This is by far the longest chapter in the book. It takes the archaeological picture and returns to the biblical material, as analyzed critically in Chapter 2. Putting names and details to the generalities, it shows how the move to centralized sites fits with the biblical picture of Saul, the expansion of the highland polity into the surrounding areas fits with the biblical picture of David, and the building program plus investment in copper mining fits with that of Solomon. The chapter delves into many specifics such as the evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa, David’s competition with Ish-Boshet, and the list of Solomon’s officials. It uses both minute archaeological information and specific details from the biblical descriptions to present a thorough reconstruction of the sociopolitical developments of the tenth century, and of the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon.

Based on all the specifics teased out in Chapter 15, this chapter takes a wide view. While the narrative arc focuses on the general contours of the biblical account and the chapter retells the narrative of the United Monarchy from beginning to end, it is the archaeological and historical reality that is the driving explanatory force. Thus many aspects of the biblical account (especially those that relate to the relationship between Saul and David) are presented very differently than the traditional model, as we retell the biblical story as we think it really happened.

Is the biblical story about Israel’s “United Monarchy” history, fiction, or somewhere in between? This chapter reviews the scholarly discourse about the texts and introduces critical Bible study. Since the inception of critical scholarship, Bible scholars have noted that the narrative contains tensions and even contradictions that demonstrate the impossibility of accepting the details of the biblical narrative as an accurate reporting of events. Nevertheless, researchers long distinguished between the core narrative arc of the Saul and David stories, which was relatively consistent between the sources, and the many contradictions, alternative details, and smaller points, which were understood as attempts at polemic and apologetics, pushing one agenda or another, or simply rhetorical flourish. This meant that while many of the details in these accounts cannot be taken at face value as historical, the same critical reading of the text led biblical scholars to believe – until recently – in the historicity of the bigger picture. The reasons why this consensus has changed are primarily due to broader, “archaeological” considerations that are discussed in Chapter 3.