22 NADAV NA’AMAN introducing the Exodus narrative to the elite of his kingdom. Another important issue is the date of the description of the United Monarchy, which was invoked to glorify the common past of the inhabitants of Israel and Judah. * * * In a recently published article I suggested that the name “Israel” appears for the first time in the pre-Deuteronomistic story cycles of Saul, David and Solomon. Since the territory ascribed to the three kings in these early works was much larger than that of the Kingdom of Judah, that designation did not fit the outlines of the narratives, whereas the name “Israel” was a more appropriate label for the territory in which they operated and was therefore preferred by the authors 50. Later, the story cycles of the early Israelite kings formed the nucleus of the comprehensive historical work penned by the Deuteronomist. It was he who introduced the ethnic-religious connotation of the name “Israel”, thereby creating a glorious unified past for the devotees of YHWH in the realms of Israel and Judah. If this theory is correct, the adoption of the designation “ I s r a e l ” took place in stages: initially as an ideological convenience, but ultimately as a name with a strong ethnic-religious connotation. Following the downfall of the Kingdom of Judah and its annexation by the Babylonians, its northern districts were incorporated into a new province whose centre was at Mizpah. This is significant, as the elites of the two provinces of Samerina and Yehud must have competed over the heritage of Israel. The elite of Samerina no doubt claimed that, as the descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel, they were the genuine Israelites and should therefore be in charge of its heritage — while the leaders of Yehud laid the same claim, citing the heritage of the late Judahite monarchy. Retaining Bethel — the ancestral major cult centre of Israel — as the cult centre of the new province would have strengthened the Judean claim 51. The ideological dispute over the NA’AMAN, “Saul”, 342-348. 50 T. VEIJOLA, Verheissung in der Krise. Studien zur Literatur und 51