I have transcribed the last ten minutes of the archaeologist Israel Finkelstein’s December 2022 Conference presentation because it dovetails with my recent posts and discussion points about the evidence relating to the composition of biblical texts in the Persian era.
If Jerusalem — nor the whole of Judea — had a “Writing Culture” in Persian times, we need to take a few steps back from the conventional view in biblical studies that it was in the Persian period that our principle biblical books were taking shape.
Scholars have long relied upon the texts of Ezra-Nehemiah and some chapters of the prophets to conclude that priests and scribes connected to the Jerusalem temple were busily shaping the biblical material (especially the Pentateuch) during this time.
Next to the biblical sources that are set explicitly in the Persian period, scholarship generally dates several other writings or parts of biblical books to this period. From the plethora of the material we will simply look at one (significant) example: the completion of the Jewish law in the form of the Pentateuch, the Torah of Moses, a document of which more than half was written or composed in the post‐monarchial period, i.e. during neo‐Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic times. Especially the multiple‐layered literary stratum, commonly called “Priestly Writing”, is best explained in reference to the second temple period. (Kratz, Biblical Sources 141)
Do archaeological finds support or cast doubt on that scenario? To ask a disturbing question: Is it more likely that the biblical narratives were completely unknown until after the conquests of Alexander the Great opened the way to Greek cultural domination of the “Near East”? But Israel Finkelstein does not broach that question. His conference presentation was limited to what the archaeological evidence can tell us about Jerusalem and Yehud (the Persian province name for Judea) in the Persian time slot.
The minute-and-second markers are approximate. I have used square brackets and dots to substitute for words I could not pick up from the soundtrack of the video. The images I have added were used by Finkelstein in his slide presentation but I have taken them from other publications where possible. The video presentation is available at the University of Haifa’s Yahwism under the Achaemenid empire site – scroll down to select the Prof. Israel Finkelstein (University of Haifa) : Archaeology’s Black Hole: Jerusalem and Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods link.
My transcript:
23 min:40 sec
As I have already suggested, Yehud was ruled from the small temple village in Jerusalem which was located on the temple mount and which had a limited population. Still, its status as the capital of the province . . . I mean we have to admit it’s clear from the Elephantine papyrus, from the seal impressions, and seemingly also from the high level of silver in the Yehud coins which seems to be related to the role in the temple economy.
Based on the interpretation of the literary sources, the population of Persian period Yehud had been estimated to have numbered up to 150,000 souls.
24:30
More reasonable archaeology-based studies have estimated a population of the province to have been between 20 and 30,000 people. Yet the latter number, too, seems to be somewhat inflated. Scholars use too big density coefficients, that is to say people per built up hectare, to be estimates for the population of Jerusalem that is not realistic archaeologically, and too big estimates for the extension of Yehud.
I repeat, my own figures are based on scrutiny of the archaeological data per se yet limiting it to the area from north of Beth Zur to Mizpeh and from the Dead Sea to the border between the Highlands and the Shephalah.
Finkelstein, Israel. “The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods.” Revue Biblique (1946-) 117, no. 1 (2010): 39–54.
As far as I can judge, and you can see on the screen, the total bit of area in Yehud is estimated around 60 hectares.
25:30
Employing a density coefficient of about 200 people to one built-up hectare the population of the entire province of Yehud in the Persian period including Jerusalem would be about 12000 people, comparable to the population of Jerusalem alone in the late Iron II [i.e. the period of the presumed biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah before the Babylonian captivity in 586 BCE] and the late Hellenistic period.
This comes to about 15%, only, of the population of the Highlands part of Iron IIB and C Judah. These demographic estimates work against scholars who tend to belittle the scope of the catastrophe that befell Judah in 586 BC. At the same time they contradict the notion of massive waves of returnees to Yehud. They also seem to lessen the importance of the population of Yehud relative to the elite deportees in Babylonia. In the production of exilic and post-exilic biblical texts and in shaping the nature of early post-exilic Judaism.
26:30
Material Culture
So let’s turn to material culture.
The demographic deterioration which I have just described and the poor state of the population of Yehud find expression in two items of material culture.
First, the disappearance of elaborate rock cut burials, especially in Jerusalem, but also in the countryside of Judah. These indicate that compared to the Iron II c elite groups shrink dramatically.
