Finkelstein: the neo-Welhausenian German influenced
Hermeneutics of Suspicion Archaeologist: A Book Review of Wikipaedia
Reformulated
From the site of Wikipaedia someone wanted to write a
flier marketing blog for Finkelstein with opportunistic endeavors but which
falls short of the reality of the past nor the reality up to this time of the
wealth of Ancient Near Eastern archaeological evidence that are available.
Principle one is that everyone in New York has an American name and a Jewish
name. Thus, it is not possible to always guess who is Jewish. Same in the
Ancient Near East. One is not going to find the word Joseph in Egypt. Moses is
easier with Thut-Moses…. Etc. Thus, Finkelstein’s methodology of walking around
searching for the exact name of a character in the Bible does not work in
archaeology of Israel. This is the first methodological handicap of that
researcher of Tel-Aviv. The hermeneutics of suspicion of Rationalism of the
Enlightenment Victorian Period that he was trained in Germany for, caused him
to read neo-Welhausenian concepts into every stone, like the parking of all
biblical narratives in the time of Josiah. It is an outdated Victorian
construct by an Arabist Julius Wellhausen. It does not belong in biblical
research. It may work for the Koran, articles of which Wellhausen is known for,
or German Literature results, but not for the biblical text.
Key to Van Wyk comments: Citation from Wikipaedia on Finkelstein’s new book in 2002 with Van Wyk Notes
in italics Andala fonts] e.g. [neo-Wellhausen]
Extract starts here……….[see source below]
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and
the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, a book published in 2001, discusses the
archaeology of Israel and
its relationship to the origins and content of the Hebrew Bible.
The authors are Israel Finkelstein,
Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University,
and Neil Asher Silberman,
an archaeologist, historian and contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.
Methodology
The methodology applied by the authors is historical criticism [neo-Wellhausen] with an emphasis
on archaeology [with an archaeological garb]. Writing in the
website of "The Bible and Interpretation", the authors describe their
approach as one "in which the Bible is one of the most important artifacts
and cultural achievements [but] not the unquestioned narrative framework into
which every archaeological find must be fit [negative
hermeneutics of suspicion to start off with. He should never have studied in
Germany]." Their main contention is that:[1]
“ |
...an archaeological analysis of the patriarchal
[Abraham and Cuneiform
Studies e.g. Distanzeangaben article and Joseph and the Kahun Papyri, Joseph
and Stela Workshops of the 12th Dynasty], conquest [Hatshepsut research, Thutmosis III 1450 BCE research
Romer and the Wente X-rays results, Thutmosis IV research and Amarna texts
for the conquest 1410-1405 BCE, Habiru studies], judges [Amenhoteps III and IV, Canaan a squatter country for
traders and burocratic economic opportunists even Egyptian colonialism
interspersed predating Thutmosis IV, chronology set from two different angles
biblically precise], and United Monarchy [Philistine archaeology, Dever archaeology with
red-burnished ware] narratives [shows][Chronology is very firm and precise see 1 Kings
6:1-4] that while there is no
compelling archaeological evidence for any of them [a subjective synthesis based on an epistemological
hermeneutics of suspicion borrowed from Rationalism of Enlightenment scholars
like Julius Wellhausen et al], there
is clear archaeological evidence that places the stories themselves in a late
7th-century BCE context [thumbology or eisegeses rather than exegesis]. |
” |
On the basis of this evidence they propose
“ |
... an archaeological reconstruction [neo-Wellhausenian German borrowed constructed with
pessimistic archaeological garb. As pointed out before by myself, Finkelstein
works with the fallacy that what was unearthed is the 100% evidence of the site
and thus ‘firmly’ and ‘absolutely’ proves whatever he deems is necessary to
prove. Thus, one slice of a cake determines the other seven pieces no eaten. An this is with every site in Israel the case] of the distinct histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, highlighting the largely neglected
history of the Omride Dynasty and
attempting to show how the influence of Assyrian imperialism in the region set
in motion a chain of events that would eventually make the poorer, more
remote, and more religiously conservative kingdom of Judah the belated center
of the cultic and national hopes of all Israel. |
” |
As noted by a reviewer on Salon.com[2] the approach
and conclusions of The Bible Unearthed are not particularly
new. Ze'ev Herzog,
professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University,
wrote a cover story for Haaretz in 1999
in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog
noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of
biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades [one million smokers
does not prove that smoking does not cause cancer = majority does not prove
correctness], even though they have only recently begun to make a dent [due to the brevity culture and its cognitive impact of smartphone using
habits] in the
awareness of the general public [the flash-flash less focused than a
camelion digi-modernist public].[2]
Extract ends here……
Source: Wikipaedia blog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed