David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition

by Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman

There has been an explosion of recent discoveries in biblical archaeology. These finds have shed powerful light on figures and stories from the Bible -- and completely changed what we know about some of its most famous characters. The reputations of the first great kings, David and Solomon, evolved over hundreds of years. In David and Solomon , leading archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman focus on the two great leaders as a window into the entire biblical era. David and Solomon covers one thousand years of ancient civilization, separating fact from legend and proving that the roots of the western tradition lie very deep.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Archaeology, Judaism, Christianity, Israel

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Israel Finkelstein is a professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University. He is a leading figure in the archaeology of the Levant and the laureate of the 2005 Dan David Prize in the Past Dimension -- Archaeology. Finkelstein served for many years as the Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University and is the co-Director of the Megiddo Expedition. He is the co-author, with Neil Silberman, of The Bible Unearthed (Free Press, 2001) and the author of many field reports and scholarly articles.

Reviews

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finkelstein and Silberman - the Dynamic Duo of ancient Israel - take a realistic and refreshing look at what might have been the 'United Monarchy' of the early Iron Age II - circa 1000 BCE - in the Land of Israel. While it is true that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence of a massive Davidic empire or gold, spices and peacocks from Sheba (or even the Queen), the reality is perhaps even more fascinating. A pair of tiny hill-country chiefdoms (Were Judah and Israel ever united? At this point, we just don't know) lay the basis for stories and legends that will live on through the millennia and founded the world's most influential and enduring philosophy: ethical monotheism. In some ways, it makes the 'adventures' of David and the 'wisdom' of Solomon more real and poignant. Perhaps what still draws us to these 3000 year-old kings is that they are depicted in the Tanakh as flesh and blood men, warts and all. My favorite story of the father and son: Chapter 2 of Second Kings has David giving his deathbed advise to his heir; at first he goes through the "be strong and keep your Temple clean" speech, but he quickly turns to who Solomon should whack. It's like a scene from the Godfather! And the stories about them are credible because they tend to match the actual conditions of Iron Age Israel, as it is manifested in the archaeological research. A great read for all you Bible and Israelite fans out there.

[Lee Harmon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Finkelstein book will be controversial; let’s establish that up front. And because there exists very literal archaeological evidence outside the Bible story of Judah’s first kings, speculation will be a natural result of any such study. We know absolutely nothing from history about Saul and precious little about David and Solomon; in fact, the evidence is so sparse that a few scholars still doubt the existence of all three.

Finkelstein and Silberman don’t doubt, but neither are they able to provide 342 pages of historical analysis. Instead, they trace the legends of these early kings through a thousand years of Hebrew writings, both in and out of the Bible. The earliest folklore and Bible verses about David show him as a bandit leader of a small gang of traveling raiders. Later authors portrayed David as a poet and a founder of a great dynasty, as well as a sinner. Solomon’s reputation, as well, grew over time into a shrewd trader and wise sage.

How many of these writings are based on fact, and how many on legend? The authors’ scholarly research and field experience will make you reconsider.

[Alecia Hansen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superbly written. Controversial to say the least. If, however, the reader can break away from Hebrew tradition enough to examine the text with an open mind they will be in for an examination of how the Davidic times can be placed within a historicity view. I truly enjoyed the read. Warning though if you examine ancient Israel with a largely biblically based structure this book may be controversial.

[Justin Tapp · Rating 3 out of 5]

The maps in this book (Kindle edition) are inadequate. I recommend investing in a better map to keep handy on your table or better yet on your wall.

If you want a brief summary of this book's contents, read Israel Finkelstein's "A Low Chronology Update: Archaeology, History and Bible", in T. E. Levy – T. Higham (eds.), The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London: Equinox, 2005) 31-42, available for free download at academia.edu. I recommend that with a word of caution to the reader: Finkelstein addresses valid criticisms (naming them as valid) to his hypothesis in this article, including a criticism by Eilat Mazar, which the authors do not do in the book. There is constantly new archaeology being uncovered in the Levant that both support and undermine various hypotheses, and new hypotheses are always being generated. As the authors admit, there are many competing claims, even among archeologists working on the same digs. The authors don't assign probabilities. Again, a weakness of the book is that the authors do not lay out counterarguments to their preferred hypotheses in this book. There have since been recent discoveries that may alter the hypothesis (from 2006) a bit, or make it less probable, see below.

The basic hypothesis of the authors is this: There was never a united monarchy under David and Solomon, the idea was developed two centuries later to legitimize Judah's rule over Israeli refugees after the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians. 1-2 Samuel represents a blending of Northern Kingdom and Judahite history, in which Judah comes out on top and Judah's rule is legitimized because of Saul's sinful follies; David is shown as merciful to Saul's lineage as well as married to it in order to quell any resentment. David was an actual 10th century highland chieftan/bandit, and the evidence for his actual existence include the fact that the Scripture uses Hebrew language and geography that can only be dated to the 10th century, and would have been unknown if scribes were making it up in the 6th century or later. The Tel Dan stelle confirms his historic existence and importance remaining centuries later. But there are "clues" in the text that the final redaction of 1-2 Samuel reflects 8th and 7th century realities. Goliath, for example, resembles a Greek hoplite and looks nothing as Philistine warriors are depicted in Egyptian sketches. Likewise, the character of David in 2 Samuel seems patterned after Hezekiah. Solomon is patterned either after the wise Assyrian and Persian kings and reflect an economy that could only have existed in the 8th and 7th centuries when Judah grew rich as an Assyrian vassal state, or Solomon is patterned after Manasseh who led an economic revival after Sennacherib had beseiged and appropriated some of Judah. There is no archaeological evidence for a growing Jerusalem or Judah in the 10th-9th centuries. Structures previously believed to be Solomon's stables and other large works comporting with 1 Kings have since been widely dated later. Villages in Judah become much more populated, according to carbon dating and other methods, in the 8th century after refugees move from the Northern Kingdom. You need a "low chronology," move the traditional dates of Judahite expansion up at least a century, to explain the differences.

The authors contend that most of the archaeological work in Israel in the 19th and 20th centuries use the Bible as their starting point, which leads to circular logic about dates for the sights found. By ignoring the biblical chronology and finding corresponding events in Egyptian and Assyrian history, along with carbon dating and what is physically available from digs, you can date the growth of Judah's kingdom a couple centuries later. Their views roughly line up with biblical commentator Kyle McCarter, Jr. who sees 1-2 Samuel as mainly a political history. But their own exegesis is lacking a bit; another weakness of the book is that, interestingly, the authors do not mention the origins or the nature of the Deuteronomistic History recorded in Scripture. 1-2 Samuel is a notoriously difficult book to translate because the Masoretic text is missing several elements included in the Septuagint, which came much later, and not all of the Dead Sea Scrolls containing portions of the books have been released or studied yet. (I found this out by reading some excellent commentaries dealing with textual difficulties of certain chapters and Hebrew words. 1 Samuel 13:1, for example, is notoriously incomplete and untranslatable).

Why this is important:
Historical David is just as important to Christology as Historical Adam. The covenant God makes with David in 2 Samuel 7 is a "revelation for mankind" about the "distant future," fulfilled in Jesus--the branch from the root of Jesse--who is called "Son of David" (Matthew 1:1, 9:27, etc.). It is a continuation of the Adamic-Noahic-Abrahamic-Mosaic covenant which all point to a coming Messiah who will reign forever. Jesus also becomes the fulfillment of Solomon's temple, he is the "tabernacle" (John 1:14, John 2:19), and Christians (the Church) today are the same fulfillment as the Holy Spirit fills us just as it did the tabernacle of Exodus and Solomon's temple of 1 Kings (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19-20, 2 Cor. 6:16, 1 Peter 2, etc.).

Recent discoveries that might affect the authors' (2006) work:
1. Literacy in Israel may have been more widespread earlier than previously thought, from new analysis (2016) by Tel Aviv University on the Arad ostraca. (http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-look...).
While the authors maintain that "there is no sign of extensive literacy or writing in Judah until the end of the eighth century BCE" (p. 88),
"we can now say that the tale could not possibly have been put in writing until more than two hundred years after the death of David" (p. 36)- this does not appear to be necessarily true in light of recent evidence. I believe these recent discoveries undermine their hypothesis that Judah re-wrote the 10th century history of Judah and Israel during the 7th century as it would simply be harder to get away with with a population that was somewhat literate-- it's more plausible in light of new evidence that there surely would have been both oral AND written memories by which Israelites would know that David had never been a ruler over a united Northern and Southern Kingdom if that were indeed the case. In other words, even with a Low Chronology, you can move literacy up a century or so.

2. Another reviewer cites evidence by Barry Strauss of 13th and 12th century BC Egyptian paintings of Greek warriors possible akin to Goliath. The authors claim that Goliath's armor could only be described as that of a Greek hoplite not present in 10th century Jewish thinking. Apparently, Egyptian paintings of the "Sea People" Philistines do not look as Goliath is described. Hence, one could conclude that perhaps such warriors did exist, or that Goliath's description could have been a preserved description of an exotic Heroic Age Greek warrior.

