The main outcome of the reign of David and Solomon was the unification of Judea and Israel into a single centralized state, which, however, was not monolithic. The early state in Israel was characterized by the concentration of a strong central authority in Jerusalem. In this regard, the personal qualities of the king and his ability to maintain a balance of power and often opposing interests of different tribes and social groups were important in political life. Under David, the kinship of the gentile nobility and the service nobility began to converge in a single state socio-political structure, which included the army, the administrative apparatus and the clergy. The development of statehood during the reign of David and Solomon followed the path of creating a centralized Ancient Eastern state in ancient Israel. This was actively resisted by the traditional structures and social groups of ancient Israeli society: part of the gentile nobility and clergy, ordinary peasants who were dissatisfied with the performance of labor service (mas) on royal construction works, which was expressed in the uprisings of Absalom, Sheba (under David), Jeroboam (under Solomon).

Keywords: early state, David, Solomon, labor service, district system, governors.

The question of the degree of socio-political development of ancient Israeli state institutions during the reign of David and Solomon causes a special controversy among foreign scientists and is currently an urgent problem for historians of the ancient Near East. Foreign researchers who wrote before the second half of the eighties of the XX century, - U. Albright, D. Wright, D. Bright, M. Noth, and J. Aharoni-based their research on biblical traditions (Albright, 1963; Wright, 2003; Bright, 1981; Noth, 1960; Aharoni, 1979). However, the second half of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties of the XX century was marked by the emergence of biblical minimalism (J. Garbini and T. L. Thompson [Garbini, 2003, p. 130; Thompson, 1999, p.4, 207]). Its characteristic features were the denial of the historicity of the biblical narratives about David and Solomon and attempts to build the early history of ancient Israel solely on the data of archaeological artifacts.

Another group of scholars believes that David and Solomon are real historical figures who were not kings, but minor tribal leaders who owned Jerusalem - at that time a very small Middle Eastern city. Its representatives can be considered I. Finkelstein and M. Liverani [Finkelstein, 1996, p. 185; Liverani, 2005, p. 94].

A balanced, integrated approach to the available sources regarding the reigns of David and Solomon is gaining more and more influence.

page 20
data from the Bible and archeology. It is developed by V. Dietrich, A. Mazar, A. Lemaire, K. Kitchen, J. Garfinkel, and S. Ganor [Dietrich, 2007; Mazar, 1996 (1); Mazar, 1996 (2); Lemaire, 1994. pp. 30-37; Kitchen, 2003; Garfinkel and Ganor, 2008, p. 2-10; Garfinkel, Ganor, 2010, p. 67-78].

The important role of reliable historical sources is played by the royal lists contained in the biblical texts. For example, lists of officials in the first and second half of David's reign (2 Kings 8: 16-18; 20: 23-26 and 1 Chron.18:15-17; 27:25-34), Solomon's books (3 Kings 4:2-19) play a special role in the study of the socio-political structure of the ancient state of Israel in the tenth century BC. Solomon's vicegerents shows the territorial division of ancient Israel during his reign (3 Kings 4: 7-19). Reconstruction of the reign of David and Solomon is carried out based on the materials of archaeological surveys. Among the artefacts, epigraphic monuments represent the greatest source value. In 1993 and 1994, Israeli archaeologists A. BiraniY. Naveh found in Tel Dan two fragments (indexation-A and B 1-2) of an Aramaic stele dating from the 9th century BC, which mentions "Beth David" - the house of David, an expression widely used in the biblical books of Kings, which refers to his dynasty. Along with the inscription from Tel Dan, other Middle Eastern inscriptions with the name of David were found. Kitchen in the victory inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonk 1 in Karnak gives a reading of "the height of David" [Kitchen, 2003, p. 157].A. Lemaire reconstructed the combination "beth David" in the inscription of the Moabite king Mesha, which was found back in 1868 [Lemaire, 1994, p. 30-37].

