FocusMyView said
“With Solomon being so rich, we probably need” Some outside verification of his existence, otherwise he either was not rich at all or is pure myth.
He is unmentioned in non biblical ancient sources. Does this not concern you?
Steefen
That is pretty spectacular that David did not leave his kingdom to a son named Solomon.
Do a google search: Wikipedia, Omrides.
Scroll down to Historicity:
…they were responsible for the great empire, magnificent palaces, wealth, and peace in Israel and Judah that the Bible credits to the much earlier kings David and Solomon.
REMEMBER, no Solomon, no Temple of Solomon. We might not have the temple being built by the polytheistic Omrides.
Rohl was unable to go further with the Amarna Letters saying David became king after Saul.
Hm, so, from the 18th Dynasty to the Omrides, what really was going on?
There was no King David and no attested Solomon either. So, connecting Jesus to either is an invalid but literary connection, not a historical connection.
George Mendenhall, a biblical scholar at the University of Michigan rejected the conquest of Canaan theory of Israelite settlement. He claimed that the rise of the Israelite religion and tribal confederacy could be explained solely on the basis of internal social developments in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age (LBA). The Apiru, identified by some scholars as Hebrews were not an ethnic group at all but a well-defined social class.
p. 335 of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (2002)
= = =
Let’s put it another way.
The redactors of the Hebrew Bible did not expect the discovery of the Amarna Letters which moves Saul all the way back to Egypt’s 18th Dynasty.
They also did not expect claiming Hebrews were slaves of Ramesses the Great would be discovered to be false.
They thought Labayu-Saul could be moved after Ramesses the Great and Moses.
Actually, they thought Moses could be moved up to the time of Ramesses the Great because it made their god greater than the religion of Ancient Egypt, and they thought Joshua, Judges, and the first king, Saul could be moved after Ramesses the Great.
The FICTION of Saul and David misleads people, taking credit away from the Omrides and making Egyptian pharaohs David and Solomon because we know there was a pharaoh at Tanis with a Star in his name: Star of a Pharaoh became Star of David, and city of a pharaoh became city of David. Oh, yea, as in the first edition of my book, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me is pulled off the sarcophagus of the “Star” Pharaoh.
Ralph Ellis claims David Rohl is wrong to claim Ramesses the Great (II) is Sheshey is Shishak.
Ellis claims Ramesses the Great (II) is Sheshey is Sheshai, one of the three sons of Anaq,
mentioned at Judges 1: 10, Numbers 13:22, and Joshua 15: 14.
The three sons Ahiman, Talmai, and Sheshai were not giants but pharaohs: Ahmose I, Tuthmoses III, and Ramesses II.
pick up at page 33 (second read-through)
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?
= = =
Steefen
The Queen of Sheba gave Solomon 120 talents of gold.
66.6 pounds times 120 talents = 7,792 pounds of gold
1 Kings 3: 1
Later, Solomon formed an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt by marrying his daughter. Solomon brought her to the City of David until he finished building his palace and the house of the LORD, as well as the wall around Jerusalem.
Ralph Ellis
This passage poses a great problem for historians because the betrothal of an Egyptian princess to a foreign monarch was virtually unheard of throughout Egyptian History. Indeed, there are many historians who will dismiss this biblical claim as pure propaganda, simply because it is so unprecedented. One Egyptologist [Paul Ash, author of David, Solomon & Egypt: A Reassessment] says of this event:
Simply stated, from what is currently known, reigning pharaohs did not marry their daughters to foreigners … Amen-hotep II had said (in reply to a Babylonian king), “From of old, a daughter of the king of the land of Egypt was not given to anyone.”
This may seem like a trivial matter but it has major implications. Under the normal rules of Egypt, in order for King Solomon to have married an Egyptian princess, he would have had to have been related to this Egyptian pharaoh. And so, the surprising consequence of a seemingly insignificant biblical verse is that King Solomon must have been a close relative of an Egyptian pharaoh. …[I]n what way could King Solomon have been related to a 21st dynasty pharaoh of Egypt?
Just as King David’s 23rd psalm, ye though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me, comes from the Osirian icon flail and crook found on little statues of Osiris and found on the sarcophagus of a pharaoh, King Solomon’s Proverbs come from “The Instructions of Amen-emopet,” Egyptian literature, not the literature of Israelites.
I think the Philistines are fairly well attested to by archeologists. Their dating is firm as far as southern Canaan is concerned. Now their origins in some places seem to be from up the Mediterranean coast. I will have to look that up at some point.
If we are talking about an Israelite king fighting Philistines, its probably the portion of the Sea Peoples the Pharoah settles in SW Canaan. I will have to look into the Amarna letters when I get some time.
