The Bible’s First Kings: Uncovering the Story of Saul, David, and Solomon
By Avraham Faust and Zev I. Farber
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2025), 464 pp., 30 figs. (photos, plans, and maps); $49.99 (hardback & digital)
Reviewed by Michael G. Hasel
The Stories of Saul, David, and Solomon are central to the biblical narrative of a transition from tribal governance to the United Monarchy in ancient Israel. The Bible recounts David rising out of the failed monarchy of Saul, fighting off the Philistines (first by killing Goliath), establishing Jerusalem as his capital, and then handing over the kingdom to Solomon, who builds the Temple. More than half of the Psalms are attributed to David, and it is through the line of David that the Messiah is promised. It is no wonder then that David is mentioned more frequently than any other person in the Bible—nearly 1,000 times.
This period of ancient Israel’s history, and its first kings, has become the most contested area of research over the past 40 years. It is into this quagmire of history, archaeology, and faith that archaeologist Avraham Faust and biblical scholar Zev Farber offer a new synthesis titled The Bible’s First Kings, which offers a dense but engaging discussion of the various biblical and archaeological issues.
After providing a brief overview of the biblical account of the United Monarchy in the book’s first chapter, the following two chapters enter the maze of biblical scholarship, reviewing the trajectory of modern scholarly skepticism that began with the rejection of the Bible’s patriarchal, exodus, and conquest traditions. Based largely in a scientific approach that rejected divine intervention in human history, scholars approached the past with methodological doubt and essentially demanded tangible evidence through archaeology and extrabiblical sources.
Indeed, by the 1980s, archaeological evidence traditionally associated with the United Monarchy began to be reinterpreted. By 1992, Philip R. Davies rejected the kingdom of David and Solomon because it “had not the faintest echo in the archaeological record—as yet.” Even after the phrase “House of David” was found inscribed on a stela from Tel Dan the following year (and, according to some scholars, on the previously discovered Mesha Stele as well), the die had been cast. Archaeology quickly took the driver’s seat in the debate.
The middle part of the book, therefore, focuses on the archaeology of the tenth century BCE, the period when Saul, David, and Solomon would have ruled. Here, the authors excel in leaving no stone unturned. They evaluate highland fortifications, examine the connections between the “pots and people” of Israel and Philistia, trace demographic trends across settlements in the Negev highlands, Gilead, and the northern Galilee, and discuss the accumulating evidence for tenth-century copper mining in Edom and Timna and their possible connection to the biblical “Solomon’s mines.” Ultimately, the authors answer the question of whether there is clear archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy with a “resounding yes” (p. 87).
In the book’s final part, the authors submit a proposal for a new paradigm, reflecting on the archaeological record and providing some creative interpretations. Much of their argument revolves around the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah, where I codirected excavations with Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor more than 15 years ago.1 The authors agree with our conclusions that Qeiyafa (1) dates from the 11th to 10th centuries BCE; (2) has inscriptions written in paleo-Hebrew; and (3) was an Israelite construction. Yet they also argue that Qeiyafa was built when “the Shephelah was empty other than the six Canaanite villages” (p. 157), and that it was most likely occupied during the time of Saul, not David.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
To their first point, data now suggest that the region was not, in fact, empty of Judahite towns. The authors could have bolstered their case—which does include discussions of contemporary sites, such as Khirbet al-Ra‘i, Beth Shemesh, Tel Burna, Tel Zayit, and Tel ‘Eton—by referring to our extensive survey of Khirbet Shuweikah (biblical Socoh) just across the Elah Valley, where we found pottery nearly identical to that from Qeiyafa.2
As to their second point, while I agree that Saul could have built Qeiyafa, radiocarbon dates do not support the idea that it was destroyed before the reign of David. Furthermore, although dating Qeiyafa solely to the time of Saul supports their hypothesis that the Ishbaal inscription (found at the site in 2012) refers to Ishbosheth of the Bible, their idea that he was a usurper rather than Saul’s son is contradicted repeatedly in 2 Samuel (2:8–15; 3:7–8, 14; 4:1, 8).
There remains much more to engage the reader in this tour de force defense of the United Monarchy of Saul, David, and Solomon—a period crucial to ancient Israel’s formation.
Notes
1. See Hershel Shanks, “Newly Discovered: A Fortified City from King David’s Time,” BAR, January/February 2009; Yosef Garfinkel, Michael G. Hasel, and Martin G. Klingbeil, “An End and a Beginning: Why We’re Leaving Qeiyafa and Going to Lachish,” BAR, November/December 2013.
2. Michael G. Hasel et al., Socoh of the Judean Shephelah: The 2010 Survey (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017).
The post The Bible’s First Kings appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.
Comments
Post a Comment