This post is based on the podcast episode with Professor Israel Finkelstein about his work researching the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The post was generated by AI but edited by a human.
When most people think about the kingdoms of ancient Israel, they think of David, Solomon, and Jerusalem.
The biblical narrative describes a powerful united monarchy established by David and expanded under Solomon. After Solomon's death, the kingdom divides into two rival kingdoms: Israel in the north and Judah in the south.
The northern kingdom becomes associated with religious disobedience and illegitimate kingship. Judah, by contrast, preserves the Davidic dynasty and the Jerusalem Temple.
But what happens when we examine the archaeology rather than relying exclusively on the biblical narrative?
According to archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, the historical picture looks almost completely reversed.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel was larger, more populous, economically stronger, and militarily more formidable than Judah for much of its existence.
And some of the traditions that eventually became central to the Hebrew Bible likely originated not in Jerusalem, but in the northern kingdom.
In this episode of The Levantini Podcast, I speak with Israel Finkelstein, professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University and author of The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel.
Our conversation explores the rise of ancient Israel, the question of David and Solomon's united monarchy, the origins of the Israelites, the Exodus tradition, the Omride dynasty, the Assyrian conquest, and the northern roots of the Hebrew Bible.
Why Was the Northern Kingdom of Israel Forgotten?
The biblical books of Kings present the Northern Kingdom of Israel in overwhelmingly negative terms.
Its rulers are criticized for their religious practices and their failure to recognize Jerusalem as the proper center of worship.
The Davidic dynasty is presented as legitimate.
The northern kings are not.
Finkelstein argues that this portrayal reflects the theological and political perspective of the biblical authors rather than an objective assessment of the northern kingdom's historical achievements.
He associates an important stage of the Deuteronomistic History—the narrative extending from Joshua through Kings—with the late seventh century BCE, during the reign of King Josiah of Judah.
By then, the northern kingdom had already disappeared.
Assyria had conquered it in the late eighth century BCE, with Samaria falling around 722–720 BCE.
The biblical authors were therefore describing a kingdom that had ceased to exist roughly a century earlier.
And they were writing from the perspective of Judah.
Finkelstein emphasizes that the archaeological record reveals a very different reality.
The north controlled more territory.
It supported a larger population.
Its economy was more developed.
And its rulers possessed significant military resources.
The northern kingdom was not simply an unsuccessful rival to Jerusalem.
For much of the Iron Age, it was the more powerful state.
Did David and Solomon Really Rule a United Monarchy?
One of the most debated questions in biblical archaeology concerns the historical existence of the united monarchy.
According to the Bible, David established a kingdom that Solomon inherited and developed.
Following Solomon's death, the kingdom divided between Rehoboam in Judah and Jeroboam I in Israel.
Finkelstein challenges the historicity of the grand united monarchy as described in the biblical narrative.
But he does not dismiss David and Solomon as historical figures.
Instead, he questions whether they ruled a vast state stretching across the territories later associated with Israel and Judah.
His answer to the question of whether a united monarchy existed is provocative.
Yes, he argues—but the historically meaningful examples were ruled from the north, not from Jerusalem.
Finkelstein points to periods when northern rulers exercised control or strong influence over Judah.
He identifies the Omride dynasty in the ninth century BCE and the reigns of Joash and Jeroboam II in the eighth century BCE as especially important.
During these periods, the Northern Kingdom of Israel exercised regional dominance.
In Finkelstein's interpretation, memories of northern political unity were later incorporated into a Jerusalem-centered narrative.
The biblical authors effectively transferred the image of a powerful united monarchy to David and Solomon.
Jeroboam II: The Forgotten Ruler of a Powerful Kingdom
For Finkelstein, one of the most important figures in the history of ancient Israel is Jeroboam II.
Jeroboam II ruled the Northern Kingdom of Israel during the first half of the eighth century BCE.
Finkelstein describes his kingdom as a kind of regional mini-empire.
At its greatest extent, he argues, Israel exercised power or influence from the northern reaches of the region toward the Gulf of Aqaba, including territories east of the Jordan River.
Finkelstein believes Jeroboam II's dominance may have contributed to the later biblical image of a united kingdom.
The chronology is important.
