Chris McKinny

My People as Your People provides an in-depth analysis of the chronology, history, and archaeology associated with the reign of Jehoshaphat of Judah. The synthesis of these various elements illuminates a diverse geo-political picture of the southern Levant in the mid-ninth century BCE. In recent years, archaeologists and biblical scholars have dealt quite extensively with the tenth and eighth centuries BCE due to both the controversial aspects of recent interpretations associated with the so-called United Kingdom and the established archaeological data relating to Judah’s rise as a significant polity in the eighth century BCE. On the other hand, the ninth century BCE has received considerably less scholarly treatment, despite the fact that many new archaeological strata have been uncovered in recent years that have a direct bearing upon this period. My People as Your People is an attempt to fill this gap in our knowledge. In accomplishing this, it both provides a nuanced understanding of Judah in the mid-ninth century BCE and also demonstrates the significance of this period in the larger setting of the history of the Divided Kingdom.

Several unique toponyms (Lehi, Gob, Ephes-dammim, etc.) are mentioned in the books of Judges and Samuel in connection with the Israelite-Philistine conflicts. Among these, Lehi and its variants are associated with the biblical characters of Samson and Shammah (the son of Agee), but the exact location of Lehi has not been determined. This paper examines the available evidence relating to Lehi, and offers the tentative identification of ʿAin Hanniyeh as the location of En-hakkore and Ramath-lehi within the larger region of Lehi.

In light of the accepted identification of Philistine Gath with Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, which has been clearly confirmed by Maeir’s excavations over the last two decades (Maeir 2012a), this paper will re-examine the identifications of the southern biblical towns of Gath-rimmon, Gittaim, and non-Philistine Gath. For each of these sites, I will consider the available archaeological, toponymic, geographic and textual evidence. Through this analysis a new identification for the “other” Gath will be suggested. Besides offering possible site identifications, the purpose of this paper is to better understand the dynamic border between Israel and Judah in the northern Shephelah/Aijalon Valley as reflected in the northernmost Shephelah district of Judah (Josh 15:33-36), the Rehoboam fortification list (2 Chr 11:6-10), and other texts. As we shall demonstrate, the western portion of the border between the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah is not well-defined in the biblical text nor has it received much scholarly attention or archaeological investigation. Accordingly, this paper will seek to provide a historical geographical foundation for further study in the region of the eastern Aijalon Valley.

This paper discusses the history of research at Deir el-ʿÂzar (Tel Qiryat Yeʿarim), including a discussion of its traditional identification with Kiriath-Jearim and a preliminary report of both the recent archaeological survey and G. Barkay’s salvage excavation, which was carried out in the winter of 1995-1996. Significantly, this paper provides the first modern report on the nature of the archaeology of Kiriath-Jearim (Deir el-ʿÂzar), which includes occupation from the Neolithic period until modern times.

Full Bibliographic Entry:
McKinny, Chris. “Are There Rules for Excavating or Special Techniques?” In The Five-Minute Archaeologist, edited by Cynthia Shafer-Elliott, 48–50. Sheffield: Equinox, 2016. https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/five-minute-archaeologist/.

For access to book see "links"

Full Bibliographic Entry:
McKinny, Chris. “Who Decides Who Can Dig and Where?” In The Five-Minute Archaeologist, edited by Cynthia Shafer-Elliott, 28–31. Sheffield: Equinox, 2016. https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/five-minute-archaeologist/.

For access to book see "links"

In this study I examine one of the more critical details in the discussion of the dating of the Joshua town lists – the northern border of Benjamin as defined by the boundary description and the town lists. Specifically, I will examine the archaeological and historical evidence for the identification of the "wilderness Beth-Aven" (Joshua 18, 12-13) in the boundary description, and Emek-Keziz and Zemaraim, among the towns of eastern Benjamin (Joshua 18, 21-24) in the town list.

The Regnal Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel: An Illustrated Guide is directed at students and academics of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament who have a specific interest in the chronology of the biblical Kings of Judah and Israel. The chronology is not my personal system, but that of Edwin R. Thiele who developed his chronology in the 1940s and 1950s and published widely on the subject. The most current edition of his work is known as “The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,” which was published in various editions up until 1983. I have arranged the chart into a series of eight 50-year panes that are accompanied with a breakout chart of all of the available regnal details of each king. Wherever possible, I have included extra-biblical information to supplement and illustrate the chronology. This also includes a brief summary of each of the major intersections with the major imperial powers of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.

In this study, I have endeavored to provide a date for the town lists of Judah and Benjamin, which are recorded in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28. In connection with this, I have examined and offered a possible candidate for each of the sites mentioned in the town lists. I have attempted to include all of the available, relevant archaeological data for each of the toponyms and regions under discussion with the purpose of determining the overall date of the presumed town register list/administrative division that lies behind the town lists. From a historical perspective and following Alt’s original suggestion (1925), it would seem logical to conclude that these town lists are reflective of an administrative division of the kingdom of Judah dating to a period later than the Solomonic administrative division in the 10th century BCE/early Iron IIA (1 Kgs 4:8-19). Likewise, the available archaeological material of Judah would seem to make it very clear that the extant town lists for Judah and Benjamin should be dated to the Iron II, as less than half of the sites mentioned in the detailed town lists possess remains from the Late Bronze and/or Iron I.

