mark9950

If they even existed,have the archaeologists ever found artifacts of king david or solomons kindom?To prove it true.

Also did king nebuchadnezzer ever exist?

Roland

In 1993, someone found a plaque or something with the inscription on it "House of David" supposedly from the 9th Century or something. It came here in a roadshow (along with some of the Dead Sea Scroll finds) last year.

As for Solomon, I think nothing has ever been found.

DrJim

The 'Tel Dan' or 'House of David' inscription touched off a furious debate that is still raging. Some thought it is a forgery. Still another group have tried to link the inscription's 'House of David' to a temple to a god named 'dwd' and the like.
Others say it is proof that the biblical David existed. Probably the most balanced view says it is proof that a David exited as a king and founder of a Judean dynasty, but there is no indication in the inscription itself that this David was anything like the David one can read about in the Hebrew Bible. The inscription , according to Finkelstein and Silberman's 'The Bible unearthed' says the inscription refers to the defeat of Israel and Judah by Hazael of Damascus round about 835 bce. The two authors do not think the Hebrew Bible is particularly accurate concerning a great Israelite united monarchy and empire according to what can be pieced together from archaeology. Their book has been criticized from a number of quarters, however.
As in everything, the debates continue...


Jim

Apikorus

I agree that we must be sensitive to the possibility of forgery, but the Tel Dan stele was excavated, even if it was not found in situ. (It was broken up and its pieces used as parts of a wall.) Just who is suspected of having forged the TDS? Avraham Biran (the excavator)?

As for reading bytdwd as "House of Dod," this is pure speculation. Some context here is helpful. Line 8 of the inscription (fragment A) clearly contains mlk ysr'l = melekh yisrael = "king of Israel". Line 5 includes the words "and Hadad went before me"; line 6 "... of my reign. And I killed ..."; line 7 "... and two thousand cavalry ...". So the context here is clearly a military battle, and one in which the northern kingdom of Israel also is involved.

There's no reason to conclude from the TDS that David's empire was as extensive as that reported in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, Baruch Halpern, in David's Secret Demons, suggests that a more nuanced reading of 2 Samuel itself serves to circumscribe David's kingdom. Halpern's David is more substantial than Finkelstein's tribal chieftain, but this is perhaps only a matter of degree.

DrJim

I don't buy the forgery argument either, but it is one of the ideas out there, so I thought I would mention it. If I remember correctly, Lemche was considering the possibility but later backed off.

An older paper by Garbini has been translated and put online. It argues that a forgery took place , but it is not on his own site, and perhaps he has been convinced otherwise since, but perhaps not.

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftB...10/tel_dan.htm

I tend to think the excavators were honest about its discovery and that no one else was trying to decieve anyone either (except maybe the king of Damascus concering just how badly he kicked his enemies' butts. Modern forgery no, ancient propaganda, yes!)

I also think the attempts to say the 'House of Dwd' was a shrine and not a dynasty/kingdom is a little forced and ad hoc, that would reject any historicity to the HB's claims entirely.
I think the inscription does make reference to the traditional founder of a Judean dynasty. But was this David an emperor of everythring from Egypt to the Euphrates? I'm don't really think we have the evidence to say "yes" to that.

Apikorus

I've read Garbini on the TDS and while I generally defer to his expertise in Old Aramaic, I find his arguments completely unconvincing. The alleged problems he has with the Aramaic itself seem to be overblown. We have very few display inscriptions from minor kingdoms of the ancient near east. Garbini finds something peculiar concerning the use of waw consecutive with imperfect verbs - a common practice in biblical Hebrew, but also found in (Moabite) Mesha and at (Ammonite) Deir 'Alla (the Deir 'Alla inscription, as you surely know, refers to none other than Balaam bar Beor, the legendary figure from Numbers 22-24). As Garbini himself admits, the Zakkur inscription, from northern Syria, also reflects this alleged "anomaly" - an inconvenience which Garbini attempts to explain away.

Garbini wants the TDS to derive typologically from Mesha and epigraphically from Zakkur, which is, well,
quite a story. His attempts to support his Mesha "typology" are based largely on an extremely weak parallel where (1) Kemosh (Mesha) is to parallel Hadad (TDS), even though the former is a god and the latter a ruler, (2) the triple mention of Israel in both Mesha and TDS in the sections in question are asserted to be parallel, even though the TDS is so fragmentary that there could have been a fourth or fifth mention of Israel therein, (3) Gad is identified with the House of David (so Garbini conceded on the reading of bytdwd here? or does he do so only when he is claiming it is a forgery?), though Gad does not refer to a dynasty. The fact that the TDS breaks off here and there is no triple of toponyms to parallel those in Mesha provokes an outrageous line from Garbini in which he proffers that the forger couldn't identify three Aramaic towns near Dan. This is all so outlandish as to be almost laughable.

The only people I know of who would claim that the existence of the TDS confirms everything the Bible says about King David are credulous bibliophiles. To raise this issue is to knock down a straw man. (I see we may have cross-posted here; I added a bit about Halpern's book to the end of my original post.)

Peter Kirby

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-hue041303.php

Hebrew University excavations strengthen dating of archaeological findings to David, Solomon

"A new, laboratory-based affirmation of the existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by kings David and Solomon in the 10th century B.C.E. has been revealed as the result of excavations carried out by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Archeology."

...

"Thus, these results provide a new foundation for the traditional view concerning the attribution of occupation strata and buildings at Tel Rehov (and conjunctively other locales in the region ) to the time of the United Monarchy of Solomon and David, and negates the view that all these finds should be dated to the 9th century."

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Finally, someone who's got the general thrust of that Science article correct! I just dealt with a completely misinterpreted report on Theology Web thinking that Mazar et al.'s arguments constituted an argument for the historicity of Solomon. Just to be a pain anyway, here is the abstract:

• Stratified radiocarbon dates provide an independent chronological link between archaeological layers and historical data. The invasion by Pharaoh Shoshenq I (Shishak) is a key historical synchronism, ~925 B.C.E., mentioned in both Egyptian inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. The list of places raided by Shoshenq, mentioned at Karnak (Egypt), includes Rehov (Israel). The site yielded a consistent series of radiocarbon dates from the 12th to 9th century B.C.E. Our results (i) suggest a revised Iron-Age chronology; (ii) date an archaeological stratum to Shoshenq's campaign; (iii) indicate the similarity of "Solomonic" and "Omride" pottery; and (iv) provide correlation with Greece and Cyprus.

And an excerpt:

• The weighted average date [2755 ± 25 years before the 14C present (yr B.P.)] gives a 1[sigma] calibrated age range of 918 to 892 yr B.C.E. with 25.4% relative probability and another age range of 880 to 836 yr B.C.E. with 42.8% relative probability (Fig. 2). The calibration curve descends steeply and regularly during the second half of the 10th century B.C.E. and the first two decades of the 9th century (Fig. 3). Then the calibration curve goes up around 875 B.C.E. to form a small plateau that lasts until 845 B.C.E. Hence, there are two principal options for the calibrated date of Stratum IV. The period 880 to 836 B.C.E. is most likely in probability terms, but 918 to 892 B.C.E. is also possible. The invasion of the Aramean ruler Ben Hadad I during the time of King Baasha of Israel (902 to 886 B.C.E.; I Kings 15:20) is a possible candidate. But other events following the end of the Omride Dynasty seem more plausible for the destruction of Stratum IV and the abandonment of the lower city. The Jehu revolt (843 B.C.E.), the Assyrian invasion of Shalmaneser III (841 B.C.E.), or the Aramean invasions of Israel during the time of Hazael (between 840 and 830 B.C.E.) all fit the radiocarbon dating results.

They proceed to argue that the Shoshenq invasion is the best fit for the finds at Tel Rehov and that a higher chronology should be the best interpretation and a recalibration of carbon 14 dating is needed. If anyone likes, I can send them the whole Science article in HTML format (with thanks to Coragyps for originally pointing out the article to me and giving me access to it).

The reference is: Hendrik J. Bruins, Johannes van der Plicht, Amihai Mazar, "14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings," in Science Volume 300, Number 5617, Issue of 11 Apr 2003, pp. 315-318.

Joel

Peter Kirby

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman write: "Essentially, archaeology misdated both 'Davidic' and 'Solomonic' remains by a full century. The finds dated to the time just before David in the late eleventh century belonged in the mid-tenth century and those dated to the time of Solomon belonged in the early ninth century BCE." (The Bible Unearthed, p. 142) Do the findings of Mazar et al. controvert that conclusion?

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Yes, the article argues against low chronology owing to the difficulties of differentiating Solomonic and Omride pottery. Stratum IV (dated above to "880 to 836 yr B.C.E. with 42.8% relative probability") is predated by Stratum V (although the pottery is "virtually indistinguishable"), which falls around 935 to 898 B.C.E. With considerable destruction (burnt grain, etc.) at this stratum, they argue that the best fit is Shoshenq I's invasion (or rather, he's the only known historical figure who could account for this). Even earlier than that is Stratum VI, still clearly Iron II pottery (and there is less difference between Omride and Solomonic pottery as to make it difficult to distinguish), and this would be "Solomonic" or "Davidic" (or the first half of the 10th century BCE).

Joel

(Using a rough guide of 1020-980 for "Davidic," and 980-940 for "Solomonic")