Article

The text of 1 Kgs 9:11–14

Scholars debate whether 1 Kgs 9:11–14 is based on an actual source from the reign of Solomon preserving historical details, or is more ideology and fiction reflecting much later events or much later editorial/authorial concerns. Finkelstein (2013, 107) says the pericope ‘should probably be interpreted as an etiological story that explains why, in late monarchic times, areas in western Galilee were held by the kingdom of Tyre’. Such a claim, however, lacks supporting archaeological evidence or textual attestation. Lipinski (2010, 263) says the written episode may go back to the eighth century but clearly does not reflect a historical setting in the tenth century; if anything Solomon is portrayed as giving land to Hiram that Hiram already controlled (Lipinski 1991; cf. Alt 1953, 144 and Lehmann 2008, 42). Knauf’s claim that the pericope is postexilic (1991, 168–169) is problematic in light of Geoghegan’s work on the phrase ‘until this day’ (2003), which would indicate the story is clearly pre-exilic. Lehmann (2001, 92) says the form of the received text is from later times but some aspects of the transaction may be historical. Later, Lehmann (2008, 41), as well as Noll (2001, 179) and Gal (1990, 97) see elements of the story plausibly derived from tenth century sources; for Lemaire, these sources are likely the royal annals (1991, 149), and for Na’aman (1997, 68) the source is the ‘book of the acts of Solomon’ mentioned in 1 Kgs 11:41. As is clear, neither the level of historicity nor the date of composition of 1 Kgs 9:11–14 has reached consensus. Yet, there are two features found in verse 12 that are understood to indicate a lack of historicity and a late composition and/or redaction of the text. The first is the aetiology for the name ‘Cabul’, and the second is the use of the phrase ‘until this day’ ( הזהם ויהדע ( for rhetorical purposes.

The geography and geology of Galilee

As such, it has been particularly challenging to determine where ancient political or cultural borders transected the Galilee for a few specific reasons:

• (1) true natural borders such as the Litani River Basin and possibly the Rosh HaNiqra Ridge have seldom served as actual borders in antiquity;
• (2) pots rarely equal people, something that also makes establishing the cultural, political, or ‘ethnic’ affiliation of a site’s inhabitants difficult;
• (3) limited exploration of modern southern Lebanon. Thus, efforts to differentiate territory controlled by Israel versus the land of Tyre or later on, between Jewish Galilee and Greco-Roman Tyre have not resulted in a consensus. Yet, with the increased number of excavated and surveyed sites in Israeli Galilee, older studies that sought to delineate the boundaries of Israel and Tyre based largely upon the biblical materials and/or later classical sources (e.g., Josephus) can now be reassessed (e.g., Aharoni 1957, 1979; Kallai 1986; Na’aman 1986; Katzenstein 1997). And despite the fact that the ancient border between the territory of Israel and that of Tyre is located somewhere within this relatively poorly understood region, a case will be made that when geographical and geological realities are considered along with the available archaeological remains, it is possible to state that not only was there a border, but also that this border can be delineated in the early Iron Age IIA.

1. The term ‘Galilee’ refers to the entire area from the Litani River in the north to the Jezreel Valley in the south and the Huleh Basin/Sea of Galilee on the east to the Acco Plain on the west. ‘Upper Galilee’ refers to the region from the Litani to the Beth ha-Kerem Valley in the South. ‘Lower Galilee’ is from the Beth ha-Kerem Valley to the Jezreel Valley.
2. Yet, with the increased number of excavated and surveyed sites in Israeli Galilee, older studies that sought to delineate the boundaries of Israel and Tyre based largely upon the biblical materials and/or later classical sources (e.g., Josephus) can now be reassessed (e.g., Aharoni 1957, 1979; Kallai 1986; Na’aman 1986; Katzenstein 1997). And despite the fact that the ancient border between the territory of Israel and that of Tyre is located somewhere within this relatively poorly understood region, a case will be made that when geographical and geological realities are considered along with the available archaeological remains, it is possible to state that not only was there a border, but also that this border can be delineated in the early Iron Age IIA.

Map of the key geographical regions/features in the Galilee:

Upper Galilee:

is composed largely of Cenomanian and Eocene limestones, the former of which weathers to produce fertile terra rosa soil. In the area just to the east of Tyre and throughout much of western Galilee as a whole, however, there are relatively large areas of Senonian limestone exposed. This softer, chalky limestone produces a less fertile soil than does Cenomanian and Eocene limestone. In fact, in addition to this clear geological difference, Finkelstein (1981, 86) identifies the region east of Tyre (the ‘Tyre syncline’) as the ‘Shephelah of Israel’ mentioned in Josh 11:1–3, 16. This region is on average 300 m lower in elevation than the mountains of Upper Galilee to the east, which are delineated by a sharp scarp that runs roughly southwest to northeast. This scarp, according to Finkelstein (1981, 87–92), has delineated the territory of Tyre since at least the Iron Age I.

