pharoah

Is there any archeological or extra-biblical support for the existence of Solomon's temple?

Sarpedon

No archaeological evidence that I know of. But its hard to do archaeological digs on the Temple Mount, you know?

pharoah

I assume that the historical existence of the post-exilic temple and Herod's temple are not in question. If my assumption is correct, is it right to infer that both of these temples were built in the same spot as the Temple Mount, and that if there was a Solomon's temple it would have been at that same locale?

HelmetWB

There is a so-called ‘minimalist’ school of thought that treats all of Israel’s ‘Golden Age’ and much that is not so golden as myth. Among the myths are Solomon’s empire and perhaps Solomon’s existence. Obviously if Solomon didn’t exist, the First Temple probably didn’t exist, at least as it is presented in the Bible.

I first ran into these theories in a Harper’s magazine article in 2002. See link:
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Refe..._(Harpers).htm

I’ve also read ‘The Bible Unearthed’ by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, an archaeological survey of the ‘Holy Land,’ which in controversial fashion calls into question all of the so-called Golden Age.

A pretty hard edged (unforgiving) view of the Hebrew Bible as myth can also be found in Chapter 3 of Freke and Gandy’s ‘The Laughing Jesus.' The book is a ringing endorsement of Gnosticism; which didn’t catch me by surprise since I read their first book, “The Jesus Mysteries.� ‘The Laughing Jesus’ is a continuation of previously made arguments. But what interested me was this new book’s frontal attack on the ‘sacred’ texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Concerning Judaism, the authors make an interesting (if not exactly a slam-dunk) case that the Jewish Bible was written in its entirety under the auspices of Judas Maccabeus soon after 164 BCE when the temple in Jerusalem was rededicated. Freke and Gandy think that the Maccabees’ Hashmonean dynasty needed a nationalistic justification for their brutal expansion and found it by establishing a “Jewish Fantasy Factory� that turned out very rapidly a made-up glorious history for the Jewish people. They also think that the Jews learned their monotheism from the Greeks and their literacy from the Greeks not the other way around but invented a history that reversed the truth by creating a truly ancient tradition for the Jews. Obviously every sane (meaning nonreligious) person thinks that the story of Moses is a myth, but Freke and Gandy call King David a myth, and Solomon a myth, and even the return after the Babylonian exile a myth. At least some of their evidence is rather compelling because it includes archeological evidence. This evidence appears to invalidate any sort of a great Jewish kingdom as presented in Kings 1 and Kings 2. To paraphrase, as one Israeli source pointed out: If King David existed then he must have ‘ruled’ over a small number of hill-country villages. Hardly the great ‘kingdom’ presented in the Bible. Freke and Gandy are also not ‘kind’ to Christianity or Islam. They don’t think that Jesus ever existed ‘as a man’ and they think that Mohammad was a murdering thug.

Finally I posted a version of the following earlier at the II forum:

Within the Department of Art & Archaeology, School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London appears to be a stronghold of the so-called ‘minimalist’ camp in the raging Bible-as-history (or not) controversy. The SOAS website explains it all:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religi.../book1/pt1.htm

There are around 600 single-space typewritten pages of material at this website, divided into 6 ‘books.’

The argument present is as follows:

Jerusalem, it seems, was never more than a regional center (achieving a population of around 25,000) before the notorious 6th century exile. After the Babylonians sent the city’s educated upper classes into exile the place fell into disrepair. However, when Persia, under Cyrus the Great, conquered the region it was repopulated. But Cyrus did not return the people home that were originally exiled (as the bible claims). Instead, as was then the usual practice of conquerors, new people were moved into the area. They were moved in against their will, but it paid to cooperate. Also as custom dictated, they were encouraged to worship the local gods. Thus, Jehovah got a whole new group of worshipers, from Persia. But these ‘new’ Jews brought along Zoroastrian beliefs and practices; and thus was born the beginnings of Judaism as we know it! The website stresses the point that this marked the beginnings of Judaism in all ways, including monotheism. The indigenous population of this area before the exile were the same in their religious beliefs (polytheistic), and ethnicity as everyone else. Oh, by the way, the Wailing Wall was not part of Solomon’s Temple, instead, it was part of a temple dedicated to the Roman emperor Hadrian, which was built after the Romans’ destroyed the second temple. This temple was actually the only temple, since there never was a first temple. Solomon’s temple was a myth, as was King David, as was King Solomon. The bible was written in two periods. The first was started under Persian influence (in the 5th century BCE) and the 2nd was under Ptolemaic Greek influence, from the third to the first centuries BCE.

My opinion of all this is not too far removed from the leading so-called minimalists like Thomas L. Thompson (‘The Mythic Past’) and Philip R. Davies (‘In Search of Ancient Israel) which as I understand it isn’t that a more traditional viewpoint has been entirely disproven but that it is increasingly unlikely due to the lack of supporting evidence. I am reminded that King Arthur was thought at one time to have been a ‘real’ king with an impressive kingdom, thus is it too far out of line to think that the same mistake may also apply in the cases of David and Solomon?

Also see;
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.htm

Anat

One of the criticisms against the Hasmoneans was that they had no right to the crown because they weren't of the Davidian line. If they were in the job of rewriting history, why did they write a version where so much is dedicated to David and his offspring, including future hopes?

andrewcriddle

There is a discussion Here about whether or not an Ostracon found at Arad refers to the pre-exilic Jerusalem temple.

Andrew Criddle

Anat

I'd take it at best as evidence for some kind of temple for YHWH, somewhere.