The End of Biblical Minimalism?
In this case, minimalism is defined, apparently, as the belief that David and Solomon and their United Monarchy did not exist. Well, minimalists have come to that conclusion, it is true, though there is a great deal of historical methodology, archaeological data, and textual exegesis lying behind that conclusion, and no minimalist that I know would regard the existence of David et al. as an essential tenet of minimalism.
By Emeritus Professor Philip Davies
University of Sheffield, England
Seeing this epitaph on the cover of BAR (37:03, May/Jun 2011, see edited version here) immediately brought to mind one of Mark Twains celebrated sayings: The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
In this case, not only exaggerated but also so often repeated over the last 30 years that my minimalist colleagues and I (all pictured in our youth) are feeling like Lazarus.
So why is Yosef Garfinkel so brave as to cry wolf yet again, when the basic principles of what its opponents call minimalism have become so widely adopted in biblical scholarship (it would be just as weary to cite the references let alone keep up with the reading). Well, it obviously demands some misrepresentation of what minimalism is (like most previous epitaphs). Its opponents regularly choose to define it in the way they think they can most easily attack it. No wonder so many people are confused about what it is. In this case, minimalism is defined, apparently, as the belief that David and Solomon and their United Monarchy did not exist. Well, minimalists have come to that conclusion, it is true, though there is a great deal of historical methodology, archaeological data, and textual exegesis lying behind that conclusion, and no minimalist that I know would regard the existence of David et al. as an essential tenet of minimalism. Without indulging in a detailed exposition, the issue is about how, why, and when the biblical books were writtena rather larger and more complex thesis than Garfinkel seems to appreciate, and a problem of which the historicity of otherwise any individual person or event forms only a rather small part.
So lets forget about minimalism which Garfinkel clearly does not understand, and consider instead what he is writing about, which is the historicity of David and Solomon. Lets see what facts he has to persuade us with. To start with, there is the Tel Dan inscription. The historical references in the inscription and the paleography of the writing make it clear that it dates to the ninth century B.C.E. Moreover, the text specifically mentions a king of Israel and a king of the House of David. Well, no: not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact. The word bytdwd does occur, but not the word king in front. That was conjectured by the original editors.
However, such a phrase king of the house of X occurs nowhere in the Bible nor in any ancient inscription. King of does: house of does. But never together. Its just never used. So not only is the word king a guess, but a bad one. Specifically mentions is just erroneous. Go back, Mr. Garfinkel, and read the thing yourself. As for whether bytdwd means house of David, well, it might do, but actually that is not certain. I have myself written articles exploring the possibility that it is the correct reading (Davies 2008something that should always be considered) as well as articles that explain why I am not sure that it does (Davies 1994, 1995). I personally would prefer house of David because, like the Mesha inscription, to which Garfinkel also refers, it supports my contention that Judah as a political entity was unknown in the ninth century and instead there was only chiefdom bearing the name house of dwddwd, by the way, being an unlikely personal name, one without any parallel in the ancient Near East (like king of the house of ). Garfinkel is entitled to his opinion that these clear [his term] references mean a dynasty of David if he likes, but it is a clear opinion, and not a clear fact, or any sort of fact. Yet Garfinkel continues this lead to the collapse of the minimalist paradigm.
Well, if he thinks so, he is a very small minority. It did no such thing, as any competent reader of current biblical research knows. Someone with such a shaky grasp of certainty and who cannot tell facts from opinions really should not be writing such comments. From such a careless and overblown writer the accusation that minimalists have groundless arguments masquerading as scientific writing is pretty laughable. I dont mind him enjoying his private illusion, nor his wishful thinking, and I dont even mind the bitterness of his rhetoric because it is so evidently hollow and from someone unable to distinguish truth from fact and unable to comprehend the position he claims to declare at an end.
Ill leave out most of Garfinkels attack on Israel Finkelstein who is more than capable of looking after himself. But since Finkelstein himself takes minimalist arguments quite seriously, as long as he remains one of the most preeminent respected archaeologists currently working, it is somewhat rash, not to say ignorant, to suggest that minimalism is at an end. Not while Finkelstein is around! Garfinkel should ask him. I will mention just one thing, however: Garfinkel defends the high chronology against Finkelsteins low chronology with this observation: The Biblical tradition and the radiometric dating actually support each other. Placing the formation and development of the kingdom of Israel earlier than the kingdom of Judah, as the proponents of the Low Chronology have done, is simply another modern myth. But wait: what biblical tradition? Garfinkel states that the earliest Israelite kingdom was established in Jerusalem and that the northern kingdom was some 80 years later. Whoops! According to 1 Samuel, Saul was the first anointed king of Israel (1 Sam 10), and David served him in this capacity, well before David became king of Judah (2 Sam. 2). Before then, David was serving as a bandit chief assisting the king of Gath. No kingdom of Judah is in evidence here. Minimalists may have many faults in Garfinkels eyes, but we do at least know our Bible. Perhaps Mr. Garfinkel should stop digging for a while and start reading.