Second, the evidence for scribal activity. Probably even more important.
Faigenbaum-Golovin, Shira, Arie Shaus, Barak Sober, Yana Gerber, Eli Turkel, Eli Piasetzky, and Israel Finkelstein. “Literacy in Judah and Israel: Algorithmic and Forensic Examination of the Arad and Samaria Ostraca.” Near Eastern Archaeology 84, no. 2 (June 1, 2021): 148–58. https://doi.org/10.1086/714070.
So, whilst scribal activity in late monarchic Judah is demonstrated by the corpora of ostraca of […] Arad, Lachish, Uza, Malhata, Kadesh-barnea and other places. The spread of literacy is also attested in the proliferation of the inscribed seals and seal impressions.
27:30
The most striking evidence for the dissemination of literacy in Judah comes from the work of the Digital Epigraphy team at the Tel Aviv University which has been directed by Eli Piasetzky and me. Algorithmic based comparison of handwriting identified five authors in sixteen Arad ostraca with enough data for analysis representing the entire echelon of the Judahite military system down to the assistant quartermaster of the fort.
Faigenbaum-Golovin, Shira, Arie Shaus, Barak Sober, Yana Gerber, Eli Turkel, Eli Piasetzky, and Israel Finkelstein. “Literacy in Judah and Israel: Algorithmic and Forensic Examination of the Arad and Samaria Ostraca.”
Now forensic examination by the entire chief handwriting expert of Israel’s police extended the number of authors of these sixteen ostraca even farther. This shows that the recognition of the power of writing spread in the Judahite administration far beyond temple and palace.
28:30
Late monarchic Judah became what I can describe (all of us can describe I suppose) as a “writing society”. This was probably the end outcome of the century when Judah was dominated by Assyria and was incorporated into the sphere of the Assyrian global economy, administration and culture.
This impressive evidence for scribal infrastructure in Judah disappeared – I repeat – disappeared after the 586 BC destruction. In the Babylonian and Persian period the southern highlands show almost no evidence of Hebrew – underline Hebrew – inscriptions. In fact, the only meagre evidence comes from a few letters on a few Yehud coins which date to the fourth century. And coins can hardly attest in my opinion to general scribal activity.
29:30
This means that not a single linguistic inscription is known for the period between 586 and 350, not an ostracon, nor a seal, not a seal impression, nor a bulla.
In short, there is no evidence for Hebrew writing culture in Yehud.
One could argue for production of literary works on papyri in the temple. (I put in this picture only as an example.)
This is possible of course, though I find it extremely difficult that nothing of this activity leaked to other media of writing. I’m not suggesting here that the knowledge of writing Hebrew disappeared altogether, because such a statement would contradict the revival of Hebrew in the second century Hasmonean state. But scribal activity declined dramatically. This should come as no surprise.
30:30
The destruction of Judah brought about the collapse of the kingdom’s bureaucracy and the deportation of many of the educated intelligentsia, the literati. The vinedressers and [ploughmen] who “remained in the land” (to use the biblical expression) were hardly capable of producing written documents.
Excursus: Bethel
Before I close I wish to briefly refer to Bethel – outside the territory of Yehud. Since Bethel has been mentioned in scholarly discussions as the “repository” of biblical texts, mainly northern ones in the Babylonian and Persian period. And I refer for instance to a very important article by Knauf [I am deducing that the link points to the article Finkelstein is referencing.]
A few years ago Lily Singer-Avitz and I revisited the finds with … site. All the published reports and the unpublished in storage in Jerusalem and in Pittsburgh. We actually went to Pittsburgh to look at the pottery.
31:30
The results of our investigation indicated that the settlement history of this site was not continuous as held by the excavators based on an uncritical reading of the biblical text by the excavators. Rather it was characterized by oscillations, with two periods of strong activity in the Iron I, Iron IIB and Hellenistic periods; two periods of decline, in the Late Iron IIA and Iron IIC, and two periods of probable abandonmentin the Early Iron IIA and more significantly in the Babylonian and Persian periods.
This evidence cannot be brushed aside as stemming from deficiencies in the excavations, as significant sectors of this small mound, bigger than [. . .?] have been excavated. They did not yield Persia period finds.
32:30
So, the meaning of this:
The data presented here, the archaeology of Jerusalem, the settlement and demographic situation in Yehud and the poor evidence for scribal activity cast doubt on the notion of major activity of composition of biblical texts in Jerusalem in the Persian period.
My humble advice is twofold.
First, to try to date as much material as possible to periods in Judah-Judea that demonstrate widespread scribal activity and literacy in all media and all forms of inscriptions – that is, the later phases of the Iron Age and the late Hellenistic period after 200 BC, perhaps even later [….?] For lack of time I refrain from dealing with this question in detail.
33:30
My second advice is that for the era between 600/586 and 200 BC, especially the Babylonian and Persian periods to place the compilation of as much material as possible in Babylonia and in Egypt. This has recently been advocated by Thomas Römer my friend in the footsteps of others and others. Of course I accept that there must have been some continuity in the production of literary works in […?] One can imagine for instance a secluded, educated priestly group near the temple. But even this is not an eloquent solution, as I mentioned before would have expected something from this scribal activity to leak to daily life, and nothing did. In short, I too am tantalized by this fact and can only urge scholars not to ignore the archaeological evidence despite the fact that at times it is mainly negative and even if it threatens to shatter fad-driven theories.
34:30
And what about the armies under the Achaemenid empire? As I said in the beginning of my talk, with evidence coming solely from military texts (mostly) and with no clue from archaeology I would only advise that we be exceedingly cautious in addressing this thing, too.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
7 thoughts on “No Evidence Jerusalem/Judea had a “Writing Culture” in Persian times — Israel Finkelstein”
Very interesting lecture.
(1) He doesn’t appear to touch upon the archaeology of the Samaritan/Gerizim area. Does it show similar evidence for the Persian period? When he discounts Jerusalem during the Persian period, he suggests we “place the compilation of as much material as possible in Babylonia and in Egypt” without apparently considering the situation in Samaria.
(2) I might would argue with his contention that if there were “a secluded, educated priestly group near the temple… [we] would have expected something from this scribal activity to leak to daily life, and nothing did.” Expectations can easily be misjudged and the argument-by-expectation aren’t very strong.
I have two reasons for saying this:
(a) The Iron II scribal activity we find on ostraca etc is bureaucratic, and is a function of, and derived from the needs of a thriving political entity – centred on Jerusalem. There’s no reason to think that that sort of scribal activity “leaked” from priestly scribal activity in Jerusalem, if there was any, and there is no reason to expect that it would “leak” from supposed priestly scribal activity, if it existed during any other period.
(b) Furthermore, more importantly, since the lingua franca of the Persian period was Aramaic, I would say that it is to be expected that the literary activity of “secluded, educated priestly group” writing in Hebrew (if such a group existed) would NOT leak into the Aramaic-speaking secular sphere.
He states it thusly: “In the Babylonian and Persian period the southern highlands show almost no evidence of Hebrew – underline Hebrew – inscriptions.” No Hebrew literary activity undertaken in any secluded environment was likely to escape that environment. That’s not to say that it WAS happening, merely that his argument-by-expectation is pretty thin, and therefore should be dismissed.
Yes, scribal activity at Qumran is generally dated from the 3rd Century BCE to the 1st Century CE. Qumran was a nice secluded spot. Qumran Texts indicate they had a high regard for Samarian texts. Also, regarding the Persian Period, I think it is far more likely that Samaria would be the administrative capital rather than Jerusalem.
We can always imagine reasons to explain the absence of evidence for our theories. (This is a very common procedure in certain fields of biblical studies, I have noticed.) But holding fast to theories that lack evidence is hardly kosher, is it? All knowledge is provisional, we always remain open to new evidence emerging — and until then it is reasonable to go where the evidence that we do have leads us.
As for priestly writings not leaking to the secular sphere, that presupposes a clear dividing line that did not exist in the ancient world. The priestly writings were for the people and their daily lives which focused around a cult.
The Elephantine papyri demonstrate that Jerusalem priests were “brothers” and as Knauf points out, the evidence of the correspondence (the positive evidence of what is written) testifies to the nonexistence of any biblical writings known to the priests in either Jerusalem, Elephantine or Samaria.
