Hershel Shanks and Israel Finkelstein duke it out. Again. Je weet dat die mensen elkaar te goed kennen als Shanks zegt:

But what you just said is beyond your expertise as an archaeologist. Maybe you are right, but not as an archaeologist, not based on your archaeological knowledge.

en dat Finkelstein daar zó op antwoordt:

My dear Hershel, let me remind you that there are two approaches to archaeology. Some archaeologists see themselves as dealing only with material culture; and this is perfectly okay with me. I see myself, however, as an historian practicing archaeology.

Maar wel entertainment natuurlijk. En er is weinig tussen het betoog van Finkelstein te krijgen, hoe vervelend de officiële Israëlische lijn dat wel mag vinden.

Niet dat ik zeg dat Biblical Archeology Review een pion van Sharon is of zo, daar ken ik ze niet genoeg voor, maar toch…

Wat er ook van moge zijn: het is grappig om die twee te zien bekvechten.

I think the question should be, why did they tell the story in late monarchic times?

That?s your question. That may not be someone else?s question.

But the question before was your question.

That?s right.

Who are you representing? The lawyer Hershel Shanks, are you representing the ancient people?

No, I?m trying to understand your views.

Okay, so I?m trying to tell you what my question is.

That?s your question, though.

You just told me a minute ago that every question is legitimate.

Yes, your question is legitimate, too. But our readers would like to know whether archaeology has anything to contribute to my question.