Ish

Many here might say that King Solomon of the Bible did not exist, following their favorite Biblical Minimalist. I believe that The Bible Unearthed even subscribes to Solomon's non-existence, or at least his non-importance (I know, I need to read the book...).

Kenneth A. Kitchen, professor emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, England, has written an article entitled "How We Know When Solomon Ruled" for Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) which goes into interesting detail on dating the reign of Solomon. (BAR is not an evangelical quarterly.)

I found this article fascinating and illuminating. In it, Kitchen eloquently resolves supposed discrepancies between ancient Assyrian, Egyptian, and Biblical records.

Hopefully, Biblical Minimalists will stand up and take note of the convincing physical evidence Kitchen presents.

Also, for those interested in Masada, BAR has an intriguing article on the "Roman Ramp" called "It's a Natural", by Dan Gill. Seems as if the Romans didn't really build much of a ramp after all.

Happy Reading!
Ish

[ August 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ish ]

Vorkosigan

Hmmm.....the article merely forms a window of time around Solomon in which Solomon could have existed, and then claims that he did. But no direct evidence of Solomon is listed in that article -- other than the Torah -- so the article's conclusion is rather unwarranted.

The story of Solomon cannot have been fiction dreamed up in the early Hellenistic period (300 B.C.), as some Biblical minimalists claim. At that late date there were no resources upon which to base such "dreams," especially with such accuracy as we find from all these sources. Solomon's dates are secure.

Actually, there may be a minimalist out there claiming Solomon is a post-exilic invention, but most of the books I've read see his reign as vastly inflated by later writers, rather than simply non-existent.

In short, a highly limited article that did not do what it set out to do.

Michael

sentinel00

For the record:

The Bible Unearthed doesn't "subscribe to Solomon's non-existence." It states that the evidence is clear that both David and Solomon did exist... but that what the Bible ascribes to them isn't necissarily true. The book lays down a case that most or all of the sites attributed to Solomon as builder are not, and can't be. The book also lays down a case that during David's and Solomon's time, there was not a united Judah/Isreal.

Ish

How is his conclusion unwarranted?

He set up a relatively precise (historically speaking) "window of time" for Solomon's reign based on Assyrian and Egyptian records (in physical existence today) and upon "geo-political" conditions that would not have been present at any other time than the 12th to 10th centuries. I think the following conclusion is therefore quite warranted:

You do realize that there is an Assyrian obelisk with an actual picture of the Biblical King Jehu on it? This Biblical king obviously existed and others are also attested (though not strictly by name). So, magically, somewhere around Solomon the Biblical Kings suddenly become fictional? I find this absurd. They were no more fictional than the kings on the Assyrian and Babylonian King lists.

Since he is a scholar in this particular field, I'm sure that he is quite aware of the positions held by Biblical Minimalists (he does say some after all).

I think that many of these see Solomon's reign as "inflated" for the very reasons that Kitchen mentions: "Such a clearly delimited mini-empire cannot be compared, as some scholars have mistakenly done, to the vast realms later held by Assyria, Babylon or Persia."

That was a rather disingenuous review of an excellent and informative arcticle there, Michael.

Ish

Ish

Thanks for the correction, Sentinel.

Kitchen does seem to disagree that there was no "united monarchy" though.

Ish

sentinel00

Ish,

The Bible Unearthed spends most of it's time laying down the argument against a united monarchy... and does so with alot of evidence. It was most convincing, and I recommend the reading. If I had more time, I would read more... from both sides. Unfortunately, I cannot follow my interests and put food on the table.

sailor74

King Solomon is an allegory, like the rest of the bible stories, noahs ark, jonah in a whale etc.

King Solomon was the builder of the temple,
The temple built without any tools. The human brain.

as the solar plexus(sun) energy rises through the seven seals(chakras) on the spine it rises to the brain, and enters the twelve cranial nerves (gates), of the brain.

sol= sun
om= movement of energy as in meditation through the seven seals.
on= the ancient city of the sun near memphis egypt.

SOLOMON= the sun energy which creates the holy temple. the brain. or golgotha where jesus (sun ) gave sermons on the mount. (brain)

danny

Ish

I understand completely and wish I had much more time too. Hopefully I'll get around to reading The Bible Unearthed. I'm very curious to see its arguments and evidence for myself. It does sound very interesting, and my skimming through the book obviously did not do it justice.

Ish

Ish

You are joking, right?

If not, I have to say your Hebrew is rather rusty.

Ish

sailor74

No im not kidding ish.
these are the facts.
Quit reading the bible literally, you will never understand it.


danny