As for the bureaucratic writings — they were all military writings that he refers to for the epigraphical analysis — the point is that such a culture presupposes an educational program that trains scribes and given the centrality of the temple in those societies, certain priests were also trained in literacy. That’s the pattern of those societies. That means the other writings we find that are associated with literate bureaucracies — like the story of Ahir, for instance, which I think was mentioned here or recently — are part of the territory when that kind of literacy is supported economically and institutionally.
Rather than begin with a theory and then rationalize why we don’t have the evidence for the theory (only stories that can be independently dated no earlier than the second century) I prefer to come to the evidence and see what to make of it in comparison with other sites that have yielded the same kinds of evidence, and go from there. That’s standard historical practice in all areas that I am aware of other than biblical studies — where instead most scholars seem to assume that unprovenanced and late stories should be treated as being based on some historical core.
His topic was Jerusalem and the Persian province of Yehud — so that was what he limited his talk to. You can hear it all online at the link provided — along with other talks there, some of which to zero in on Samaritan situations. (I’ve posted about one of those quite some time back — see the video by Stefan Schorch on that site.)
I will post on Samaritan finds in coming posts. But till then from what has been covered so far we do know that Judeans and Samaritans/Samarians lived together or side by side in some kind of brotherhood of ethnic peoples. We know they shared the same outlook religiously as the Judeans of Elephantine.
It’s true that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” but it is also true that “absence of evidence IS absence of evidence”. It CAN mean something or it can mean nothing. Absence of evidence cannot be wished away.
Neil, please get yourself a copy of Dr. Alma Brodersen’s 2022 Thesis “The Beginning of the Biblical Canon and Ben Sira”. It’s 275 pages but well worth reading. It contains a wealth of information about Ben Sira, the DSS, Enoch, Jubilees, and other 3rd and 2nd Century texts. The Hasmonean revolt comes between Ben Sira and the Greek translation, Neither document mentions the Hasmoneans, however.
Please do tell me the specific reason for your recommendation. I have downloaded the thesis and am interested in testing Barc’s thesis re Ben Sira against it. Soon — ish.
It appears the Hebrew version of Ben Sira was written before the maccabees revolt. There is no text quoted by Ben Sira except his own. The “Law” is spoken of but only in an oral sense. Even the Maccabee letters don’t mention the Pentateuch, and they wrote late in the 2nd Century BCE.
I think you will be astonished by the info in this thesis. I was also astonished at the “scholarly assumptions” that were made about the sources of Ben Sira. More “Wish-Craft” again.
In the Babylonian and Persian period the southern highlands show almost no evidence of Hebrew – underline Hebrew – inscriptions. In fact, the only meagre evidence comes from a few letters on a few Yehud coins which date to the fourth century. And coins can hardly attest in my opinion to general scribal activity.
This is possible of course, though I find it extremely difficult that nothing of this activity leaked to other media of writing. I’m not suggesting here that the knowledge of writing Hebrew disappeared altogether, because such a statement would contradict the revival of Hebrew in the second century Hasmonean state. But scribal activity declined dramatically. This should come as no surprise.
A few years ago Lily Singer-Avitz and I revisited the finds with … site. All the published reports and the unpublished in storage in Jerusalem and in Pittsburgh. We actually went to Pittsburgh to look at the pottery.
Very interesting lecture.
(1) He doesn’t appear to touch upon the archaeology of the Samaritan/Gerizim area. Does it show similar evidence for the Persian period? When he discounts Jerusalem during the Persian period, he suggests we “place the compilation of as much material as possible in Babylonia and in Egypt” without apparently considering the situation in Samaria.
(2) I might would argue with his contention that if there were “a secluded, educated priestly group near the temple… [we] would have expected something from this scribal activity to leak to daily life, and nothing did.” Expectations can easily be misjudged and the argument-by-expectation aren’t very strong.
I have two reasons for saying this:
(a) The Iron II scribal activity we find on ostraca etc is bureaucratic, and is a function of, and derived from the needs of a thriving political entity – centred on Jerusalem. There’s no reason to think that that sort of scribal activity “leaked” from priestly scribal activity in Jerusalem, if there was any, and there is no reason to expect that it would “leak” from supposed priestly scribal activity, if it existed during any other period.
