4 ms·

Sounds like this German university was a little behind in the 1990s: "If you were a rising young archaeologist in the 1970s, you were skeptical of stories abou

Sounds like this German university was a little behind in the 1990s: "If you were a rising young archaeologist in the 1970s, you were skeptical of stories about Jewish kings. The ascendant critical school in biblical scholarship, sometimes known by the general name "minimalism," was making a strong case that there was no united Israelite monarchy around 1000 B.C." From this article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-re... For a long time, people dismissed the idea that Vikings made it to the Americas ahead of Columbus. That changed in the 1960s: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-dating-method-shows-vikings-occupied-newfoundland-in-1021-ce-180978903/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-dating-met... It was laughable until it wasn't. I could point out similar discoveries that have been made about the history of American peoples before Columbus arrived that 19th scholars would have found unbelievable. In the same way, many places mentioned in the Bible were laughed away by scholars until archeology started digging up lots of finds in the 20th century. Sure, plenty of people are biased before they start digging, but it's similar to when you know there's buried treasure in the vicinity so it helps narrow down your search. A lot of discoveries in archeology, science or whatever are made when people have something specific in mind that they're looking for before they even start exploring, and when they discover something, no amount of hand waving makes the discovery untrue. :)

wefarrell 4y ago
The Smithsonian article that you link to provides no evidence for the existence of Solomon, David, or a united Israelite kingdom. It only posits that a neighboring people became wealthy by extracting copper and were involved in complex trade despite no evidence of permanent structures.
coliveira 4y ago
Even to this day (50 years after the minimalist school you mention) there are still NO archeological findings from famous biblical kings such as David and Solomon (let's not even considering the rest of the story before them). No exodus, no judges. From the point of view of archeology, Israel was never a unified territory and became what we know after the Babylonian captivity period.
- mvelbaum 4y ago
  What about https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298298360_The_birth_and_death_of_Biblical_minimalism https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298298360_The_birth... ? (Tel Dan stele & Khirbet Qeiyafa)
  - coliveira 4y ago
    The stele only contains a name that can be interpreted as david but has other readings, like the name of a possible ancient village. Researchers are not confident that it proves anything. A vast kingdom in Israel would certainly leave more than a few disputable fragments. Check the situation of neighboring countries, where it was never an issue to find archeological evidence of several dynasties. There is a reason why it is so difficult to find these things in Israel: they just didn't exist.
nl 4y ago
This is an interesting article, but does little to support a literal interpretation of the Old Testament records of David and Solomon. Instead it makes an argument that there was a fairly sophisticated nomadic civilization in that area around that time. That's a very interesting conclusion but remarkably different to the Biblical record.

wefarrell 4y ago

The Smithsonian article that you link to provides no evidence for the existence of Solomon, David, or a united Israelite kingdom. It only posits that a neighboring people became wealthy by extracting copper and were involved in complex trade despite no evidence of permanent structures.

coliveira 4y ago

Even to this day (50 years after the minimalist school you mention) there are still NO archeological findings from famous biblical kings such as David and Solomon (let's not even considering the rest of the story before them). No exodus, no judges. From the point of view of archeology, Israel was never a unified territory and became what we know after the Babylonian captivity period.

mvelbaum 4y ago
What about https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298298360_The_birth_and_death_of_Biblical_minimalism https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298298360_The_birth... ? (Tel Dan stele & Khirbet Qeiyafa)
- coliveira 4y ago
  The stele only contains a name that can be interpreted as david but has other readings, like the name of a possible ancient village. Researchers are not confident that it proves anything. A vast kingdom in Israel would certainly leave more than a few disputable fragments. Check the situation of neighboring countries, where it was never an issue to find archeological evidence of several dynasties. There is a reason why it is so difficult to find these things in Israel: they just didn't exist.

nl 4y ago

This is an interesting article, but does little to support a literal interpretation of the Old Testament records of David and Solomon. Instead it makes an argument that there was a fairly sophisticated nomadic civilization in that area around that time. That's a very interesting conclusion but remarkably different to the Biblical record.