Solomon, Scripture, and Science at Gezer

For more than 30 years, the relationship of archaeology in Israel to biblical narratives has been plagued by the ultra-skeptical “low chronology” of Israel Finkelstein and his disciples. By reducing the monumental archaeological evidence for the early state from the tenth to the ninth or even the eighth century BCE, this scenario virtually eliminated the united monarchy or the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Mighty Solomon, in particular, was thus no more a historical figure than King Arthur.Finkelstein’s initial proposal of the low chronology in 1993 seemed harmless. After all, chronology is always debatable, even though basic. In retrospect, however, we can see that this was never really about an invitation to dialogue, much less about hard data. It was a classic propaganda scheme. Whether or not Finkelstein was actually convinced himself, the low chronology paradigm became a relentless campaign that Finkelstein launched on a trajectory that soon made him a cult figure in Israel and an international celebrity. And the entire field was distracted by the controversy for a generation. It is only in this larger context that we can understand why the new carbon-14 dates at Gezer are so significant.Finkelstein’s tactics were those of all propogandists. Invent a cause célèbre, then present yourself as its sole champion. Repeat the rally-cry tirelessly; accelerate the rhetoric; ignore the data; outshout everyone; demonize your opponents. Never debate the issue, always seize the offensive. All these tactics are evident in dozens of Finkelstein’s articles over more than 25 years.The low chronology was originally somewhat diffuse, raising questions generally about the early Iron Age, the settlement horizon, innocent enough. But by 1996 an article in Levant (Finkelstein 1996) homed in on the united monarchy, although not a biblical term, now the principal focus.Finkelstein tried to down-date all the monumental evidence for the reigns of Saul, David, and especially Solomon, from the tenth to the ninth, and even to the eighth century BCE. Thus fundamental historical texts of the Hebrew Bible were reduced to foundation myths. Now the gauntlet was thrown down. And soon the European “revisionist” biblicists, already extreme postmodernists if not nihilists, happily co-opted Finkelstein and his late dates for the biblical texts. Although he was never as extreme, he cultivated them to expand and legitimate his campaign.1Two years later, Finkelstein (1998) attacked his principal opponent, Amihai Mazar, already in his fifties one of Israel’s most preeminent archaeologists. Mazar was a “Bible archaeologist,” a naïve romantic about the united monarchy.Over the next ten years or so, Mazar—no romantic, not even religious or emotionally involved—published a series of articles. Mazar, a sober and modest scholar, always data-oriented, characteristically never responded to the increasing polemics.2 Finkelstein rarely addressed any of Mazar’s massive documentation. Other leading Israeli archaeologists, like Amnon Ben-Tor and Yossi Garfinkel in Jerusalem, and even Shlomo Bunimovitz at Tel Aviv University—Finkelstein’s bastion—opposed him, as did Avi Faust at Bar-Ilan and Raz Kletter. No European archaeologists agreed with him. In America, Larry Stager, Jack Holladay, Tom Levy, and I all challenged him.3 Yet Finkelstein continued to claim to have a majority of followers, even presented himself as a centrist.Finkelstein’s broadscale, ambitious campaign inevitably came to rewrite the history, not only of the early state but also of ancient Israel and Judah generally. In 2001 there appeared an ambitious synthesis of ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible: Unearthing the Bible: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Scriptures. Written with Neil Asher Silberman, a well published journalist and gifted writer, the book was translated into several languages and sold millions of copies. Now Finkelstein the Reformer speaks for the whole of Israeli archaeology: the “vision” is his. And he is even a pioneer in critical biblical scholarship. The revolution had triumphed.All along in the controversy, some of Finkelstein’s assertions could easily be dismissed. Philistine monochrome pottery did not appear early, in the twelfth century BCE, at Lachish. It did not appear at all because Lachish was abandoned then; no Philistines, no pottery.Israelite ashlar masonry’s dimensions were not a factor in any era of its long use, and ninth-century BCE examples at Samaria were irrelevant.Finkelstein’s contention that tenth-century BCE “Iron IIA” pottery styles could continue into the early to mid-ninth century or “Iron IIB” had some merit. But he ignored the well-known fact that red-slipped and hand-burnished pottery was almost exclusively tenth century BCE in date, as were flat-based cooking pot rims. And already in 1984 I had showed that red-washed, unburnished wares were exclusively late eleventh–tenth century BCE.4Finkelstein consistently ignored all the opposing evidence and focused increasingly on carbon-14 dates, at first not widely available or reliable. He often hinted at “forthcoming” carbon-14 dates from his excavations at Megiddo but delayed again and again.In 2004 the issue came to a head with an international symposium at Oxford on radiocarbon dating, specifically with regard to Iron Age dates, the Hebrew Bible, and ancient Israel (Levy and Higham 2005). Finkelstein brought his