Five inscriptions on arrowheads found in 1953 by an Arab Fellah near the town of Beit Lehem (Bethlehem) date back to the 11th century BC. The arrows were sold to an antique dealer and purchased from him by the scientists of F. Cross, D. Milik, and G. Harding (Milik and Cross, 1954, p. 5). All arrows have the inscription "lb't"on them. From the point of view of A. Mazar, " we are talking, apparently, about lions, as the soldiers-archers of David were called. The dating of these arrowheads and the fact that they were found near the city of Beit Lehem, that is, where David was born, suggests that these arrows belonged to his soldiers and are related to his activities in that area" [Mazar, 1996(1), p.246].

A major archaeological argument for the existence of a central authority among the ancient Jews in the tenth century BC was the artefacts (a casemate wall 700 meters long and 4 meters wide, a belt of buildings adjacent to the casemates, two city gates) found during excavations in 2007-2013 by Israeli archaeologists I. Garfinkel and S. Ganor of the Jewish urban-type settlement of Khirbet Keyatha, which was located on the border with the Philistine city-state of Gath and therefore had an important strategic importance [Garfinkel and Ganor, 2008, p. 5]. Khirbet Keyatha, which existed from approximately 1015 to 975 BC "is an early example of the urban plan of the Davidic period (late XI century BC). It will later be used in the cities of Judea (Beersheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en Nasbeh, Tell Bet Shamesh) in the IX—VIII centuries BC "(Garfinkel and Ganor, 2010, p. 75).

All this shows that the era of David and Solomon in ancient Israel needs further serious study.

Among Russian scientists, I. Sh. Shifman, Yu. B. Tsirkin, and I. R. Tantlevsky analyzed the sociopolitical structure of ancient Israeli society during the reign of David and Solomon [Shifman, 1989, pp. 53-85; Tsirkin, 2003; Tantlevsky, 2007]. Domestic and foreign policy issues of David and Solomon were discussed by F. Buhl, H. Tadmor, A. Malamat, T. Mettinger, F. Fritz, S. Mackenzie, and I. P. Lipovsky [Buhl, 1912; Tadmor, 1982, p. 239-257; Malamat, 2001, p. 189-207; Mettinger, 1971; Fritz, 1996, p. 187-195 McKenzie, 2000; Lipovsky, 2010]. It should be emphasized that most modern researchers consider the ancient state of Israel in the era of David and Solomon to be an early state in which there was a centralized power of the ruler who bore the title of king, developed

page 21
administrative apparatus, social stratification, and surplus product growth (Schafer-Lichtenberger, 1996, p. 79; Frick, 1985, p. 202; Flanagan, 1996, p.328).

In 1010 BC [Kitchen, 2003, p.83; McFall, 2010, p. 527], Saul and his eldest sons were killed in a battle with the Philistines at Mount Gilboa, and the Philistines became complete masters of the Israeli territories. It was at this difficult moment for the ancient Israelites that the figure of David appeared. Consider his path to royal power.

David was born around 1040 BC. He was of the tribe of Judah, the youngest of eight sons of Jesse of Bethlehem. However, he was not a pure Israelite by blood on his mother's side, having Moabite roots. As the youngest son, David has tended his father's sheep since he was a teenager. This occupation hardened his character and helped him develop the courage, valor, and composure necessary for a military leader and politician.

As a talented military leader, David was very popular among the people, who constantly suffered disasters from the invasion of external enemies. Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David, and Saul made him his son-in-law. Gradually, however, David began to arouse Saul's political suspicions. David was forced to flee and hide from Saul for nine years, initially in the provinces of Judah, and then he was forced to leave his homeland and become a vassal of the Philistine king Gath Achish. Even in Judea, the oppressed and debtors flocked to David:" ... and he became ruler over them, and there were with him about four hundred men " (1 Samuel 22:2). For their service in protecting the border from nomads, Ankhus gave them possession of the small town of Tsiklag, identified by some researchers with the settlement of Tell en-Nejileh on the territory of Shefela (Harris, 2011, p.131). At the same time, David immediately showed himself to be a clever and far-sighted politician. From the spoils he had taken from the Amalekites, enemies of both the Philistines and the Jews, he made gifts to the elders of the tribe of Judah, gradually drawing them to his side.

