Kingdom of Israel 𐤉𐤔𐤓𐤀𐤋[1] | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
c. 1047 BCE–930 BCE | |||||||||||
Common languages | Hebrew, Aramaic | ||||||||||
Religion | |||||||||||
Demonym(s) | Israelite | ||||||||||
Government | Hereditary theocratic absolute monarchy | ||||||||||
Kings | |||||||||||
• 1047–1010 BCE | Saul | ||||||||||
• 1010–1008 | Ish-bosheth | ||||||||||
• 1008–970 | David | ||||||||||
• 970–931 | Solomon | ||||||||||
• 931–930 | Rehoboam | ||||||||||
Historical era | Iron Age | ||||||||||
c. 1047 BCE | |||||||||||
930 BCE | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Today part of |
According to the Deuteronomistic history in the Hebrew Bible, a United Monarchy or United Kingdom of Israel[7] existed under the reigns of Saul, Ish-bosheth, David, and Solomon, encompassing the territories of both the later kingdoms of Judah and Israel.[8][9][10]
Whether the United Monarchy existed—and, if so, to what extent—is a matter of ongoing academic debate.[11][12][13] 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.[14][15] 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.[16] Proponents of the kingdom's existence traditionally date it to between c. 1047 BCE and c. 930 BCE.
In the 1990s, Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein contended that existing archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy in the 10th century BCE should be dated to the 9th century BCE.[17][18]: 59–61 This model placed the biblical kingdom in Iron 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.[19][6][20][21] The rival chronology of Israeli archaeologist Amihai 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,[22] though there is no current consensus on the topic.[23] Recent archaeological discoveries by Israeli archaeologists Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel in Jerusalem and Khirbet Qeiyafa, respectively, seem to support the existence of the United Monarchy, but the dating and identifications are not universally accepted.[18][24] The historicity of Solomon and his rule is also hotly debated. While the current consensus allows for a historical Solomon, it regards his reign as king over the United Monarchy in the tenth century BCE as uncertain and the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness as most probably a massive anachronistic exaggeration.[25][26][27]
According to the biblical account, on the succession of Solomon's son Rehoboam, the United Monarchy split into two separate kingdoms: the Kingdom of Israel in the north, containing the cities of Shechem and Samaria; and the Kingdom of Judah in the south, containing Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple.
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.
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."
Not all agree that the ruins found in Khirbet Qeiyafa are of the biblical town Sha'arayim, let alone the palace of ancient Israel's most famous King
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).