Nadav Na’aman, «Biblical and Historical Jerusalem in the Tenth and Fifth-Fourth Centuries BCE», Vol. 93 (2012) 21-42
The article examines the accounts of construction works carried out in Jerusalem in the tenth and fifth-fourth centuries BCE and emphasizes the importance of local oral traditions, the role of biblical texts, and archaeological evidence. It demonstrates that the residence built by David played an important role throughout the First Temple period. The Millo is identified with the Stepped Stone Structure. Solomon possibly founded a modest shrine on the Temple Mount, which later became the main sanctuary of the kingdom. The Ophel was the earlier quarter settled and fortified in Jerusalem after the Babylonian destruction of 587/586.
32 NADAV NA’AMAN
by stage, over many generations, until it became the major temple
of the kingdom 28. I evaluate the historical progression in this man-
ner because of the late biblical authors’ struggle with the question of
why the temple was built by Solomon rather then by David, his ven-
erated predecessor. To resolve this difficulty, a late (exilic/post-ex-
ilic) author narrated that David bought the site of the future temple
and built an altar there as an early stage in the sanctification of the
site and the construction of the temple (2 Sam 24) 29. Even more re-
markable are the efforts of the Chronicler to present David as mak-
ing wide-range preparations in anticipation of the construction of
the temple (1 Chr 22-29). This author could not reverse his sources’
explicit statements in the books of Samuel and Kings and assign the
construction of the temple to David. Instead, he attributed to David
as much as he could, in order to emphasize his deep involvement in
the enterprise. There must have been a strong tradition in Jerusalem
that Solomon was the founder of the temple, and the author of the
king’s history adopted, expanded and elaborated the tradition in his
composition.
The reality of two royal residences ― one on the Temple Mount
and the other in the City of David ― raises the question of their re-
lations. Tentatively, I suggest that the residence in the City of David
was the earlier and the more important in the early stage of the Ju-
dahite monarchy. The residence on the Temple Mount was initially
a modest building ― originally perhaps a ceremonial palace ―
28
For the dependence of the original Solomonic shrine on the palace and
its gradual growth until it became the state temple, see D. USSISHKIN, “The
Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period: An Archaeolo-
gist’s Viewâ€, Exploring the Longue Durée. Essays in Honor of Lawrence E.
Stager (ed. D. SCHLOEN) (Winona Lake, IN 2009) 473-483; A. LEMAIRE, “The
Evolution of the 8th-Century B.C.E. Jerusalem Templeâ€, The Fire Signals of
Lachish. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late
Bronze, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin (eds. I.
FINKELSTEIN – N. NA’AMAN) (Winona Lake, IN 2011) 195-202, with earlier
literature on p. 195.
29
In addition to the commentaries, see K. RUPPRECHT, Der Tempel von
Jerusalem. Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? (BZAW 144; Berlin
– New York 1977) 5-17; H. DONNER, “Der Felsen und der Tempelâ€, ZDPV 93
(1977) 5-6, with earlier literature in n. 24; H.P. MATHYS, “Anmerkungen zu
2. Sam 24â€, “Sieben Augen auf einem Stein†(Sach 3,9). Festschrift für I.
Willi-Plein (eds. F. HARTENSTEIN – M. PIETSCH) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007)
229-234, 242-246.