I think it's a pity that this conference took place before Eilat Mazar discovering the Stepped Stone Structure, the Large Stone Structure and the Solomonic Wall or Yossi Garfinkel escavating at Khirbet Qeyiafa. These informations are very important to the quest for the United Monarchy
My question is if Solomon existed and was half of what the Bible says he was, why isn't his name mentioned anywhere? His name isn't on a coin, and isn't mentioned by any outside kingdom or source. Egypt would have either mentioned him or conquered him. Assyria or Babylonia would have done the same. The minor kingdoms of Edom or Haram would have mentioned him also.
First off no inscriptions were made in Palestine until around the 9th-8th centuries, years after Solomon's reign that’s why we have no mention of him. Also, coins weren’t invented yet until the 8th century in Greece. Second, no empires were heavily involved in the area during Solomon’s reign so there would not have been an opportunity to mention him from Assyria and Egypt. All we have related to his time period is Sheshoq I’s inscriptions mentioning a campaign in Israel, but it did not occur until after Solomon’s death and aligns more so with his son's reign. Although it’s a valid point that Sheshoq did not mention Judah in the inscription which would suggest Judah was not relevant, as Finkelstein points out in one of his books (although there are many counterarguments such as the ones posed by Mazar), the lack of mention of Judah does not necessarily mean Solomon didn’t exist. As for the other neighboring states, there simply wasn’t writing. No inscriptions existed in the Levant before the 9th century (100 years after Solomon’s reign), and many of these states, particularly Edom were underdeveloped, and were somewhat of a backwater. During the time of Solomon and David’s supposed reign the Near East was in somewhat of a limbo stage, a dark age per se, after the Bronze Age Collapse. It wasn’t until the 9th and 8th centuries that this stage would end.
@@ClayandPapyrus Yeah or maybe Solomon never existed. You are making desperate arguments from silence. I think Gmrkin has shown pretty definitively that the Solomon character in the Bible is based on Shalmanzar 3. His name in Hebrew is almost identical to Shlomon and he matches all the Biblical descriptions of Solomon. There are records of specific battles and spoils, numbers of cattle taken and so forth which are found in records of Shalmanzar and all the exact same numbers are found in the Solomonic narrative. Shalmanzar was also a temple builder who built several with the exact dimensions and specs given to Solomon;s temple. Gmrkin makes a case that Shalmamnazr was an Assyrian king turned into a Jewish king. We know for sure that Jerusalem was a small village, at best, during the 10th Century BCE.
When the new hotness in pottery comes out, everyone knows we all gather it together smash it up and bury it all in one layer so we don’t confuse those who dig it up later. 😂
The truth is, archeology usually deals with very little evidence. Also, the temple mount has never really been excavated because of political and religious sensitivities, and jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I would hope that these archeologists, who spend their lives on their hands and knees digging in the dirt, are angry at their God for burying all evidence of His existence and of His scripture stories. That God, we are told, wants all of us to believe in Him and the stories He inspired. Why would He hide the evidence so well? Evidently that God doesn't exist, or is not omnipotent, or has lost interest in humanity.
You're starting down the right road. So let's add an "All Wise" and "All Loving" God. Now, let's ask: would such a God choose a specific tribe over all others? Would such a God give an already occupied land to those people? And would such an All Loving God tell "His people" to "drive out" (kill) the indigenous population? Is that really the best an All Powerful, All Wise, All Loving God can do? They say God parted the Red Sea for them. He couldn't raise the sea bed off the Levant coast and create new land for "His people?" So why does this magnificent God act like a human warlord instead of a God?
@@bill9989Depends how evil said indigenous population is.... You make a lot of assumptions as if you know what is best and as if God doesn't bow down to your assumptions surely he must be a fool, and if he's a fool, surely he's not an all loving God. But maybe, just maybe you don't know even 1/1000th as much as you think you do?
As I understand it, the word Israel is about the God of those ancient people whom they called El. They kept statues of a Bull at their entrances to their territory. They had absolutely nothing to do with any Yahweh (who had a consort called Asherah!)
Even back in the Bronze Age, the Hebrew people worshipped both El and Yahweh. Originally they were distinguished as two separate gods, but quite early on they became identified.
Well, Amihai Mazar is clearly intent on maintaining a more Old Testament (or Jewish if you prefer) history of the area ~ which was essentially Canaanite. He disagrees with Finkelstein of course, as a matter of professional rivalry.
So we have an high percentage of probability that God exists and that the one described in the Bible is correct. Why, then, Jesus did not resurrect? It's the same old song: no certaities, my vision of the world is right. Tradition does not shift inventions in facts. We know that literature and Arts in generale, everywhere, is a way to magnify a governance. I think that Jews are not an exception. In the Bible Omri is a little figure with no importance while the archeological materials tell that he was a powerful king. It does not mean that literature is wrong or worthless.
It's to bad we can't just dig in the Temple Mount and end this once and for all
He does it again. How do you produce radiocarbon dates fro pottery? And why is the corrective tree =test not applied to these dates?
I think it's a pity that this conference took place before Eilat Mazar discovering the Stepped Stone Structure, the Large Stone Structure and the Solomonic Wall or Yossi Garfinkel escavating at Khirbet Qeyiafa. These informations are very important to the quest for the United Monarchy
My question is if Solomon existed and was half of what the Bible says he was, why isn't his name mentioned anywhere? His name isn't on a coin, and isn't mentioned by any outside kingdom or source. Egypt would have either mentioned him or conquered him. Assyria or Babylonia would have done the same. The minor kingdoms of Edom or Haram would have mentioned him also.
