Dean Anderson

I don't wish to derail my own thread, but is this book as fascinating as their earlier "The Bible Unearthed"?

Anat

I found it very fascinating. The most important aspect of it to me is how they seek to date key elements in the David and Solomon story and hypothesise the possible background for the origin of those story elements. based on geographical details in Samuel compared with archaeological finds they can define the maximum that is consistent with 10th century BCE conditions.

Black Feather

The problem is--how many hundreds or thousands of years were those stories just told orally at a campfire before someone decided to put them to written form? We really don't know how old those stories actually are.

Diogenes the Cynic

I thought so, yes. They basically match layers of the storytelling to archaeological eras and come up with a workable hypothesis as to the origin and development of the legends of Saul, David and Solomon. That's not to say that the legends as depicted in the Bible are history but they offer some plausible explanations as to how the legends got layered onto possibly real characters, or at least to polities.

My answer to the OP is that I checked everything from Saul on, but I think that Saul, David and Solomon are really only "maybes." I started there as the point where you have to stop saying definitely no rather than start saying definitely yes.

Chris Weimer

Well, we see where the camps now. This is good.

More historical (starting with Saul): Chris Weimer, Diogenes the Cynic, J. J. Ramsey

Less Historical (I assume starting post-Solomon, since Omri is definitely historical): knotted paragon, Pervy, Rick Sumner, Toto

Sorry if I didn't list you - I don't really know who you are.

Chris Weimer

I agree with Diogenes. So much depends on whether there were ever a united kingdom, what the nature of Judah-Israel before Jeroboam was, and a plausible formulation of the legends. I'd lean a little towards the probably historical for the big three.

I'm also surprised I didn't see Joshua or Aaron or some others in the list.

Dean Anderson

To be honest, I'm an in-betweener.

My opinion of David, for example, doesn't really differ significantly from yours if I understand you correctly (there was a David, but the biographic details in the Bible were added later and bear little or no resemblence to the person's actual life).

The difference is more in classification - I would class that as not being an historical David, because whilst there may well have been a ruler with that name, he is not the person described by the Bible.

Does that make me a "Historical Davidist" or a "Mythical Davidist"? It probably depends who you ask.

Dean Anderson

I tried to put people on who were reasonably spread out chronologically.

Joshua and Aaron, both being companions of Moses, both tend to fall into the same category as him. If you think Moses existed and the Exodus happened, then you probably think Joshua and Aaron existed too. If you think there was no Exodus and Moses is a mythical figure, then you probably think Joshua and Aaron are too.

Chris Weimer

I think there may be some truth in the legends in the Bible, but what is hard to say. To put it better, I don't exclude the possibility of the Bible containing authentic history buried deep in myth and legends.

Aaron is a product of embarrassment, so some might place him apart from Moses, but I would still place him unhistorical with the explanation merely as opponent groups writing different things.

As for Joshua, I wonder if the Israelis had a brilliant general named Joshua whom they merely placed several hundreds year prior. On the other hand, he's too easy to see as the archetypal hero. (Then how do you explain the chariots of iron??)

Alf

Not sure what I would vote as I have caveats with just about all the names on the list.

Adam - most certainly not historical.
Noah - most certainly not historical.
Abraham - most certainly not historical.
Joseph - most certainly not historical.

Moses - could be historical. No exodus but Moses himself might have some egyptian origin. He and a small group of friends could have fled egypt around the times when Aknathon were assasinated and fled. Upon his assasination the monotheist cult which he advocated were outlawed and Moses could be a temple priest or some such of that cult which then fled to Canaan and started to tell these people to worship only one god.

The reasons why I would enlist him as historical is partly due to the fact that monotheism was in fact available in small circles around the pharaoah Aknathon and one of the hymns in Psalms are a direct rip-off of one of the hymns found in that cult. As the legend also claim an egyptian origin to Moses (he was raised in an egyptian family - even royal family) and would thus probably be exposed to egyptian monotheism - and guess what his big message to the jews was? Also, the name "Moses" strikes me as more akin to egyptian names such as Ramses etc than a jewish name.

Samson - might be historical but I have my doubts. He does appear to be a legend.

Job - I really don't have a clue. As described in the bible he is most certainly not exactly as that if historical but if there was some historical Job on which the legend expanded upon I don't know.

Saul - possibly a chieftain in a small early canaanite/hebrew settlement but not a big king as described in the bible.

Solomon - as Job. Could be that there was someone who was the core or seed of the legend but the legend is far removed from that historical person as described. His "wisdom" was generally considered wisdom among the goat herders but is hardly worth considering wisdom today. Suggesting to chop a baby in two just to see who is the real mother doesn't strike me as very wise. Even a fake mother would possibly speak up against that and would be stupid if she fell for it - but then again, that is exactly what the story says she did - how convenient! Doesn't strike me as very wise though, more pure luck and stupid women than manly wisdom there to me.

David - like Saul. Possibly a local chieftain. Most likely not a big king.

Hezekiah - I haven't got a clue. Who is this guy?

Josiah - I am sure I have heard the name at some point but I haven't got a clue who he is supposed to be.

Jeconiah - ditto - the last three names of the list are unfamiliar to me. Possibly because it is years since I read OT much and possibly because the names are as in english version of the OT while when I did read OT it was in Norwegian and I know that some names differ among the translations. For example you won't find the name "James" anywhere in OT or NT in norwegian, the name is usually spelled Jacob or Jakob and as far as I know the hebrew original name is more like Yakob or some such.

So, should I check off David, Saul and Moses as historical and the rest not? The historical David, Saul and Moses would be nothing like the bible describe them to be though - as such they are therefore mythological and not historical.

Alf