Therefore, after Saul's death, he immediately came to the center of the tribe of Judah in Hebron. There, "men of Judah", elders of this tribe, or, according to Yu. B. Tsirkin, was proclaimed king of the tribe of Judah by the general tribal assembly (Tsirkin, 2003, p. 146) (2 Samuel 2:4), "with the consent of the Philistines" (Malamat, 2001, p. 193), who were interested in not allowing it to happen. more central authority for all Jewish tribes.

Another center of power for most Jewish tribes emerged in Mahanaim. There, with the support of Abner, the commander of the army, Ish-bosheth, the surviving son of Saul, was proclaimed king. After a civil war between supporters of the old dynasty of Saul, which was represented by Ishbosheth (Heb. Ishbaal) - the son of Saul, and el-David, the latter became the one king of all the ancient Israelite tribes. At the same time, the elders of the tribes of Israel made an agreement with David, according to which "the king had not only rights, but also duties. If the king did not meet the terms of the agreement, the Israelites considered themselves free from his authority" (Dietrich, 2007, p. 180). The political agreement in Hebron, according to A. Malamat, led to the creation of "a common Israeli state, whose important functions were a common army and foreign policy" [Malamat, 2001, p. 195].

In the eighth year of his reign, David captured Jerusalem. The city then belonged to the Canaanite nation-the Jebusites. Jerusalem was a well-fortified city located on high terraces, so the army of David, or, according to I. S. Shifman, "his personal squad" [Shifman, 1989, p.71], penetrated Jerusalem through an underground passage connecting the city with the Tikhon spring. Since Jerusalem was located between the territories of Israel and Judea, David could not tolerate its independence. He made Jerusalem his capital, a civil and religious center.

After the conquest of Jerusalem, the first object of the king's reforms was the army. It had the following structure under David: first, a regular army (saba or saba).

page 22
hayil, led by the general Joab (2 Kings 8: 16), and secondly, it was a special part of the mercenaries-Cretans and Philistines (2 Kings 8: 18), the biblical narrative mentions a certain Itai the Gittite with a detachment of 600 people (2 Kings 15: 18-22), but the general command of them Benaiah was a Jew, and, thirdly, the general Israeli militia (for its designation, the Biblical tradition often uses the expression kol ha am, i.e. all the people (Judges 7:1; 2 Kings 12:28, 31)), led by the king.

The elite in the regular army of the tsar was the squad formed from his detachment in the Cyclag. The Hebrew text of the Bible calls them gibborim (knights) "the valiant ones" or, according to the Septuagint version, dynatos - "the mighty ones of David" (2 Kings 23: 8-39). Along with the Jews, there were Githians, Ammonites, Hittites, i.e. the squad was diverse, but was directly connected with the king, and not tribal structures.

David streamlined the state structure of ancient Israel, creating a well-organized state apparatus. From the point of view of D. Flanagan and F. Frick, ancient Israel was a secondary state association that used the socio-political organization of another state as a model [Flanagan, 1996, p. 311; Frick, 1985, p. 30]. According to D. Wright, "David could have used the Egyptian system of government as a model for creating his own state" (Wright, 2003, p. 161). Meanwhile, D. Bright believed that David could "get acquainted with it through the city-states of Canaan, which he conquered" [Bright, 1981, p. 184]. There are four lists of David's administrators in the Bible text (2 Sam. 8:16-18; 20:23-26; 1 Steam. 18:15-17; 27:25-34). The first and third of them relate to the beginning of his reign, and the second and fourth correspond to the second half of the reign. It can be assumed that this is not the entire government of David, but only the leading officials. Each of the people listed on the lists managed many junior officials.

David's chief assistants in the civil administration at the beginning of his reign were a scribe and a herald. The scribe was the Secretary of State. Its functions consisted in the production and storage of state documents, i.e. in the management of internal and external royal office work, royal correspondence and royal chronicles. He supervised the tsar's political advisers. Another important figure in the civil administration was mazkir (from the Hebrew root zkr, which means "to remember, to remember"), i.e., one who was supposed to remind the king of important events, apparently similar in function to the Western European herald. The herald's functions included taking care of court protocol and announcing royal decrees.

