by
Damien F. Mackey
“Tis all in pieces,
all coherence gone,
All just supply, and all relation;
Prince, subject, father, son, are things forgot …”.
John Donne
Three entirely different textbook ‘historical
eras, with their accompanying archaeologies, spanning from the Middle Bronze to
the Iron Age, are presently required to accommodate the length and breadth of
the greatness that was King Solomon, the wise king of C10th BC Israel.
The current system of archaeology that underlies a
badly warped conventional chronology of antiquity has so ‘knocked into a
three-cornered cocked hat’ the era of King Solomon as to render that era today as
virtually unidentifiable.
The ‘three corners’, that each point in quite
different directions are as follows:
The Era of Hammurabi (c. 1800 BC). Middle
Bronze I (2000-1750 BC);
Hatshepsut, 18th Dynasty Egypt (C15th BC).
Late Bronze I (1550-1400 BC);
3. Solomon (biblically c. 950 BC),
conventionally Iron Age IIA (1000-900 BC).
Let us consider 1-3 in turn:
1. The Era of Hammurabi
That the true era of the splendid King Hammurabi
of Babylon has mystified historians is apparent from the fact that he, famously
described by Dr. D. Courville as “floating about in a liquid
chronology of Chaldea”, was originally dated as far back as the mid-third
millennium BC, then to c. 2100 BC. Whilst, even today, various high and low
chronologies can be proposed for the king, the general opinion is that he is to
be dated to c. 1800 BC.
Conventionally,
this is the Middle Bronze Age I period.
As we shall see, the need for the significant
lowering of Hammurabi from 2100 BC to 1800 BC is based on the flimsiest of
evidence.
Dr. Courville’s revision of, especially Egyptian,
ancient history (in The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, 2 vols., CA
1971) next ‘conveyed’ this misunderstood king to what ought now be regarded as,
for him, a far more realistic historical location, in the C15th BC, but still
based on very flimsy evidence.
The Hammurabi conundrum was finally solved by Dean
Hickman (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of
Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, 13-28), who finally laid Hammurabi safely to rest
in the C10th BC era of kings David and Solomon.
That I have no doubt that this is the correct era
for King Hammurabi is apparent e.g. from my article:
This well-documented era (e.g. the Mari archives)
has begun to produce biblico-historical synchronisms similar to the abundant
el-Amarna period, revised (C14th BC down to C9th BC).
And once its potential becomes fully appreciated
by revisionists, it will no doubt produce even more abundantly, along the lines
of the far more intensely investigated el-Amarna.
Hammurabic Anomalies
Stratigraphical and Astronomical
The universal influence of kings David and Solomon
of Israel permeated the entire ancient world of the c. C10th BC, with 18th
dynasty (Hatshepsut) Egypt, mentored by the great Senenmut (Solomon) (see 2.),
being a most eager recipient.
Nor was Hammurabi’s Babylon to be deprived of this
cultural overflow. See e.g. my series:
beginning with:
Given Hammurabi’s proper location now at the time
of kings David and Solomon, then Hammurabi could not possibly have been (that
is, according to my revision) contemporaneous with the Middle Bronze I period,
to where he is conventionally located, as the Middle Bronze I nomads were
indubitably the Exodus Israelites. See e.g. my article:
The Bible Illuminates History and Philosophy. Part Seven: Middle Bronze
I Israelites
Dr. I. Velikovsky had told, in his article “Hammurabi
and the Revised Chronology”, of
how
King Hammurabi first came to be dated to c. 2100 BC, and of his chronological
importance: “The period of Hammurabi also served as a landmark for the
histories of the Middle East from Elam to Syria, and was used as a guide for
the chronological tables of other nations”, and of Velikovsky’s own radical
revision of the Hammurabic era (
http://www.varchive.org/ce/hammurabi.html):
….
Until a few
decades ago, the reign of Hammurabi was dated to around the year 2100 before
the present era. This dating was originally prompted by information contained
in an inscription of Nabonidus … who reigned in the sixth century ….