I know Egypt was rich, but I cannot imagine that much gold being transferred annually between any two ancient nations: not as tribute, not as penalty, not for a marriage.
FocusMyView said
I think the Philistines are fairly well attested to by archeologists. Their dating is firm as far as southern Canaan is concerned. Now their origins in some places seem to be from up the Mediterranean coast. I will have to look that up at some point.
If we are talking about an Israelite king fighting Philistines, its probably the portion of the Sea Peoples the Pharoah settles in SW Canaan. I will have to look into the Amarna letters when I get some time.
I know Egypt was rich, but I cannot imagine that much gold being transferred annually between any two ancient nations: not as tribute, not as penalty, not for a marriage.
I do not understand your point at all.
The Amarna Letters clearly show Labayu was having military problems. You are saying they were not Philistines or “Early” Philistines or a different group of Sea Peoples?
You say it is probably the portion of the Sea Peoples the Pharaoh settles in SW Canaan? If that were the case, Akhen-aten would have them writing to him in the Amarna Letters as well. Second, he would have supported them taking military action against Labayu-Saul or ordered the action.
Remember the people who went against Saul were coastal moving inland, not from the southwest.
Dr. Ehrman,
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, in their book, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2002) concluded the traditional archaeology of the Davidic and Solomonic period is wrong. Therefore, the Biblical David and Solomon cannot be historically accurate.
Furthermore, the Saul-David-Solomon story is less than historically accurate and therefore they must be relegated to characters of historical fiction because the historically accurate Saul is Labayu, Labaya who was in correspondence with Akhen-aten, centuries earlier (Amarna Letters, discovered 1887). Because David must be connected to Saul, David is moved back from approximately 910 BCE to 1340 BCE or David did not succeed Saul, allowing Solomon and David to remain in the 910 – 880 BCE time frame.
This weakens the historical accuracy of Jesus who was claimed to have been a descendant of King David. David is not firmly established in history at 910 BCE because Saul-Labayu/a wrote to Akhen-aten and correspondence is found in the Amarna Letters.
Question #1: Not only from a genealogical perspective but from a broader historical perspective, the things that David and Solomon supposedly did could not have been done 300+ years earlier. David and Solomon of the 1300s BCE must have different biographies than the David and Solomon of the 910 – 880 BCE time frame?
Question #2: That the bold line between David and Jesus has become a dotted line or even a broken line changes Jesus’ backstory, yes?
Perhaps we have a Labayu in the Amarna period that the Saul of the Bible’s storyline is based on. The source for Saul may well be the Book of Jashar, since that is mentioned when Saul dies. The Dt historian usually mentions a source as he wraps up the story of a king’s life. I do think that the Book of Jashar is Egyptian, because of its use of the term “Hebrew” so often, instead of “Israelite”. (for examples, see the 1 Samuel mentions of “Hebrew”)
Since the archeology does not support the Saul and David battles with the Philistines, I guess we put them on the back burner for now.
I think the NT geneologies attest that Jesus is not from David, since he was not carried in Joseph’s womb!
It would be fun to try and pin down someone close to a Solomon. I wonder if it is based on the Egyptian (governor?) of Canaan in the Amarna period. Or perhaps a foundation legend of Jerusalem itself, who lent his name to this city. Or perhaps based on the story of Menes or another famous emperor’s fame and fortune.
Its weird that the Lawgiver is not the wisest character, not that Solomon’s story gives us much of a chance to judge him as wise, really. I wonder if an older Solomon story had him as a lawgiver, but the Dt strips him of this and gives it to a humble leader who is not… a… king!
Of course, the Dt historian again names his source, the Annals of Solomon. The Dt may have neglected any lawgiver stories about Solomon. (Of course Solomon as lawgiver would conflict with Moses as God’s mouthpiece). He never seems critical of his sources, but we do not know how much he left out, for whatever reason.
Perhaps another item to tie David, Saul , and Solomon to the 14th century BC. Hittites. Uriah the Hittite was Bathsheba’s first husband. One of the ethnicities of Solomon’s wives was Hittite.
Back to Solomon. It seems to be a very common (standard, mainstream, accepted) fact that the Egyptians did not marry out their daughters. But there seems to have been one almost exception. The widow of Tutenkhamen was said to be set to marry the son of the Hittite emperor Supiluliuma. This king was the greatest of the Hittite Empire period, and seems to have been allied with the Kassites in control of Babylon. The Hittites are credited with inventing peace treaties. This compares somewhat with Solomon’s fame and glory, expanding Israel though not so much by war. Both Supiluliuma and Solomon face adversity and a crumbling kingdom before they die. Supiliuma lived around 1350 BCE. (all this from Wikipedia on Hittites).
