The Historical Geography of 1 Kings 9:11-14

2017

In this study, I have endeavored to provide a date for the town lists of Judah and Benjamin, which are recorded in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28. In connection with this, I have examined and offered a possible candidate for each of the sites mentioned in the town lists. I have attempted to include all of the available, relevant archaeological data for each of the toponyms and regions under discussion with the purpose of determining the overall date of the presumed town register list/administrative division that lies behind the town lists. From a historical perspective and following Alt’s original suggestion (1925), it would seem logical to conclude that these town lists are reflective of an administrative division of the kingdom of Judah dating to a period later than the Solomonic administrative division in the 10th century BCE/early Iron IIA (1 Kgs 4:8-19). Likewise, the available archaeological material of Judah would seem to make it very clear that the extant town lists for Judah and Benjamin should be dated to the Iron II, as less than half of the sites mentioned in the detailed town lists possess remains from the Late Bronze and/or Iron I. Since Alt, the dating of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin has been heavily debated with opinions ranging throughout the Iron II and Persian periods, including the 9th century BCE/Jehoshaphat (e.g., Cross and Wright), 8th century BCE/Uzziah (Aharoni), early 7th century BCE/Manasseh (Barkay), late 7th century BCE/Josiah (Alt and Na’aman), and late 6th-5th century/Persian period (de Vos). The question of the overall date of the list is also related to the current form of the division as reflected in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28 and the presumed underlying administrative source from which this text seems to have been derived. This form or system clearly included a separation of distinct regions (i.e., Negeb, Shephelah, hill country, Wilderness, and Benjamin) and districts or sub-districts within these regions. The purpose of the administrative division seems to have been related to both taxation, as reflected especially in the Arad Ostraca, and perhaps military organization, as has been suggested in the presumed four- fold division of the LMLK seal impressions. Barkay has suggested that there is a connection the administrative division and a series of early 7th century BCE fiscal bulla that include a number of towns appearing in the town lists (2011). This evidence would seem to establish the terminus post quem of the administrative division. In light of this and the numerous compelling arguments of Na’aman (e.g., 1991, 2005), I acknowledge the possibility that the town lists of Judah and Benjamin may be reflective of the 7th century BCE. Despite this, in incorporating archaeological studies that were unavailable to past researchers, I conclude that the settlement pattern of 9th century BCE Judah largely matches the settlement pattern in the town lists, as noted especially in the regions of the Negeb (including the Negeb Highlands), Shephelah and southern hill country. Subsequently, and while it cannot be stated with certainty, the 9th century BCE may also be the period of the original compilation of the administrative town register list behind the Judah and Benjamin town lists of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28.

2006

Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2006

This important collection of essays is based on papers held in 1998-2001 during the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature's "Consultation on Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology." Originating from a sense of despair that the fields of biblical studies and archaeology are becoming increasingly estranged from one another, this volume attempts to bridge this perceived chasm by bringing together archaeologists and biblicists to discuss issues concerning the history of Jerusalem in the Iron Age.

A.M. Berlin and P.J. Kosmin eds. The Middle Maccabees Archaeology, History, and the Rise of the Hasmonean Kingdom, 2021

2014

Bradley W. Root offers a thorough re-examination of the relevant literary and archaeological evidence for first century Galilee. Root argues that previous scholarship on Galilee has generally failed to make appropriate distinctions between the different sources of information for the region's history. He therefore adopts a strict method of historical inquiry, evaluating each of the relevant literary sources and the archaeological evidence discretely before interpreting the evidence collectively. Root concludes with a historical reconstruction of first century Galilee, arguing that the region was politically stable until the Great Revolt of 66 CE. He also illustrates that Galilean culture was substantially influenced by Judean culture and that Galilee had significantly fewer socio-economic problems than Judea. He contends that the Jewish communities along the Sea of Galilee developed their own distinct regional culture.

2020