This guy has a great sense of humor. I mean that sincerely and not in reference to his scholarship. He had me laughing and the older I get the more important I think humor is to life so thanks Prof. Finkelstein.
Solomon’s temple is at Tanis you can still see the outline in the ground. Also the temple is just like many others in Egypt. Why would the god of the Bible if different then an Egyptian god have his temple resemble an Egyptian temple. Hezzikias Bulla found in Jerusalem has the wings of Ra on it and Nechro told Josiah, “God is with me” and not to try and stop him, Josiah was killed.
The 2 Kings 18 says that Hezekiah allied himself with Egypt, however Judah was mainly a vassal of Assyria so I am not sure how much that would make a difference.
@@zamiel3 🤣 what do you mean "what can't you see?" The resolution of the video is so low rendering it all so blurry nothing can be clearly seen or read on the slide screen!
@@hurdygurdyguy1 Unfortunately, our videos from Colloquium programs 1995-2005 were digitized from videotapes whose original quality wasn't excellent. Beginning with Colloquium 2007 on Jews and the Muslim World, the quality is much better. If you go to the videos tab and look at the most recently posted videos first, they should be much clearer. Thanks for watching!
Chyrre, ha, ha! But a pixel is a pixel and not nothing. It wasn't big, but it was there 😉 But seriously, some events in the Bible happened, others did not, and some things have been distorted or left out. Religious scriptures aren't history books.
Solomon's temple was probably built on the Ophel (south of the existing "Temple Mount" -- which was the Roman Antonia Fortress; not the site of Solomon's temple)
@@kashanfaizan2747, I don't know about 4he other guys - but at least King David did exist. Inscriptions which mention the "House of David" have been found - but it's highly unlikely that he was as important as the OT wants us to believe.
The Jewish people should look for their roots in the Arabian peninsula. They will be more successful finding their heritage over there than in Palestine. The reason is that the landscape described in the Old Testament fit perfectly in that landscape in KSA, Yemen and Omman!
A Rabbi told me, only a child should take the writings literally. Snakes don't talk, neither do burning bushes, BUT, those 2 things contain extremely important truths. Hebrew BEING an aleph-beth of flames.
The essential problem with this approach is that it asserts that what is written in the scriptures is unreliable. If the part about the bush, or Solomon's stables, or anything else, is false, then why would you assume that the rest has any more value? How can you determine what is false and what is true to guide your beliefs? You might like to think that this or that part is truthful, but maybe everything you'd like to be false is true and everything you'd like to be true is false. If there's no bush, there also might be no tables, no Moses, no law....
Ate you serious? There is no mountain piles of evidence, theres literally NO evidence for an exodus from Egypt and no evidence that Joshua conquered canaan, further more theres MOUNTAINS of evidence to prove that hebrews were infact canaanites, DNA today proves canaanites still are alive and well today. Events in the bible took place, but not to the extent that it says, not the way it says they happened, and were clearly embellished for political power and gain.
@@JewessChrstnMystic, I have to agree! Especially the claim that the Israelites were somehow inherently different from the rest of the Canaanites has been disproved by genetic testing.
That the religion has changed over 5 thousand years does not mean there is no connection. The Jews have a long, tumultuous history that began in the Levant.
He’s very educated and smart scientist. I have pleasure to be on one of his lectures. But for me there is to many “probables” in his theories. Let’s not forget, that others have their own theories too. Excavations still continues in Israel and every few months, somebody discover new artifacts.
@@TheLesterino I think that the issue discussed here is whether or not there was more specifically a "Temple of Solomon". And even more so, if there was, if it was at that point supposed to be the central and only place of worship, as asserted by the later writers of the bible (and as disputed, back then and even to this day, by the Samaritans.) There of course must have been a first temple in Jerusalem, but if this temple was build after Judah and Israel stopped being (allegedly) united, or if in fact there never was unity, it's not the same at all as if it was *the* temple build by a king ruling over both kingdoms and all tribes of Israel. It becomes the temple of the kings of Judah, nothing more, and with no more relevance (and possibly even less relevance) than a place of worship situated in the kingdom of Israel, such as the mount Gerizim, totally contradicting the beliefs of past and modern Jews.
Solomon may have been the wisest man but God told him that if he forsook the one true God and took on pagan gods that his kingdom would be destroyed and the temple would be destroyed as well
No one finds it strange that god chose a "people" and rulers, to be his "chosen". That were so defiant, from the time he chose them, that he wanted to annihilate them, almost immediately, and have constantly defied him? Does that sound like a very wise god???
But Solomon repented and returned to the Lord when he was old. Meanwhile the Ark of God, Throne of David and Levitical Priesthood moved to Ethiopia (Axum) where the lineage of David continued to Emperor Haile Selassie 1 of Ethiopia, the Conquering Lion of Judah.
@@zamiel3 This god was specifically the god of that people, as was customary at the time in that area, every city state and people having its own protector god (El, Baal, etc...). It's only later that he was presented as some sort of universal god for the whole of mankind. He's also much more human in his behavior than his modern version, subject to emotions (anger, jealousy) and even limited (for instance, the bible specifically mentions that he couldn't score a victory for the Hebrews in a battle because....the enemy had iron chariots), like most gods of the antiquity. He also isn't the only god, not even the only god of the Hebrews, who sometimes worship others as well, and for a very long time also his wife, Ashera. The bible (written later) presents this cult as an heresy, and virtuous past kings of Judah as having destroyed those worship places while bad kings were allowing Ashera's worship to prosper, but we have letters from Jews installed in Egypt asking to the temple of Jerusalem itself how to properly organize this cult, showing how present and accepted it was, despite the later claims of the bible's writers, made at a time when YHWH had meanwhile become perceived indeed as an unique and universal god. So, it's strange only of we assume the modern perception of this god, while it makes total sense in the context of the time.
