Whether the United Monarchy existed—and, if so, to what extent—is a matter of ongoing academic debate.[11][12][13] During the 1980s, some biblical scholars began to argue that the archaeological evidence for an extensive kingdom before the late 8th centuryBCE is too weak, and that the methodology used to obtain the evidence is flawed.[14][15] Scholars remain divided among those who support the historicity of the biblical narrative, those who doubt or dismiss it, and those who support the kingdom's theoretical existence while maintaining that the biblical narrative is exaggerated.[16] Proponents of the kingdom's existence traditionally date it to between c.1047 BCE and c.930 BCE.
In the 1990s, Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein contended that existing archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy in the 10th century BCE should be dated to the 9th century BCE.[17][18]:59–61 This model placed the biblical kingdom in Iron Age I, suggesting that it was not functioning as a country under centralized governance but rather as tribal chiefdom over a small polity in Judah, disconnected from the north's Israelite tribes.[19][6][20][21] The rival chronology of Israeli archaeologist Amihai Mazar places the relevant period beginning in the early 10th century BCE and ending in the mid-9th century BCE, addressing the problems of the traditional chronology while still aligning pertinent findings with the time of Saul, David, and Solomon. Mazar's chronology and the traditional one have been fairly widely accepted,[22] though there is no current consensus on the topic.[23] Recent archaeological discoveries by Israeli archaeologists Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel in Jerusalem and Khirbet Qeiyafa, respectively, seem to support the existence of the United Monarchy, but the dating and identifications are not universally accepted.[18][24] The historicity of Solomon and his rule is also hotly debated. While the current consensus allows for a historical Solomon, it regards his reign as king over the United Monarchy in the tenth century BCE as uncertain and the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness as most probably a massive anachronistic exaggeration.[25][26][27]
According to the biblical account, on the succession of Solomon's son Rehoboam, the United Monarchy split into two separate kingdoms: the Kingdom of Israel in the north, containing the cities of Shechem and Samaria; and the Kingdom of Judah in the south, containing Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple.
In the 1980s, a few biblical scholars began to assert that the archaeological evidence for an extensive kingdom before the late 8th centuryBCE is too weak, and that the methodology used to obtain the evidence is flawed.[14][15] In 1995 and 1996, Israel Finkelstein published two papers where he proposed a Low Chronology for the stratigraphy of Iron Age Israel. Finkelstein's model would push stratigraphic dates assigned by the conventional chronology by up to a century later, so Finkelstein concluded that much of the monumental architecture characterizing Israel in the 10th century BCE that biblical United Monarchy has been traditionally associated with instead belongs to the 9th century. Finkelstein wrote that "Accepting the Low Chronology means stripping the United Monarchy of monumental buildings, including ashlar masonry and proto-Ionic capitals"[28][29] According to Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, the authors of The Bible Unearthed, ideas of a united monarchy is not accurate history but "creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement" that are possibly "based on certain historical kernels."[6][19] Finkelstein and Silberman accept that David and Solomon were real kings of Judah around the 10th century BCE, but they cite the fact that the earliest independent reference to the Kingdom of Israel dates to about 890 BCE and that to the Kingdom of Judah dates to about 750 BCE.[30] Some see the united monarchy as fabricated during the Babylonian Exile transforming David and Solomon from local folk heroes into rulers of international status.[31] Finkelstein has posited a potential United Monarchy under Jeroboam II in the 8th century BCE, whereas the former one was potentially invented during the reign of Josiah to justify his territorial expansion.[32]
Finkelstein's views have been strongly criticized by Amihai Mazar; in response, Mazar proposed the Modified Conventional Chronology, which places the beginning of the Iron IIA period in the early 10th century and its end in the mid-9th century, solving the problems of the High Chronology while still dating the archeological discoveries to the 10th century BCE. Finkelstein's Low Chronology and views about the monarchy have received strong criticism from other scholars, including Amnon Ben-Tor, William G. Dever, Kenneth Kitchen, Doron Ben-Ami, Raz Kletter and Lawrence Stager.[33]
