In Search of King David’s Lost Empire(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
In Search of King David’s Lost Empire
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/29/in-search-of-king-davids-lost-empire
7 comments
yawn
Choose your opinions, present them as fact. Back them up with nothing.
I worked on a dig in Israel. It was interesting.
Among other things I learnt about archeology, history, facts, opinions, and bias, is that that most what is in popular press is grounded in belief, not fact.
And that Finklestein is not respected by his peers. This article doesn't make me think any higher of him.
Choose your opinions, present them as fact. Back them up with nothing.
I worked on a dig in Israel. It was interesting.
Among other things I learnt about archeology, history, facts, opinions, and bias, is that that most what is in popular press is grounded in belief, not fact.
And that Finklestein is not respected by his peers. This article doesn't make me think any higher of him.
Finklestein's peers are mostly paid to establish the truth of biblical stories. That's why they don't like him.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Biblical story hardly paints David and Solomon in a positive light. Solomon is portrayed as very oppressive, and David gets a whole bunch of crimes, in particular being this close to treason. In whose interest is that?
The Judaen Kingdom should have known basic information about its history, lying from whole cloth or portraying its founders in that light isn't very useful to them. Everyone else who comes to rule that area later is made to be illegitimate (by implication) and it's not in the interests of the religious classes either (usually not big on rebellion, except the Hasmonean which never claimed to be descended from David and had their own text).
I think reading Kings as a ancient text with all the typical flaws for the time is the right way to go about it, and the only way we can piece together the evidence (for now, barring some new discovery). Many ancient texts give absurdly inflated counts for armies engaged in battle, but we usually don't follow that by "battle never happened".
The Judaen Kingdom should have known basic information about its history, lying from whole cloth or portraying its founders in that light isn't very useful to them. Everyone else who comes to rule that area later is made to be illegitimate (by implication) and it's not in the interests of the religious classes either (usually not big on rebellion, except the Hasmonean which never claimed to be descended from David and had their own text).
I think reading Kings as a ancient text with all the typical flaws for the time is the right way to go about it, and the only way we can piece together the evidence (for now, barring some new discovery). Many ancient texts give absurdly inflated counts for armies engaged in battle, but we usually don't follow that by "battle never happened".
> In these periods, our evidence will always be patchy
That's not the case for well established civilizations in the Middle East. We know a lot of archeological information about big cities and empires of the time. The "empire" of David and Solomon is just not one of these historical cases. The only place that mentions a wealthy empire run at David's time are the stories conceived by Israelites hundreds of years later.
That's not the case for well established civilizations in the Middle East. We know a lot of archeological information about big cities and empires of the time. The "empire" of David and Solomon is just not one of these historical cases. The only place that mentions a wealthy empire run at David's time are the stories conceived by Israelites hundreds of years later.
Take a super-ultra-maximalist version of Solomon's reign and draw it on a map. The "Empire" we get is small compared to known ME empires, and half of that size is because such a version could go up to Tadmor (Palmyra). If we apply a more realistic (IMHO) version, we get something tiny by Imperial standards.
In the same token, even a straight reading of the text should never give us the term "Empire" regarding David. His Kingdom fights against the very close neighbours and often wins, but is prone to drought and civil war. Even winning fights against close neighbours isn't much of an indication of Empire - when the US wants something from Mexico, it doesn't have to fight for it.
So I agree with you, but I think half of the exaggeration is due to more modern readings and (in this case) strawmen invented by people looking for something to knock down - the only person referring to "David's Empire" in the linked text is... Finklestein.
In the same token, even a straight reading of the text should never give us the term "Empire" regarding David. His Kingdom fights against the very close neighbours and often wins, but is prone to drought and civil war. Even winning fights against close neighbours isn't much of an indication of Empire - when the US wants something from Mexico, it doesn't have to fight for it.
So I agree with you, but I think half of the exaggeration is due to more modern readings and (in this case) strawmen invented by people looking for something to knock down - the only person referring to "David's Empire" in the linked text is... Finklestein.
It almost seems like every one of the personalities mentioned in the article are disrespected by their peers! As an outsider I found it very fun, but I suspect that someone with inside experience like yourself would find it quite tedious.
Levantine archeologists and philologists have recommended many of Finklestein's works to me. Some adopt his low chronology while others don't. But he seems to be respected enough—even among those who disagree with him—in that sliver of academia I'm familiar with. I'd imagine the situation may be different in environments where the the historicity of the Biblical account concerning the United Monarchy is of political or religious importance.
So a case of "I am not in acquainted with this field, so I'll believe it, but boy did that other journalist completely mischaracterize MY field"?
Based on what I hear, many biblical scholars (like many in other fields) are looking to be "edgy" by denying this or that claim and then build entire stories out of thin air based on the consequences of that denial. Meaning, a lot of the biblical scholarship that tries to be "original" ends up suppressing the best explanations in some way simply to get proverbial clicks. Like Reza Aslan.
Based on what I hear, many biblical scholars (like many in other fields) are looking to be "edgy" by denying this or that claim and then build entire stories out of thin air based on the consequences of that denial. Meaning, a lot of the biblical scholarship that tries to be "original" ends up suppressing the best explanations in some way simply to get proverbial clicks. Like Reza Aslan.
Gell-Mann Amnesia effect?
What is the current archaeological consensus about David and his kingdom?
In my educated layman guage of the field, I think midway between the minimalist and maximalists is still most respected with recent findings giving momentum to the maximalists but the maximalists are getting more inclined to over reaching claims which will likely undermine their position in the next generation or two
> In the long war over how to reconcile the Bible with historical fact, the story of David stands at ground zero.
I'd suggest the historicity of Jesus is a more profound question. Absent David, you could still try to lay claim to significant tracts of the various interpretations. For decades I'd assumed the historical record (outside the bible) was exhaustive, clear, and undisputed -- but beyond the deity aspect, there's some genuine doubt over the historical Jesus. [0]
Apropos TFA - I can recommend Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou's excellent BBC 3-episode series from 2011 called 'Bible's Buried Secrets', though I think there was a similar named US series at some point. In any case, one episode is dedicated to the question of 'Did King David's empire exist?' - I won't spoil the surprise of her conclusions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zp3j3
I'd suggest the historicity of Jesus is a more profound question. Absent David, you could still try to lay claim to significant tracts of the various interpretations. For decades I'd assumed the historical record (outside the bible) was exhaustive, clear, and undisputed -- but beyond the deity aspect, there's some genuine doubt over the historical Jesus. [0]
Apropos TFA - I can recommend Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou's excellent BBC 3-episode series from 2011 called 'Bible's Buried Secrets', though I think there was a similar named US series at some point. In any case, one episode is dedicated to the question of 'Did King David's empire exist?' - I won't spoil the surprise of her conclusions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zp3j3
There is an interesting book I read in college that address the timeline problem called "Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology" by Peter James. He makes an argument for why the timelines of some of the ancient cultures in that region are messed up.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Centuries_of_Darkness.h...
https://books.google.com/books/about/Centuries_of_Darkness.h...
Biblical archeology is hopelessly compromised as a field. The people most interested in pursuing it and funding it are the people least interested in discovering the truth, rather than confirming their own beliefs.
I think if that were true there would not be enough controversy in the field to write an article like this.
I know the Old Testament reasonably well and I think the majority of the researchers the article quotes deny a literal reading of it in one way or another.
I know the Old Testament reasonably well and I think the majority of the researchers the article quotes deny a literal reading of it in one way or another.
> I know the Old Testament reasonably well and I think the majority of the researchers the article quotes deny a literal reading of it in one way or another.
I suspect that still aligns with GP's point -- people are generally partisan on this subject, one way or another.
I suspect that still aligns with GP's point -- people are generally partisan on this subject, one way or another.
Being partisan does not guarantee you are dishonest.
Everyone has biases, but that doesn't mean we're all incapable of feeling or finding truth.
The GP said clearly that the field is broken due to everyone preferring to shore up their worldviews rather than follow the evidence.
People disagreeing with the Biblical narrative sounds like the opposite to me.
Everyone has biases, but that doesn't mean we're all incapable of feeling or finding truth.
The GP said clearly that the field is broken due to everyone preferring to shore up their worldviews rather than follow the evidence.
People disagreeing with the Biblical narrative sounds like the opposite to me.
Agree that partisan does not correlate to honesty.
I think the claim, and I agree with it, is that partisanship will affect where you look, how you look, and what you do with contradictory information.
Are you suggesting disagreement with 'the biblical narrative' indicates partisanship, or the lack of? (Or, rather, referring back to original wording - an indication of shoring up a worldview?)
