Lars Wilson
2006-06-11 20:06:56 UTC
Israel Finkelstein just published a new work with co-author N.A. Silbrman
called "David and Solomon - In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the
Roots of the Western Tradition", which has some rather interesting theories
but also some very good archaeology. So I'm researching Finkelstein's work
and re-reading his previous book, "The Bible Unearthed - Archaeology's New
vision of ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts."
I'm probably putting my foot in my mouth a bit early but I think Solomon's
greatness can be reclaimed if you get the chronology right. This is what I
found in Finkelstein's book about excavations at Megiddo and Jezeel:
First of all, on page 341 he says: "This means that the last city at Megiddo
featuring remnants of Canaanite material culture cannot have been destroyed
by King David around 1000 B.C.E. Both the ceramic and CARBON-14 evidence
suggests it was still in existence several decades later -- well into the
tenth century B.C.E."
What is critical about this statement is that it is "relative" to when you
date Solomon and David. The conventional dating is based erroneously on a
single eclipse event in the Assyrian eponym dated to 763BCE which actually
occurred in 709BCE, some 54 years later. But that makes all the difference
in the world archaeologically speaking since it dates the reign of Solomon
from 910-870BCE and the invasion and destruction by Shishak to 871BCE (year
5 of Rehoboam and year 39 of Solomon). Of course, "well into the tenth
century BCE" doesn't conflict with Solomon or David necessarily would would
have reigned and began conquering from 950 BCE at the earliest. So when you
correct the pagan chronology and the related Biblical timeline, then you get
good comparisons with radiocarbon dating and pottery dating. So Finkelstein
did have cause to dismiss David dated around 1000 BCE, but not if he didn't
arrive until 950BCE, which is more accurate. So #1: No pottery or
radiocarbon-14 dating problems for the true time for David and Solomon.
But now the fun part: MEGIDDO AND JEZEEL.
Finkelstein is talking about "Jezreel, located less than ten miles to the
east of Megiddo... They uncovered a large fortified enclosure... This
palatial acropolis was destroyed a short while after it was built." He then
compares that with Megiddo, allegedly destroyed by Shishak: "The surprise
was that the pottery found in the Jezreel enclosure is identical to the
pottry of the city of palaces at Megiddo. But the latter was supposed to
have been destroyed by Pharaoah Shishak almost a century earlier! How can
we bridge this gap? There are only two possibilities here: either we pull
the building of Jezreel back to the time of Solomon, or we push the Megiddo
palaces ahead to the time of the dynasty of Ahab."
Now Finkelstein must re-think this if Shishak gets moved down to 871BCE and
we presume that these palatial buildings at Jezreel which match the palatial
level at Megiddo are the same, which the pottery proves they were and thus
would be associated with Solomon! So yes! We must pull back the
destruction of Jezreel's palatial level that already matches that of Megiddo
("identical"!) to the time of Solomon and the destruction by Shishak!
Shishak left evidence at Megiddo that he destroyed the city. Jezreel was
nearby. Both PALACES are the same level and as per Finkelstein was a
relatively new building being destroyed shortly after it was built.
That fits Solomon's history perfectly. Because Shishak's invasion occurred
in the 39th year of Solomon, so whatever he built at Jezreel wouldn't have
been all that new. So certainly, follow the archaeological evidence here
that the palatial level at Megiddo must be the same PALATIAL level at
Jezreel and thus not Ahab's palace built after that at Jezreel, which must
be on the next level up.
But here is how Solomon gets redeemed as a great builder. You've got a
PALACE at Megiddo built by Solomon and a huge palace at Jezreel from the
same level also built by Solomon. These are two PALACES in cities less
than ten miles apart far from Jerusalem!
So Solomon must have been a great king and builder since just looking at
Megiddo and Jezeel and their "palatial" levels is quite impressive and
fortunately can be linked to destruction by Shishak in 871 BCE.
