Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Istoria evreilor" in Romanian language version.
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 re-cently suggested a state comprising the territories of Judah and Ephraim during thetime of David, that was subsequently 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.
So the question to ask in understanding the Torah on its own terms is not when, or even if, Moses lived, but what his life conveys in Israel’s saga. [...] Typical of the folkloristic, national hero, Moses succesfully withstands [...]
Because of his view of the history of religions as an evolutionary process, the latter is his preferred option. Polytheism is seen as older than monotheism and so as the more likely background for the original version of the legend, the visit of three gods to test an individual who proves through his hospitality his worthiness to be given the gift of a son.
New data from archaeological surveys, excavations, and, sadly, from looted artifacts purchased on the antiquities market have advanced knowledge of the Persian period in its local and international aspects (Stern 2001; Grabbe 2004; Betlyon 2005; Pearce and Wunsch 2014; Lemaire 2015). Archaeological discoveries since the 1970s have demonstrated that preexilic Israelite religion was not yet monotheistic and that strictly monotheistic Yahwism gained adherents in the Persian period (Gnuse 1997; Smith 2002; Albertz and Becking 2003). Not surprisingly then, the last few decades have witnessed reassessments of old certainties and new questions about the history, religion, and culture of the people who worshiped Yhwh in the sixth through late fourth centuries BCE.
Second, it was probably not until the exile that monotheism proper was clearly formulated.
Archaeologically and historically, the redating of these cities from Solomon's era to the time of Omrides has enormous implication. It removes the only archeological evidence that there was ever a united monarchy based in Jerusalem and suggests that David and Solomon were, in political terms, little more than hill country chieftains, whose administrative reach remained on a fairy local level, restricted to the hill country.
Yet excavations in the city of David revealed impressive finds from the Middle Bronze Age and from later centuries of the Iron Age—just not from the tenth century BCE. The most optimistic assessment of this negative evidence is that tenth century Jerusalem was rather limited in extent, perhaps not more than a typical hill country village.
Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan.
The farther one goes from what Mazar views as the pivotal period of biblical composition, that is, the eighth to seventh centuries B.C.E., the more imaginative, symbolic, distorted, and "foggier" that past becomes. In addition, one must take into account the impact that such factors as distortion, selectivity, memory loss, censorship, and ideological or personal bias might have brought to bear on the composition of the resultant biblical traditions.
The Bible reports that Jehoshaphat, a contemporary of Ahab, offered manpower and horses for the northern kingdom's wars against the Arameans. He strengthened his relationship with the northern kingdom by arranging a diplomatic marriage: the Israelite princess Athaliah, sister or daughter of King Ahab, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:18). The house of David in Jerusalem was now directly linked to (and apparently dominated by) the Israelite royalty of Samaria. In fact, we might suggest that this represented the north's takeover by marriage of Judah. Thus in the ninth century BCE—nearly a century after the presumed time of David—we can finally point to the historical existence of a great united monarchy of Israel, stretching from Dan in the north to Beer-sheba in the south, with significant conquered territories in Syria and Transjordan. But this united monarchy—a real united monarchy—was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidides, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.
As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of “united monarchy” is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.
Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. [...] In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE), and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the “House of David” in the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE, does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE, but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. [...] Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extra biblical documents) supporting various events of the monarchical period (esp. the later period) recorded in the Bible, there is little, if any evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history.
The alleged decree of Cyrus permitting—even commanding—the Jews to rebuild the temple and permitting them to return cannot be considered authentic.
Only later would a Yahweh-only party polemicize against and seek to suppress certain… what came to be seen as undesirable elements of Israelite-Judean religion, and these elements would be labeled Canaanite, as a part of a process of Israelite differentiation. But what appears in the Bible as a battle between Israelites, pure Yahwists, and Canaanites, pure polytheists, is indeed better understood as a civil war between Yahweh-only Israelites, and Israelites who are participating in the cult of their ancestors.
Históricamente, no podemos hablar más de un periodo de los Patriarcas, del Éxodo de los israelitas de Egipto, de la conquista de Canaán, de un periodo de los Jueces en Palestina, ni de una Monarquía Unida dominando desde el Éufrates hasta el Arco de Egipto.31 Incluso la historicidad del Exilio de los israelitas de Palestina hacia Babilonia como un evento único ha sido puesta en seria duda recientemente.32
31 Cf. Th. L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources, Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1992, pp. 10-116, 146-158, 215-300, 401412; N. P. Lemche, "Early Israel Revisited", Currents in Research: Biblical Studies, vol. 4, 1996, pp. 9-34, y The Israelites in History and Tradition, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville, wjk, 1998, pp. 35 85; I. Finkelstein y N. A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision on Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Nueva York, Free Press, 2001, pp. 27-96, 123-145. Vease tambien Liverani, Oltre la Bibbia. Storia antica di Israele, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003, y Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d'Israele, Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2005.
