l-bow

Finkelstein thinks King David was a cheiftain over a small territory. What do you think?

funinspace

Nothing outside the Bible, textual or archeological, suggests otherwise. So I would say it's a safe assumption. There are no extant texts that speak of his or Solomon's reign. I think the most significant artifact is a rolling stamp (I forget proper name) that they believe is from time of the United Kingdom. The Hebrew Bible (HB) pretty much claims Solomon was the wisest king around, and a bunch of the other kings came to him for advice. Yet it is only within the Bible we hear of him. Hyperbole? I would think so. No evidence of a super duper temple as describe in the HB. I would guess that they were there, but the HB claims are wildly exagerated. It's the most logical estimate.

Asha'man

Finkelstein's evidence seems pretty convincing to me. At the time David (and Solomon) was supposed to be ruling a large unified kingdom, there is clear archeological evidence that Israel and Judah were not at all unified.

By looking at the different levels of literacy, economic wealth, large public buildings, etc, it seems clear that two different economies and governments were active at the time. The northern kingdom of Israel was significantly more developed than the sothern kingdom of Judah.

The wealth of Solomon also seems to have vanished into thin air, even though other building projects before and after have been found.

Seems alot like a fish tale of past wealth and power, written to motivate and justify some questionable activity.