The paper critiques and summarizes archaeological perspectives on the United Monarchy, particularly focusing on findings related to 10th century Jerusalem. It discusses the significance of the Tel Dan stele and the Shoshenq I raid, linking these archaeological discoveries to biblical narratives and examining past scholarly debates on the authenticity and scope of the United Monarchy.

2019

King Solomon, the famously wise ruler of the Old Testament and successor to King David, was a popular model for kings from the early centuries of Europe's Middle Ages. He was the presumed author of four biblical books, the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and the Book of Wisdom, which served as ethical and political guides for kings as well as lay people. An ambivalence surrounded his character that derived partly from the fact that he was influenced by his wives and lovers, and became idolatrous and turned away from God at the end of his life. Moreover, an ancient tradition held that Solomon acquired his knowledge thanks to magical practices. 1 David, alongside Solomon, was one of the most favoured biblical exemplars for rulers, especially in the early Middle Ages. 2 Yet, Solomon became increasingly viewed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as the example to emulate. Varied associations, some negative, meant it was impossible, however, for medieval authors to create a fixed image of him. The highlighted aspects of the Solomonic ideal varied through the ages as Solomon was intermittently associated with peace, 3 justice (1 Kings 3:16-28), wealth (1 Kings 10:14, 23), wisdom 4 and, not without potentially negative connotations, involvement in magical practices. 5 From the Bible, we know of several famous episodes concerning the king, such as 'Solomon's Judgement', an incident in which he resolved a dispute between two women who both claimed to be the mother of the same child. Moreover, his rich kingdom and his famed knowledge were said to have drawn the attention of the Queen of Sheba, who travelled to meet with the king. Legendary objects as well as virtues were connected with him, ranging from the temple he built (1 Kings 6) and his palace (1 Kings 7), to his throne (1 Kings 10:18-20), key 6 and ring. 7 Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem became an archetype, one which many medieval rulers sought to imitate. This chapter will examine the way in which King Solomon was employed as a royal exempla in the medieval west between the ninth and fourteenth centuries. A Solomonic typology was certainly not attached to every medieval ruler's image. The instances selected in this study are, however, particularly notable examples. First, the chapter will touch on the early instances of so-called 'new Solomons', particularly among Carolingian and Byzantine rulers. The analysis will then focus on a

ETS, 2024

This paper examines some ways the Old Testament narrative accounts of Israel’s monarchy have, and might continue to, contribute to western political theology. Mostly, the narratives of Israel’s great kings have been used as exemplars of what righteous political rule should be like. There are plentiful examples. As we saw recently, English monarchs continue to be coronated in ceremonies that draw explicitly on Solomon’s anointing. They are anointed with oil and crowned as “defender of the faith” to Handel’s resounding anthem, Zadok the Priest. Josiah was a popular model amongst the magisterial reformers to show the way God’s appointed monarch should exercise authority over ecclesiastical matters. Edward VI was framed precisely as a new Josiah for this reason. But Josiah’s reforms were also appropriated by more radical branches of the reformation to justify the destruction of property and dethroning rulers, in order to establish a more pure form of Christendom. The pilgrim settlers in the Americas also looked to Josiah, both as a model of how righteous political society should function, and the manner in which heathens and apostates should be dealt with. The US ideal of the “city on the hill,” a common motif in political discourse since that time, originates from the idea that righteous civil society is a real possibility, modelled after the reforms of the righteous Israelite monarchs. The common thread across a wide variety of western cultures over a long historical period is a hermeneutic that appropriates Israel’s story as a model for Christian society, and the righteous Old Testament kings as a paradigm for Christian rule. But a more nuanced reading of both Kings and Chronicles, within a Biblical Theological framework, would question such appropriation. I explore some ways that the narratives of Kings and Chronicles frame the question of the Kingdom of God, as the kingdom promised to David, both in relation to internal political structures and external political threats. The concern of both books, in different ways, is twofold. First, they show that political power cannot establish a righteous kingdom, no matter how well intentioned. The narrative histories of Israel do not support most expressions of Christian nationalism. Second, they show it is feasible for the promised kingdom to be expressed within the realpolitik of this world in various modes, with or without political power. The powerless, underground Afghani churches are no less valid expressions of the kingdom promised to David, than the Zambian nation who are constitutionally Christian. Even though Israel’s histories expect the realisation of a Kingdom of God ruled by an anointed King, they allow in the meantime an expression of it administered by Babylon and Persia, a kingdom “not of this world.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997) 19–44

