Heimdall Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Did David and Solomon really exist? In Jewish Sacred Literature that was later included in the Old Testament of the Christians, we are introduced to King David of the United Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and his successor and son, King Solomon. For millennia these individuals have been accepted as historical figures of great import, yet more and more their actual existence (at least as portrayed) is being questioned. We can name all of the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, we have monuments that they had created, documents of their actions, treaties they signed, mention of them by other nations and their tombs (sometimes their corpses too). We know the names of the Kings of Persia (the King of Kings), as with the Egyptians we have the monuments, documents, etc. We can repeat this with every ancient state in that area, even small city states such as Ugarit and Tyre, but when it comes to the illustrious King David and his even more venerated son Solomon, not a single shred of evidence. Not one monument, not one egotistical carving declaring that either King defeated an enemy or dedicated something to YHWH, not one document (Israelite, Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite or other nation) mentions either King. Even Hiram of Tyre, supposedly a good buddy of Solomon, never mentions ol’ Sol at all. When it comes to evidence of either King, as the saying goes, the silence is deafening! It’s almost as if they never existed! Christians scurry around attempting to prove the existence of these individuals with such things as the Bytdwd inscription and the Dawat inscription of Egypt. There are several problems with the authenticity of the Bytdwd inscription, that I will not address here, that tend to be epigraphist and translation problems and then there is the problem that the last letter before a break is continued down the side of the break, indicative of a forgery. The last I heard on that was that it was being investigated. The problem with the Dawat inscription is that even creative translation can not make the inscription h(y)dbtdwt read as the heights of David as the Christians would want it to. Christians love to state that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, a rather ridiculous saying at best. Actually lack of evidence is nearly always lack of existence, especially after an exhaustive search for evidence of existence. The very existence of the United Kingdom now seems to be on very shaky ground also. All archaeological and contemporary historical evidence shows the state of Israel came into being around the early 9th century BCE followed by the formation of the state of Judah in the mid 8th century BCE. There is mention anywhere (except in the Bible) of Kingdom of Israel, be it an independent state or part of a United Kingdom, prior to the 9th century BCE. Many Christians will wildly wave their hands at this and start babbling about the Merneptah Stele. There are two scholarly debates going on about this stela. The first concerns whether or not Merneptah actually campaigned in Canaan; the existence of a stela by his predecessor Ramesses II, about the Battle of Qadesh, indicates firm control of the Levant. This calls into question why Merneptah would have to campaign there. The second debate surrounds “Israel”. As the stela mentions just one line about Israel it is difficult for scholars to draw any information at all about Israel. The stela does point out that Israel, at this stage, refers to a people since a determinative for "country" is absent regarding Israel (whereas the other areas had a determinative for "country" applied to them). There is the thought also that at the time of Merneptah, the “Israelites” would still be wandering in the desert, not yet entering the “Promised Land”. To summarize, there is a singular lack of evidence, archaeological and historical for David, Solomon or the United Kingdom. A lack that is highlighted by the myriad of evidence available for kings and nations that were supposedly less famous and the myriad of evidence for the individuals of the “king lists” of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Tyre, etc and for the very nations and city states that they ruled. As with nations today, these various states of the ancient world maintained a diplomatic service that communicated with their counterparts of other nations. The dry climate of Egypt preserved the archives of the Egyptian diplomatic corps and the use of clay as a medium for inscription (baked afterwards into stone-like consistency) preserved the archives of the other ancient nations. In none of the archives excavated in all of the ancient sites, not one missive to or from David or Solomon, men that supposedly controlled an empire to rival that of their western, southern, and eastern neighbors, nor was there any addressed to (nor from) any ruler of Israel until the 9th century BCE. There is a faint possibility that the OT is glamorizing and enhancing the legend of a “Robber Baron” of a small hill country city state (possibly centered on Jerusalem), just as the Robin Hood legend of the Danelaw glamorized a robber of ancient England. Solomon seems to actually have been an Assyrian King. King Shalmaneser V (the name actually means Solomon) who sacked Samaria and sent the Israelites into captivity. Shalmaneser V is known as a great warrior and a very wise king. Evidentially the post-exilic priests of YHWH borrowed this Assyrian king as their model for the biblical Solomon. Until there is more than mere coincidental evidence of either David, Solomon or the United Kingdom, they must remain denizens of the Jewish post-exilic mythology. - Heimdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnosis of Disbelief Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Cool stuff, Heimdall! I really love your posts! I'm not nearly as well versed in archaelogical matters as you are, but the more I read about them with regards to the Middle East, the more it seems as if the ancient Israelites were simply exaggerating their history to make themselves sound more important to their neighbors and/or conquerors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Did David and Solomon really exist? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Maybe David and Solomon didn't exist, but I know that the United Kingdom did. That's where they used to drive on the left side of the road... Great post, Heimdall!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 David must have existed! I have the rock that he used in the sling to kill Goliath! I found it in my garden, and the Holy Spock told me it was the one, so I know for sure. Since I have the rock, Davy must have existed. End of story! --- And I did have salmon for lunch the other day... Oh... sorry.. you talked about Solomon. btw, is that the same guy as Salmon Rushdie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 David must have existed! I have the rock that he used in the sling to kill Goliath! Isn't Goliath one of those lucky biblical characters who got to die twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Isn't Goliath one of those lucky biblical characters who got to die twice? Maybe because he was so big, it took twice as many scriptures to kill the mythological monster... It's just as good as the Iliad! (Sorry, I take that back, the Iliad is a better mythology than the Bible.) Let's say it's just as unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyFeline Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Cool stuff, Heimdall! I really love your posts! I'm not nearly as well versed in archaelogical matters as you are, but the more I read about them with regards to the Middle East, the more it seems as if the ancient Israelites were simply exaggerating their history to make themselves sound more important to their neighbors and/or conquerors. Hmm... Just like a cat that's trying to avoid a fight or scare off a predator... puffing itself up to make itself look bigger, fiercer, and more dangerous than it really is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirrti Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 The more I read about them with regards to the Middle East, the more it seems as if the ancient Israelites were simply exaggerating their history to make themselves sound more important to their neighbors and/or conquerors. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, great history lesson! If only more people (especially the so-called "Discovery Channel") exposed history on a more critical basis than just spouting what most people "believe", even without more sufficient evidence. Most societies, including our own, exaggerate their history and their importance in the world. Remember in school when it was drilled into our heads that Christopher Columbus "discovered" America, even though the Americas had a population that rivaled Europe? Damage is done, however, when people start insisting on making their exaggerations or myths into historical facts and stop exploring their origins to maintain society's ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero of Hyrule Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Remember in school when it was drilled into our heads that Christopher Columbus "discovered" America, even though the Americas had a population that rivaled Europe? Everybody knows that people who don't use tablecloths don't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nirrti Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Everybody knows that people who don't use tablecloths don't count. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ....Nor do people who don't carry guns, apparantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Thanks, Heimdall. Another great post. You really need to author a book, man. I'll be the first to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 I second that, and I buy the second copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 the Holy Spock told me<{POST_SNAPBACK}> That seems highly illogical, captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 H: Fundie returned this URL Link Its not a refutation of your thoughts by any means, I'm just not sure how to gently not use the 100 pound hammer on him.. kL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdall Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 The Bible says that King Shishak invaded Israel in the fifth year of the reign of Solomon's son, Rehoboam.3 The biblical timeframe would place Solomon's death at 930 B.C., putting Shishak's invasion at 925 B.C., exactly within the range of radiocarbon dates (940-900 B.C.) for the destruction of Tel Rehov. Well, as you see above, the person “Fundie” is trying to tie Solomon to a historical event. An event that actually happened some time in the past.. While it is true that Pharaoh Shoshenq I did embark on a campaign in Palestine, that does not lend any credence to the existence of Solomon. No more than the existence of mid-twentieth century small-town American lends any credence to the existence of Clark Kent/Superman! Attempting to tie Shosheng campaign to the reign of Rehoboam is ludicrous to the nth degree. We have no more evidence for the existence of Rehoboam than we have for David or Solomon. In the record on the southern wall of the temple of Amun, that Fundie mentioned, Shosheng makes no mention of a king by the name of Rehoboam, in fact he makes no mention of any kings, only the names of towns appear on the record. As usual, Fundie is attempting that tired old Cultist ploy of “straw grasping”. Shoshenq’s campaign only proves that Shoshenq engaged in a military campaign in the Palestinian area in about the year 925 BCE, it does not prove (through lack of mention) the existence of a King Rehoboam and it especially does not prove the existence of a previous King by name of Solomon. The post-exilic scribes that put together the scripture for the new temple-state of Judea, as agreed on by the Persian King, would have been well aware of Sheshonq’s foray into Palestine, through the histories of their own people and