Larsguy47

Actually I'm happy to oblige but now I don't know specifically what you want to comment on. So please be specific. I know they focus on Solomon and David but also cover a lot more of the history.

Generally, I'm a big fan of Finkelstein because he's not trying to make the Bible work. He goes a bit too ballistic I think but at least he presents good arguments. For instance, he seems well founded that the Philistine pottery Period must extend "well into the 10th century BC." Because he uses the 763BCE misdated eclipse which makes David's rule 54 years too early, there is a conflict since David is dated from 1010-970BCE. So basically the Philistine pottery period doesn't even end before David's rule does. So Finkelstein believes he was invented. Of course, if he gets moved down to where he was originally historically, down to 950-910BCE, then he fits the archaeology just fine. Which means, therefore that Finkelstein's archaeological position is likely quite sound.

I also like Finkelstein because he has compared Gezer, Meggido and Hazor, all with the same type 6-chambered gates believed to be built by Solomon. He also links the pottery level for these gates with the palace level and the pottery to the same huge palaces found at Jezreel and City IV Rehov. So it's simple then to just quote him when liniking City IV destructive level which RC14 dates to c. 874-867BCE with Shishak's destruction of those other cities. Actually, there's little choice in that matter. Now they do get confused by this late dating and have suggested that it wasn't Shishak that actually destroyed these cities because the dating is way too late. But again, Finkelstein is too practical! Where other archaeologists have tried to make Shishak other than Sheshonq but maybe Rameses, Finkelstein sees far too many connections with the Bible event and simply deals with this by claiming the Jews simply moved events around in later times to make Solomon more glorious. But in fact, the 871BCE dating for Shishak is right on the bottom for the original chronology. So I win.

I do criticize Finkelstein, though, for not at least considering suggested readings of the Bible, such as the expressed idea that Shishak actually invaded during the time of Solomon while Rehoboam and Solomon were co-rulers. He didn't understand that as a possibility and thus tries to give Shishak some reason for his focus in the northern cities if Rehoboam was just ruling Judah at the time. In his words, there is "no geopolitical" reason for him to attack those cities if Rehoboam wasn't king over that region. But, of course, he was, so all those arguments and theories about how Shishak was going to develop this area, which he believes in 925 BCE basically was still rural, are completely dismissible. So changing a few details has a huge impact on this period of Finkelstein. So for this period his coparisons are not truly reflective of the Bible's dating or events, thus Finkelstein offers no real threat for ths period.

He is quite formidble, however, for Jericho and the early Periods of the Judges where virtually nothing is found of the Jews and what they were doing. So I can see why some would be impressed with his position. But again in this area, he doesn't bother to link the timing for the fall of Jericho in the LBIIA Period with the timing of the Exodus. In fact, he believes the Exodus happened later around the time of Rameses II, but that is far too late to factor in the 480 years and still use conventional dating from Omride through Ahab and down to the Neo-Babylonian Period, which is where his "Biblical" credibilty drops.

In the end, he strays from the Bible so often he simply loses the more hard core strict Biblicalists who have more refined takes on the Bible events and the chronology. Plus since he is still using the outdated timeline and most of his arguments are about TIMING not the actual events (i.e. Solomon's palaces are not said to never have been built, just much later than the timeline says it was), then he would end up agreeing with the revised timeline. So except for the missing evidence of the Jews during the time of the Judges and their conquering Canaan, Finkelstein and Silberman seem to be fairly responsible archaeologists, and importantly not Biblically biased, so they don't water down the results even though they get some Biblical historical details wrong (i.e. no 6-year co-rulership for Solomon/Rehoboam; presuming Solomon built a lot of things when the Bible just says he built at Gezer, Hazor, Megiddo and Jerusalem, etc.)

So as far as critical Biblical archaeology goes, as much of a fuss as they make, they are sort of lightweights as far as challenging anything, their greatest weakness being the out of date timeline used for their comparisons.

Hope that gives you an overview.

Cheers.

Larsguy:wave:

RED DAVE

Just a quicky.

There is absolutely no reason to assume a co-regency between Solomon and Rehoboam.

I challenge you to find one single document that supports this assetion.

RED DAVE

Sven

No one asked you. I wanted some facts from someone who knows what he's talking about (Hex). It would greatly help if you would not interfere with your rubbish, childish revisionist history when adults are speaking.

And I did not even ask for some thing I could "comment on".

Clivedurdle

Funny, I thought Bible Unearthed says Exodus is myth...

And where is this mini Solomon from? What is your definition of the Bible?

Larsguy47

The Bible itself, of course:

1) Both Rehoboam and Jeroboam were given divine notice that they would become kings of 2 and 10 tribes. In the Bible, their reigns are parallel. But there was a gap in time from the time Jeroboam actually began to reign. He was not to begin reigning until Solomon died. Solomon tried to kill him so he ran down to Egypt. Did Rehoboam, though, begin to reign as co-ruler?

2) 2 Chronicles 12:1 says: "1 And it came about that, as soon as the kingship of Re·ho·bo´am was firmly established and as soon as he was strong, he left the law of Jehovah, and also all Israel with him."

This "kingship" can be either a co-rulership or sole rulership. However, how is it that Rehoboam's error is influencing "all Israel"? If he were still over all 12 tribes, that would explain everything. Shishak's invasion was 5 years into the kingship of Rehoboam. By then Jeroboam would have been king and the 10 tribes would have nothing to do with Rehoboam, so how is it that he would be able to influence the ten tribes?

3) “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘YOU, for your part, have left me, and I, too, for my part, have left YOU to the hand of Shi´shak.’” 6 At that the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said: “Jehovah is righteous.”

Please note that the "princes of Israel" are here repenting after Shishak's invasion. But why? Shishak's inscription shows that he did attack many of the nothern kingdom cities in the region of the princes of Israel. If this were during a co-rulership when Rehoboam was still over all of them, then this becomes self-explanatory why the princes of ISRAEL are here with Rehoboam because he was still their king. Of note as well, why is only Rehoboam mentioned and not Jeroboam? Wasn't Jeroboam the king over the 10 tribes?

CONCLUSION: This must have been during a co-rulership when Rehoboam was still king over the 12 tribes and Jeroboam was still in Egypt.

CHRONOLOGY:
What is believed to be the correct chronology by me, that gives precise dates along with the redating of the Assyrian Period would date Shishak's invasion in the 5th of Rehoboam specifically in the 39th year of Solomon.

That is, Shishak's invasion now dated to 925BCE for the 5th of Solomon is based upon the alignment with the 763BCE eclipse, which is questioned as being correct since the Babylonians did not customarily begin the first month before the spring equinox. The Wikipedia states:

A better match is the naturally ocurring third month (the month of the eclipse) in the next solar eclipse in the exeligmos cycle, 54 years and 1 month later in 709BCE. Presuming that to be the case, then Shishak's invasion would be specifically down dated to the "fixed" date of 871BCE; that is, 54 years later than 925BCE (925-54=871).

But the Exodus also has a fixed date based upon relative chronology. Biblically, Christ's baptism is 483 years from the time the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem." That would be the 1st of Cyrus. Jesus was baptised in 29BCE so 483 years (69 weeks) earlier would be the Biblical date for the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. The Exodus is 19 jubilees earlier, that is 19 x 49 = 931 years. 931 plus 455 is 1386BCE. Based upon that specific, fixed date, we can fix-date the reign of Solomon as well. His 4th year is 480 years after the Exodus, meaning his 4th year falls in 906BCE and his 40-year rule from 910-870BCE.

So you can see, the corrected timeline shows the reign of Rehoboam to overlap that of Solomon with 871BCE falling in the 39th of Solomon.

Now, granted, the Bible deliberately relates this account out of chronological sequence, but the context doesn't fit the situation of the time of the divided kingsom with the princes of Israel still reporting to Rehoboam. Out of sequence references is often done in the Bible to confuse non-believing outsiders.

Believe what you wish, of couse, but that's the basis/argument for believing that Rehoboam was still over the 12 tribes at the time of Shishak's invasion and based upon corrected chronology it is specificall the 39th year of Solomon. Interesting, of course, that the overlap of Solomon's rule is at least 5 years which would be required for Rehoboam to be co-ruler.

Hope that answers your question as to where I get the co-rulership from.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Finkelstein believes Solomon is a myth when dated 1010-970BCE, or the Exodus when compared to the archaeology of the time of Rameses II. But whether or not he could have that same opinion had he the advantage of having the corrected secular timeline that dates the Exodus the 1st of Akhenaten (per Manetho) or Solomon's rule from 910-870 BCE is not covered. Since he has the wrong dates there is no reason to dismiss his claims, only qualify them as "reasonable" if those dates were accurate. But since they are not his views are irrelevant and thus ignored in this case until he comments on the specific timeline events as above (i.e. Exodus in 1386 1st of Akhenaten, Solomon's rule 54 years later from 910-870BCE).

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Oops, Sorry, I thought that was directed at me! I could have been making money instead of reexplaining everything!!! Does that mean you owe me money?

Anyway, listen, just IGNORE THIS THREAD THEN. People who are interested in alternative dating might find it interesting, otherwise, I'll let it die an unnatural death.

And by the way, I'm not that dogmatic. I believe everyone has a right to express themselves and their own personal wrong opinions. As they say, "Laughter Is The Best Medicine." :wave:

Larsguy47

Clivedurdle

I thought there was zilch evidence of two million people wandering around Sinai for forty years, no matter when this was alleged to have happened.

Unless of course the manna was such there was no waste and their shoes did not wear out because they were not actually walking on the sand...

Weltall

Which is not in any way an authoritative history book. Unless you want to argue that there was a global flood that destroyed all the civilizations of the earth, including Egypt and Chine who somehow failed to notice that their cities were underwater and kept on living as usual... or that the sun stood still for a day, that Life, the Universe and Everything were created 6000 years ago or that millions of people could live for 40 years in a desert and leave nothing behind. If you believe any of these things, kindly stop making a pretense of being scholarly. Actually, since we know you believe at least the last point, just stop now.

mens_sana

Aspects of Finkelstein's late dating are supported by David Ussishkin. The findings of both these men regarding the Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer gates are gently, but ably refuted by Baruch Halpern in his David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (or via: amazon.co.uk). Halpern teaches at Penn State and, with Finkelstein and Ussishkin, has been a long-time co-director of the Megiddo expedition. Halpern is no slouch!