Ulrich

This is quite true with respect to the characters in the New Testament. The problem becomes when we look for those Old Testament 'kings' like David and Solomon. We would expect to find similar archealogical evidence to what we have for Herod, however, that evidence simply is not there.

Minimalist

I don't want a tomb....or even an inscription. I'd be happy to settle for any trace of the glorious city from which these two goat herders were supposed to have run their "empire."

Even a nice garbage midden full of 10th century debris would be an indication but....guess what? We don't have that, either.

JayW

The evidence that history uses to verify kings of other nations are a lot less than you expect from Bible characters. Most of the Egyptian kings that are accepted on the same basis as those in the bible are rejected. They come from only one source. It was mentioned earlier about the scant information about David. The fact that a Syrian king mentioned a dynasty of King David doesn't seem to satisfy some people. It doesn't prove a glorius city, but it does prove there was a man named Davd that was once King of Israel,and makes Israel more than nomadic shepards. What do you want as evidence? How about the stables in Megiddo dated to the time of Solomon?
Fortunately for critics there may never be very much evidence to prove the early kngdom. The Christians, Jews and Muslims refuse to allow any digging around the Temple. Many of the Kings of Israel after the divided kingdom have been mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions. The Assyrians were not invading Canaan during the reigns of David and Solomon, and the other nations around Israel were not record keepers,especially the Philistines.

yalla

Well that is being a little too easily satisfied with respect to David and Tel Dan.
There are several problems that intervene between the scanty info and the positive assertions you derive from such.
For starters the word 'king' is not on the inscription, there is only one letter which may refer to 'king' but also may not.
Also the person referred to in the inscription, if it is a person, is not directly linked to Jerusalem or Judah which would be expected of a reference to David.
The first part of the description, byt, could refer to a 'house' and thus reflect a patronate of the town or it could be 'temple', as the joining with the name suggests.
The second part of the description dwd could refer to "David" [I]but[/I
could also be a divine title, "The Beloved", as it appears to function in the Mesha Stele.
Finally, to presume that the inscription refers to a 'dynasty' or 'house', as in the royal house of Stuart in the English sense, is not warranted, It is, in other examples in the bible, used of persons who who were not heads of 'houses' ie royalty but instead leaders in a patronate sense.
That's a fair gap in [hopeful] interpretation.
I got the above information mainly from T.Thompson "The Mythic Past".

Joan of Bark

"Where is CSI:Jerusalem when we need it?

Acetylhexene

The head of John as a child?!

I wish these people would fail at breathing as badly as they fail at reality.