Simply stated, there is no reason, in the light of the current state of epigraphical and archaeological evidence to believe that the 10th century was one of significant literary activity. Although there is some dispute about the absolute dating of artifacts in Iron IIA, regardless of whether one accepts the traditional dating or the revised, lower dating of Finkelstein and Ussishkin, the epigaphical materials so far unearthed simply do not add up to much. The current epigraphical picture of late Iron I and early Iron II Palestine (ca. 1100-850 BCE) does not support the notion of the existence of archives, belles lettres, monumental inscriptions, etc. To this, some would reply with the old adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." 1 However, there is no such thing as "evidence of absence." This is an oxymoron. Moreover, although all historical reconstruction is skewed to a greater or lesser degree by the quantity and nature of surviving evidence, it must still be based on extant evidence, not anticipated, expected, hoped for evidence or evidence taken by faith. Therefore, an absence of evidence should be construed as "evidence of absence." No one would argue, for instance, that dinosaurs were literate, even though there are currently no traces of writing from the Mesozoic era, constituting an "absence of evidence."
Moreover, not a single monumental Israelite inscription, inscribed seal, 2 ostracon, etc., has been uncovered for this period. Although later occupations may have obliterated all traces of earlier texts, 3 sites without such have been excavated. For instance, none of the fortresses in the central Negev, almost all of which had their final phase in the tenth century, 4 has so far yielded any trace of writing: no letters from David or Solomon, no requests for provisions, no inventories, all types of records found later at Arad. Pointedly, the only texts found at these sites came from a later period. Since a few texts from the approximate period of David and Solomon do survive, 5 however, there is evidence of writing only it gives a drastically different picture of this period than either the Bible or scholarly reconstruction. At present, the evidence from this period in Palestine describes a society which knew writing but had little or no use for it and suggests that any governmental bureaucracy or trade that did exist, did not use writing or record keeping. 6 Regardless of the arguments that scholars have raised in support of scribal activity and record keeping for the period of David and Solomon, the evidence from verifiable contemporary data suggests a different picture. 7 A critical appraisal of the currently available evidence from this period in Palestine's history does not warrant the conclusion that archives, annals, chronicles, or lists of officials existed, at least in significant numbers, during the time of David and Solomon. The fact is, no one would claim, let alone attempt to argue, that the "time of David and Solomon" was a period of any literacy if it were not for the fact that the Biblical picture of this period continues to maintain a tight stranglehold over the paradigm. In the absence of the Bible, a probably late and certainly highly tendentious, source, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that any significant degree of literacy obtained during the 10th century BCE (or the 9th century for that matter) in Palestine. Therefore, there is good reason to question the assumption that there was a significant degree of royal scribal activity during the approximate time of David and Solomon.
Some have raised arguments in favor of some scribal (either state-sponsored or otherwise) activity during the time of David and Solomon. N. Na'aman, 8 for instance, believes that the time of David and Solomon was a period in which records were kept by scribes, although he would agree that the majority of the accounts of David and Solomon have not come from such sources. In particular, he argued that the report of Shoshenq's invasion in 1 Kings 14:25-28 came from an inscription mentioning the replacement of the golden shields with copper/bronze shields (verses 26-27). 9 From this, he concluded that "the account of Shishak's campaign in the book of Kings indicates that scribal activity took place in the court of Jerusalem in the late tenth century BCE." 10 More recently, he concluded that this report "must have been taken from a written text." 11
Nevertheless, a few considerations severely undercut Na'aman and others who rely on these and similar arguments. None of these considerations is strong in and of itself, but considered cumulatively suggest strongly that the quantity of first-hand sources either available to or used by Dtr was quite limited. First, it appears that these scholars rely on some amount of circular reasoning, which runs somewhat as follows: 1) the Bible reports that David and Solomon had a large kingdom replete with scribes and bureaucrats who must have made records, narratives, chronicles and such. Although the biblical accounts cannot be taken at face-value, they still must contain a kernel of historical truth, and we may safely conclude that a kingdom that had state-sponsored record keeping and such existed. 2) The Deuteronomistic Historian, a good historian, must have extensively used these first-hand records, which somehow survived for 300 years. 3) Therefore, since the historian used all these accurate sources, the biblical account must be reliable and we are safe to use it to isolate source- fragments from early times and safe to use it as a description of David and Solomon's kingdom. Then we are back at the beginning.