In the
foundations of a temple at Larsa, Nabonidus found a plaque of King
Burnaburiash. This king is known to us from the el-Amarna correspondence in
which he participated. On that plaque Burnaburiash wrote that he had rebuilt
the temple erected seven hundred years before by King Hammurabi. The
el-Amarna letters, according to conventional chronology, were written about
-1400. Thus, if Burnaburiash lived then, Hammurabi must have lived about
-2100.
When
Egyptologists found it necessary to reduce the el-Amarna Age by a quarter of
a century, the time of Hammurabi was adjusted accordingly, and placed in the
twenty-first century before the present era. It was also observed: “The
period of the First Dynasty of Babylon has always been a landmark in early
history, because by it the chronology of Babylonia can be fixed, with a
reasonable margin of error.” 4
The period of Hammurabi also served as a landmark for the histories of the
Middle East from Elam to Syria, and was used as a guide for the chronological
tables of other nations.
Since the
dates for Hammurabi were established originally on the evidence of the plaque
of King Burnaburiash found by Nabonidus—which indicated that King Hammurabi
had reigned seven hundred years earlier—the revision of ancient history
outlined in Ages in Chaos would set a much later date for Hammurabi,
for it places the el-Amarna correspondence and King Burnaburiash in the
ninth, not the fourteenth, century. Burnaburiash wrote long letters to
Amenhotep III and Akhnaton, bore himself in a haughty manner and demanded
presents in gold, jewels, and ivory. In the same collection of letters,
however, there are many which we have identified as originating from Ahab of
Samaria and Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem, and from their governors. 5
Therefore, seven
hundred years before this correspondence would bring us to the sixteenth
century, not the twenty-first. Also, the end of the First Babylonian
Dynasty—in circumstances recalling the end of the Middle Kingdom in
Egypt—would point to some date close to -1500, or even several decades later.
A connecting
link was actually found between the First Babylonian Dynasty and the Twelfth
Dynasty of Egypt, the great dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. At Platanos on
Crete, a seal of the Hammurabi type was discovered in a tomb together with
Middle Minoan pottery of a kind associated at other sites with objects of the
Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, 6
more exactly, of its earlier part. 7
This is regarded as proof that these two dynasties were contemporaneous.
In the last
several decades, however, a series of new discoveries have made a drastic
reduction of the time of Hammurabi imperative. Chief among the factors that
demand a radical change in the chronology of early Babylonia and that of the
entire Middle Eastern complex—a chronology that for a long time was regarded
as unassailable—are the finds of Mari, Nuzi, and Khorsabad. At Mari on the
central Euphrates, among other rich material, a cuneiform tablet was found
which established that Hammurabi of Babylonia and King Shamshi-Adad I of
Assyria were contemporaries. An oath was sworn by the life of these two kings
in the tenth year of Hammurabi, The finds at Mari “proved conclusively that
Hammurabi came to the throne in Babylonia after the accession of Shamshi-Adad
I in Assyria”. 8
Shamshi-Adad I
could not have reigned in the twenty-first century since there exist lists of
Assyrian kings which enable us to compute regnal dates. Being compilations of
later times, it is admitted by modern research that “the figures in king
lists are not infrequently erroneous”. 9
But in 1932 a fuller and better-preserved list of Assyrian king names was
found at Khorsabad, capital of Sargon II.
Published ten
years later, in 1942, it contains the names of one hundred and seven Assyrian
kings with the number of years of their reigns. Shamshi-Adad I, who is the
thirty-first on the list, but the first of the kings whose regnal years are
given in figures, reigned much later than the time originally allotted to
Hammurabi whose contemporary he was.
The Khorsabad
list ends in the tenth year of Assur-Nerari V, which is computed to have been
-745; at that time the list was composed or copied. By adding to the last
year the sum of the regnal years, as given in the list of the kings from
Shamshi-Adad to Assur-Nerari, the first year of Shamshi-Adad is calculated to
have been -1726 and his last year -1694. These could be the earliest dates;
with a less liberal approach, the time of Shamshi-Adad needs to be relegated
to an even later date.
