Salvet – Faglig artikkel

Historien går fremover om lag sju århundrer.
Den flyttes fra Abrahams tid til Israels tid som nasjon.
Dette inkluderer utvandringen, Moses og den tidlige monarkiet.

Episode Ti finner sted omtrent syv hundre år etter Episode Ni. Fortellingen skifter fra Abrahams liv til det etablerte folket Israel.

Abraham etterfulgte av hans etterkommere gjennom Isak og Jakob (Israel). En hungersnød fører Jakobs familie til Egypt, hvor de til slutt bosetter seg.

Over tid blir israelittene slaver av egypterne. Gud oppretter deretter Moses for å føre dem ut av slaveriet i «Den store utvandringen».

Etter at de har rømt, reiser de gjennom villmarken. På Sinai-fjellet inngår Gud en pakt med Israel og gir dem loven.

På grunn av ulydighet vandrer folket i en generasjon. Etter Moses’ død leder Josva dem inn i det lovede landet.

Landet blir gradvis tatt fra ulike kananeiske grupper. Denne perioden ledes av personer kjent som dommere.

Til slutt ber folket om en konge. Profeten Samuel salver Saul til Israels første konge.

Episode ti begynner rundt denne overgangen til monarki. Israel er nå en nasjon som har slått seg ned i landet og beveger seg inn i en ny fase av lederskap.

Episode ti av Adamens arv Skjer omtrent sju hundre år etter hendelsene i Episoden ni.

Etter episode ni, Adamens arv Vi går noen syv århundrer framover til tiden da Abrahams etterkommere (nå kjent som Israels barn) ble etablert som en nasjon i “det lovede landet” (det vil si det landet Gud hadde lovet dem). Abrahams etterkommere (dvs. Isaks sønn Jakob og hans familie, inkludert Jakobs yngste sønn Josef) var blitt tvunget til Egypt på grunn av en hungersnød. Etter å ha slått seg ned der, vokste befolkningen til “Israels barn” (“Israel” er et navn Gud ga Jakob i Første Mosebok 32:22-32 og 35:10),[297] Israel ble gjort til et slaveri av egypterne. Senere, under profeten Moses, frigjorde Gud israelittene fra slaveriet i Egypt, og førte dem inn i ørkenen (i “Den store utvandringen”) for å begynne en reise for å ta over “det lovede landet”. På Sinais berg inngikk Gud en pakt med Israel og ga dem lover (inkludert de berømte “Ti budene”). Etter at de hardhjertede voksne israelittene døde ut i løpet av en periode med nomadisk vandring, og etter Moses“ død førte Gud Israel til slutt inn i det lovede landet under ledelse av Josva, og avfolket gradvis ulike kanaanittiske stammer fra landet i en prosess som fortsatte under ledelse av ulike religiøse ledere kalt ”dommere“.”[298] Når episode ti av The Legacy of Adam tar over fortellingen, har folkene i Israel nylig besluttet at de ønsker å bli styrt av en konge, og Saul (som muslimer kjenner som Talut)[299]) hadde blitt utnevnt til konge av profeten Samuel.

Gud dømmer ikke etter ytre skikkelse, men etter hjertet.
Menneskelige standarder fokuserer på styrke og status, men Gud ser på karakter.
David blir valgt på grunn av sin indre tillit og mot.

Avvisningen av Davids eldre brødre viser at Guds målinger er forskjellige fra menneskers standarder. Folk har en tendens til å dømme ut fra utseende, styrke og status. I 1. Samuelsbok 16:7 sier Gud til Samuel at Han ser på hjertet, ikke på ytre utseende. Dette betyr at Gud vurderer en persons indre karakter, motiver og tro.

Davids eldre brødre virket mer egnede til å bli konge. De så sannsynligvis sterkere, mer erfarne og mer imponerende ut. Men deres senere frykt for Goliat avslører en mangel på tillit til Gud. Deres ytre styrke samsvarte ikke med indre mot.

Gud baserer ikke sine dommer på den overfladiske standarden for utseendet, men på sin kunnskap om en persons indre natur eller “hjerte”.”