Jeroboam II ruled only about a century before the late seventh-century Judahite literary activity that Finkelstein associates with the early Deuteronomistic History.
Memories of northern power could therefore have remained relatively accessible.
In Finkelstein's reconstruction, Judahite writers inherited those memories but reoriented them toward Jerusalem.
The result was a historical narrative in which the greatest united kingdom belonged to David and Solomon.
The powerful northern monarchy that may have inspired aspects of the tradition became comparatively forgotten.
What Really Happened After Solomon?
The biblical account explains the division of the monarchy as a consequence of Solomon's religious failings.
According to 1 Kings 11, Solomon's foreign wives influenced him to worship other deities.
God consequently declared that the kingdom would be divided.
Rehoboam inherited Judah.
Jeroboam I became king of Israel.
Finkelstein treats this explanation as a theological interpretation of political history.
He asks a different question.
What actually happened in the tenth century BCE that produced two separate territorial kingdoms?
The evidence is limited.
There are no contemporary extra-biblical texts that provide a clear account of the supposed division between Rehoboam and Jeroboam I.
Finkelstein also notes the intriguing similarity in the meanings of their names.
But he does not claim that this solves the historical problem.
The emergence of Israel and Judah remains difficult to reconstruct.
His broader argument is that the political landscape developed through processes more complicated than the division of an already established Jerusalem-centered empire.
From Canaanite City-States to Territorial Kingdoms
To understand the rise of ancient Israel, Finkelstein takes the story back to the Late Bronze Age.
During this period, Canaan was divided into city-states.
Each was centered on a settlement such as Megiddo, Hazor, Lachish, Jerusalem, or Shechem.
Local rulers controlled surrounding villages and agricultural territory.
But these city-states were not fully independent.
From approximately the fifteenth century BCE, much of Canaan was under Egyptian domination.
Egypt maintained administrative and military centers in the region, with Gaza serving as an important provincial center.
This political system eventually collapsed.
Finkelstein associates the breakdown with a potential major climate crisis that contributed to migration, conflict, and political instability.
Egypt withdrew from Canaan toward the end of the twelfth century BCE.
The collapse of Egyptian authority created opportunities for new political formations.
Over time, the old city-state system gave way to larger territorial kingdoms.
Finkelstein explains that a territorial kingdom could emerge when a ruler from one center expanded into neighboring lowlands and brought several former city-state territories under a single political authority.
For early Israel, expansion meant moving from the central highlands toward the Jezreel Valley and the coastal plain.
For Judah, it meant extending authority from the Jerusalem highlands toward the Shephelah and the Beersheba Valley.
The two kingdoms did not develop at the same pace.
Why Did Israel Become Powerful Before Judah?
Finkelstein argues that the northern kingdom became a territorial kingdom earlier than Judah.
In his reconstruction, Israel began expanding into neighboring lowlands as early as the second half of the tenth century BCE.
Judah, by contrast, remained closer to a highland city-state for a considerably longer period.
Its expansion into the Shephelah and the Beersheba Valley occurred mainly during the ninth century BCE.
Why the difference?
Geography played an important role.
The northern highlands were better positioned to connect with productive agricultural areas and major trade routes.
The Jezreel Valley and nearby lowlands offered fertile land, commercial opportunities, and access to regional transportation networks.
The Jerusalem highlands were more isolated.
They also supported a smaller population.
Finkelstein emphasizes that expanding into the lowlands was not simply a matter of acquiring farmland.
It also provided access to manpower.
Large construction projects and expanding political administrations required labor.
The sparsely populated highlands could not easily provide that labor on their own.
The better-populated lowlands therefore offered both economic resources and the people needed to build a larger kingdom.
The Amarna Letters and an Earlier Attempt at Expansion
Finkelstein points to the Amarna letters as evidence that highland rulers had attempted territorial expansion long before the emergence of Israel.
The Amarna correspondence, dating to the fourteenth century BCE, preserves diplomatic communications between the Egyptian court and rulers across the ancient Near East.
Among the figures appearing in these letters is Labayu, the ruler of Shechem.
Labayu appears in a context of regional political competition and accusations of destabilizing activity.
