The Solomonic Districts

Abstract

The list of Solomon's district governors (1 Kgs. 4, 7-19) is the only avowedly administrative division preserved in the Bible about which we have explicit information. It is, therefore, of special importance not only for the understanding of Solomon's realm, but also for this type of geographical texts, which are generally used by the biblical compilers for the description of other matters. The basic analysis of the list was made by Alt (1913) and it still stands today in spite of all attempts to refute it. We follow his two basic principles, which will guide us in the understanding of the list and its details: ( 1) The Solomonic districts include only northern Israel in the limited meaning of that term. They do not include Judah and 1l0thing can be learned from this document about the situation there, whether it was subject to a similar division in this period or not. Benjamin was obviously part of Israel until the division of the kingdom and, thus, is the southernmost region included in the list. (2) The list contains two fundamentally distinct types of districts: Those which virtually comprise one of the old tribal areas, and which usually are defined by their tribal names, and those which do not fit the tribal areas and are defined, instead, by the names of cities located in them. The latter districts are found mainly in the valleys, and most of the cities mentioned were previously Canaanite towns that came into Israelite possession only at a later date. These districts appear together in one block (Districts II-V) comprising the northern Shephelah, the Sharon and the northern valleys. There is no basis whatever for the attempts by various scholars to discredit the second assumption by questioning the identification of (Albright 1925: 28-31; 1931:248-251; Wright 1967:61*-64*; Kallai 1967:43-52). Alt is right that out of these cities mentioned in the third district, only Sochoh can be identified with confidence, viz. with Shuweiket er-Rits, 3 km. north of Tul Karm. Regarding the two other cities we possess no further data and the information that Bepher was originally a Canaanite city again fits Alt's assumption, but does not help in its identification. The same is true for the mention of in the genealogical lists of Manasseh (Num. 26, 32-33; 27, 1; Josh. 17, 2-3). Families of Manasseh spread out into the Sharon and Jezreel valleys, thus taking in Canaanite cities which were then integrated into the tribal organization. The genealogical list itself is based on historical development, without any consistent geographical order. This is very clear in the lists of Manasseh (Aharoni 1973). With the migration of Manasseh into Transjordan, he became the father of Gilead. Thus was created the genealogical tree, Hepher son of Gilead, son of

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.