Sannhetens Gud blir ikke villedet av overfladiske utseender. Gud blir i denne episoden sitert som sier til profeten Samuel: “Jeg ser ikke på det folk ser på, for folk ser på det ytre utseendet, men Herren ser på hjertet.” (1. Samuelsbok 16:7.) Davids tre eldste brødre kanskje så mer kjekke eller imponerende ut enn han gjorde, men de var redde for Goliat, mesteren i den filistiske hæren, mens Davids nidkjærhet for Gud betød at han ikke var redd (se 1. Samuelsbok 17).

Gud verdsetter konsekvent ydmykhet fremfor status når han velger ledere.
Bibelsk lederskap defineres av tjeneste, ikke dominans.
Davids valg gjenspeiler dette mønsteret i stedet for å motsette seg visdommen.

Ifølge den bibelske tradisjonen er ydmykhet en sentral dyd som Gud ser etter hos dem som følger ham, inkludert ledere. Dette er ikke en isolert idé, men et konsekvent tema gjennom både Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente.

I Tall 12:3, Moses, Israels grunnleggende leder, beskrives som “meget ydmyk”, til tross for sin autoritet og sin unike rolle. På lignende måte beskrives instruksjonene for konger i Femte Mosebok 17:14–20 De er utformet for å hindre stolthet ved å begrense makt, rikdom og selvforherligelse. Kongen er ment å forbli under Guds lov, ikke over den.

Denne prinsippen blir forsterket og tydeliggjort av Jesus. I Luk 22:27, Han presenterer seg selv som en som tjener, og i Markus 10:42–45, Han kontrasterer verdensledere, som dominerer andre, med gudfryktig ledelse, som er preget av tjeneste og selvopofrelse. Storhet blir i denne sammenhengen redefinert som å tjene andre.

Davids utvelgelse passer direkte inn i dette mønsteret. Han blir valgt ikke på grunn av eksterne kvalifikasjoner som alder, status eller militær styrke, men på grunn av hans hjerte og holdning overfor Gud (1. Samuelsbok 16:7). Hans ydmykhet gjør ham egnet til lederskap på en måte som bare ytre styrke alene ikke gjør.

Interessant nok gjenspeiles denne bibelske vektleggingen i moderne ledelsesforskning. Forskere Edward D. Hess og Katherine Ludwig påpeker at ydmykhet er sterkt forbundet med bedre beslutningstaking, selvbevissthet og relasjonsmessig effektivitet.

Sett på denne måten er Guds valg av David ikke et avvik fra visdommen, men et uttrykk for et dypere lederskapsprinsipp: at karakter, særlig ydmykhet, er mer grunnleggende enn makt eller utseende.

Ifølge den bibelske tradisjonen er ydmykhet en viktig dyd som Gud ser etter hos dem som følger ham, inkludert ledere.

Modenhet er en av de viktigste moralske dyder som oppfordres til i Bibelen.[300] For eksempel beskrives profeten Moses, som førte Israels barn ut av slaveriet i Egypt, i nummer 12:3 som “en meget ydmyk mann”. (ESV.) Da Gud først ga en beskrivelse av Israels konger i Det gamle testamentets bok Deuteronomium 17:14-20, var formålet med hans instruksjoner å oppmuntre dem til å tjene Gud og Guds folk med ydmykhet.

I Det nye testamente påpeker Jesus for sine disipler at han er kommet “til dere som tjener” (Luk 22:27), og han lærer dem å etterligne sitt eget eksempel på ydmyk ledelse:

Du vet at de som regnes som herskere over hedningene hersker over dem, og de i høye stillinger opptrer som tyranner over dem. Men slik er det ikke hos dere. Tvert imot, den som ønsker å bli stor blant dere, skal være deres tjener, og den som ønsker å være den første blant dere, skal være alles tjener. For selv Menneskesønnen kom ikke for å bli tjent, men for å tjene og gi sitt liv som løsepenger for mange. (Markus 10:42-45, CSB.)

Interessant nok rapporterer lederforskere Edward D. Hess og Katherine Ludwig at en stadig større del av den psykologiske litteraturen viser at ydmykhet er forbundet med høyere fysisk og psykologisk velvære samt mellommenneskelige og interpersonelle fordeler, særlig i sammenheng med intellektuelle interesser, metakognitive evner, lederskap og relasjonsbygging.“[301]

Archaeological discoveries since the 1990s provide independent evidence for David.
The Tel Dan Stele refers to the “house of David” outside the Bible.
This shifted scholarly consensus from skepticism to general acceptance.

