3 ms·
Solomon is depicted in the Biblical accounts as fabulously wealthy and a prolific builder. That should have left a mark in the archeological record. 1 Kings 9:1
by wl 6y ago
Solomon is depicted in the Biblical accounts as fabulously wealthy and a prolific builder. That should have left a mark in the archeological record. 1 Kings 9:15-19 suggests we look at Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Lower Beth-horon, and Baalath. Some of those sites are impractical to excavate or unknown. Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, and Beth-horon have been excavated and have uncovered little that can be plausibly attributed to Solomon. And given the almost irresponsibly extensive excavation done by the University of Chicago at Megiddo in particular, that's surprising. There's plenty there from earlier and later periods. At some point, the lack of evidence that should be there is evidence (though hardly conclusive) of absence.
What's my suggested account? I don't know. Perhaps David and Solomon existed but their reigns were exaggerated for political and/or nationalistic reasons. Perhaps they were invented out of whole cloth for similar reasons. What I'm more certain of is that the Biblical account here is questionable in a way it isn't in later periods.
- yyyk 6y agoThe Biblical story hardly paints David and Solomon in a positive light. Solomon is portrayed as very oppressive, and David gets a whole bunch of crimes, in particular being this close to treason. In whose interest is that? The Judaen Kingdom should have known basic information about its history, lying from whole cloth or portraying its founders in that light isn't very useful to them. Everyone else who comes to rule that area later is made to be illegitimate (by implication) and it's not in the interests of the religious classes either (usually not big on rebellion, except the Hasmonean which never claimed to be descended from David and had their own text). I think reading Kings as a ancient text with all the typical flaws for the time is the right way to go about it, and the only way we can piece together the evidence (for now, barring some new discovery). Many ancient texts give absurdly inflated counts for armies engaged in battle, but we usually don't follow that by "battle never happened".