3. Dr. Eilat Mazar discovered structures from 2005-2010 that she dates to the 10th century that would indicate both widespread literacy and the ability to do large-scale construction in Jerusalem at a time the authors say would have been impossible. Her discoveries of a large wall structure and pottery in 2010 came after this book was published. (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Jlem-city...) Part of her work uncovered the largest jars yet recovered in Jerusalem, whereas when this book was written there were scarce any shards from the 10th century known to be found, according to the authors. In the book, Finkelstein contests the Large Stone Structure that Mazar found in 2005. But Mazar continues to get university funding and be considered credible; in 2015, Mazar's team uncovered a seal impression of King Hezekiah in an ancient refuse dump. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
So, while the authors debate Mazar's claims, she at least appears to be uncovering interesting things and is still unapologetic about the dates she gives matching a biblical timeline. Finkelstein's "Low Chronology Update" article addresses Mazar, but also does not disparage her work as commenters on Amazon do and also includes hers in his list of "valid" criticisms.

However, the authors are rather conservative in their view on when it was written. As cited above, they do NOT say the entire Saul-David-Solomon story was made up whole-cloth after the exile by scribes who fooled an illiterate population. They deny more critical claims that the Deuteronomistic History was written entirely after the Babylonian exile because of the geography and the Hebrew used:
"First of all, the evidence of literacy and extensive scribal activity in Jerusalem in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods was hardly greater—in fact much smaller—than that relating to the eighth (century)...To assume, as the minimalists do, that in the fifth or fourth or even second century BCE, the scribes of a small, out-of-the-way temple town in the Judean mountains compiled an extraordinarily long and detailed composition about the history, personalities, and events of an imaginary Iron Age “Israel” without using ancient sources was itself taking an enormous leap of faith" (p. 254).
The geographical background of the stories of David in 1 Samuel matches the 10th century, not the 8th or later (p. 41).
"This combination of peoples and areas on both sides of the Jordan River does not correspond to any later territorial unit in the history of Israel. Indeed the biblical description of Saul’s territorial legacy does not apply the geographic terms used for these regions in late monarchic times" (p. 70)

The Tel Dan stele of David discovered in 1996 fatally damaged the whole-cloth "minimalist" hypotheses.

The borders of Judah-Israel do indeed match the historical/archaeologic record in the mid ninth century, contrary to the claims of the minimalist school (p. 112).

Onto David:
David's life during his flight from Saul seems to match that of the 10th century "Apiru" people mentioned in the Egyptian "Amarna letters," which describe isolated herders and highlander bandit-kings who operated apart from Egyptian control. ("This term, sometimes transliterated as Habiru, was once thought to be related to the term 'Hebrews,' but the Egyptian texts make it clear that it does not refer to a specific ethnic group so much as a problematic socioeconomic class," p.48). 1 Samuel 30:26-31 records that David shared his captured Philistine booty with local highland elders, and describes his marriage relationship with their daughters as well. So, the authors rate this aspect of David's life as "plausible."

Northern Kingdom expansion:
"From only about twenty-five recorded sites in the area between Jerusalem and the Jezreel Valley in the preceding Late Bronze Age, the number skyrockets to more than 230 in the late Iron I period. Their estimated population was just over forty thousand, compared to less than five thousand in the entire hill country of Judah. A similarly dramatic settlement expansion took place across the Jordan, in the northern part of the Transjordanian plateau. There, too, the number of settled sites vastly expanded, from about thirty in the Late Bronze Age to about 220 in the Early Iron Age" (p. 70-71). The authors don't mention it, but it roughly matches the census numbers given in the battles of the Book of Judges; Judah's military offering was petty compared to the rest of Israel.

Shehonq I / Shishak- pharoah of 22nd Dynasty who ruled in the 10th century. The Bible puts Shishak's battle against Israel around 926 BCE during Rehoboam's reign, but Egypt's list of conquered cities only records the Northern Kingdom sites and nothing in Jerusalem and Judah. If Judah had risen to prominence under Solomon, why aren't its cities even mentioned in the Egyptian history?

"The archaeological evidence suggests that (Sishak's invasion) actually happened: the places just to the north of Jerusalem that appear on the Karnak list (and that the biblical tradition describes as the core of Saul’s activity) were the scene of a significant wave of abandonment in the tenth century BCE. The conclusion seems clear: Sheshonq and his forces marched into the hill country and attacked the early north Israelite entity. He also conquered the most important lowland cities like Megiddo and regained control of the southern trade routes" (p. 83).

"new analyses of the archaeological data from Jerusalem have shown that the settlement of the tenth century BCE was no more than a small, poor highland village, with no evidence for monumental construction of any kind" (p. 82).

"Over a century of excavations in the City of David (within the confines of Jerusalem) have produced surprisingly meager remains from the late sixteenth to mid–eighth centuries BCE" (p. 95).

"As far as we know from the silence of historical sources and archaeological evidence, Judah—with only limited resources and set off from the major trade routes—remained a remote and primitive highland kingdom throughout the ninth and early eighth centuries BCE. It evaded even indirect Assyrian control," (p. 124).

But the Amalekites and Philistines, not the Egyptians, are the chief biblical enemy during Saul and David's day. How does one explain this?
"The coastal Sea Peoples, including Philistines, had long served as Egyptian mercenary forces, and their role as Egyptian allies in this campaign and its aftermath seems quite plausible. It is possible that the Bible’s reference to the Philistines attacking the hill country and establishing garrisons at Geba (1 Samuel 13:3) and Bethlehem (2 Samuel 23:14), and to the great Philistine-Israelite battle at Beth-shean, may, in fact, preserve a memory of the Egypto-Philistine alliance" (p. 86).

Here's the key:
"David and Judah may have benefited from the fall of the northern polity and expanded to control some of the highland territories that Saul once led" (p. 86).

"The wave of destruction that had previously been dated to around 1000 BCE and attributed to the expansion of the united monarchy in the days of King David actually came later, by almost a century. Such a transformation can indeed be traced in the archaeological record, but as we will suggest, it occurred first in the northern highlands rather than Judah—and only with the passage of several generations after the presumed reigns of both David and Solomon" (p. 98-99).

The authors' hypothesis is that the united monarchy occured under the Omride dynasty of the North, after historical David and Solomon; its capital was Samaria. The history was later revised after the fall of the Northern Kingdom (721 BC), as Judah's King Hezekiah benefited by being a vassle state to Assyria.

"The 'Court History' of David thus offers a whole series of historical retrojections in which the founder of the dynasty of Judah in the tenth century is credited with the victories and the acquisitions of territory that were in fact accomplished by the ninth-century Omrides" (p. 113).
The intrigue and even positions of "scribes" and "recorders" recorded in 2 Samuel were too sophisticated to have existed until a generation or two after Solomon, in the 9th century. Hence, it is retelling Omride history. The Philistine's attributes as described in 2 Samuel resemble more the time of Josiah, centuries later, than the 10th century (p. 184). The list of cities that David distributes booty to in 1 Samuel 30 "were especially prominent in the time of Josiah" (p. 188).

After the sack of Samaria, Judah's King Ahaz swore allegiance to Assyria (2 Kings 16:5-9). Sargon II finished the job of plundering Assyria and deporting many inhabitants. The authors record that Judah swelled at this time, likely taking on Israeli refugees. Ahaz was succeeded by Hezekiah, and Sargon II by Sennacherib during this period. The authors note that the history of Israel and Judah had to be altered at this time to explain and justify Judah's continual rule over the populous Northern tribes. Hezekiah took on the building projects ascribed to David and Solomon. "Jerusalem grew from a modest hill country town of about ten to fifteen acres to a large, fortified city of almost 150 acres. Jerusalem’s population skyrocketed from around one thousand inhabitants to approximately twelve thousand" (p. 128).
"The archaeological picture of Judah in the closing decades of the eighth century is of a populous, prosperous, and literate kingdom. Jerusalem had become a heavily fortified city with a large population and a special class of royal officials, scribes, and administrators, who could conscript workmen for public projects and private memorials...the biblical account of David’s rise and Solomon’s succession could not have been written earlier than the late eighth century BCE" (p. 132).

Archaeology confirms an abandoning of many of the settlements in the Northern Kingdom during this time. The evidence suggests that the area around Bethel, near Judah, was where the migration was heaviest. The Northern refugees brought their Saul stories with them. "Perhaps as much as half of the Judahite population in the late eighth to early seventh century BCE was of north Israelite origin" (p. 136). "The finds at Arad, Beer-sheba, and Lachish seem to point to a similar picture: all three present evidence for the existence of sanctuaries in the eighth century BCE, but in all three, the sanctuaries fell into disuse before the end of the eighth century. It is noteworthy that none of the many seventh-and early-sixth-century BCE sites excavated in Judah produced evidence for the existence of a sanctuary" (p. 138).

2 Kings 18:4-5 (not 1 Kings, typo in the book) suggest to the authors that Hezekiah was taking his reforms to consolidate power in Jerusalem, making it the locus of legitimate worship. "In short, the cult 'reform' in the days of Hezekiah, rather then representing puritan religious fervor, was actually a domestic political endeavor. It was an important step in the remaking of Judah in a time of a demographic upheaval" (p. 139). The re-writing of history to make it sound like they had once been united under David-- who God had chosen to supplant Saul-- took place around this time. "the earliest version of the biblical story of Saul, David, and the accession of Solomon—and possibly also his construction of the Temple—was created not solely or even primarily for religious purposes, but for a now-forgotten political necessity—of establishing Temple and Dynasty as the twin foundation stones for the new idea" (p. 143).

One "clue" given as support of the authors' hypothesis is in the confusing seige of Assyria against Jerusalem in 701 BC. The Bible records that Hezekiah both payed a tribute to relieve the seige, but then the Bible states that Jerusalem was miraculously delivered; these texts are difficult to reconcile, some scholars assume two different seiges. But the Assyrian prism that records the battle (701 BC), in propoganda form, recalls the seige, but not loss, simply saying that Sennacherib returns to Ninevah and receives tribute. (It is plausible that mass disease or something ravaged his camp as the Bible suggests as the prism does not record a successful conquering of Jerusalem as other cities). But Assyrian records also record that Hezekiah had lost some of the most fertile lands in the Shephelah, further crippling Judah (p. 146). Assyrian records do record the death of Sennacherib at the hands of his sons (681 BC), as the prophets had forecast.

3 stars out of 5... see my blog for full review.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors (both archaeologists, Bible scholars and, incidentally, religious Jews) explain the context in which the Old Testament's Deuteronomistic History came to be compiled.

The Deuteronomistic History is understood as comprising the Old Testament 'historical' books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. It started off as 10th century BCE collections of already-ancient myths, folklore and ballads; these oral legends were probably first compiled around the late 8th century BCE by royal spin doctors into a glorious national epic (i.e. political propaganda!) for Hezekiah; a century later it was extensively edited to justify Josiah's religious reforms; then between the 6th to 4th centuries BCE it underwent further extensive alterations to satisfy changing political needs (i.e. to explain the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the consequent Babylonian exile); and finally the period between the 3rd century BCE to the 5th century CE saw the addition of material with messianic overtones as the Jews craved freedom from foreign overlords.

This is a superb book, comprehensively argued and exhaustively referenced.

[Bob Breckwoldt · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well written, easy to follow account of David and Solomon and what according to Finkelstein we know of them. By which he means little, but not nothing (he is no minimalist). What we know is very different from the account in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. All being of a later date and including much that archaeologically relates to over a 100 years later (advocated by the dating that comes from the argument for low chronology) and therefore reflects life not when David and Solomon were around but from the time of the Omrides. How persuasive it all is is a matter of debate, but the book is written with gusto, enthusiasm and enough notes for you to be able to appreciate the wider spectrum of opinion on the issues raised. A good read.

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed consideration of what archeology, biblical texts and scholarship, and historical records tell us about these two figures, why they were represented in the bible as they are, whether they are historical figures (the authors say yes, but not as seen in the bible), and why they have been so influential in Western and Abrahamic history. For me, the authors' "The Bible Unearthed" is the more fascinating read, as it covers the whole Hebrew Bible; the stories of David and Solomon have never captured my imagination.

[Andrew Lucas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a valuable exploration of the history of the two ancient entities, Israel and Judah, through the prism of archeology. It traces the development of traditions related to kings David and Solomon in the Hebrew Bible, posing viable paradigms for that development in the light of archaeological discoveries. It is written in a highly accessible manner for the lay reader. A valuable companion to their earlier work, 'The Bible Unearthed'.

[Richard Zwama · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is really a great book! Finally a scientific explanation of the history about David and Solomon based on archeological facts. It gave me a total different view on the way history was written down in antiquity. You will discover the reasons why the Bible says the things it says.

[Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great book from professor finkelstein

[Stephie Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book weaves a story from biblical text, historical information, and archaeological exploration. The story they tell begins in David’s time and continues into Solomon’s. Then, after this supposed united monarchy, the authors cover Israel’s and Judah’s dealings with the Assyrians. Afterwords comes Babylonia’s dealings with Judah and the exilic period. Finally, comes the return to Judea of some of the exiles. Also covered is how the stories continued to be developed and be interpreted from Hellenistic times to the Middle Ages to early and modern Europe.

The authors also provide seven appendixes containing various details of some archaeological findings, one of which combats the minimalists view of the Bible that it contains no adequate view of history. In their opinion the minimalists are wrong, but that does not mean that everything in the Bible is historically correct. While they do not say so, I think that they still discount a lot of biblical history.

Some of the authors conclusions are that David and Solomon were probably real historical persons, not mythical, but that they never ruled over a large area, but were confined to Jerusalem and its environs; as Israel’s refugees drift into Judah where stories from both kingdoms were mixed together began to be collected and written down, although not in final form; the Assyrian records confirm some of the kings in the Bible; the final biblical text was revamped at the time of exile and probably set by the time of Israel’s brief independence between the Greek and Roman empires; and that the biblical stories of David and Solomon continued and are continuing to influence how people imagine kingship should be.

