Saturday, February 27, 2010

Finkelstein Wary About the King Solomon Wall

Oh, no, Finkelstein can't be 100% negative. It "depends". He's covering his tuches:-

How Reliable Is the Bible?

Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, who was not involved in the excavation, agrees that it's possible King Solomon constructed the wall.

But Finkelstein cautioned against leaning too heavily on the Bible to interpret the findings. Familiarity with religious or historic texts connected to any given site is important, he said, but their usefulness can vary.

"It depends upon the text. Each has its own characteristics, each needs to be approached differently," he said. "There is the question as to when it was written—300 years after, or at the time of the events? What are its goals and its ideology? Why was it written?"

Well, he's neutralized himself. Whew.

1 comment:

YMedad said...

Last Monday, I participated in a hishtalmut in Ir David... I think we were viewing and discussing the walls of David's palace (according to Eilat Mazar) about the same time that Eilat Mazar was showing the Solomon walls to the press. One thing we discussed and always do in those places is the MSA (main stream archaeologists) opinion (that's Ronnie Reich, Eli Shukrun, Dan Bahat, Gaby Barkai, etc.) and the Finkelstein/Ussishkin, etc. opinion. It seems that when Eilat Mazar reported on the walls of David's Palace, Finkelstein, instead of attempting to give a scholarly opinion, harped on the "religious/political" aspect... which, according to our teacher last Monday (Eyal Meiron) destroyed any potential of credibility in that case. Now, it seems that Finkelstein is at it again - you can't answer archaeological findings and opinions with emotion or religious hatred... i.e., we all know Finkelstein's ideas on dating, but he can't interject an anti-religious motive into it and get away with it. That's why he's on the fringe and NOT in the MSA!