FocusMyView said
I am all in on Saul and David being Armana letter period kings, really. I think the conquest in the bible really did happen and archeology agrees with it. Instead of tying it to Moses or any Bible timeline, the best place to start is the Aramean replacement of Amorites between 1700 and 1400 BC. This is what is told in Joshua 10 and Judges 1. The pushing out of Amorites, with Jerusalem as their last stronghold, full of Jebusites and Benjaminites. Genesis 14 reflects the Amorite presence as well.
I think the bible timeline has it wrong. ITs all about the Israelite tribe Jabesh-Gilead in Judges 21. They are exterminated in Judges, for the sake of the Benjaminites. But Saul saves the Jabesh-Gilead tribe in 1 Samuel 11. We could chalk this up to another story where people are exterminated only to not really have been exterminated. But that would be less exciting, and why would I be typing after midnight if not to make up something exciting? I would rather say that at least Saul, and possibly David, are from a much earlier time than the bible timeline. There are some missing kings and I have no idea who they might have been. Saul is ancient. He is from the Israelite tribes time period that included a Jabesh-Gilead and the Jebusites and Benjaminites hold Jerusalem.
Who are these Jebusites and Benjaminites? “Ezekiel says of Jerusalem, your mother was an Amorite and your father a Hittite.” Benjamin sounds very near what the word for “south bank” is in Amorite. The Benjaminites are the last of the Amorites, with Jerusalem as their stronghold. At some point they were attacked with incredible ferocity, so that that were nearly none left, probably those were Benjaminites outside of Jerusalem.
And now Jashar. When Saul’s story ends in the Bible, David mourns. 2 Samuel 1:18 (He ordered that The Song of the Bow be taught to the people of Judah; it is written in the Book of Jashar.)… The Joshua story of the Amorites being pushed out, Joshua 10 has the story of the Sun standing still, from the book of Jasher.
zedek, bezek thread.
Melchizedek in Genesis 14, Adonizedek in Joshua 10, and Adonibezek in Judges 1 are all about Amorites being beaten, and a oddly similar named king of Salem, Jerusalem, and unknown but taken to Jerusalem to die, respectively. This brings up Bezek of only Judges 1 and one other mention as a place name. Its in Samuel 11, where Saul beats the Ammonites instead of the Amorites.
Basically, the Deuteronomist names the source for his kings as they die. He mentions the Annals of King Solomon when Solomon dies. He mentions the Book of the annals of the kings of Judah when a Judahite king dies. He mentions the Annals of the Kings of Israel when an Israelite king dies. When Saul dies, he mentions the Book of Jashar. (I am unsure about a mention for David)
I think the Book of Jashar had the Aramean conquest of the Amorites written down, and the Deuteronomist preserved parts of that tale in his version where the Israelites kicked out not only the Amorites but the Canaanites and Perrizites and others. All these peoples were probably Amorite tribes or Aramean tribes. The real Israelites and Canaanites of 1400 BC, with Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21) and Machir (Judges 5) as tribes, were Arameans too.
That is intriguing. (I will have to read what you have written a second time, and maybe one more time to marry it to my current notions.)
FocusMyView said
I am all in on Saul and David being Armana letter period kings,
Steefen
Rohl spoke specifically about Saul writing to Akhen-aten.
He spoke about another king writing ro Akhen-aten but only referencing David.
He spoke specifically about Saul losing the battle with the Philistines.
How could Saul have all of those territories, lose the battle, and David becomes king instead of the Philistines?
I do not quite recall David fighting the Philistines after Saul.
Look at Wikipedia
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Maybe the Bible speaks of what happened.
I vaguely remember the people of Saul’s kingdom accepting David. “David danced before the Lord.”
Anyway, it seems the Bible may have said David had victories after Saul died in battle.
I will wait for your input on that: how did David win the kingdom of Saul without directly going against Saul and how did he get the kingdom of Saul from the Philistines?
With Saul and his colleague of kings reporting to Akhen-aten, the Amarna letters stop there without the aftermath of Saul’s defeat appearing in the Amarna letters with the exception of the king that said you can ask Dwd/Dvd whether or not I am telling the truth? I do not see how Egypt could stop overseeing what was the kingdom of Saul at this important juncture.
So we agree Saul is definitely from the Amarna period but Solomon is from approximately 1000 BCE, centuries later.
Is there any reason to push Solomon back towards a few decades after Saul?
With Solomon being so rich, we probably need some centuries for the Kingdom of Saul which becomes the Kingdom of David which becomes the Kingdom of Solomon to become so rich. It could not have happened in one generation. For example, Akhen-aten was likely no way as rich as Ramesses the Great.
Unfortunately, we may need the tomb raiders of the Valley of the Kings to even enrich Solomon’s kingdom.
As Rohl, mentioned, Ramesess the Great was the biblical Shishak who went into Jerusalem? ? ?