The result
expressed in the above figures required a revolutionary alteration in
Babylonian chronology, for it reduced the time of Hammurabi from the
twenty-first century to the beginning of the seventeenth century. The
realization that the dating of Hammurabi must be brought forward by three and
a half centuries created “a puzzling chronological discrepancy”, 10
which could only be resolved by making Hammurabi later than Amenemhet I of
the Twelfth Dynasty.
The process of
scaling down the time of Hammurabi is an exciting spectacle. Sidney Smith and
W. F. Albright competed in this scaling down; as soon as one of them offered
a more recent date, the other offered a still more recent one, and so it went
until Albright arrived at -1728 to -1686 for Hammurabi, and S. Smith—by
placing Shamshi-Adad from -1726 to -1694—appeared to start Hammurabi at
-1716. 11
If Hammurabi
reigned at the time allotted to him by the finds at Mari and Khorsabad—but
according to the finds at Platanos was a contemporary of the Egyptian kings
of the early Twelfth Dynasty—then that dynasty must have started at a time
when, according to the accepted chronology, it had already come to its end. In
conventionally-written history, by -1680 not only the Twelfth Dynasty, but
also the Thirteenth, or the last of the Middle Kingdom, had expired.
[End
of quotes]
|
As noted above, Hammurabi underwent a significant
chronological shift at the hands of the conventional historians “based on the
flimsiest of evidence”. Owing to the discovery of that one seal at Platanos,
that was thought to look Hammurabic-ish, and due to a vague piece of
neo-Babylonian chronological information, and even vaguer astronomy (see
below), Hammurabi has become conventionally set as a contemporary of the 12th
dynasty of Egypt. Hammurabi, therefore, stratigraphically and wrongly placed at
the time of the wandering Israelites (Middle Bronze Age I), has been located in
relation to dynastic Egypt - again quite wrongly according to my revision - to
the time of Moses.
Hammurabi needs
to be lowered from here by about half a millennium!
However,
supposedly in support of the 12
th dynasty synchronism for Hammurabi,
is the astronomical information as supplied by the famous Venus tablets of
Hammurabi’s descendant Ammisaduqa. Charles Ginenthal, who has managed to find a
place for both Hammurabi and the 12
th dynasty of Egypt during the
Persian era - following professor G. Heinsohn’s most radical view that
Hammurabi was the same as Darius I - writes as follows about Ammisaduqa (
http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Pillars-Vol-II-(large).pdf):
The scientific method by which
the Old Babylonians were dated to the early part of the second millennium B.C.,
and not to Persian times, was based on astronomy and in particular on the Venus
tablets of an Old Babylonian king named Ammisaduqa. This was taken to be the
absolute anchor of Mesopotamia in the second millennium B.C. to which it was
fastened. Since this placement aligned itself with that of the 12th Egyptian
Dynasty, also in the early part of the second millennium B.C., it was seen as a
double anchor point.
….
He then adds this most
significant information about how the highly-respected Otto Neugebauer came to
view the Ammisaduqa data:
…. Otto Neugebauer originally
maintained that because the Venus tablets “are given in the contemporary lunar
calendar, these documents have become an important element for the
determination of the chronology of the Hammurapi [Old Babylonian] period. …”14
This was in 1957. Then in 1983 he claimed:
“From the Old Babylonian
period only one isolated text is preserved which contains omina … from the
later astrology. Predictions derived from observations of Venus made during the
reign of Ammisaduqa (ca. 1600 B.C.) are preserved only in copies written
almost a thousand years later and clearly [were] subjected to several changes
during this long time. We are thus again left in the dark as to the actual
date of the composition of these documents.”15 [emphasis added]
[End of quotes]
2. Hatshepsut
and Senenmut: 18th Dynasty Egypt
The Late Bronze Era of the early 18th
Egyptian Dynasty - and not the Middle Bronze I (conventional Hammurabic), nor
the Iron II (conventional Solomonic) - is the stratigraphical phase that truly
reflects the cosmopolitan reign of King Solomon of Israel.
Introduction
In 1., we considered King Solomon as a
contemporary of the Hammurabic era, which latter era, however, then needed to
be dislodged from its date of c. 1800 BC; and from its supposed contemporaneity
with the 12th dynasty of Egypt; and from its archaeological
situation in the Middle Bronze Age I.
King Hammurabi’s era, when properly revised, dates
to the c. C10th BC; is contemporaneous with the 18th dynasty of
Hatshepsut’s Egypt; and belongs archaeologically to the Late Bronze Age.
We can be more specific about King Solomon. He
was, according to my article:
Solomon and Sheba
Hatshepsut’s right-hand man and mentor, Senenmut
(Senmut).
Dr. John Bimson had, in a ground-breaking article:
Can There be a Revised
Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?
achieved what the conventional archaeologists have
so miserably failed to do. He identified archaeologically this glorious era of
Solomon (my Senenmut), Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.
Here is the relevant portion of Bimson’s article:
The
Late Bronze Age and the Reign of Solomon
…. Though chiefly concerned
with dating the start of LB I A relative to the Hyksos period, I also suggested
briefly that the transition to LB I B belonged in the reign of Solomon [13].
Research carried out since that article was written has led me to modify that
view. Although an exhaustive study of the LBA contexts of all scarabs
commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this
point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these
two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that
scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and
perhaps no earlier [14]. Velikovsky's chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose
III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III's sole reign
contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah [15]. Therefore, if the revised
chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon's reign saw the
transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B.
Placing the beginning of LB II
during the reign of Solomon produces a very good correlation between
archaeological evidence and the biblical record of that period. It is with this
correlation that we will begin. In taking the LB I - II transition as its
starting-point, the present article not only takes up the challenge offered by
Stiebing, but also continues the revision begun in my previous articles, and
will bring it to a conclusion (in broad outline) with the end of the Iron Age.
Though KENYON has stated that
the LB I - II transition saw a decline in the material culture of Palestine
[16], ongoing excavations are now revealing a different picture. LB II A
"was definitely superior to the preceding LB I", in terms of
stability and material prosperity; it saw "a rising population that
reoccupied long abandoned towns" [17]. Foreign pottery imports are a chief
characteristic of the period [18]. According to the biblical accounts in the
books of Kings and Chronicles, Solomon's reign brought a period of peace which
saw an increase in foreign contacts, unprecedented prosperity, and an energetic
building programme which extended throughout the kingdom [19].
I Kings 9:15 specifically
relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised
stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would
therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities
would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI
at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower
City) [21].
The wealth and international
trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more
accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we
have "no evidence of any particular luxury" [21a].
The above-mentioned strata at
Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and
courtyards [22]. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately
not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive
looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the
Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by
Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament [23].
Art treasures from these
cities not only indicate the wealth of the period, but reflect contacts with
Egypt and northern Mesopotamia [24]. These contacts are precisely those we
would expect to find attested during Solomon's reign, the Bible records
Solomon's trade with Egypt and his marriage to the Pharaoh's daughter [25], and
says (I Kings 4:24) that his kingdom extended as far to the north-east as
Tiphsah, which is probably to be identified with Thapsacus, "an important
crossing in the west bank of the Middle Euphrates ... placed strategically on a
great east-west trade route" [26].
The Bible adds extra detail
concerning Gezer: namely, that Solomon rebuilt it after it had been captured
and burnt by the Pharaoh, who had given the site to his daughter, Solomon's
wife, as a dowry (I Kings 9:16-17). In Velikovsky's chronology, this pharaoh is
identified as Thutmose I [27]. In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we
would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point
during LB I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning
[28]. The "latest possible date" for this destruction is said to be
the reign of Thutmose III, with some archaeologists preferring an earlier date [29].
We may readily identify this destruction as the work of Solomon's
father-in-law.
From the period between this
destruction and the LB II A city comes a group of several dozen burials in a
cave. DEVER remarks that most of these "show signs of advanced arthritis,
probably from stoop labour, which may be an indication of the hardships of life
during this period" [30]. Yet contemporary finds, including "Egyptian
glass, alabaster and ivory vessels, and a unique terra-cotta sarcophagus of
Mycenaean inspiration" [31], indicate considerable prosperity and
international trade at this time. In a revised framework, it is tempting to
speculate that the burials were of people who suffered under Solomon's system
of forced labour, by which Gezer was built according to I Kings 9:15. It
emerges in I Kings 12 that this forced labour caused sufficient hardship to
contribute to the bitterness which split the kingdom after Solomon's death.
We must turn briefly to
Jerusalem, where Solomon's building activities were concentrated for the first
twenty years of his reign, according to I Kings 9:10. Here we find that traces
of occupation datable to Solomon's time in the conventional scheme are rather
poor [32]
In the revised scheme, we may
attribute to Solomon the impressive stone terrace system of LBA date excavated
by Kenyon on the eastern ridge [33]. In fact, this is probably the
"Millo" which Solomon is said to have built (I Kings 9:15, 24;
II:27). Kenyon describes the nucleus of this terrace system as "a fill almost
entirely of rubble, built in a series of compartments defined by facings of a
single course of stones..." [34]. "Fill", or
"filling", is the probable meaning of "Millo" [35]. Also to
Solomon's time would belong at least some of the LBA tombs discovered on the
western slope of the Mount of Olives; many of these contain LB I - IIA material
which includes "a surprisingly large number" of imported items from
Cyprus, Aegean and Egypt [36]. The number would not be surprising in the
context of Solomon's reign. ….
….
Comparison of (A) LB II
(Stratum Ib) temple at Hazor with (B) the basic ground plan of Solomon's Temple
in Jerusalem, as deduced from biblical information. Both have a tripartite
division on a single axis, side-rooms and a pair of free-standing pillars
(though the latter are not identically situated in both cases)
[End of Bimson’s
section]
Whilst much more
work needs to be done, it seems obvious that Bimson’s Late Bronze Age placement
of Solomon and Hatshepsut is far more appropriate than either Middle Bronze I
or Iron Age II.
3. Iron Age II
Iron Age II, the archaeological phase
favoured by archaeologists for kings David and Solomon, turns out to be
hopelessly inadequate as a representation of that glorious period.
As we read in 2., Dr. John Bimson,
contrasting his view of the Late Bronze Age for King Solomon with the
conventional view of Iron Age II for the great king, wrote:
I Kings 9:15 specifically
relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised
stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would
therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities
would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI
at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower
City) [21].
The wealth and international
trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more
accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we
have "no evidence of any particular luxury" [21a].
[End of quote]
That the bankrupt
conventional arrangement of chronology and attendant stratigraphy falls to
pieces completely when subjected to biblical scrutiny is well apparent from the
attempted merging of the Solomonic era with a mis-dated archaeological phase:
Iron II.
David and Solomon
simply disappear.
Thus professor Israel
Finkelstein famously remarked – and quite logically according to the strictures
of his conventional scheme:
“Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for
that!”
(National
Geographic article, “Kings of Controversy” by Robert Draper
(David and Solomon, December 2010, p. 85).
What Finkelstein ought
to have been “sorry” for, however, was not the wise King Solomon – who continues to
exist as a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused
utterances of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists – but for Finkelstein’s
own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system
that causes him to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old
Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon).
We may read of the current
wretched minimalistic (re the Bible) situation at
1000–800 BC – Iron Age II
The
memories of the events and persons from the heroic past are the memories that
are reactivated. The Davidic monarchy was Judah’s Golden Age. The founders of
Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was Saul who
consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable
of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and
united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus
establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city. It is generally
accepted among scholars today that there is some genuine historical material in
the Books of Samuel, which describe the careers of Saul and David; but even
these books must be critically examined to distinguish between legend and fact,
in as much as it can ever be known.
As
recently as the 1980s most scholars viewed the United Monarchy as a fairly
secure period of historical reconstruction. Critics debated whether one could
speak of the exodus as an actual historical event. Archaeology gives no record
of Exodus, of forty years of wandering in the desert, of Joshua's conquest of
the land. But virtually all modern histories of ancient Israel included, if not
commenced with, the monarchy of David and Solomon. Archaeological surveys
showed that there were about 250 settlements in the central hill country of
Canaan in Iron Age I (1200-1000 BC), as compared to about 50 settlements in
Late Bronze Age II (14th-13th century BC). Such a large increase in settlements
would have required the creation of a state apparatus, such as the United
Kingdom.
This is
no longer the case: even the Davidic Kingdom becomes reduced. "The United
Monarchy no longer unites modern scholars". During recent decades the
scholarly consensus about the United Kingdom was undone. Many modern scholars
question the historicity of the Bible’s stories about Saul, David, and Solomon.
Doubts have been raised about the historicity of the biblical account, and
consequently about the ascription of archaeological strata to this period.
In the opinion
of most modern scholars, the Bible is not an entirely reliable historical
document.
Corroborating
evidence is required, and some indeed exists; but it is not conclusive. There
is an endeavor to pierce through the displacements and exaggerations of national
pride which influenced the historical form of the statements and to discover
actuality as it was and developed. This reveals the nature and value of the
texts, but grasps also their connection with the original fact, their original
relations, their mutual dependence or independence. In religious literature it
is necessary to have regard to the conceptions embodied to see whether these
are the original gift of the religion or whether they have entered during the
course of the development.
There is
a fundamental debate between maximalists, such as W.F. Albright and G.E.
Wright, who gave considerable credence to biblical descriptions of the United
Monarchy and minimalists, such as G. Garbini, N.P. Lemche, D.B. Hedford, and
H.M. Niemann, who were rather hesitant to do so. Both these traditions remain
very much alive, and many scholars adhere to one or the other of these broad
categories. But a third school has emerged - nihilists who contend that the
traditional theories of the United Monarchy are unfounded. Scholars such as P.
Davies, M. Gelinas, and T. Thompson came to see Saul, David, and Solomon as the
stuff of legend — the King Arthurs of ancient Israel. They view the whole
narrative of the United Monarchy as a literary construct of scribes writing during
the Persian or Hellenistic period. The whole idea of an historical Israel drawn
from northern and southern constituencies and governed by a single monarch is
seen as a literary fiction.
Iron Age
Chronology and the United Monarchy of David and Solomon is the subject of an
ongoing and long-standing controversy in both biblical studies and archaeology.
The ‘conventional’ chronology, which places the Iron Age I | II transition (in
Dor terminology: the Ir1|2 transition) around 1000 BC, is based on the biblical
dating. The 'low chronology', inspired by the ‘minimalist’ or ‘nihilist’
stance, which regards the biblical narrative of this period as myth, dates the
Iron Age I | II transition later, c. 900 BC.
The
"Copenhagen School" of biblical researchers advocate a more radical
revisionism than anything produced by Israel Finkelstein or his peers in the
archaeology department at Tel-Aviv University. The Copenhagen School is the
modern descendant of the approach taken in the nineteenth century by Julius
Wellhausen, who argued that the Bible offered little in the way of actual
history — that it was, as he put it, just a “glorified mirage”. Thompson wrote
in his 1999 book The Mythic Past, “Today we no longer have a history of
Israel…. There never was a ‘United Monarchy’ in history and it is meaningless
to speak of pre-exilic prophets and their writings…. We can now say with
considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of anyone’s past.”
To quote
Soggin [J. A. Soggin, "The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom," in Israelite
and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and I. M. Miller, OTL (London: SCM, 1977),
and ]. A. Soggin, "Prolegomena on the Approach to Historical Texts in the
Hebrew Bible andthe Ancient Near East,” in Aumlmm Malmnat Volume (ed. S. Ahituv
and B. A. Levine; Erlsr 24;jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993) 215 ]
"There are no traces even of the Davidic and Solomon empire outside the
Bible and reasonable doubts have been expressed as to the reliability of the
pertinent biblical sources."
[End of quotes]
Meanwhile David and Solomon rest entirely secure
in their real historico-archaeological locus.