Beyond its circularity, problematic to this line of reasoning is the growing number of scholars who are advancing arguments that ancient historians did not use modern methods on the issue of use of sources. Van Seters, for instance, recently stated, "There is no evidence that such documents [annals, chronicles, archives] were ever consulted for the purpose of producing a literary or historical text long after a particular event. We can safely rule out any later historian consulting documents in 'archives' from the time of Solomon." 12 Moreover, S. Niditch has argued that the view that Dtr used such sources does not consider the problems of the logistics of using and accessing "archival" documents. She noted that using the long rolls in which ancient manuscripts were packaged would have been very unwieldy. Ancient documents were not "user-friendly." 13 In addition, according to Niditch, the sealing of documents made it difficult to gain access to their contents. 14 Further studies and reviews of these works will continue to clarify the issue.
Second, two questionable linchpins support the chain of reasoning used by Na'aman, et. al. 1) Scholars assume that an extensive kingdom existed in Palestine at the time of David and Solomon, a kingdom that would have needed administrative groups and scribes. This is no longer axiomatic to the study of Israel's history. 2) Scholars believe that source-fragments can be isolated using form-critical criteria. Na'aman, in particular, relies heavily on the belief that if a datum resembles information usually found in any given genre, then a sample of writing of that genre must have been the source of that datum. Although one cannot prove otherwise in this case, any datum could have had many possible genres or sources, including the writer's imagination or oral information. There is nothing in the report of Shoshenq's invasion, for instance, that could not have been transmitted by word of mouth.
Therefore, considering the current state of evidence that is roughly
contemporary with the time in which David and Solomon are usually placed,
in contrast with the biblical material, none of which can be placed to
this time with any degree of confidence, there is no reason to believe
or hold that any of the material found in Samuels, Kings, or Chronicles
was placed in writing at any time near that of David and Solomon. Consequently,
this material almost surely had a long period of oral transmission or was
simply invented by the writers. In either case, this is not written material
on which any confidence can be placed for reconstructing a historical period
during which David and Solomon lived. Each pericope must be closely scrutinized
in light of the discussion on oral tradition found in Part 1. At any rate,
at best the biblical account should be treated as a working hypothesis
in need of corroboration from evidence that is contemporary with the period
under consideration.
1. K. Kitchen, "New Directions in Biblical Archaeology: Historical and Biblical Aspects," in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993) 48; E. R. Heaton, The School Tradition of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 36; E. Yamauchi, "The Current State of Old Testament Historiography," in Faith, Tradition, and History ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, D. W. Baker (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 35; G. Knoppers, "The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel," JBL 116 (1997) 19-44.
2. Recently a few scholars have attempted to redate the Shema seal found in Schumacher's digs at Megiddo to the time of Jeroboam I (D. Edelman, "Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam: A Trio of 'Bad Guy' Characters Illustrating the Theology of Immediate Retribution," In The Pitcher is Broken, ed. S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy [JSOTSup 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995]; S. Yievin, "The Date of the Seal 'Belonging to Shema' (the) Servant (of) Jeroboam," JNES 19 [1960] 205-211; G. Ahlstr”m, "The Seal of Shema," SJOT 7 [1994] 208-215; D. Ussishkin, "Gate 1567 at Megiddo and the Seal of Shema, Servant of Jeroboam," in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994]). In contrast, the majority of scholars regard the seal as 8th century, belonging to Jeroboam II (for example, R. Hestrin and M. Dayagi-Mendels, Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period [Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1979] 18; G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, 129; L. G. Herr, The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals [HSM 18; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978] 82; A. Reifenberg, Ancient Hebrew Seals [ondon: The East and West Library, 1950] 27). Yeivin, the first scholar to advocate an earlier date, offered paleographic, artistic and archaeological data to support his contention; Ahlstr”m primarily reiterated Yeivin's