Though Amélie Kuhrt acknowledges that "there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the united monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether) and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon," she concludes, "Against this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century."[20]Kenneth Kitchen (University of Liverpool) reaches a similar conclusion, arguing that "the physical archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain."[34]
On August 4, 2005, archaeologist Eilat Mazar announced that she had discovered in Jerusalem what may have been the palace of King David.[35] Now referred to as the Large Stone structure, Mazar's discovery consists of a public building she dated from the 10th century BCE, a copper scroll, pottery from the same period, and a clay bulla, or inscribed seal, of Jehucal, son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi, an official mentioned at least twice in the Book of Jeremiah. In July 2008, she also found a second bulla, belonging to Gedaliah ben Pashhur, who is mentioned together with Jehucal in Jeremiah 38:1.[36] Amihai Mazar called the find "something of a miracle." He has said that he believes the building may be the Fortress of Zion that David is said to have captured. Other scholars are skeptical that the foundation walls are from David's palace.[35] Garfinkel also claimed to have discovered David's palace in 2013, 25 kilometres away, at Khirbet Qeiyafa.[37][38]
Aerial view of Khirbet Qeiyafa, an archaeological site in modern-day Israel (2008)
Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, an Iron Age site in Judah, found an urbanized settlement radiocarbon dated well before scholars such as Finkelstein suggest that urbanization had begun in Judah, which supports the existence of an urbanized kingdom in the 10th century BCE. The Israel Antiquities Authority stated, "The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century BCE. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth century BCE or at some other later date."[39] The techniques and interpretations to reach some conclusions related to Khirbet Qeiyafa have been criticized by some scholars, such as Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin.[40]
In 2010, archaeologist Eilat Mazar announced the discovery of part of the ancient city walls around the City of David, which she believes dates to the tenth century BCE. According to Mazar, "It's the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel," and "It means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem, there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction." The 10th century is the period the Bible describes as the reign of King Solomon. Not all archaeologists agree with Mazar, and archaeologist Aren Maeir is dubious about such claims and Mazar's dating.[41]
In the Jewish Study Bible (2014), Oded Lipschits states the concept of United Monarchy should be abandoned,[19] while Aren Maeir believes there is insufficient evidence in support of the United Monarchy.[42] In August 2015, Israeli archaeologists discovered massive fortifications in the ruins of the ancient city of Gath, supposed birthplace of Goliath. The size of the fortifications shows that Gath was a large city in the 10th century BCE, perhaps the largest in Canaan at the time. The professor leading the dig, Aren Maeir, estimated that Gath was as much as four times the size of contemporary Jerusalem, which cast doubt that David's kingdom could have been as powerful as described in the Bible.[43]
In his book, The Forgotten Kingdom (2016), Israel Finkelstein considered that Saul, originally from the Benjamin territory, had gained power in his natal Gibeon region around the 10th century BCE and that he conquered Jerusalem in the south and Shechem to the north, creating a polity dangerous to Egypt's geopolitical intentions. So, Shoshenq I, from Egypt, invaded the territory and destroyed this new polity, and installed David of Bethlehem in Jerusalem (Judah) and Jeroboam I in Shechem (Israel) as small local rulers who were vassals of Egypt. Finkelstein concludes that the memory of a united monarchy was inspired by Saul's conquered territory serving first the ideal of a great united monarchy ruled by a northern king in the times of Jeroboam II and next to the idea of a united monarchy ruled from Jerusalem.[44]
In an article on the Biblical Archaeology Review,William G. Dever strongly criticized Finkelstein's theory, calling it full of "numerous errors, misrepresentations, over-simplifications and contradictions." Dever noted that Finkelstein proposes that Saul ruled a polity extending as far north as Jezreel and as far south as Hebron and reaching a border with Gath, with a capital located in Gibeon rather than Jerusalem. According to Dever, such a polity is a united monarchy in its own right, ironically confirming the biblical tradition. In addition, he rejected the notion that Gibeon was the capital of such polity since there is "no clear archaeological evidence of occupation in the tenth century, much less monumental architecture." Dever went as far as to dismiss Finkelstein's theory as "a product of his fantasy, stemmed by his obsession to prove that Saul, David and Solomon were not real kings and that the United Monarchy is an invention of a Judahite-biased biblical writer." Dever concluded by stating that "Finkelstein has not discovered a forgotten kingdom. He had invented it. The careful reader will nevertheless gain some insights into Israel—Israel Finkelstein, that is."[45][33]
