United Monarchy?

1. United Monarchy? Kings David and Solomon

2. Traditional Chronology: Iron I (1200-1000 BC): The Period of the Conquest and the Judges; Iron IIA (1000-925 BC): The Period of the United Monarchy, that is, the time of David and Solomon; Iron IIB (925-720 BC): The Divided Monarchy: Israel in the north with its capital at Samaria; Judah in the south with its capital at Jerusalem; Iron IIC (720-586 BC): The Northern Kingdom of Israel is no more; the Southern Kingdom of Judah continues until the Babylonians destroy it in 586 BC.

3. The Biblical Texts (1 Samuel – 1 Kings): • (All these texts are part of the Deuteronomistic History.) • 1 Samuel: • 1 Samuel 16-31: Saul and David (from David’s anointing to Saul’s death): • 1 Samuel 16. 1-13: David is anointed; • 1 Sam 17.40-51: David and Goliath; • 1 Sam 30.1-7: the death of Saul.

4. Location of the David and Goliath Encounter (1 Samuel 17.40-51)

5. 2 Samuel: • 2 Sam 2.1-4: David consecrated king at Hebron, the most important city in Judah; • 2 Sam 2.8-11: Ishbaal king over Israel (over Gilead, the Ashurites, Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin) – from Mahanaim in Transjordan; • (Heb. “Ish-bosheth”; pious scribes substituted the word “bosheth”, meaning “shame”, for the name of the Canaanite god Baal, which can also mean “lord”.); • 2 Sam 2.11: David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah; • 2 Sam 2.13-3.1: War between Israel and Judah, that is, between the House of Saul and the House of David; • 2 Sam 5.1-5: David is anointed king of Israel; • 2 Sam 5.2-12: David captures Jerusalem; • 2 Sam 6.1- The Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem;

6. Mahanaim (?) in Transjordan.

7. 1 Kings: • - 1 Kings 1.28-40: Solomon is consecrated king at David’s nomination; • - 1 Kings 2.1-11: David’s testament and his death; • - 1 Kings 3.1-7.51: Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter, the building of his palace, the Temple of Yahweh, and the wall surrounding Jerusalem; • - 1 Kings 8: The Ark brought to the Temple; • 1 Kings 9.15-24: Forced labour for Solomon’s building program: the Temple; his own palace; the Millo; the wall of Jerusalem; Hazor; Megiddo; and Gezer, etc. (see especially 1 Kings 9.15-19). • 1 Kings 10.1-13: the Queen of Sheba visits Solomon; • 1 Kings 10.26-29: Solomon’s chariots; • 1 Kings 11.14-25: Solomon’s foreign enemies; • 1 Kings 11.26-40: The revolt of Jeroboam (against Solomon’s son Rehoboam);

8. 1 Kings: • - 1 Kings 11.41-43: The end of the reign of Solomon; • - 1 Kings 12: Political and Religious Schism: Jeroboam king of Israel and the setting up of the two golden calves at Bethel, just to the north of Jerusalem. • Now two kingdoms: Judah in the south with its capital at Jerusalem; • Rehoboam, a son of Solomon, is King of Judah. • Israel in the north with its capital at Shechem – Israel separated from the House of David; (under the Omrides, the capital will later be transferred to Samaria) • Jeroboam, a former servant of Solomon, is King of Israel.

10. 1 and 2 Chronicles: • “Chronicles” – a summary of divine history; • the Chronicler wrote during the Persian period (539-332 BC); • dependence upon the Books of Samuel is clear in the narration of Saul’s demise and David’s reign (1 Chr 10-29); • dependence upon the Books of Kings is unmistakable in the narration of Solomon and the Judahite kingdom (2 Chr 1-36); • the United Monarchy (1 Chr 10-2 Chr 9); • the Chronicler has access to other biblical sources as well as non-biblical ones; • the Chronicler’s problem was how to reconcile all these sources..

11. The Iron IIA Period (1000-925 BC) – Conventional Chronology (see Textbook, p. 122) • See Textbook, pp. 101-139. • The Age of David and Solomon; • The Traditionalists assume the historicity of all, or most, of the biblical accounts relative to David and his son Solomon; • Finkelstein and Mazar: much of the narrative regarding David and Solomon can be read as fiction and embellishment by later writers; • The Minimalists: David and Solomon purely legendary figures.