We should also mention the mention of his sons in the list of David's officials (2 Samuel 8:18). It is not possible to determine the positions they hold. The Hebrew text says that they were priests. T. Mettinger calls "this mention in the biblical text problematic, considering, however, it is possible that they performed priestly functions at a certain time" [Mettinger, 1971, p. 8]. One can hardly agree with this judgment. Probably, in the Hebrew version of the text there is an error, instead of the word kabpdim — "glorious", it is kohanim - "priests", both words begin with the letter - kaf, have the plural ending of the masculine gender im, i.e. when writing manuscripts, they were easily confused.

It should be emphasized that the text of the Second Book of Kings (8:18) in the Russian Synodal translation is given according to the Septuagint: the sons of David were the "first" (Greek - aularchai) at court. The correctness of this reading is confirmed by another biblical source - the First Book of Chronicles (18: 17), in which the sons of David are named first under the king. Similar to Saul's eldest son, Jonathan, who was a commander of thousands (1 Samuel 13: 2), David's sons are also believed to have commanded army units. According to Yu. B. Tsirkin, "the sons of David could play a big role in the secret state council, which made responsible decisions on changes in the life of society" (Tsirkin, 2003, p. 157).

page 23
In the second half of David's reign, the bureaucracy expanded, and new officials were added to the old ones. The most important innovation in David's second list, according to V. Dietrich, was "the establishment of the position of an official responsible for labor service (mas)" [Dietrich, 2007, p. 191]. The need for this position was due to the fact that after the successful wars of David, many people from the conquered peoples appeared, forced to perform labor duties. The functions of the king's adviser and the king's friend mentioned in the fourth list (1 Chronicles 27: 33) seem to have differed little from each other. According to T. Mettinger, "the tsar's friend was an official consultant" (Mettinger, 1971, p. 61). The fourth list also mentions officials responsible for various branches of the royal economy under David. From their list, it becomes clear that even then it was highly specialized.

The Old Testament priesthood was originally a general tribal aristocracy in rather loose socio-political formations: the union of Jewish tribes and the chiefdom of Saul. These political units were at the same time religious communities of the ancient Jews who adhered to the cult of Yahweh. Subsequently, the priesthood became part of the monarch's" servant nobility", responsible for the religious function in public life. Thus, in the lists of officials of David and Solomon, the high priests Abiathar and Zadok are mentioned along with other officials of the kings. Along with the religious ones, a part of the priesthood was also engaged in other matters, since it was literate. For example, the bible text mentions "Henaniah and his brothers who were appointed for the external service of the Israelites: scribes and judges, and Hoshabiah and his brothers who supervised Israel on this side of the Jordan westward, in all the works of the service of the Lord and in the service of the king" (1 Chron. 26:29-30). Abiathar, the high priest, was one of David's political advisers (2 Samuel 27: 34). This trend seems to have continued under Solomon. Thus, one of his governors in the districts, Solomon's son-in-law Ahimaas, who was responsible for the territory of the Naphtali tribe, can be "identified as the son of the high priest Zadok" (Ahimaas, 1999, p.58).

The changes that took place in society during the reign of David caused opposition to the old tribal structures, which was reflected in the revolts of Absalom (Judea) and Sheba (northern Israel), as reported in the Second Book of Samuel (ch.15-20). It should be noted the socio-political nature of both protests against David, which ended with his victory. It is noteworthy that the epicenter of Absalom's rebellion was Hebron, and the main role in it was played by the tribe of Judah, to which David himself belonged. According to I. P. Lipovsky, "Judea is 'lost' in his pan-Canaanite state. At court, in the tsar's guard, and in the standing army, foreigners predominated" [Lipovsky, 2010, p. 270]. Absalom, therefore, only took advantage of the discontent of the Jews and was able to convince the old tribal nobility and representatives of the masses that David's continued rule and reforms could only threaten them with further alienation from the king and his court, further loss of influence and power by the tribe, and increased social oppression. He presented himself as a guarantor of preserving the old order. It is possible that Prince Absalom did this only as his hopes for the royal throne became more and more illusory. Although Absalom's rebellion was crushed, David was forced to make a serious compromise with the Jewish tribal nobility. This was apparently reflected not only in the reduction of taxes for the tribe of Judah, but also in the appointment of its representatives to responsible administrative posts in the army and civil sphere. An example is the appointment of Amaziah, who led the people's militia at Absalom, as commander of David's army (2 Samuel 19: 13).