32 L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: "The Exile" as History and Ideology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament - Supplement Series, 278/European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 2, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Din punct de vedere istoric, nu se mai poate vorbi de o perioadă a Patriarhilor, de Ieșirea israeliților din Egipt, de cucerirea Canaanului, de o perioadă a Judecătorilor în Palestina și nici de o Monarhie Unită care domină de la Eufrat la Arcul Egiptului.31 Chiar și istoricitatea Exilului israeliților din Palestina în Babilon ca eveniment unic a fost recent serios pusă la îndoială.32
Had no founder of the worship of YHWH and the covenant institutions that characterized Israel from its beginnings been recorded in tradition, analogy would have required postulating him; and that is probably what happened.
Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical.
There can be little doubt that polytheism was the normal religion of Israel in practice. [...] On popular religion in Israel see Francesca Stavrakopoulou , “‘Popular’ Religion and ‘Official’ Religion: Practice, Perception, Portrayal,” in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah (eds. F. Stavrakopoulou and J. Barton ; London: T & T Clark, 2010), 37–58. This essay problematizes the distinction between popular and official religion, a distinction that was not necessarily obvious at the time to everyone, even though the Old Testament gives the impression that it was.
Had no founder of the worship of YHWH and the covenant institutions that characterized Israel from its beginnings been recorded in tradition, analogy would have required postulating him; and that is probably what happened.
Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical.
Nonetheless, other archeologists posit that the biblical narrative reflecting the existence of a powerful monarchy in Jerusalem is largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.
Aren Maeir, an archeology professor at Bar Ilan University, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."
Históricamente, no podemos hablar más de un periodo de los Patriarcas, del Éxodo de los israelitas de Egipto, de la conquista de Canaán, de un periodo de los Jueces en Palestina, ni de una Monarquía Unida dominando desde el Éufrates hasta el Arco de Egipto.31 Incluso la historicidad del Exilio de los israelitas de Palestina hacia Babilonia como un evento único ha sido puesta en seria duda recientemente.32
31 Cf. Th. L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources, Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1992, pp. 10-116, 146-158, 215-300, 401412; N. P. Lemche, "Early Israel Revisited", Currents in Research: Biblical Studies, vol. 4, 1996, pp. 9-34, y The Israelites in History and Tradition, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville, wjk, 1998, pp. 35 85; I. Finkelstein y N. A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision on Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Nueva York, Free Press, 2001, pp. 27-96, 123-145. Vease tambien Liverani, Oltre la Bibbia. Storia antica di Israele, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003, y Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d'Israele, Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2005.
32 L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: "The Exile" as History and Ideology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament - Supplement Series, 278/European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 2, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Din punct de vedere istoric, nu se mai poate vorbi de o perioadă a Patriarhilor, de Ieșirea israeliților din Egipt, de cucerirea Canaanului, de o perioadă a Judecătorilor în Palestina și nici de o Monarhie Unită care domină de la Eufrat la Arcul Egiptului.31 Chiar și istoricitatea Exilului israeliților din Palestina în Babilon ca eveniment unic a fost recent serios pusă la îndoială.32
Amihai Mazar, a professor of archaeology at Hebrew University, calls the find "something of a miracle." He says he believes that the building may be the Fortress of Zion that David is said to have conquered, which he renamed the City of David. "What she found is fascinating, whatever it is," he said.
Herzog laid out many of the theories Finkelstein and Silberman present in their book: "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli public—a very painful dent.
Had no founder of the worship of YHWH and the covenant institutions that characterized Israel from its beginnings been recorded in tradition, analogy would have required postulating him; and that is probably what happened.
Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical.
Históricamente, no podemos hablar más de un periodo de los Patriarcas, del Éxodo de los israelitas de Egipto, de la conquista de Canaán, de un periodo de los Jueces en Palestina, ni de una Monarquía Unida dominando desde el Éufrates hasta el Arco de Egipto.31 Incluso la historicidad del Exilio de los israelitas de Palestina hacia Babilonia como un evento único ha sido puesta en seria duda recientemente.32
31 Cf. Th. L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources, Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1992, pp. 10-116, 146-158, 215-300, 401412; N. P. Lemche, "Early Israel Revisited", Currents in Research: Biblical Studies, vol. 4, 1996, pp. 9-34, y The Israelites in History and Tradition, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville, wjk, 1998, pp. 35 85; I. Finkelstein y N. A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision on Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Nueva York, Free Press, 2001, pp. 27-96, 123-145. Vease tambien Liverani, Oltre la Bibbia. Storia antica di Israele, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003, y Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d'Israele, Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2005.
32 L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: "The Exile" as History and Ideology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament - Supplement Series, 278/European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 2, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Din punct de vedere istoric, nu se mai poate vorbi de o perioadă a Patriarhilor, de Ieșirea israeliților din Egipt, de cucerirea Canaanului, de o perioadă a Judecătorilor în Palestina și nici de o Monarhie Unită care domină de la Eufrat la Arcul Egiptului.31 Chiar și istoricitatea Exilului israeliților din Palestina în Babilon ca eveniment unic a fost recent serios pusă la îndoială.32