Finkelstein never seems to admit that stratic dating is beyond flawed and only works if you get it right 100% of the time. IF you are wrong once all your other dating is off.
This sort of thing affirms my faith, rather than destroys it. We need to remember that the bible is not inerrant as many would like to believe. But, it is instead a collection of history and legend and to take every word in it for granted or literally isn't to understand it. It's to hope you do. King Solomon was paid 24 tons of gold a year? 24 in Hebrew gematria (a kind of numerology given that Hebrew is an alphanumeric language) is a number of high priesthood or great holiness and gold is symbolic of wealth of some sort. In saying he earned 24 tons per year, it's saying the kingdom of peace (which, is what Solomon means) grew in holiness per a great and pure amount. Not that he was literally wealthy.
Crazy how everyone has something different to say about what the bible says and means. Everyone interprets it differently yet claims to understand it and have the truth.
The problem with a non inerrant bible is : how do you tell what is correct and what is wrong? You might like to think that this is indeed the word of god, and that is some addition made by mistaken humans, but maybe everything you like to think is true is in fact false, and everything you like to think is false is true. I could build hundreds of religions on the basis of the bible if I can decide by myself what to keep and what to ignore in it, and most of them would hardly have anything to do with the current three monotheistic religions. If the bible is faillible, then you can't really pretend to know what is the will of god. And I would tend to suspect that you're going to pick what happens to fit your own cultural and moral views, basically making god at your image and deciding that god so happens to want exactly what you want, and approve or disapprove exactly what you personally approve or disapprove. For instance, depending on your views about homosexuality, you'll decide that its condemnation in the scriptures is the word or god or not. And of course, it raises the question of why this god would have left his message to mankind get so mangled that nobody can agree on what he wants and what he rejects, on what is right and what is wrong, of what is his word and what isn't, making it essentially useless. To take again the same example : are gay people offending god and will they be cast into hell? Pretty important issue for some. With a non inerrant bible, you have no idea. Or maybe you should convert to Islam? After all Muslims claim precisely that the bible was originally the word of god but got corrupted by people. Which seems to fit the situation you have with a bible that is not inerrant.
They found it almost 40 years ago, this founding is no doudt very important, because now we know that dynasty of David exited at that time. But this fact has nothing to do with biblical account of Israel's golden age when Solomon was so rich that he made silver as plentiful as stones
It's not a recent find at all, so it was indeed known when the lecture was made. It's a later engraving showing that the then current kings of Judah thought that they were descendants of a king David. It doesn't mean that there actually had been a king David. Many founders of states or dynasties are legendary (Say, Romulus for Rome. That Romans later mentioned him as the founder of Rome doesn't prove that he existed.) But the issue here isn't whether or not there was a king David, but whether or not the first rulers, be them called David and Solomon or not, were in any way similar to what is described in the bible : powerful and wealthy kings, commanding a great army and ruling over a large kingdom encompassing both Judah and Israel, as stated in the bible, or rather a small and poor chiefdom centered on a big village in Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. And in particular if Judah has ever been united with Israel, if the temple (or place of worship) in Jerusalem had actually been the sole place of worship for all tribes of Israel, etc... Finkelstein contend that both Judah and Israel formed latter than the period when the alleged David and Solomon supposedly ruled (so, if they lived, even though the possible ancestors of the future kings of Judah, they would have only been some local chiefs in Jerusalem, as I wrote above), and were always two separate kingdoms, from the beginning until the conquest and dissapearance of Israel. And that what is described in the bible is only an imaginary golden age, a legend written down much later with the purpose of backing the claims of the late kings of Judah, supposedly the rightful heirs of the supposedly mighty David and Solomon. (Now, it makes me think of the lord of the rings and the united kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor, go figure...)
Even atheist archaeologists confirmed that the large palace discovered in 2013 in the Beit Shemesh area was definitely built during King David's reign, and was the base of a stronghold against the Philistines. That alone makes a mockery of Finkelstein's conclusion here that David and Solomon were the kings of a fiefdom centered in Jerusalem. Every year, more and more excavations confirm precisely what is described in the Old Testament, whether the destruction and burning of Jericho, or the existence of Balaam son of Beor the Midianite prophet, or inscriptions of names found only in the book of Ezekiel precisely where Ezekiel is described to have lived and at the time he is described as having lived there. Yet sadly, all these atheist Israeli professors will do somersaults to try and dispute the veracity of the Tanach, at the same time that they happily use its verses to lay claim to the Jewish heritage in Ancient Israel.
From Haartz First, claim the critics, the ethnic identity of the inhabitants of the site has not been proven. Some, like Prof. Shlomo Bonimovitz and Dr. Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University, claim that these are the remnants of a small Canaanite kingdom that existed in the Judean foothills between the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistines. Even if it is Jewish, it is possible that this was a settlement that was actually connected to an Israelite kingdom that was located father north, in the Ramallah region, and predated the Kingdom of David. The critics also want to see evidence of the dating of the large stone wall, since only few vestiges of it remain. But the main argument against many of the biblical archaeologists is that they are biased by the biblical text - a text that was written hundreds of years after the events, and by a writer with a clear political and religious agenda. "I haven't been at the site during the past season," says Finkelstein, "so I can't judge the nature and date of the structure. There's no question that this is an interesting and important site. The excavators attribute it to Judah. Alexander Fantalkin and I suggested that it should be seen as a border fortress of an Israelite unit whose center was on a mountain north of Jerusalem. In any case, I would be careful about uncritical links to biblical traditions that were written down hundreds of years after the site was abandoned." Prof. Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan University is digging not far from Qeiyafa on Tel Zafit, which during that period was the Philistine city of Gath - a city far richer and larger than Qeiyafa. He agrees that it is a Judahite site, "that's the simplest and most logical explanation. But does that mean that we can raise arguments about the kingdom of David and Solomon? That seems to me a grandiose upgrade," says Meir. He believes that this is an attempt by "an ancient Judahite entity" to draw a border for itself vis-a-vis the Philistine city of Gath. "The destruction of the site demonstrates that this experiment didn't last for long, and how does that accord with the biblical explanation of the victory of the United Monarchy?"
Truth Seeker I have seen the beautiful farmland of the valley of Megiddo, from the top of Mount Megiddo. You’ve heard of it because some Christians believe that is where Armageddon will happen.
@@stephaniereif7790 "Mt." Megiddo makes the little hill of Megiddo sound bigger than it is! You get a better view of the Jezreel Valley from Nazareth or even Mt. Tabor ... and yes, the farmland in the valley is very good!
Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all supporting the biblical record. Maybe this is why most Jews, and other religious groups too, are cultural rather than spiritual. Religious traditions stem from folklore, often incorporating the local isms of the region. I was raised a Catholic. The rituals are all hokey to me, but I go along with it anyway. I guess we all have a need for faith. If there wasn't death, would there be a need for religion?
In fact, there are evidences for a large number of things written in the bible, many kings are mentioned in other sources, for instance. But not for things as ancient as the alleged first kings David and Solomon, let alone for Moses, Abraham, etc...
Plainly revealed in Old Testament KIng Solomon forced to ask KIng of Tyre to send skilled craftsman to build the Temple for Hebrews hadn't technology or skills to erect one. That David used a slingshot to slay Goliath pretty much informs us of true level of primitive Hebrew culture 1000BC? Yet who built the 30,000 war chariots of King Solomons 100,000 man army which are quite advanced technology, alas so much fable n pretending in the Torah but a truth is there if u choose to see it.
The names 'David' and 'Solomon' are invented names when a fictional bloodline was being worked out, quite late really in biblical terms. The names have been apportioned to certain Pharaohs, but are unlikely to be such. There are many such oral traditions which were interpolated.
+Sapere Aude But, you forgot that you dealing with ignorance religious...! And, every "evidence" just harden the line... I call it religious ego...! This is too bad...! Since this tree/ego has grown deep roots among the israeli public...! So... I guess we need to walk another 40 years in the wilderness to re-educate the ignorant... ahh ~
The construction of the 1st temple began four years into Solomon's reign (c1013BC), four hundred & eighty years after the exodus; and it took seven years to complete.
well a messiah is always called "he״ in the bible. Messiah means anointed. So the answer to your question is either a. No or b,. Depends on what kind of messiah you mean.
These arguments are such an 80s thing. Played out. There have been equal responses that object. Secondly, how some people call themselves Jews today is astonishing. Stripping validation from Torah to justify an assimilation preference. This comment not directed solely at this tube post but at a few I've listened to tonight. Hey tell you what. Why don't you people go study something you DO Believe in. That would seem more worth while. Why doesn't Arians history of Alexander get questioned, or Suetonius Livy Monetho etc. Know what I mean?
Now Cheeses....Arian's history of Alexander has been questioned, and Suetonius, LIvy, etc., have been challenged, like, forever. What we have become aware of is the bias of writers and whether you like it or not, the Torah and the Bible were written by individuals with an agenda.
"Why don't you people go study something you DO Believe in." What a ridiculous suggestion -- that only people who start out believing a story should be able to look into whether that story is true. Archaeology is a science. One starts out with the question, "What does the evidence demonstrate was true?" not "Let me cherry pick evidence to support my belief in a story." All historical and pseudo-historical accounts can be and are investigated. The difference with Alexander is that we don't have a lot of people insisting that mythologized stories about Alexander must be true to support their current religious beliefs and politics.
He's very hard to understand - mostly ruining the content.... Can he do presentations in his native tongue and have an interpreter speak on his behalf?
Israel Finkelstein's outdated view of David (as merely a village chieftain) and Solomon has been disproven by, ironically, his universityTel Aviv University''s recent research on donkey dung found in Timna near King Solomon's mines. @t
Cedric Hooks But, at the same time you must respect, forgive, and forgot since they don't know any better... It is hard to accept the truth sometimes...
Well, dis even worse...ha~ We all know long time ago that these was people like you and me...so ! Even if you go to MIKRA this too is an archaeological research if you will... Also, as Dr. Bien-Noon as a reasecher will say that even the religious books are also inaccurate...?
Alan Thiercelin Finkelstein is well known for his anti-biblical - pro secular bias. He has been proven wrong on a number of occasions for taking such a stand. The most famous of these was his claim the the patriarch Abraham was a fictitious character , which is bases on the claim that the bible refers to Abraham in conjunction with domesticated camels which says were not domesticated at the time of Abraham - therefore Abraham is fictitious. ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROOF OF CAMEL DOMESTICATION FROM 3RD AND 2ND MILLENNIUM BC - THE TIME OF ABRAHAM THE EVIDENCE Why Frankenstein refused to mention these indicates he is either intentionally lieing or doesn't know his own field of expertise and should consider another profession other than archaeology. This confirms domesticated camels were being used at the time of Abraham , thus confirming scripture. From the Levant, a Syrian cylinder seal dated ca. 1800 BC depicts two small figures riding on a two-humped camel. Another figurine that appears to suggest an early date for camel domestication is found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The figurine is a small copper alloy statue of a Bactrian camel, equipped with what appears to be some type of harness. The artifact is dated to between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC, from Bactria-Margiana. A Sumerian text found at Nippur from the Old Babylonian period, ca. 1950-1600 BC, “gives clear evidence of the domestication of the camel by that time, for it alludes to camel’s milk. Another text mentions “a Camel in a list of domesticated animals during the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BC) in a Sumerian Lexical Text from Ugarit. Yet, evidence for camel domestication may be found even into the 3rd millennium BC. A second set of relevant camel petroglyphs in Egypt come from a rock carving near Aswan and Gezireh in Upper Egypt. This carving depicts a man leading a dromedary camel with a rope, along with 7 hieratic characters to the left of the man. The entire carving was dated to the 6th Dynasty of Egypt, 2345-2181 BC Thus, there is ample evidence indicating early camel domestication from several geographical areas proving camel domestication as early as the 3rd millennium BC. It seems Frankenstein has an "agenda" that has nothing to do with archaeology but more to do with secularism.
