence-Theology for the Northern
Kingdom in 1 Kgs 12:26-33* (The “sin of Jeroboam”)», in Journal of Northwest Semitic
Languages 35(2009), 1-42.
52 Cf. NA’AMAN, «Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria».
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:30 Pagina 389

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 389

chaeology shows that in his time, and as a result of his erroneous de-
cision to participate in an uprising against Assyria, the Shephelah and
Beer-sheba Valley were devastated by Sennacherib; every Judahite cen-
ter excavated in these areas reveals signs of severe destruction.
Manasseh is evaluated as the most wicked and worst sinner among all
Judahite kings, whose cult behavior eventually brought about the fall
of Judah, but archaeology indicates that in his time Judah was revital-
ized, participated as a compliant vassal in the Assyrian global econo-
my, and as a result prospered as never before. At that time scribal ac-
tivity spread, and this contributed to the possibility, a few decades lat-
er, to compose the first «edition» of the Deuteronomistic History.
A major obstacle is the lack of consensus in exegetical research re-
garding the date of compilation of many (if not most) of the texts that
deal with the history of Ancient Israel. This makes it difficult to eval-
uate the gap between the alleged events and the date of compilation.
Good examples are the parts of Chronicles (mainly in 2Chr) not men-
tioned in Kings which describe ostensible historical events, such as the
war between Abijah and Jeroboam I or the invasion of Judah by Zerah
the Cushite. The date of Chronicles has long been debated, between
the 6th and 2nd centuries BCE – a span of four centuries. Evidently,
the author could have had access to genuine Iron Age materials had he
been active in the 6th or 5th century;53 less so in the 2nd century, un-
der utterly different historical circumstances.54

Summary: Landmarks in the Development

of Early Biblical History
Writing this article has been challenging enough; summarizing it is
even more so. But I do so in order to emphasize what I see as the most
important factors in the process of compilation of the history of Ancient
Israel in the Bible. Though the paragraphs below may sound devoid of
archaeological perspectives, the reader should acknowledge that modern
archaeological research stands behind almost every sentence. So here is
my ani maamin (I believe), or better, in fact, my «I suppose»:

53 F.M. CROSS, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel,
Baltimore, MD 1998.
54 I. FINKELSTEIN, «The Expansion of Judah in 2Chronicles: Territorial Legitimation

for the Hasmoneans?», in ZAW (in press).

RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:30 Pagina 390

390 RivB LXIII (2015)

The biblical description of the history of Ancient Israel includes old

«memories» which go back as early as the terminal phase of the second
millennium (in the case of Shiloh, for instance) and perhaps even earlier,
if Exodus preserves a reference to the expulsion of Asiatics from the Nile
Delta in the 16th century BCE.55 Most of these early memories come
from the North. This should come as no surprise as Israel was more
densely inhabited than Judah, more developed economically, better con-
nected to trade routes and events in the lowlands and better incorporat-
ed in the geo-political scene of the Levant. As a result the North devel-
oped advanced writing abilities earlier than the South. But Judah, too,
preserved early traditions, for instance in the story of David as a leader
of an Apiru band which acted on the southern fringe of the kingdom.
The grand leap forward came in the 8th century. I suspect that the
writing abilities demonstrated in Deir Alla and Kuntillet Ajrud of the
early 8th century are connected to reorganization of Israel in the days of
Jeroboam II – probably the greatest of the Israelite monarchs. It is logi-
cal to assume – though impossible to prove – that early Israelite tradi-
tions were put in writing for the first time during his reign. In Judah
composition of text may have started half a century later, with the incor-
poration of the kingdom as a vassal in the Assyrian empire and the be-
ginning of Assyrian economic and cultural influence; in the latter I refer
to both advanced bureaucracy and impact of Assyrian literary genres.
From the ideological and theological perspectives, biblical history
begins in 720 BCE, with the fall of Israel. Judah and Israel – kingdoms
very different from each other in terms of the environmental conditions
and nature of population – had some common characteristics in their
culture, such as language, features of material culture and cult. With the
fall of Israel and the migration of many Israelites to Jerusalem and
Judah, the demographic make-up of the Southern Kingdom altered
dramatically, in the sense that Israelites became a large portion of its
population. Judah now conceived of itself as the inheritor and preserv-
er of the shared tradition of the two Hebrew kingdoms and took the
vacant name of the North – Israel – to describe the united nation under
its rule. This is the time when the pan-Israelite ideology developed for
the first time; it promoted two messages, that all Israelites must accept
the rule of the Davidic dynasty and the dominance of Jerusalem with its
Temple. For a century these ideas were advanced within Judah, among

