National Geographic has an article about the latest controversies over archeological finds in the holy lands: Kings of Controversy.
The battle is still on as to whether David and Solomon ruled a large empire or a small state. The article discusses Eilat Mazar, an archeologist who believes she has found the castle of King David. The Biblical minimalists, led by men like Israel Finklestein, believe she has found no such thing:
“Of course we’re not looking at the palace of David!” Finkelstein roars at the very mention of Mazar’s discovery. “I mean, come on. I respect her efforts. I like her—very nice lady. But this interpretation is—how to say it?—a bit naive.”
The article talks about the stakes, and the implications:
In no other part of the world does archaeology so closely resemble a contact sport. Eilat Mazar is one of the reasons why. Her announcement in 2005 that she believed she had unearthed the palace of King David amounted to a ringing defense of an old-school proposition under assault for more than a quarter century—namely, that the Bible’s depiction of the empire established under David and continued by his son Solomon is historically accurate. Mazar’s claim has emboldened those Christians and Jews throughout the world who maintain that the Old Testament can and should be taken literally. Her purported discovery carries particular resonance in Israel, where the story of David and Solomon is interwoven with the Jews’ historical claims to biblical Zion.
I’ve been on the biblical minimalist side so long, I’d forgotten that the battle was still raging. It’s always bad to draw to much from a popular article, but it looks like the question of the size of the United Monarchy is still a live one.
Little bit paternalistic, isn’t it?
The battle will rage as long as there are believers & politicians who require myth to be reality.
One avenue the article does not explore: There are parties with deep-seated religious agendas, and/or parties seeking to profit from those with deep-seated religious agendas, who would go so far as to commit outright fraud to further their aims.
An ancient ivory pomegranate thought to be the only relic of King Solomon’s Temple is from a different period, the Israel Museum in Jerusalem has said.
BBC article from December 2004
This one was probably just about the profit since the dealer who sold this pomegranate also happened to “discover” other artifacts he tried selling to unsuspecting customers,including the coffin of Jesus’ brother, that later turned up to be forgeries.
Although the perp was motivated by profit, his victims were eagerly desirous of ‘proof’ of biblical historicity, and validation of claims to legitimacy, whether religious or nationalistic.
Yes, I think i covered this in my original comment. Those blinded by their belief may be the perpetrators of fraud, or they may be the victims of fraud. In either case, the cause of truth suffers.
The alleged forger has still not been convicted. http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/judge-considers-verdict-in-5-year-long-jesus-forgery-trial/19659376
I’d like to see a summary of the evidence for and against. Not all of the bible is completely false, so it’s not crazy to think they found a castle that belonged to a king named David or Solomon.
I’m led to believe (and I am no expert, and can’t even remember my sources, so add as many grains of salt as your doctor is comfortable with) that David is a Hebrew version of King Arthur; both were claimed to rule a large, united kingdom at a time when the area was known to be divided between many hill-kingdoms; both are attested to by a single ambiguous tablet bearing what might be their name, and then nothing for another 500 years; both have a mythic importance far in excess of their historical underpinning.
I should say “parallel” rather than “version”, really. Obviously, the Biblical authors were not retelling the legend of King Arthur.
I recall reading about the discovery of an Assyrian tablet mentioning that the Assyrian ruler had just killed a prince from the line of David. Of course, that doesn’t make him any more real than Horst and Hengist.
As with the historical Jesus question, the possibility that actual kings named David and Solomon may have existed does not establish the truth of the extraordinary supernatural claims made in the Bible.
At least the Bible’s historical legitimacy is better than the Book of Mormon, which was wholesale fantasy invented by Joseph Smith.
Whether the story of David and Solomon is true or a fairy tale, the history of Jerusalem goes back at least 3,000 years. Scope it free anytime with the Historyscoper at:
http://tinyurl.com/jerusalemhistory
I have no doubt that the Bible contains authentic history. Someone mentioned King Arthur — If archeologists found absolute evidence of Arthur, Merlin, et al, including the round table, it wouldn’t cause me to believe in magic swords embedded in floating stones. Nor would the discovery of David’s (or Solomon’s or anyone else’s) palace or any other historical evidence of specific Biblical veracity stun me or shake my disbelief in the mystical and moralistic nonsense that is also contained in the Bible. Wake me up when they dig up a burning bush.