Can anyone refer me to someone who can explain what Finklestein is say. He is way to hard to understand? He needs to quit spitting and form his words in a way that they are much easier to understand. I want the basics not a long winded lecture.
So your upset because English isn't his first language?? Or, because you are too ignorant to be able to understand him?? Either way, it's a *YOU* problem. I can understand him just fine. Maybe you should learn his native language and listen to one of his lectures in his native tongue.
And basically, he asserts that the description of the alleged kings David and Solomon as very powerful and wealthy kings, with a large army, and ruling over a large territory uniting the future kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as stated in the bible, is a myth. That both Judah and Israel appeared only later than the time when David and Solomon were allegedly living, and never were united, being two separate kingdoms from the beginning until the conquest and destruction of Israel. That Jerusalem, again at the time when David and Solomon were supposed to live, was only a big village controlling only its vicinity, and not the mighty capital of a large kingdom, where a sumptuous palace and temple had been erected. That the legend of David and Solomon and of their golden age was written down and included by latter writers of the bible, taking inspiration from the achievements of important kings of Israel or Judah closer to their time, and mainly to back the claims of the late kings of Judah, viewing themselves as the legitimate successors of the supposedly great kings David and Solomon and depicting their capital, Jerusalem, as the only legitimate center of power, and its temple as the only legitimate place of worship since the very beginning. Not that he didn't exactly say all what I wrote in this lecture, as he covers things only partially, but that's the position he defends.
The problem with his research is he obviously 🙄 doesn’t pay attention to his environment Most Don’t , because if he did his presentation and research would of gone in a different direction..
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy has a great sense of humor. I mean that sincerely and not in reference to his scholarship. He had me laughing and the older I get the more important I think humor is to life so thanks Prof. Finkelstein.
I like Finkelstein - he can be very funny; but he is also a very serious and able Archeologist.
“The Bible Unearthed” changed my thinking entirely. Terrific.
In this conflicted time (June 2020) it is refreshing to watching this calm, good natured scholarly debate.
Conflicted time? There is finally peace in most of the world.
The importance of Mr. Finkelstein's oeuvre will only be fully recognized in the long run.
Great talk, just wish the quality was high enough to read the funny slides.
Agreed!… I wanted to read them as well!
I apologize! This guy has done the research.
Great job!
A blow for Judaism, Christianity and Islam !
Not really! Historians and archeologist need to look for the Bible archaeology somewhere else, such as Southern Arabia.
It is. But science has to be impartial. What's amazing to me is how this is still not widely known.
Loved your book on this, Israel. You are a true scholar!
Well done Mr Finkelstein! Respect!
Thought provoking proposal. Thanks for posting.
Excellent academic research!
A grandmaster. Shocking, but well-founded and brilliantly exposited.
Solomon’s temple is at Tanis you can still see the outline in the ground. Also the temple is just like many others in Egypt. Why would the god of the Bible if different then an Egyptian god have his temple resemble an Egyptian temple. Hezzikias Bulla found in Jerusalem has the wings of Ra on it and Nechro told Josiah, “God is with me” and not to try and stop him, Josiah was killed.
Everything in the Bible is borrowed
Your referring to Tanis in modern day Lebanon?
The 2 Kings 18 says that Hezekiah allied himself with Egypt, however Judah was mainly a vassal of Assyria so I am not sure how much that would make a difference.
Upper Egypt
Luxor is Solomon's temple. Ahmenotep III is Solomon..
Too bad we can't see the slides. (When was this recorded?)
What can't you see?
@@zamiel3 🤣 what do you mean "what can't you see?" The resolution of the video is so low rendering it all so blurry nothing can be clearly seen or read on the slide screen!
I agree... all these videos from IISHJvid are very poorly uploaded, the resolution sucks...
@@hurdygurdyguy1 Unfortunately, our videos from Colloquium programs 1995-2005 were digitized from videotapes whose original quality wasn't excellent. Beginning with Colloquium 2007 on Jews and the Muslim World, the quality is much better. If you go to the videos tab and look at the most recently posted videos first, they should be much clearer. Thanks for watching!
Posted here in 2015, but the fashion is older. When was the lecture?
The video description links to a website for the conference at which it was delivered - 2005. iishj.org/colloquium-05.html. Thanks for watching!
U are simply the best…
As I suspected, Solomon's temple was 1 pixel
Chyrre, ha, ha! But a pixel is a pixel and not nothing. It wasn't big, but it was there 😉
But seriously, some events in the Bible happened, others did not, and some things have been distorted or left out. Religious scriptures aren't history books.
Thank you.
Superb!
So a guy named Israel spends his life studying Israel?
Many ancient societies have their own David and Goliath stories.
Solomon's temple was probably built on the Ophel (south of the existing
"Temple Mount" -- which was the Roman Antonia Fortress; not the site
of Solomon's temple)
Why would the Romans build an entire fort around a five foot in diameter piece of limestone that alines perfectly with the East gate?
he didn't exist
Moses, David and Soloman never existed.
