Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

According to standard source criticism, several distinct source texts were spliced together to produce the current Books of Samuel.[15] The most prominent in the early parts of the first book are the pro-monarchical source and the anti-monarchical source. In identifying both sources, two separate accounts can be reconstructed. The anti-monarchical source describes Samuel as having thoroughly routed the Philistines, begrudgingly accepting the people's demand for a ruler and appointing Saul by cleromancy.

The pro-monarchical source describes the divinely-appointed birth of Saul (a single word being changed by a later editor so that it referred to Samuel) and his leading of an army to victory over the Ammonites, which resulted in the clamouring of the people for him to lead them against the Philistines, when he is appointed king.[20]

Textual criticism also points to disparities in the account of David's rise to power as indicative of separate threads being merged later to create a Golden Age of a united monarchy. David is thought by scholars to have been a ruler in Judah, and Israel, which was comparatively immense and highly developed, continued unfettered. Modern archaeology also supports that view.[6]

Most scholars believe the Books of Samuel exhibit too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example, there is mention of later armour (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels.(1 Samuel 30:17), cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), and iron picks and axes (as if they were common) (2 Samuel 12:31). The historicity of the conquest described in the Book of Samuel is not attested, and many scholars regard the conquest as legendary in origin, particularly because of the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanite peoples. Most scholars believe that Samuel was compiled in the 8th century BCE, rather than the 10th century, when most of the events described took place, based on both historical and legendary sources. It served primarily to fill the gap in Israelite history after the events that had been described in Deuteronomy. That gap in the historical record is characteristic of the Late Bronze Age collapse;[21] cultural memories of times before the disaster often became embellished as stories of a "lost golden age", as in the Trojan Epic Cycle.[22]

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, and consequently, Finkelstein concluded that much of the monumental architecture characterizing Israel in the 10th century BC that has been traditionally associated with the biblical United Monarchy 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"[23][24] According to Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, the authors of The Bible Unearthed, ideas of a united monarchy are not accurate history but "creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement" that are possibly "based on certain historical kernels."[6][13] 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.[25] Some see the united monarchy as fabricated during the Babylonian Exile transforming David and Solomon from local folk heroes into rulers of international status.[26] Finkelstein has posited a potential United Monarchy under Jeroboam II in the 8th century BC, whereas the former one was potentially invented during the reign of Josiah to justify his territorial expansion.[27]

On the other hand, Amélie 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," but 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."[14] Kenneth Kitchen reaches a similar conclusion by arguing that "the physical archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain."[28]

Aerial view of Khirbet Qeiyafa.

Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, an Iron Age site in Judah, found an urbanized settlement radiocarbon dated well before scholars such as Finklestein suggest that urbanization had begun in Judah, which supports the existence of a Judahite kingdom. The Israel Antiquities Authority stated, "The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly 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."[29] The techniques and interpretations to reach some conclusions related to Khirbet Qeiyafa have been criticized by some scholars, such as Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin of Tel Aviv University.[30]

In August 2015, Israeli archaeologists discovered massive fortifications in the ruins of the ancient city of Gath, supposed birthplace of Goliath. The size of the fortifications show that Gath was a very 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.[31]

Israel Finkelstein, in 2020, considers that Saul, originally from the Benjamin territory had gained power in his natal Gibeon region around 10th century BCE, and that he conquered Jerusalem in the south and Shechem 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 which were vassals of Egypt. Finkelstein concludes that the memory of a united monarchy was inspired by the 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 ideal of a united monarchy ruled from Jerusalem.[32]

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.[39][40][41]

Most biblical scholars follow either of the older chronologies established by William F. Albright or Edwin R. Thiele or the newer chronology of Gershon Galil, all of which are shown below. All dates are BCE. Thiele's chronology generally corresponds with Galil's chronology below with a difference of at most one year.[42]

• Biblical chronology
• Historicity of the Bible
• Ir Ovot
• Kings of Israel and Judah
• Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) (the northern kingdom after the split)
• Kingdom of Judah (the southern kingdom after the split)
• Israel (the modern country)
• List of Jewish states and dynasties