Another more moderate review was written in the same magazine by Aaron Burke: Burke described Finkelstein's book as "ambitious" and praised its literary style but did not accept his conclusions: according to Burke, Finkelstein's thesis is mainly based on his proposed Low Chronology, ignoring the criticism that it has received from scholars like Amihai Mazar, Christopher Bronk Ramsey and others, and engages in several speculations that archeology, biblical and extrabiblical sources cannot prove. He also criticized him for persistently trying to downgrade the role of David in the development of ancient Israel.[33]
In his books, Beyond the Texts (2018) and Has Archeology Buried the Bible? (2020), William G. Dever has defended the historicity of the United Monarchy, maintaining that the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon are "reasonably well attested."[46] Similar arguments were advanced by Amihai Mazar in two essays written in 2010 and 2013, which point toward archaeological evidence emerged from excavation sites in Jerusalem by Eilat Mazar and in Khirbet Qeiyafa by Yosef Garfinkel.[47][48]
In 2018, archaeologist Avraham Faust announced that his excavations at Tel 'Eton (believed to be the biblical Eglon) had uncovered an elite house (which he referred to as "the governor's residency"), whose foundations were dated by carbon-14 analysis in the late 11th–10th century BCE, the time usually ascribed to Saul, David and Solomon. Such dating would strengthen the thesis that a centralized state existed at the time of David.[49][50]
According to mainstream source criticism, several contrasting source texts were spliced together to produce the current Books of Samuel.[21] The most prominent sections in the early parts of the first book come from a pro-monarchical source and from an anti-monarchical source. By identifying both sources, two separate accounts can be reconstructed.
The anti-monarchical source describes Samuel, having thoroughly routed the Philistines, as begrudgingly accepting the people's demand for a ruler and appointing Saul by cleromancy.[citation needed]
The pro-monarchical source describes the divinely-appointed birth of Saul (a single word being changed by a later editor so that it referred to Samuel) and his leading of an army to victory over the Ammonites, which resulted in the people clamouring for him to lead them against the Philistines when he is appointed king.[51]
Many scholars believe that the Books of Samuel exhibit too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example, the text mentions later armour (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), the use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), and iron picks and axes (as if they were prevalent) (2 Samuel 12:31).[52][53][54]
Most scholars believe that the text of the Books of Samuel was compiled in the 8th century BCE - rather than in the 10th century when most of the events described took place - based on historical and legendary sources. The narrative served primarily to fill the gap in Israelite history after the events described in Deuteronomy.[55][56]
According to the biblical account, the united monarchy was formed when the elders of Israel expressed the desire for a king.[57] God and Samuel seem to have a distaste for the monarchy, with God telling Samuel that "[Israel has] rejected me, that I should not be king over them."[58] However, Samuel still proceeds with the establishment of a monarchy by anointing Saul.[59]
In the Second Book of Samuel, Saul's disobedience prompts Yahweh to curtail his reign and to hand his kingdom over to another dynasty, leading to Saul's death in battle against the Philistines.[60][61] His heir Ish-bosheth rules for only two years before being assassinated. Though David was only the King of Judah, he ends the conspiracy and is appointed King of Israel in Ish-bosheth's place. Some textual critics and biblical scholars suggest that David was responsible for the assassination and that his innocence was a later invention to legitimize his actions.[62]
Israel rebels against David and crowns David's son Absalom. David is forced into exile east of the Jordan River[63] but eventually launches a successful counterattack, which results in the death of Absalom. Having retaken Judah and asserted control over Israel, David returns west of the Jordan.[64]
Golden age
Throughout the monarchy of Saul, the capital is in Gibeah. After Saul's death, Ish-bosheth rules over the Kingdom of Israel from Mahanaim, and David establishes the capital of the Kingdom of Judah in Hebron.[65]
After the civil war with Saul, David forges a powerful and unified Israelite monarchy and rules from c. 1000 to 961 BCE.[66] Some modern archaeologists, however, believe that the two distinct cultures and geographic entities of Judah and Israel continued uninterrupted, and if a political union between them existed, it might have had no practical effect on their relationship.[6]
