1. United Monarchy? Kings David and Solomon

2. 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. 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. 4 Location of the David and Goliath Encounter (1 Samuel 17.40-51)

5. 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. 6 Mahanaim (?) in Transjordan.

7. 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. 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.

9. 9

10. 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. 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.

12. 12

13. 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. 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;

15. 15

16. 16

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

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

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

20. 20 Aerial View of the Site of Megiddo.

21. 21

22. 22 Megiddo – Reconstructed Plan.

23. 23 Megiddo – artistic reconstruc tion.

24. 24 Megiddo – Archaeological Remains of the Stables.

25. 25

26. 26 Hazor – Upper City.

27. 27

28. 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. 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.

30. 30

31. 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.

32. 32

33. 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. 34 Tel Dan Inscription with phrase “House of David”.

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

36. 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. 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.

38. 38 Iron II Pottery – Collection.

39. 39 Iron II Pottery.

40. 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. 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. 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.

43. 43

44. 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?

45. 45

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

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

48. 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. 49 Eilat Mazar’s Excavations in Jerusalem (in what was the City of David?).

50. 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;

51. 51

52. 52 Solomon’s Temple – Plan (?).

53. 53 Mazar: - See Textbook, p. 129, for Mazar’s summary relative to Jerusalem of the time of Solomon.

54. 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. 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. 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.

57. 57 Philistine Pottery.

58. 58

59. 59

60. 60

61. 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.

62. 62

63. 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.

64. 64

65. 65 Mazar: - Conclusions (Textbook, pp. 138-39).