Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:
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;
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 10 th century United Monarchy; - however, he posits a 9 th 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;
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 7 th 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 (9 th 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 9 th century; - if there was a United Monarchy it was the Omride dynasty ruling from Samaria.
33 The Tel Dan Inscription: - From the 9 th 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 10 th 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 9 th century BC; - a deconstruction of the traditional view.
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 9 th 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 10 th or early 9 th century BC; - suggestion that throughout much of the 10th and 9 th 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 10 th century; - Finkelstein sees Jerusalem as a small village in the 10 th century; - the location of Jerusalem prior to its expansion in the 8 th 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 12 th -11 th 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 (10 th 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 2 nd millennium to the 8 th 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;
53 Mazar: - See Textbook, p. 129, for Mazar’s summary relative to Jerusalem of the time of Solomon.
54 Mazar: - Yadin’s Position on Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer; - Megiddo: stables built by Solomon (1 Kings 9.19); - Megiddo as an unfortified city with two palaces; - Megiddo’s six-chambered gate; - Yadin and Solomonic architecture (see 1 Kings 9.15); - the case of Hazor; - Finkelstein: “palaces city” built by Ahab while the “stable city” built by Manasseh in the 8th century BC; - Mazar: 10 th century date is the correct one for the “palaces city”; - it ought to have had a monumental gate; - the “stable city” would fit the time of Ahab; - in summary, Yadin’s position concerning Solomonic architecture at Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer might be correct.
55 Mazar and Demography and Literacy: - Arguments against the United Monarchy - Low settlement density and lack of ubanization in the 10 th century BC; - a gradual increase in settlement from the Iron I to the 8 th century; - 20,000 people in Judah in the 10 th century; - population in the Israelite territories between 50 and 70 thousand; - sufficient for an Israelite state in the 10 th century. -Literacy: - dearth of inscriptions dating to the 10 th century; - does this mean a lack of literacy and the unlikelihood of a central administration and thus no state? - but the Kingdom of Israel in the north of the country in the 9 th century and very few inscriptions; - perhaps perishable materials used for writing?
56 Mazar: - Israel’s Neighbours in the 10 th century; - The Philistines: - Philistia not conquered by David; - according to recent archaeological research at such sites as Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron (Tel Miqne), and Gath (Tell es-Safi) were Philistine ones in the 10 th century; - Edomites: - Lots of discussion as to when an Edomite state emerged; - most would say in the 8 th -7 th centuries at the time when the Assyrians were in control of Transjordan; - some evidence for early copper mining at Feinan in western Edom; - no support for David conquest of the Edomites. - Moabites and Ammonites: - little evidence of states of Moab and Ammon in the 10 th century, that is, early Iron II period.
61 Mazar: -Tyre and the Phoenicians: - Bible mentions relations between Solomon and Hiram, King of Tyre; - the land of the Phoenicians – actually formerly called Canaanites; - evidence for international trade and the Phoenicians were the merchants of the Mediterranean; - Phoenician pottery found at Israel sites from the Iron Age – however, mostly from the north of the country or in what will become Israel; - little evidence of trade with Judean sites.
63 Mazar: - Arameans/Neo-Hittites: - no archaeological support for the Bible’s assertions of David’s wars in Syria; - some archaeological support for the small Aramean kingdom of Geshur located to the NE and E of the Sea of Galilee; - the sites of Tel Hadar – dated to the 11 th or early 10 th century BC - and Bethsaida – fortified in the 10 th century – have been excavated in the area.