Expansion Policy of the Davidic Dynasty: Judah from the Late 10th to the Early 6th Centuries BCE (original) (raw)
This article challenges notions that the rulers of Jerusalem were successful in significantly expanding their territory. Except for limited eastern gains, significant expansion occurred only through indirect help from Aram or with the support or at the initiative of the Kingdom of Israel or in the shadow of the Assyrians. A structural weakness in David’s dynasty had its origins in its founders in the Ephratite clan north of Jerusalem because, with the takeover of Jerusalem, David had moved away from the lands of his clan. This can be a serious problem in tribal societies. Diplomatic marriages with elites from further afield hardly broadened the dynasty’s social base. In the end, the analysis leads to the hypothesis that the Davidides were city kings with limited potency, and Jerusalem was a city state that could temporarily extend its influence over the mountains of Judah and even beyond only with direct or indirect help from outside. This has consequences for our interpretation of Biblical Israel and of archaeological data, which is still liable to take biblical narratives as chronological anchors. The theological significance of Judah, Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty brought about by the Bible after the fall of the Davidic state are not affected by this historical hypothesis.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 2019
Abstract Was Jerusalem a capital of Judah in the sense that its central place status was accepted by the surrounding tribal groups of the Judahite mountains? Was Jerusalem integral to the tribe of Judah? The coupling of “Jerusalem and Judah” (and vice versa) suggests a link between the two terms while maintaining the difference between the two entities. Jerusalem was no more than a relatively modest residence of the House of David for at least two centuries. Even after its rise to metropolis at the end of the 8th cent. B.C.E., the city remained apart from the clans of the Judahite mountains until the demise of the Davidic state. The clans in turn remained distant from Jerusalem, sporadically exercising their influence to change a ruler. The term “tribe of Judah” or the image of a “royal tribe” (Gen 49:8 –12) seems to be a creation of Davidic integrative state ideology. It was aimed at uniting the clans of the Judahite mountains and binding them to the “House of David”. This was necessary, because the Davidic dynasty originated from the Ephrath clan in Benjamin and was more closely connected to the region north of Jerusalem. It is doubtful whether a tribe of Judah existed outside the royal ideology in monarchic times. The role that Jerusalem played in relation to Judah corresponds structurally and functionally to the role Samaria played in Israel. Samaria was also a residence of the military leaders of the northern tribes since the time of Omri, outside the tribal territories and independent of them.
Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, 2023
In this article I draw an outline for understanding the settlement oscillations in Jerusalem between the Late Bronze Age Amarna period and the First Jewish Revolt. I begin by posing a question regarding the "Jerusalem Anomaly": located in a remote, marginal area with no natural resources, how was it that Jerusalem twice grew to become the largest city in the southern Levant? I propose that Jerusalem could reach a state of high prosperity only as a vassal serving the interests of great empires (Assyria and Rome). It could also benefit from serving local Levantine powers (Damascus and Israel). In the era discussed here Jerusalem achieved a state of prosperity as a relatively independent center of power only once-in the few decades from the days of John Hyrcanus until the takeover of the region by Pompey the Great.
Judah and its Neighbors in the Fourth Century BCE: A Time of Major Transformations
The current article deals with Achaemenid imperial policy in fourth century BCE southern Levant, as is evident by the historical sources and the archaeological data. It is suggested that following the Egyptian rebellion of 404–400 BCE, southern Palestine underwent major transformation as a result of becoming the southwestern frontier of the Persian Empire. An attempt to reconstruct the political history and its social and economical manifestation is been offered, while focusing on the inland regions of Judah and Edom. One of the major consequences of this new geo-political reality has resulted in the canonization of the Torah. Thus, its inception should no longer be viewed as an outcome of inner-societal compromises between different Judahite groups, but rather as a conscious response of Jerusalem’s priestly circles to early fourth century BCE Zeitgeist of the southern Levant, when Egypt was no longer a part of the Persian Empire.
In this rejoinder to a recent article by Israel Finkelstein, I suggest that: A. -The kingdom of Judah experienced a steady growth in urbanization, population and economy during the 9th-8th centuries BCE, and there is no need to contrive an external factor in order to explain the picture discovered in the excavations and surveys of the end of the 8th century. B. -All speculation about a mass migration of tens of thousands of inhabitants from Israel to Judah following the Assyrian conquest in 720, and their speedy settlement all over the kingdom, has no textual or archaeological evidence to support it. In explaining the discovered realities scholars must content themselves with such knowledge as we have; even if the explanations they offer are less captivating, they may do more to illuminate the ancient reality. SOMMAIRE Dans cette réponse à un article récent d'I. Finkelstein, je suggère que: A. -Le royaume de Juda a vécu un constant accroissement en urbanisation, démographie et économie durant les IX e -VIII e s. av. J.-C., et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de chercher un facteur externe pour expliquer ce qui ressort des fouilles et des explorations de surface concernant la fin du VIII e s. B.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.