that of the Persians and Babylonians. Most believable fiction is set against a historical background (look at the NT, it has fooled people for 1900 years), so in giving the Jews a religious history, they would have set everything in a historical context. Fundie forgets one thing, a good historian or archaeologist does not assume anything, it must all be supported by some framework of evidence. David, Solomon, nor even Rehoboam lack that framework of evidence. - Heimdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 And how can fundi-archeologists use C14 method, when that has been one of the hard-ass-arguments that it can't be used? They've used it to "date" other religious objects, and always they come up with an almost exact date (which hints cooked data), but if someone use it to date anything the Bible doesn't support, then "... the method is unreliabled... " is the response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 H: Fundie returned this URL Link Its not a refutation of your thoughts by any means, I'm just not sure how to gently not use the 100 pound hammer on him.. kL Here are some refutation comments posted in Science magazine: "The recent interpretation by Bruins et al. (1) of new conventional and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon measurements from Tel Rehov, northern Israel, ignores previously published samples—from the same site, the same strata, and in some cases even the same loci—that have been carried out at the Weizmann Institute and the University of Arizona laboratories by conventional and AMS techniques and that provide younger dates (2). The study also ignores readings from other sites contemporaneous with Tel Rehov, such as Dor, Tel Hadar, and Megiddo, that also provide younger dates to the same archaeological horizons (3, 4). Analysis of the full collection of data contradicts the interpretation by Bruins et al. and supports the Low Chronology system for the Iron IIA strata in the Levant (4). This analysis uses the calibration curve to translate the historical hypotheses to uncalibrated dates and, notwithstanding the wiggles in the curve, to use the measured (uncalibrated) data more conclusively, with smaller uncertainties. The claim by Bruins et al. (1) that they chose only high-quality samples is disputable. Three of the eleven sample locations constitute refuse pits, refuse deposits, and a street surface that may well have been contaminated with old material. This is especially true for Tel Rehov, where Strata VI to IV yielded similar pottery assemblages, which implies that contamination would be difficult to identify. The exact provenance of three more sample locations has not been provided. All in all, only 14 of the 32 new samples from Tel Rehov can be considered highly reliable. In a delicate attempt to determine differences of 70 years in the Iron Age, only absolutely safe samples—that is, material from floors found under a thick accumulation of destruction debris—should be submitted to 14C tests. The statement by Bruins et al. that the late 10th century B.C.E. campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I is the only possible explanation for the destruction of Rehov V is also contestable. First, it is notclearwhetherapharaoh who wished to reestablish Egyptian control over Palestine would destroy the cities he conquered— cities that were essential for administrating and economically exploiting the country (5). A victory stele of Shoshenq I was found at Megiddo, and it is questionable whether such a monument would have been erected in a deserted ruin. Second, clashes between the expanding kingdoms of northern Israel and Aram Damascus were equally good candidates for this destruction layer. Hostilities between Israel and Damascus dating to before the mid–9th century B.C.E. are recorded in the opening lines of the Aramaic stele-fragment found at Tel Dan in northern Israel (6)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 trashy, between H's commentary and your sources I can post a refutation. Do you have a URL for the materials so I may use partials in quote? Thanks gents, appreciated! kL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Ok, I'm drunk right now so I'm much too lazy to read through the opening post. But... I seam to recall Finkelstein had recovered artifacts suggesting real David and Solomon characters (though perhaps the info in the opening post is more recent). However, they were minor local chiefs, not the majestic kings of the Bible. ...end drunken babling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdall Posted October 25, 2005 Author Share Posted October 25, 2005 I seam to recall Finkelstein had recovered artifacts suggesting real David and Solomon characters I didn't credit Finklestein, but here is what I said about that: "There is a faint possibility that the OT is glamorizing and enhancing the legend of a “Robber Baron” of a small hill country city state (possibly centered on Jerusalem), just as the Robin Hood legend of the Danelaw glamorized a robber of ancient England. Solomon seems to actually have been an Assyrian King. King Shalmaneser V (the name actually means Solomon) who sacked Samaria and sent the Israelites into captivity. Shalmaneser V is known as a great warrior and a very wise king. Evidentially the post-exilic priests of YHWH borrowed this Assyrian king as their model for the biblical Solomon." - Heimdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Funny you mention Robin Hood as I was going to mention King Arthur. Quite possible the Hebrews had a couple of heros who over the years became great kings with powerful and influential kingdoms instead of band of troops with a few tents during the retelling of thier deeds around the shepherds campfires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 trashy, between H's commentary and your sources I can post a refutation. Do you have a URL for the materials so I may use partials in quote? Thanks gents, appreciated! kL Science mag link requires a PITA subscription process, but free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts