The finds at Arad, Beer-sheba, and Lachish thus seem to point to a similar picture: all three sites show evidence for the existence of Judahite sanctuaries in the eighth century BCE, but in all three the sanctuaries fell into disuse before the end of the eighth century. In other words, in all three the city that was destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 did not have a shrine, which suggests that a cult reform did indeed occur throughout Judah in the time of Hezekiah.
Appendix 6
Tyrants, City Leagues, and Mercenary Bodyguards
ADDITIONAL SEVENTH-CENTURY BCE GREEK CULTURAL TRAITS IN THE BIBLICAL STORIES OF THE PHILISTINES
In addition to the seventh-century BCE Greek realities hidden in the story of the duel between David and Goliath, other details in the depiction of the Philistines in the Deuteronomistic History point to the same historical and cultural context.
THE LORDS OF THE PHILISTINES
The first is the use of the term seranim for the leaders of the Philistines (for example, 1 Samuel 5:8, 11; 6:4, 12, 16; 7:7)—an unusual term that is translated as “rulers” or “lords.” In some cases the Bible speaks about five seranim, and in one place ( Joshua 13:3), it specifically refers to a league of five Philistine cities, which scholars have labeled as the “Philistine Pentapolis.” The term seren/seranim does not have a Semitic derivation and therefore is presumed to have been a Philistine word that was adopted into Hebrew. Scholars have usually connected it etymologically with the Greek word tyrannos, meaning “tyrant,” which first appears in the seventh century BCE. Tyrannos was probably derived from the older Anatolian word, tarwanis, meaning “governor,” which was later introduced into Greek.
However, there is a problem in this presumed chain of transmission since the biblical term seren has traditionally been dated to the Iron I period, several centuries before the appearance of the Greek tyrannos. Yet if we date the biblical use of the word seren in the seventh century BCE when the Deuteronomistic History was compiled, the problem is resolved: the title tyrannos developed in western Asia Minor in the seventh century BCE and the Hebrew form seren was derived from it and was incorporated into the Deuteronomistic History. It may not be a coincidence that the first ruler to be referred to as tyrannos in Greek literature was Gyges king of Lydia, who, according to Assyrian texts, sent mercenaries to Egypt.
The Philistines’ city league also poses a problem. “Early” Philistine accounts in the Bible (for instance Joshua 13:3 and 1 Samuel 6:17) refer to a political organization of five Philistine cities: Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron. While this manner of organization is not typical in the ancient Near East, federations—or leagues of tribes or cities—are fairly common in the Aegean world, beginning in the archaic period (c. 700–480 BCE). By the seventh century BCE, they had already become a widespread phenomenon in Greece and western Asia Minor.
CHERETHITES AND PELETHITES
The Bible mentions the Cherethites and Pelethites as special mercenary units in the time of David—units that were distinct from the regular army corps and that were totally loyal to the king, even in times of crisis (1 Samuel 30:14; 2 Samuel 8:18; 2 Samuel 15:18). Some scholars have identified the Cherethites as a group of Sea People and associated them with Crete, since, according to a verse in Amos (9:7), the Philistines came from Caphtor, or Crete. The Pelethites have usually been identified with the Philistines, with the Hebrew peleti seen as a corruption of pelisti—Philistine.
But Cherethites and Pelethites do not appear among the groups of Sea People in the Egyptian sources, and in light of the modest nature of the tenth-century highland polity of Judah, it is highly unlikely that the stories about Aegean mercenary troops in the service of David can be accepted as reliable historical testimony.
However, in contrast to the situation in David’s time, the phenomenon of Greek mercenaries was well known in the region, especially in Philistia and possibly also in the Judahite Negev, in the seventh century BCE. Crete—the probable land of origin of the Cherethites—was a major source of mercenaries in the Hellenistic world. The demographic and economic realities lying behind this phenomenon must have been quite similar in the archaic period. Therefore, the biblical description of Cherethites as mercenary troops in the time of David may have been an anachronistic feature drawn from firsthand experience with Cretan mercenaries in the seventh century BCE.
For the Pelethites, we should go back to the suggestion of the American scholar William Foxwell Albright, who noted the similarity of this name to the “later” Greek term pelte, meaning “light shield.” But instead of understanding this term in an Iron I context, we should once again turn to the realities of the seventh century BCE. The word may indeed have originated from the Greek pelte, or perhaps from the medium-armed Greek warriors known as peltastai. The peltasts are mentioned for the first time by the Greek historian Thucydides, in the fifth century BCE, and are shown in Greek vase paintings as early as the sixth century BCE. They may well have appeared somewhat earlier.
So how can we explain the appearance of these archaic Greek elements in the David story? As we have indicated in Chapter 6, the Deuteronomistic historian must have had a clear ideological motivation to depict Goliath as a heavily armed Greek warrior. The same seems to hold true for the Cherethites and Pelethites. In this case, the biblical author may have sought to glorify the figure of David by showing that he—like the great kings of contemporary (seventh-century BCE) times—had Greek mercenary troops at his service. This would also have served to legitimize Judah’s political or economic cooperation with Twenty-sixth Dynasty Egypt and its Greek mercenary troops. This was done by “reminding” the people of Judah that foreign mercenaries were the closest military allies of the pious David, the founder of their ruling dynasty.
Appendix 7
Deportees, Returnees, and the Borders of Yehud
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE EXILIC AND EARLY POSTEXILIC PERIODS
In the early days of historical research, the notion was common among scholars that the Babylonian exile was almost total and that much of the population of Judah was carried away. According to this idea, Judah was emptied of its population and the countryside was left desolate throughout the exilic period (586–538 BCE). Moreover, many scholars accepted the biblical description: that the whole aristocracy of Judah—the royal family, the Temple priests, ministers, and high-profile merchants—was carried away, and that the few remaining inhabitants in Judah were poor peasants. It now seems that this was not the case.
The biblical reports on the number of exiles are frankly contradictory. The second book of Kings (24:14) gives the number of exiles in the days of King Jehoiachin (the first Babylonian campaign in 597 BCE) as ten thousand, while verse 16 in the same chapter counts eight thousand people. The book of Kings does not provide us with the number of exiles after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE but it states that following the murder of Gedaliah and the massacre of the Babylonian garrison at Mizpah, “all the people” ran away to Egypt (2 Kings 25:26). Jeremiah recounts a process of three deportations totaling forty-six hundred people (52:28–30). Scholars tended to prefer his numbers because they seem to be less rounded and therefore more precise. We do not know, of course, whether this figure represents the total number of deportees or the heads of the families; in the latter case, the total number of exiles would rise to about twenty thousand. In any event, there is no way to reach an accurate number. We are probably dealing with a total ranging between a few thousand and fifteen or twenty thousand people. The exiles (who probably came mainly from the capital and its surrounding area) comprised between 5 and 20 percent of the population of the Judahite state before the destruction—mainly the aristocracy. These figures indicate that most of the population of Judah, which was largely rural, did not go to exile. This community included not only poor villagers but also artisans, scribes, priests, and prophets. It is noteworthy that an important part of the prophetic work of the time—Haggai and Zechariah—was compiled in Judah.
How many people retur
ned from Babylonia to settle in Jerusalem and other parts of Yehud? What was the overall population of the province of Yehud in the time of the Chronicler? The lists of the returnees from Babylonia reported in Ezra 2:1–67 and Nehemiah 7:6–63, totaling almost fifty thousand people, are of questionable historical value. Some scholars suggest that they represent the several successive waves of exiles who returned to Yehud during the course of the Persian period. Others argue that they reflect the total population of the area, rather than the number of the repatriates alone. Even so, these numbers seem to be considerably inflated.
Where did they settle? The most detailed territorial data on the province of Yehud come from the list of exiles who returned from Babylonia (Ezra 2; Nehemiah 7) and from the list of the builders of the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3). The southern boundary of Yehud passed immediately to the south of Beth-zur, leaving Hebron—the second most important town in the highlands in monarchic times, the place where David was supposedly crowned, and the location of the tombs of the patriarchs—outside the territory of the province of Yehud. In the north, the border conformed to the late seventh-century border of monarchic Judah, passing to the north of Mizpah and Bethel. In the east, Jericho was included in Yehud. In the west, Yehud may have included the northern Shephelah. Yehud was therefore a small province, which covered mainly the Judean hills, to a distance of about fifteen miles to the north and south of Jerusalem, a total area of less than eight hundred square miles. This was a much smaller territory than even the limited area of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century BCE, which also controlled the southern Hebron hills, the Beer-sheba Valley, and the Shephelah.
This reconstruction of the boundaries of the province of Yehud from biblical evidence is confirmed by archaeological finds—particularly, distinctive seal impressions found on pottery vessels from the Persian period, written in Aramaic or Hebrew and carrying the name of the province, Yehud. Several hundred examples of such impressed handles are known from excavations and chance finds.* In fact, almost all the impressions were found in Jerusalem and in the sites immediately to its north and south. Their overall geographical distribution closely parallels the boundaries of the province of Yehud as described above: from the area of Mizpah in the north to Beth-zur in the south, and from Jericho in the east to Gezer in the west.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SUGGESTED READING
Authors’ Note: Although there is a rich scholarly literature on David and Solomon also in Hebrew, German, French, and other European languages, we have selected the main sources in English for this bibliography (including translations from German). In a very few cases Hebrew, German, or French sources are cited when they are the only relevant references to a particular subject.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Encyclopedias
THE MAIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN ISRAEL AND JORDAN
Stern, E., ed. 1993. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem.
BIBLE ENTRIES
Freedman, D. N., ed. 1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York.
THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
Meyers, E. M., ed. 1997. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. New York.
Sasson, J. M., ed. 1995. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. London.
Archaeological method
Renfrew, C., and P. Bahn. 1991. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London.
History of archaeological research in Palestine
Silberman, N. A. 1982. Digging for God and Country: Exploration in the Holy Land 1799–1917. New York.
Introductory books on the archaeology of the Levant
Ben-Tor, A., ed. 1992. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven.
Levy, T. E., ed. 1995. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London.
Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York.
Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol. II, The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE. New York.
Geographical history of the Land of Israel
Aharoni, Y. 1979. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia.
Translation of ancient Near Eastern texts
Pritchard, J. B. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton.
History of ancient Israel
Alt, A. 1966. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Oxford.
Finkelstein, I., and N. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York.
Liverani, M. Forthcoming 2005. Israel’s History and the History of Israel.
Miller, M. J., and J. H. Hayes. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. London.
Historiography in the Bible
Halpern, B. 1988. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco.
Long, V. P., ed. 1999. Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography. Winona Lake.
Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven.
Commentaries on 1 and 2 Samuel
McCarter, K. P. 1980. I Samuel. Garden City.
———. 1984. II Samuel. Garden City.
Commentaries on 1 and 2 Kings
Brueggemann, W. 2000. 1& 2 Kings. Macon.
Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 1988–2001. Kings. Garden City.
Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings: A Commentary. London.
Commentaries on 1 and 2 Chronicles
Japhet, S. 1993. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Louisville.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. London.
General books on David
Alter, R. 1999. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York.
Ash, P. S. 1999. David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment. Sheffield.
Auld, G. 1994. Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. Edinburgh.
Brueggemann, W. 1985. David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory. Philadelphia.
Fleminger, J. 2002. Behind the Eyes of David. Sussex.
Frontain, R.-J., and J. Wojcik, eds. 1981. The David Myth in Western Literature. West Lafayette.
Halpern, B. 2001. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids.
Kirsh, J. 2000. King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel. New York.
Isser, S. 2003. The Sword of Goliath: David in Heroic Literature. Atlanta.
McKenzie, S. L. 2000. King David: A Biography. Oxford.
Mettinger, T. N. D. 1976. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. Lund.
Noll, K. L. 1997. The Faces of David. Sheffield.
Schniedewind, W. M. 1999. Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17. Oxford.
Selected articles on David
Dietrich, W., and W. Naumann. 2000. The David-Saul Narrative. In G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, 276–318. Winona Lake.
Edelman, D. 2000. The Deuteronomistic David and the Chronicler’s David: Competing and Contrasting Ideologies? In T. Römer, ed., The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 67–83. Leuven.
Gordon, R. P. 1994. In Search of David: The David Tradition in Recent Study. In A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker, eds., Faith, Tradition, and History, 285–98. Winona Lake.
Knoppers, G. N. 1998. David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content and Conditions of the Davidic Promises. In J. Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 91–118. Sheffield.
Lohfink, N. 2000. Which Oracle Granted Perdurability to the Davidides? A Textual Problem in 2 Kings 8:19 and the Function of the Dynastic Oracle in the Deuteronomistic Work. In G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent St
udies on the Deuteronomistic History, 421–43. Winona Lake.
McKenzie, S. L. 1999. Why Didn’t David Build the Temple? The History of a Biblical Tradition. In M. P. Graham, R. R. Marrs, and S. L. McKenzie, eds., Worship and the Hebrew Bible, 204–24. Sheffield.
———. 2001. The Typology of the Davidic Covenant. In A. J. Dearman and P. M. Graham, eds., The Land That I Will Show You: Essays in History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, 152–78. Sheffield.
Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In V. Fritz and Ph. Davies, eds., The Origin of the Ancient Israelite States, 170–86. Sheffield.
Peckham, B. 1985. The Deuteronomistic History of Saul and David. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97:190–209.
Rofe, A. 2000. The Reliability of the Source About David’s Reign: An Outlook from Political Theory. In E. Blum, ed., Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75, 217–27. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Rudman, D. 2000. The Commissioning Stories of Saul and David as Theological Allegory. Vetus Testamentum 50:519–30.
Van der Toorn, K., and C. Houtman. 1994. David and the Ark. Journal of Biblical Literature 113:209–31.
General books on Solomon
Handy, L. K., ed. 1997. The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden.
Torijano, P. A. 2002. Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition. Leiden.
Selected articles on Solomon
Brettler, M. 1991. The Structure of 1 Kings 1–11. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49:87–97.
Frisch, A. 1991. Structure and Its Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign (1 Kings 1–12:24). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51:3–14.
———. 1997. A Literary and Theological Analysis of the Account of Solomon’s Sins (1 Kings 11:1–8). Shnaton 11:167–79.
David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition Page 26