As far as the authors view on minimalism is concerned, they may be right that there is nonbiblical sources for the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, but are they enough to value the Bible as an historical text? I do not think so. The actual historical and archaeological support only confirms a very small part of the biblical text. Much of the stories are fabricated with a smidgen of reality, none of which can be verified. Granted their explanation that David’s bandits days stories are confirmed by the towns then in existence, but no longer were after David’s hypothesized period, it still offers little evidence that a historical David actually existed. The “House of David” reference in the historical record does not mean he existed. It only means that David was a name assigned to a person, real or not. So I feel the minimalists are pretty much on target, even if some of the more extreme scholars are not one hundred percent correct.

I thought the way the authors weaved together their sources to bring a coherent picture of what was the lay of land, both so to speak and literally was good. Their storyline is plausible in the whole, if not in every particular. They are both accomplished explainers, and their prose flows nicely. So I give it a very good rating.

I could recommend this book to anyone interested in what archaeology does and does not confirm of the biblical accounts, especially in connection to the David and Solomon stories. For stories they ultimately are. Even if you could rely on the historicalness of the Bible, which you cannot, history is all about telling stories, it just that some are nearer to the truth than others.

[Greg Tymn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book contemporaneous with my studies of Samuel and Kings. I found it eye opening. While scholars may disagree with some of Finkestein's and Silberman's conclusions, I believe the overall setting and flavor of the times within the aforementioned biblical books is better understood after reading David & Solomon. God's role in the wars and development of Judaism during this time has always carried (for me) a thread of disingenuity. Adding a modern archaeological perspective to the Bible narrative is certainly a plus.

[Dariusz Płochocki · Rating 3 out of 5]

Czasem mam wrażenie, że autor nie do końca stosuje się do zasad przytaczanych w początkach dzieła, że brak dowodów jednak nie do końca jest najlepszym dowodem. Dobre szczególnie ostatnie rozdziały. Mimo wszystko książka Liveraniego jest bardziej pogłębiona. (No i autor wierzy w rzeczywistość Dawida)

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

a more focused version of modern biblical archaeology findings concerning David and Solomon. thought-provoking and well argued.

[Joe Sampson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Provides convincing archaeological and historical evidence that the biblical stories about David and Solomon are not accurate.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the second of three books coauthored by Israel Finkelstein that I read in the past week, the first one being The Bible Unearthed. If it was a choice between the Bible Unearthed and David and Solomon, I would recommend you read The Bible Unearthed, as it is the more comprehensive of the two books. The Bible Unearthed, as the title suggests, is more focused on archaeology than David and Solomon. The book David and Solomon's focus is more on the origins of the Deutoronomic history. There is much discussion about how later developments in the history of Palestine were retrojected back into the time of David and Solomon. Much hay is made over Frank Moore Cross's hypothesis of the development of the Deuteronomic history via the two hypothetical sources dtr1 and dtr2. I had never heard of Cross before reading this book so I’m not in a position to evaluate his hypothesis but it seems plausible or at least interesting.

A verse that kept popping up in this book was 1 Kings 9.15: "Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the LORD’s temple, his own palace, the terraces, the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer." This was because when ruins were initially found at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the assumption was that these had been built by Solomon. The authors cite archaeological evidence that these ruins are actually from later periods, suggesting that 1 Kings 9.15 is a later retrojection from the Deuteronomic history onto the reign of Solomon.

By no means does this mean that these authors are biblical minimalists. Actually, they devote an appendix to showing that there is archaeological evidence supporting the Bible's assertion of Hezekiah’s religious reforms in the eighth century BC.

A point of interest for me was the discussion of horses' association with Solomon. In preparation for this review, I wanted to look up what the authors had said about 1 Kings 10.28-29, a reference I had written down in my notes but had forgotten what the authors had said about it, other than to compare it to Amos 4.10 and Isaiah 31.1, prophetic passages that pronounce woes on those who rely on horses. The point again, I think, is to retroject onto Solomon's time the conditions of a later period. The authors claim that the economic conditions of 1 Kings 10.29 reflect the time of Manasseh.

I thought this book hung together better than The Bible Unearthed and therefore I rated it five stars (I gave The Bible Unearthed four stars). I also thought the appendices were more coherent and more informative. I will probably read more Finkelstein when the OhioLink collection becomes available for loan again in November.

[Charles Krouse · Rating 5 out of 5]

According to the authors, the Biblical stories of David and Solomon are not accurate historical descriptions of tenth-century BCE. Rather, these stories are anachronisms that were written during the seventh-century BCE. They combine elements of fiction mixed with eighth and seventh-century BCE reality, and they were used primarily to promote political and economic agendas. The acts of David and Solomon were highly exaggerated, and the stories about these two figures were created to bolster religious ideologies. Basically, David and Solomon were written down as religious propaganda. Nevertheless, the images of David and Solomon have become ingrained in our culture due to the widespread adoption of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Although historically fictional, the value of David and Solomon as mythological characters is no less significant. These two men represent noble leadership, a golden age, the epitome of power and wisdom, and a utopian future.