own physicist and gave several papers. One has only to compare Finkelstein’s handful of carbon-14 dates, few actually definitive, with Mazar’s massive number of dates from Tel Rehov—all pinning down Strata V and IV and other sites to the tenth and ninth centuries BCE. In the summary address, I stated that I would be willing to shift if new data was persuasive. In the published volume, Finkelstein wrote that Dever was coming around to his position.The tide turned more decisively in 2008, when excavations began at Khirbet Qeiyafa. This fortified barracks-town, some 40 miles southwest of Jerusalem, on the border with Philistia, provides clear evidence of a nascent state and its ability to command men and material. The distinctive pottery belongs to the tenth or even late eleventh century BCE by consensus, dated conclusively now by carbon-14 determinations. At first, Finkelstein went to some lengths to dispute the Qeiyafa data; but eventually he was forced to concede the date. Evidently, he did not foresee that this would be the death knell in his much-vaunted low chronology.As Finkelstein’s Megiddo Iron Age dates began to be published with carbon-14 determinations, beginning with Megiddo IV in 2006, it became evident that the preponderance of tenth to ninth century dates did not fit Finkelstein’s low dates. Still he persisted. But the publication of Megiddo V and VI only added weight to the conventional dates.5At Oxford and in following years, a number of published carbon-14 dates confirmed the conventional chronology not only at Megiddo but at Tel Rehov, Beth-Shemesh, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Khirbet er-Rai, Lachish, and the network of Negev border-fortresses.That should have settled the dispute, it would seem. Using the jurisprudence model, the conventional chronology had been tried before a jury of archaeological peers, and weighing the preponderance of the evidence it had been declared confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Case closed. There would be no appeal, no retrial. The principal witness was science, not Scripture.This somewhat tedious history of the low chronology paradigm and its tenacity helps to explain why the new Gezer Field IV carbon-14 dates are so significant. They institute the final nail in the coffin.Now let us go back to the biblical “proof-text” for the rise of the state, at least in Judah, 1 Kgs 9:15–17. The nearly identical monumental city walls and gates at three sites mentioned (excluding Jerusalem, unknown) would confirm general state-formation processes, which have to do not with size, but with centralization. But we have no carbon-14 dates for Hazor, even if under Judahite control in the tenth century BCE. Finkelstein did a sounding in what’s left of the old Chicago excavation in the gate, at Megiddo, but he has not published any data (why not?).That leaves the Gezer Field III casemate city walls, upper and lower gateway, and the “Palace 10,000,” or administrative complex excavated by the HUC and Tandy expeditions. It is imperative, however, to stress that the archaeological data, properly interpreted, do not confirm the biblical portrait of a larger-than-life Solomon. That is a theological construct, beyond the purview of archaeology.Early on, Finkelstein had charged that I had trumpeted a “Solomonic empire,” motivated by reading the Hebrew Bible’s historicity—I was a closet Albrightian.6The new Gezer Stratum VIII carbon-14 dates clinch our argument all along for the existence of an early Judahite state, however modest. This is not a victory for a triumphalist archaeology, much less for a literalistic reading of the Hebrew Bible. It is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply good, competent scholarship, patient, well documented. Finkelstein will never recant: his identity is involved. But there is no need for us to celebrate his defeat, which is tragic. Here was a man of enormous talent, energy, and persistence, with vast field experience, prodigiously published, in his early days a great pioneer—dazzled by a grandiose but unrealistic vision. Now he is increasingly isolated, having retired from Tel Aviv as required by law and moved his court to Haifa where he leads a new institute. His revolution has no leader, no future. This is where ideology (and hubris) ends.It is worth remembering that revolutions tend to devour those who foment them, often leaving no sustainable progress, triggering counter-revolutions. We need to move on, revising much of Finkelstein’s reworking Iron Age archaeology and writing better, more objective histories of ancient Israel and Judah.7One lesson to take away from all this is that we are too easily distracted by novel theories. Throughout the low chronology debate there were protracted discussions such as, “Where does ‘Iron IIA’ end?” Mazar suggested a new terminology, a “modified conventual chronology,” compromising by extending Iron IIA into the ninth century BCE. But “Iron IIA” does not end anywhere. It never began. It is simply a modern label, made up for our convenience. And it is no longer convenient.I suggest in passing that we need a more nuanced approach to Iron Age chronology than high or low. I would go much further. With advances in carbon-14 dating, we need to abandon the traditional phasing and switch to absolute, real-time, high-precision dates. Tinkering with arbitrary terminology is now hindering our progress. Perhaps Finkelstein’s somewhat reckless foray into chronology did us a favor after all.