But are we safer with Garfinkels interpretation of Tell Qeiyafa? As I understand his argument, it is that there is one major fortified city here in what was later to become the territory of the kingdom of Judah. This somehow blows to smithereens the claim of Finkelstein and others that David and Solomon could not have ruled over a centralized, institutionalized kingdom since the site dates to not later than 969 B.C.E. (with 77.8% probability). But this date is unhelpful when you average the pottery from all over site, including Middle Bronze and Hellenistic! (Finkelstein himself has made this observation). As with the pottery, it is not possible to fix a date with such pinpoint accuracy, and we are reckoning with a range of over a century, which makes connections to the implied period of David as no more than possible.
What is important about the site is that it keeps open the possibility of a Judean state well before Finkelstein, others, and I think it actually began, and for that reason it is important to see just what can be learned so far. It seems to me that both Finkelstein and Garfinkel are over-anxious to defend their positions and thus exaggerating the arguments in different directions. Here I may need to remind readers that this minimalist at least does not feel at all threatened by the existence of such a city, even in Iron I (which may be its date of origin); the whole minimalist reconstruction is based on taking archaeological and biblical evidence both independently and together and in the right way (i.e., not digging with a Bible in one hand).
So it is hardly a good minimalist procedure to have a ready-made answer to what is an open question. Garfinkel believes that the city belonged to the state based in the highlands and not part of the Philistine city-states. The reasons for this he summarizes as follows: (a) no pig or dog bones were found, unlike at nearby Tell es-Safi (the ancient Philistine city of Gath); (b) the main entrance to the site faced Jerusalem; and (c) it is encircled by a double or casemate wall, unknown in Philistia.
Well, we must get the facts right. Starting from (c) I would comment (as others have, including Finkelstein) that casemate walls are found at other sites in Palestine during this time period, though the construction at Qeiyafa is on a greater scale than any of these, and none of the sites is Philistine. Again the inscription (not in the Hebrew language and not a Hebrew ostracon, as Garfinkel states, again bending the data, but in a Canaanite language and script) suggests a non-Philistine political system, as does the lack of pig or dog bones (though these are probably cultural than ethnic markers). But southern Palestine is a large place. Finkelstein has also pointed out that Ashdod Ware I pottery at the site (which Garfinkel uses to date the site to Iron IIA) is more common in the Shephelah than in the hill country, while all 11th-10th century proto-Canaanite or early Hebrew inscriptions, such as that found at Qeiyafa, have come from the Shephelah (Gezer, Izbet Sartah, Tell Zayit and not from the hill country).
Now, if these purely archaeological hints suggest a political system in the Shephelah, it is a fact that we have no literary references to a state based in the Shephelah. On the other hand, while we have literary references to a state in the highlands (strictly speaking, two states: a kingdom of Israel and a kingdom of Judah, over both of which David ruled simultaneously), the archaeological evidence for Jerusalem as the capital of such a state is highly contested. This makes for a very delicate balance. Here as a minimalist I would follow that crypto- minimalist William Dever (from whom I normally prefer to differ) and insist that we analyze and interpret the archaeology before we bring in biblical literature. Garfinkel does not agree, and that is why he is not a minimalist.
The archaeological evidence shows that the site is culturally not Philistine, and the strong fortification and proximity to Gath suggest a potentially hostile relationship. But we should make clear the difference between a political system located in Judah, to which the site points, and a kingdom of Judah, which is a more qualified concept and drawn exclusively from biblical texts (no other ancient source ever refers to a king or kingdom of Judah before the middle of the 8th century). Going from one to the other is a jump. I have no doubt that without knowing (though without carefully reading, as it seems) the books of Samuel, Yosef Garfinkel would never assume that Qeiyafa was a city belonging to a kingdom based in Jerusalem, let alone ruled by David. He can, however, rightly infer that in southern Palestine there was a strong non-Philistine political power. And given that the Bible tells him about Jerusalem, he can claim the orientation of the city gate as proof, presumably on the grounds that a road led directly between the two cities. Given the distance between the two, this is speculative: lets just say the gate is on the east, and the main road runs away from Philistine territory. This does not altogether surprise me.
It is only fair to point out that Garfinkel concedes the lack of fortified urban centers in the northern highlands, and therefore refrains from asserting on archaeological grounds that there was a United Monarchy. But there are no other fortified urban centers in Judah from the time he places the foundation of Qeiyafa, either. If this is the only one, perhaps it was either the capital of a geographical state itself, or even a city state. Before we speak of a kingdom of Judah dont we need evidence of other cities that point to such a kingdom? Maybe such evidence will come, and as a good minimalist I always welcome new evidence. Garfinkel is entitled to speculate that it provides evidence of a Davidic kingdom of Judah. Sorry, I cant see it. Maybe it will come to light. Meanwhile, lets calm down. I want to hear as much as I can about Qeiyafa and I suggest Garfinkel read about minimalism before he writes any more on the subject.