Finkelstein interprets his actions as an early attempt by a highland ruler to expand into the surrounding lowlands.
The comparison is significant.
It suggests that the territorial ambitions later associated with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were not entirely new.
They followed a political pattern already visible in Late Bronze Age Canaan.
Highland rulers sought access to richer agricultural regions, trade routes, and larger populations.
The eventual emergence of Israel can therefore be understood within a longer history of competition between highland centers and lowland city-states.
Did an Egyptian Pharaoh Help Create the Kingdom of Israel?
One of the most intriguing parts of our conversation concerned Pharaoh Shoshenq I.
Shoshenq I ruled Egypt during the tenth century BCE.
His campaign into the southern Levant is documented by a list of conquered or targeted places inscribed at the Temple of Amun at Karnak.
Finkelstein emphasizes that the campaign was unusually ambitious.
It included movements into the highlands, a region Egyptian armies were hesitant to venture into.
The Karnak list includes concentrations of places in the Negev, the highlands north of Jerusalem, Transjordan, and the Jezreel Valley.
Why did Shoshenq target these areas?
Finkelstein suggests that the campaign may have been intended to eliminate emerging territorial powers, such as Saul’s Israel, and reestablish Egyptian influence.
He raises an even more provocative possibility.
Perhaps the rise of Jeroboam I was connected to Shoshenq's political strategy.
According to the biblical narrative, Jeroboam fled to Egypt during Solomon's reign and later returned.
Finkelstein notes that the Greek Septuagint preserves additional material about Jeroboam's relationship with Egypt.
He asks whether Jeroboam may have served as an Egyptian-backed ruler or political intermediary.
The discovery of a fragment of a Shoshenq monument at Megiddo demonstrates Egyptian royal activity or commemoration in the region.
But the suggestion that Shoshenq installed or supported Jeroboam remains hypothetical.
Where Did the Ancient Israelites Come From?
The biblical narrative describes Israel's ancestors as migrating from Canaan to Egypt and then re-entering Canaan after a period of slavery in Egypt.
Archaeological research has long suggested that much of early Israel emerged from populations already living in Canaan.
Finkelstein emphasizes the importance of highland settlement surveys.
During the 1980s, archaeologists mapped settlements across the central hill country.
They collected pottery from the surface and used ceramic typology to reconstruct settlement patterns across different periods.
The results revealed a major wave of settlement during Iron Age I.
Finkelstein describes approximately 250 settlements across the highlands between the Beersheba Valley and the Jezreel Valley.
Crucially, the archaeological record indicates continuity between these Iron Age settlements and the later kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
Finkelstein therefore argues that these highland communities formed a major part of the population from which the kingdoms emerged.
The Merneptah Stele: The Earliest Mention of Israel
The name Israel appears in an Egyptian inscription from the late thirteenth century BCE.
The Merneptah Stele, erected by Pharaoh Merneptah, refers to a group called Israel in Canaan.
This is generally regarded as the earliest known extra-biblical reference to Israel.
Finkelstein considers the inscription particularly important because it establishes that a population identified as Israel existed before the emergence of the later territorial kingdom.
But the inscription does not describe a monarchy.
Nor does it identify a capital city.
Finkelstein suggests that Merneptah's Israel may have been located somewhere within the territory that later became the Northern Kingdom.
The name then largely disappears from surviving extra-biblical records for several centuries.
By 853 BCE, Israel appears again in Assyrian accounts.
The Assyrian king Shalmaneser III records Ahab of Israel among the rulers participating in the coalition that fought at Qarqar.
By this point, Israel was a substantial regional power capable of fielding significant military resources.
The contrast between these two references illustrates a remarkable transformation.
Israel had developed from a population group known to the Egyptians into an organized kingdom recognized by Assyria.
If the Israelites Came from Canaan, Where Did the Exodus Story Come From?
This was one of the questions I most wanted to ask Finkelstein.
If the ancient Israelites largely emerged from indigenous Canaanite populations, why did they preserve a founding story about leaving Egypt and entering Canaan from outside?
Why not remember liberation from Egyptian domination within Canaan itself?
Finkelstein acknowledges that the origins of the Exodus tradition remain one of the most difficult problems in biblical scholarship.