Actually burning bushes, ie plants that produce volatile substances, are reasonably common: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8yDWkwu5aI
I have seen a doc once that named a plant endemic to the middle east that has such properties, and can, on sufficiently hot days, self ignite. Given that sufficently hot days would also be likely to cuase sunstroke …
the burning bush of the bible burned but was not consumed. don’t think that is what you are describing.
I woke up Thanksgiving morning to a program on PBS (possibly the PBS -World?) called “Closer to Truth” and the topic was “Is God a Person?” That really ticked my tickables, as I am often profoundly confused what people believe and why they are so convinced. What followed that was apparently a day-long programming fit of whether the Jews escaped Egypt as per the bible or if that was a myth, with all kinds of archaeological glory.
I really don’t suppose there is anything wrong with trying to verify parts of the bible, just that doesn’t mean any of the magic parts are true. If someone wrote a story, it may have some bearing in historical truth, there’s not a lot of reason to assume they made it all up, but there is also “revisionist” history to look out for. Some historical account of what people moved to where and when might be somewhat accurately accounted in the bible. But they are looking for other stupid things like Noah’s ark – would finding a boat prove a global flood? It’s not even impossible someone was deluded then as people are deluded now to build such a boat and attempt to corral some animals that they deludedly felt would rescue himself and some animals from the voices in his head. It wouldn’t prove magic happened. But I don’t really see what is terribly wrong trying to verify which accounts in the bible are historical and which are probably fictional or hyped up to the point where magic intervenes. I’m not against Jesus, an actual man, having existed, but that doesn’t prove his parentage or magical abilities. He seems more like a bipolar or a local legend – over time, well-liked people have been cast in more of a tall tale surrounding their life, much different from their ordinary existence. If Jesus existed, that doesn’t support magic being true; if magic were true, that would also have to be proven with evidence of happening. But again, in the history of the peoples of the earth, it is helpful to go by some contemporary account to investigate whether it is historical or fictional, or can’t be determined. It doesn’t validate the bible as god’s written word to ascertain some history from it.
Eep. I’m a little nervous to actually be posting rather than just reading.
I’m hoping someone here can clear up something for me. I am aware of the basics of biblical minimalism vs. maximalism. However, I keep reading disagreeing statements on which is the minority/majority position. Are minimalists the minority or is it the maximalists?
I suppose in the end it doesn’t really matter which is the majority position. After all, most Americans believe in God and that doesn’t make it true. I like to have all the facts though. If you prefer to point me in the direction of some reading to do on the subject rather than explain it, that’s perfectly fine. Thanks!
Hold on, everyone. The Bible spans a long period of time, running right up to the era during which some of it was written. The last parts of the Bible are much more based on actual history. For example, the Hanukah story, celebrated tonight, recounts historical figures and events from the second century BCE consistent with all other historical accounts. (Except for the silly part, of course, about the miracle of the oil lasting 8 days.) It would be a mistake to group it all together as “myth”. The Book of Genesis is the fairy tale, and the rest is cultural lore (with increasing historical accuracy) punctuated of course by superstition and toxic moralizing. The books about David and Solomon are closer to the end of the timeline, when the lore more closely resembled reality.
Speaking of Hanukah, if the Maccabees hadn’t ejected the Greeks, enlightened Hellenism would have prevailed in Judea instead of Judaism, as Antioch had wished. That would have precluded the existence, as well, of Christianity and eventually Islam. Oh well, have some latkes!!
Some of the New Testament accounts are clearly not historically accurate. The census ordered by Herod which sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem does not match up with who ruled when, and making people go to a town their ancestor lived in 1000 years ago would be a collosally stupid way to run a census. The “Massacre of the Innocents” allegedly ordered by Herod for the mass murder of infants, which allegedly drove the holy family to Egypt, is complete fiction.
The Hanuka story didn’t actually made it into the bible. Do some bible story contain some minor grain of history, possibly, I’ll even accept that a person named David may have existed and ruled over the Jerusalem area around 1000 BCE However the evidence don’t support the existence of a large unified kingdom but rather a bunch of small tribal kingdoms which is why most historians consider the biblical story of David’s and Salomon’s empire to be a myth. If new evidence are discovered in the future this position may have to be revised.
I would hope these archaeologists are honest enough to look for confirmation of Jewish rulers and kingdoms/empires in the archaeology of neighboring civilizations. Were the other states sending or collecting tribute?