Lower Galilee:

excessive faulting has resulted in the exposure of numerous rock types. The Allonim Hills in the southwestern part of Lower Galilee are Eocene giving way to Senonian as one moves from south to north. Central Lower Galilee is largely Cenomanian limestone with some Senonian exposed, while eastern Lower Galilee is largely basaltic stone and soil. The coastal plain (or Akko Plain) is a mixture of alluvium and sand with numerous broad swampy areas due to kurkar ridges on the western edge of the plain that block the flow of the Na’aman River (Orni and Efrat 1971, 50–51; Baly 1974, 124–125). These swampy/marshy areas appear more in the southern Akko Plain, southeast and east of Akko (Tell el-Fukhar) in the flattest areas of the alluvial plain (Lehmann 2001, 69–70). Of significance is the fact that similar broad swampy areas lined the Tyrian coast between PaleoTyre and Rachidieyeh (Marriner de Beaulieu, and Morhange 2004).

Map of Galilee showing the main trade routes:

The third consideration for traversing Galilee is why to go where you are going. While the most important reason for crossing the Galilee was trade, it was not the only reason. Large portions of Upper Galilee, especially the plateau between Safad el-Battikh and Baram, could be cultivated. With the exception of the less fertile soil just to the east of Tyre, Galilee was quite fertile. Control of the fertile areas including the Maroun er-Ras area, the plateau on which Kedesh was located, and the Dalton and Alma Plateaus south of the Dishon was a high priority (see Figure 3). The Bible records that the Israelites battled near the waters of Merom (Josh 11), somewhere in the area of Maroun erRas though the exact location is unknown, but were apparently unable to hold onto the land (Josh 13:6; see Aharoni 1979, 236–39; cf. however Gal 1992a, 88–89). Aside from this account, there are no explicit references as to whom central Upper Galilee belonged or where a possible border might be drawn, either in the Bible or in the earlier Amarna texts, the latter of which mention dissention over the area between the cities of Tyre and Hazor. Still, based on later historical comparanda, Finkelstein (2016, 24) states, … taking a long-term territorial history perspective, there can be no doubt that the Upper Galilee always belonged to territorial entities and administrative divisions to its south and southeast, while Tyre ruled only over the lower hilly areas to its east and southeast. This was so in the Ottoman, Mamluk and Crusader periods, as well as Roman-Byzantine times … in short, Tyre never ruled in the Upper Galilee

The archaeology of Iron IIA Galilee

One possible way of determining a border in a land that is largely devoid of major natural borders is in the settlement pattern. The distribution of the archaeological sites in both Upper and Lower Galilee, the coastal plain around Acco, and the Huleh Basin shows an interesting shift from the Iron I to the Iron IIA, and then from the early Iron IIA (roughly second half of the tenth century) to the late Iron IIA (roughly ninth century). Almost all the Iron I (ca 1185–980 BCE) sites in these regions were unfortified, aside from the site of Har Adir. The nascent kingdoms of Tyre, Aram-Damascus, and Israel as attested to in the biblical texts and later non-biblical sources had not yet coalesced into entities capable of struggling over the region following Egypt’s withdrawal at some point between roughly 1178 and 1130 BCE. It is only in the Iron I/IIA transitional period that, according to the biblical texts, struggles among petty kingdoms in the region brought about a change in the landscape. The distribution of fortified sites in Galilee provides an interpretive framework that is potentially more illustrative than those frameworks based on ceramic remains. This is because the ceramics of the Iron IIA cover a period from roughly 980–840/800 BCE according to the Modified Conventional Chronology put forward by Mazar (2005). As radiocarbon dating has not proved to be the hoped-for panacea for the chronology of the early Iron Age, reliance for dating key ceramic assemblages from Galilean sites is still largely done by comparison to assemblages from sites in nearby regions even though: (1) the sizes of assemblages from Galilean sites are quite limited in comparison to those of other regions in Israel (only smaller sites or sites that do not have the chronological sequence relevant for this paper have been excavated), and; (2) the Iron IIA ceramic assemblage is known to persist for roughly 150 years.

For the geopolitical situation, reliance is upon the biblical description as that is the only written source that discusses this time period (Katzenstein 1997, 75). While much of 1 Kgs 1–11 has undergone later redaction or was simply composed in the late Iron Age, there are a number of early historical kernels preserved. Few scholars would dispute the Bible’s claims that AramDamascus rose in power at the end of the tenth or early ninth centuries BCE and came into conflict with the nascent northern Kingdom of Israel. Kalimi (2019) in particular makes a strong case that much of the material about Solomon in 1 Kgs 1–11 is derived from old and accurate sources reflecting the actual situation in the tenth century even if the DH ultimately fashioned the text at a later point. The archaeology shows that concern in the late Iron IIA (late tenth/early ninth centuries to ca. 840/800 BCE) shifted from the border with Tyre/Phoenicia—where no fortifications of comparable scale to those at Hazor VIII or Dan III are constructed at any point in the Iron IIA—to the border with Aram-Damascus. Damascus was the threat that led to the creation of massive fortifications in northern Israel, while relations between Israel and Tyre were at their all-time strongest due to royal intermarriage. The border with Phoenicia, therefore, did not need to be policed as much as the border with Damascus (Keimer 2013, 415, 417; cf. Ben-Ami and Wazana 2013)