In the biblical account, David embarks on successful military campaigns against the enemies of Judah and Israel and defeats such regional entities as the Philistines to secure his borders. Israel grows from kingdom to empire, its military and political sphere of influence expanding to control the weaker client states of Philistia, Moab, Edom and Ammon, with Aramaean city-states Aram-Zobah and Aram-Damascus becoming vassal states.[67]
David is succeeded by his son Solomon, who obtains the throne in a somewhat-disreputable manner from the rival claimant Adonijah, his elder brother.[68] Like David's Palace, Solomon's temple is designed and built with the assistance of Tyrian architects, skilled labourers, money, jewels, cedar and other goods obtained in exchange for land ceded to Tyre.[69]
Solomon goes on to rebuild numerous significant cities, including Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer. Some scholars have attributed aspects of archaeological remains excavated from these sites, including six-chambered gates and ashlar palaces, to the building programme. However, Israel Finkelstein's Low Chronology would propose to date them to the 9th century BCE. Yigael Yadin later concluded that the stables that had been believed to have served Solomon's vast collection of horses were built by King Ahab in the 9th century BCE.[70]
Following Solomon's death in c.926BCE, tensions between the northern part of Israel, containing the ten northern tribes, and the southern section, dominated by Jerusalem and the southern tribes, reached a boiling point. When Solomon's son and successor Rehoboam dealt tactlessly with economic complaints of the northern tribes, in about 930 BCE (there are differences of opinion as to the actual year), the Kingdom of Israel and Judah splits into two kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel, which included the cities of Shechem and Samaria, and the southern Kingdom of Judah, which contained Jerusalem.[71]
The Kingdom of Israel (or the Northern Kingdom or Samaria) existed as an independent state until 722 BCE when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The Kingdom of Judah (or the Southern Kingdom) existed as an independent state until 586 BCE when it was conquered by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.[72]
Many alternative chronologies have been suggested, and there is no ultimate consensus between the different factions and scholarly disciplines concerned with the period as to when it is depicted as having begun or when it ended.[73][74][75]
Most biblical scholars follow either of the older chronologies established by American archaeologists William F. Albright and Edwin R. Thiele or the newer one by Israeli historian Gershon Galil. Thiele's chronology generally corresponds with Galil's chronology below, with a difference of one year at most.[76]
David was a king of ancient Israel and Judah and the third king of the United Monarchy, according to the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament.
The history of ancient Israel and Judah spans from the early appearance of the Israelites in Canaan's hill country during the late second millennium BCE, to the establishment and subsequent downfall of the two Israelite kingdoms in the mid-first millennium BCE. This history unfolds within the Southern Levant during the Iron Age. The earliest documented mention of "Israel" as a people appears on the Merneptah Stele, an ancient Egyptian inscription dating back to around 1208 BCE. Archaeological evidence suggests that ancient Israelite culture evolved from the pre-existing Canaanite civilization. During the Iron Age II period, two Israelite kingdoms emerged, covering much of Canaan: the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south.
Hezekiah, or Ezekias, was the son of Ahaz and the thirteenth king of Judah according to the Hebrew Bible.
The Kingdom of Judah was an Israelite kingdom of the Southern Levant during the Iron Age. Centered in the highlands to the west of the Dead Sea, the kingdom's capital was Jerusalem. It was ruled by the Davidic line for four centuries. Jews are named after Judah, and primarily descend from people who lived in the region.
The Kingdom of Israel, also called the Northern Kingdom or the Kingdom of Samaria, was an Israelite kingdom that existed in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age. Its beginnings date back to the first half of the 10th century BCE. It controlled the areas of Samaria, Galilee and parts of Transjordan; the former two regions underwent a period in which a large number of new settlements were established shortly after the kingdom came into existence. It had four capital cities in succession: Shiloh, Shechem, Tirzah, and the city of Samaria. In the 9th century BCE, it was ruled by the Omride dynasty, whose political centre was the city of Samaria.
Saul was a monarch of ancient Israel and Judah and the first king of the United Monarchy, according to the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament. His reign, traditionally placed in the late eleventh century BCE, supposedly marked the transition of the Israelites from a scattered tribal society ruled by various judges to organized statehood.
