NARRATOR: When the biblical chronology of Israel's kings can be cross-referenced with historical inscriptions, like the Tel Dan Stele, they can provide scholars with fairly reliable dates. King David is the earliest biblical figure confirmed by archaeology to be historical. And most scholars agree he lived around 1000 B.C., the 10th century.

Could any of the Bible have been written during David's reign? The earliest Hebrew alphabet discovered by Ron Tappy carved on a stone at Tel Zayit provides an enticing clue.

[transcript page 15]

NARRATOR: So has Mazar discovered the Palace of David? She adds up the evidence. The building is huge, it is located in a prominent place in the oldest part of Jerusalem, and the pottery, according to Albright's chronology, dates to the 10th century B.C., the time of David. Mazar believes she has indeed found the Palace of David.

But that evidence and, indeed, the kingdom itself rest on the dates associated with fragments of pottery, and some critics argue the system for dating that pottery relies too heavily on the Bible.

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: Archaeologists in the past did not rely too heavily on the Bible, they relied only on the Bible. We have a problem in dating. How do you date in archaeology? You need an anchor from outside.

NARRATOR: Today, there is a more scientific method to anchor pottery to firm dates, radiocarbon dating. It is a specialty of Elisabetta Boaretto of the Weizmann Institute.

ELISABETTA BOARETTO (Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel): The first step is, of course, in the field, which relates this sample material like olive pits or seeds or charcoal to the archaeological context.

NARRATOR: If an olive seed is found at the same layer as a piece of pottery, the carbon in the seed can be used to date the pottery.

When the seed dies, its radioactive carbon-14 decays at a consistent rate over time. By measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12, Boaretto can determine the age of the olive seed, which, in turn, can be used to date the pottery.

Boaretto has meticulously collected and analyzed hundreds of samples from over 20 sites throughout Israel. Her carbon samples date the pottery that Albright and most archaeologists associate with the time of David and Solomon to around 75 years later.

[transcript page 17]

When the seed dies, its radioactive carbon-14 decays at a consistent rate over time. By measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12, Boaretto can determine the age of the olive seed, which, in turn, can be used to date the pottery.

Boaretto has meticulously collected and analyzed hundreds of samples from over 20 sites throughout Israel. Her carbon samples date the pottery that Albright and most archaeologists associate with the time of David and Solomon to around 75 years later.

For events so long ago, this may seem like a trivial difference, but if Boaretto is right, Mazar's Palace of David and Tappy's ancient Hebrew alphabet have to be re-dated. This places them in the time of the lesser-known kings Omri, Ahab, and his despised wife Jezebel, all worshippers of the Canaanite god Baal.

With no writing or monumental building, suddenly the Kingdom of David and Solomon is far less glorious than the Bible describes.

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: So David and Solomon did not rule over a big territory. It was a small chiefdom, if you wish, with just a few settlements, very poor, the population was limited, there was no manpower for big conquest, and so on and so forth.

NARRATOR: This would make David a petty warlord ruling over a chiefdom, and his royal capital, Jerusalem, nothing more than a cow town.

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: These are the results of the radiocarbon dating. He or she who decides to ignore these results, I treat them as if arguing that the world is flat, that the Earth is flat. And I cannot argue anymore.

NARRATOR: But it's not so simple. Other teams collected radiocarbon samples following the same meticulous methodology. According to their results, Mazar's palace and Tappy's alphabet can date to the 10th century, the time of David and Solomon.

How can this discrepancy be explained? The problem is that these radiocarbon dates have a margin of error of plus- or minus-30 years, about the difference between the two sides.

NARRATOR: Pottery and radiocarbon dating alone cannot determine if the Kingdom of David
and Solomon was as large and prosperous as described in the Bible.

Fortunately, the Bible offers clues of other places to dig for evidence of this kingdom. The Bible credits David with conquering the kingdom, but it is Solomon, his son, who is the great builder.

VOICEOVER (Reading from the Bible "Revised Standard Version," First Kings 9:15): This was the purpose of the forced labor which Solomon imposed. It was to build the House of YHWH ... and the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer.

NARRATOR: Here in Hazor, Amnon Ben-Tor, director of excavations, believes this may be evidence of Solomon's building campaign.