(b) Furthermore, more importantly, since the lingua franca of the Persian period was Aramaic, I would say that it is to be expected that the literary activity of “secluded, educated priestly group” writing in Hebrew (if such a group existed) would NOT leak into the Aramaic-speaking secular sphere.
He states it thusly: “In the Babylonian and Persian period the southern highlands show almost no evidence of Hebrew – underline Hebrew – inscriptions.” No Hebrew literary activity undertaken in any secluded environment was likely to escape that environment. That’s not to say that it WAS happening, merely that his argument-by-expectation is pretty thin, and therefore should be dismissed.
Yes, scribal activity at Qumran is generally dated from the 3rd Century BCE to the 1st Century CE. Qumran was a nice secluded spot. Qumran Texts indicate they had a high regard for Samarian texts. Also, regarding the Persian Period, I think it is far more likely that Samaria would be the administrative capital rather than Jerusalem.
We can always imagine reasons to explain the absence of evidence for our theories. (This is a very common procedure in certain fields of biblical studies, I have noticed.) But holding fast to theories that lack evidence is hardly kosher, is it? All knowledge is provisional, we always remain open to new evidence emerging — and until then it is reasonable to go where the evidence that we do have leads us.
As for priestly writings not leaking to the secular sphere, that presupposes a clear dividing line that did not exist in the ancient world. The priestly writings were for the people and their daily lives which focused around a cult.
The Elephantine papyri demonstrate that Jerusalem priests were “brothers” and as Knauf points out, the evidence of the correspondence (the positive evidence of what is written) testifies to the nonexistence of any biblical writings known to the priests in either Jerusalem, Elephantine or Samaria.
As for the bureaucratic writings — they were all military writings that he refers to for the epigraphical analysis — the point is that such a culture presupposes an educational program that trains scribes and given the centrality of the temple in those societies, certain priests were also trained in literacy. That’s the pattern of those societies. That means the other writings we find that are associated with literate bureaucracies — like the story of Ahir, for instance, which I think was mentioned here or recently — are part of the territory when that kind of literacy is supported economically and institutionally.
Rather than begin with a theory and then rationalize why we don’t have the evidence for the theory (only stories that can be independently dated no earlier than the second century) I prefer to come to the evidence and see what to make of it in comparison with other sites that have yielded the same kinds of evidence, and go from there. That’s standard historical practice in all areas that I am aware of other than biblical studies — where instead most scholars seem to assume that unprovenanced and late stories should be treated as being based on some historical core.
His topic was Jerusalem and the Persian province of Yehud — so that was what he limited his talk to. You can hear it all online at the link provided — along with other talks there, some of which to zero in on Samaritan situations. (I’ve posted about one of those quite some time back — see the video by Stefan Schorch on that site.)
I will post on Samaritan finds in coming posts. But till then from what has been covered so far we do know that Judeans and Samaritans/Samarians lived together or side by side in some kind of brotherhood of ethnic peoples. We know they shared the same outlook religiously as the Judeans of Elephantine.
It’s true that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” but it is also true that “absence of evidence IS absence of evidence”. It CAN mean something or it can mean nothing. Absence of evidence cannot be wished away.
Neil, please get yourself a copy of Dr. Alma Brodersen’s 2022 Thesis “The Beginning of the Biblical Canon and Ben Sira”. It’s 275 pages but well worth reading. It contains a wealth of information about Ben Sira, the DSS, Enoch, Jubilees, and other 3rd and 2nd Century texts. The Hasmonean revolt comes between Ben Sira and the Greek translation, Neither document mentions the Hasmoneans, however.
Please do tell me the specific reason for your recommendation. I have downloaded the thesis and am interested in testing Barc’s thesis re Ben Sira against it. Soon — ish.
It appears the Hebrew version of Ben Sira was written before the maccabees revolt. There is no text quoted by Ben Sira except his own. The “Law” is spoken of but only in an oral sense. Even the Maccabee letters don’t mention the Pentateuch, and they wrote late in the 2nd Century BCE.
I think you will be astonished by the info in this thesis. I was also astonished at the “scholarly assumptions” that were made about the sources of Ben Sira. More “Wish-Craft” again.