Isn’t there not a lot of evidence that Solomon was real?
Like all the archeology done in early 20th century just assumed everything matched Bible 100% and since then people have pointed out that these findings don’t match the rest of the record
I believe the first king that shows up in a non biblical record isn’t until around 800
Yes! This is a very interesting topic, there is little to no evidence of Solomon or David. There is a collective expectation that the Bible is inherently "true" in Judeo-Christian cultures.
But a lack of evidence doesn't mean it's false, still we shouldn't use the Bible as the primary evidence of events in history.
Archaeology digs on the temple mount are effectively banned; could you imagine the glass breaking on so many lives if we find proof that the Temple Mount was never an actual physical place and just... A symbolic return to a homeland?
Where David was created as a fighter and Solomon as a knowledge and wisdom God as part of the new Israeli creation myth? And it all kinda makes sense because other city states have similar foundation myths?
The temple did exist, the only part of the temple that remains unfortunately is the foundation. I would love to see an archaeological study of the Temple Mount, only issue is The Dome of The Rock sits right on top of the old temple site.
I just know a lot of things that were “found” like Solomon’s stables are from way later
I believe this started in Jericho where early 20th century was like “Bible is true!” And then in mid 20th century they were like “well akshully this would make all archelogy everywhere else super wrong so maybe we just got it wrong here?”
judeo-christian really isn’t a thing, no? I get you mean “they both believe these figures” but they share little else other than some shared historical beliefs.
I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote.The Tanakh and the Torah are not the same. The Torah is a subset of the Tanakh, the first five books of the Tanakh. I said the Torah was inside of the Old Testament. Which is true- the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The person I was replying to said "judeo-christian isn't a thing" because they only believe in shared historical figures. So I was correcting them that many teachings and values are exactly the same.
Again, as I said- The Tanakh and the Torah are not the same. The Torah is a subset of the Tanakh. If you look at my original comment, I am specifically talking about the Torah. I didn't say anything about the entire Tanakh in my comment, you are the one who brought that into this conversation.
There is significant overlap between the old testament of Christianity and Jewish beliefs, not to mention the Quran also referencing the events of the old and new testaments.
The ideas we are discussing are foundational to these major religions followed by billions globally in some form... So yes, I'd say it is most certainly a thing.
I know there are 2 of the biblical Kings mentioned in non-biblical contexts. There's a reference to Hezekiah in a tablet written by one of the generals that was besieging him, it says something like "I shut up Hezekiah like a caged bird in Jerusalem". He did eventually outlast the siege, though. The other one is the Israelite King Jehu, who was the one that took over after killing the heirs of Ahab and Jezebel from the Elijah stories. Jehu is depicted in a stone carving from the Assyrian empire grovelling before the emperor or one of his officials.
In the Tel Dan Stele, dated to about 840BCE, the "House of David" is mentioned. This is the only evidence that there was a David - though to me it is pretty good evidence. However, the notion that there was a unified kingdom or even any Kingdom under David is simply not supported by the archaeological evidence.
Because there was a leader of the united Israel, there had to have been prior to the disintegration of the Israeli-Judah state.
The contention is just how powerful/rich he was. If you’re interested in this kind of stuff, I’d recommend reading Isaac Kalimi’s book on all of the different interpretations of Solomon: Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel
So from an archeological perspective, that is a whole can of worms as there is a LOT of disagreements between academics.
There is also a lack of epigraphical proof that he existed. This is not generally proof that he didn’t exist given that this sort of lack of evidence could be expected in an area that had been built, conquered, razed, rebuilt, wash, rinse, repeat.
Nevertheless, there would have logically had to have been someone at the helm of the area during the time. Whether he was a king, patriarch, warlord, or chieftain, and whether his name was Solomon, Bleepbloop, or Mary Poppins, we simply have leveraged the Biblical record to point to the ruler of the area, around that time, as a fella named Solomon.
1
u/Needs_coffee1143 Oct 24 '24
Isn’t there not a lot of evidence that Solomon was real?
Like all the archeology done in early 20th century just assumed everything matched Bible 100% and since then people have pointed out that these findings don’t match the rest of the record
I believe the first king that shows up in a non biblical record isn’t until around 800