Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Regatul Iuda" 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.
The idolatry of the people of Judah was not a departure from their earlier monotheism. It was, instead, the way the people of Judah had worshiped for hundreds of years.
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.
Sargon's heir, Sennacherib (705–681), could not deal with Hezekiah's revolt until he gained control of Babylon in 702.
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. [...] Although the kingdom of Judah is mentioned in some ancient inscriptions, they never suggest that it was part of a unit comprised of Israel and Judah. There are no extrabiblical indications of a united monarchy called “Israel.”
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 idolatry of the people of Judah was not a departure from their earlier monotheism. It was, instead, the way the people of Judah had worshiped for hundreds of years.
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.
...an important group of archaeologists and biblical scholars formed the view that in reality the kingdom of David and Solomon bore little resemblance to the biblical portrait of an extensive, powerful, united monarchy. This view derives primarily from the fact that no 10th century BCE archaeological finds exist that could corroborate claims of the existence of a magnificent biblical kingdom extending from Be'er Sheva in the south to Dan in the north. Accordingly, these scholars and archaeologists conclude that the so-called kingdom was no more than a small tribal entity, meager in substance and sparse in population, which did not extend beyond the boundaries of Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings.