13. Finkelstein: • - A “view from the center”; • Accepts the historicity of both David and Solomon; • rejects a 10th century United Monarchy; • however, he posits a 9th century united monarchy, in the north; • a monarchy ruled by the Omrides (Omri and his son Ahab [882-851 BC]) from Samaria (1 Kings16.23-24).

14. Finkelstein: • The kingdom of David and Solomon – a modest one; • Archaeology and Jerusalem – the capital of the supposed United Monarchy; • Megiddo (1 Kings 9.15 and 9.19): a Solomonic city – chariots and horses; • Dug by the Univ. of Chicago, Y. Yadin (soundings only), and now Finkelstein and Ussishkin; • - Its location; • Hazor (1 Kings 9.15): Y. Yadin; and now Amnon Ben-Tor; • Its location; • Gezer: Macallister; Seger; Dever; and Ortiz; • Six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer;

17. The Jebusite City that David Conquered – Artistic Reconstruction.

18. A Reconstruction of the Jebusite Wall of Jerusalem before its capture by David.

19. “Stepped Structure”: City of David (10th century B.C.[?])

20. Aerial View of the Site of Megiddo.

22. Megiddo – Reconstructed Plan.

23. Megiddo – artistic reconstruction.

24. Megiddo – Archaeological Remains of the Stables.

26. Hazor – Upper City.

28. Megiddo and Yadin’s interpretation of its buildings during the Iron IIA period: • Canaanite Megiddo destroyed by David; • its palaces; • its stables; • Yadin’s opinion on the site became the standard theory on the United Monarchy.

29. Finkelstein finds fault with the Conventional Theory on Megiddo: • The problem relative to the city gate at Megiddo and similar gates at Hazor and Gezer; • the problems with Yadin’s interpretation of the stratigraphy, chronology, and biblical passages on Megiddo; • And Dever and the dating of the six-chambered gate at Gezer; • Material in the Books of Kings not put in writing no earlier than the 7th century BC; • See especially Textbook, p. 112 relative to Finkelstein’s problems with the conventional theory on Megiddo.

31. Finkelstein’s Alternative Theory: • The two sites related to the Omride dynasty (9th century) ruling from Samaria, its capital in the highlands: • Samaria; • Jezreel; • Radiocarbon dating relative to the transition from the Iron I to the Iron II period: • that transition traditionally dated to ca. 1000-980 BC (conventional dating); • new dating to ca. 920-900 BC (low chronology); • a difference of ca. 100 years; • the case for Tel Rehov; • they were probably built by Ahab; • Megiddo palaces date to the time of the Omride dynasty; • Assyrian inscriptions, Mesha/Moabite Inscription; and inscriptions of Hazael of Damascus attest to the power of Israel in the 9th century; • if there was a United Monarchy it was the Omride dynasty ruling from Samaria.

33. The Tel Dan Inscription: • - From the 9th century BC; • The mention of “House of David” in the inscription; • David and Solomon historical figures;

34. Tel Dan Inscription with phrase “House of David”.

35. Finkelstein: • Why project these late-monarchic images back into the early history of Israel? • See Textbook, p. 116.

36. Mazar: • The search for David and Solomon; • Skepticism! • the kingdom not mentioned in any written sources outside the Bible; • Jerusalem, its capital, was either unsettled or comprised of a small village in the 10th century; • literacy hardly attested; • population sparse; • no evidence for international trade; • biblical texts motivated by theological and ideological concerns intending to glorify a past golden era in the history of Israel; • Mazar thinks that the deconstruction has gone too far.

37. Mazar: • Iron Age Chronology: • Conventional and Modified Conventional Chronology (see Textbook, p. 122); • Iron IIA (1000-925 BC) – Conventional Chronology: • from a material point-of-view: • significant change in material culture; expressed particularly in the production of pottery; • new style of pottery: new forms and the appearance of red slip and irregular hand-burnished wares; • Finkelstein suggests lowing the date of this pottery by 75-100 years (“Low Chronology”); • thus, first Israelite state documented in the archaeological record was northern Israel under the Omrides of the 9th century BC; • a deconstruction of the traditional view.