He argues that the Exodus was among the oldest founding traditions associated with the Northern Kingdom.
The other major northern tradition was the story of Jacob.
In his reconstruction, Jacob traditions were associated with sanctuaries such as Bethel and Penuel.
The Exodus tradition may have been preserved in northern religious settings connected with Samaria.
But how the story originated remains uncertain.
One possibility is that it preserved memories of Egyptian domination and withdrawal from Canaan.
Another connects it with later political relationships between Israel and Egypt.
Finkelstein also discusses a hypothesis associated with Egyptologist Donald Redford.
Redford suggested that the Exodus tradition might preserve distant memories of the expulsion of the Hyksos, a population with strong connections to Canaan, from Egypt in the sixteenth century BCE.
Under this hypothesis, memories of movement from Egypt into Canaan survived and were eventually incorporated into Israelite traditions.
Finkelstein does not present this as a demonstrated solution.
He acknowledges that none of the proposed explanations fully resolves the problem.
The Omride Dynasty: Israel Becomes a Regional Power
The rise of the Omride dynasty marked a major transformation in the Northern Kingdom.
Omri and his successors ruled for approximately four decades during the ninth century BCE.
Their capital was Samaria.
Finkelstein emphasizes that the dynasty's success depended partly on a favorable geopolitical situation.
Egypt had withdrawn from sustained regional domination.
Assyria had not yet begun the policy of direct annexation that would later transform the Levant.
This created an opportunity for local kingdoms to compete for regional supremacy.
Israel and Damascus emerged as the principal rivals.
Under the Omrides, Israel became a dominant regional power.
The Assyrian account of the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE lists Ahab of Israel among the members of a coalition opposing Shalmaneser III.
The military resources attributed to Ahab demonstrate Israel's importance within the coalition.
Finkelstein regards the Omride period as one of the clearest examples of northern political dominance.
In his reconstruction, Israel's power extended beyond its core territory and influenced Judah.
This is one reason he considers the northern kingdom central to the history of political unity in ancient Israel.
Israel, Damascus, and the Rise of Assyria
The Northern Kingdom's fortunes depended heavily on the shifting balance between Israel, Damascus, and Assyria.
Finkelstein outlines a broad sequence.
During the Omride period, Israel enjoyed regional dominance.
Around the middle of the ninth century BCE, Damascus became stronger under Hazael.
Damascus exerted pressure on Israel and became the leading regional power for several decades.
Later, renewed Assyrian pressure on Damascus weakened Israel's principal rival.
This created an opportunity for the Northern Kingdom to recover.
Under Joash and Jeroboam II, Israel again became a major regional power.
But the situation changed fundamentally in the eighth century BCE.
Under Tiglath-pileser III, Assyria increasingly moved from indirect intervention toward territorial conquest and annexation.
The independent kingdoms of the Levant faced a new kind of imperial threat.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel eventually fell.
Samaria was conquered around 722–720 BCE.
And the kingdom that had dominated much of the region disappeared from the political map.
Did Northern Israelite Refugees Transform Judah?
The final part of our conversation concerned what happened after the Assyrian conquest.
Finkelstein argues that a substantial population moved from the northern kingdom into Judah during the late eighth century BCE.
He points to dramatic archaeological changes.
Jerusalem expanded from approximately nine hectares around 750 BCE to approximately sixty hectares around 700 BCE.
Settlement also increased in the Shephelah and the southern highlands.
Why did Judah grow so rapidly?
Finkelstein argues that refugees from the Northern Kingdom provide an important explanation.
He suggests that the migrants were not simply random villagers fleeing south.
Many may have belonged to the northern kingdom's educated and administrative classes.
Scribes, officials, and other members of the elite faced particular risks from Assyrian conquest and deportation.
They had strong reasons to seek refuge elsewhere.
These migrants may have brought literacy, administrative expertise, wealth, and established traditions into Judah.
Finkelstein makes a striking argument: Judah's rise was, in an important sense, a consequence of Israel's fall.
The demographic transformation of Jerusalem created the conditions for a more developed Judahite state and a flourishing literary culture.
Did the Northern Kingdom Help Create the Hebrew Bible?
Perhaps the most consequential part of Finkelstein's argument concerns the origins of biblical literature.