David's policy of making concessions to the Jews provoked resistance from the northern tribes, especially the tribe of Benjamin, which played a major role in the time of Saul,

page 24
and provoked Savea's rebellion. From the point of view of I. P. Lipovsky, "it was more dangerous, threatening the collapse of the entire united kingdom, a split between the northern and southern tribes" [Lipovsky, 2010, p. 274]. The rebellion could turn into a protracted civil war. This time David was helped by the civil community of Abel Beth-Maachah (2 Samuel 20: 19-22), which preferred the advantages of a peaceful life to the internal turmoil. It should be emphasized that the Sheba rebellion exposed the problem of binding Israel (the northern tribes)together and the Jews in one state. After the suppression of Sheba's rebellion, David launched a preemptive strike by the Hivites of Gibeon against the representatives of the Saul dynasty, realizing that they could be dangerous in internal conflicts. In the course of this action, most of the men from the family of Saul were physically exterminated. As a result, the tribe of Benjamin could no longer play a prominent role in history.

However, by the end of David's life, socio-political contradictions continued to accumulate. One of these contradictions was the question of his heir. It is generally accepted among researchers that Solomon, the son of David, came to power as a result of a political coup, removing his older brother Adonijah from power. According to V. Dietrich, " the conflict between Solomon and Adonijah should be seen as a struggle between the old nobility (Joab, Abiathar) and the new nobility (Nathan, Zadok, Bathsheba)" (Dietrich, 2007, p.185). But was there a political coup? First, Solomon was anointed king by the decree of his father David. Yes, there is no doubt that David was old and infirm by this time, but the Bible clearly indicates that he was sane until his death. In addition, "the center of power in Jerusalem became so dominant that the decisions made there were valid for the entire state (the appointment of Solomon as successor)" [Dietrich, 2007, p. 184]. Second, Adonijah, instigated by a group of David's courtiers, was the first to attempt to usurp the royal power without his father's consent. Therefore, we can consider the coming of Solomon to power quite legitimate. It should be noted that here lies an important feature in the formation of the early statehood of ancient Israel. The monarchy becomes hereditary.

When Solomon came to power, he hastened to eliminate at the very beginning the internal threat to the stability of his reign. It consisted of separatism on the part of traditional tribal social structures, part of the army and the clergy, i.e. forces grouped around the figure of Adonia. Adonijah himself also did not give up his thoughts about taking the throne, as can be seen from his request to marry Abishag, the girl who took care of the elderly David, to him. After the realization of this plan, he, according to the Jewish customs of the time, actually entered into paternalistic relations with Solomon.

Solomon severely thwarted Adonijah's plan, executing him and defeating his "party" in the administrative apparatus. However, he was not able to fully solve the problem of separatism. Already at the end of his reign, another leader appeared, around whom centrifugal forces were grouped, a native of the influential northern Israeli tribe of Ephraim - Jeroboam. He was an official of Solomon. Jeroboam's plot was discovered, and he fled to Egypt, where he sought political asylum, which he was granted. After Solomon's death, he played a role in the disintegration of the united Kingdom of Israel and Judah.

Thus, many representatives of Israeli society continued to resist the demands of the new State's administrative structure. According to A. A. Vigasin, the main problem of the Hebrew kingdom of the time of Solomon was that "the nobility, relying on numerous clients and tribesmen, was not at all interested in strengthening monarchical power" (Vigasin, 2006, p.119). Adonijah and Jeroboam expressed the interests of these circles.