Archaeologists call it a six-chambered gate, a massive entryway, fortified with towers and guard rooms. Ben-Tor's predecessor, Yigal Yadin first uncovered this structure.
AMNON BEN-TOR: It turned out to be a six-chambered gate, and Yadin immediately remembered that a very, very similar gate was excavated at Gezer, and then Chicago University excavated this gate, here at Megiddo.

NARRATOR: Stunned by the similarity of these three gates, Yadin recalled the passage in the Bible.

AMNON BEN-TOR: Here we have a wonderful connection of the biblical passage as it shows up in archaeology.

NARRATOR: Three monumental gates, all based on the same plan, would seem to be powerful evidence not only of prosperity, but also of a central authority. Throughout its history the Israelites had been divided into tribes, then into kingdoms, north and south. The locations of these strikingly similar gates in both regions suggest a single governing authority throughout the land.

But how can we be sure this is the Kingdom of David and Solomon? The answer, once again, lies in Egypt.

DONALD REDFORD: The head-smiting scene, which you see on this wall, commemorates a military campaign conducted by Pharaoh Shishak, or Sheshonk, the founder of Dynasty 22, in Egypt.

NARRATOR: The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak invades Israel, an event the Bible reports and specifically dates to five years after Solomon's death, during the reign of his son, Rehoboam.
VOICEOVER (Reading from the Bible "Revised Standard Version," First Kings 14:25–26): In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt marched against Jerusalem and carried off the treasures of the House of YHWH and the treasures of the royal palace. He carried off everything.

DONALD REDFORD: The importance of this, in fixing one of the earliest dates, specific dates, in which Egyptian history coincides with biblical history is really startling and has to be taken note of.

NARRATOR: This stunning convergence between the Bible and Egyptian history gives a firm date for the death of Solomon. Shishak's campaign, according to the well-established Egyptian chronology, dates to 925 B.C. And the Bible says Solomon dies five years earlier, which means 930 B.C. This is further evidence that David and Solomon lived in the 10th century, but there's even more hidden in these walls.

These ovals, with their depictions of bound captives and city walls, represent places Pharaoh Shishak conquered in Israel. One of those places is Gezer, where archaeologists find the hallmark of Solomon's building program, a six-chambered gate.
Bill Dever directed the excavations in the late 1960s.

WILLIAM DEVER: We can actually see vivid evidence here of a destruction. Down below, we have the original stones, pretty much in situ, but, if you look in here, you see the stones are badly cracked. You can even see where they're burned from the heat of a huge fire that has been built here. And then, up in here, you see the fire had been so intense that the soft limestone has melted into lime, and it flows down like lava. This is vivid evidence of a destruction, and we would connect that with this well-known raid of Pharaoh Shishak.
NARRATOR: And if the gate was destroyed by Shishak, in 925 B.C., then it must have been built during the lifetime of Solomon, who died just five years earlier.

WILLIAM DEVER: Surely this kind of monumental architecture is evidence of state formation, and if it's in the 10th century, then...Solomon.

NARRATOR: Although a minority of archaeologists continue to disagree, this convergence of the Bible, Egyptian chronology and Solomon's gates is powerful evidence that a great kingdom existed at the time of David and Solomon, spanning all of Israel, north and south, with its capital in Jerusalem.
[transcript Pg 20]

Gosh, that is simply fascinating. Using the Bible to support the narrative of the Bible. Of course Finkelstein is wrong. Where does the Bible mention him?

Conclusions:
Finkelstein wrong
David and Solomon real as described by the Bible

Conclusions:
Finkelstein wrong
David and Solomon real as described by the Bible
Portions of Bible written cotemporaneous with life of David/Solomon.

David and Solomon are real as described by the bible? There is nothing in your post which even comes close to supporting that conclusion. You're referencing a set of claims that are very specific. I see no way to come to any other conclusion than that to say David and Solomon most likely existed. Also, the city was likely of decent size, due to the structure of the city gates. I'm not being overly skeptical here, I'm simply going off the information you've provided. If there is more information that confirms each and every sentence about David and Solomon from the bible, then I apologize.

Whenever I see language similar to that bolded I suspect your sincerety; correction there is no suspicion involved.