No infrastructure and trade could have developed in one generation Saul/David to Solomon for Solomon to get so wealthy, unless many royal burial sites were robbed.
1. Akhen-aten to Seti I – but we are sure Ramesses the Great guarded the Valley of the Kings
2. Ramesses the Great to Psusennes – what grave robbery could have happened in that stretch of time.
Last night I watched a documentary on the discovery of the tomb of Ramesses the Great. Shortly after his burial, he was moved out of the Valley of the Kings precisely because of grave robberies.
1 Kings 3: 13 In Solomon’s dream, God gives him riches and glory unlike any other king.
1 Kings 10: 14 – 29 Every year Solomon received gold weighing six hundred and sixty-six talents. His father-in-law was Pharaoh.
Google/Bing, QUESTION:
In Ancient Israel how much did a talent weigh?
Result:
66.6 pounds [So, 66.6 pounds times 666 talents = 44,355.60 pounds of gold]
but in New Testament times, a heavy common talent weighed 130 pounds
FOR CONSIDERATION
Solomon’s father-in-law provided 44,355.60 pounds of gold each year–and some of that gold came from the Valley of the Kings?
I am basing this entirely on the idea of the source of Jasher being an Egyptian manuscript describing events in Canaan. I base this on the idea that it refers to Abram as a Hebrew and it tells of conquering the Amorites. I think Saul is of this earlier time period because of his interactiosn with tribes mentioned in Judges. David also interacts with the house of Makir in 2 Samuel 9.
So those are some reasons I think a Saul and a David might be from a much earlier time.
Solomon accounts are so fictive that they do not give any clue as to his time period, in my opinion. His name might be the only clue. The Solom part is thought to be theophoric and reflect a lost religious tradition, as the name Jerusalem also reflects. So this points to an earlier time period than the Biblical kings, if he is any more than legend.
I am unaware of anything evidencing that an actual Solomon existed. That structures exist from the time period Solomon is placed by the Bible and those structures are named “Solomon’s xyz” does not convince me that a Solomon existed.
Some serious problems with the stories of Saul, David, Solomon and a united kingdom.
I am also pretty sure there was never a large Israel that encompassed Jerusalem, though Jerusalem’s king may have paid tribute for a bit. It seems odd to think of an Israel dominating what we call Judah without having conquered Jerusalem. Also, some of the collections of kings that fought against Assyria and the cities north of Israel would suggest city-states still existed just as in the Armana letters, instead of being part of a larger state we might call Judah.
I am pretty sure the Philistines were not settled on the coast of Canaan in the days of the Armana letters. They come along maybe a hundred years later or so. The Philistines figure prominently in the stories of Saul and David. So I think these are fictional tales or the Dt historian simply attributed later battles to Saul and David. The extent of David’s or Solomon’s supposed kingdom would not only merit a mention by other nearby empires, but especially by the conquered itself.
I am only projecting Saul, David and Solomon, if they existed, back in time. That is pretty much the extent of things so far. If something else comes up to support or refute my conjecture, let me know and I will let you know.
FocusMyView said
I am basing this entirely on the idea of the source of Jasher being an Egyptian manuscript describing events in Canaan. I base this on the idea that it refers to Abram as a Hebrew and it tells of conquering the Amorites. I think Saul is of this earlier time period because of his interactiosn with tribes mentioned in Judges. David also interacts with the house of Makir in 2 Samuel 9.
So those are some reasons I think a Saul and a David might be from a much earlier time.
Solomon accounts are so fictive that they do not give any clue as to his time period, in my opinion. His name might be the only clue. The Solom part is thought to be theophoric and reflect a lost religious tradition, as the name Jerusalem also reflects. So this points to an earlier time period than the Biblical kings, if he is any more than legend.
I am unaware of anything evidencing that an actual Solomon existed. That structures exist from the time period Solomon is placed by the Bible and those structures are named “Solomon’s xyz” does not convince me that a Solomon existed.
Some serious problems with the stories of Saul, David, Solomon and a united kingdom.
I am also pretty sure there was never a large Israel that encompassed Jerusalem, though Jerusalem’s king may have paid tribute for a bit. It seems odd to think of an Israel dominating what we call Judah without having conquered Jerusalem. Also, some of the collections of kings that fought against Assyria and the cities north of Israel would suggest city-states still existed just as in the Armana letters, instead of being part of a larger state we might call Judah.
I am pretty sure the Philistines were not settled on the coast of Canaan in the days of the Armana letters. They come along maybe a hundred years later or so. The Philistines figure prominently in the stories of Saul and David. So I think these are fictional tales or the Dt historian simply attributed later battles to Saul and David. The extent of David’s or Solomon’s supposed kingdom would not only merit a mention by other nearby empires, but especially by the conquered itself.
