“Finkelstein
believes that the original city of Jerusalem must have constituted
a
large tel mound located within the area today known as the Temple Mount.
It’s
an interesting theory. But how much of it is “facts and data”?”
Brad Macdonald and Christopher Eames
Was David
and Solomon’s Jerusalem a ‘Godforsaken’ Place?
What does
archaeology tell us?
By Brad Macdonald and Christopher Eames
From
the March-April 2024 Let
the Stones Speak Magazine Issue
In a 2021 interview series
hosted by the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, one of
Israel’s most prominent archaeologists made some bold remarks about the Bible
and its role in archaeology in Israel.
He explained
that David and Solomon were simple, hill-country chieftains, and not the
towering monarchs recorded in the Bible. He theorized that the story of David
and Goliath was invented during the time of King Josiah (late seventh
century b.c.e.) and was crafted to reflect his upcoming clash with Egypt’s
Pharaoh Necho (Josiah was King David, Egypt was Goliath).
He also said
King Solomon’s glorious reign was probably modeled by late biblical writers
after an Assyrian king, maybe Sennacherib.
He also
shared some bold and controversial views about biblical Jerusalem. He claimed
that Judah and Jerusalem only turned from a “godforsaken” place to an important
kingdom in the late eighth century b.c.e., when they were
incorporated into the Assyrian economy. And he claimed that Judah only became a
truly literate state—allowing for the composition of the Bible—when educated
Israelites from the north fled into Judah from their own Assyrian destruction
during the same century.
Many Jews,
Christians, even Muslims would disagree with the views of Prof. Israel
Finkelstein. And some might even get upset by these claims. But the more
important question is, what does the evidence say?
In the first
interview of the series, Professor Finkelstein emphasized how important it is
to “speak facts and data” when talking about ancient Israel and Jerusalem.
And he is
absolutely right. But here’s the context of that statement: “First and
foremost, … the Bible does not mean to speak history. The
Bible is all about theology, about ideology … and we scholars, researchers,
need to speak facts and data” (emphasis added throughout).
Finkelstein
clearly rejects the Bible as a historical source. But on what grounds? Where
are the facts and data, the hard evidence—the science—proving that the Bible
does not “speak history”?
Let’s
examine Finkelstein’s claims specifically about biblical Jerusalem (Episode 15
of the series). Was Jerusalem a “godforsaken” place until the late eighth
century b.c.e.? Is understanding Jerusalem of the united monarchy “a lost
case,” as his interviewer concluded following Finkelstein’s comments? Is it
correct for his interviewer to assert that “[e]xtensive archaeology has
revealed nothing” about it?
Where Was
Original Jerusalem?
The
interview began with a discussion about the original location of Jerusalem. The
majority opinion of scholars, archaeologists and historians is that early
Jerusalem was situated in the area known today as the City of David, the ridge
located south of the Temple Mount. According to the biblical text, David
conquered this original city site ruled by the Canaanite Jebusites and made it
his capital—and Solomon later expanded the city northward to include the temple
construction.
According to
Finkelstein, this understanding is flawed and there is “no way to clarify”
where the ancient City of David really was. “We don’t really know what [these
names] mean. We don’t really know what the Bible means when the Bible speaks
about the City of David. There’s no place we can really pinpoint on the ridge
to the south of the Temple Mount.”
Finkelstein
believes the original city of Jerusalem was situated at the top of the Temple
Mount hill, and that the city expanded southward down the
ridge.
He gave
several reasons for his theory. First, he said, the City of David does not look
like a typical “tel” mound. Second, he pointed out the lack of Bronze Age
remains in the area, particularly the southern part of the City of David. And
third, he explained that city mounds are usually situated at the top of the
highest ground. “The City of David ridge,” he explained, “is completely
dominated on three sides by higher grounds,” and this would have given enemies
a tactical advantage.
Because of
these reasons, Finkelstein believes that the original city of Jerusalem must
have constituted a large tel mound located within the area today known as the
Temple Mount. It’s an interesting theory. But how much of it is “facts and
data”?
Consider the
claim that we cannot know what the Bible means when it speaks about the City of
David. The Bible is actually quite specific in describing the location of the
original Canaanite city, Jebus. First, it says explicitly that the original
Jebusite fortress in Jerusalem, captured by David, was renamed the City of
David. 2 Samuel 5:7 tells us “the same is the city of David.”
Furthermore, this passage states that this fortress (metzudah in
Hebrew) was located in a lower ridge location—“down” from the
highest geographical features (verse 17).
The Bible
also indicates that the site was atypically small and extremely well defensed
geographically. In verses 6-8, the Canaanites boast that the city’s defense is
so strong, even “the blind and the lame” could defend it. Finally, the Bible
also reveals that the upper site of the future temple was part of an
agricultural area outside and higher in elevation than the original city (1
Chronicles 21:18-19; 22:1).
Professor
Finkelstein suggested that a settlement on the lower ridge would have been a
strategic liability, but this view is not borne out historically. Jerusalem has
been conquered numerous times. While the northern Temple Mount area is
technically the highest point, this area is also a more-gradually sloped,
broader area. Historically, this is the point where the city has typically been
breached.
When the
Romans invaded in 70 c.e., they attacked the city from north of the Temple
Mount. The Babylonians attacked the same point when they conquered Jerusalem in
586 b.c.e. This was the point where Assyria’s King Sennacherib threatened
Judah with his armies in the late eighth century b.c.e. (although an
attack did not take place). This was also the location where part of the city
wall was torn down by the attacking kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 14:13).