Interbane
there is a large difference between being "real", and being "real as described by the bible". You are nesting a set of claims within the proposition. The former is a single claim, the latter is a set of claims. Your conclusion is that every claim that refers to Solomon and David from within the bible is true. Each and every reference to them. I'm not being overly skeptical by saying your conclusion is false.

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN: Archaeologists in the past ... relied only on the Bible. We have a problem in dating. How do you date in archaeology? You need an anchor from outside. David and Solomon did not rule over a big territory. It was a small chiefdom, if you wish, with just a few settlements, very poor, the population was limited, there was no manpower for big conquest, and so on and so forth. These are the results of the radiocarbon dating. He or she who decides to ignore these results, I treat them as if arguing that the world is flat, that the Earth is flat. And I cannot argue anymore.

[And along comes the fundy knight in shining armor to rebut the scientist - "if you squint hard enough you can really see a face"]

NARRATOR: Here in Hazor, Amnon Ben-Tor, director of excavations, believes this may be evidence of Solomon's building campaign.
NARRATOR: Three monumental gates, all based on the same plan, would seem to be powerful evidence not only of prosperity, but also of a central authority. Throughout its history the Israelites had been divided into tribes, then into kingdoms, north and south. The locations of these strikingly similar gates in both regions suggest a single governing authority throughout the land.
WILLIAM DEVER: We can actually see vivid evidence here of a destruction. Down below, we have the original stones, pretty much in situ, but, if you look in here, you see the stones are badly cracked. You can even see where they're burned from the heat of a huge fire that has been built here. And then, up in here, you see the fire had been so intense that the soft limestone has melted into lime, and it flows down like lava. This is vivid evidence of a destruction, and we would connect that with this well-known raid of Pharaoh Shishak.
NARRATOR: And if the gate was destroyed by Shishak, in 925 B.C., then it must have been built during the lifetime of Solomon, who died just five years earlier.
WILLIAM DEVER: Surely this kind of monumental architecture is evidence of state formation, and if it's in the 10th century, then...Solomon.

Conclusions: Finkelstein wrong David and Solomon real as described by the Bible Portions of Bible written cotemporaneous with life of David/Solomon.

For Interbane, I am beginning a major project and don't have time to spoon feed you anymore but still would if it would do any good. In this case the good of the many must outweigh the good of the few, or the Interbane.

"his words are unimportant, and we do not hear them."

What about the Mesha Stele, Tel Dan Stele and Black Obelisk?

The Mesha Stele, Tel Dan Stele and Black Obelisk are among the artifacts used by Bible-thumpers to claim that the Good Book is confirmed as "history." While the brief mentions of "Israel," "David" or other king of Israel in these artifacts may serve to establish that Israel existed and that certain biblical kings were real, they do not prove that major, supernatural events of the Bible actually happened on Earth at any time in history.

The Patriarchs are the Gods of Other Cultures

In the first place, mythicists and Bible-minimalists generally do not claim that there is no history in the Bible or that all biblical characters are mythical. What becomes obvious from studying as much of the evidence as we have is that a number of major characters like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon are evidently mythical figures, the former three obviously based on pre-Judaic gods, while the latter two may be a combination of Canaanite/Levantine gods, along with petty thanes who actually lived.

I make this qualification as concerns David and Solomon only because we know that there were rulers of ancient tribes in Israel, and some of their exploits are certainly recorded in the Old Testament. However, the names "Da-'u'dum" (David), "Sa-'u-lum" (Saul) and other patriarchs appear in older tablets from Ebla, so it would be reckless to assume that they are entirely historical individuals who lived and died in Israel.

The original name for Solomon is "Shĕlomoh" or "Shlomo," but it was translated in the Greek Old Testament/Septuagint as Σαλωμων or "Salomon." "Solomon," it has been pointed out, is the sun in three languages: Sol, Om, On. For more on the Solomon, see The Christ Conspiracy.

To recap, there is both myth and history in the Bible, although the latter has been reduced significantly by the hard sciences, particularly archaeology. The discipline needed to understand the Bible better is mythology, which is sorely overlooked - quite bizarrely, in consideration of all the supernatural and patently mythical events depicted in The Book. A study of mythology and ancient religion reveals their numerous astrotheological underpinnings. Without these disciplines, we cannot recognize what we are seeing in various biblical tales.

Knowing the massive body of literature in this field of biblical mythology, we approach these artifacts differently.

