The Egyptian records for Pharaoh Shishak (Shoshenq i) going into Palestine and attacking Solomons son Jereboam…that is pretty much a slam dunk for the historicity of Solomon.
Given we also have Egyptian records from more than 3 centuries earlier, the literal existence of King Solomon isnt in doubt any more!
Id suggest those who are genuinely interested should read the following article:
To be really honest here guys…i think that what we have here is a scholarly proof now for the literal Israelite Exodus.
The claim “there is no evidence for the Exodus”…that view there is completely dead.
This raises the question of where did this wealth come from? What historical evidence do we have that substantiates a claim that there was sufficient economic forces at play to allow the buildup of a large degree of wealth in the southern Levant in this time period?
How solid/undisputed is the attribution of this construction to this time period?
This would appear a heroic leap of an assumption. The Egyptians seemed to mount expeditions into the Levant on a fairly regular basis during those time periods. Alternative explanations would seem to be such things as (i) control of trade routes, (ii) creating a ‘buffer’ of vassal states improving the stability and security of neighboring Egyptian provinces (e.g. the Sinai) – with probably other explanations possible as well.
Is there any evidence that this came from Solomon’s treasury, as opposed to some other source(s)?
Hardly an uncontroversial source.
On reading its Wikipedia article, I came across the following quote from a review of that book:
Given its subject matter, one would expect a serious treatment of the issue of historiography, along with some interaction with the relevant literature, yet here the reader is sadly disappointed. K. adopts a naive, academically discredited view of history. Both his agenda and the belligerent tone of the volume are displayed in the preface:
This does not mean that Kitchen is wrong, but assuming that he is right comes very close to the fallacy of ‘Begging the Question’.
The existence of a ‘United Monarchy’ would seem to be sufficiently disputed, that assuming its existence in aid of arguing for Solomon’s existence, would seem to likewise be a “weak argument”.
Yes, it is possible that they were both ignoring Solomon’s United Monarch out of arrogance, but it is also possible that they ignored it because neither empire considered there to be anything sufficiently substantial and/or cohesive in that area to be worthy of putting a name to.
It would provide useful context to know the smallest polities in their peripheries that these empires did bother to name.
Addendum: do any of the smaller polities known to have existed in the area during that time period, such as Aram-Damascus, mention Solomon, or a United Monarchy?
Lastly, if Egypt didn’t consider Solomon to be worthy of notice, it seems to be, to say the least, rather incongruous, if they gave an Egyptian princess to one of Solomon’s flunkies, for a wife.
Or architects who learned their trade under the same master. Or that this design was widespread at that time, and that these three are the only examples to survive the millennia. Or alternatively, that such constructions were infrequent at this time, so there were only one or two architects capable of designing them, and that three city-states each in turn hired the same architect to build one for each of them.
You are simply jumping to the conclusion that gives the highest probability of Solomon having existed.
Which is far too vague a claim to provide any substantive value. It is also a claim that appears to have exactly zero attestation outside the Bible – making it a candidate for being later exaggeration/elaboration.
Lacking more solid evidence, this would appear to be little more than speculation. There has been large amounts of architecture built over the centuries, often with very similar design aesthetics.
This would appear to indicate that even their degree of similarity is hardly undisputed.
Stone and wood would seem to be ubiquitous in ancient construction. Again the ‘similarity’ would appear too vague and generic to provide substantive confirmatory evidence.
There is no comparison of the historicity of the Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet XI and the Bronze Age king of that name, de[i]fied 2,000 years earlier. The historicity of Solomon and his exaggerated wealth is infinitely more plausible, but far from established. And it doesn’t ‘prove’ the C5-4th BCE Exodus myth, set a thousand years earlier in the C15th BCE, let alone the C7th BCE Flood myth, set in the C24th BCE, recycled by the Jews around the same time they made up the Exodus. How do we get to Noah from Utnapishtim?
In fact, we have Egyptian records from more than 21 centuries earlier. The Pharaoh of the Flood would have been about the forth dynasty of the Old Kingdom. A great deal of activity is recorded, but the only deluge is of the annual flooding of the Nile.
At present, I am unaware of anything beyond the biblical text and comparison to later or earlier dates–Canaanite city-state princes of several centuries earlier could afford gold-plated chariots that pharaohs could brag about capturing, and since then it’s been continually fought over as a major area for north-south trade routes.
As solid as any 14C dating. There’s also (not possible at Jerusalem, due to people living there), the usage of the duration of distinct strata in places like Megiddo and Hazor–if the first post-c. 1200 major building layers are Solomonic in date, then that would give much more even strata durations than assigning them to being Omride (which would made later strata only about 20 years each and earlier ones over 100 years each).
