Talk:Israel Finkelstein

awesome professor!
I had the pleasure to dig with him two years ago, very charismatic man.


 * Ya same here (one year ago at Megiddo as a volunteer), he is very nice, but the images you see of him don't give you an idea of just how tall he is, lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lower chronology
Shouldn't something be said about this? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  08:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference to "lower chronology" until further contributions are made. Also, there are serious doubts about the scholarship behind Biblical Archaeology Review. That publication seems to be in existence to prove, albeit indirectly, that the Bible is literally true.--As286 20:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
I have removed the bits referring to the controversy into this section, as they do not really fit into the main article until they are cleared up. Biblical Archaeology is a popular publication not a serious scientific journal and the criticism below seems to be from a religious viewpoint, not arhchaeological one.

In the July-August 2006 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review, Michael Coogan of Stonehill College, editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', contends that Finkelstein and Silberman "move from the hypothetical to the improbable to the absurd."

''Finkelstein's revised chronology is "not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and biblical scholars," Coogan asserts, citing four scholarly anthologies from the past three years.  However, Professor Baruch Halpern praised The Bible Unearthed'', as "the boldest and most exhilirating synthesis of Bible and archaeology in fifty years."

Professor David Noel Freedman, editor of the authoritative Anchor Bible Series, called it "readable and revolutionary." 


 * The above isn't signed, but it's not up to individual editors to determine the worth of legitimate 3rd party references. If there are controversies related to the Professor detailed by other scholars or commentators those do not necessarily have to come from "serious scientific journals", that's up to the reader to decide, otherwise you are delving into personal POV.Awotter 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just changed the title of the 'Controversies' section to 'Historical and Archaeological Work,' which seems both more accurate for the information contained therein and appropriate for the first subsection of an individual's biography. User:6enoch 19:54, 17 November 2011


 * Coogan is a highly reputed OT scholar. He also stated in So, he agrees that David's Jerusalem could fit on five rugby fields. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent deleted edits
I've just deleted some stuff which I thought was poorly sources, particularly for a BLP which needs high standards. Eg, the source used to say that he was rejected by most of his peers wasn't an archaeologist or archaeological journal, but ''a review of Finkelstein's book appearing a journal specializing in Zionist history and ideas by Raanan Eichler, a graduate student at a Jewish college specializing in Zionist history and ideas—Finkelstein himself says no such thing. This is not to say that Eichler is necessarily wrong, but it would be more convincing to cite a reliable source archaeologist like Ze'ev Herzog, who does portray Finkelstein's conclusions as a consensus among many prominent archaeologists.'' Doug Weller (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=38 and other articles by that site, that website is written by people who want the anti-Jewish bigots --Alpha166 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever the website, the article itself is from Haaretz - are you claiming that  Haaretz is whatever you are trying to say? dougweller (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

His 20007 book on D&S with Silberman
"The evidence clearly suggests that tenth-century Jerusalem was a small highland village that controlled a sparsely settled hinterland. If it had been the capital of a great kingdom with the wherewithal to muster tens of thousands of soldiers, collect tribute from vassals, and maintain garrisons in Aram Damascus and Edom (as the biblical narrative informs us it did), one would expect the presence of administrative buildings and storehouses, even outside the royal compound at the summit of the ridge. One would also expect to see changes in the villages of Judah—from which a significant portion of David’s armies were presumably mobilized and which would stand to benefit at least indirectly from the kingdom’s great wealth. Yet there is not the slightest evidence of any change in the landscape of Judah until the following century. The population remained low and the villages modest and few’ in number throughout the tenth century bce."