He believes that many of the earliest traditions incorporated into the Hebrew Bible originated in the Northern Kingdom.
These include stories about Jacob, traditions associated with Bethel and Penuel, heroic narratives preserved in Judges, and the Exodus tradition.
Some elements of the Saul narratives may also have northern origins.
Finkelstein points to archaeological evidence that writing and literary activity existed in the northern kingdom before its destruction.
The Samaria ostraca demonstrate administrative writing during the eighth century BCE.
Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud provide further evidence of written religious traditions.
And the Deir Alla inscription, found in the Transjordanian region, demonstrates the existence of sophisticated literary composition in the wider northern cultural sphere.
Finkelstein argues that northern refugees may have brought written and oral traditions to Judah.
But why would Judahite scribes preserve stories associated with a rival kingdom?
His answer is that the migrants were too numerous and influential to ignore.
The two populations also shared important religious and cultural traditions.
Judahite writers therefore incorporated northern narratives into their own literary works.
But they also revised them.
They added explanations.
They reinterpreted events.
And they placed the traditions within a framework that favored Jerusalem, the Davidic dynasty, and the Jerusalem Temple.
Finkelstein uses the stories of Saul and David as one example.
Some passages preserve memories that may have been unfavorable to David.
Other passages defend David and justify his rise to power.
For Finkelstein, these tensions may reflect the incorporation and revision of northern traditions.
Was the Hebrew Bible Born from the Fall of Israel?
Finkelstein's argument leads to a striking conclusion.
The Hebrew Bible, in its later Judahite form, may owe an enormous debt to the northern kingdom.
The kingdom's political institutions disappeared after the Assyrian conquest.
But its stories did not.
They survived through migration, oral transmission, written texts, and later literary revision.
Judahite scribes incorporated these traditions into a broader narrative of Israel's past.
They reinterpreted northern history from the perspective of Jerusalem.
And they developed a literary account in which the Davidic dynasty became the legitimate center of Israelite political history.
In this reconstruction, the northern kingdom was not merely a failed rival to Judah.
It was a major source of the historical memories, religious traditions, and narratives that eventually became the Hebrew Bible.
The fall of Israel helped create the conditions for the rise of Judah.
And the survival of northern traditions helped shape the literary heritage that later generations inherited.
Conclusion: Remembering the Forgotten Kingdom
Israel Finkelstein's reconstruction fundamentally changes how we understand the relationship between Israel and Judah.
The northern kingdom was not a marginal or inferior state.
It was larger, wealthier, and militarily more powerful for much of its existence.
Its rulers exercised regional influence.
Its religious traditions shaped the history of ancient Israel.
And its refugees may have transformed Judah after the Assyrian conquest.
Finkelstein also challenges the conventional image of a great united monarchy ruled from Jerusalem.
He argues that the most historically meaningful examples of political unity were associated with northern rulers.
And he suggests that the biblical portrayal of David and Solomon reflects the later reinterpretation of memories that originated in the north.
The result is a very different history of ancient Israel.
One in which the kingdom that disappeared first may have contributed more to the surviving biblical tradition than its later reputation suggests.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel: Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the Northern Kingdom of Israel?
The Northern Kingdom of Israel was an Iron Age state centered in the northern and central parts of the southern Levant. It developed during the early first millennium BCE and was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in the late eighth century BCE.
2. Was the Northern Kingdom more powerful than Judah?
For much of their history, yes. Israel Finkelstein emphasizes that the Northern Kingdom controlled more territory, supported a larger population, and possessed greater economic and military resources than Judah.
3. Who is Israel Finkelstein?
Israel Finkelstein is a professor emeritus of archaeology at Tel Aviv University and a leading scholar of Bronze and Iron Age Israel. His research focuses on settlement history, the emergence of ancient Israel, and the relationship between archaeology and biblical traditions.
4. What is The Forgotten Kingdom about?
The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel examines the emergence, development, and historical significance of the Northern Kingdom, challenging the Jerusalem-centered perspective of much of the biblical narrative.
5. Did David and Solomon rule a united monarchy?
The question remains debated. Finkelstein does not dismiss David and Solomon as historical figures, but questions whether they ruled the large united kingdom described in the Bible. He argues that later northern political dominance may have influenced the biblical image of a united monarchy.
