@20:39 Finkelstein says Jeroboam I was the founder of the Northern kingdom. But wouldn't it be more correct to say the Northern Kingdom was already there when Saul was king? The way Finkelstein describes the rise of Jeroboam, it seems that Pharaoh Sheshonk (Shishak) exchanged the ruler of that Northern kingdom, by destroying Saul and his power base and installing Jeroboam I as Saul's successor. . . . That would also make King Jeroboam I a contemporary of King David, wouldn't it? (Contrary to the biblical story that makes Jeroboam a contemporary of the grandson of David.) Imaging these two kings reigning side by side in two neighboring kingdoms makes me a bit dizzy, I admit. @19:39 Finkelstein says we should trust the biblical numbers for the reigns of kings starting with Jeroboam I, if we have no strong reason to distrust them. But if his views on the United Monarchy are correct, the same biblical authors shifted the actual reign of David many decades into the past.
@20:39 Finkelstein says Jeroboam I was the founder of the Northern kingdom. But wouldn't it be more correct to say the Northern Kingdom was already there when Saul was king? The way Finkelstein describes the rise of Jeroboam, it seems that Pharaoh Sheshonk (Shishak) exchanged the ruler of that Northern kingdom, by destroying Saul and his power base and installing Jeroboam I as Saul's successor.
. . . That would also make King Jeroboam I a contemporary of King David, wouldn't it? (Contrary to the biblical story that makes Jeroboam a contemporary of the grandson of David.) Imaging these two kings reigning side by side in two neighboring kingdoms makes me a bit dizzy, I admit. @19:39 Finkelstein says we should trust the biblical numbers for the reigns of kings starting with Jeroboam I, if we have no strong reason to distrust them. But if his views on the United Monarchy are correct, the same biblical authors shifted the actual reign of David many decades into the past.