paleographic arguments, while bolstering the archaeological data. From paleography, Yeivin argued that the letters beth, yodh, lamed, mem, ayin, resh, and shin on the seal more closely resembled those of 10th-9th century inscriptions (particularly the Mesha, Abibaal and Elibaal texts) than 8th century texts ("Date," 208; see also Ahlstr”m, "Seal," 213). This is not strictly true. The beth, daleth and mem, for instance, resemble those on the Samaria Ostraca and an 8th century seal (listed in Yeivin, "Date," 206). According to Herr, "the mem should not be considered as early as the 9th c., nor should the 'ayins" (Scripts, 82). The resh and shin are unlike those shown by Yeivin. Herr concluded, "In short, there is nothing to hinder us from placing the seal within the reign of Jeroboam II in the m[id] 8th century]" (Herr, Scripts, 82). Regarding Yeivin's argument based on artistic considerations, the Asanel seal of the 8th century resembles the work on the Shema seal (Ahlstr”m, "Seal," 214; see also Herr, Scripts, 72; see the photos in Reifenberg, Ancient Hebrew Seals, 27, 29). Reifenberg believed that the Shema seal showed Mesopotamian influence, particularly the lion figure. If so, the seal almost surely dates to later than the mid-9th century, when Assyrians resuscitated relations with the Levant. Other scholars similarly have concluded that the motifs are late (See A. Lemaire, "Trois sceaux inscrits in‚dits avec lion rugissant," Semitica 39 [1990] 13-22; N. Avigad, "A New Seal Depicting a Lion," Michmanim 6 [1992] 33-36). Therefore, on paleographic and artistic grounds, the seal should be considered 8th century. Finally, the archaeological argument of Yeivin and Ahlstr”m hinges on dating Megiddo stratum IVa to the 9th century. The problems with the stratigraphy at Megiddo were discussed in Chapter 2, and this stratum probably lasted from the late 10th century until the late 8th century (Ussishkin, "Megiddo," ABD 4:677). Ahlstr”m tried to place the seal in the early part of this phase, but the latter part is more likely, since most items found in any stratum belong to the end of that stratum. He also relied on Albright's claim that Megiddo IVa dated to the ninth century, since it corresponded to Pottery Period III at Samaria, which belonged to the first half of the 9th century ("Seal," 211). R. Tappy, however, has shown that Samaria Pottery Period III should be extended through the reign of Jeroboam II (The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria [HSS 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992] 206-208), fixing the Shema seal to the 8th century. Recently, also, Ussishkin has suggested that not only the seal of Shema, but also the seals of Asaph, Haman, and Elamar, belong to the latter 10th or early 9th centuries ("Gate 1567," 419-23). His case is based on dating Gate 1567, excavated by Schumacher and Lamon and Shipton, to Stratum VA-IVB rather than IVA. He then argued that the seals of Shema and Asaph are stratigraphically associated with this gate. His case is not convincing, however, since these two seals cannot be unequivocally connected to the gate structure, as he admitted. Although they were found near it, neither can be placed within it or close enough to warrant dating them based on this structure. In each case, Ussishkin must base his conclusions on conjecture or non-archaeological considerations, such as the typological similarity of the seals. Ussishkin also admitted that the stratigraphical position of the Shema seal was "ambiguous." He compensated for this by typologically relating the Shema seal with the Asaph seal, which he in turn associated with the gate structure. His argument was that the Asaph seal had slipped off the floor of the gatehouse on top of the remaining ashlar foundation stones of the gate when someone scavenged the bricks and upper layer of ashlar blocks of the upper gatehouse wall. Similarly, the seals of Haman and Elamar Ussishkin associated with the other two seals solely based on stylistic similarities. The seal of Haman was found in a dump 50m from the gatehouse. Ussishkin's sole argument to relate it to the other seals is their typological similarity. He conjectured, without proof, that the materials in the dump came from the gatehouse rather than Schumacher's large trench. Also, the seal of Elamar was found above the gatehouse and possibly associated with Stratum II. Although uncertain, this stratum is as good as any other in which to place these four seals. At best, Ussishkin's case only advances the possibility that the seals belong to the time of Jeroboam I; it does not make it probable. Considering that no other extant seals with Hebrew inscriptions date to as early as the late 10th century, the 8th century is the better period to place these four seals. Before any of the seals discussed by Ussishkin can safely be considered to have belonged to the time of Jeroboam I, others with indisputable stratigraphical credentials will have to appear.