Since Alt, the dating of the town lists of Judah and Benjamin has been heavily debated with opinions ranging throughout the Iron II and Persian periods, including the 9th century BCE/Jehoshaphat (e.g., Cross and Wright), 8th century BCE/Uzziah (Aharoni), early 7th century BCE/Manasseh (Barkay), late 7th century BCE/Josiah (Alt and Na’aman), and late 6th-5th century/Persian period (de Vos). The question of the overall date of the list is also related to the current form of the division as reflected in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28 and the presumed underlying administrative source from which this text seems to have been derived. This form or system clearly included a separation of distinct regions (i.e., Negeb, Shephelah, hill country, Wilderness, and Benjamin) and districts or sub-districts within these regions. The purpose of the administrative division seems to have been related to both taxation, as reflected especially in the Arad Ostraca, and perhaps military organization, as has been suggested in the presumed four- fold division of the LMLK seal impressions. Barkay has suggested that there is a connection the administrative division and a series of early 7th century BCE fiscal bulla that include a number of towns appearing in the town lists (2011). This evidence would seem to establish the terminus post quem of the administrative division. In light of this and the numerous compelling arguments of Na’aman (e.g., 1991, 2005), I acknowledge the possibility that the town lists of Judah and Benjamin may be reflective of the 7th century BCE. Despite this, in incorporating archaeological studies that were unavailable to past researchers, I conclude that the settlement pattern of 9th century BCE Judah largely matches the settlement pattern in the town lists, as noted especially in the regions of the Negeb (including the Negeb Highlands), Shephelah and southern hill country. Subsequently, and while it cannot be stated with certainty, the 9th century BCE may also be the period of the original compilation of the administrative town register list behind the Judah and Benjamin town lists of Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28.

M.A. Thesis - Bar Ilan University

In this thesis I examine the reign of Jehoshaphat of Judah by using the available archaeological and textual data. Chapter One serves as the introduction to the thesis. In Chapter Two, I discuss the historical setting of Judah’s neighbors by focusing primarily on Omride Israel and its relationship to Phoenicia and Aram. This discussion addressed the set of historical circumstances that brought about the cessation of Israelite-Judahite hostility during the reigns of Omri and Asa. This chapter also addressed some textual and historical issues associated with Israel and Judah’s relationship to Moab (2 Kings 3; 2 Chron. 20:1-30).
Chapter Three includes a textual analysis and a historical reconstruction of the Battle of Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22:1-36). This chapter also serves as a starting point for a discussion of the larger historical setting in which Jehoshaphat reigned. Throughout this chapter, I address several issues related to a historical understanding of this text in relation to the Tel Dan Stele and the larger historical landscape of Aramean-Israelite relations. I also deal with the Chronicler’s version of the battle (2 Chron. 18) and discuss the historical value of the few expansions from the Kings’ account. Since this text is often used as evidence for determining that Jehoshaphat was a vassal to Ahab, I also address the arguments associated with this line of thinking.
Chapter Four analyzes Jehoshaphat’s reign in 1 Kings 22:41-50. This analysis is the most important textual element of this thesis and lays the foundation for the archaeological discussion, which follows. Throughout the chapter, I suggest a positive reading of the chronistic text that accepts the general historicity of Judah and Israel’s alliance (1 Kings 22:44), Judah’s domination of Edom (2 Kings 22:47), and the reality of Jehoshaphat’s Aravah activity that stretched to the Red Sea and beyond. I endeavor to show that this view is at odds with several recent assessments that view the late 9th or early 8th centuries BCE as the moment of Judah’s rise to prominence in these regions.
Finally, Chapter Five deals with the archaeological remains of Judah in the late Iron IIA (i.e. the 9th century BCE). My examination largely avoids archaeological survey material and focuses on published and some unpublished archaeological sites in Judah that possessed Iron IIA material. My discussion is limited to the regions of Benjamin, the Shephelah, the Negev and the Aravah. Together with the preceding chapter, this section serves as the core data of my study where I pull together textual and archaeological source material. In addition to primary material, I interact with a large body of older and up-to-date secondary literature associated with Judah in the Iron IIA. Throughout this final chapter I address many different historical geographical issues surrounding the identification and political affiliation with the sites in question. In the future, I hope to continue analyzing this material by including archaeological survey and excavation material from the regions discussed and the southern Hill Country of Judah. Altogether, an analysis of this data across these chapters has brought me to three main conclusions (Chapter Six) regarding the nature of Judah during the reign of Jehoshaphat in the mid-9th century BCE.
First, the first half of the 9th century BCE should be seen as a period of prosperity and increased building activity in the regions of Benjamin, the Shephelah, the Negev and the Aravah of Judah. This is especially the case in the Shephelah and the Negev, This period of prosperity lasted until the mid-late 9th century BCE when Aramean activity under Hazael destroyed many sites of western Judah (2 Kings 12:17). This aggression, which can now be traced across Israel, Philistia and Judah, seems to have halted and transformed most of the geo-political realities that preceded Hazael’s rise to power.
Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel in the mid-9th century BCE should be considered as geo-political peers who took part in an alliance (2 Kings 8:26) between two nations on equal footing and not a vassal-suzerain treaty. This alliance was likely enacted for both military and financial reasons, such as Israel’s domination of Moab (livestock (2 Kings 3:1; Mesha Stele)), Judah’s subjugation of Edom (copper (2 Kings 22:47)), and Israel’s alliance with Phoenician Tyre and Sidon (1 Kings 16:31).
Third, the complex trade realities of the late Iron IIA, as reflected in both the archaeological and the biblical record, point to the reality of friendly trade networks between Judah, Israel, Philistine Gath and Phoenicia. The absence of hostility between these polities in the biblical record underscores this point.
Additionally, I have dealt with many different textual, geographical and historical nuances associated with mid-9th century BCE Judah. It is my hope that this nuanced study will serve as a positive academic contribution and a good starting point for future study of Judah in the period in question.