Researcher F. Fritz calls Solomon "the king of a carefully structured state" (Fritz, 1996, p. 189). The basis of the state structure was the administrative apparatus of Solomon. List of administrators of Solomon-development

page 25
David's list. A description of Solomon's royal administration is found in the Third Book of Kings (4: 2-19). Compared to David's office, Solomon's appointments reflect a certain consistency rather than charisma, the son often inherits the father's position, and the bureaucracy becomes more complex and comprehensive.

As noted by V. According to Dietrich, "there was no mercenary commander, the military sector may have lost its importance, but it is more likely that the influence of Vanya, who led all military groups, increased" [Dietrich, 2007, p.193]. A new position appears-the head of the royal house. According to T. Mettinger, "he supervised all aspects of the royal economy, including the royal trade" (Mettinger, 1971, p. 110). Since Solomon divided the country into territorial taxable districts, the position of nisabim (governors), i.e. authorized representatives of the central government in certain administrative-territorial units, appeared. The task of the governors was to control the performance of in-kind, military and labor duties.

In the Hebrew text of the Bible, information is given only about the territorial districts of the northern territories of the united monarchy, but Judea is not mentioned. Historians hold diametrically opposed points of view on this problem. S. McKenzie believed that "Judea was exempt from natural taxes, military and labor duties" (McKenzie, 2000, p. 144). According to D. Wright, "The reason, most likely, was not that Solomon was more favorable to Judea, but that David had already made the necessary reorganization" (Wright, 2003, p. 183).

The problem becomes clearer if we turn to the Greek version of the text-the Septuagint: there Judea is mentioned in the twelfth district along with Gilead (Regn. III 3:18)1. Since Gilead is mentioned there twice, in verses 13 and 18, and the figures of its vicegerents Ben-Geber (13) and Geber (18) represent the same person, therefore, we must assume that Judea was the twelfth administrative-territorial district in the system of Solomon. From the point of view of T. Mettinger, "Azariah-the chief over the governors of districts, could have been the governor over Judea" [Mettinger, 1971, p. 123].

The labor service officer Adoniram worked closely with the governors of territorial districts to attract labor for construction work. He also had helpers overseeing the workers (3 Samuel 9: 23). The warders, in turn, also had assistants who directly encouraged the people to work with physical punishments. This conclusion can be drawn from the words of Solomon's son Rehoboam to the representatives of the northern tribes of Israel, apparently the elders, that his father punished the people with whips (3 Samuel 12: 14). The Hebrew text refers to labor service during the reign of Solomon by the term gasa to impose a heavy yoke (3 Samuel 12: 4). Of course, the work of specially selected representatives of the Jewish tribes (30 thousand in total), who worked in regular shifts and returned to the normal life of farmers (3 Kings 5:13-14), cannot be called state slavery, which was subjected, for example, to the Israelites in ancient Egypt, according to the story of the book of Exodus (1:11, 13-14). However, F. Buhl correctly believed that "in the hands of Solomon, the royal power already received the features of Eastern despotism" [Buhl, 1912, p. 14].

Thus, if David tried to maintain a balance between the interests of the king and the top of the Jewish tribes and clans, then under Solomon the development of the country went along the path of creating a highly centralized Ancient Eastern state. The territorial and administrative reform of Solomon in socio-political terms indicates the king's desire to gradually replace the tribal structures of society with territorial communities, the inheritance of posts was not comprehensive. If it occurs-

1 The critical edition of the Ssptuagint by L. Ralphs is cited; references to the books and the critical apparatus are given in Latin Rcgnorum III. i.e., the third book of Kings.

page 26
However, officials, even when inheriting positions, were primarily representatives of the serving nobility and expressed the interests of their groups, connected with the king and beholden to him, rather than the tribes. This measure strengthened the unity of society, which now included different nationalities, and eliminated the danger of tribal separatism. Solomon wanted to link all the provinces into a comprehensive system, subordinated through officials to the central authority of the king of Jerusalem. This process strained all the forces and resources of the country and caused internal political destabilization in the second half of Solomon's reign, which contributed to the subsequent collapse of the united monarchy into two states - Israel and Judea, after his death.

list of literature

Ahimaas / / New Bible Dictionary, Part 1. Bible characters, St. Petersburg: Mirt Publ., 1999.