3. As claimed by A. R. Millard ("An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel," in Biblical Archaeology Today [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985] 305). Van Seters has already challenged this argument (Prologue to History [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992] 41).
4. According to R. Cohen, "The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negeb," in Drei Studien zur Arch„ologie und Topographie alt Israels, ed. R. Cohen and G. Schmitt (Wiesbaden: D. Ludwig Reichert, 1980) 7-31).
5. See my "Solomon's? District? List," JSOT 67 (1995): 67-86.
6. Knoppers, the most recent advocate of the view that archives existed in the time of David and Solomon relied on two arguments. First, he appealed to continuity. Since there were scribes in Late Bronze age Jerusalem, scribal activity must have persisted into the Iron Age. Second, he argued that the estimated population of Jerusalem had not diminished enough to warrant the conclusion that scribes ceased to function. He concluded, "There is no good reason to believe that scribes under David and Solomon could not have written texts" ("Vanishing Solomon," 42). As for his first argument, to assume that conditions that existed in LB carried over to the Iron age or that literacy is solely dependent on population seems fallacious. Writing is well attested in LB Greece at Mycenae and Pylos, as well as Archaic Greece after ca. 800 BCE, but is wholly unattested during the intermediate period. I doubt that any Greek historian would argue that literacy persisted during the Greek dark age. Indeed, the mode of epigraphy changed drastically from the syllabic Linear B to alphabetical. The determination of how widespread literacy was during the time of David and Solomon should come from evidence contemporary to that period. As for the second argument, the population of a city or region is no measure of the production of archives or written records. The government of fifth century BCE Athens, a city certainly larger than Jerusalem at the time of David or Solomon, did not keep extensive archives.
7. Recently, Na'aman has argued that a consideration of the incongruity between the epigraphical picture of LB Jerusalem as seen in the Amarna Letters and the current archaeological picture of Jerusalem during the Amarna period warrant extreme caution in making any negative conclusions about the existence of writing in 10th century BCE Jerusalem ("The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.," BASOR 304 [1996] 18-21). He asserted that on the basis of the archaeological picture alone one would conclude that Jerusalem of the Amarna period was virtually uninhabited, a picture directly contradicted by the Amarna Letters. However, radical differences obtained between the world of LB Jerusalem and that of Iron Age Jerusalem. First, the Late Bronze period in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean was a considerably more cosmopolitan era than that of Iron I. Contacts between Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Greece are far more well attested, as is the existence of numerous state-sponsored record keeping establishments throughout the Levant. In contrast, throughout the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, the early Iron Age is a "Dark Age" with relatively few international contacts and little evidence for record-keeping in the Levant. Second, undeniably Palestine during the LB was under Egyptian suzerainty. One of the methods Egypt employed to maintain control was to train the youth of the Levant in Egypt, making it more likely that the record-keeping principals used in Egypt would be passed to the cites of Palestine. Moreover, because of the political and economic constraints of vassalage, the city-states of Palestine would have been more likely to maintain records, as well as correspond with Egypt. Again, the political conditions of early Iron Age Palestine differed radically. In sum, there was considerably more intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for rulers of polities in Palestine to maintain state-supported scribes and such during the LB than during the early Iron. Na'aman's point is well-taken: it is hazardous to draw negative conclusions about the world of David and Solomon, but one must bear in mind that drawing positive conclusions from comparison with other periods is just as hazardous.
8. See Na'aman, "Sources and Composition in the History of David," in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, ed. V. Fritz and P. R. Davies (JSOTSup 228; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon (SBL Paper, Chicago, 1994). Redford also has a short treatment of the issue with the entire 1 and 2 Kings account in view (Egypt, Canaan, and Israel [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992] 325-28).
12. "Solomon's Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography," CBQ 59 (1997) 49.
13. S. Niditch, Oral World and Written Word (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) 41-42.