Speaking about material culture, we need to admit that the southern Levant was a marginal, backwater of the great Ancient Near Eastern civilizations. It has no outstanding monuments, no great archives and no beautiful art-treasures. As an archaeologist, I can disclose to you the sad fact that the people of the southern Levant were not capable of constructing a straight wall, or manufacturing a museum-piece object. The importance of archaeology in this part of the world stems from one thing only – the Bible – the Old and New Testaments. The world is interested in what we are doing, universities open positions, students come to dig with us and the media is enthusiastic to uncritically report every outrageous bit of babble or spin that issues forth from our mouths, only because we work in the cradle of Western Civilization. How to deal with biblical historiography is a different matter.
I see myself as being lucky on three fronts: to deal with the archaeology of such an important region, to focus on important periods related to the rise of Judeo-Christian civilization, and because of timing. Speaking about timing, I reached the frontline of research into the history of Ancient Israel when the traditional fortress of biblical archaeology started crumbling, enabling one to think differently and freely without being crushed by “authority” – the Thought Police. Many of us were there when the time was ripe; only some of us grabbed the opportunity. Make no mistake, there were endless attempts to stop me and others like me, with all sorts of “tricks and schticks,” some funny and others less so.
On the funny side, I remember giving a keynote address on archaeology and biblical historiography in an annual meeting of ASOR years ago; at the end of my talk, a respectable professor rose and asked: “what makes you say all this?” My answer was: “research my dear; but what makes you ask this question?” On the less funny side, I recall a conference some 20 years ago, when a self-declared Authority in our profession came to the stage saying: “well, Finkelstein is a good researcher, but note that what he said today all comes from current politics in Israel.” This was one of the rare moments in my career when I was (almost) left speechless. How could I answer this malicious remark other than noting that I cannot recall this professor standing next to me when I cast my ballot in the last election at home.
One of the most popular tools of intimidation was to declare, in deep Voice of Authority: “Finkelstein stands alone, all other leading archaeologists think differently.” Hearing this has always been a sweet moment when it became crystal-clear to me that I am on the right track, for three reasons: First, this was the moment to evaluate the stature of the Authority, and how to pose it gently – it was less than, say, Wellhausen’s. Second, I listed those whom Authority valued as “all other” archaeologists, and this was relieving: on one hand, the list has never been too nerve-wracking; on the other hand, I have never been truly alone; there have been good researchers, mainly young people, standing with me. Third and most important, as we all know, “standing alone” does not necessarily mean thinking incorrectly; in all fields of knowledge, imposing scholars have stood alone, unintimidated by majority opinion, and after what may have been arduous times, have come to prevail.
Let me elaborate on the meaning of “standing alone.” To start with, for the Voice of Authority, “majority” means a certain camp in the study of Ancient Israel. If Continental scholarship is considered legitimate (it is, isn’t it?), I never really stood alone. There are many sub-schools in the field of biblical historiography – one could say that their number matches the number of scholars in this field. But at the end of the day there are only two ways of thinking. The first engages in literal reading, striving to prove full historicity of the text. Accepting this path means betraying my profession by considering it a second-rate discipline, supplier of nice pictures to prove the biblical text to be fully historical. Second, the idea of devoting my career to repeating wonderful biblical verses in lesser modern language never looked appealing to me.
The second camp, the one to which I belong, puts archaeology in the front seat, as supplier of real-time evidence. And it looks at the history of the biblical authors rather than the historicity of biblically described events; these authors lived centuries after many of the text-described events ostensibly took place and self-evidently promote the ideology and theology of their own time and place. If this is considered the minority, I can only be relieved not to belong to the majority!
Now, among the “majority” scholars, two types are noteworthy. The first can be described as the guardians of the true faith. They are good archaeologists, invaluable collectors and publishers of data. But they see their mission in — and devote their career to— maintenance: sustaining conventional wisdoms. The second are those who go to the field with a theory and – lo and behold – always find the desired evidence to prove it. Poor me, I have never managed to find what I was looking for in the field. For me, the finds have always proven to be complicated, introducing new questions and calling for fresh thinking. Is something wrong with me? Either I am an incompetent excavator or the others are – how to say it gently – ignoring complicated situations. Well, beyond the fact that I sort of don’t like the former possibility, the answer is simple: this is the very essence of archaeology; it never supplies simplistic “proofs.” Incidentally, this last summer I escaped a compromising situation: I went to dig at Kiriath-jearim with a theory, and right at the beginning of the project I ostensibly found support for it in the field. This was terrifying. I was relieved when later things became confused.
Pingback: Friday Varia and Quick Hits | The Archaeology of the Mediterranean World