55 Cf. REDFORD, «An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative».

RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:30 Pagina 391

I. Finkelstein, History of Ancient Israel: Archaeology and the Biblical record – the view from 2015 391

the mix Israelite-Judahite population – a sort of United Monarchy

within. And as part of efforts to «make» a new Israel in Judah, Israelite
traditions were incorporated into the Judahite texts, but were subject-
ed to Judahite ideological goals. Only with the withdrawal of Assyria
in the late 7th century – during the rule of Josiah – were these ideas «ex-
ported» to the ex-Israelite territories as an updated ideology, according
to which all Hebrews who lived both in Judah and in the territory of
the fallen Israel, «from Dan to Beer-sheba», were required to accept the
Davidides and the Jerusalem Temple in order to be part of Beney Israel.
This ideology needed a face-lift in Exilic times, after the destruction
of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic dynasty and this involved
redactions and revisions of old texts and the production of new ones.
What followed next is a riddle. The Persian period has become a fad in
biblical scholarship, with almost every biblical book proposed to have
been compiled or redacted at that time. Yet, we know almost nothing
of this period from extra-biblical sources and the archaeological evi-
dence is meager. The risk of reconstructing biblical history solely from
the biblical text – evidently an endeavor that entails circular-reasoning
– has been shown time and again regarding earlier phases in Israelite
history. And yet, scholars repeatedly fall into this trap. Can the ruins
of Jerusalem, with perhaps 500 inhabitants and not even a trace of a
single house be credited with the production of a large portion of bib-
lical literature? Can this colossal achievement be attributed to poor
Yehud with a destitute rural population of a few thousands?
Archaeology and extra-biblical sources – this time the rich Jewish
literature of the late Hellenistic period in the 2nd century BCE – seem
to indicate that much of the more specific materials for reconstructing
history in Nehemiah and Chronicles, especially lists of places, depict
realities in Hasmonean times. If and how much Hasmonean «touch»
can be identified in other books that describe the history of Ancient
Israel need to be investigated in the future with the following question
in mind: Was there an attempt to rewrite biblical history in the days of
the Hasmoneans?

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN
Faculty of Humanities
Tel Aviv University
P.O. Box 39040
Tel Aviv 6997801
Israel
[email protected]
RB 3_2015_273-464_IV bozza.qxp 22-12-2015 14:30 Pagina 392

392 RivB LXIII (2015)

Parole chiave

Storia di Israele – Archeologia e Bibbia – Ezechia – Giosia – Silo – Gero-

boamo II

Keywords

History of Israel – Archaeology and Bible – Hezekiah – Josiah – Shiloh –

Jeroboam II

Sommario

In questa riflessione sul rapporto fra archeologia e testo biblico, l’A. illustra
una sorta di «via media» che permetta di ricostruire la storia di Israele senza ca-
dere nel massimalismo o nel minimalismo. Combinando le moderne tecniche ar-
cheologiche e le teorie diffuse dalla scuola delle Annales per lo studio della sto-
ria, l’A. applica queste regole alla datazione di siti archeologici, alla trasmissione
delle tradizioni di Israele e di Giuda, alla memoria di tradizioni orali legate a per-
sonaggi come Saul o Davide o antichi santuari e infine alla rielaborazione teolo-
gica delle tradizioni israelitiche redatte durante il regno di Geroboamo II (750
a.C.) e giunte intorno al 720 a.C. con i profughi del regno del Nord a Gerusa-
lemme. Qui esse sarebbero state sussunte nella visione panisraelita nata durante
il regno di Ezechia e perfezionata durante quello di Giosia. Un’ulteriore elabo-
razione di questo materiale sarebbe avvenuta, infine, non tanto nell’oscuro e de-
presso periodo persiano, ma durante l’età asmonea.

Summary

In this study on the relationship between archaeology and the biblical text, the
author explains a sort of «via media» which allows the reconstruction of the his-
tory of Israel without falling into either maximalism or minimalism. Combining
modern archaeological techniques with the theories that come from the Annales
school for the study of history, the author applies these principles to the dating of
archaelogical sites; to the transmission of the traditions of Israel and Judah; to the
a memory of the oral traditions connected with characters such as Saul or David
and ancient sanctuaries; and, finally, to the theological re-elaboration of the
Israelite traditions edited during the reign of Jeroboam II (750 B.C.) and brought
to Jerusalem around 720 B.C. with the refugees of the Northern kingdom. Here,
they would have been taken up into the pan-Israelite vision which arose during
the reign of Hezekiah and which reached its highest form during that of Josiah.
Finally, further development of this material would have taken place, not so much
in the obscurity of the depressed Persian period but during the Hasmonean age.