There is archeology proving David was a king.
@@kashanfaizan2747, I don't know about 4he other guys - but at least King David did exist. Inscriptions which mention the "House of David" have been found - but it's highly unlikely that he was as important as the OT wants us to believe.
The Jewish people should look for their roots in the Arabian peninsula. They will be more successful finding their heritage over there than in Palestine. The reason is that the landscape described in the Old Testament fit perfectly in that landscape in KSA, Yemen and Omman!
A Rabbi told me, only a child should take the writings literally. Snakes don't talk, neither do burning bushes, BUT, those 2 things contain extremely important truths. Hebrew BEING an aleph-beth of flames.
The essential problem with this approach is that it asserts that what is written in the scriptures is unreliable. If the part about the bush, or Solomon's stables, or anything else, is false, then why would you assume that the rest has any more value? How can you determine what is false and what is true to guide your beliefs? You might like to think that this or that part is truthful, but maybe everything you'd like to be false is true and everything you'd like to be true is false. If there's no bush, there also might be no tables, no Moses, no law....
He pretends to be middle of the road but he is a minimalist and holding up to the mounting piles of evidence by working to keep the doubts alive.
Ate you serious? There is no mountain piles of evidence, theres literally NO evidence for an exodus from Egypt and no evidence that Joshua conquered canaan, further more theres MOUNTAINS of evidence to prove that hebrews were infact canaanites, DNA today proves canaanites still are alive and well today. Events in the bible took place, but not to the extent that it says, not the way it says they happened, and were clearly embellished for political power and gain.
@@JewessChrstnMystic, I have to agree! Especially the claim that the Israelites were somehow inherently different from the rest of the Canaanites has been disproved by genetic testing.
Ancient Israel was not anything to do with Jews or Hebrews. Their religion was very different from any Hebrews or Jews.
That the religion has changed over 5 thousand years does not mean there is no connection. The Jews have a long, tumultuous history that began in the Levant.
He’s very educated and smart scientist. I have pleasure to be on one of his lectures. But for me there is to many “probables” in his theories. Let’s not forget, that others have their own theories too. Excavations still continues in Israel and every few months, somebody discover new artifacts.
But do these artifacts say, "I am Solomon, who am king of Israel and received tribute from Moab" (or other such explicit text)?
Artifacts than do nothing to change his presentation.
@@zamiel3 but the second temple was not built on the same spot? Were the later builders mistaken as to the location of the First Temple? Just curious.
Evidences for his claim are almost irrefutable … He knows his drill.
@@TheLesterino I think that the issue discussed here is whether or not there was more specifically a "Temple of Solomon". And even more so, if there was, if it was at that point supposed to be the central and only place of worship, as asserted by the later writers of the bible (and as disputed, back then and even to this day, by the Samaritans.)
There of course must have been a first temple in Jerusalem, but if this temple was build after Judah and Israel stopped being (allegedly) united, or if in fact there never was unity, it's not the same at all as if it was *the* temple build by a king ruling over both kingdoms and all tribes of Israel. It becomes the temple of the kings of Judah, nothing more, and with no more relevance (and possibly even less relevance) than a place of worship situated in the kingdom of Israel, such as the mount Gerizim, totally contradicting the beliefs of past and modern Jews.
Solomon may have been the wisest man but God told him that if he forsook the one true God and took on pagan gods that his kingdom would be destroyed and the temple would be destroyed as well
And if he chased after pagan gods (which it says he did)after the creator of all things supposedly told him not to then he wasnt that wise was he.
No one finds it strange that god chose a "people" and rulers, to be his "chosen". That were so defiant, from the time he chose them, that he wanted to annihilate them, almost immediately, and have constantly defied him? Does that sound like a very wise god???
But Solomon repented and returned to the Lord when he was old.
Meanwhile the Ark of God, Throne of David and Levitical Priesthood moved to Ethiopia (Axum) where the lineage of David continued to Emperor Haile Selassie 1 of Ethiopia, the Conquering Lion of Judah.
@@zamiel3 This god was specifically the god of that people, as was customary at the time in that area, every city state and people having its own protector god (El, Baal, etc...). It's only later that he was presented as some sort of universal god for the whole of mankind. He's also much more human in his behavior than his modern version, subject to emotions (anger, jealousy) and even limited (for instance, the bible specifically mentions that he couldn't score a victory for the Hebrews in a battle because....the enemy had iron chariots), like most gods of the antiquity.
He also isn't the only god, not even the only god of the Hebrews, who sometimes worship others as well, and for a very long time also his wife, Ashera. The bible (written later) presents this cult as an heresy, and virtuous past kings of Judah as having destroyed those worship places while bad kings were allowing Ashera's worship to prosper, but we have letters from Jews installed in Egypt asking to the temple of Jerusalem itself how to properly organize this cult, showing how present and accepted it was, despite the later claims of the bible's writers, made at a time when YHWH had meanwhile become perceived indeed as an unique and universal god.
So, it's strange only of we assume the modern perception of this god, while it makes total sense in the context of the time.
Finkelstein never seems to admit that stratic dating is beyond flawed and only works if you get it right 100% of the time. IF you are wrong once all your other dating is off.
He explicitly states that stratographic dating is *relative* and requires other data to make absolute assertions of dates.
Even if that's true, it is consistent with all the other evidence he presents.
what was second arguement??
