Fictional Figures of a Reconstructed Golden Age

David and Solomon: Fictional Figures of a Reconstructed Golden Age

Yigal Bin-Nun

Following the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel, the need arose—particularly during the reign of Manasseh—to present an idealized and glorious version of national history to the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah. It was in this context that the idea emerged of forging a fictional kingdom, strikingly devoid of a name, embodying a prestigious past. Narratives were thus constructed around distant eras, beyond living memory, depicting powerful monarchs ruling from Jerusalem over a territory previously divided between two kingdoms but now unified under Manasseh. The aim was to restore the prestige of an idealized kingdom and to retroactively reintegrate the Kingdom of Israel into a unified history dominated by the kings of Judah.

The Limits of Archaeology in Confronting Biblical Texts

Public opinion often expects archaeology to validate biblical accounts, yet this expectation remains largely unmet. Many events leave no tangible archaeological trace, though this alone does not disprove their existence. Moreover, some major archaeological findings remain puzzling and enigmatic. Consequently, the debate among archaeologists regarding the existence of a “unified kingdom” cannot be resolved solely through the dating of archaeological layers. In my view, the solution lies in a critical reading of the biblical text, informed by methods drawn from philology, epigraphy, and, above all, literary genre analysis. A diachronic approach, based on assessing textual layers, would allow for a better understanding of the origin and function of the narratives concerning Saul, David, and Solomon.

Two extrabiblical inscriptions mention a dynasty associated with King David: the disputed Mesha Stele of the Moabite king (line 31) and, more notably, the Tel Dan Stele, attributed to Hazael, king of Aram (line 9), which refers to a kingdom called the “House of David.” However, no external sources corroborate the existence of Kings Saul and Solomon outside the biblical texts. This casts doubt on the historical reality of a unified kingdom encompassing both Israel and Judah, with Jerusalem as its capital.

The biblical accounts of these three kings differ from mythological narratives populated by deities, miracles, or legendary figures such as the patriarchs, the judges-deliverers, or the prophets Elijah and Elisha. Their literary style suggests a deliberate and scholarly composition rather than a product of popular oral tradition. Oral traditions tend to erode proper names and factual details over time, yet the stories of Saul, David, and Solomon abound in precise information, lending them an air of undeniable historicity. The authors give the impression of having been contemporaries of the events they describe, given the density and detail of their narration.

Unparalleled Narrative Precision

In an initial analysis, I identified 221 personal names and 183 place names in these accounts. No other biblical literary corpus achieves such a degree of specificity. Paradoxically, the books of Samuel and Kings devote 57 chapters to the three kings of the 10th century BCE, compared to only 37 for all the monarchs of Israel and Judah combined. While these two kingdoms had 40 kings between 931 and 587 BCE, only three are said to have ruled in the 10th century—the supposed era of Saul, David, and Solomon.

In a second assessment, the texts concerning these three kings total 29,927 words, whereas passages dedicated to historically attested figures such as Omri or Ahab—who lived a century later—contain only 3,875 words. All our sources on Omri, despite his mention in Assyrian inscriptions, are limited to six sentences (238 words). Similarly, Ahab (753–793 BCE) appears in only seven sentences. This glaring disproportion raises fundamental questions that demand thorough examination and reconsideration.

If we assume that royal scribes accurately recorded events of their time, a crucial question arises: Did the Kingdom of Judah in the 10th century BCE possess the level of literacy required to produce historiographical narratives of such volume and complexity? Are there comparable precedents in neighboring kingdoms or even in the imperial literature of the contemporary Near East? A diachronic analysis of epigraphic corpora from the region reveals a very different reality, prompting a reevaluation of the historicity traditionally ascribed to these biblical figures.