This is a chart of the popular view that the ten Egyptian plagues should be related to ten specific Egyptian deities. I am not entirely convinced by the argument, but there are some striking parallels with the first and last couple of the plagues. This chart is meant to be used as a classroom resource for illustrating this widespread interpretation. All images are in the public domain.

This interactive map is an archaeological database containing  the sites discussed in the unpublished dissertation "A Historical Geography of The Administrative Division of Judah: The Town Lists of Judah and Benjamin in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28" written by Chris McKinny at Bar Ilan University in 2016.

The interactive database can be accessed at this link https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?dg=feature&mid=1BiQioOEsPgWiapDz_nKYmtMFkgM or by clicking "links."

This map includes the sites discussed in the unpublished dissertation "A Historical Geography of The Administrative Division of Judah: The Town Lists of Judah and Benjamin in Joshua 15:21-62 and 18:21-28" written by Chris McKinny at Bar Ilan University in 2016.

Map created by Chris McKinny © using the Satellite Bible Atlas (created by W. Schlegel ©) as the base map.

In this interactive map, I have compiled all of the towns in the list and provided the known archaeological details about the site in a compact form. Wherever possible I have linked a low-resolution photo of the site. Of the 34 towns in the list, 30 can be identified with relative certainty. A detailed bibliography relating to the archaeological publications cited within each site can be located at the link below.

In 2012, two early Iron Age temples in the region of Judah were discovered. The first of these temples was uncovered at Tel Beth Shemesh in the Judean Shephelah near the border between the Israelites and the Philistines. The second temple is from Tel Moẓa in the Judean Hill Country near one of the main routes between Jerusalem and the Shephelah/Coastal Plain. According to the excavators, the Tel Beth Shemesh temple dates to the 11th century BCE and the Tel Moẓa temple was active from c. 10th-9th centuries BCE. In this paper, I will argue that the presence of these temples may be connected with the movements of the Ark of Yahweh that are detailed in the book of Samuel (1 Sam 6:11-7:1; 2 Sam 6:5-11). I suggest that the Beth-shemesh temple should be associated with the return of the Ark of Yahweh to Israel, and the subsequent divine execution of some of the city’s inhabitants (1 Sam 6:11-7:1). In addition, I will offer the possibility that the Iron IIA temple from Moẓa should be linked to the journey of the Ark of Yahweh to Jerusalem in 2 Sam 6:5-11 and, specifically, the “house of Obed-edom the Gittite.” The paper will also discuss the role of Israelite cult sites in the formation and preservation of their national cultural memory.

“Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil.” (Genesis 49:27)

Paper presented at 5th Annual Benjamin Conference in Honor of Hanan Eshel, October 19, 2014

Since Alt’s original proposal in the early 20th century (1925), most scholars have followed his opinion that the tribal allotments in the book of Joshua reflect earlier traditions from the time of the Judges or early monarchy and that the tribal city-lists dated to some point in the divided monarchy (e.g. Cross and Wright 1956; Kallai-Kleinmann 1958; Kallai 1986; Aharoni 1959; 1979; Na’aman 1991; 2005; Rainey 1983; 2006; Tappy 2008). In particular, discussion has revolved around the specific dating of the Judahite and Benjaminite lists with opinions ranging from the time of Jehoshaphat (9th century BCE), Uzziah/Hezekiah (8th century BCE), and Josiah (7th century BCE). In this paper I will examine one of the more critical details in this discussion – the northern border of Benjamin as defined by the boundary description and the city lists. Specifically, I will examine the archaeological and historical evidences for the identifications of the “wilderness Beth-aven” (Josh. 18:12-13) in the boundary description  and Emek-keziz and Zemaraim of the cities of eastern Benjamin (Josh. 18:21-24) in the city list.