These first to quotes are posts I pulled from
this thread.
I somewhat misattributed a hypothesis here. William Dever in the 1960s was largely following Yigal Yadin's ideas from the 1950s.
The conventional chronology is a dead paradigm. It has essentially succumbed to the evidence associated with Finkelstein’s challenge and been replaced by the “modified conventional chronology”
The following are the reigns of the relevant kings:
1010 – 970 BCE David
970 – 931 BCE Solomon
884 – 873 BCE Omri
871 – 852 BCE Ahab
Note that the height of David’s reign and all of Solomon’s are prior to the last quarter of the Tenth Century. Whereas the Omrides ruled Israel during the Ninth Century. The key issue is the dating of the Iron IIA, the Iron IIA being a period of relative chronology established archaeologically.
Here are the proposed datings of the Iron IIA:
1000 – 925 BCE The Conventional Chronology
930 – 800 BCE The Low Chronology
960 – 830 BCE The Modified Conventional Chronology
According to the conventional chronology, a great deal of stratigraphically well-dated monumental architecture sharing similar characteristics can be attributed to the reign of Solomon. According to Finkelstein’s low chronology, this architecture must be attributed to the Omrides.
You may notice, that the so-called “modified conventional chronology” in its most recent incarnation anyway, is not a modification of the conventional chronology, but in fact the low chronology shifted backward by thirty years. Thirty years just happens to be how far one can shift the low chronology backward and still be within a reasonable portion of the margin of error of the C-14 dates. Shifting the low chronology backward by thirty years allows for the Iron IIA to still overlap the majority of Solomon’s reign, so that monumental architecture can still be attributed to Solomon, but only if one also challenges the stratigraphic dating of this architecture, it now needs to be at least one layer earlier at most sites in order to be attributed to Solomon.
It occurs to me that the maximalists had no issue with the stratigraphic dating of this architecture until they were forced to move their absolute dating of the Iron IIA, otherwise they would have originally attributed the monumental architecture to David rather than Solomon, but of course it is Solomon who is said to have been the greater builder in the biblical text. This showcases the difference between the methodological schools.
According to Finkelstein and the Tel Aviv school, the archaeological evidence, epigraphic evidence, and the hard sciences are used to established what can reasonably be considered scientific fact, and the authenticity of each particular biblical claim is assessed on the basis of its plausibility in light of those scientific facts. According to Amihai Mazar and the Hebrew University school, the biblical text, archaeological evidence, epigraphic evidence, and the hard sciences are each given more equal weight. For example, within the Tel Aviv school, a C-14 result will be interpreted at the center of its statistical bell curve and only shifted in order to make it consonant with strong archaeological, epigraphic, or other scientific dating methods. Whereas, within the Hebrew University school interpretation of a C-14 result can be shifted to the extreme reasonable end of the margin of error if it allows for all forms of evidence to be interpreted as consonant with the biblical text. Generally, academics outside of Israel tend to align themselves with one school or the other, or go to extremes one way or the other that are beyond what is considered reasonable by those working in Israel.
Regarding finds that corroborate biblical texts, I can’t see the disparity in this case as being entirely attributed to chance. We have only one find that corroborates David’s existence as the founder of the Judahite dynasty, whereas we have fourteen finds which corroborate Omri’s existence as the founder of the Israelite dynasty (Black Obelisk, Calah Fragment, Kurba'il Stone, Ashur Stone, Nimrud Slab, III R 10.2, ND 4301, ND 4305, Sargon II’s Palace Door, Small Summery Inscription, Cylinder Inscription, Bull Inscription, Mesha Stele, and the Tel Dan Stele). Despite his allegedly ruling over the most powerful kingdom between Egypt and Mesopotamia, we have no corroborating evidence for the existence of Solomon.
I should note that Finkelstein doesn’t actually deny the existence of David or Solomon, he just believes they were the rulers of a rather small early Kingdom of Judah limited to the Judean Highlands. There are a couple of demographic reasons for this that are not disputed by the maximalists: 1) The entire population of Judah and Benjamin could not have been more than 20,000 during the Iron IIA; 2) The City of Jerusalem could not have had a population greater than 1,000 - 2,000 during this period. Although, we can’t assess what was under the Temple Mount which is where the city almost entirely was during this period, by our best estimation.
Regarding the historicity of the texts in general, it appears that the basic framework of the Book of Kings is accurate regarding the names of the kings, when they ruled, and what they accomplished. Most of it has been corroborated by extra-biblical sources. The Book of Kings relies on two sources it mentions by name in the text as if everyone would be familiar with them. Those two texts are the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah. It’s not too hard to guess the nature of these lost documents.
As far as the Book of Chronicles goes, it appears to offer no historical information not otherwise contained in the Book of Kings which is likely its main source. It was composed in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period, and seems to be a sort of proto-
Midrashic literature:
This is Amihai Mazar's summery of his response to Finkelstein's views on the United Monarchy:
There is something else to be observed here, it's not just that Mazar (Finkelstein's greatest opponent) subscribes to the Hebrew University school, it's that a significant portion of his work and the work of others who oppose Finkelstein is in danger of losing relevance. Nearly all of Finkelstein's academic opposition comes from older scholars who built their careers on hypotheses he has largely made obsolete. Even at the Hebrew University, those who began their careers after Finkelstein came to prominence are much more amenable to his arguments.
Oda and I also discussed this topic
here. I don't find the more moderate hypotheses regarding the existence of the United Monarchy implausible, but the monumental architecture in question is almost certainly Omride in my opinion.