Until the late 20th century, many secular scholars doubted whether King David was a historical figure, often viewing him as a later legendary construct. This skepticism was largely due to the lack of extra-biblical evidence.

The situation changed significantly with the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele in 1993. This 9th-century B.C.E Aramaic inscription, likely commissioned by the Aramean king Hazael, refers to the “house of David” (byt dwd). This is widely understood as a dynastic reference, similar to how other ancient kingdoms were named after founding rulers.

As Kenneth Kitchen explains, this was the first widely recognized non-biblical reference to David, dating to within about a century of his lifetime. That proximity strengthens its historical value.

Similarly, Eric H. Cline notes that this discovery played a decisive role in shifting the debate, leading many scholars to accept David as a real historical person rather than a myth.

Additional inscriptions support this conclusion. The Mesha Stele, attributed to the Moabite king Mesha, likely contains a reference to the “house of David,” though the text is partially damaged. Epigrapher André Lemaire argues that “David” is the most plausible reconstruction of the text.

An Egyptian topographical list from around 925 B.C.E. may also refer to a region associated with David, possibly rendered as “Heights of David.” While this reading is more debated, it fits linguistically and historically within known variations of the name.

Taken together, these discoveries provide independent, non-biblical confirmation of a Davidic dynasty. As a result, most contemporary secular scholars now accept that David was a historical figure, even if debates remain about the size and power of his kingdom.

In other words, the shift in consensus was not driven by theological arguments, but by new archaeological data that made the earlier skepticism increasingly difficult to maintain.

Archaeological discoveries since 1993 have convinced even secular scholars that King David was a real historical figure who founded a dynasty in Judah.

Prior to 1993, secular scholars generally doubted the historical existence of King David (c. 1030-970 B.C.E), seeing him as a legendary figure. However, archaeological discoveries have now proved the existence of King David (whom many Muslims will know as Dawud[302]), who is consequently generally acknowledged by secular scholars to have been a historical figure. The 9^th century B.C.E Tel Dan Stela references the kingdom of Judah as “the house of David.” As Kenneth Kitchen explains:

The publication of fragments of an Old Aramaic stela from Tel Dan in 1993/1995 bought to light the first recognized nonbiblical mention of the tenth-century king David, in a text that reflected events of the year 841 and would have been set up at no great interval after that date.^[303]

Eric Cline, a Professor of classics, anthropology and history at George Washington University, explains that: “the finding of this inscription brought an end to the debate and settled the question of whether David was an actual historical person . . .”^[304]

Discovered in 1993, the Tel Dan Stele is:

a dark, medium-sized, broken victory stone . . .  found in secondary use as part of an ancient wall in the northern city of Tel Dan. Its original use had been as a ninth century B.C.E celebratory inscription belonging to Syria’s King Hazael, a glorification of his triumphs over Israel’s King Jehoram and Judah’s King Ahaziah.[305]

The inscription reads (emphasis added):

And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha]riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g of the house of David. And I set . . .[306]

Fig. Tel Dan-stelaen, med “Davids hus” fremhevet (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg).

Som Christopher Eames rapporterer:

Etter mye undersøkelser og spørsmål, gjenoversettelse og gjenspørring, er Tel Dan-steinen blitt akseptert som et ekte stykke... Og selv om det er den sikreste av alle referansene til kong David, finnes det også er To andre gjenstander som med stor sannsynlighet nevner kongen på lignende måte.[307]

Et av disse artefaktene er Mesha-steinen:

Denne seiersstenen tilhørte en annen mann som er nevnt i Bibelen – det moabittiske kongen Mesha. Denne steinen markerte Moabs opprør mot Israels konge rundt midten av det niende århundret f.Kr. (2. Kongeriket 3). Mot bunnen av inskripsjonen kan man finne samme setning som på Tel Dan-steinen: “Davidens hus”. Selv om den opprinnelige “D” mangler på grunn av skade (dvs. BT[D]WD), er det ifølge epigrafisten og filologen André Lemaire, som nøye studerte gjenstanden, vanskelig å tolke noe annet enn “David”.[308]