The Mesha Stele



While the Mesha Stele is interesting in that it evidently represents an early record of Israel and the purported biblical king Omri, I would exercise caution in accepting the reconstruction of Dr. Lemaire of "House of David," without seeing peer consensus, because he is a Catholic known to get a bit too enthusiastic about tying things into the Bible. See, for example, his work on the so-called James Ossuary, which is considered to be bogus. In this regard, the Wiki article says that "..in 2001 another French scholar, Pierre Bordreuil, reported (in an essay in French) that he and a few other scholars could not confirm Lemaire's reading." Wiki's conclusion: "The identification of David in the Mesha stele remains controversial."

Even if this stele did say "House of David," all that fact would prove is that there was a prominent figure named David, which we already know from the Ebla tablets, which predate this find by several hundred years. Indeed, if "Da-'u'dum" was a Canaanite god, hero or ruler, we would expect to make a find like this one. In any event, the discovery certainly does not prove the events regarding the character of David in the Old Testament as "historical."

The value of this stele is not in proving but in disproving elements of the biblical account that turn out to be propaganda from an Israelite perspective, of course. To my knowledge, there is no big issue about the existence of Israel at the time of this stele's inscription or of a ruler named Omri.

Again, we are not claiming that there is no history in the Bible. In some of the later books, there apparently is history, although the book of Daniel - which is for the most part evidently a late addition from the second century before the common era - may be in significant part yet another fictional text concerning older Canaanite heroes and gods that has been reworked. For more on the Daniel myth, see The Christ Conspiracy.

The Tel Dan Stele


Also according to Wiki, Aramaic is supposedly 3,000 years old, so the stela could very well date to the era it is claimed (9th-8th cents. BCE). Nevertheless, as concerns the phrase "House of David," see the above. Also, however, if this is an artifact that dates to several centuries after the purported existence of David, we would not be terribly surprised, since by that time the phrase would already be in currency, because the Bible already existed, at least orally.

Yet, this artifact would not prove that this revered David had actually walked the earth. Again, he could be - and likely is - an ancient pre-Judaic god made into a Jewish patriarch. Another alternative is that the petty thane ruler of the appropriate era was named after an ancient tribal god - this sort of development involving rulers, priests and commoners alike has occurred countless times.

In any case, a victory over the "House of David" does not prove that David was an actual historical character, any more than the "House of Moloch" would do likewise for that ancient Semitic god. Practically all tribes have had a divine figurehead under whose banner - and "House" - they have marched.

The Wiki article about this artifact concludes:


Here are a couple more threads on this forum where you might be able to glean some info - these can be found using the search feature:

The Bibles Buried Secrets - PBS Documentary
King David and Jerusalem- Myth and Reality

The Black Obelisk


This artifact evidently proves the existence of the Israelite King Jehu, c. 841 BCE. See above where I discuss the Bible as history - to my knowledge, no one has ever stated that none of the numerous kings in the Old Testament is historical. Hence, all this stela does is prove that there is some history in the Bible, not that the fantastic, supernatural events therein are indeed historical.

I'm not a variable in your problem. What you posted may be evidence of historicity of someone, but there is no information showing that these characters were real as described by the bible. Holding my hand won't eliminate this problem. If you tell me that there is in fact evidence for each and every biblical passage which refers to David and Solomon, I won't care enough to follow up. I will simply believe you, because some of the stories must be based on truth. You don't need to switch into deluded denial mode simply because an error is pointed out. You didn't have enough information to support your conclusion, don't blame me for it.

"his words are unimportant, and we do not hear them."

Rather than stick my fingers in my ears and pretend RT isn't here, I read his post. There is information in his post that's contrary to your position Stahrwe. You may want to pretend his words are unimportant so you don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance. The less of it you have, the easier delusion is to maintain.

Dr McCoy
"his words are unimportant, and we do not hear them."

”I just called the klingon a liar.”

"Hector Avalos is professor of religious studies at Iowa State University and the author or editor of six books on Biblical studies and religion, including his recently published work, The End of Biblical Studies. Join us for a fascinating presentation detailing how the more we discover about the ancient world, the less reliable we find the Bible.

Part 1
http://tinyurl.com/2x86y2

Part 2
http://tinyurl.com/2bmm9h