TheKingdom of Israel (Hebrew: מַמְלֶכֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל,Mamleḵeṯ Yīśrāʾēl) was anIsraelite kingdom that may have existed in theSouthern Levant. The first extra-biblical mention of Israel dates from the Merneptah Stele created by Pharaoh Merneptah in 1208 BC.[7] According to theDeuteronomistic history in theHebrew Bible, theUnited Kingdom of Israel or theUnited Monarchy[8] existed under the reigns ofSaul,Ish-bosheth,David, andSolomon, encompassing the territories of both the later kingdoms ofJudah andIsrael.[9][10][11]
Whether the United Monarchy existed—and, if so, to what extent—is a matter of ongoing academic debate.[12][13][14] During the 1980s, some biblical scholars began to argue that the archaeological evidence for an extensive kingdom before the late 8th century BCE is too weak, and that the methodology used to obtain the evidence is flawed.[15][16] 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.[17] Proponents of the kingdom's existence traditionally date it to betweenc. 1047 BCE andc. 930 BCE.
In the 1990s, Israeli archaeologistIsrael Finkelstein contended that existing archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy in the 10th century BCE should be dated to the 9th century BCE.[18]: 40 [19]: 59–61 This model placed the biblical kingdom inIron 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.[20][6][21][22] The rival chronology of Israeli archaeologistAmihai 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,[23] though there is no current consensus on the topic.[24] Recent archaeological discoveries by Israeli archaeologistsEilat Mazar andYosef Garfinkel in Jerusalem andKhirbet Qeiyafa, respectively, seem to support the existence of the United Monarchy, but the dating and identifications are not universally accepted.[19][25] The historicity of Solomon and his rule is the subject of significant debate. Current scholarly consensus allows for a historical Solomon, but regards his reign as king over Israel and Judah in the10th century BCE as uncertain and the biblical portrayal of his apparent empire's opulence as most probably ananachronistic exaggeration.[26][27][28]
According to the biblical account, on the succession of Solomon's sonRehoboam, the United Monarchy split into two separate kingdoms: theKingdom of Israel in the north, containing the cities ofShechem andSamaria; and theKingdom of Judah in the south, containing Jerusalem and theJewish Temple.
In the 1980s, a few biblical scholars began to assert that the archaeological evidence for an extensive kingdom before the late 8th century BCE is too weak, and that the methodology used to obtain the evidence is flawed.[15][16] 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"[29][30] According to Finkelstein andNeil Silberman, the authors ofThe 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][20] 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.[31] Some see the united monarchy as fabricated during theBabylonian Exile transforming David and Solomon from localfolk heroes into rulers of international status.[32] Finkelstein has posited a potential United Monarchy underJeroboam II in the 8th century BCE, whereas the former one was potentially invented during the reign ofJosiah to justify his territorial expansion.[33]
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, includingAmnon Ben-Tor,William G. Dever,Kenneth Kitchen,Doron Ben-Ami, Raz Kletter andLawrence Stager.[34]
ThoughAmélie 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."[21]Kenneth Kitchen (University of Liverpool) reaches a similar conclusion, arguing that "the physical archaeology of tenth-centuryCanaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain."[35]
On August 4, 2005, archaeologistEilat Mazar announced that she had discovered inJerusalem what may have been the palace ofKing David.[36] Now referred to as theLarge 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 claybulla, or inscribed seal, ofJehucal, son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi, an official mentioned at least twice in theBook 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.[37] 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.[36] Garfinkel also claimed to have discovered David's palace in 2013, 25 kilometres away, atKhirbet Qeiyafa.[38][39]
Aerial view ofKhirbet Qeiyafa, an archaeological site in modern-day Israel (2008)
Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, anIron Age site in Judah, found an urbanized settlementradiocarbon dated well before scholars such as Finkelstein suggest thaturbanization had begun in Judah, which supports the existence of an urbanized kingdom in the 10th century BCE. TheIsrael 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."[40] The techniques and interpretations to reach some conclusions related to Khirbet Qeiyafa have been criticized by some scholars, such as Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin.[41]
In 2010, archaeologistEilat 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 KingSolomon. Not all archaeologists agree with Mazar, and archaeologistAren Maeir is dubious about such claims and Mazar's dating.[42]
In theJewish Study Bible (2014),Oded Lipschits states the concept of United Monarchy should be abandoned,[20] whileAren Maeir believes there is insufficient evidence in support of the United Monarchy.[43] In August 2015, Israeli archaeologists discovered massive fortifications in the ruins of the ancient city ofGath, supposed birthplace ofGoliath. 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.[44]
In his book,The Forgotten Kingdom (2013),Israel Finkelstein considered that Saul, originally from the Benjamin territory, had gained power in his natalGibeon region around the 10th century BCE and that he conquered Jerusalem in the south andShechem 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.[45]
In an article on theBiblical 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."[46][34]