I do not fully agree with this assessment. Many of the authors’ arguments are based on speculation and interpretation using evidence from the surrounding landscape. Most significantly, the authors argue that there is no archaeological evidence of significant construction during the tenth-century BCE, and that Judah was filled with nothing more than sparsely populated farming and shepherding communities during the tenth-century BCE. Broadly, they argue that there is no evidence of a united Israel during the tenth-century BCE that aligns with the Bible’s depiction of David and Solomon. The most likely location to provide evidence in support of, or against, David and Solomon, would be the location of Solomon’s Temple. However, Solomon’s Temple was built in the Old Jerusalem, which is the current location of two significant Muslim shrines, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore, there is no chance of excavating the site where Solomon’s Temple is believed to exist. Even if we could search this area for Solomon’s Temple, it is unlikely that we would find anything. The site was completely overhauled when Herod built his Temple in 516 BCE, and it is unlikely that any evidence of Solomon’s Temple survived such massive construction.

[Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting to read in contrast with The Historical David by Joel Baden, which takes a purely literary approach to analysing the David and Solomon stories. Unfortunately neither of them addresses the other, so it's hard to know where to come down on.

I accept Finkelstein's point that David and Solomon's kingdom was nowhere near as impressive as the Bible suggests. In fact, it was likely pitifully small. I also think his solution for why the rise of David story was written so apologetically makes sense: he thinks that it was written at the time that refugees from the northern kingdom were flooding into the south, and that they brought oral traditions about Saul (a northern hero) with them, likely also accusing David of causing his downfall and death. So a synthesis of the that and their own tradition with David as a bandit king was written, addressing the northerners' complaints but making it clear that David came out on top because God wanted it to be so.

Some of his other reasoning I found a little bit more suspect. For example, he's very adamant that the tale of David couldn't have been written down contemporaneously, because literacy/writing wasn't widespread in Judah at the time. But, to borrow a slogan from the Singapore police, low literacy doesn't mean no literacy, surely? Some of the other aspects of how he sees the David/Solomon tale coalescing are also a bit pat for the historical time periods. It appears to work, but I don't know how much I'm not seeing of the problems because I'm not an expert.

Nevertheless, this seems well-argued and grounded in archaeological fact, even if some of the findings and their interpretation may be disputed, and possibly overturned in future as more discoveries are made. I do wish there was a little more explication of how controversial his stances are, but I didn't penalise Baden's book for doing the same thing (Baden comes across as very confident, but I have since learned from this and other sources that his theory is by no means the be-all and end-all!).

[Jose Gomez-Rivera · Rating 5 out of 5]

David and Solomon the mythological archetypal biblical monarchs

A tour de force for authors Tinkle stein and Silverman who apply the best archeological data to the perplexing and controversial question: was the resplendent United Kingdom of David and Solomon a national myth that ultimately became the universal foundational text for divinely ordained monarchy or was it real? I think, as in their previous book " The Bible Unearthed," another brilliant work, the authors definitively demonstrate that the United Kingdom tradition is essentially a national politically important narrative based on the changing context of the Kingdom of Judah particularly during the late eighth and seventh centuries before the common era when Kings Hezekiah and, more importantly, his grandson Josiah used the myth to legitimize their attack on polytheism in a campaign to centralize power through monotheism. They show that during the early tenth century, Judah and Jerusalem were under populated centers incapable of supporting a Davidic empire; therefore, at best, David and his heirs were no more than local chieftains.
These claims have characterized the minimalist school of biblical archeology, championed by the authors and others, notably Thomas Thompson. They are opposed by the maxims list school, which argues that the biblical record should be given the benefit of the doubt unless it is actually discredited. This school has many champions, starting with Yigael Had in and Benjamin Mazar. It is currently championed by A. Mazar, Baruch Halpern and William Dever. Minimalist views however are gaining ground by using clear data and by basing itself of archeological finds rather than on shaky chronological arguments divorced from finds, although there is one controversial find that is pitting the two schools against one rather. We will have to see how it is settled.

[Ahdom · Rating 5 out of 5]

David and Solomon offers a fascinating exploration of the intersection between archaeology, history, and the Bible. Finkelstein and Silberman, both leading figures in biblical archaeology, present a compelling re-evaluation of two of the Bible's most iconic figures—King David and King Solomon. Drawing from recent archaeological discoveries, they dissect the myths surrounding these kings and offer a more nuanced view of their historical legacy.

The book spans over a thousand years of ancient history, delving into how the reputations of David and Solomon were not static but evolved over centuries of storytelling, political needs, and religious traditions. By analyzing material evidence alongside biblical texts, Finkelstein and Silberman argue that the grand narratives surrounding these kings—David as the unifying warrior-king and Solomon as the wise builder of the great Temple—were largely constructed during later periods to serve specific ideological and nationalistic agendas.

