Ancient Hebrew Poetry

Khirbet Qeiyafa Roundup

    The biblical blogosphere is abuzz with comment in the wake of the recent Khirbet Qeiyafa press conference (go here for the press release). Two facts are indisputable. (1) Khirbet Qeiyafa continues to produce finds of exceptional interest that threaten closely held theories and scholarly commonplaces. (2) In a first blast of scholarly output which resembles a case of Montezuma’s revenge, the finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa are engendering new hypotheses and new scholarly reconstructions that are even less grounded than the ones they threaten. The comments online of greatest interest so far are those of Todd Bolen, George Athas, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, and the joint reflections of Seth Sanders, Matthew Suriano and Jacqueline Vayntrub. Below the fold, an analytical roundup.

Khirbet Qeiyafa and Finkelstein’s Low Chronology

How the finds made at KQ will impact Finkelstein’s Low Chronology is a matter of great interest. He might abandon his LC, without abandoning his pertinent criticisms of commonplace reconstructions higher chronologies embody. It would not be hard to do. A scant 60 years separates his chronology from that proposed by Amihai Mazar. Mazar dates the beginning of Iron IIA to ca. 980 (Mazar 2008); Finkelstein, to ca. 920.

Khirbet Qeiyafa: The Kiss of Death to the David-and-Solomon Naysayers

Khirbet Qeiyafa poses a challenge to Israel Finkelstein’s hypothesis that the basic outline of the biblical narrative found in 1 Sam – 1 Kgs 11 is a figment of the imagination of much later writers who manipulated inherited tradition in order to place legendary figures of a distant past in a sequence and a set of historical contexts of their own devising (Finkelstein 2006).

Public building activity in the early monarchic period of a polity named Israel

Once upon a time, in a faraway place, Israel Finkelstein could say: “Khirbet ed-Dawwara provides the only solid evidence for public building activity in the early monarchic period” (1990:197).¹ No longer.

Finkelstein on Khirbet Qeiyafa

Literally. That is, Israel Finkelstein went to visit Khirbet Qeiyafa on July 20^th before the excavation season concluded, the guest of his colleague Yosef Garfinkel (HT Luke Chandler). It is difficult to imagine two scholars farther apart in their understanding of Iron Age I-II Israel. Yet the rule of hospitality is sacred.

One has to wonder how Finkelstein will interpret the astounding finds Garfinkel and his team continue to unearth. As is well-known, Garfinkel laid down the gauntlet early on (go here: “the Low Chronology is officially dead and buried” - the presentation dates to 2008).

Finkelstein serves the field well by presenting one challenge after another to commonly held but far from self-evident positions. In this series of posts, I return the favor by offering a challenge to his dismissal of the basic outline of events presented in 1 Sam – 1 Kgs 11. The cutting style I employ is my way of going native in what is often a debate among Israeli scholars.

Recent Blogging on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon

Ed Cook has some thoughtful comments here. Seth Sanders has initiated a promising series here. For the inscription itself, and various attempts at decipherment, go here. The upshot:

Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription Update

For a clear presentation of the inscription, with an indication of areas of agreement and disagreement with respect to its exact contents among Haggai Misgav, Ada Yardeni, and Gershon Galil, go to the Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project’s official website here. Published recently: an open letter of the expedition addressed to Gershon Galil. Go here. The Hebrew University expedition holds the press release of the University of Haifa to the same standards one would apply to a peer-reviewed article. I would think that the best response from Galil and the University of Haifa would be: “No disrespect intended. For a properly footnoted discussion, see the forthcoming article by Gershon Galil, to appear in [    ].”

The Lowdown on the Qeiyafa inscription

Two introductions to the significance of the inscription are must reading/hearing. That of Seth Sanders, author of The Invention of Hebrew, here. That of Chris Rollston, here. Here is a pdf with background information, photos, properly accredited I believe, and a starter bibliography (courtesy of Raymond van Leeuwen). Everything is up-to-date. Below the jump, some reflections on the reflections of Sanders and Rollston.

Neil Silberman blogs on the Qeiyafa Inscription

Silberman enters the fray. Where there is smoke, there is fire, we say in English. On the other hand, as we say in Italian: tutto fumo e niente arrosto.*

*Tutto fumo e niente arrosto means all smoke and no roast. It refers to roasting to the point of overcooking the roast and filling the air with smoke. In the end you have nothing but smoke.

Misgav, Maeir, Yardeni, Ahituv, and Schniedewind on the Qeiyafa Inscription

Below the fold, text, translation and commentary on the Qeiyafa inscription, based on the judgments of Misgav, Yardeni, Ahituv, and Schniedewind reported or expressed on Aren Maeir’s blog here and here, as well as my own. The contents of the inscription, and more especially, its estimated date and secure provenance, make it an extremely important find.