According to the Hebrew Bible, the tribe of Judah was one of the twelve Tribes of Israel, named after Judah, the son of Jacob. Judah was the first tribe to take its place in the Land of Israel, occupying its Southern part. Jesse and his sons, including King David, belonged to this tribe.
The City of David, known locally mostly as Wadi Hilweh, is the name given to an archaeological site considered by most scholars to be the original settlement core of Jerusalem during the Bronze and Iron Ages. It is situated on southern part of the eastern ridge of ancient Jerusalem, west of the Kidron Valley and east of the Tyropoeon Valley, to the immediate south of the Temple Mount.
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's relationship to history—covering not just the Bible's acceptability as history but also the ability to understand the literary forms of biblical narrative. Questions on biblical historicity are typically separated into evaluations of whether the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible accurately record the history of ancient Israel and Judah and the second Temple period, and whether the Christian New Testament is an accurate record of the historical Jesus and of the Apostolic Age. This tends to vary depending upon the opinion of the scholar.
Amihai "Ami" Mazar is an Israeli archaeologist. Born in Haifa, Israel, he has been since 1994 a professor at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, holding the Eleazer Sukenik Chair in the Archaeology of Israel.
Israel Finkelstein is an Israeli archaeologist, professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University and the head of the School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures at the University of Haifa. Finkelstein is active in the archaeology of the Levant and is an applicant of archaeological data in reconstructing biblical history. Finkelstein is the current excavator of Megiddo, a key site for the study of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Levant.
The Davidic line refers to the descendants of David, who established the House of David in the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. In Judaism, it is based on texts from the Hebrew Bible, as well as on later Jewish traditions.
The Large Stone Structure is the name given to a set of remains interpreted by the excavator, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar, as being part of a single large public building in the City of David, presumably the oldest settlement core of Jerusalem. Mazar tentatively dated the findings to the tenth to ninth century BCE. Mazar chose this particular name for the alleged structure because of its proximity to another site known as the Stepped Stone Structure. Mazar announced the discovery on 4 August 2005, and stated that she believed it may be the remains of King David's palace as recorded in the Books of Samuel. The interpretation of the remains as those of one single building, the suggested date, and the association with King David have all been challenged by other well-known archaeologists. The archaeological dig was funded privately by Roger Hertog, an American banker.
Eilat Mazar was an Israeli archaeologist. She specialized in Jerusalem and Phoenician archaeology. She was also a key person in Biblical archaeology noted for her discovery of the Large Stone Structure, which she surmised to be the palace of King David.
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts is a 2001 a book by Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, an archaeologist, historian and contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine. The book discusses the archaeology of ancient Israel and its relationship to the origins and content of the Hebrew Bible.
Khirbet Qeiyafa, also known as Elah Fortress and in Hebrew as Horbat Qayafa, is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Valley of Elah and dated to the first half of the 10th century BCE. The ruins of the fortress were uncovered in 2007, near the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh, 30 km (20 mi) from Jerusalem. It covers nearly 2.3 ha and is encircled by a 700-meter-long (2,300 ft) city wall constructed of field stones, some weighing up to eight tons. Excavations at site continued in subsequent years. A number of archaeologists, mainly the two excavators, Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, have claimed that it might be one of two biblical cities, either Sha'arayim, whose name they interpret as "Two Gates", because of the two gates discovered on the site, or Neta'im; and that the large structure at the center is an administrative building dating to the reign of King David, where he might have lodged at some point. This is based on their conclusions that the site dates to the early Iron IIA, ca. 1025–975 BCE, a range which includes the biblical date for the biblical Kingdom of David. Others suggest it might represent either a North Israelite, Philistine, or Canaanite fortress, a claim rejected by the archaeological team that excavated the site. The team's conclusion that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a fortress of King David has been criticised by some scholars. Garfinkel (2017) changed the chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa to ca. 1000–975 BCE.
Ze'ev Herzog is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology. Ze’ev Herzog served as director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology from 2005 to 2010, and has served as archaeological advisor to the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority in the preservation and development of National Parks at Arad and Beersheba.