38. Iron II Pottery – Collection.

39. Iron II Pottery.

40. Mazar: • Why this “Low Chronology”? • destruction, probably by Hazael, King of Damascus, of royal enclosure at Jezreel must be dated to the end of the Omride dynasty in ca. 840/830 BC; • the pottery from this destruction must be dated to this time; • but same type of pottery found in nearby Megiddo in buildings traditionally attributed to Solomon; • this is one of Finkelstein’s reasons for lowering the date of the Megiddo buildings to the 9th century BC; • Mazar: but similar pottery found at Jezreel in construction fills below the foundations of the royal enclosure; • this pottery probably associated with an earlier town or village; • such a pre-Omride occupation could date to the 10th or early 9th century BC; • suggestion that throughout much of the 10th and 9th centuries the same type of pottery was in use; • the buildings at Megiddo could have been built by either Solomon or by Omri or Ahab.

41. Mazar: • The case of Arad in the northern Negev (see Textbook, pp. 120-21); • Stratum XII at Arad (earlier than Sheshonq I/Shishak raid in ca. 920 BC; • Finkelstein’s “Low Chronology” cannot be accepted since it creates unresolved problems in the study of the Iron Age; • on the basis of archaeological research at Hazor, Jezreel, and Tel Rehov, Mazar sees the need to modify the Conventional Chronology; • thus, his Modified Conventional Chronology (see Textbook, p. 122); • in his view, Iron IIA is dated from 980 to 840/830 BC; • the result is that both the United Monarchy and the Omride dynasty are included in the Iron IIA period.

42. Mazar: • - Sheshonq I’s raid and the Inscription telling about it; • Raid dated to ca. 920 BC; • 1 Kings14.25-28 mentioning this event; • the sites mentioned in the inscription; • was the Solomonic kingdom the one that Sheshonq raided? • if it happened after Solomon’s death, does this indicate that the Egyptian Pharaoh was taking advantage of a weak period in the time of the emerging Israelite state? • route of the raid; • was there destruction of the sites mentioned in the inscription? • sites such as Tell el Hama, Tel Rehov, Megiddo, and Taanach; • the date of the raid as an important chronological anchor, one that negates the Low Chronology of Finkelstein.

44. Mazar: • Jerusalem of the Iron I-II Period: • D. Ussishkin’s suggestion that Jerusalem not settled in the 10th century; • Finkelstein sees Jerusalem as a small village in the 10th century; • the location of Jerusalem prior to its expansion in the 8th century BC; • the ridge on which it was located; • in its entirety it was ca. 12 hectares (=30 acres); • but city of David traditionally located on the southern segment of this ridge, occupying ca. 4 hectares (=10 acres); • the Stepped Stone Structure – dated on the basis of pottery to no later than the 12th-11th centuries; • could it have continued in use during the alleged time of David and Solomon?

46. The Jebusite City that David Conquered – Artistic Reconstruction.

47. “Stepped Structure”: City of David (10th century B.C.[?])

48. Mazar: • Eilat Mazar’s excavations to the west and close to the Stepped Stone Structure: • revealed a monumental building; • was this building supported by the Stepped Stone Structure? • Eilat Mazar suggests the identification of this building with that of the palace of David of 2 Sam 5.11; • another possibility for its identification is “the fortress of Zion” mentioned in David’s conquest of the city (2 Sam 5.7, 9) – an hypothesis only;

49. Eilat Mazar’s Excavations in Jerusalem (in what was the City of David?).

50. Mazar: • The location of the temple and palace that Solomon supposedly built? • under the present Temple Mount and Dome of the Rock? • Solomon’s Jerusalem would have been ca. 12 hectares in size with monumental buildings and a temple; • if Solomon is removed from history, who would have built the Jerusalem Temple; • it existed prior to the Babylonian conquest of 586/87; • there is no textual hint of an alternative to Solomon for its building; • the plan of that Temple is well known from tripartite buildings of the region from the 2nd millennium to the 8th century BC; • parallels from Tell Tayinat and `Ain Dara of northern Syria; • Solomon’s palace similar to others in the region from the period in question;