This paper studies the complex relationships between two neighboring states, namely, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. While the most wellknown model is Solomon's United Monarchy, our examination of the biblical texts reveals that the two kingdoms were also unified during the Omride and Nimshide dynasties, as well as during the reign of king Josiah. Thus, we have delineated four models of the United Monarchy: the heart model, the ring model, the sword model, and the altar model.

This paper re-examines the methodological framework for archaeological interpretation that has been commonly used by the major voices in the debate concerning the archaeological record of the Iron Age IIA period and the related historicity of the biblical United Monarchy. It is contended here that this framework suffers from critical problems that undermine its applicability to an ancient Near Eastern polity, primarily in its anachronistic sociological assumptions concerning how authority was legitimated in the native social context of ancient Israel, and how power was therefore conceived of and understood by such a polity’s constituents. It is argued, therefore, that this is an undesirable framework to use in understanding the archaeological record of the tenth century B.C.E. Rather, this paper seeks to both describe a different understanding of authority more appropriate to ancient Israel and the wider Near East, and to demonstrate the significant impact such an understanding has on the archaeological evaluation of the Iron Age IIA and historicity of the United Monarchy.

Recently the research agenda of the study of early Iron Age Palestine has shifted. The focus on the Iron Age I settlement is 'out' , to debate the historicity of the United Kingdom and the archaeological chronology of the 10 th -9 th centuries B.C.E. is 'in'. ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN's 'low chronology' (henceforward, LC) 1 is debated against the former, 'high chronology' (HC) 2 . This paper does not offer a new chronology, nor does it compare pottery assemblages and strata. Rather, it reviews the whole body of FINKELSTEIN's writing on the LC and discusses its methodology and development from a perspective of seven years (1995 -2002) 3 . I assume that readers are familiar with the debate, and will not describe each argument and counter argument. I will study the achievements of the LC as stated by FINKELSTEIN; its theoretical basis and some of its basic conceptions, and comment on some related issues. This paper is not written in order to support the historicity of the United Monarchy (cf. Solomon, holding 'his' temple, Taf. 1).

This thesis seeks to apply the idea of ancient Israel as a patriarchal and patrimonial state within its ancient Near Eastern context as adumbrated by David Schloen to the debate concerning the historicity of the biblical United Monarchy. Specifically, this thesis will apply this sociological idea to the archaeological aspects of this debate, a debate that has so far not taken account of the form and nature of ancient Israelite society as an aspect of the interpretation of the relevant archaeology and associated issues. Rather it has been content with a functionalist approach to archaeological interpretation that has not explored or justified its own assumptions about the social world and the legitimation of authority in ancient Israel. This thesis will discuss and analyse this functionalist approach, before moving on to apply a sociologically-informed approach centred upon patrimonial society to the methodology of the interpretation of the archaeological correlates for the United Monarchy.