This sort of thing affirms my faith, rather than destroys it. We need to remember that the bible is not inerrant as many would like to believe. But, it is instead a collection of history and legend and to take every word in it for granted or literally isn't to understand it. It's to hope you do. King Solomon was paid 24 tons of gold a year? 24 in Hebrew gematria (a kind of numerology given that Hebrew is an alphanumeric language) is a number of high priesthood or great holiness and gold is symbolic of wealth of some sort. In saying he earned 24 tons per year, it's saying the kingdom of peace (which, is what Solomon means) grew in holiness per a great and pure amount. Not that he was literally wealthy.
Crazy how everyone has something different to say about what the bible says and means. Everyone interprets it differently yet claims to understand it and have the truth.
Yet the Bible/Tanakh say it IS supposed to be inerrant.
Take it literally
FAITH is belief in the absence of evidence, and unfortunately very often despite the evidence.
Faith is stubborn ignorance.
The problem with a non inerrant bible is : how do you tell what is correct and what is wrong? You might like to think that this is indeed the word of god, and that is some addition made by mistaken humans, but maybe everything you like to think is true is in fact false, and everything you like to think is false is true. I could build hundreds of religions on the basis of the bible if I can decide by myself what to keep and what to ignore in it, and most of them would hardly have anything to do with the current three monotheistic religions. If the bible is faillible, then you can't really pretend to know what is the will of god.
And I would tend to suspect that you're going to pick what happens to fit your own cultural and moral views, basically making god at your image and deciding that god so happens to want exactly what you want, and approve or disapprove exactly what you personally approve or disapprove. For instance, depending on your views about homosexuality, you'll decide that its condemnation in the scriptures is the word or god or not.
And of course, it raises the question of why this god would have left his message to mankind get so mangled that nobody can agree on what he wants and what he rejects, on what is right and what is wrong, of what is his word and what isn't, making it essentially useless. To take again the same example : are gay people offending god and will they be cast into hell? Pretty important issue for some. With a non inerrant bible, you have no idea. Or maybe you should convert to Islam? After all Muslims claim precisely that the bible was originally the word of god but got corrupted by people. Which seems to fit the situation you have with a bible that is not inerrant.
This was recorded before the recent archaeological find of 'house of David' sign, I think..?
The stele mentioning "house of David"? If that's what you are referring to, it does little to change anything.
@@GnosticTheist Which David? When? What is its provenance?
They found it almost 40 years ago, this founding is no doudt very important, because now we know that dynasty of David exited at that time. But this fact has nothing to do with biblical account of Israel's golden age when Solomon was so rich that he made silver as plentiful as stones
You are referring to the Tel Dan stele. He mentions it at 13:10.
It's not a recent find at all, so it was indeed known when the lecture was made. It's a later engraving showing that the then current kings of Judah thought that they were descendants of a king David. It doesn't mean that there actually had been a king David. Many founders of states or dynasties are legendary (Say, Romulus for Rome. That Romans later mentioned him as the founder of Rome doesn't prove that he existed.)
But the issue here isn't whether or not there was a king David, but whether or not the first rulers, be them called David and Solomon or not, were in any way similar to what is described in the bible : powerful and wealthy kings, commanding a great army and ruling over a large kingdom encompassing both Judah and Israel, as stated in the bible, or rather a small and poor chiefdom centered on a big village in Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. And in particular if Judah has ever been united with Israel, if the temple (or place of worship) in Jerusalem had actually been the sole place of worship for all tribes of Israel, etc...
Finkelstein contend that both Judah and Israel formed latter than the period when the alleged David and Solomon supposedly ruled (so, if they lived, even though the possible ancestors of the future kings of Judah, they would have only been some local chiefs in Jerusalem, as I wrote above), and were always two separate kingdoms, from the beginning until the conquest and dissapearance of Israel. And that what is described in the bible is only an imaginary golden age, a legend written down much later with the purpose of backing the claims of the late kings of Judah, supposedly the rightful heirs of the supposedly mighty David and Solomon. (Now, it makes me think of the lord of the rings and the united kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor, go figure...)
fairy tales that continue to harm humanity.
And greatly benefit it.
@@hooh1644 Benefit how?
Even atheist archaeologists confirmed that the large palace discovered in 2013 in the Beit Shemesh area was definitely built during King David's reign, and was the base of a stronghold against the Philistines. That alone makes a mockery of Finkelstein's conclusion here that David and Solomon were the kings of a fiefdom centered in Jerusalem. Every year, more and more excavations confirm precisely what is described in the Old Testament, whether the destruction and burning of Jericho, or the existence of Balaam son of Beor the Midianite prophet, or inscriptions of names found only in the book of Ezekiel precisely where Ezekiel is described to have lived and at the time he is described as having lived there. Yet sadly, all these atheist Israeli professors will do somersaults to try and dispute the veracity of the Tanach, at the same time that they happily use its verses to lay claim to the Jewish heritage in Ancient Israel.
From Haartz
First, claim the critics, the ethnic identity of the inhabitants of the site has not been proven. Some, like Prof. Shlomo Bonimovitz and Dr. Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University, claim that these are the remnants of a small Canaanite kingdom that existed in the Judean foothills between the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistines. Even if it is Jewish, it is possible that this was a settlement that was actually connected to an Israelite kingdom that was located father north, in the Ramallah region, and predated the Kingdom of David. The critics also want to see evidence of the dating of the large stone wall, since only few vestiges of it remain.
But the main argument against many of the biblical archaeologists is that they are biased by the biblical text - a text that was written hundreds of years after the events, and by a writer with a clear political and religious agenda.
"I haven't been at the site during the past season," says Finkelstein, "so I can't judge the nature and date of the structure. There's no question that this is an interesting and important site. The excavators attribute it to Judah. Alexander Fantalkin and I suggested that it should be seen as a border fortress of an Israelite unit whose center was on a mountain north of Jerusalem. In any case, I would be careful about uncritical links to biblical traditions that were written down hundreds of years after the site was abandoned."