Philip R. Davies
1994 A House Built on Sand. Biblical Archaeology Review 20: 54-55.
1995 Bytdwd and Swkt Dwyd: A Comparison. JSOT 64 (1995) pp. 23-4.
2008 The Beginnings of the Kingdom of Judah in José Enrique Aguilar Chiu, Kieran J. O'Mahony and Maurice Roger (eds), Bible et Terre Sainte: Mélanges Marcel Beaudry, Bern: Peter Lang, 2008.
But also note the Dutch archaeologist Margreet Steiner in a discussion with Jane Cahill. The exchange "it was there" -- "it was not there".
And I don't think that people like Ussishkin, Herzog, and for that matter Finkelstein know less about pottery than Cahill does.
As to Jerusalem before Sennacherib: Maybe the word "city" is the wrong thing here. It is much more like a fortified place: Eine "Festung" or "Burg" (sounds better and more correct in German).
Personally, I have problems in accepting Dr. Levy's material. Again, only a secure pottery chronology can help, but as Tom wrote on one of the internet lists(ANE-2), such a chronology is not available. Even if there was mining in the 10th century (there was also before), who know who did the mining at that time. An Israelite empire, a kingdom of David, the Egyptians. To be true, the only evidence in favor of an Israelite activity may be the Bible, and then we are back to the usual Bible and spade archaeology.
So far I will remain with the "minimalist" opinion that there was no political structure in southern Palestine in the 10th century, and stay with people who thinks that the greatness of Jerusalem belongs to another age, and especially to the fantasy of biblical writers.
Finkelstein believes that Jerusalem began to expand considerable only after Sargon's conquest of Samaria, following a lead by Albrecht Alt. It was hardly the case, as--if I am not wrong--Samaria was not destroyed. But it is a necessary assumption to support the idea of an early Deuteronomism. However, it is much more likely that the expansion began after 701, when Sennacherib destroyed practically the whole territory of Hezekiah, including the big city of Lachish.
Contrary to many people, minimalism is not about specific results, it is about an attitude. Some years ago, Philip and I was discussing an eventual publication of a book "Back to Reason: Minimalism in Biblical Studies." It did not come off, but the meaning is still the same. Minimalism is representing an attitude that does not allow a special position when discussing ancient history for the Bible. We know that we are up against a huge crowd of believers who will disagree, but we simply demand that normal humanistic scholarly procedures are followed, even if this means reducing biblical narratives to memories of the past.
Niels Peter Lemche
and that is exactly the point about David: The great king of the Bible or the bandit chief roaming the mountains of Judah (cf. Finkelstein). You cannot have both of them.
I really think that people engaging in Holy Land archaeology should have a sightseeing tour of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Syria. Just to get an impression of scale. That might help them to a more realistic idea about the Palestinian society, not only in the Iron Age, but in general.
Some day it will be possible again to go to these countries.
Niels Peter Lemche
when you are introducing a person like Herzog in this discussion, please cjeck with their recent standpoints, and not something they wrote thirty years ago:
I do not think that Zeøev Herzog has changed over this.
That said, it seems to me that we have two kinds of account of the UM, one Biblical and one where historians and archaeologists interpret their research. All these interpretations are open to point-by-point controversy, just as we find in other similar matters. Some of them are meant to make the Biblical story seem plausible. But very rarely do they genuinely and logically imply the truth of something that the Bible says. We hear that there were fortresses overhanging Philistia, that there was considerable economic activity in Edom, that Shishak caused disruption. Yet we read that it was Egyptian forces that captured Gezer, which I understand is only 30-odd km. from Jerusalem, and handed the place over to Solomon: no single picture of the wild western frontier is painted. We read that the policy of the UM towards Edom was one of depopulation. Joab and 'all Israel'had spent 6 months eliminating every man jack of the Edomites, except for a few who escaped to Egypt. (This is one of the very frightening stories.) We do not read of Shishak as a destroyer but as one who sought tribute, with no obvious reason to eliminate the economic activity that made tribute possible.
If we say 'the UM existed' we mean that there is probably, as a scientific matter, a substantial element of truth in what we read. But it is with monarchies as it is with monarchs - thinking that there must be a substantial element of truth and thinking that we have a definite and detailed picture, validated by scientific enquiry, are not the same thing.
There is also some difficulty in expecting the sober language of archaeology to imply propositions belonging to the heightened, near poetic language of a text whose genre is that of sacred literature.
However, just in case: The idea that Palestine became Palestine in Roman times is wrong. Already the Assyrians referred to the land as Palestine, and certainly Herodotus did: The area between Syria and Egypt. He also talked about Syrian Palestine. But maybe you prefer Syria to Palestine?
Use the form below to submit a new comment. Comments are moderated
and logged, and may be edited. You must provide your full name.
Inappropriate material will not be posted.