Fig. The Mesha Stele (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele#/media/File:P1120870_Louvre_st%C3%A8le_de_M%C3%A9sha_AO5066_rwk.JPG)

The final artefact of relevance is:

En egyptisk inskripsjon fra rundt slutten av det 10. århundret f.Kr., som beskriver en del av Israels Negevørken som “Davids høier”. Ledende egyptolog Kenneth Kitchen tolket den egyptiske inskripsjonen som H[Y]DBT DWT. Det første ordet betyr “høier”, eller “høyland”. Det andre ordet gir først et problem ved første øyekast. Navnet “David” er skrevet riktig på de to første inskripsjonene som DWD. Hva med DWT? Kitchen kom over en inskripsjon fra det 6. århundret e.Kr. fra Etiopia, som refererte til David som Davit. Derfor finnes det et forutgående eksempel for navnet DWT, Davit, i denne generelle regionen. Som med Mesha-steinen synes “David” å være den best passende oversettelsen. Å kalle dette området i Negev “Davidens høyder” gir også mening, fordi det var i dette området David flyktet og kommanderte mens han flyktet fra kong Saul.[309]

Denne egyptiske topografiske listen stammer fra 925 f.Kr., rundt 45 år etter Davids død, noe som, som Kitchen påpeker, er “i levende minne for mannen”.”^[310]

There is growing archaeological evidence for a centralized Judahite state in David’s time.
Finds from multiple sites suggest urban planning, fortifications, and administration.
While debate remains, most scholars now reject the idea that David was only a local chieftain.

The question of whether David ruled a true kingdom or was merely a local chieftain has been heavily debated, particularly between “minimalist” and “maximalist” scholars. Minimalists have argued that the biblical accounts were written much later and exaggerate David’s status.

However, this view has increasingly come under pressure from archaeological discoveries. As Kenneth Kitchen argues, there is no concrete evidence that the accounts of David and Solomon were invented in later periods, making the minimalist hypothesis largely speculative.

At the same time, new archaeological data points toward the existence of a developing state in Judah during the 10th century B.C.E. Excavations in Jerusalem, including work by Eilat Mazar, have uncovered large structures that may indicate significant building activity, possibly associated with a royal center.

A 2024 peer-reviewed study based on carbon dating from multiple sites in Jerusalem suggests that the city was more developed and populated during this period than previously thought, challenging the idea that it was merely a small village.

Additional evidence comes from administrative artifacts. As noted by Jimmy Hardin, the discovery of “bullae” (seal impressions) indicates organized governance and elite activity, which are typical features of a functioning state.

Sites such as Tel ‘Eton show signs of major transformation in the early 10th century B.C.E., including large buildings and urban expansion. Archaeologists Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir link these developments to a broader highland polity, likely corresponding to the biblical united monarchy.

Further support comes from Khirbet Qeiyafa, where Yosef Garfinkel and colleagues argue that the site reflects an organized urban society consistent with early state formation. Similar planning patterns across multiple fortified cities suggest centralized control.

Finally, the network of fortifications identified by Tali Erickson-Gini indicates territorial management and strategic defense, further supporting the existence of a structured political entity.

Taken together, this evidence does not prove every biblical detail, but it strongly supports the view that David was more than a tribal leader. Instead, he likely ruled an emerging kingdom with increasing administrative and military organization, broadly consistent with the biblical account.

A steady accumulation of archaeological evidence has emerged in the twenty-first century that corroborates the biblical picture of a united monarchy in the 10^th century B.C.E.

While some secular scholars believe that the biblical narratives about David are “a fictionalized account” of historical events “put together . . . to encourage the politically demoralized exiles in Babylon or the recently returned people of Judah,” theologian Mark A. Throntveit reports that “Most scholars reject this ‘minimalist’ view.”[311]

On the one hand, as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen comments:

There is not one scintilla of hard, verifiable, independent evidence that the accounts of David and Solomon’s reigns were invented in either the Neo-Babylonian or Achaemenid periods. This view is purely hypothetical . . .^[312]