Prof. Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan University is digging not far from Qeiyafa on Tel Zafit, which during that period was the Philistine city of Gath - a city far richer and larger than Qeiyafa. He agrees that it is a Judahite site, "that's the simplest and most logical explanation. But does that mean that we can raise arguments about the kingdom of David and Solomon? That seems to me a grandiose upgrade," says Meir. He believes that this is an attempt by "an ancient Judahite entity" to draw a border for itself vis-a-vis the Philistine city of Gath. "The destruction of the site demonstrates that this experiment didn't last for long, and how does that accord with the biblical explanation of the victory of the United Monarchy?"
David was no "KING" and had no "KINGDOM"!
u better believe it their looking and finding things but y would they let us know!
Why not ?
Why wouldnt they? Especially when it would affirm their belief and help them further push religion to control people.
This is another "truth" video....amazing nobody ever considers they might be wrong.And starting with that.
Out side Jerusalem is solomon temple in tel arad not in the synagogue which is bethel arad
I wanted to thumbs this video up but I saw it had 666 likes & couldn't ruin it.
Good one.
Whenever you see 666, it is your mission to destroy that
Lol😅😮😅
What are you trying to figure out who should be able to build it ? I think the Bible says something about a war in meggedo?
Truth Seeker I have seen the beautiful farmland of the valley of Megiddo, from the top of Mount Megiddo. You’ve heard of it because some Christians believe that is where Armageddon will happen.
@@stephaniereif7790 "Mt." Megiddo makes the little hill of Megiddo sound bigger than it is! You get a better view of the Jezreel Valley from Nazareth or even Mt. Tabor ... and yes, the farmland in the valley is very good!
Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all supporting the biblical record. Maybe this is why most Jews, and other religious groups too, are cultural rather than spiritual. Religious traditions stem from folklore, often incorporating the local isms of the region. I was raised a Catholic. The rituals are all hokey to me, but I go along with it anyway. I guess we all have a need for faith. If there wasn't death, would there be a need for religion?
In fact, there are evidences for a large number of things written in the bible, many kings are mentioned in other sources, for instance. But not for things as ancient as the alleged first kings David and Solomon, let alone for Moses, Abraham, etc...
Plainly revealed in Old Testament KIng Solomon forced to ask KIng of Tyre to send skilled craftsman to build the Temple for Hebrews hadn't technology or skills to erect one. That David used a slingshot to slay Goliath pretty much informs us of true level of primitive Hebrew culture 1000BC? Yet who built the 30,000 war chariots of King Solomons 100,000 man army which are quite advanced technology, alas so much fable n pretending in the Torah but a truth is there if u choose to see it.
Excellent points.
What were we thinking before?
What about Ralph Ellis and the hyksos? David and Solomon were pharaohs in northern egypt.
The names 'David' and 'Solomon' are invented names when a fictional bloodline was being worked out, quite late really in biblical terms. The names have been apportioned to certain Pharaohs, but are unlikely to be such. There are many such oral traditions which were interpolated.
That would mean they would have to have ruled before The Exodus is even thought to have occurred
@@glutinousmaximus The exodus is also a later story.
That's because he had a thousand wives of all different cultures and everything got mixed together
Do you think that just because the bible tells you that?
Truth Seeker they were diplomatic relationships with other countries. Acceptable at the time.
Good point!
The sea peoples!!!!
+Sapere Aude
But, you forgot that you dealing with ignorance religious...!
And, every "evidence" just harden the line...
I call it religious ego...!
This is too bad...!
Since this tree/ego has grown deep roots among the israeli public...!
So...
I guess we need to walk another 40 years in the wilderness to re-educate the ignorant... ahh ~
Oof, that intro....
The construction of the 1st temple began four years into Solomon's reign (c1013BC), four hundred & eighty years after the exodus; and it took seven years to complete.
Source?
We know the exodus is a myth, so please don’t be offended by me asking for the source material for your significant claim
@@bradleywillis1654 We don't know that
Construction of temple in Jerusalem which was at the time a village of 0,5 ha 😂
Can a messiah be female?
well a messiah is always called "he״ in the bible. Messiah means anointed. So the answer to your question is either a. No or b,. Depends on what kind of messiah you mean.
KING SOLOMON TEMPLE EXISTED BUT NOT IN EGYPT AND MIDDLE EASTERN.
Where then, New Jersey?
It’s a myth .
🤔😳⚖️
solomon's temple was never lost, it exists today...i see solomon's seal all over the place.
Where?
Well, if you can see the temple of Solomon, you should make a public announcement. Millions of people would be delighted to know where it is.
Israel Finkelstein is a vey good archiologist that dose not translate his finds so well
Well they found troy
These arguments are such an 80s thing. Played out. There have been equal responses that object. Secondly, how some people call themselves Jews today is astonishing. Stripping validation from Torah to justify an assimilation preference. This comment not directed solely at this tube post but at a few I've listened to tonight. Hey tell you what. Why don't you people go study something you DO Believe in. That would seem more worth while. Why doesn't Arians history of Alexander get questioned, or Suetonius Livy Monetho etc. Know what I mean?
ursusenil: Your comment is about as shallow as the 80's were.
Well we are Jews - sorry to offend you for existing you hateful racist
Now Cheeses....Arian's history of Alexander has been questioned, and Suetonius, LIvy, etc., have been challenged, like, forever. What we have become aware of is the bias of writers and whether you like it or not, the Torah and the Bible were written by individuals with an agenda.
"Why don't you people go study something you DO Believe in."