So the problem for Finkelstein is that he loses much steam and volume in his
argument when the timeline gets corrected. He can't push Solomon and David
into an earlier time that he can prove they didn't belong. He must keep
them where they actually were: 950-870BCE, and must also down-date Shishak
to 871BCE. Shishak's inscription represents the state of Israel and that
representation is a well-developed and densely populated area of great
cities with wonderful palatial buildings like Megiddo and nearby Jezreel.
So to summarize Finkelstein archaeologically, his only true contradiction
with the Biblical record is the timeline. That is, what Solomon claimed to
have built did show up arcaheologically *eventually* -- it's not as if they
didn't find a single palace. In fact, they found two wonderful ones at
Megiddo and Jezreel! They are just contradicatory in relation to the
erroneous early dating of Solomon and David because of revisions during the
Persian Period that got transferred to the Assyrian Period.
So what have we learned new?
That Solomon built a fabulous palace at Jezreel that apparently got
destroyed by Shishak along with the other fabulous palace at Megiddo, and
well past the early Philistine pottery era that ends mid 10th century, right
when it should!
What is also bad news for Finkelstein since he took a few bad turns, is that
from the time of Ahab onward you have lots of pagan confirmation of what was
going on in Israel from the records of Shalmaneser III, Hazeal (Tel-Dan
Stela) and the king of Moab (Moabite stone). There is essentially little
contradiction any any of the records from the surrounding records from the
time of Ahab all the way through to the end of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.
After Nebuchadnezzar there is lots of revision but that is easily corrected
now with astrochronology and archaeological evidence at Persepolis.
What archaeologists are missing, from a historical point of view, in my
opinion is that you can't fractionalize the timeline. When you fix the
chronology of Persepolis, then you correct the chronology of Solomon. When
you get Solomon's dating right, then you get Shishak's dating right and in
turn, you get Akhenaton's dating right. The 4th year of Solomon is 480
years after the death of Amenhotep III.
But at least I want to note how much I admire Israel Finkelstein's
objectivity and not being influenced by tradition for his findings. He was
disadvantaged by the wrong overall timeline but thanks to him we have the
archaeological dating data and the radiocarbon-14 data to harmonize with the
corrected timeline, which works out perfectly now, of course!
L.W.
called "David and Solomon - In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the
Roots of the Western Tradition", which has some rather interesting theories
but also some very good archaeology. So I'm researching Finkelstein's work
and re-reading his previous book, "The Bible Unearthed - Archaeology's New
vision of ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts."
I'm probably putting my foot in my mouth a bit early but I think Solomon's
greatness can be reclaimed if you get the chronology right. This is what I
found in Finkelstein's book about excavations at Megiddo and Jezeel:
First of all, on page 341 he says: "This means that the last city at Megiddo
featuring remnants of Canaanite material culture cannot have been destroyed
by King David around 1000 B.C.E. Both the ceramic and CARBON-14 evidence
suggests it was still in existence several decades later -- well into the
tenth century B.C.E."
What is critical about this statement is that it is "relative" to when you
date Solomon and David. The conventional dating is based erroneously on a
single eclipse event in the Assyrian eponym dated to 763BCE which actually
occurred in 709BCE, some 54 years later. But that makes all the difference
in the world archaeologically speaking since it dates the reign of Solomon
from 910-870BCE and the invasion and destruction by Shishak to 871BCE (year
5 of Rehoboam and year 39 of Solomon). Of course, "well into the tenth
century BCE" doesn't conflict with Solomon or David necessarily would would
have reigned and began conquering from 950 BCE at the earliest. So when you
correct the pagan chronology and the related Biblical timeline, then you get
good comparisons with radiocarbon dating and pottery dating. So Finkelstein
did have cause to dismiss David dated around 1000 BCE, but not if he didn't
arrive until 950BCE, which is more accurate. So #1: No pottery or
radiocarbon-14 dating problems for the true time for David and Solomon.
But now the fun part: MEGIDDO AND JEZEEL.