The ridge
and small summit on which the City of David sits is actually an extremely
difficult area to penetrate. The bedrock on the east and west sides of the
ridge falls away sharply, creating narrow valleys that become a kill-zone for
large forces.
Additionally,
recent excavations of the Givati Parking Lot have revealed a massive man-made
trench in the bedrock between the City of David and the Ophel mound. This moat
undoubtedly served as a defensive feature protecting the city from invasion
from the north. (For more information, read “The Moat of Ancient
Jerusalem.”)
The fact
that the City of David doesn’t fit the mold of a large “tel” mound, and that it
has a comparatively lower elevation, may not accord with Finkelstein’s
conceptualization of early Jerusalem—but it does fit with the historical
accounts.
Now what
about the purported lack of Bronze Age remains?
Where Is
Bronze Age Jerusalem?
Archaeology
in Israel and the ancient Near East is divided into several periods. The Bronze
Age spans the third and second millenniums b.c.e. (put simply, Early
Bronze, circa 3000–2000; Middle Bronze, 2000–1500; Late Bronze,
1500–1200 b.c.e.). Where are the remains of Jerusalem from the middle of
the second millennium b.c.e.?
It is clear
from Egyptian inscriptions, as Finkelstein highlighted, that Jerusalem was occupied
in the Bronze Age—both the Middle and Late.
Where, then,
are these remains on the City of David ridge? After all, as Finkelstein noted,
in areas of the southern ridge there is bedrock under Iron Age remains, and we
have “only a [Bronze Age] sherd here or a sherd there … we don’t have at all
evidence, or almost none, for architecture, houses, any construction activity.”
Due to the lack of Bronze Age remains in the City of David, Finkelstein
concludes that Bronze Age Jerusalem “must have been located on the Temple
Mount” (although, as he admits, this theory cannot be put to the test by
excavation due to the religious and political situation).
Before
getting into what has been found, consider what has
not been found.
While the
City of David isn’t as politically or religiously sensitive as the Temple
Mount, it is still incredibly sensitive. Much of the area is situated in the
densely populated Arab neighborhood of Silwan. This makes it difficult to
conduct large-scale excavations that would expose large swathes of territory.
Instead, archaeologists have to excavate smaller areas, building their picture
slowly over time, in fits and spurts.
Next, recall
that Jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt several times over the centuries.
According to Eric Cline’s book Jerusalem Besieged, the city
has been “besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times, and captured and
recaptured 44 times.” This, too, explains the lack of Bronze Age evidence: Much
of it was destroyed in these attacks.
Finally,
despite the relatively small area that has been excavated, and all of the
destructions that have occurred, there is archaeological
evidence for Bronze Age occupation in the City of David.
Archaeological
excavations around the Gihon Spring—situated in the lower, northeastern corner
of the City of David—have revealed part of a truly massive fortification, one
that dates to the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 b.c.e.).
This
fortification wrapped around and protected the vital Gihon Spring. Its walls
are massive, up to 7 meters wide at their foundations—the
widest walls of any Bronze Age site in all Israel.
The Gihon
Spring, Jerusalem’s only water source, is located on the lower ridge of
the City of David, partway down into the eastern Kidron Valley. The location of
this spring, and the tunnels that link it to the City of David (not the
Temple Mount), are some of the greatest proofs of the location of the original
site of Jerusalem—built deliberately around and protecting the
vital spring.
Professor
Finkelstein recognizes this massive Middle Bronze Age fortification in the
lower City of David.
However, he
suggests that this giant structure was simply a standalone building, an
outlying tower from the Temple Mount city-hub, built to protect the distant
spring. (He also postulates that the underground network of ancient tunnels
beneath the City of David leading to the Gihon Spring simply gave late writers
the idea to craft a story about David conquering Jerusalem using them.)
Consider the
facts: What is the most rational explanation? Why do these Bronze Age tunnels
connected to the Gihon Spring lead into the City of David and not north, into
the Temple Mount? This suggests the City of David was the central habitation at
this time, not the Temple Mount.
Consider
too: Is it difficult to believe that Middle Bronze Age structures such as these
continued to be used in the Late Bronze Age? And what about other Canaanite-era
walls discovered on the lower eastern slopes of the City of David, better
sheltered from exposure and destruction?
The man who
interviewed Professor Finkelstein questioned his theory of a Bronze Age
Jerusalem centered on the Temple Mount. The interviewer identified certain
difficulties with the theory, such as the exposed bedrock at the center of the
Temple Mount site. In response, Finkelstein noted that erosion down to bedrock
at an elevated point of the site is not unusual (again, structures are usually
better-preserved in lower, more sheltered areas of a site). He also pointed out
that we shouldn’t expect to find much on the Temple Mount anyway, given Herod’s
clearing and rebuilding of the site for his temple.
How ironic.
These are the same explanations for a lack of Bronze Age
remains in much of the City of David—the exposed, eroded bedrock along the
upper, southern part of the ridge, as well as repeat events of destruction and
rebuilding. Here’s the key difference though: The only remnants we have of
Bronze Age Jerusalem are in the City of David, not on the
Temple Mount. Because something can be said to the question of Bronze Age
remains on the Temple Mount: Sifting and various analyses have been done on the
many tons of earth illegally bulldozed out of the Temple Mount foundations by
the Islamic Waqf, along with other underground surveys of the Temple Mount. As
affirmed by Dr. Hillel Geva and Dr. Alon De Groot, there is no evidence of tel
stratification, and only 1 percent of the material remains discovered date
prior to the Iron Age—rather damning evidence against this site as the location
of a strong Bronze Age city tel.
….