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 1999

A biographical sketch of the eighteenth century evangelist George Whitefield claims: ÒHis voice had the range of an organ and with it he could reduce grown men to tears by the mere pronunciation of the word ÔMesopotamiaÕÓ (Hallo 1980: 1). Perhaps a Judean exile who sat down in the land Òbetween the rivers,Ó hung his harp upon the willows and remembered Jerusalem (see Ps 137) would also be moved to tears at the mention of ÒMesopotamia,Ó but not because of the wordÕs acoustic power. It was from this region, drained by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, that the Assyrians came to obliterate the northern kingdom of Israel and the Babylonians came to demolish the southern kingdom of Judah. In terms of geopolitical ebb and flow, the Israelite monarchies were simply crushed by revived Mesopotamian superpowers (Bright 1972: 267). The Bible and Mesopotamian documents agree that the Israelites were defeated by superior military forces. However, the biblical record penetrates to a deeper level of causality: The Israelites were defeated by superior forces because they neglected and disobeyed YHWH (= Jehovah), 1 their God. Having forsaken him, despised His covenant and polluted His temple, they were forsaken by him. According to Ezekiel, when YHWHÕs temple was filled with abominations (Ezek 8), His glorious Presence departed in the direction of the Mount of Olives (Ezek 9:3; 10:4,18-19), the way David had gone when he fled from Absalom (2 Sam 15:23ff). 2 At the Mount of Olives, the divine Majesty lingered (Ezek 11:23) Òas though loath to abandon the city altogetherÓ (Greenberg 1983: 191). As He was leaving, the sound of the wings of the cherubim which bore him away was Òlike the voice of God Almighty when he speaksÓ (Ezek 10:5). The 1 YHWH, transliterating the unvocalized tetragrammaton, the personal name of IsraelÕs God. 2 W. Shea interprets this passage within the context of an investigative judgment of Judah in Ezek 1-10 (1992: 15-23). JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 334 unspoken message was the same as that pronounced by Jesus over half a millennium later when history repeated itself: ÒJerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you, desolate.Ó (Matt 23:37-38, NRSV here and in subsequent biblical quotations unless indicated otherwise) Without YHWH, the temple and the city were soon destroyed. The present paper explores the end of the Israelite monarchy in terms of political events, underlying spiritual causes connected with those events, and results of the fall of the monarchy for GodÕs people. The end of northern Israel is covered here to some extent, but the primary focus is on factors leading to the death throes of Judean independence. Political Events The tumultuous final years of the monarchy are richly documented. Historical sources include especially (1) the biblical books of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, (2) inscriptions from Syria-Palestine, Assyria, and Babylon, (3) accounts of Herodotus and Josephus, and (4) archaeological evidence. Although the sources differ in purpose and orientation, 3 they are complementary and there is a high degree of agreement between them in terms of what happened on the surface level (Stern 1975: 30; cp. Mitchell 1991a: 343). Some problems remain, such as the chronological relationship between SennacheribÕs invasion, HezekiahÕs last fifteen years, and the beginning of ManassehÕs reign. 4 But problems like this do not seriously affect our understanding of the period. After a period of prosperity for the independent kingdoms of Israel in the north and Judah in the south (Mitchell 1991a: 322), the beginning of the end came with the accession of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 B.C.) to the Assyrian throne. Because his campaigns in the west threatened Syria and Israel, they put their old animosities aside, made a defensive alliance and attempted to force Judah to join with them. To avoid fighting against Assyria without being replaced by a puppet ruler set up by the Syro-Israelite alliance, Ahaz of Judah sent a huge gift to 3 The Bible selects historical details primarily as background for conveying understanding of deeper spiritual realities. Inscriptions served purposes such as communication, record-keeping, and/or propaganda. Herodotus and Josephus were early historians who were somewhat detached by space or time from the political convulsions of sixth century Palestine. Archaeological evidence is concrete in the sense that it deals with material remains, but it is often ambiguous regarding the precise relationships between objects and events. 4 If HezekiahÕs sickness, when he was promised another fifteen years (2 Kgs 20:6; Isa 38:5), occurred about the time of SennacheribÕs invasion, as the narrative suggests (2 Kgs 20:1ÑÓIn those days. . .), we would figure that Hezekiah reigned fifteen years after about 701 B.C. But his reign would overlap with that of Manasseh. A co-regency between Hezekiah and Manasseh is a possible solution (Thiele 1965: 157-161). But some scholars do not accept this idea (see e.g. Miller and Hayes 1986: 351).

The paper was published in the volume: Koch, I., Lipschits, O. and Sergi, O. 2023. From Nomadism to Monarchy? Revisiting the Early Iron Age Southern Levant Edited (Mosaic 3). Institute of Archaeology and Eisenbrauns; Tel Aviv University and University Park.

