How did Israel Finkelstein an Israeli archaeologist and academic reach the conclusion that there never was a Kingdom of King David and King Solomon?

Answer 1

Another answer from our community:

Finkelstein reached this conclusion since, as defined by other archaeologists he is a revisionist who wishes to essentially 're-write history' and ignore proven evidence which stands in the museums of the world. He claims to disprove The Bible but either ignores or is ignorant of what the Bible actually says. This is how he is able to reach the conclusions he does.

The evidence is there but the shifting of the chronology makes the evidence not fit the time-frame of David and Solomon. Finkelstein knows this and so rather than re-examining the chronology, which would also incidentally synchronize better with the Hittite/Egypt chronology revision, he prefers to leave the 'chronology template' in position which makes it a mis-fit for the Biblical and other chronologies.

Another View:

Any answer that sees Finkelstein as a revisionist is really quite defensive and intellectually untenable. The very idea of Archaeology is to improve and update our understanding of the past. Finkelsteins conclusions are based upon fieldwork, surveys, and research carried out by a large number of dedicated scientists who apply the scientific method and not value laden and dogmatic faith based systems to their work. The past is not yet, and will probably never be, "written in stone" and even current conclusions will be subject to change as evidence is found and studied. Any person who wishes to understand Finkelsteins work should read his publications and not the highly defensive but more importantly completely unscientific rantings of jilted ideologues for their answers.

One of the most important questions to consider is whether human history can exist without leaving footprints in the sand. Naturally, less remarkable activity and events will leave less evidence to be found in the future, while more remarkable activity and events MUST leave more evidence to be found. The lack of evidence supporting biblical activities and events that were not just remarkable but monumental to the recorded history in much of the Bible is glaring and even stunning. The kingdom of Solomon for instance was so important in the Bible and our understanding of the history of the region in as far as its scope and its description that the lack of archaeological evidence supporting its existence is a clear indication of the veracity of the information in the Bible. The same can be said for the lack of evidence within and without Egypt for the Exodus, the conquering of Canaan by Joshua, the united monarchy, the extent of King Davids kingdom, and on. Some events are quite simply too big to leave no evidence.

Answer 2

He makes the contention based on the scientific evidence before him.

There is no proof that the political entitles ruled over by Solomom and David (if we accept their existence as fact) were not just an alliance of local tirbes. Scientists need more proof and since most of the kingdoms in the area do have surviving records, this is what archaeologists need to accept that there really was a kingdom that these men ruled.

The Bible is not a reliable historic document. Its purpose was to record an oral history of the Hebrew people. However, modern archaeologists and historians need scientific confirmation or confirmation from an independent written source before they will accept the contents of any ancient document, secular or religious.

Answer:

This question is moot. Recent artifacts discovered have cemented knowledge that they existed.

Answer 3

Israel Finkelstein says that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were always separate, with a different life style, different pottery, different myths and legends, and the same language Hebrew, but different dialects. While Judah was full of steep ridges, rocky outcroppings and poor soil, Israel had rolling hills and fertile valleys, with a much larger population than Judah. It was just not possible for Judah to dominate the northern region of Israel, as described in the Bible.

If there were a united monarchy, it couldn't have happened in the tenth century BCE because, at the time of David and Solomon, Israel had far fewer than 100,000 population and was still too small, poor, backward, rural, and sparsely populated to support walled cities, far less an empire with armies and bureaucrats and ambassadors travelling around in royal regalia. Judah was much smaller and poorer than the north. Far from being a world class city, the Jerusalem at the time ascribed to King Solomon was nothing more than a mudbrick village.

Professor Finkelstein said, "Today more than 90% of scholars agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% feel that that the Conquest of the Land did not take place as described in the Bible, and about 50% agree that there was no powerful United Monarchy."

Others who support the views expressed by Finkelstein include Ze'ev Herzog, "Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. "
Much of what Professor Finkelstein says about the United Kingdom of Israel is in The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

Answer 4

As an atheist, perhaps he ignored or was unaware of the evidence pointing to the united Kingdom of Israel, beginning in the Hebrew Bible itself, plus such findings as this: In 1993, an archaeologist named Dr. Avraham Biran and his team, digging at Tell Dan, discovered a black basalt stele, containing Aramaic inscriptions. Two of the lines included the phrases "The King of Israel" and "House of David." This discovery has forced critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Dr. Hershel Shanks of the Biblical Archaeological Review states, "The stele brings to life the biblical text in a dramatic way."

See also:

Debunking the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis

The authorship of the Hebrew Bible

Archaeology