6. What does Finkelstein mean by a northern united monarchy?
He refers to periods when rulers of the Northern Kingdom exercised control or strong influence over Judah, particularly under the Omride dynasty and during the reigns of Joash and Jeroboam II.
7. Who was Jeroboam II?
Jeroboam II was an eighth-century BCE ruler of the Northern Kingdom. Finkelstein regards his reign as one of the kingdom's greatest periods of territorial influence and regional power.
8. Who was Jeroboam I?
According to the biblical narrative, Jeroboam I became the first ruler of the Northern Kingdom after the division of Solomon's kingdom. Finkelstein explores the possibility that his rise was connected to Egyptian political activity under Shoshenq I.
9. What was the Omride dynasty?
The Omride dynasty was a ninth-century BCE ruling house of the Northern Kingdom associated with Omri, Ahab, and their successors. It developed Israel into a major regional power centered at Samaria.
10. Who was Shoshenq I?
Shoshenq I was a pharaoh of Egypt's Twenty-Second Dynasty who campaigned in the southern Levant during the tenth century BCE. His campaign is documented in an inscription at Karnak.
11. Did Egypt help establish the Northern Kingdom of Israel?
Finkelstein considers it possible that Shoshenq I influenced the formation of the early kingdoms and may have supported Jeroboam I. Direct evidence proving such an arrangement is lacking.
12. What were the Amarna letters?
The Amarna letters are Late Bronze Age diplomatic correspondence documenting relationships between Egypt and rulers across the ancient Near East, including Canaanite city-states.
13. Who was Labayu of Shechem?
Labayu was a fourteenth-century BCE ruler associated with Shechem. Finkelstein interprets his regional activities as an early example of highland political expansion toward the lowlands.
14. Where did the ancient Israelites come from?
Archaeological research indicates that much of early Israel emerged from populations already living in Canaan. Finkelstein points to settlement continuity between Iron Age highland communities and the later kingdoms.
15. What is the Merneptah Stele?
The Merneptah Stele is an Egyptian inscription from the late thirteenth century BCE containing the earliest generally accepted extra-biblical reference to a population called Israel.
16. What did early Israelite settlements look like?
Finkelstein describes a major wave of small highland settlements during Iron Age I. Archaeological surveys have identified approximately 250 settlements across the region between the Beersheba Valley and the Jezreel Valley.
17. If the Israelites came from Canaan, where did the Exodus story originate?
The question remains unresolved. Finkelstein considers the Exodus an ancient northern tradition and discusses possible connections to Egyptian domination, political relationships with Egypt, and older memories such as the expulsion of the Hyksos.
18. What was Kuntillet Ajrud?
Kuntillet Ajrud was an early first-millennium BCE site in the northeastern Sinai region that yielded inscriptions relevant to Israelite religion and northern connections with the southern desert.
19. Who were the Hyksos?
The Hyksos were rulers of parts of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period with strong cultural connections to the Levant. Donald Redford proposed that memories of their expulsion might have influenced the later Exodus tradition.
20. What happened at the Battle of Qarqar?
In 853 BCE, a coalition of Levantine rulers, including Ahab of Israel, confronted the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. Assyrian records attribute substantial military forces to Ahab.
21. When did the Northern Kingdom fall?
Assyria conquered the Northern Kingdom in stages during the late eighth century BCE. Samaria fell around 722–720 BCE, ending the kingdom's independent existence.
22. Did northern refugees move to Judah?
Finkelstein argues that substantial migration from the Northern Kingdom helped explain Judah's rapid demographic growth in the late eighth century BCE, particularly Jerusalem's expansion.
23. Did the Northern Kingdom help shape the Hebrew Bible?
Finkelstein argues that northern traditions about Jacob, the Exodus, early Israelite heroes, and possibly Saul were transmitted to Judah and incorporated into later biblical literature.
24. Why did Judahite scribes preserve northern traditions?
Finkelstein suggests that northern refugees brought influential religious and literary traditions into Judah. Judahite scribes incorporated those traditions while also adapting them to Jerusalem-centered theology.