I think the claim, and I agree with it, is that partisanship will affect where you look, how you look, and what you do with contradictory information.
Are you suggesting disagreement with 'the biblical narrative' indicates partisanship, or the lack of? (Or, rather, referring back to original wording - an indication of shoring up a worldview?)
s/feeling/seeking/
Because all Jews and Christians and atheists agree on the Bible?
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being stupid, but I don't understand the point you're making.
Obviously not everyone agrees on the Bible's meaning, source, or value. I'd go so far as to say no two people do (like any large document, it is possible to have an infinite variety of interpretations of it).
I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote.
I'd appreciate a clarification.
Obviously not everyone agrees on the Bible's meaning, source, or value. I'd go so far as to say no two people do (like any large document, it is possible to have an infinite variety of interpretations of it).
I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote.
I'd appreciate a clarification.
What I’m saying is that people get into the field of biblical archeology to find evidence that validates their religious viewpoints, and more particularly and insidiously people _fund_ biblical archeology for that reason — particularly Christians like the Hobby Lobby corporation that funds the museum of the Bible.
That doesn’t imply that their shouldn’t be controversy because obviously people have been killing each other over religious disputes for centuries.
It implies that biblical archeology would be an extension of religious holy wars fought on the pages of journals instead of on the battlefield.
That doesn’t imply that their shouldn’t be controversy because obviously people have been killing each other over religious disputes for centuries.
It implies that biblical archeology would be an extension of religious holy wars fought on the pages of journals instead of on the battlefield.
Okay, thanks for replying. Just noticed that you had today, skimming through my comment history.
When I said "controversy wouldn't exist", I guess that was unclear.
I meant specifically you wouldn't get people from broadly the same cultural and religious background so strongly disagreeing on how to interpret the evidence, if they were all there just to exercise confirmation bias.
Your point is a good one, and very fair. Sorry for the slow reply.
When I said "controversy wouldn't exist", I guess that was unclear.
I meant specifically you wouldn't get people from broadly the same cultural and religious background so strongly disagreeing on how to interpret the evidence, if they were all there just to exercise confirmation bias.
Your point is a good one, and very fair. Sorry for the slow reply.
There doesn't seem to be much of anything actually substantiating King David's existence. Has this changed as of late? I know it's very important to modern-day Israeli historiography.
Actually it is rather more important to Christianity. Jesus as the Messiah is predicated on his lineage from King David.
This is why the New Testament commences with proving Jesus's direct lineage from King David. Without it, Jesus is not the Messiah, and Christianity is baseless.
This is why the New Testament commences with proving Jesus's direct lineage from King David. Without it, Jesus is not the Messiah, and Christianity is baseless.
Cyrus was the Messiah, too, but nobody pretends he was descended from King David. In any case, Jesus fails most of the Messianic criteria of Second Temple Judaism. Early Christians had to significantly revise their concept of Messiah to get Jesus to fit. Indeed, the NT makes light of the fact that Jesus was not the Messiah the Jews were expecting, although it implies they were wrong.
In any case, the basis of Christianity is that Jesus was God incarnate, died for the sins of the world, rose from the dead, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. Some early Christian polemic about interpretation of then-centries-old prophesy isn't core to that. It's a problem for fundamentalism, but that's an entirely separate issue.
In any case, the basis of Christianity is that Jesus was God incarnate, died for the sins of the world, rose from the dead, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. Some early Christian polemic about interpretation of then-centries-old prophesy isn't core to that. It's a problem for fundamentalism, but that's an entirely separate issue.
I don't agree. It seems that Israeli archaeology is focused on the premise of being there first, above all else. It doesn't seem that Christians are heavily involved in Israel's archaeological program either.
Moreover measuring which imagining is more true requires speculative criteria building speculation on top of speculation.
I get religious belief, I am very religious, but to hold that an assortment of artifacts, which are still being discovered, unevenly spread by luck and chance, to hold that that proves or disproves a narrative is a leap of faith.
But aside from all that, there’s a common pattern in historical research when there is a looming central question at the center of a field, historiography swings one way heavily, then swings the other way as the excesses of the previous generation are denounced, then there is an attempt to meet in the middle, again denouncing past excesses, then the middle is seen as too wish-washy and full of false equivalence and historiography swings hard in one direction again.
For other examples of this see the history of the Cold War, history of world war 2, history of the US Civil War etc.