Bul F. Sotsial'nye otnosheniya israelyan [Social relations of Israelis]. from German, vved. and notes by A. A. Glagolev. St. Petersburg, 1912.

Vigasin A. A. Istoriya Drevnego Vostoka [History of the Ancient East]. Moscow: Drofa Publ., 2006.

Lipovsky I. P. The Biblical Israel: the History of Two Peoples, St. Petersburg: IC "Humanitarian Academy", 2010.

Mazar A. Archeology of the Biblical Land, vol. 1. Jerusalem: Aliyah Library, 1996.

Mazar A. Archeology of the Biblical Land, vol. 2. Jerusalem: Aliyah Library, 1996.

J. WrightE. Bibleyskaya arkheologiya [Biblical Archeology], St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2003.
Tantlevskij I. R. History of Israel and Judah to the destruction of the first temple. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press, 2007.

Tsirkin Yu. B. Istoriya bibleyskikh stran [History of the Biblical Countries], Moscow: Astr'sl, 2003.

Schifman I. S. Gosudarstvo v sisteme sotsial'nykh institutov v drevnei Palestine (vtoraya polovina III - pervaya polovina 1 thousand BC) [The State in the system of social institutions in ancient Palestine (second half of the third-first half of the 1st millennium BC)]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1989.

Aharoni Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. L.: Burns & Oates, 1979.

Albright W.F. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezdra. N.Y.: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963.

Bright J. A History of Israel. Westminster Press, 1981.

Dietrich W. The Early Monarchy in Israel: the Tenth Century B.C.E. / Transl. by J. Vette. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

Finkclstcin I. The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative View // Levant. 1996. № 28.

Flanagan J. W. Chiefs in Israel // Community, identity, and ideology: social science approaches to the Hebrew Bible / cd. by Ch.E. Carter and C.L. Meyers. Indiana: Eiscnbrauns, 1996.

Frick F.S. The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.

Fritz V. Monarchy and Re-urbanization: A New Look at Solomon's Kingdom // The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. Sheffield: JSOT Academic Press, 1996.

Garbini G. Myth and History in the Bible. Sheffield: JSOT Academic Press, 2003.

Garfinkcl Y., Ganor S. Khirbct Qeiyafa: Sh'arayim // Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. 2008. № 8.

Garfinkcl Y., Ganor S. Khirbct Qeiyafa in Survey and in Excavations: A Response to Y. Dagan // Tel Aviv. 2010. № 37.

Harris H. The Location of Ziklag: A Review of the Candidate Sites, Based on Biblical, Topographical and Archaeological Evidence // Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 2011. № 143(2).

Kitchen K. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Cambridge: W.B. Ecrdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Lcmairc A. "House of David" Restored in Moabite Inscription? // Biblical Archaeology Review. 1994. № 20(3).

Livcrani M. Israel's History and the History of Israel. L.: Equinox Publishing, 2005.

Malamat A.A Political Look at the Kingdom of David and Solomon and its Relations with Egypt // History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues / cd. by A. Malamat. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

McFall L. The Chronology of Saul and David // Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 2010. № 53 (3).

McKcnzic S.L. King David: A Biography. Oxford: University Press, 2000.

Mcttingcr T.N.D. Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. Lund: CWK Glccrups Forlag, 1971.

Milik J.T., Cross F.M. Inscribed Javelin-Heads from the Period of the Judges: a Recent Discovery in Palestine // BASOR. 1954. № 134 (Apr.).

Noth M. The History of Israel. L.: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Schafcr-Lichtcnbcrgcr C. Sociological and Biblical Views of the Early State // The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States / cd. by Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davics. JSOT. Sheffield: JSOT Academic Press, 1996.

Tadmor H. Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions in the Time of David and Solomon // Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays / Ed. by T. Ishida. Indiana: Eiscnbrauns, 1982.

The Early Monarchy in Israel: the Tenth Century B.C. / ed. by W. Dietrich. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

Thompson L.T. The Mythic Past. Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1999.

page 27

Permanent link to this publication: