Excerpts from BAR’s interview with Israel Finkelstein

(from the Biblical Archaeology Review Website)

Finkelstein: In Early Bronze I, Megiddo was the largest site in the country; it covered an area of between 50 and 60 hectares [between 120 and 140 acres]. It was a huge site, probably at least partially fortified.

That tells you that as early as the fourth millennium, you probably already had some sort of territorial entity. You need a significant population in order to build a temple like this. You cannot establish something like this with only 300 or 400 people. You must have some sort of a central site with a countryside relationship. You already have some sort of evolution of a territorial entity, call it a chiefdom, call it an early city state, call it whatever you want. It’s the first time that we have, not on the level of theory, but on the level of what we find in the ground, definite evidence for something like this in the late fourth millennium B.C.

The site also flourished in the Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 B.C.). The city was then destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age, in the 12th century B.C. This is what we may call Canaanite Megiddo. But, when the city recovered from the shock, from the destruction, it was still Canaanite in its material culture.

Possibly one of the Sea Peoples.

Possibly. There’s no way of knowing. We don’t have an inscription saying so.

It could have been destroyed by a neighboring city state, if you wish, but I think one of the Sea Peoples is the best candidate.

Well, not according to my point of view.

I don’t know what an Israelite is in the 12th century B.C.

Yes. If you think that a gang of Apiru or Habiru, an uprooted population, or Shasu, or whatever, in the 12th century could be identified as Israel, and, that in the turmoil of the 12th century, they took over a city, then it’s a possibility. But I don’t believe in a functioning, coherent ethnic entity named Israel as early as the 12th century.

I suppose that in the Canaanite highlands, there were groups who identified themselves as Israel as early as the time of the Merneptah Stela. You do have some people identifying themselves-or being identified by the Egyptians-as Israel.

In the late 13th century, almost around 1200.

The question, however, is not whether you have a group of people, ‘Apiru or Shasu, one of whom is called Israel. The question is when something larger and more significant grew out of that, something that has a territorial aspect to it. When we speak about a territorial entity, I would say definitely by the tenth century and possibly before. But how much before, that’s a big question.

The Bible portrays mainly the realities of the time of its compilation (regarding the book of Joshua, the seventh century B.C.) and a little bit before. It also includes earlier material; there is no doubt about it. The Deuteronomistic history [Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings] includes material that reflects earlier memories. There is no doubt about that. How early, I don’t know. I mean these things are not reachable. They are beyond our knowledge. The Bible may even preserve some sort of a very vague memory or myth or folk tales about the turmoil of the 12th century. Who knows? I always say to my students that I will not go to court to say that there was a Joshua or an Abraham, and I will not go to court to say there was no Joshua or Abraham. There may have been some sort of a figure in the very ancient past. I don’t know. I can only tell you that the text we have reflects the realities and needs and, if you wish, also the propaganda, politics, ideology and theology of later periods.

Archaeology is almost completely irrelevant to that. Archaeology is relevant when somebody tells me that the patriarchal material in Genesis reflects the realities of the second millennium B.C. Then archaeology is in full steam to prove that he is wrong. Then, for instance, you can compare the names of the sites; you can go to the sites to see whether they existed at that time. There are things archaeology can contribute, but archaeology cannot recreate Abraham and archaeology cannot deny the existence of a person in the very early past.

Of course not. But the Bible in my opinion doesn’t give us any solid information about early Israel in the late second millennium B.C., except for possibly shreds of memories here and there, which I cannot trace. They are irretrievable.

My dear Hershel, let me remind you that there are two approaches to archaeology. Some archaeologists see themselves as dealing only with material culture; and this is perfectly okay with me. I see myself, however, as an historian practicing archaeology. So I’m looking at matters from a completely different point of view. I’m trying to put together all possible pieces of evidence. Archaeology is one. And from my point of view, of course, it is a central one, maybe the most important one, but not the only one. I’m looking at the same time at the Biblical text, and at other ancient Near Eastern texts.

Every text is biased, both the Bible and every other Near Eastern text. They are all written from a particular point of view.