What a ridiculous suggestion -- that only people who start out believing a story should be able to look into whether that story is true. Archaeology is a science. One starts out with the question, "What does the evidence demonstrate was true?" not "Let me cherry pick evidence to support my belief in a story." All historical and pseudo-historical accounts can be and are investigated. The difference with Alexander is that we don't have a lot of people insisting that mythologized stories about Alexander must be true to support their current religious beliefs and politics.
Derp.
They do. And have been for about 200 years.
Every translation has a forward TELLING YOU where its wrong and why. Plus footnotes.
Temple of Solomon is in Egypt
He's very hard to understand - mostly ruining the content.... Can he do presentations in his native tongue and have an interpreter speak on his behalf?
The evaluation of his findings is from an evolutionary bias. He does not reckon with astronomical dating.
Huh?!?
I am pretty sure that 14 odd billion year should be enough to cover the time period of the temple....
Israel Finkelstein's outdated view of David (as merely a village chieftain) and Solomon has been disproven by, ironically, his universityTel Aviv University''s recent research on donkey dung found in Timna near King Solomon's mines. @t
Quite good content but this guy doesn't speak English very well, which makes it a bit difficult to follow him.
But it makes it easier for non native speakers.
Israel Finkelstein = Kathleen Kenyon = Bad Archaeologists
Cedric Hooks
Since there are people who like to live in denial or they just ignorant...ha~
Got that...
Cedric Hooks
But, at the same time you must respect, forgive, and forgot since they don't know any better...
It is hard to accept the truth sometimes...
Well, dis even worse...ha~
We all know long time ago that these was people like you and me...so !
Even if you go to MIKRA this too is an archaeological research if you will...
Also, as Dr. Bien-Noon as a reasecher will say that even the religious books are also inaccurate...?
Alan Thiercelin finkelstein = frankenstein
Alan Thiercelin Finkelstein is well known for his anti-biblical - pro secular bias. He has been proven wrong on a number of occasions for taking such a stand. The most famous of these was his claim the the patriarch Abraham was a fictitious character , which is bases on the claim that the bible refers to Abraham in conjunction with domesticated camels which says were not domesticated at the time of Abraham - therefore Abraham is fictitious.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROOF OF CAMEL DOMESTICATION FROM 3RD AND 2ND MILLENNIUM BC - THE TIME OF ABRAHAM
THE EVIDENCE
Why Frankenstein refused to mention these indicates he is either intentionally lieing or doesn't know his own field of expertise and should consider another profession other than archaeology. This confirms domesticated camels were being used at the time of Abraham , thus confirming scripture.
From the Levant, a Syrian cylinder seal dated ca. 1800 BC depicts two small figures riding on a two-humped camel.
Another figurine that appears to suggest an early date for camel domestication is found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The figurine is a small copper alloy statue of a Bactrian camel, equipped with what appears to be some type of harness. The artifact is dated to between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC, from Bactria-Margiana.
A Sumerian text found at Nippur from the Old Babylonian period, ca. 1950-1600 BC, “gives clear evidence of the domestication of the camel by that time, for it alludes to camel’s milk.
Another text mentions “a Camel in a list of domesticated animals during the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BC) in a Sumerian Lexical Text from Ugarit.
Yet, evidence for camel domestication may be found even into the 3rd millennium BC. A second set of relevant camel petroglyphs in Egypt come from a rock carving near Aswan and Gezireh in Upper Egypt. This carving depicts a man leading a dromedary camel with a rope, along with 7 hieratic characters to the left of the man.
The entire carving was dated to the 6th Dynasty of Egypt, 2345-2181 BC
Thus, there is ample evidence indicating early camel domestication from several geographical areas proving camel domestication as early as the 3rd millennium BC.
It seems Frankenstein has an "agenda" that has nothing to do with archaeology but more to do with secularism.
I am a desendent of david and solomon and i have the dna test results to prove it.
So does the rest of north Africa, iberic peninsula, Middle East, Ethiopia, Mediterranean, etc, etc,...
Can anyone refer me to someone who can explain what Finklestein is say. He is way to hard to understand? He needs to quit spitting and form his words in a way that they are much easier to understand. I want the basics not a long winded lecture.
So your upset because English isn't his first language?? Or, because you are too ignorant to be able to understand him?? Either way, it's a *YOU* problem. I can understand him just fine. Maybe you should learn his native language and listen to one of his lectures in his native tongue.
Then go watch a movie
And I know the basics already and want a long winded lecture. I'd preferred it longer, in fact.
And basically, he asserts that the description of the alleged kings David and Solomon as very powerful and wealthy kings, with a large army, and ruling over a large territory uniting the future kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as stated in the bible, is a myth. That both Judah and Israel appeared only later than the time when David and Solomon were allegedly living, and never were united, being two separate kingdoms from the beginning until the conquest and destruction of Israel.
That Jerusalem, again at the time when David and Solomon were supposed to live, was only a big village controlling only its vicinity, and not the mighty capital of a large kingdom, where a sumptuous palace and temple had been erected. That the legend of David and Solomon and of their golden age was written down and included by latter writers of the bible, taking inspiration from the achievements of important kings of Israel or Judah closer to their time, and mainly to back the claims of the late kings of Judah, viewing themselves as the legitimate successors of the supposedly great kings David and Solomon and depicting their capital, Jerusalem, as the only legitimate center of power, and its temple as the only legitimate place of worship since the very beginning.
Not that he didn't exactly say all what I wrote in this lecture, as he covers things only partially, but that's the position he defends.
The problem with his research is he obviously 🙄 doesn’t pay attention to his environment
Most Don’t , because if he did his presentation and research would of gone in a different direction..
I am sorry, Mr. Finkelstein. I have tried to watch this 3 times, but the lecture always puts me to sleep.
Was there evidence of Solomon at a time when Jerusalem was had a population of four or five hundred