Steefen said
Dr. Ehrman,
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, in their book, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2002) concluded the traditional archaeology of the Davidic and Solomonic period is wrong. Therefore, the Biblical David and Solomon cannot be historically accurate.
Furthermore, the Saul-David-Solomon story is less than historically accurate and therefore they must be relegated to characters of historical fiction because the historically accurate Saul is Labayu, Labaya who was in correspondence with Akhen-aten, centuries earlier (Amarna Letters, discovered 1887). Because David must be connected to Saul, David is moved back from approximately 910 BCE to 1340 BCE or David did not succeed Saul, allowing Solomon and David to remain in the 910 – 880 BCE time frame.
This weakens the historical accuracy of Jesus who was claimed to have been a descendant of King David. David is not firmly established in history at 910 BCE because Saul-Labayu/a wrote to Akhen-aten and correspondence is found in the Amarna Letters.
Question #1: Not only from a genealogical perspective but from a broader historical perspective, the things that David and Solomon supposedly did could not have been done 300+ years earlier. David and Solomon of the 1300s BCE must have different biographies than the David and Solomon of the 910 – 880 BCE time frame?Question #2: That the bold line between David and Jesus has become a dotted line or even a broken line changes Jesus’ backstory, yes?
Bart
1. Yes, I completely agree with their analysis. Most of the stories about David and Solomon — virtually all of them — are legendary; 2. Yes, I think it’s impossible to demonstrate that Jesus was connected with David through a patrilinear line. That said:
3. He was almost certainly connected to David through *some* kind of genealogical line, since virtually all Jews in his day would have been, given how genealogical lines spread over the generations; 4. None of that has any bearing on the historicity of Jesus or of anything he said or did (issues to be resolved on other grounds)
Bart
None of that has any bearing on the historicity of Jesus or of anything he said or did (issues to be resolved on other grounds)
Steefen
Six Degrees of Separation (film)
The plot of the film was inspired by the real-life story of a con man and robber who convinced a number of people in the 1980s that he was the son of actor Sidney Poitier.
Given two people, one who traces his family tree back, along a string of real human beings vs one who traces his family tree back to a character of historical fiction, the former has a better record of descent / record of ancestry than the latter. The latter is somewhat fraudulent, misrepresenting his record of descent. This does have bearing on the authenticity of Jesus.
This is important New Testament Criticism.
Let’s look at some verses relevant to Jesus as Son of David:
Mt 1: 1
Mt 12: 23
Mt 15: 22
Mt 21: 9 where Jesus is a Solomon figure as Son of David to be crowned king
Mk 10: 48
Mk 12: 35
Jn 7: 42
Romans 1: 3
2 Timothy 2: 8
Revelation 5: 5
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Let’s say the Biblical Jesus was a descendant of a 10th Century BCE northern Pharaoh (whose name means My star [not David’s Star] rises in my city [not David’s city] ) instead of a descendant of a 10th Century BCE King David, Jesus’ theological and biological anchor in pedigree would be disqualifying.
Sure we can say, the Pharisees, the common people, the authors of Mt, Mk, Jn, 2 Timothy, and Revelation were all mistaken, nevertheless, the historical Jesuses: 1) the Woe-Saying Jesus, 2) Jesus of Gamala/Galilee with his mariners who fought Vespasian and Titus at the Battle of Galilee; and the Biblical Jesus all still existed.
10 verses in the New Testament have lost some if not all credibility with David being a character of historical fiction, or worse, a 10th Century pharaoh who would know, via amduats, something about the valley of the shadow of death, comforted by thy rod and thy staff [any visit to a museum with an Egyptian wing would show the flail and crook symbol of resurrection, iconography of Osiris, Lord of the Resurrection].
Steefen said
With Saul dragging David back in history from 910 BCE to 1340 BCE, is there a royal figure associated with the traditional Star of David and City of David?Yes, there is. Pa-seba-khen nuit is that king. His cartouche includes a star.
Pick-up at bottom of page 59.
page 60
Pa means My
Seba means Star
Kha means Rises [over]/Shines [on]
n means His
Nuit means City
My star shines on his city. Pa-seba-khen-nuit is one of the names of Psusennes II, 21st Dynasty.
Let’s check Wikipedia
Psusennes is the Greek version of his original name Pasibkhanu or Pasebakhaenniut, which means “The Star Appearing in the City” while his throne name, Akheperre Setepenamun, translates as “Great are the Manifestations of Ra, chosen of Amun.”
With rod and staff from Psalm 23
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)