Scholars continue to puzzle over how much of the Biblical account of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon is fact versus fiction. In this excerpt from a recent conference paper on the archaeology of early Israel,1 prominent Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar argues that when it comes to the historicity of David and Solomon, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
There is no doubt that many aspects, and even entire stories in the Biblical narrative relating to the United Monarchy are literary constructs created by authors who lived centuries later than the supposed time of events, who were inspired by their own theology and ideology. Nonetheless, a total deconstruction of the United Monarchy as an historical entity is unjustified. The mention of bytdwd as the name of the Judean kingdom in the Tel Dan Aramean stele indicates that approximately a century and a half after his reign, David was recognized throughout the region as the founder of the dynasty that ruled Judah. David’s huge impact on Judean collective memory cannot be explained merely as an invention of later authors.
In evaluating the historicity of the United Monarchy, one should bear in mind the role of the individual in history. David may have been one of those leaders with exceptional charisma who might have created a short-lived political entity even without having had a very large capital, organized army and administration. He can be envisioned as a creative, charismatic leader who managed to take hold of the unique stronghold of Jerusalem (probably the citadel built before his reign), and turn it into a power base from which he could control main portions of a small country like the Land of Israel and its diverse population groups. These groups could be both descendants of the local Canaanite population (for example the inhabitants of the Jezreel and Beth Shean Valleys), as well as tribal groups who settled during the Iron Age I in the hill country and the Negev. Some of these may have been known as Israelites already in the late 13th century B.C.E., if the identification of the hill country settlers with Mernephtah’s Israel is valid. The only powers that stood in David’s way were the Philistine city-states which, as both the Bible and archaeology relate, remained independent city-states during this time (except the case of Ekron). Though much of this evaluation is beyond the grasp of archaeological research, we still possess sufficient data in the archaeological record to support such an interpretation.
Scholars continue to puzzle over how much of the Biblical account of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon is fact versus fiction. In this excerpt from a recent conference paper on the archaeology of early Israel,1 prominent Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar argues that when it comes to the historicity of David and Solomon, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. There is no doubt that many aspects, and even entire stories in the Biblical narrative relating to the United Monarchy are literary constructs created by authors who lived centuries later than […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.