On the other hand, archaeologists investigating several 10th century B.C. sites in Israel have argued for an accumulation of evidence pointing to the existence of a Davidic state. For example, archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered the remains of a large structure in Jerusalem that may have been a palace built for and/or used by King David.[313] A 2024 peer reviewed study of 103 carbon samples taken from several locations in ancient Jerusalem produced “evidence indicating the widespread habitation of Jerusalem during the time of David and Solomon . . . . Thanks to this study, we can say with much greater confidence that Jerusalem at the time of David and Solomon was more a city than a village, as the minimalists claim.”[314]

Jimmy Hardin, associate professor in the MSU Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, comments of the discovery of Davidic era “Bullae” seal impressions that indicate the existence of “a political entity that is typified by elite activities, suggesting that a state was already being formed in the 10th century BC . . . . as recorded in the Hebrew biblical texts.”[315]

Discoveries from Tel ‘Eton, on the southeastern edge of ancient Israel’s territory, fit the biblical description of an expanding kingdom during the reign of King David. Archaeologists Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir report that carbon dating from Tel ‘Eton:

suggest that the site was transformed around the first half of the 10th century BCE . . . A new edifice, probably serving as a residence of the family of a high ranking official . . . was built on the top of the mound, using impressive building technology . . . The construction of the building coincided with the expansion of the mound (and probably also with the erection of the city wall), signifying a major change of the entire site. Both historical circumstances and the plan of the building - a classical four-room house - connect the changes with the highland polity, most likely the contested United Monarchy.^[316]

Archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel, Saar Ganor and Michael G. Hasel conclude their 2018 book På kong Davids spor: Revelations from A Biblical City with the following comments:

Historical processes and cultural phenomena referred to in the Bible relating to the 10^th century BCE . . . find concrete expression at Khirbet Qeiyafa at the same time period. Such clear examples of correspondence between archaeological finds and the biblical tradition stand in contrast to the theories of scholars advocating the minimalist approach, and their assertion that the Bible was written during the Hellenistic or Persian period, or at the end of the 7^th century BCE, and contains no historical memory, but who have no data or finds to support such views . . . . The Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations have provided archaeological evidence corroborating historical memories from the time of King David . . . . The excavations showed that at the end of the 11^th century BCE an urban society and central monarchy began to take shape . . . . The proposal that the Bible was written many hundreds of years after the events is describes, and that it reflects only the period in which it was written, is no longer sustainable.^[317]

Professor Garfinkel argues that similarities in the design, construction and material presence of several fortified 10th-century B.C.E Judahite sites demonstrates the presence of a centralized government:

During the early Iron Age iia, the kingdom of Judah encompassed at least three cities: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh and Tell en-Naṣbeh. They featured the same underlying urban plan comprised of an outer casemate city wall and a belt of houses abutting the casemates, on the one side, and facing a peripheral road, on the other. Furthermore, none was more than a day’s walk from Jerusalem and, thus, may be considered as marking the kingdom’s geographical core. They were ... positioned to guard strategic roads leading into the kingdom: Khirbet Qeiyafa controlled the Elah Valley, Beth Shemesh controlled the Soreq Valley, and Tell en-Naṣbeh controlled the northern road to Jerusalem.[318]

According to Dr. Tali Erickson-Gini, former Israel Antiquities Authority archaeology inspector for the Southern Negev, this centralized government exerted its territorial control in the 10th century B.C.E via a large network of fortifications and associated water cisterns. Dr. Erickson-Gini notes the existence of over 60 fortification sites:

there’s probably even more fortifications that have not been investigated. I know for a fact that there have been areas that have not been properly surveyed yet . . . . There are smaller sites, that are towers, that are dotting along roads going between the bigger sites . . .[319]

She observes that: “You can see how these forts, [are] lining roads, they’re lining along wadis that are used as roads, and they’re blocking wadis. So, there was a great amount of control exerted through this area.”[320]

The narratives show realism, including flaws, consistent with historical sources.
They draw on early materials and near-contemporary records.
Archaeology and extra-biblical texts broadly support their historical setting.

There are several reasons why many scholars take the biblical narratives about Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon seriously as history, even if not every detail can be independently verified.

First, the narratives pass what historians call the “criterion of embarrassment.” Key figures, especially David, are portrayed with significant moral failures, including abuse of power and personal sin. As Scott Hahn notes, these accounts present leaders “warts and all,” which is unusual for fictional propaganda and suggests reliance on earlier, less idealized traditions.