Solomon's Temple, also known as the First Temple, was a biblical Temple in Jerusalem believed to have existed between the 10th and 6th centuries BCE. Its description is largely based on narratives in the Hebrew Bible, in which it was commissioned by biblical king Solomon before being destroyed during the Siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 587 BCE. No remains of the destroyed temple have ever been found. Most modern scholars agree that the First Temple existed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by the time of the Babylonian siege, and there is significant debate among scholars over the date of its construction and the identity of its builder.
The article deals with the biblical and historical kings of the Land of Israel—Abimelech of Sichem, the three kings of the United Kingdom of Israel and those of its successor states, Israel and Judah, followed in the Second Temple period, part of classical antiquity, by the kingdoms ruled by the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties.
According to the First Book of Kings and the Second Book of Chronicles of the Hebrew Bible, Jeroboam's Revolt was an armed insurrection against Rehoboam, king of the United Monarchy of Israel, and subsequently the Kingdom of Judah, led by Jeroboam in the late 10th century BCE. The conflict, referring to the independence of the Kingdom of Samaria and the subsequent civil war during Jeroboam's rule, is said to have begun shortly after the death of Solomon lasting until the Battle of Mount Zemaraim. The conflict began due to discontent under the rule of Solomon's successor, his son Rehoboam, and was waged with the goal of breaking away from the United Monarchy of Israel. Though this goal was achieved very early on in the conflict, the war continued throughout the duration of Rehoboam's reign and well into the reign of his son, Abijam, who defeated the armies of Jeroboam but failed to reunite the kingdoms.
↑ Van der Veen, Peter (1989–90). "Early Monarchy in Israel"(PDF). Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum. 2. Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Science: 72–78.
↑ Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah, SBL Press, 2017, pg. 349
↑ Amihai Mazar, "Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein" Levant (1997), pp. 157–167
↑ Amihai Mazar, "The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant" in (eds. Lvy & Higman) The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text, and Science (2005), pp. 15–30
↑ Raz Kletter, "Chronology and United Monarchy: A Methodological Review", Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (2004), pp. 13–54
1 2 Garfinkel, Yossi; Ganor, Sa'ar; Hasel, Michael (19 April 2012). "Journal 124: Khirbat Qeiyafa preliminary report". Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority. Archived from the original on 23 June 2012. Retrieved 12 June 2018.
↑ Mazar, Amihai (2010). "Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy". Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives: 29. For conservative approaches defining the United Monarchy as a state 'from Dan to Beer Sheba' including 'conquered kingdoms' (Ammon, Moab, Edom) and "spheres of influence" in Geshur and Hamath cf. e.g. Ahlström (1993), 455–542; Meyers (1998); Lemaire (1999); Masters (2001); Stager (2003); Rainey (2006), 159–168; Kitchen (1997); Millard (1997; 2008). For a total denial of the historicity of the United Monarchy cf., e.g. Davies (1992), 67–68; others suggested a 'chiefdom' comprising a small region around Jerusalem, cf. Knauf (1997), 81–85; Niemann (1997), 252–299 and Finkelstein (1999). For a 'middle of the road' approach, [proposing] a United Monarchy of [greater] territorial scope though smaller than the biblical description cf., e.g., Miller (1997); Halpern (2001), 229–262; Liverani (2005), 92–101. The latter recently suggested a state comprising the territories of Judah and Ephraim during the time of David, which was subsequently enlarged to include areas of northern Samaria and influence areas in Galilee and Transjordan. Na'aman (1992; 1996) once accepted the [fundamental] biography of David as authentic and later rejected the United Monarchy as a state, cf. id. (2007), 401–402.
↑ Andrew Tobolowsky, "Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches," Currents in Biblical Research (2018), pg. 40
1 2 3 Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nded.). Oxford University Press. pp.2107–2119. ISBN978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the pre monarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. Though the archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, meaning the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past. [...] Although the kingdom of Judah is mentioned in some ancient inscriptions, they never suggest that it was part of a unit comprised of Israel and Judah. There are no extrabiblical indications of a united monarchy called "Israel."
