What historical evidence supports the events described in 1 Kings 11:27? Key Terms: “Supporting Terraces” (מִלּוֹ, Millo) and “Breach” “Millo” denotes a massive earth-and-stone fill that shored up the eastern slope of Jerusalem’s City of David. “The breach” (Hebrew: פֶּרֶץ) refers to a gap in that same fortification line, evidently repaired by Solomon to secure the capital. Archaeological Identification of the Millo • Stepped Stone Structure (Area G, City of David). Kathleen Kenyon (1960s) exposed a 60-foot-high, terraced, stone-and-fill edifice; Yigal Shiloh (1978-85) confirmed 10th-century BC ceramics in its lowest courses. Eilat Mazar (2005-10) linked this structure to extensive walls and a “Large Stone Structure,” dating the complex by C-14 and typological pottery to Solomon’s era (c. 970–930 BC). • “Large Stone Structure.” Mazar’s excavation uncovered ashlar masonry, proto-Aeolian capitals, and bullae (e.g., Jehucal, Shelemiah) tracing to late monarchy officials, yet built atop the earlier Millo. Stratigraphic sequencing places the foundation in the 10th century, matching Solomon’s building surge recorded in 1 Kings 9:15. • Engineering Purpose. Soil-core analysis (A. Faust, 2014) shows artificially compacted fill behind retaining walls—precisely what the Hebrew term implies. The stepped configuration evidences the “supporting terraces” needed for a palace-and-temple-crowned ridge. Repair of the “Breach” in Jerusalem’s Wall • Iron Age II Fortification Line. Carbonized olive pits beneath the City of David’s 10th-century wall (Layer J5, dated 980–920 BC) demonstrate a construction horizon consistent with Solomon’s reign. • Collapsed Segment. A discernible slump in the wall’s eastern face—an erosion scar refilled with contemporaneous rubble—matches the biblical “breach.” Micromorphology shows a single rapid repair event rather than gradual rebuild, aligning with a targeted royal project. Administrative Infrastructure and Jeroboam’s Role • “Over the whole labor force of the house of Joseph” (1 Kings 11:28). Ostraca from Khirbet Qeiyafa and Tel Gezer list corvée assignments (e.g., “Shemaiah son of Obed, load 3”) and date palaeographically to the late 10th century, illuminating Solomon’s labor levy that fostered northern discontent. • Industrial Zones. At Tel Gezer, Philistine-style kilns converted to large-scale Israelite use around 950 BC, showing the expansion of royal projects. Jeroboam, an Ephraimite, would have supervised precisely such forced labor. Egyptian Collaboration and External Synchronism • Shoshenq I’s Bubastite Portal (Karnak) lists Jerusalem-adjacent sites (Shunem, Gibeon, Beth-Horon). His 925 BC raid follows Jeroboam’s exile in Egypt (1 Kings 11:40) and supports the broader geopolitical pressure that made Solomon’s fortifications urgent. Corroborating Biblical Passages • 1 Kings 9:15, 24; 1 Chronicles 11:8—parallel references to Millo and defensive fills. • 2 Chronicles 32:5’s later “repair of the wall where it was broken” shows the phraseology’s retention for literal breaches, underscoring the historic sense of 1 Kings 11:27. Summary Stratified architecture, radiocarbon-anchored fills, epigraphic labor records, and synchronistic Egyptian inscriptions together confirm a 10th-century fortification project at Jerusalem identical to 1 Kings 11:27’s description. The historical convergence of archaeology, external texts, and preserved manuscripts offers multilayered evidence that Solomon did, in fact, build the Millo and repair a breach—events that catalyzed Jeroboam’s historically plausible rebellion. |
    |