AI

Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives, 2010

This paper reviews the two opposing sides of the ongoing debate concerning the historicity of the biblical United Monarchy, the kingdom of David and Solomon. After discussing the scholarly background of archaeological research into the 10the century BCE and Iron IIA period, it discusses the major chronological and historical revision proposed by Israel Finkelstein and the counterarguments deployed by Amihai Mazar. After discussing particular issues highlighted by the archaeology of Jerusalem and Khirbet Qeiyafa, this paper closes with a brief reflection on how attitudes towards the Deuteronomistic History have affected this debate, with particular reference to the differing evaluations of Finkelstein and Baruch Halpern regarding its usability in historical reconstruction of the United Monarchy.

Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology, 2021

This article argues that many interpretations of the so-called "United Monarchy" of Saul, David, and Solomon are built upon false assumptions and problematic hermeneutics, not to mention that they draw upon anachronistic terminology. This is significant because such issues impact how the history of the early Israelite monarchy is reconstructed, how archaeological materials are related to political organization, and how text and archaeology are integrated. What is needed is a framework for reading the text that is methodologically informed and which draws upon relevant theories. As such this article provides a brief overview of the use of the terms "United Monarchy" and "Davidic/Solomonic Empire" in modern scholarship before turning to recent attempts to theorize and model ancient monarchies, including the ways in which ancient kingdoms controlled territory and how leaders legitimized their power and expressed their authority in a manner that unified their constituencies. From there it re-evaluates the biblical portrayal of the monarchies of Saul, David, and Solomon, considering in particular the nature of early Israel's political and social unity and identity, before turning to the potential archaeological correlates of political power during the reigns of these kings.

The Oxford Handbook of the Historical Books, 2020

A of the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah are found in both the books of Kings and Chronicles. The majority of historical issues related to their reigns are tied up with our understanding of the actions of the neo-Assyrian Empire, with its great expansion and dominance of Syria-Palestine, and then its decline and eventual collapse. This chapter will focus on historical issues that affect the way we understand these biblical kings and the biblical books in which their accounts are found.

2017

This chapter argues that monarchy—as conceptual abstraction, ‘the rule of one’—has provided to many modern political actors a way of imagining the nation as possessed of a unitary centre of identity and sovereignty, with the monarch as the conceptual—and not just, or even necessarily, the practical/political—apex. The royal nation has thus been a fundamentally important, though scarcely theorized upon, phenomenon in global history and the history of political thought. To build the argument, the chapter draws upon debates in global intellectual history and monarchy studies, as well as upon primary sources from late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain, Canada, India, Italy, and Japan. By analysing mobilities of political actors, ideas of rulership, and theologies, it shows how monarchy was often constructed—in transcontinentally entangled ways—as a privileged route to forming a modern nation. The royal nation became a debating centre for varied conceptions of power, includ...

Levant, 1996

The article deals with the chronology of the early-Iron II strata in Palestine. A careful examination of the archaeological and textual data indicates that there is no safe chronological anchor between the early-twelfth century BCE (the battles of Ramses III with the Sea Peoples) and the late-eighth century BeE (the Assyrian campaigns to Palestine). The most important clues for this time-span are the Philistine Bichrome pottery and the results of the excavations at Arad and Jezreel. Following a study of the Philistine chronology, the author suggests an alternative dating for the main strata of the early Iron II. According to this 'Low Chronology', Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo, Stratum XI at Arad and Stratum Vat Beer-sheba should all be dated to the ninth century BCE. Consequently, the tenth century is represented by Stratum VIA at Megiddo, Stratum XII at Arad and Stratum VII at Beer-sheba. The new dating calls for a re-evaluation of the historical, cultural and political processes that took place in Palestine in the eleventh-ninth centuries BCE.

This book chapter challenges the notion that Arab monarchies are more conducive to liberalization and democratization than their republican counterparts. Focusing on legitimacy and authoritarian bargains, It presents an alternative understanding of monarchical stability, using Jordan as a case study.

• Explore
• Papers
• Topics

• Features
• Mentions
• Analytics
• PDF Packages
• Advanced Search
• Search Alerts

• Journals
• Academia.edu Journals
• My submissions
• Reviewer Hub
• Why publish with us
• Testimonials

• Company
• About
• Careers
• Press
• Help Center
• Terms
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Content Policy