↑ Faust, Avraham; Garfinkel, Yosef; Mumcuoglu, Madeleine (2021). «The Study of the 10th Century BCE in the Early 21st Century CE: An Overview». Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology1: 1-14. "The sophisticated methods of data collection and analysis that resulted from the debate significantly narrowed the chronological gap between the schools, leading most scholars to follow various versions of the traditional, or modified, chronology (e.g., Stager 2003; Mazar 2011; Katz and Faust 2014; Garfinkel et al. 2015; 2019; Dever 2017; Faust and Sapir 2018; Ortiz 2018; Master 2019)"
↑ Grabbe, Lester. The Dawn of Israel: A History of Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE. 2023. T&T Clark. p. 255-259. “It is essentially a folktale about an Eastern potentate – it is royal legend or Königsnovelle.” “Thus, it looks difficult to discover much in the Solomon story that strikes the critical reader as likely to be historical.” “[T]he temple story has been inflated into a legendary extravaganza.” “[T]he Solomon story is the most problematic of those relating to the early Israelite kings, providing the thickest cloud of obscurity over the history that lies behind it.”
↑ Mazar, Eilat (12 May 2017). "Did I Find King David's Palace?". Biblical Archaeology Society. Retrieved 12 March 2020. My position, to put it mildly, had not received [wide] support from the archaeological community. Indeed, quite the opposite was the case;
↑ Garfinkel, Yossi; Ganor, Sa'ar; Hasel, Michael (19 April 2012). "Journal 124: Khirbat Qeiyafa preliminary report". Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority. Archived from the original on 23 June 2012. Retrieved 12 June 2018.
↑ Maeir, Aren M. (2014). "Archeology and the Hebrew Bible". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nded.). Oxford University Press. p.2125. ISBN978-0-19-997846-5. Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. [...] In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE) and other extensive archeological evidence indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the "House of David" in the Tel Dan inscription dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. [...] Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extrabiblical documents) [to support] various events of the monarchical period (especially the later period) recorded in the Bible, there is little [...] evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history.
↑ Finkelstein, Israel, (2020). "Saul and Highlands of Benjamin Update: The Role of Jerusalem", in Joachim J. Krause, Omer Sergi, and Kristin Weingart (eds.), Saul, Benjamin, and the Emergence of Monarchy in Israel: Biblical and Archaeological Perspectives, SBL Press, pp. 43–51.
↑ William G Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah, SBL Press, 2017, pg. 319. Also, see pg. 381, n. 135
↑ Dever, William G. (18 August 2020). Has Archaeology Buried the Bible?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN978-1-4674-5949-5. Finkelstein's low chronology, never followed by [most] mainstream scholars, is a house of cards. Yet it is the only reason for attributing our copious tenth-century-BCE archaeological evidence of a united monarchy to the ninth-century BCE. Finkelstein himself seems to have doubts. Originally, he insisted that no Judean state emerged until the eighth century BCE. Then it was the ninth century BCE. Eventually, he posited a tenth-century BCE 'Saulide polity' with its 'hub' at Gibeon—not Jerusalem, and not Solomon, only his predecessor! But there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for such an imaginary kingdom. Finkelstein's [extreme] scenario is clever but not convincing. It should be ignored. The reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon are reasonably well attested.
↑ Mazar, Amihai (2014). "Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History". Congress Volume Munich 2013: 347–369. doi:10.1163/9789004281226_015. ISBN978-90-04-28122-6. The continuous debate concerning the evaluation of the United Monarchy as a historical entity cannot be resolved unequivocally by archaeology due to the current disagreements among archaeologists regarding the interpretation of the evidence. In my view, when [accounting for] the combined evidence presented above, [along with] previous papers, we cannot simply deny the existence of such an entity. [Defining and explaining] this state in the tenth century is [up for] debate. In previous papers, I explained David's kingdom as a tribal state that emerged during a political vacuum in most of the southern Levant caused by the great weakness of the earlier Canaanite population and the increase in the Israelite population in the highlands. This background, combined with personal qualities and a small but effective military force, may have enabled David to create a substantial political and military power, [possibly including] large parts of the country.
Hjelm, Ingrid; Thompson, Thomas L. (2016). "Introduction". In Hjelm, Ingrid; Thompson, Thomas L. (eds.). History, Archaeology and The Bible Forty Years After "Historicity". Routledge. ISBN978-1-317-42814-5.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