First off no inscriptions were made in Palestine until around the 9th-8th centuries, years after Solomon's reign that’s why we have no mention of him. Also, coins weren’t invented yet until the 8th century in Greece. Second, no empires were heavily involved in the area during Solomon’s reign so there would not have been an opportunity to mention him from Assyria and Egypt. All we have related to his time period is Sheshoq I’s inscriptions mentioning a campaign in Israel, but it did not occur until after Solomon’s death and aligns more so with his son's reign. Although it’s a valid point that Sheshoq did not mention Judah in the inscription which would suggest Judah was not relevant, as Finkelstein points out in one of his books (although there are many counterarguments such as the ones posed by Mazar), the lack of mention of Judah does not necessarily mean Solomon didn’t exist. As for the other neighboring states, there simply wasn’t writing. No inscriptions existed in the Levant before the 9th century (100 years after Solomon’s reign), and many of these states, particularly Edom were underdeveloped, and were somewhat of a backwater.
During the time of Solomon and David’s supposed reign the Near East was in somewhat of a limbo stage, a dark age per se, after the Bronze Age Collapse. It wasn’t until the 9th and 8th centuries that this stage would end.
Good point.
@@ClayandPapyrus Yeah or maybe Solomon never existed. You are making desperate arguments from silence. I think Gmrkin has shown pretty definitively that the Solomon character in the Bible is based on Shalmanzar 3. His name in Hebrew is almost identical to Shlomon and he matches all the Biblical descriptions of Solomon. There are records of specific battles and spoils, numbers of cattle taken and so forth which are found in records of Shalmanzar and all the exact same numbers are found in the Solomonic narrative.
Shalmanzar was also a temple builder who built several with the exact dimensions and specs given to Solomon;s temple. Gmrkin makes a case that Shalmamnazr was an Assyrian king turned into a Jewish king.
We know for sure that Jerusalem was a small village, at best, during the 10th Century BCE.
@@ClayandPapyrus Your logic is a bit off in that there are inscriptions (eg. Tel Dan Inscription) for King David, and Solomon was his son.
Very good logical conclusions. This is how one must corroborate the theory with the evidence.
When the new hotness in pottery comes out, everyone knows we all gather it together smash it up and bury it all in one layer so we don’t confuse those who dig it up later. 😂
just another man with the truth
so who is telling a lie?
The writers of The Bible.
So, this lecture shows Solomon's Temple didn't exist, because they Desperately Grasp at any vague "evidence"
The truth is, archeology usually deals with very little evidence. Also, the temple mount has never really been excavated because of political and religious sensitivities, and jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I would hope that these archeologists, who spend their lives on their hands and knees digging in the dirt, are angry at their God for burying all evidence of His existence and of His scripture stories. That God, we are told, wants all of us to believe in Him and the stories He inspired. Why would He hide the evidence so well? Evidently that God doesn't exist, or is not omnipotent, or has lost interest in humanity.
You're starting down the right road. So let's add an "All Wise" and "All Loving" God. Now, let's ask: would such a God choose a specific tribe over all others? Would such a God give an already occupied land to those people? And would such an All Loving God tell "His people" to "drive out" (kill) the indigenous population?
Is that really the best an All Powerful, All Wise, All Loving God can do?
They say God parted the Red Sea for them. He couldn't raise the sea bed off the Levant coast and create new land for "His people?"
So why does this magnificent God act like a human warlord instead of a God?
@@bill9989Depends how evil said indigenous population is.... You make a lot of assumptions as if you know what is best and as if God doesn't bow down to your assumptions surely he must be a fool, and if he's a fool, surely he's not an all loving God.
But maybe, just maybe you don't know even 1/1000th as much as you think you do?
As I understand it, the word Israel is about the God of those ancient people whom they called El. They kept statues of a Bull at their entrances to their territory. They had absolutely nothing to do with any Yahweh (who had a consort called Asherah!)
Even back in the Bronze Age, the Hebrew people worshipped both El and Yahweh. Originally they were distinguished as two separate gods, but quite early on they became identified.
Solomon Temple isn't in the West ..... Its in Se-Asia.
People who live in the west lived in SE Asia at one time!
Well, Amihai Mazar is clearly intent on maintaining a more Old Testament (or Jewish if you prefer) history of the area ~ which was essentially Canaanite. He disagrees with Finkelstein of course, as a matter of professional rivalry.
Solomon temple is a copy of it ever existed was a copy of an Egyptian temple also his name means son of Amon.
Glenn M no you ignoramus. It means "His peace".
Do you have a source or proof of this? Solomon is a name off of the Hebrew word for peace, 'shalom'
Correct. The pyrimid of Giza is that temple he built.
So we have an high percentage of probability that God exists and that the one described in the Bible is correct. Why, then, Jesus did not resurrect?
It's the same old song: no certaities, my vision of the world is right. Tradition does not shift inventions in facts. We know that literature and Arts in generale, everywhere, is a way to magnify a governance. I think that Jews are not an exception. In the Bible Omri is a little figure with no importance while the archeological materials tell that he was a powerful king. It does not mean that literature is wrong or worthless.
Because the New Testament is false.
"an high percentage of probability that God exists and that the one described in the Bible is correct"
Based on what?