Have they, or has he, written more about this? Doug Weller talk 15:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See at least Israel Finkelstein, Ido Koch, Oded Lipschits, ‘The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the Problem with Jerusalem,’ The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol 11, January 2011 estimates that if it was like all other known settlements for that period, Jerusalem in the Iron Age and at least down to Iron 11B (mid/late 8th cen t BCE) extended about 5 hectares (which fits the late Bronze-early Iron Age median for acropolis royal/bureaucratic sites), and was under the present Temple Mount, with the hoi polloi quite a way off outside dispersed in the hinterland. The expansion to the so-called City of David began only around 750s onwards. None of this of course is in the relevant wiki articles. Instead we have wonderful digital images (City of David) retrojecting much later developments in a Davidic royal fantasy that has yet to find an archaeological basis.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't add full birthdate even if sources
WP:DOB"With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As he lists his date of birth in his CV (available for every one to see on his website ), he himself has made his birth date public. There is therefore no issue with Wikipedia including his full date of birth as per WP:DOB. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagged for cleanup
Eminent a scholar though he may be, the massive article expansion here amounts to a listing of Dr. Finkelstein's entire CV. I removed the section on his PhD students, which clearly does not meet the standard for inclusion. --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of the spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.24.91 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * About "best-sellers": it is not spam, it's a fact, these books were really best-sellers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Low Chronology
@Doug Weller, is the word "however" the only reason why you reverted it? And yes the reference backs absolutely the claim as quoted:

The other pillar on which Finkelstein’s rediscovered northern kingdom rests is his vaunted “low chronology,” in which he down-dates the previously accepted dates for the origins of Israel by as much as a hundred years. Yet this, too, is regarded by most mainstream archaeologists as without substantial foundations. First suggested some 20 years ago, Finkelstein has tirelessly championed his “low chronology” ever since. Here he presents it without so much as a single reference to its numerous critiques, some of them devastating (as Kletter 2004; Ben Tor and Ben Ami 1998; Dever 1997; Mazar 2007; Stager 2003; and others).2 In numerous publications over 20 years, Finkelstein has relentlessly reworked the stratigraphy and chronology of site after site, not only in Israel and the West Bank, but even in Jordan, in order to defend his “low chronology.”

- William G. Dever

Hope to resolve this in the talk page. Awerey1 (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)




 * Awerey1 ignores what I told him at Talk:Book of Daniel: Let me spell it out for you from the BAR link: "The first review is by William G. Dever, one of America’s leading archaeologists. Finkelstein is one of Israel’s leading archaeologists." See? Leading archaeologist, not WP:FRINGE.

"Allen says

I will be rather laconic: to my mind Dr. Dever is simply jealous; Dr. Finkelstein work has an intrinsic logic, I subscribe to his point of view. January 6, 2015, 9:24 am Reply"


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * In that link even Aaron Burke agrees, so is he also simply jealous?
 * I conclude by turning to Finkelstein’s persistent minimizing of the role played in the northern kingdom’s development by a historical David and a United Monarchy, however short-lived it may have been.
 * - Aaron Burke


 * Him being admitted as a leading archaeologist by the jornalist does not impose his low chronology work is accepted by mainstream scholars. If you cannot accept a different point of view given by several scholars as cited by William G. Dever and accepted Aaron Burke then you are ignoring WP:POV. Also him not beeing WP:FRINGE does not mean his low chronology is not WP:FRINGE. You are saying because he is a leading chronologist everything he does is not WP:FRINGE? And does not even deserve WP:POV from other scholars? You are ignoring wikipedia rules a little bit too much Tgeorgescu.
 * Awerey1 (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your attack is not appreciated, I follow WP:RULES scrupulously, you have neither the editing experience nor the academic learning in Bible scholarship to call that into question. If you persist in doing that, then you may be in for a rocky ride.

"In other words, says archaeologist David Ilan, "Yossi has an agenda—partly ideological, but also personal. He's a very smart and ambitious guy. Finkelstein's the big gorilla, and the young bucks think he's got a monopoly over biblical archaeology. So they want to dethrone him.""

- Robert Draper


 * Of course, what is Finkelstein famous for? His chronology.

"Incidentally, all defections are from the traditional ‘majority’ to the Low Chronology ‘minority’."

- Israel Finkelstein


 * He is also famous for denying the existence of the United Monarchy, though we might suspect that he is neither the first nor the last to state it. As, I told you at Talk:Book of Daniel: Coogan is a very distinguished OT scholar and he wrote a scathing review of Finkelstein's popular book. Yet according to Coogan, David's Jerusalem could easily fit upon five rugby fields. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Herzog laid out many of the theories Finkelstein and Silberman present in their book: "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire.

Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli public -- a very painful dent."

- Laura Miller


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You have somehow gotten the impression that I would have no right of calling you a fringe POV-pusher, while you push the WP:FRINGE view that the Book of Daniel were written in the 6th century BCE. Don't want to be called fringe POV-pusher? Then don't push fringe POVs. Simple. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As wrote:

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine. We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"I think we have to avoid extremes.

The minimalists would make out of the Bible a pious fraud and I think that's going much, much too far.

On the other hand, if we try as moderns to read the Bible literally in the way fundamentalists do, we make nonsense of it.

I would try to avoid both of those extremes."

- William Dever


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "you have neither the editing experience nor the academic learning in Bible scholarship to call that into question"


 * I might not have the academic learning but how do you know i have not the academic learning in Bible scholarship? That affirmation is out of this world, I will stop replying to you. You literally replied to every of my posts in wikipedia 3 or 4 times which only makes it more suspicious. Anyone else here thinks this is not normal? @Doug Weller I will wait for you so we can talk about my post which is up.


 * Awerey1 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a general note -- written "@Doug Weller" does not actually summon Doug Weller. I have no idea whether Doug Weller is in fact watching this talk page. Alephb (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Break

 * The review you linked does point to an academic debate that it would be worth mentioning in this article. But I don't think that one reference is enough for such a sweeping statement; at the very least it would need to be clearly attributed to Dever. Or I'd suggest following up on some of the critiques it cites and using them to write a more nuanced summary in accordance with WP:DUE. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much @Joe Roe. I think that it contained a review made directly by Dever. What type of reference would it be then? This type would not count too right? https://lukechandler.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/did-william-dever-just-declare-low-chronology-dead/. If not I will try to get Dever response in Tel Aviv 30, no. 2 (2003), pp. 259–282. which is the one I think was featured in the article. Again thank you very much Joe Roe.
 * Awerey1 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't use a wordpress blog – it's a self-published source. The problem is not so much the type of source, it's that it only tells us what Dever's opinion is (Dever has a long-standing feud with Finkelstein). What we need is a range of sources, or better yet a reliable secondary or tertiary review, to show that this criticism is a significant viewpoint of a number of scholars. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A range of sources could be those two I already mentioned and also Kletter 2004; Ben Tor and Ben Ami 1998; Dever 1997; Mazar 2007; Stager 2003. I will have to make it more detailed. A secondary source will be more difficult to find but I will try. Thank you again very much Joe!
 * Awerey1 (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Finkelstein's chronology is much debated, but definitely not WP:FRINGE. The claim that it would have been rejected by the mainstream is simply untrue. Finkelstein was known for being a contrarian to everything that biblical archaeologists taught. You know what? It worked. He is now (part of) the establishment. A much heard argument is that we have no way of knowing which of the two chronologies is true. This means trouble to both of them: they're both in "not even wrong" limbo. Anyway, the older chronology was obtained through taking the Bible at face value, which is methodologically unsound according to most present-day archaeologists of ancient Palestine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"To outsiders, the debate about biblical chronology looks like a neverending story, and in such cases, epistemology or—if you prefer—common sense suggest that the question has been wrongly put. Once a wrong path has been set and followed for too long, we are unable to get rid of it, even to realize that the direction is wrong, and even less to identify the correct way. We need a moment of rest and reflection."

- Mario Liverani


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu from Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Morals
To cut a long story short, Finkelstein has put everything he knows about Ancient Israel into a coherent story. Some consider it a sin, others a virtue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure this song is mentioning the subject "I Am the Very Model of a Biblical Philologist"
At least his last name is mentioned and someone with his full name visited. I'm not sure if there's any use for it except watching for pure pleasure. Doug Weller  talk 19:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)