From Prestigious Kings to Ideological Constructs

The composition of these texts was primarily driven by political motives, giving rise to the notion of a unified kingdom encompassing both Israel and Judah under the rule of Judean monarchs based in Jerusalem. Historical evidence regarding the two kingdoms reveals that Judah, smaller and less developed, long remained under Israel’s political and especially cultural influence. The Assyrian conquest of Israel did not erase its achievements, and its cultural legacy endured well beyond its annexation by the empire. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of its population remained in place, benefiting from the Assyrian system of globalization. This population even saw the arrival of groups from various regions of the empire, who settled in its territory and adopted the worship of Yahweh-El.

Throughout the biblical corpus, no explicit mention provides irrefutable evidence for the tangible existence of kings Saul, David, or Solomon. The lack of extrabiblical testimonies concerning them raises legitimate questions. However, there is no justification for outright denying David’s existence as a potential founder of an early dynasty. By contrast, substantial uncertainties persist regarding the historical reality of Solomon. Portrayed in the Books of Kings as the epitome of the ideal ruler, Solomon embodies an archetype of peace, justice, wisdom, and legendary wealth, earning the admiration of foreign monarchs. This glorification elevated Solomon to the status of an icon—the perfect king. His name, “Solomon,” establishes a symbolic connection with the city of Shelem, where he supposedly built the first sanctuary dedicated to Yahweh. Descriptions of his persona and reign evoke the Persian king Cyrus more than a Judean ruler of the 10th century BCE. The tales of his harem of a thousand women resemble narratives from One Thousand and One Nights, relegating this figure to a literary rather than historical realm. Later redactors sought to tarnish this idealized image: from a glorious monarch ruling an empire stretching from Lebo in the Lebanon Valley to the River of Egypt (1 Kings 4:45), he was demoted to the status of a usurper who had seized the throne rightfully belonging to his brother Adonijah.

Thus, the figures of Saul, David, and Solomon appear as literary constructs. They were shaped from fragmentary oral traditions, legendary accounts, elements borrowed from real history, and ideological motivations. These literary kings serve a coherent and edifying narrative, designed to structure the national and religious identity of Judah. In this sense, their role far surpasses that of mere historical rulers: they become the symbolic pillars of a national story crafted in response to identity and legitimacy crises following the fall of the Kingdom of Israel.

The propaganda narratives inspired by pan-Israelite ideology can be described as apologetic historical fiction, aimed at reconstructing an idealized national past. Over time, Judah adopted the prestigious name “Israel” and forged a new narrative identity for its own kingdom by assimilating nearly all Israelite traditions. It was within this framework that the Patriarchal narratives emerged, transforming Jacob the Israelite into the grandson of Abraham, who was himself recast as a Judean. This reinterpretation also linked Moses, an Israelite figure, with an elder brother, Aaron, presented as the ancestor of Judean priests. The integration of Israelite intellectuals was not without tensions: conflicts with Judean traditions permeate numerous biblical accounts, particularly in Exodus and Genesis. These antagonisms, sometimes subtle, manifest through parallel versions that fuel latent or explicit polemics while glossing over the contradictions arising from such mergers. Judean hostility toward Israel is explicitly reflected in the rivalry between David and Saul.

Under the influence of Manasseh’s policies and in line with the ideology casting Judah as the legitimate heir to Israel, biblical redactors crafted a sophisticated propaganda work—a pan-Israelite narrative exalting a bygone golden age under Judean monarchs. This narrative functions as a form of symbolic revenge, with Judah appropriating the cultural and spiritual legacy of a once-dominant Israel. Halfway between fiction and historical chronicle, this account conveys a political and ideological message that evolved over time, particularly in the books of Ruth and Esther, as well as in the story of Joseph the Israelite, who became Egypt’s viceroy.

A critical reading of biblical texts—attentive to their production context, language, style, and ideological stakes—allows for a deeper understanding of their underlying meaning. Far from discrediting these texts, this approach reveals their richness, complexity, and value as literary and political documents. It invites us to distinguish between actual history and the narrative constructions that reinterpret it. In this sense, the study of Saul, David, and Solomon provides privileged insight into the collective imagination of late first-millennium BCE Judah.