What makes this work particularly engaging is its balance between academic rigor and accessible storytelling. The authors are clear in presenting how the fusion of archaeology and textual criticism provides fresh insights into biblical history, while also recognizing the enduring cultural and symbolic importance of David and Solomon in shaping Western thought and tradition. They emphasize that while the historical kings may not have been as grand as the Bible describes, their symbolic power is unquestionable.

For readers interested in the historical roots of the Bible, the development of Western traditions, or simply seeking to understand how myth and history intertwine, David and Solomon is a must-read. Finkelstein and Silberman offer a thought-provoking narrative that challenges long-held assumptions while deepening our understanding of the biblical past and its impact on the present.

[SuedePuzzler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book for anyone interested in history. Compares the stories of David and Solomon in the Bible with archaeological fact and also discusses, to some extent, the origin of theses stories. The book is more focused on archaeology than the textual history of the Bible. They mention that the narrative of David is seen as composed of several sources but don't explain why scholars divide the narratives as they do.

They mention that some stories in the Bible have origins in folk stories but you would not learn for example that the famous story of the judgement of Solomon has parallels in folk stories in other cultures.

Their discussion of the archaeological findings is more thorough and they explain more how archaeologists have come to the conclusions they have.

Something I found amusing was how careful the authors were not to offend. There is much about how the Bible is inspiring and a literary masterpiece, but no judgement is passed on how immoral many parts are.

[Eric C 1965 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book exposed my lack in ancient history and especially archeology. However, it seemed slightly advanced and detailed in things I need more background in such as the debate between"minimalist" and "non-minimalist" historians. The appendices detailing archeological finds was the best part of this book to me. But I'm going to need more on the basic historiographical methods. Unfortunately the bibliography listed doesn't state difficulty levels so I might need to do my own research. Overall though, I would like to recommend this book, and after I get a better grasp of the basics I will return and raise my rating.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The archaeology is absolutely fascinating and I do love seeing the historical realities that could have influenced the Biblical depictions. I did think there were times when they tried a little too hard to fit the political reality of the time to the depictions of David and Solomon. The different descriptions could certainly be due to different political realities from the different times, but could also be based in reality since people are rarely (if ever) one-dimensional.

Anyway, the archaeology itself makes the book worth reading and adds depth/understanding to the reading of the Bible.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A survey, clearly written and aimed at the general public, of the archaeological evidence that conclusively undermines the OT account of the "United Monarchy." The question isn't "Are the stories true?" but "What era is likeliest to have set them down?" Finkelstein thinks the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah make the best fit; minimalists like Philip R. Davies point to periods as late as Hasmonean rule. Archaeology is less helpful in solving this problem, which makes the debate all the more intriguing.

[Pāvels Šnejersons · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book by the top experts on the history of the Ancient Israel. What can we now say about historicity of David and Solomon, and how the story changed in the course of development of the Hebrew Bible. A lot of common ground with another their brilliant book: The Bible Unearthed. The Bible is not a historically accurate document nor a fabrication. It reflects realities of the times it was created

[Zach Harper · Rating 3 out of 5]

Generally I agree with Finkelstein when it comes to biblical archaeology, so that is not the issue for my taking stars off. My quibble is with the back half of the book, which needed a stronger edit, especially the parts about Jesus, which come out of nowhere when we’re talking 10th - 8th centuries BCE or 800-1,000 years before that. Totally understand that David and Solomon are important to Christian audiences, but I don’t think including parts about Jesus was necessary here since it goes with that saying that they’re important to Christian audiences. We shouldn’t have to explain that.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, a nice introduction to the archaeology and history of the time of David and Solomon. the book contrasts what is know archaeologically about the kingdoms of David and Solomon to how they are portrayed in the Bible. As an archaeologist, I would've liked more technical details, but then again, why should I have expected that given the market this book was aimed at?

[Persis · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating look through an archaeological lens at perhaps the most famous kings of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament - David and Solomon. Traditional readers may find this book controversial because the physical evidence doesn’t necessarily match biblical accounts which raises many questions and challenges.

[Kinan Arous · Rating 5 out of 5]

عالم الاثار الاسرائيلي اسرائيل فينكلشتاين يعد من اكثر الاثاريين موضوعية و براعة و هذا ما نلحظه في صفحات هذا الكتاب الذي يتناول اسطورة او تاريخية داوود و سليمان بشكل علمي مستند الى الاكتشافات الاثرية بعيدا عن التأثر بأدبية التوراة.

[Kerith · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed The Bible Unearthed, so it's about time I picked this one up too. The authors use archaeology and historical writings as well as scripture to dig deep into the stories of David and Solomon to find the roots of their influence. Fascinating - I love studying this stuff.