I am only projecting Saul, David and Solomon, if they existed, back in time. That is pretty much the extent of things so far. If something else comes up to support or refute my conjecture, let me know and I will let you know.
BTW, that amount of gold seems quite implausible. Are there records of any kingdoms giving out that much gold for anything, say the least because someone married the pharaoh’s daughter?
FocusMyView said
I am basing this entirely on the idea of the source of Jasher being an Egyptian manuscript describing events in Canaan. I base this on the idea that it refers to Abram as a Hebrew and it tells of conquering the Amorites. I think Saul is of this earlier time period because of his interactiosn with tribes mentioned in Judges. David also interacts with the house of Makir in 2 Samuel 9.
So those are some reasons I think a Saul and a David might be from a much earlier time.
Solomon accounts are so fictive that they do not give any clue as to his time period, in my opinion. His name might be the only clue. The Solom part is thought to be theophoric and reflect a lost religious tradition, as the name Jerusalem also reflects. So this points to an earlier time period than the Biblical kings, if he is any more than legend.
I am unaware of anything evidencing that an actual Solomon existed. That structures exist from the time period Solomon is placed by the Bible and those structures are named “Solomon’s xyz” does not convince me that a Solomon existed.
Some serious problems with the stories of Saul, David, Solomon and a united kingdom.
I am also pretty sure there was never a large Israel that encompassed Jerusalem, though Jerusalem’s king may have paid tribute for a bit. It seems odd to think of an Israel dominating what we call Judah without having conquered Jerusalem. Also, some of the collections of kings that fought against Assyria and the cities north of Israel would suggest city-states still existed just as in the Armana letters, instead of being part of a larger state we might call Judah.
I am pretty sure the Philistines were not settled on the coast of Canaan in the days of the Armana letters. They come along maybe a hundred years later or so. The Philistines figure prominently in the stories of Saul and David. So I think these are fictional tales or the Dt historian simply attributed later battles to Saul and David. The extent of David’s or Solomon’s supposed kingdom would not only merit a mention by other nearby empires, but especially by the conquered itself.
I am only projecting Saul, David and Solomon, if they existed, back in time. That is pretty much the extent of things so far. If something else comes up to support or refute my conjecture, let me know and I will let you know.
I have to disagree with you.
The Amarna Letters contain an awareness of the battle Labayu/Saul was having with the Philistines.
I do not see how you are dismissing that.
= = =
The Book of Jasher (also spelled Jashar, Hebrew: סֵפֶר הַיׇּשׇׁר; transliteration: sēfer hayyāšār), which means the Book of the Upright or the Book of the Just Man is an apocryphal book mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The translation “Book of the Just Man” is the traditional Greek and Latin translation, while the transliterated form “Jasher” is found in the King James Bible, 1611.
So you have this?
qid=1575089212&sr=8-2
FocusMyView
BTW, that amount of gold seems quite implausible. Are there records of any kingdoms giving out that much gold for anything, say the least because someone married the pharaoh’s daughter?
Steefen
Given in the bible. Any Biblical Accuracy Investigator has to get to the bottom of the claim–take a deep dive on this claim and come up with some improved probability of the accurate history around the claim.
Book of Jasher
June 5, 2019
October 5, 2015
The Amarna letters reference Philistines? Where? they predate the Sea Peoples. Supposedly the Sea Peoples that were settled in Canaan became what we call the Philistines.
The Book of Jasher we have today is not the source of the stories in Joshua 10 or 2 Samuel 11. The midrash was written in 1552, the forgery written in the 18th century. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
What is the source of the idea that Jesus read Jashar?
Focus My View
Who are these Jebusites and Benjaminites? “Ezekiel says of Jerusalem, your mother was an Amorite and your father a Hittite.” Benjamin sounds very near what the word for “south bank” is in Amorite. The Benjaminites are the last of the Amorites, with Jerusalem as their stronghold. At some point they were attacked with incredible ferocity, so that that were nearly none left, probably those were Benjaminites outside of Jerusalem.
Steefen
So, now you do not only have Judah v Israel but Somebody v the Benjaminites?
Shouldn’t they have been recognized as brothers of the 12 tribes?
Who attacked them?
Focus My View
The Amarna letters reference Philistines? Where? they predate the Sea Peoples. Supposedly the Sea Peoples that were settled in Canaan became what we call the Philistines.
Steefen
Saul lost a battle against the Philistines.
As the Amarna Letters show Labayu and scholars say Labayu is Saul, Labyu fought the Philistines.
Focus My View
The Book of Jasher we have today is not the source of the stories in Joshua 10 or 2 Samuel 11. The midrash was written in 1552, the forgery written in the 18th century. Wikipedia
What is the source of the idea that Jesus read Jashar?
Steefen
You are referring to something an amazon reviewer wrote. Maybe that person is thinking there was no reason for Jesus or anyone else to not read the Book of Jasher.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)