The latest that I’ve seen is that they only mounted 2 (one of them rather poorly-attested) in the entire 10th century BC–10th century pharaohs were pretty weak compared to the 14th century ones, and most had only tenuous control over Sinai. There are also no signs of Egyptian occupation in the southern Levant from the 10th century (e.g., distinctive pottery sherds), making a raid directed towards his vassal Jeroboam (grabbing stuff from Jerusalem on the way) seem much more likely than an attempt at conquest.
The biblical text and an absence of records of other big Egyptian campaigns.
Given that I have read the book multiple times, that sounds too much like the “He’s wrong because he claims that I’m wrong.” passages in some of the books I’ve had to reference with my research work. I don’t mean that it is that, but that given how replete with citations of current archeological findings the Kitchen book is, it does seem to be a useful summary. Is it a bit overly belligerent at times? I’ll grant that, but it’s not much beyond some of the other “The person claiming this is very wrong, and I’ll demonstrate why.” papers that I’ve read.
Not so much out of arrogance as out of weakness–Assyria doesn’t mention anything at all past Aram between until the 800s, and the only Egyptian records of anything in the Levant at all from the right date are Shoshenq I’s–between 1100 and 945, pharaohs could barely control Thebes, let alone Sinai or Judea. The basic problem for Egyptian records that aren’t bragging about conquests on monumental buildings, is that we have almost none.
Not explicitly; the Tel-Dan stela mentions a dwd as a dynastic founder in Judah, but as with Egypt, they also don’t mention much of anything else. It’s not as much “beneath notice” as “nothing survived”–the few stelae that survive from close the 10th century BC in those polities are fragments reused as building materials.
Given that the exact covenant structure is only otherwise attested from c. 1500-c. 1100 BC, and some of the personal names in the conquest narratives are Hurrian ones, which disappeared from the region by about 1000 BC, there seem to be at least some legitimate memories of earlier times embedded in those accounts.
Tim…I am not the one jumping to conclusions here. Assuming that a word like “stone” or “wood” does not have definition in terms of types of wood or types of stone–would be presumptuous. The actual reports say more than that. The actual reports can tell where stone of some specific type came from.
But the article involves their debates, observations and (at least) conclusions. And these archaeologists are not fundamentalist Christian by any means.
I was not comparing the historicity of the actual Gilgamesh of the early third millennium BCE with the one in the Epic—except to note the amount of time between the known lifespan of the one and of the Epic that has his name.
I am not sure how Solomon gets in with this, but cannot say if his wealth is “exaggerated” since all things are relative. You and I likely live better than the average Pharoah..or ancient Israeli king.
This also is not meant to “prove” an Exodus account—which has more historical or geological relevance to the late 13th century BCE. There is evidence that the Egypt of that general time period (late 13th century BCE) had Semitic inhabitants. The biblical text shows knowledge of Egyptian customs, many Hebrew words or personal names of that era have Egyptian origins, Egyptian customes seem to be known, and the general route of the Exodus (as described in the biblical account) turns out to be a reasonably familiar route for travelers and others of that era…
As for “how we get to Noah from Utnapishtum”—good question…but the name Noah is said to be part of the name in some ancient Hurrian versions. This would not be “Noah” in the Latin or Roman alphabet of course…
My impression was that the Canaanite city-states brought in considerable income from maritime trade – trade that I have not seen any indication of the United Monarchy being heavily involved in. Also, given the Bronze Age Collapse, I would expect this trade to have been considerably attenuated in Solomon’s time compared to earlier ages.
What exactly was it that was Carbon-dated? Citations for this dating? Most construction would have been stonework that wouldn’t be datable by this method.
Acknowledged.
This assumes (i) that the wealth was there to start with, and (ii) that it hadn’t already been spent on building projects. We seem to have a lack of extra-Biblical sources supporting either conjecture.
Which would be Begging the Question.
That assumes that the only significant source of Egyptian wealth was military campaigns. It completely ignores sources such as trade and taxation. It also ignores the fact that military campaigns do not necessarily turn a profit – and that this is not the sole reason for them.
… you are clearly a Kitchen fan-boy. That does not however mean that I am under any obligation to accept this polarising book as ‘the gospel truth’.
What part of “This does not mean that Kitchen is wrong …” did you fail to understand @Paraleptopecten?
People putting words in my mouth, particularly words that directly contradict what I have just said, is a particular peeve of mine. I do not find this to be remotely “gracious”.
Given the quote, it would seem a partisan summary, presented to give one side of the argument.