Finkelstein is talking about "Jezreel, located less than ten miles to the
east of Megiddo... They uncovered a large fortified enclosure... This
palatial acropolis was destroyed a short while after it was built." He then
compares that with Megiddo, allegedly destroyed by Shishak: "The surprise
was that the pottery found in the Jezreel enclosure is identical to the
pottry of the city of palaces at Megiddo. But the latter was supposed to
have been destroyed by Pharaoah Shishak almost a century earlier! How can
we bridge this gap? There are only two possibilities here: either we pull
the building of Jezreel back to the time of Solomon, or we push the Megiddo
palaces ahead to the time of the dynasty of Ahab."
Now Finkelstein must re-think this if Shishak gets moved down to 871BCE and
we presume that these palatial buildings at Jezreel which match the palatial
level at Megiddo are the same, which the pottery proves they were and thus
would be associated with Solomon! So yes! We must pull back the
destruction of Jezreel's palatial level that already matches that of Megiddo
("identical"!) to the time of Solomon and the destruction by Shishak!
Shishak left evidence at Megiddo that he destroyed the city. Jezreel was
nearby. Both PALACES are the same level and as per Finkelstein was a
relatively new building being destroyed shortly after it was built.
That fits Solomon's history perfectly. Because Shishak's invasion occurred
in the 39th year of Solomon, so whatever he built at Jezreel wouldn't have
been all that new. So certainly, follow the archaeological evidence here
that the palatial level at Megiddo must be the same PALATIAL level at
Jezreel and thus not Ahab's palace built after that at Jezreel, which must
be on the next level up.
But here is how Solomon gets redeemed as a great builder. You've got a
PALACE at Megiddo built by Solomon and a huge palace at Jezreel from the
same level also built by Solomon. These are two PALACES in cities less
than ten miles apart far from Jerusalem!
So Solomon must have been a great king and builder since just looking at
Megiddo and Jezeel and their "palatial" levels is quite impressive and
fortunately can be linked to destruction by Shishak in 871 BCE.
So the problem for Finkelstein is that he loses much steam and volume in his
argument when the timeline gets corrected. He can't push Solomon and David
into an earlier time that he can prove they didn't belong. He must keep
them where they actually were: 950-870BCE, and must also down-date Shishak
to 871BCE. Shishak's inscription represents the state of Israel and that
representation is a well-developed and densely populated area of great
cities with wonderful palatial buildings like Megiddo and nearby Jezreel.
So to summarize Finkelstein archaeologically, his only true contradiction
with the Biblical record is the timeline. That is, what Solomon claimed to
have built did show up arcaheologically *eventually* -- it's not as if they
didn't find a single palace. In fact, they found two wonderful ones at
Megiddo and Jezreel! They are just contradicatory in relation to the
erroneous early dating of Solomon and David because of revisions during the
Persian Period that got transferred to the Assyrian Period.
So what have we learned new?
That Solomon built a fabulous palace at Jezreel that apparently got
destroyed by Shishak along with the other fabulous palace at Megiddo, and
well past the early Philistine pottery era that ends mid 10th century, right
when it should!
What is also bad news for Finkelstein since he took a few bad turns, is that
from the time of Ahab onward you have lots of pagan confirmation of what was
going on in Israel from the records of Shalmaneser III, Hazeal (Tel-Dan
Stela) and the king of Moab (Moabite stone). There is essentially little
contradiction any any of the records from the surrounding records from the
time of Ahab all the way through to the end of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.
After Nebuchadnezzar there is lots of revision but that is easily corrected
now with astrochronology and archaeological evidence at Persepolis.
What archaeologists are missing, from a historical point of view, in my
opinion is that you can't fractionalize the timeline. When you fix the
chronology of Persepolis, then you correct the chronology of Solomon. When
you get Solomon's dating right, then you get Shishak's dating right and in
turn, you get Akhenaton's dating right. The 4th year of Solomon is 480
years after the death of Amenhotep III.
But at least I want to note how much I admire Israel Finkelstein's
objectivity and not being influenced by tradition for his findings. He was
disadvantaged by the wrong overall timeline but thanks to him we have the
archaeological dating data and the radiocarbon-14 data to harmonize with the
corrected timeline, which works out perfectly now, of course!
L.W.