1. The term Cabul

The etymology of the term ‘Cabul’ is unclear and multiple proposals have been made:

Josephus (Ant. 8.142) says the word means ‘not pleasing’ in Phoenician. The popular explanation that the term derives from כ+ לב’ = like nothing’ is based on Josephus’ etymology (Montgomery 1967, 205; see also Mulder 1998, 477). Noth (1968, 211), however, favored deriving the name from the root לבכ’ to fetter’, translating it as ‘[a land] bound’ (cf. Akk and Arb. kbl; and the nominalized form ‘fetter’ in Pss 105:18; 149:8). Choosing to read Cabul in this way—as a Hebrew/Phoenician passive participle, ‘bound’/‘fettered’—is intriguing though not without problems (this verbal form also appears in Amarna Canaanite and Ugaritic (see Sivan 2001, 122; Rainey 1996, II.306)). At the same time, the nominal form qvt(t)vl is also attested, though not entirely without issue, at Ugarit as informed by Akkadian syllabic equivalents (Huehnergard 2008, 307, 309; cf. Sivan 2001, 68, 70)). It is intriguing because we could translate the phrase (וּל כָּב ץרא ( as ‘a fettered land’ or even ‘a land for fettering’ (according to Joüon and Muraoka (2006, 381) some passive participles can be read in this way (e.g., Deut 28:31 and Ps 111:2); they do not always have a past meaning), which is how it is understood in BT Sabb. 54a, Rashi, and Redak, all of which understand the name as referring to ‘a land of fetters’ or ‘infertile land’. Another possible translation comes from II בוּל + כ,’ like a (wood) block’ (cf. Akk bulū, dry wood). Lipinski (2010, 262) favors this root and translates cabul as ‘lump’ (or ‘block’), an etymology that is easier to accept than the previous view that saw it as a passive participle from kbl. HALOT (I.115) offers a third possible etymology, III בוּל’ produce; tribute’ (cf. Akk biltu), but this option seems least likely due to Hiram’s displeasure.

Despite instances where kings complain about tribute given to them, the general tenor of the verses in 1 Kgs 9 mitigate against this option because ‘a land of tribute’ does not make sense unless we wish to read sarcasm into Hiram’s response.
Cabul first appears in Josh 19:27 where it appears as a place name, and again in 1 Kgs 9:13 where it refers to a region (the ‘land of Cabul’). The presence of a modern town named Kabul in western Galilee, in conjunction with the archaeological record, led Gal to identify the nearby site of Horvat Rosh Zayit with the Cabul of Josh 19:27 (1990 97). This identification is generally accepted, but less definitive is the identification of ‘the land of Cabul’. Determining the actual etymology of cabul becomes secondary to the identification of the region itself; regardless of the actual root of Cabul, each of the translations offered suggests one specific region in the Galilee for this land: the Allonim Hills and western hills ascending into Lower Galilee. Gal (1990, 97) assumes that the ‘land of Cabul’ is the northern and central parts of the Akko Plain based on his identification of Horbat Rosh Zayit as a Phoenician fort (cf. Gal 2014 and Lipinski 2010, 263). And although Gal does not define the limits of the Akko Plain, Lehmann (2001, 68) does: it is the region that runs from the Rosh HaNiqra ridge in the north to the Carmel Mountains in the south, and from the Mediterranean in the west to the foothills of the mountains of Galilee in the east. The northern and central parts of the Akko Plain are quite agriculturally productive, a point that contrasts the negative connotation ascribed to the region by Hiram in 1 Kgs 9:12, and as such I prefer to associate the ‘land of Cabul’ more definitively with the Allonim Hills and western slopes of Lower Galilee, the general region that Gal himself does later equate with the ‘land of Cabul’ (Gal and Alexandre 2000, 197; cf. Lehmann 2008, 42).
This region was essentially the boundary between Tyre and Israel, it was mountainous, it was covered with forests, it had poor soil, and it kept—in this instance —Hiram from easily accessing the better agricultural land of the valleys further to the east and south. It is understandable why Hiram’s dissatisfaction is recorded, regardless of whether or not the biblical text preserves an historic response or not.

Such economic machinations are clear also in the distribution of the so-called tripartite buildings, which, according to Blakely (2002, 50) not only ‘define the limits of a single entity, a united Israel and Judah’, but also attest that ‘the primary goal of David and later Solomon was to capture and exploit trade’, something that is advanced also by Halpern (2001), Kochavi (1998a, 1998b), and Blakely and Horton (2001). The control of agricultural land, and its subsequent produce, was more important than having great sums of ‘prestige’ items; the latter raised the profile of the king and/or government, the former kept the constituency alive so the king could use them to expand or maintain his territory. Compare the situation in the Middle Assyrian kingdom, among others, which sought control over agricultural lands and regularly extracted produce ‘for Assur’ (see Brown 2013). Thus, Halpern’s statement about Solomon’s ‘cavalier’ (1974, 523) treatment of the northern Israelite tribes—Asher in particular, as the *—must be tempered at least in regards to economic matters.

Conclusion