The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel

Knoppers, Gary N.

doi:10.2307/3266744

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Assemblages are dynamic, open-ended, and elastic, and it may be, if we consider the extent of a Solomonic kingdom, that new finds unearthed in the future from Iron IIA strata of Jerusalem or elsewhere will suddenly alter our current assemblage of evidence and cluster instead around the biblical claims of a more expansive and powerful polity (1 Kgs 4:7-19; 2 Chr 8:1-11) than what we now consider this kingdom to have been. 104 Assemblages are never static, nor do they display a necessary hierarchy of value. When posing certain historical questions, the data that arrays together may be predominantly archaeological in nature, and for other queries ancient texts could be more pertinent and significant.…”

Section: The Historian and The Assemblagementioning

confidence: 99%

The “High Court” of Ancient Israel’s Past: Archaeology, Texts, and the Question of Priority

Pioske

2019

JHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines debates surrounding what evidence, textual or archaeological, deserves priority within matters of historical interpretation as they pertain to the history of ancient Israel. Rather than resolving this debate, however, this investigation problematizes the premises that undergird approaches that accord precedence to one type of evidence over another. Drawing on theories of assemblage, this study concludes with a sketch of how an alternative interpretive framework might be conceived.

show abstract

Section: The Historian and The Assemblagementioning

confidence: 99%

The “High Court” of Ancient Israel’s Past: Archaeology, Texts, and the Question of Priority

Pioske

2019

JHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is the Israelite monarchy then, haughtily defined by Faust as that period concerning which ‘all archaeologists would agree an ethnic group called “Israel” did exist’, which not only constitutes the starting point of his analysis, but also provides the horizon from which the past is to be understood and reconstructed (2009; 68. For opposing views see Knoppers 1997: 19, 27-9; Mazar 1990: 368-403; Cohen 1980: 61-79; Whitelam 2000b: 391-6; Thompson 1992: 77-171; Davies 1992: 16-48; Gelinas 1995: 227-37; Barkay 1992: 302-73).…”

Section: Won’t the Reverends Be Pleased?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Merneptah’s ‘Israel’ and the Absence of Origins in Biblical Scholarship

Nestor

2015

Currents in Biblical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the Merneptah Stele and its role in recent efforts to reconstruct Israelite history and identity. Though necessarily concerned with the issues of translation and location as they relate to the entity named in the stele, this review is dominated by an assessment of the various ways in which biblical scholarship has related to this singular reference. To that end, issues of theory and method, both archaeological and anthropological, are prioritized as the review appraises the various attempts to isolate this entity as the Archimedean point of Israelite historical and ethnic development. Though certainly critical of what it perceives as the sterile reproduction of long-held beliefs, it is a review that, in its appeal to the work of Pierre Bourdieu, looks to identify prospects for further study of the stele, rather than foreclose the very questions that it raises.

show abstract

“…Le royaume de Juda lui-même aurait donc été une création étatique sous influence omride (Finkelstein 2003, 95-101 ;2008, 72-73, 113-114 et n. 32). De récentes analyses au C 14 (Lehmann 2003, 120 ;Levy et Higham 2005, 65ss, 85, 294-301, 310), ainsi que l'étude d'autres types de matériel (Levy et Higham 2005, 319, 376, 400 ;voir aussi Wightman 1990 ;Knoppers 1997 ;Lipinski dans Lemaire et Halpern 2010, 260-263) ont globalement confirmé la chronologie basse, sur laquelle sont fondées chefferies apparaît quand les chefs utilisent le commerce des biens de prestige pour asseoir symboliquement leur autorité (Earle 1987, 289-290), ce qui est clairement le cas à Chypre (voir supra). les nouvelles interprétations.…”

Section: Chypre Et Le Levantunclassified

L’origine des cités-royaumes cypriotes et des royaumes d’Israël et de Juda

Petit

2014

theologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sur la question de l’origine des cités-royaumes de Chypre à l’Âge du Fer existe une controverse similaire à celle qui concerne l’existence du royaume unifié et l’émergence des États d’Israël et de Juda au Levant. Les uns soutiennent qu’ils seraient apparus au début de l’Âge du Fer, soit au xiie ou au xie s., les autres qu’ils émergent dans le courant du viiie s. sous l’influence de l’expansion phénicienne. On se propose de démontrer ici que les corrélats archéologiques de l’État à Chypre ne sont perceptibles qu’à partir du viiie s. En particulier, les découvertes au Palais d’Amathonte corroborent la « théorie phénicienne ». On peut donc situer Chypre dans le même mouvement de diffusion du modèle étatique par les Phéniciens que celui qui aboutit à la constitution des royaumes d’Israël et de Juda, respectivement au ixe et au viiie s. av. JC, selon les défenseurs de la chronologie basse.

show abstract

The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

The “High Court” of Ancient Israel’s Past: Archaeology, Texts, and the Question of Priority

The “High Court” of Ancient Israel’s Past: Archaeology, Texts, and the Question of Priority

Merneptah’s ‘Israel’ and the Absence of Origins in Biblical Scholarship

L’origine des cités-royaumes cypriotes et des royaumes d’Israël et de Juda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About