Toto

There is no extrabiblical evidence of Solomon or his temple.

JEST2ASK

Perhaps but could not the embellishments also be looked at from a different view that of one wishing to paint a picture of over-indulgent royal excess leading to the callous dis-regard of the general populace and of the cultural foundations of the masses.

1-Kings 12 (When Solomon died Rehoboam his regined in his place)
(10) Then the young men who had grown up with him spoke to him "Thus you should speak to this people, who have spoken to you saying Your father made our yoke heavy, but you make it lighter on us ... ... Thus you should say to them "My little finger shall thicker thanmy father's wrist!'

Chapters 11 - 12 tells of how the United Kingdom was split ... reading between the lines IMO it is easy to see the human basis for the conflict and how as you pointed out there were in fact bigger, richer more powerful nations in the area .... I think biblical propaganda is term greatly under-used.:devil1: I think it is funny that modern believers don't put the claims in perspective and look beyond the theology.

Boro Nut

Bill Gates will never be as rich a King Solomon Smines. Gates can only afford one wife. Smines had loads of wives, and hundreds of porcupines.

Boro Nut

Roger Pearse

Antigonus One-Eyed, one of Alexander's generals, led his troops on horseback at the battle of Ipsus at the age of 81.

Human life expectancy has not changed since antiquity, as I understand it. What has changed is the average life expectancy. The vast numbers of baby-boomers living into their 60's in good health is a novelty and a problem for social planners and insurance companies.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gregor

spam

You may be thinking of Finkelstein's latest: David and Solomon

David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk)

[They keep writing more books, but no one is inventing more time]

Asha'man

Your memory is incorrect.

TBU discusses the fact that a kingdom supposedly as rich as Solomon's would almost certainly have left evidence of it's existence, but didn't. There is a ruin that was once assumed to be from Solomon's kingdom, but the dates didn't match up, and it's more probably a horse stable for the chariot army of King Omri.

They also observe that the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah developed at very different rates, indicating that they were probably never under a unified (and wealthy) government. The conclusion is that Solomon and David's unified and wealthy kingdom is most likely a myth.

On the other hand, there is a single archeological artifact that might (it's disputed) contain the phrase "house of David'. That would indicate that there may have once been a ruler named David, but nothing more. Finkelstein and Silberman appear to have concluded that David might have existed as a 'hilltop chieftan,' but probably not anything more than that.

Finkelstein and Silberman have published a second book on the topic of David's kingdom, but I haven 't read it yet.

spamandham

Simply because the story about Solomon being the wisest and richest man to ever live doesn't pass the BSometer, doesn't mean Solomon never existed.

But I certainly don't doubt my memory may be mixed up. It's been quite a while since I read the book. Perhaps it was David who was discussed with solid evidence, not Solomon. I guess it's time to re-read it, or to get hold of the second book you mentioned.

bannedOTW

You'd also have to factor in other aspects that cannot be easily quantified in terms of value, such as Solomon had an absolute political power. Bill Gates, as I'm sure he is painfully aware, is subject to the authority of the government and its courts.

gnosis92

What you say is true, but I do not accept xian claims merely b/c the bible says so.

I don't deny the pharoahs of Egypt, the Emperors of Rome, and the Moguls of Islam and Emperors of China, Japan, and Aztecs and Incas were rich btw.

rob117

The second book, David and Solomon, devotes an appendix to the evidence that suggests they both did exist, even if they were only hilltop chieftains. The main evidence is the Dan stele, which does mention a House of David; suggesting a placename such as "Beth-Dod" both ignores the literary evidence (later traditions like the biblical story, although usually greatly modified and exaggerated, are often based in historical reality) and requires the recognition of a hitherto unknown place named after a hitherto unknown deity. The most parsimonious explanation in this case is "House of David," as we have traditions attesting to that figure, and surviving texts that mention the dynasty and are generally agreed to date from the latter part of it (the Deuteronomistic history and the prophetic books).