To reiterate, I am not saying that Kitchen is wrong, I am merely saying that, given the degree to which that book seems to be regarded as polarising, and given that the underlying issue still appears to be a matter of expert disagreement, I am suspending judgement on this issue. You may not agree. But I’m not seeking your permission on this issue.
Lacking further details, or citations, I can only go on what you said.
Citations for these “actual reports”? And does the biblical account likewise “tell where stone of some specific type” was used – so we actually have something specific to compare the reports to?
Thanks again for the response. You are having quite a range of conversations with various individuals on this site.
The late Kenneth Kitchen, whom you have referenced in other responses on this thread, was considered the leading expert on the Nineteenth Dynasty–and the world of New Kingdom Egypt in general. His books on that subject are worthwhile…
As for my references to another subject --that is, what? You asked for some information referring to the matter of another discussion over the existence of Solomon at all—not just the construction of various prominent communities. I gave you a brief summation of what various archaelogists have said …and by archaeologists, I mean individuals who are archaeologists (or were when they were doing those digs and writing reports and debating)…and summarized their conclusions. Supposing that in a monarchical government system --that the monarch himself might not want to have a say-so in large projects, is probably overly optimistic. They did not take bids from international entities in the manner that gets done now. When I said that archaeologists of our era have examined construction styles and materials and said, “hmmm…likely the same builder”–then that is what these individuals have said. They have their debates and these debates are carried out in academic publications as well as “for the layperson” discussions. Similar construction materials being attributed to specific regions, eras of history, or the style preferences of specific individuals (like the ruler of the region who commissioned the building…or the head of some multinational corporation today)…these things are all part of the analysis.
You will have to read those reports in detail…“Stratum Va-IVb must be Solomoni Megiddo – almost all scholars, including Ussishkin and Yadin, agreed”…a question lingers as to “whether the six-chambered gate at Megiddo belongs to Solomonic strata or King Ahab strata” which is a debate you can refer to further on your own. “A casemate wall, characteristic of Solomonic construction” was once in place at Megiddo" and stones from these walls could have been robbed and reused in the 9th century BC…" per one of the articles in the magazine I cited. That would be Recycling, 9th century style…but note that the casemate style is said to be typical Solomonic construction.
If you have more interest, then I refer you to Biblical Archaeology Review and perhaps the individuals and sources they cite.
You appeared to be stating, in making your argument about “similarities” that there was some relationship between the gates of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer and “mention of wooden beams in 1 Kings 7:12..plus the mention of blocks in the gates in I kings 7:9.”
When I stated that this was “too vague and generic to provide substantive confirmatory evidence”, you replied that “The actual reports say more than that.”
I am asking what specifically these reports say about “stone of some specific type”, and more importantly how the 1 Kings account gives sufficient specificity to tell us that they are talking about the same specific types of stone – rather than just any old stone.
Supposing that I’m not seeing any evidence as yet of the existence of a United Monarchy at that time, let alone one with vast amounts of cash reserves to spend on discretionary projects. Colour me skeptical.
And given I’ve seen similar “construction styles and materials” that have not resulted from “the same builder”, over the millennia, I’m yet to be convinced.
This is particularly so given that I doubt that many ancient kings were expert architects, so were in a position to formulate their own styles of architecture, as opposed to simply having to choose an architect, and thereby the style that the architect knew how to build – and most probably learned from his own master (ANE not appearing to be a hotbed of new architectural styles popping up left right and centre).
I was not stating…just “summarizing” various debates about the construction that is known to have existed at those locations at those periods of time. The discussion about Solomon as the inspiration–based on apparent assertions that he was behind various large building projects — this debate is carried out elsewhere. I just summarized it. Dever said that if it was not Solomon, then we would have to "invent " a person of similar stature to have promoted such a project. Kings don’t have to be “expert” architects, but they likely have preferences.
There seems to be a general discussion “for and against” Solomonic influence. But, as Dever said, if there was not a Solomon behind the Gezer gate, then they would have to invent a similar personage to push such a project through. Maybe his name was really Tim?!! (joke, the last part)
The text indicates that at least some of it was from maritime trade, which would suggest that as an option.
I’d have to go looking.
What I didn’t do is clearly indicate what I was referring to by the statement, sorry about that. I meant it only about the phrasing of the review, not about anything that you have said.
Yes, and I’m not saying that he’s necessarily right, just that Solomon’s existence and rule over something of a “mini-empire” appears to be plausible, given what data is available.
I’ve always failed to see the relevance of C13th BCE Egyptology, and geology, whatever that might be, to C15th BCE Biblical chronology. The Bronze Age Exodus is Jewish foundation fantasy from a millennium later. I’ll have to ask GPT about the Hurrian Noah.
Looking back over this conversation, I think the core problem is @Paraleptopecten’s
Noting that one of Solomon’s core defining attributes was not that he was merely “reasonably wealthy”, but that he is portrayed as unreasonably wealthy. Lacking such unreasonable wealth, he would not have been in a position to even attempt the works that people are attempting to attribute to him during a single reign.
Let us take the maritime trade as one example. The “Canaanite city-state princes of several centuries earlier” would not have gotten wealthy overnight. Building a maritime trading network means building ships, wharves, ports, warehouses, etc. It means hiring seamen, porters and scribes. To do this quickly (i.e. in a single reign) would take a large pre-existing source of finance. To do so organically would take generations.
This also raises the question: which were the ports that the United Monarchy was building during Solomon’s reign, and where is the archeological evidence?
But even this does not guarantee large profits. Those would generally require some form of ‘market dominance’: a monopoly, large economies of scale, or similar. These circumstances likewise do not appear overnight. Ideally it would also require wealthy customers.
There are of course a number of other sources of wealth, but the general rule holds: those who have, get. If the barriers to enter into an economic endeavor are low, then so are the profits.
This also yields the problem that all of this would take manpower as well as money – shipwrights, builders (and maintainers) of wharves, ports and warehouses, seamen, porters and scribes. All of these would be unavailable, both to grow food, and for non-trade-related building projects. This in turn would have required large imports of food, and caused steep inflation.
Addendum: also transferring all this wealth to the royal coffers would require the creation of a bureaucratic infrastructure – tax laws, tax collectors, etc, etc. This type of infrastructure also typically takes generations.
And even if all this wealth could be amassed in a single reign, it would take time to spend it. A small kingdom would have only a limited building capacity. Expanding it would require opening more quarries and training more stone masons, which would take time.
For these reasons, it does not seem credible to me that such a large fortune could have been amassed, and spent on a building spree, within a single reign.
The same logic would also apply to warfare. Armies are ruinously expensive to raise and feed – particularly when you look at the forgone productivity that all that manpower could have produced if they weren’t marching around. I would suspect that most military campaigns would have run at a loss, and that “loot” was about prestige not profit.
It seems more likely to me that Shoshenq’s son Osorkon could afford a building spree, not because of the loot his father raided, but perhaps because he forwent the expense of a large army and invested his empire’s resources in a ‘peace dividend’ of productivity. His reign is noted for prosperity as well as his building projects, and I have seen no mention of major military campaigns.
Well.. the relevance is that the situation fits better with what is known of the late 13th/early 12th centuries BCE…and all of that is a longer tale. As for “Jewish foundation fantasy” — all depends on who you are listening to…e.g.,.
“I have not found the same level of skepticism among present-day Egyptologists towards the Egyptian origin traditions of the Bible as there is among Old Testament scholars and Syro-Palestinian /biblical archaeologists.” --James Hoffmeier
Again, I have no problem whatsoever with the inevitable cultural influence of Egypt on Canaan, continuous through the Bronze Age collapse. What has that got to do with the Exodus fantasy?
And there is no cognate of Noah in Hurrian. Whatever the crank Klenck claims.
what ?crank Klenck? The quote was not in regards to the cultural influence of Egypt on Canaan…but on the presence of Semites in Egypt. and/or of a semitic people group – known to have been in the country – having left it…More to it than that. The name “Noah” supposedly is found in the name of the main character in the Hurrian EG..so some say.
See The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic by Jeffrey H Tigay, p. 230 (paper back) footnote 41…also saw something similar in some version of the New Bible Dictionary sometime back…could not tell you which edition…
So Klenck says. No one else. I’m not paying good money after bad to find out. You’d think that anyone making such a claim would actually be able to post it. And that’s how Canaanites became culturally influenced by Egypt. By going there. With Egyptian traders doing the reverse.
Until someone posts that claim in full, I can’t comment. One cannot obtain an e-copy anywhere.
What does it say?
One would have thought that a cross-cultural reference to Noah by name, written 1200 BCE, halfway back to The Flood’s time setting, at the latest, 800 years and more before the Biblical usage, would be hugely played upon.
As it is, all we have here is telephone game (that’s the politically correct one) rumours.
There is no known use of an etymological cognate of Noah (derived from the Hebrew verb *נוּחַ (*nuach)**, meaning to rest, settle, or repose, in a subliminal echo of the ark on Ararat) in any culture prior to its appearance in C5th-4th BCE Jewish literature.
I recall that there is a good echo, forward, in the C3rd BCE Bamboo Annals of China.