Second, there are strong reasons to believe that these texts are based on relatively early sources. Joyce G. Baldwin describes Samuel as a compilation of earlier records, including narratives about Samuel, the ark, and the rise of monarchy. Similarly, V. Philips Long argues that much of the material likely originated close to the events themselves, possibly during Solomon’s reign in the 10th century B.C.E.

Internal features support this early dating. The texts reflect conditions specific to the 11th–10th centuries B.C.E., such as Philistine control over metalworking, accurate geographic details, and the absence of later dominant empires like Assyria and Babylon. Linguistically, they also lack strong Aramaic influence typical of later periods.

Third, the books of Kings explicitly cite earlier written sources, such as “the book of the acts of Solomon” and the “chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah.” These likely refer to royal annals or administrative records preserved in state archives, as noted by Scott Hahn.

Archaeology also provides supporting context. Inscriptions like the “Ishbaal” name found at Khirbet Qeiyafa align with names known from the biblical period. While interpretations of some finds remain debated, they demonstrate cultural and linguistic consistency with the biblical setting.

Finally, geographical and historical details match what is known from archaeology. As Yosef Garfinkel and others argue, the placement of Philistine cities in biblical narratives reflects earlier realities rather than later conditions, suggesting access to authentic historical memory.

Taken together, the combination of realistic portrayal, early source material, internal consistency, and external corroboration provides a strong case that these narratives preserve genuine historical traditions about Israel’s early monarchy.

The biblical narratives about Samuel, Saul, David and his son Solomon pass the historical criterion of embarrassment, are based on contemporaneous sources, and are corroborated by extra-biblical evidence.

The Qur’anic material about king David draws upon a partial knowledge of the Biblical narrative about him, which is found principally in the biblical histories of Samuel, Kings og Chronicles. In particular, as Professor Khaleel Mohammed argues, “Q38:21-5 . . . . seems to presuppose a familiarity with the biblical narrative”[321] about David’s adultery with Bathsheba. According to Professor Mohammed: “The Qur’an . . . takes the David story and makes it meaningful for its listeners in a new setting, conditioned by the accretions over the ages . . . .”[322] He concludes that these “accretions” were part of an oral tradition, wherein the story of 2 Samuel 12 was “refracted by midrash.”[323]

While some scholars believe that the biblical narratives about the Davidic dynasty are “a fictionalized account” of events “put together . . . to encourage the politically demoralized exiles in Babylon or the recently returned people of Judah,” theologian Mark A. Throntveit reports that “Most scholars reject this ‘minimalist’ view.”[324]

The biblical accounts of Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon “not only are wonderfully told but also have a ring of truth about them.”[325] For example, “The David that emerges from a careful reading of the biblical texts is a complex, very human character.”[326] Indeed, despite being “a man after my own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), David is presented as a deeply flawed man – an unlikely product of fictional myth-making.[327] In other words, the biblical portrait of King David passes the historical “criteria of embarrassment.” Indeed, theologian Scott Hann points out that: “the Books of Samuel do little to idealize the personalities of Samuel and David but relate their sins and shortcomings with a warts-and-all honesty that inspires confidence in the objectivity and antiquity of their sources.”[328]

Theologian Joyce G. Baldwin describes the book of (1 & 2) Samuel as:

A compilation of earlier accounts, which may have included a life of Samuel, a history of the ark, and accounts of the inauguration of the monarchy, as well as annals of the reign . . . put together by an editor, probably during the exile.[329]

Old Testament scholar V. Philips Long argues there are “good reasons to assume that the bulk of the book was composed early, perhaps during the reign of David’s son Solomon in the tenth century.”[330] He observes that:

the book of Samuel makes no reference to the major powers, Assyria and Babylonia, that begin to dominate in the ninth century . . . Samuel’s description of kingship in 1 Samuel 8 is appropriate to its setting but not to later periods when monarchy was more developed . . . geographic details and war strategies are accurately described . . . “one cannot find in the book any significant influence of the Aramaic language that later became an international means of correspondence” . . . the Philistine monopoly on “metal weaponry and agricultural tools” mentioned in 1 Samuel 13: 19– 23 existed only in the eleventh century [B.C.] . . . references in 1 Samuel 27 to settlements in the Negev wealthy enough to yield spoils of war make little sense after the tenth century, as they were destroyed during Shishak’s campaign in 926 [B.C.] . . .[331]