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 likeAmihai 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 ofDavid in the development of ancient Israel.[34]
In his books,Beyond the Texts (2018) andHas 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."[47] 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 byYosef Garfinkel.[48][49]
The archaeologistAvraham Faust, reviewingBeyond the Texts stated "Dever’s view of the historicity of the united monarchy, which will probably be the main interest of many readers, is that the state or states appeared in the early tenth century but should be defined as 'early inchoate state' (363), not the empire described in the Bible."[50]
In 2018, Faust announced that his excavations atTel 'Eton (believed to be the biblicalEglon) had uncovered an elite house (which he referred to as "the governor's residency"), whose foundations were dated bycarbon-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.[51][52]
According to Dever (2021), 10th century Judah was "something like in 'early inchoate state,' one that will not be fully consolidated until the 9th century BCE" while Israel had a separate development.[53]
In their book,The Bible's First Kings (2025), Avraham Faust and Zev Farber have argued that the United Monarchy was a historicalmini-empire and that archaeological evidence and early biblical traditions attest to its emergence in the 10th century BCE.[54] Faust and Farber say that as of 2025[update] Bible scholars embrace radical skepticism about the United Monarchy, but archaeologists do not.[55]
According to mainstreamsource criticism, several contrasting source texts were spliced together to produce the current Books of Samuel.[22] 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 pro-monarchical source describes the divinely-appointed birth ofSaul (a single word being changed by a later editor so that it referred to Samuel) and his leading of an army to victory over theAmmonites, which resulted in the people clamouring for him to lead them against the Philistines when he is appointed king.[56]
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 fromchariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), and iron picks and axes (as if they were prevalent) (2 Samuel 12:31).[57][58][59]
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 inDeuteronomy.[60][61]
According to the biblical account, the united monarchy was formed when the elders of Israel expressed the desire for a king.[62] 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."[63] However, Samuel still proceeds with the establishment of a monarchy by anointing Saul.[64]
In theSecond 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.[65][66] 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.[67]
Israel rebels against David and crowns David's sonAbsalom. David is forced into exile east of theJordan River[68] 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.[69]
Golden age
Throughout the monarchy of Saul, the capital is inGibeah. After Saul's death, Ish-bosheth rules over the Kingdom of Israel fromMahanaim, and David establishes the capital of the Kingdom of Judah inHebron.[70]
After the civil war with Saul, David forges a powerful and unified Israelite monarchy and rules from c. 1000 to 961 BCE.[71] 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 thePhilistines to secure his borders. Israel grows from kingdom to empire, its military and political sphere of influence expanding to control the weaker client states ofPhilistia,Moab,Edom andAmmon, with Aramaean city-statesAram-Zobah andAram-Damascus becoming vassal states.[72]
David is succeeded by his son Solomon, who obtains the throne in a somewhat-disreputable manner from the rival claimantAdonijah, his elder brother.[73] LikeDavid'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 toTyre.[74]
Solomon goes on to rebuild numerous significant cities, includingMegiddo,Hazor andGezer. Some scholars have attributed aspects of archaeological remains excavated from these sites, including six-chambered gates andashlar 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 byKing Ahab in the 9th century BCE.[75]
The Kingdom of Israel (or the Northern Kingdom or Samaria) existed as an independent state until 722 BCE when it was conquered by theNeo-Assyrian Empire. The Kingdom of Judah (or the Southern Kingdom) existed as an independent state until 586 BCE when it was conquered by theNeo-Babylonian Empire.[77]
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.[78][79][80]
Most biblical scholars follow either of the older chronologies established by American archaeologistsWilliam F. Albright andEdwin R. Thiele or the newer one by Israeli historianGershon Galil. Thiele's chronology generally corresponds with Galil's chronology below, with a difference of one year at most.[81]
^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
^abGarfinkel, 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 fromthe original on 23 June 2012. Retrieved12 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.
^Tobolowsky, Andrew (2018). "Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches".Currents in Biblical Research.17 (1):33–58.doi:10.1177/1476993X18765117.ISSN1476-993X.
^abcLipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.).The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). 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 afolktale 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. Retrieved12 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 fromthe original on 23 June 2012. Retrieved12 June 2018.
^Maeir, Aren M. (2014)."Archeology and the Hebrew Bible". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.).The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). 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.
^Faust, A., 2018, "Review of William Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017",Review of Biblical Literature 10/2018 (online publication)
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.
.jpg)
._Visual_History_of_Nations%2c_Israel_(1948)%2c_New_Canaan%2c_CT.jpg)
.svg)
