Mazar, Amihai. «Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy». Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. «For conservative approaches defining the United Monarchy as a state “from Dan to Beer Sheba” including “conquered kingdoms” (Ammon, Moab, Edom) and “spheres of influence” in Geshur and Hamath cf. e.g., Ahlström (1993), 455–542; Meyers (1998); Lemaire (1999); Masters (2001); Stager (2003); Rainey (2006), 159–168; Kitchen (1997); Millard (1997; 2008). For a total denial of the historicity of the United Monarchy cf. e.g., Davies (1992), 67–68; others suggested a ‘chiefdom’ comprising a small region around Jerusalem, cf. Knauf (1997), 81–85; Niemann (1997), 252–299 and Finkelstein (1999). For a ‘middle of the road’ approach suggesting a United Monarchy of larger territorial scope though smaller than the biblical description cf. e.g., Miller (1997); Halpern (2001), 229–262; Liverani (2005), 92–101. The latter recently suggested a state comprising the territories of Judah and Ephraim during the time of David, which subsequently was enlarged to include areas of northern Samaria and influence areas in the Galilee and Transjordan. Na’aman (1992; 1996) once accepted the basic biography of David as authentic and later rejected the United Monarchy as a state, cf. id. (2007), 401–402.»
For example: Keller, Catherine (2009). «The Pluri-Singularity of Creation». En McFarland, Ian A., ed. Creation and Humanity: The Sources of Christian Theology. Sources of Christian theology. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 74. ISBN9780664231354. Consultado el 8 de julio de 2015. «[...] Elohim – a flux of syllables, labial, multiple. Its ending marks it stubbornly as a plural form of "eloh"; here (but not always) it takes the singular verb form [...]».
The Cambridge Ancient History, Cambridge University Press, 1982, vol. III, parte 1, p. 501; "Les juifs et les grandes puissances de l'Antiquité", en: Le monde du judaïsme, Londres y París: Thames & Hudson, 2003, p. 90