Long quotes Professor Moshe Garsiel, who concludes that:

In the light of the above literary, historical and archaeological considerations, it seems to me that there is no possibility other than to attribute most of the significant composition of the book of Samuel to the tenth century BCE, though small changes took place much later.[332]

This means that “large parts of our information on the United Monarchy stem from roughly contemporary sources.”[333]

The narrative history of (1 & 2) Kings explicitly references earlier historical texts (currently lost to us) which it drew upon (e.g. 1 Kings 11:41 & 14:19). As theologian Scott Hann comments:

the anonymous compiler of Kings . . . consulted several ancient sources to produce a narrative of the Israelite monarchy extending from the reign of Solomon in the tenth century B.C. up to the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century B.C. Three sources are identified by name in the work: "the book of the acts of Solomon" (1 Kings 11: 41), "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel" (1 Kings 14: 19; 2 Kings 1: 18, etc.), and "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" (1 Kings 14: 29; 2 Kings 8: 23, etc.). It is likely that these documents were royal administrative annals written close in time to the events they record and preserved in state archives. Other possible sources utilized in Kings include a “Succession Narrative” that details the transition from David's kingship to Solomon's rule (underlying 2 Sam 9- 20 and 1 Kings 1- 2) as well as stories about influential prophets who intervened in the affairs of Israel and Judah (e.g., the Elijah and Elisha cycles in 1 Kings 17— 2 Kings 13).

Hence, the relevant question from the purely historical point of view, is not so much when these narratives or narrative units were first “published” (or even when the canonical form of the text was edited), but whether the canonical text relays information that puts its readers in touch with the life and times of Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, etc. The available evidence seems to confirm the historicity of the narratives with respect to the claims it makes that can be independently verified, and this should bolster our confidence in the general reliability of these accounts.

In their Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, John M. Monson and Iain Provan refer to “the good number of extrabiblical texts and archaeological finds that corroborate the biblical record.”[334] For example, a late 11th/early 10th century B.C.E inscription on a storage jar, discovered in the archaeological excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa:

bears the words “Ishbaal, son of Beda.” Saul himself had a son by this name (1 Chronicles 8:33). This inscription therefore confirms the use of the name for figures belonging to the same period. Moving into later periods in Israel’s history, however, names like this that include the term “Baal” fall out of use.[335]

Professor of Old Testament Dr Claude Mariottini comments that: “Since the inscription is dated to the 11th-10th centuries B.C., the discovery becomes an important addition to the many discoveries that help confirm the chronology of the biblical text.”[336]

Professor Emile Puech of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française, thinks that another Ostracon inscription discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa: “Represents the earliest known text relating to the establishment of some form of administration of the Israelite society, likely referring to the installation of the first king, Saul.”[337] However, this interpretation of the inscription is controversial, because “the five line text of the ostracon, written in ink on a potsherd, is badly abraded and cannot be deciphered with certainty.”[338]

Fig. The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bible-Lands-Museum-Khirbet-Qeiyafa-30244.jpg).

Archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel and co-authors highlight “the basic and fascinating correspondence between the location of the important Philistine centers that emerges from archaeological-historical research and the geographical location of the biblical traditions.”[339] For example, the biblical story of David and Goliath relates how the Philistine army camped near the city of Socoh before retreating to the cities of Gath and Ekron:

Hvis historien ble skrevet på slutten av det 7. århundret^th I det første århundret f.Kr., under den persiske eller hellenistiske perioden, da disse byene ikke lenger eksisterte, ville forfatteren sannsynligvis ha notert at Ashdod, Ashkelon og Gaza var de byene fra hvilke filistiske styrker stammet. Det er således klart at den bibelske forfatteren hadde tilgang til historisk informasjon som stammet fra 10.^th og 8^th sjuende århundre f.Kr.[340]

Having compared the biblical material about Samuel, Saul and David to extra-biblical data about culture in the eleventh to tenth centuries BCE, Professor Daniel Bodi concludes that these narratives: “seem to reflect authentic historical reminiscence of a stage when ancient Israelite seminomadic chieftains were slowly becoming sedentary, adopting urban mores and lifestyles.”[341]