Debating the United Monarchy: Let's See How Far We've Come

@article{Thomas2016DebatingTU,
  title={Debating the United Monarchy: Let's See How Far We've Come},
  author={Zach Thomas},
  journal={Biblical Theology Bulletin},
  year={2016},
  volume={46},
  pages={59 - 69}
}
  • Zach Thomas
  • Published 22 April 2016
  • Sociology
  • Biblical Theology Bulletin
This article 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 10th 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… Expand
The ecological-evolutionary theory, migration, settler colonialism, sociology of violence and the origins of ancient Israel
Abstract This paper looks at the question of the origins of ancient Israel from the perspective of four social-scientific based approaches. These are the ecological-evolutionary theory developed byExpand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 35 REFERENCES
A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives
Twelve years have passed since I first presented – to the German Institute in Jerusalem – my ideas on the chronology of the Iron Age strata in the Levant and how it impacts on our understanding ofExpand
State Formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories, and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa
During the past 30 yr, the biblical narrative relating to the establishment of a kingdom in Judah has been much debated. Were David and Solomon historical rulers of an urbanized state-level societyExpand
The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative View
AbstractThe 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 chronologicalExpand
The contribution of the Amarna letters to the debate on Jerusalem's political position in the tenth century B.C.E.
Understanding of the problems involved in the excavations of multilayered highland sites and an examination of the long-range perspective are both essential for the correct appreciation ofExpand
Iron Age chronology : A reply to I. Finkelstein
Abstract This paper contests I. Finkelstein's proposed low chronology for the mid-twelfth to mid-eighth centuries BCE. Though indeed there are few, if any, chronological ‘anchors’ during this period,Expand
The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint
  • A. Mazar
  • History
  • Near Eastern Archaeology
  • 2011
The following is a response to an article in this journal by Israel Finkelstein and Eli Piasetzky (2011) summarizing their current opinion on the Iron Age chronology debate, which is an abridgedExpand
The Deuteronomistic History
many scholars see 2 editions—first in time of Josiah, calling people to choose obedience, second early in exile, telling reasons for destruction, but ending in note of hope—Cross says earlier workExpand
Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation
Abstract The article deals with the finds at the late Iron I settlement of Khirbet Qeiyafa, a site overlooking the Valley of Elah in the Shephelah. It points out the methodological shortcomings inExpand
The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?
An article by one of us fifteen years ago (Finkelstein 1996) instigated a fierce debate over the chronology of the Iron Age strata in the Levant (summaries of opinions in Finkelstein 2005; MazarExpand
The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan
Cet article propose un compte-rendu des donnees archeologiques concernant l'habitat philistin des sites de Tell el-Far⊂ah et de Megiddo, puis compare ces donnees aux textes relatifs a l'histoire desExpand
...
1
2
3
4
...