I think the view is that Solomon probably existed – there was some kind of monarchy –  but not the world empire described in the Hebrew Bible which is clearly exaggerated in size and influence.  We know this because none of their neighbors seem to have noticed their existence.

JAS said
I believe that the few artifacts that have been claimed over the years have all been declared fakes.

  

Yeah ever few years some archeologist claims they’ve found some remains of the monarchy but it never turns out to be anything solid.  Most of the attempts are by folks whose agenda is to validate ancient Israeli claims.  It’s remarkable how you tend to find exactly what you’re looking for. 

omar6741

omar6741
Interesting. That last possibility you mentioned, that he was ‘a vassal king under a contemporary northern pharaoh’, seems to be within the bounds of realistic historical possibility, and is an example of the second of the two choices I offered.

Steefen
Yes.

Now, let me see. I presented three possibilities. Are they not all within the bounds of realistic historical possibility?

1) The biblical King Solomon would have been in the same league as a contemporary northern pharaoh.

2) The biblical King Solomon was a northern pharaoh.

3) The biblical King Solomon was a vassal king under a contemporary northern pharaoh.

1
The biblical claims of Solomon’s riches puts him in the same league as a contemporary northern pharaoh.

No, new money cannot be in the same league as old money. The biblical King David did not have as much silver and gold as a northern pharaoh who would have some exposure to the Egyptian southern kingdom. The northern pharaoh could rob the Valley of the Kings for more gold. Did/could King David and King Solomon rob the Valley of the Kings?

One Egyptian wife would provide a dowry but a dowry is worth less than the wealth of a royal family. The wife did not take all of the wealth from the whole family and give to King Solomon.

Israel would have had only a few decades at world power level. Wait. Stop. Israel was never an empire. Egypt was. New money may have been able to buy mercenaries given a lack in native soldiers. When the new money was gone, so was the United Kingdom of Judah-Israel.

2
A northern pharaoh was the only “emperor” in the Levant during the time of King David and King Solomon.
True, the emperor controlled the trade routes in Judah and Israel but the people of Judah and Israel were not citizens of Egypt.
True, the pharaoh could have military shows of force across the Levant, but Egypt was no future Rome: Egypt did not want to offer citizen rights to the people of the Levant.

3
The biblical King Solomon was actually only a vassal mayor under a northern pharaoh. As King Saul was a vassal mayor under Akhenaten but the Bible gives no credit to Akhenaten, King Solomon was a vassal mayor under a northern Egyptian  but the Bible gives no credit to the northern pharaoh.
Whatever unity there was between Judah and Israel would have been under the auspices of the economic and military power which came from Egypt in the person of the northern pharaoh.

Did Egypt need vassal mayors, vassal kings then as they did during the 18th Dynasty? I think with the loss of Egyptian power after the end of the 18th Dynasty, Egypt was not as hands-on in Judah-Israel. It could command trade routes through the area. It was certainly a stronger military power than the Israelites. Egypt had more worthy opponents than them.

So, Omar, please do not settle on the vassal king/mayor option. We have the Amarna letters showing King Saul, decades earlier than a King David was a vassal mayor, but I think that political structure diminished out of existence by the 20th and 21st Dynasties.

danielmag

Good morning Steefen.

Where can I find materials on Amarna cards

Thanks!

Steve Campbell, Blockchain Stocks and High Market Cap Cryptoassets Investor/Trader and Instructor
and Author of Historical Accuracy

keywords=The+Amarna+Letters+William+Moran&qid=1634932447&sr=8-1

Steefen also known as Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy

Third Possibility about King Solomon

The biblical King Solomon was actually only a vassal mayor under a northern pharaoh. As King Saul was a vassal mayor under Akhenaten but the Bible gives no credit to Akhenaten, King Solomon was a vassal mayor under a northern Egyptian  but the Bible gives no credit to the northern pharaoh.

Whatever unity there was between Judah and Israel would have been under the auspices of the economic and military power which came from Egypt in the person of the northern pharaoh.

Did Egypt need vassal mayors, vassal kings then as they did during the 18th Dynasty? I think with the loss of Egyptian power after the end of the 18th Dynasty, Egypt was not as hands-on in Judah-Israel. It could command trade routes through the area. It was certainly a stronger military power than the Israelites. Egypt had more worthy opponents than them.

So, Omar, please do not settle on the vassal king/mayor option. We have the Amarna letters showing King Saul, decades earlier than a King David was a vassal mayor, but I think that political structure diminished out of existence by the 20th and 21st Dynasties.

danielmag

Good Morning!

I purchased the Book: The Letters of TEll el-Amarna from the archaeologist José Ademar KAefer . (Participated in the excavations in Megido, PHD by the University of Tela VIV and student of letter)

In the letters I didn’t see any mention of Solomon! whether from Pharaoh Amenhotep III, Aknaton or others!

Can you please refer to which letter Salamão is quoted in?

I say, because I could observe that the vassals were treated with inferiority, and Pharaoh would never give in marriage a daughter who was not to a respected king like (Assyria, Babylon!) and if Solomon had a princess wife, daughter of Pharaoh, this one had in minimal intimacy or domination over the region of the land of Israel during his reign!

I sent an e-mail to Archaeologist Kaefer asking if there is any exception in the letters that speak of Solomon and what understanding of him, when I have the answer I will post it here!

Thanks!

Steefen also known as Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy

In the Bible,

King Saul is followed by King Ishbosheth.
King Ishbosheth is followed by King David.
King David is followed by King Solomon.

When the biography of King Saul is investigated by historians using the Amarna Letters, Labaya / Labayu fits the description.

The Bible suggests King Saul was ruling approximately in the year 1010 B.C.E. King Labaya was ruling approximately in the year 1340 B.C.E.

That is more than a 300 year difference!

The Bible changed the timeline between the historical King Saul and the biblical King David. King Labaya is moved forward by more than 300 years. You will only find the historical King Saul in the Amarna Letters, not the historical King Solomon.

Archaeologist Kaefer should know this.

My book Historical Accuracy goes into more complicated details about the historical King Saul, King David, and King Solomon, in case you and Archaeologist Kaefer want to examine it.

The biblical King Solomon cannot have reigned independent of the northern pharaoh who gave him a daughter in marriage.

Goodnight!

First of all, thank you very much for the answers, it helped me a lot in understanding!

The Amarna letters you referred me to are phenomenal.

As far as I can tell, is there any chance that Labaya is King Shaul?
I don’t understand why the name was changed, in fact I have a long way to go!
And if it’s the same, how could it attack Jerusalem that was already under Israel’s rule? (According to the Bible)

I would love to read and study his book! Where can I get this please?

If you can recommend me further studies, you will help me!

Thanks!

  

danielmag

The Amarna letters you referred me to are phenomenal.

As far as I can tell, is there any chance that Labaya is King Shaul?
I don’t understand why the name was changed, in fact I have a long way to go!

I would love to read and study his book! Where can I get this please?

If you can recommend me further studies, you will help me!

Thanks!

Steefen
I remember when I first learned about the Amarna Letters. I was at the Met Museum Gift and Bookshop.

In a different book that I purchased from the Met Museum, there was no getting away from King Saul being Labaya.

There was a character named David with the Labaya history but that David had insufficient biographical information.

When you get your copy of Historical Accuracy, please pay attention to the works cited in that section of the book. Those cited works would be good for further studies.

One important book is Ancient Records of Egypt, Volume 4: The Twentieth through the Twenty-sixth Dynasties by James Henry Breasted. You may or may not need to buy that book after reading Historical Accuracy.